This workshop will be remotely accessible via Telecom: Please Redistribute Widely 

A Workshop to Gather Wisdom and determine how to prepare for the next generation of water cycle missions in support of the second Earth Science Decadal Survey

April 29-30, 2013; Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport; Embassy Suites

You are invited to attend this workshop remotely.  Telecom access to all workshop sessions and breakouts is available (see attached agenda). 

To access via Skype, ‘freeconferencecallhd.0000000000′

(zeros present assigned conference dial-in number), then enter access code when prompted.  Telecom lines will be recorded and muted (to unmute your line, dial *6).

Even if you cannot participate in real-time, all telecoms will be recorded and together with plenary video and presentations will posted at the conference website.

Sincerely, The Workshop Steering Committee

Paul Houser

Christa Peters-Lidard

David Toll

Debbie Belvedere

Robert Schiffer

Karen Mohr

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

PNP comment: We are so digusted that a government agency no longer has checks and balances. There is no REAL over-sight — just continued cover-up for lies and fraud. We support Dr. Paul R. Houser and his findings. — Editor Liz Bowen

Complaint Deemed Factual but Inaccuracies Excused as “Normal Practice”
Published on Mar 25, 2013 – 1:51:39 PM

By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

http://yubanet.com/california/Interior-Denies-Spinning-Klamath-Science.php#.UVR7cFdj8pG

Washington, DC March 25, 2013 – The U.S. Interior Department has rejected a complaint from one of its own Scientific Integrity Officers that it presented distorted summaries of studies on the effects of a still-pending decision to remove dams in the Klamath River.  Interior’s review confirmed the substance of the complaint but concluded that blatant inaccuracies and critical omissions did not constitute scientific misconduct, according to a response posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Dr. Paul Houser, a hydrometeorologist, took leave from his university position to become a Science Advisor to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and to serve as its Scientific Integrity Officer.  In September 2011, he was asked to look over a draft press release and a summary of analyses on expected effects of removing four dams from the Klamath.  The release described only positive aspects, omitting a number of major contingencies, uncertainties and possible negative effects.  He elevated these concerns to the Secretary’s office.  Although Reclamation’s technical staff seconded his objections and the release was ultimately changed, two weeks later he was put on probationary status and the Department took numerous related retaliatory actions.  In February 2012, his position was terminated. Dr. Houser then filed a complaint that the actions against him violated the core tenets of the Interior Scientific Integrity Policy that he was formerly administering.

To help review the complaint Interior hired a consultant firm; the firm convened a three-member panel and produced a report in August that was only released last week.  The panel concluded that the complaint was factually correct but did not amount to misconduct for some very curious reasons.  For example –

·         Instances of “false precision” (where a summary has a finding that does not exist in the studies it purports to summarize) are dismissed because they are “not inconsistent” with the underlying studies;

·         Repeated inaccuracies – all slanted in one direction – in these short documents are excused by a panel finding that it is “normal practice” for press releases to exhibit hyperbole or falsities; and

·         Explicit efforts to prevent these concerns from being put into writing were discounted because the panel found them “not sufficiently unusual” to be “automatically alarmed” by them.

“By blessing abuse as ‘standard practice’ this review stood Interior’s scientific integrity policy on its head,” said Dr. Paul Houser, who also filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint which has since been resolved. “I feel like I fell through the looking glass into a world propelled by circular reasoning.”

Although the panel interviewed no witnesses, did not question Dr. Houser nor did any kind of actual investigation, it made findings about motives and intent of several of the actors inside Interior.  Rather than conduct its own inquiry, Interior’s Scientific Integrity Officer, Dr. Suzette Kimball, accepted the panel’s conclusions as “definitive” and formally declared the complaint to be “Not Warranted.” Her ruling came in a January 29, 2013 letter which did not include a copy of the report on which it was based.

“It is becoming obvious that Interior’s scientific integrity process suffers from a glaring lack of integrity,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that no scientific misconduct complaints filed under Interior’s integrity rules have been found to have merit.  “These rules were created at the behest of President Obama to root out rampant political manipulation of science yet in more than two years Interior has managed not to find a single instance of it.”

Read Dr. Houser’s rebuttal

Revisit the original complaint

See the consultant report

View Interior’s adoption of the report

Look at Interior’s dismissal of every scientific misconduct complaint

See resolution of Dr. Houser’s whistleblower retaliation complaint

PNP comment: We are pleased Dr. Houser was able to resolve his complaint with DOI; and that his complaints are still in the system. — Editor Liz Bowen

Fired scientist resolves whistleblower complaint with feds | capitalpress.com

http://www.capitalpress.com/content/TH-klamath-whistleblower-w-infobox-120612

Fired scientist resolves whistleblower complaint with feds

By TIM HEARDEN

Capital Press

December 7, 2012

YREKA, Calif. – A former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation senior science adviser who claimed he was fired earlier this year for speaking out about the Klamath River dam removal process has apparently resolved his dispute with the government.

Paul Houser and an organization, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, issued a joint statement asserting that the scientist and the agency reached an agreement to their “mutual satisfaction” after mediation by the U.S. Office of Special Council.

The statement didn’t disclose details of the settlement, including whether the government paid Houser. Jeff Ruch, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based PEER, would not provide such details.

“We can’t talk about the terms of the settlement,” Ruch said, adding that Houser was not rehired by the bureau. “His complaint about the illegality of his termination has been resolved to his satisfaction.”

Neither Houser, a George Mason University professor, nor U.S. Department of the Interior spokeswoman Kate Kelly could immediately be reached for comment.

Houser, 41, became a darling of Klamath dam removal opponents and tea party activists after he went public about his February departure from Reclamation, over which he filed federal whistleblower and scientific-integrity complaints.

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

He told the Capital Press in May that superiors told him his “skills weren’t a match for the position” and terminated him after he alleged 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.

He said superiors ordered him to be quiet about his concerns, then he faced increasing scrutiny on his job.

In a speech to a local group here, 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.

Ruch said Houser approached PEER, which represented him through his negotiations with the government. The group defends public employees against what it sees as the political manipulation of science, according to its website.

While Houser’s personnel issue was resolved, the scientific integrity issues he raised were outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Council, Ruch said. Kelly has said that Houser’s complaints are under investigation.

Online

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: http://www.peer.org/

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: http://www.usbr.gov/

Paul R. Houser: http://prhouser.com/houser/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service designates critical habitat for Klamath Basin suckers, FWS PRESS RELEASE, posted to KBC 12/13/12. “Approximately 282 miles of streams, and 241,438 acres of lakes and reservoirs are included in the final
critical habitat designation in Klamath and Lake Counties in Oregon, and in Modoc County, California.”

Public Comment on Revised Critical Habitat Proposed for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers from 2/5/12 by a KBC News editor: Info from Fisheries scientist David Vogel, National Academy of Science, and significant details including the fact that proposed habitat Clear Lake historically was a meadow.

Statement from Dr. Paul Houser, Klamath dams whistleblower 12/13/12 on DOI’s firing him for exposing Interior’s lack of scientific integrity: “The settlement of my wrongful firing “whistleblower” claim is very good to get behind me. I can’t say much about the settlement, but that it was a good solution for me personally and it did not result in getting my job back. My scientific misconduct allegation is being handled separately and is still under investigation.

The Department of the Interior had the final outside panel report delivered back in August/September. I have repeatedly asked the Department for their findings and they indicate that statements will be issued soon.”
Here for Dr. Paul Houser Page

Scientific analysis regarding Klamath Dam removal, OPINION by Dr. Richard Gierak of Siskiyou County Water Users Association 12/11/12

* U.S. Department of the Interior ignores scientific data supplied by Klamath Bureau of Reclamation and closes down their further participation in fisheries data collection.

* According to Klamath Bureau of Reclamation studies…Klamath Dams sediment contains toxic levels of Mercury, Chromium, Zinc and Antimony

* According to the Klamath Bureau of Reclamation removal of Klamath Dams “contributes to species decline”

New Aquatic Wilderness proclaimed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Oyster farm must close, ruling says, Ag Alert, posted to KBC 12/13/12.

Oregon PERS Senator Doug Whitsett Newsletter, Klamath District 28 12/13/12.
www.klamathbasincrisis.org

Klamath science-informed process needs improvement, by Dr. Paul R. Houser, Guest writer, Herald and News 7/15/12. Klamath Dam whistleblower Houser responds to USGS KBRA lead scientist Dennis Lynch: “In April 2011, I was hired as the Bureau of Reclamation’s science adviser and scientific integrity officer. After I questioned the accuracy of science reporting and summary documents related to the Klamath Secretarial Decision, I faced systematic reprisal and my job as the Bureau of Reclamation’s science advisor was terminated….”

Blazing Fires Show Importance of Effective Forest Management, Congressman Wally Herger 7/16/12. “The Forest Service is spending over a billion dollars each year fighting fires. In an era of trillion dollar federal deficits, scarce taxpayer dollars could be better used if we addressed the unhealthy conditions in our national forests to help prevent catastrophic fires in the first place.”

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

Decision-makers must understand Klamath uncertainties | capitalpress.com

http://www.capitalpress.com/content/ph-klamath-op-ed-062912-w-Paul-Houser-mug

By PAUL R. HOUSER

For the Capital Press

June 29, 2012

After I questioned the accuracy of science reporting and summary documents related to the Klamath Secretarial Decision, I faced systematic reprisal and my job as the Bureau of Reclamation’s science adviser was terminated.

Subsequently, I filed a scientific integrity allegation, and was invited to speak publicly about it in May. I was confronted with a wide range of questions, where I carefully offered my opinion or relevant information.

Last week Dennis Lynch of the U.S. Geological Survey questioned some of this information. Below I summarize the rationale for my comments, and offer some additional perspective.

* He states that “our team summarized these findings in an Overview Report that received a second layer peer review from six independent experts.” He fails to mention the peer review comment 3-5: “The Summary and Findings section does not sufficiently express the uncertainties in the responses to restoration options,” which is generally consistent with my allegation. These concerns should be addressed by writing a new summary that accurately portrays the dam removal uncertainties and risks, and the additional actions needed to meet the environmental and societal goals.

* He disagrees with my comment that a more in-depth engineering analysis is needed to assure that Iron Gate Dam is removed safely. My comment was based on an environmental impact statement and report comment submitted by Stephen Koshy, who warned that notching the earth-filled Iron Gate Dam may cause it to fail. This concern can be addressed by providing a public response to Koshy along with the relevant engineering analyses.

* Lynch disagrees with my comment that the sediment coming out of the dams would be the equivalent volume of 1 to 3 feet covering 190 miles of a 150-foot-wide channel. The sediment volume studies have discrepancies, but my volume equivalency calculations are correct.

Further, the draft environmental impact statement and report states: “Short-term (2 years) aggradation of sediment from the dams could be substantial below Iron Gate Dam downstream to Willow Creek, with up to 5 feet of deposition within 0.5 miles downstream of the dam, to 1.5 feet of deposition near Willow Creek.” Downstream impacts of sediment are a significant concern, so alternate options such as dredging may also need to be more seriously considered.

* He disagrees with my concerns that the released sediments may be harmful to fish, and may have a significant impact for 1-2 years. The draft environmental impact statement and report states, “…the short-term (up to 2 years following dam removal) increases in (suspended sediment) in the lower Klamath River and the Klamath estuary would be a significant impact.”

Water quality and reservoir sedimentation in the Klamath Basin are very complex issues. While a 2011 Department of the Interior report did show that the reservoir sediments have toxic elements below most guidelines, the upper basin is well known to have water and sediment quality issues, and these sediments are being deposited in the reservoirs.

A 2006 PacifiCorp study concludes that the absence of the project reservoirs would exacerbate water quality impairment by reducing dissolved oxygen and promoting growth of algae. Water quality issues above the dams may be among the most significant risks to successful river restoration; these water quality issues should be mitigated prior to dam removal.

* Finally, Lynch objects to my statement that non-native Coho salmon were introduced in the Klamath starting in 1895. A 2002 California Department of Fish and Game report confirms my statement and further indicates that “historically, the practice of importing non-native fish was common….”

The draft environmental impact statement and report also states that “the vast majority of Coho salmon that spawn in the Klamath Basin are believed to be of hatchery origin, although the percentage varies among years.” Based on the century-long history of non-native salmon transfers and hatchery origin fish, it would be tough to identify a truly native wild Klamath Coho. Nonetheless, it is the law to protect them.

The outcomes of dam removal on this scale and in this unique environment have significant risks and uncertainties. A positive outcome is not guaranteed and a tragic outcome is possible.

There are several innovative and economical solutions to meet the Klamath Basin goals that are not being actively considered because they fall outside the politics of the Klamath agreements. It is in the public trust, and a duty of scientific integrity to seriously consider these alternatives.

My goal is to make sure that decision-makers are aware of these risks and uncertainties, and account for them in their decision-making process. By only reporting the positive aspects of dam removal without the uncertainties and additional needed mitigation, the meaning of the science is perturbed, which may lead to poor decisions.

Paul R. Houser is an internationally recognized hydrologist with over 25 years of experience. More information can be found at www.prhouser.com .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.

Klamath Science-Informed Decision Making Process Needs Improvement

Dr. Paul R. Houser, 20 June 2012

After I questioned the accuracy of science reporting and summary documents related to the Klamath Secretarial Decision, I faced systematic reprisal and my job as the Bureau of Reclamation’s science advisor was terminated. Subsequently, I filed a scientific integrity allegation, and was invited to speak publically about it in May 2012.  I was confronted with a very wide range of questions, where I carefully offered my opinion or relevant information. Last week Mr. Dennis Lynch  (USGS) questioned some of this information. Below I summarize the rationale for my comments, and offer some additional perspective (full text available at http://prhouser.com/houser/?p=830).

1)      Mr. Lynch states that “our team summarized these findings in an Overview Report that received a second layer peer review from six independent experts.”  He fails to mention the peer review comment 3-5: “The Summary and Findings section does not sufficiently express the uncertainties in the responses to restoration options” which is generally consistent with my allegation These concerns should be addressed by writing a new summary that accurately portrays the dam removal uncertainties and risks, and the additional actions that will be needed to meet the environmental and societal goals.

4)      Mr. Lynch disagrees with my comment that a more in-depth engineering analysis is needed to assure that Iron Gate Dam is removed safely.  My comment was based on an EIS/EIR comment submitted by Stephen Koshy, who warned that notching the earth-filled Iron Gate Dam may cause it to fail. This concern can be addressed by providing a public response to Mr. Koshy along with the relevant engineering analyses.

5)      Mr. Lynch disagrees with my comment that the sediment coming out of the dams would be the equivalent volume of one to three feet covering 190 miles of a 150 foot wide channel.  The sediment volume studies have discrepancies, but my volume equivalency calculations are correct. Further, the draft EIS/EIR states: “Short-term (2–yr) aggradation of sediment from the dams could be substantial below Iron Gate Dam downstream to Willow Creek, with up to 5 feet of deposition within 0.5 miles downstream of the dam, to 1.5 feet of deposition near Willow Creek.”  Downstream impacts of sediment are a significant concern, so alternate options such as dredging may also need to be more seriously considered.

6)      Mr. Lynch disagrees with my concerns that the released sediments may be harmful to fish, and may have a significant impact for 1-2 years.  The draft EIS/EIR states “…the short-term (<2 years following dam removal) increases in SSCs [suspended sediment] in the lower Klamath River and the Klamath Estuary would be a significant impact.” Water quality and reservoir sedimentation in the Klamath basin are very complex issues.  While a 2011 DOI report did show that the reservoir sediments have toxic elements below most guidelines, the upper basin is well known to have water and sediment quality issues, and these sediments are being deposited in the reservoirs.  A 2006 PacifiCorp study concludes that the absence of the project reservoirs would exacerbate water quality impairment by reducing dissolved oxygen and promoting growth of algae.  Water quality issues above the PacifiCorp dams may be amongst the most significant risks to successful river restoration; these water quality issues should be mitigated prior to dam removal.

7)      Finally, Mr. Lynch objects to my statement that nonnative coho salmon were introduced in the Klamath starting in 1895.  A California Department of Fish and Game’s 2002 report confirms my statement and further indicates that “historically, the practice of importing non-native fish was common…” The draft EIS/EIR also states that “the vast majority of coho salmon that spawn in the Klamath Basin are believed to be of hatchery origin, although the percentage varies among years.” Based on the century-long history of nonnative salmon transfers and hatchery origin fish, it would be tough to identify a truly native wild Klamath coho.  None-the less, it is the law to protect them.

The outcomes of dam removal on this scale and in this unique environment have significant risks and uncertainties. A positive outcome is not guaranteed and a tragic outcome is possible. There are several innovative and economical solutions to meet the Klamath Basin goals that are not being actively considered because they fall outside the politics of the Klamath agreements. It is in the public trust, and a duty of scientific integrity to seriously consider these alternatives. My goal is to make sure that decision makers are aware of these risks and uncertainties, and account for them in their decision-making process. By only reporting the positive aspects of dam removal without the uncertainties and additional needed mitigation, the meaning of the science is perturbed, which may lead to poor decisions.

Dr. Paul R. Houser is a Hydrologist with over 25 years of experience. Dr. Houser in an internationally recognized expert in local to global land surface-atmospheric remote sensing, in-situ observation and numerical simulation, development and application of hydrologic data assimilation methods, scientific integrity and policy, and global water and energy cycling. More information can be found at http://www.prhouser.com.

Bible Verse from Frank Tallerico 6/17/12, Psalm 34:4-67NKJ:

I sought the Lord, and He heard me, and delivered me from all of my fears. 5. They looked to Him and were radiant, and their faces were not ashamed. 6. This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. 7. The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him and delivers them.

Scientist Paul R. Houser, Ph.D.

Dennis Lynch, lead Klamath Dam removal scientist, blasts Houser in the media, and former top scientist in Bureau of Reclamation and science integrity officer, Dr. Houser, responds. 6/16/12.

WOLVES issue:

(Modoc) County aims to take tough stand against wolf, Modoc Record June 2012

www.klamathbasincrisis.org