[env-trinity] Two Rivers Tribune- Whistleblower Says Interior “Spun” Science on Klamath Dam Removal

[Tom Stokely]

All,

I got this from Allie Hostler, Editor of the Two Rivers Tribune.  Their website is being changed, so there aren't any new articles being posted on it at this time but I am told they will be up an running again soon.

This article has a lot more detail than other articles I've seen on this issue.

You can reach Allie Hostler at allieehostler at yahoo.com.

Tom Stokely

**********************************************
Whistleblower Says Interior “Spun” Science on Klamath Dam Removal

By Allie Hostler, Two Rivers Tribune

Published March 6, 2012

 

 

A scientific integrity officer with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation filed a whistle-blower complaint claiming he was fired after he questioned the “biased summarization of key scientific conclusions” in messages intended for the public and the Secretary of Interior about Klamath River dam removal.

 

On Sept. 15, 2011, Dr. Paul Houser expressed concern about the integrity of a draft press release about the environmental analysis for removing the Klamath River dams. He also expressed concern verbally about the scientific integrity of the larger Klamath River dam removal Secretarial Determination process.

 

Houser is not questioning the integrity of the science itself, rather the way it was “spun” by the Department of Interior (DOI) to meet the outcome desired by the Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar.

 

“I hadn’t intended on this allegation going public,” Houser told the Two Rivers Tribune. “But since it has, I will talk and be true to the story.”

 

Houser was fired on February 10 in what he describes as “systematic reprisal.” His whistle-blower complaint was filed with the Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs on Feb. 24, 2012 just three days before Salazar announced more delays to the Klamath dam removal process. According to the Klamath Settlements Salazar was due to make a decision whether or not dam removal is in the best interest of the public by March 31 of this year. Salazar’s statement blames federal lawmakers for not approving legislation that would authorize the settlements and his decision.

 

In February of 2009 Salazar gave a speech at the Klamath Settlement signing ceremony in Salem, Ore., proclaiming the DOI’s support for dam removal under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

 

Houser said the Department of Interior—the government arm that oversees the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs among other agencies—was motivated by Secretary Salazar’s publicly stated intention to issue a Secretarial Determination in favor of removing four dams on the Klamath River.

 

“The Department of Interior has likely followed a course of action to construct such an outcome,” Houser said. “In 2009, Secretary Salazar stated that the proposal to remove the Klamath River dams “will not fail.” This intention has motivated DOI officials to “spin” or incompletely report the scientific results toward a more optimistic scientific story that supports dam removal.”

 

Houser, a Ph.D. hydrologist who is also an adjunct professor at George Mason University in Virginia, believes the DOI’s Scientific Integrity Policy (305 DM 3) was crafted in good faith and that those who built it had genuine, noble intentions uncluttered by governmental politics.

 

“I’m certainly concerned about scientific integrity in the Department, but I’m not going to discount the entire process,” Houser said. “The scientific integrity policy sometimes interferes with other policy that the Department has already decided to follow. Does the science support decisions, or does science help to shape decisions that have already been made?”

 

DOI spokeswoman Kate Kelly said the complaint is currently under review.

 

Houser’s complaint details two specific allegations. IN the first allegation, Houser says the Summary of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/EIR and Related Scientific/Technical Reports intentionally distorts and presents a biased view of the Klamath River dam removal benefits.

 

“It intends to present only the positive, without the uncertainties or negatives,” Houser wrote in his complaint.

 

He goes on to cite five points, the first being climate change.

 

“Climate changes are projected to play an important role in fish recovery according to the Klamath science reports, but climate was never mentioned in the summary,” he wrote.

 

The second relates to recovery rates being projected at 81.4 percent, but he says that recovery rate was based on nine contingencies that were not mentioned in the summary.

 

“Upper Klamath Lake and Keno Reservoir water quality issues; reduction in disease; enabling free migration to the upper basin; hatchery salmon do not overwhelm spawning grounds; predation is sufficiently low; climate change; small reductions in fall flows; and no long-term dam removal impacts,” Houser listed. “Neglecting to report on these contingencies provides the public and the Secretary with a falsified and incomplete scientific summary.”

 

The third relates to coho salmon reclaiming 68 miles of habitat. Houser says the summary distorts and falsifies the science by omitting information that was provided in the Expert Panel science reports that claim, “The difference between the proposed action[dam removal] and the current conditions [no change in current operations] is expected to be small, especially in the short term (0-10 years after dam removal).”

 

He describes a similar scenario about dam removal and its purported impact on reducing salmon diseases. He points to an excerpt from the Klamath River Expert Panel Science Report that states, “Although several aspects of the proposed action [dam removal] could lead to a reduction in disease-related mortality, uncertainty about these aspects is very high.”

 

“The summary also spins an optimistic outlook for Steelhead trout, providing access to 420 miles of historical habitat,” Houser wrote in his complaint. “However, the April 25, 2011 …Final Report…states this success would be dependent on effective implementation of the proposed and related actions [e.g. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)]; whereas ineffective implementation would result in no detectable response.

 

Houser’s second allegation involves a press release that he was asked to review by a colleague. The press release was purportedly written by a lead Interior attorney working on the Klamath Settlements, John Bezdek.

 

Bezdek’s role in the Klamath Secretarial Determination process as well as his role in drafting statements for the press and public are called into question, by not only Houser, but other scientists and press officials working within the DOI.

 

After calling into question the summary of the Klamath studies and a press release, Houser emails several colleagues to ask if they too had similar feelings about the bias of how information was presented to the public. He received several responses. Two scientists and two press officials said they agreed that summary and associated press release were slanted in a way that promotes the Department of Interior’s desired outcome.

 

A subsequent email from Christine Karas, the Deputy Area Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Area Office, softly scolded Houser for using email as a vehicle to discuss his disclosure about the press release and summary. A copy of the email, along with 29 more attachments was included with Houser’s complaint.

 

“As degreed government employees who may be called as expert witnesses, please carefully consider the depth of familiarity you have with the body of science surrounding Klamath dam removal before creating discoverable records of your personal opinions,” Kara wrote.

 

Kelly said Interior will not comment on personnel matters due to privacy concerns.

 

“It is important to note that nobody is questioning the integrity of the science itself, and nobody is questioning the fact that all of the studies, reports, and data are available for anyone and everyone to see, review, and draw their own conclusions,” Kelly said. “All the scientific and technical reports to date underwent a technical review process, and the majority of these reports underwent a peer review by independent scientists. We have made the process as transparent as possible, with numerous opportunities for the public and outside technical experts to offer comments, ideas and recommendations for science directions or approaches.”

 

Interior stands by the science saying the science is high quality and technically reviewed by independent reviewers. But, that’s not what Houser’s complaint is about.

 

“I was concerned that if the department was summarizing the science in a biased manner, that the same bias may infuse the March 2012 Secretarial Determination,” Houser said. “Further, I stated that I was not for or against the Secretarial determination outcome, but rather was concerned that the science be reported accurately with critical uncertainties and caveats, so that the Secretarial Determination can be made without scientific bias.”

 

-END-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20120308/99ab84bb/attachment.html>