The following is a report on a meeting held between top US Fish & Wildlife Service officials in Sacramento and representatives of non-government organizations concerned with California water issues and public employee responsibility for the environment. It was written by Felix Smith, retired USFWS fish biologist, representing the Save the American River Association.

Sense of the Meeting

Meeting with Mr. Steve Thompson and John Engbring of the California - Nevada Operations Office of FWS at 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA. October 1, 2007 at approximately 1:00 PM. Attending were Lloyd Carter (California Save Our Streams), Lisa Coffman (Executive Director, California Water Impact Network), Bill Jennings (Director, California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance), Karen Schambach (California Director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) and Felix Smith (Save the American River Association).

This meeting was in response to my letter of August 21, 2007, to Mr. Thompson with copies to FWS Director Dale Hall and others. Mr. Engbring called me and we set up the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to help open communications with the interests sitting around the table and to help ensure that the brightest and most knowledgeable FWS scientists are able to speak good science, the truth to the public at large and to congressional committees, State Boards and commissions, independent bodies, etc.

Mr. Thompson is a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and is a career Fish and Wildlife Service employee. Mr. Thompson emphasized that the Service’s Sacramento staff is hard working. We have on staff some of the best biologists in the Service. Our field people are working along side Bureau staff with good results for fish and wildlife. He stressed that he does not like biologists working projects / investigations who are advocates for the resources or solutions. Mr. Thompson also stated that his office would continue to change documents / reports that did not measure up to established positions or didn’t “connect all the scientific dots”. He said that a report must stand on it own biological merits before the Service will support it. He advised that he was the lead person for the Klamath River water quality -fish issue. He added that the Klamath River issue was a little blown all out of proportion (Mr. Jennings commented -the fish kill?). Mr. Thompson commented there are a couple of issues here. The issues are dam impacts and removal, and water for salmon and endangered species. Regarding the Delta, Mr. Thompson stated this issue has developed over a long time and will not be solved over night. The 20 to 23 million people will get their drinking water; shutting down the pumps to protect the Delta smelt is not the solution. He did not offer a solution.

Mr. Thompson, when reminded about what FWS Regional Director Mr. Spear was told by a Congressional Subcommittee responded, he was aware, but would continue making decisions he has to make and is not worry about considering non-biological impacts. Mr. Jennings added there was an issue involving FERC and EBMUD and the Mokelumne River (See Summation).

Members of the group indicated that a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is a biological / ecological report on impacts to trust resources by a water development project or activity. And the same issues hold here as it does with Endangered Species Act reports. Considering non-biological information is not a part of a field biologist reporting process or in proposing recommendations to conserve and protect fish and wildlife.

· The public expects that Service biologists will speak the truth and the whole truth to the public, its representatives, independent bodies and individuals as well as helping to educate the layperson of fish and wildlife needs.
Mr. Thompson. Service managers will select the best person for the situation to represent FWS. Mr. Thompson did not want Joe Skorupa at the Senator Feinstein meeting regarding the selenium / drainage issue. Mr. Thompson made his thoughts known to FWS Washington. He believes that while Joe is a good scientist, he is too much of an advocate. The Service needs a more neutral person, not a data biased person or a person that gets in the press. He stated Joe Skorupa has been gone from California for a couple of years now and is no longer the most knowledgeable about the selenium drainage issue in California. Selenium or related issues in California are not really Mr. Skorupa’s job. Mr. Thompson will select the person that he believes will best represent the FWS interests given the situation. Mr. Thompson went on to add that the Service does not seem to have selenium or mercury drainage issues in Nevada that we have in CA.

Mr. Carter asked if the selenium issue in Nevada was studied to the degree that it was in CA? Mr. Thompson responded that the Service does not have the resources or staff to do the work. The Service must depend on USGS researchers to do so. Mr. Thompson stated that if he got 10 staff biologists in a room and asked their opinion, (I took it as being about selenium.) that he would get 10 different answers.

The group quickly stated, if the issue were selenium and avian toxicity, there would not be 10 different answers. The consensus would be quick and decisive. They would agree with Mr. Skorupa probably knows more about selenium and avian toxicity than anyone one in FWS.

· Are there any impediments that keep FWS employees from speaking or presenting ideas, science and scientific theory at meetings when representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation are in attendance and the issue is a Bureau operation, facility or management? All too frequently it looks like FWS is running flack or is a shill for the Bureau. Others have said that FWS and the Bureau, while having different duties and responsibilities, look like they are attached at the hip. There appears to be little independence exhibited by FWS biologists at meetings with the Bureau.
Mr. Thompson. Service employees can speak all the science they want they just can’t be advocates for a position. It is my job to establish the agency position and to work with the Bureau to see that the agency position is carried forth. The Service and the Bureau work very well together. Kurt Rodgers and I get along well.

· What is the FWS position on the selenium drainage issue in the SJV?
Mr. Thompson. We haven’t got there yet. There is much work to be done before a solution to the problem can be put forth. This is what Senator Feinstein and her draft proposal / legislation is all about. The FWS is waiting for the Bureau to come up with the plan. When that plan is put forth that will be the time for the Service to prepare its comments and position on the Selenium drainage issues of the SJV.

· Can FWS correspondence, data, etc., with the Bureau of Reclamation especially about the selenium drainage issues be made freely available to the public?
Mr. Thompson. Copies of all correspondence with the Bureau can be made available to any one who wants it. Just let us know. Business cards were exchanged so addresses can be put on the mailing list. He did say he meets regularly with several groups. We stated how did you miss us. He followed up with; maybe we should do this again sometime. He added however that he will not voluntarily provide and information to any organization that is suing the agency, even if the lawsuit involves an entirely different subject that the information requested.

· What can this group do to help you do a better job and to help ensure that fish and wildlife will get fair and just treatment in any agricultural drainage or other negotiations?
Mr. Thompson. Just do not bring a lawsuit against us. We are spending way too much time and money with lawsuits. This is time and money that we should be spending on improving or making things better for fish and wildlife.

Lisa Coffman reminded Mr. Thompson and stressed that when an agency takes an action inconsistent with the research data / findings, this could bring on a lawsuit. A lawsuit becomes a tool because the public has no other way to try to correct a politically driven or pressured mistake by natural resources managers.

Mr. Thompson a couple of time mentioned that the Bush Administration is doing all it can for fish and wildlife. Almost in unison the group stated this meeting is not about the Bush Administration, it is about getting good science and good decisions based on science.

Summation with additional background material.

I was a field biologist and staff biologist, a project leader and a Field Supervisor with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I retired with than 34 years of service.

My understanding of Mr. Thompson’s message is that FWS biologists can speak science (down load tables of data), but should not help analyze the data so the layperson can understand what the data means in practical terms. This concept is foreign to me. He claims that FWS biologists are not to discuss with the public or policy–makers possible solutions to a problem is also foreign to me. Biologists can talk science all they want but they can’t develop or propose solutions. If a biologist explains too much about his or her science and possible resource impacts, a biologist risks becoming an advocate and that according to Mr. Thompson is when the person loses his or her credibility. This in turn harms the Service because only Service managers know the breadth of the activities and what is best for the Service. To me, what Mr. Thompson is saying is “I will do what is best for my career and the Service”, not “I will do what is best for the resource, the long-term public interest and future generations”.

Mr. Thompson was aware of what Mr. Spear (FWS Regional Director Region 2) was told by a Congressional Subcommittee concerned the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel. Mr. Spear was aware of the biological concerns in reports prepared by his staff and reports of the State of Arizona. He just was not convinced. He didn’t think a small loss of critical habitat would harm the squirrel’s survival. Mr. Spear told a GAO investigator he had to make an expeditious decision: the University needed the Emerald Peak facility: in court the University would win; and in his perception the telescope would be world class.

Mr. James Duffus III of the General Accounting Office, on June 26, 1990 presented Mr. Spears testimony to members of several committees of the House of Representatives relative to the Mt. Graham red squirrel Endangered Species issue. Mr. Duffus stated “We do not believe that it is appropriate for an FWS official to consider non-biological information in reaching opinion that could jeopardize a species existence”.

Mr. Spear effectively undercut his staff in a couple of FWS field offices. This engendered Sierra Club involvement and also involved affidavits by FWS staff. The staff was quickly demoralized.

A few years’ later Mr. Spear was now the RD of FWS Region 1 and Sacramento biologists were working with EBMUD regarding flows on the Mokelumne River. While Sacramento FWS and CDFG staffs, along with the Committee to Save the Mokelumne were negotiating the flows, Mr. Spear was making a deal with EBMUD people in Portland. That deal undercut the efforts of the Sacramento Field Office and others. He did not support his field biologist’s reports or findings. Mr. Spear’s actions quickly demoralized staff and left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

It has been a long standing FWS policy that biological reports prepared under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and ESA are stand alone products. Recommendations are not to be tampered with non-biological considerations, other to ensure that recommendations are reasonable and can be implemented.

Mr. Thompson’s thinking relative to selenium seems to be how much damage and risk can the migratory bird resource take (so we lose a few birds forever) until just before there is catastrophic resource or population collapse. To me the issue is or should be how much stress, harm and mortality to migratory birds can be prevented. To say it another way, what is needed to prevent damages to the sustainability of public trust resources such as migratory birds and wetlands and what actions are needed to protect water quality and the viability of that resource?

I believe a major part of science is understanding and interpreting data. The next big part of science (and that of FWS) is letting the people know, i.e. educating them, as to just what the data means and the potential benefits and impacts to fish and wildlife. I believe that it is up to a manager to tell the public the information they need or should know to better understand an impact on a resource or understand an agency’s position. To not tell them important information about impacts is irresponsible. To ignore one set of data or the resultant impacts in favor of another because it fits a preconceived notion or fits a certain predetermined political solution, is bad science and management and is bad for public confidence in FWS managers.

When Mr. Thompson stated that all his people can talk science all they want, but they could not to be an advocate for their research data, or a solution to protect or make conditions better for fish and wildlife; --- it was like a kick to my gut and very foreign to me. In my opinion without having advocacy for one’s project, research activity and data to protect fish and wildlife, a manager can effectively kill imagination, innovation and the esprit de corps of his agency. Fish and wildlife biologists like talking science and ecology. They like defending their study findings against all attackers. Such challenges and discussions lead to improved science and understanding of the problem and to formulating possible solutions. During the early days of the selenium / drainage issue, I was told by an SES, “I do not like your science and your reasoning”. I answered, “Then the best references on the subject and associated findings need to be changed”. He responded, “don’t use those references”.

I believe that people working for FWS do not give up the right of freedom of speech. I also believe that these same people believe that educating the public and decision-makers about fish and wildlife needs is an integral part of their professional duties and responsibilities.

There is little doubt in my mind that the entire FWS Sacramento field staff is confused about what they can do and can not do relative to their projects / investigations and data. I also believe the field biologists are receiving mixed signals regarding what they can say in public or at meetings when the dominant Interior agency, Bureau of Reclamation, is represented.

Mr. Thompson does not want FWS biologists explaining or interpreting data and what it means to the future of fish and wildlife. In my opinion when FWS data and analysis becomes confidential information, the people and public trust resources are put in jeopardy. This is what happened in the early 1980s when the Bureau had the selenium / water quality data relative to the San Luis Unit drainage. FWS biologists questioned the Bureau data. FWS – SES managers said they (field biologists) had to respect the Bureau’s data. It was revealed to FWS biologists a few months later that the Bureau data were cleansed. The high values were ignored as being rogue data. Only low values were reported. After a few months of questioning the data, USGS obtained its own data to reveal gross misrepresentation of the selenium data. The USGS also reviewed the Bureau’s protocol for testing for selenium and found it in error. The USGS then evaluated the Bureau’s lab. The lab failed to pass or meet USGS standards. I was told the lab flunked miserably. There needs to be full public understanding of the selenium / drainage data and public airing of all options. It should not be solely the province of the FWS and Bureau SES managers.

I see the day when FWS employees will be subpoenaed and requested / asked to testify or present technical information and discuss possible solutions involving selenium and drainage issues. FWS employees could be asked to prepare affidavits regarding his or her involvement with selenium, drainage, endangered species, or Delta water quality issues. The Service will probably choke on the idea. This could happen at a trial or before a government committee.

Mr. Thompson is a SES. As such he is graded on making deals. He can also receive a sizeable bonus. I believe that he is first a public trustee. The first duty of a trustee is to manage trust assets for the future benefit of those assets and for the people. However, the “lets make a deal” mentality is engrained in the SES and is going to be around for a long time. Mr. Thompson apparently believes that “lets make a deal” is the way to go. All too frequently that cuts out the public from overseeing how managers work and why they do the things they do. And all to frequently action is taken with little if any paper trail.

One thing is true. Scientific findings will continue to prove “lets make a deal” decisions wrong. However the deal cutters are seldom around to pick up the mess. They have received their bonuses and promotion and have moved on. This is why lawsuits are a necessary tool and should be filed against the deal cutters.

I believe that the Code of Ethics for Government Service (PL 96-303) is still valid and applies to all those in government service. This code is a minimum standard. Integrity, professional ethics, and scientific credibility must be the bottom line, but it must start at the top. To me effective government means that the Nation’s laws will be faithfully carried forth without prejudice. It means that career scientists responsible for conserving and protecting our nation’s environmental resources, uses and values, will be allowed to do their jobs without fear of partisan political pressure or reprisal.

If the people do not demand the highest level of scientific integrity, professional ethics and scientific truths from FWS managers or if the people do not or no longer trust the agency officials to tell the truth, our system of government of serving the people, will fall to one of special favors for special interests. When that becomes evident, then it is time for a lawsuit.

Respectfully

Felix E. Smith – FWS retired 1990.

ThomMeetSumOct107 Oct 7, 07 ---7:30 PM