Republicans begin effort to rewrite species act

No fences. Non area specific. General discussion forum.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Crowdog
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Republicans begin effort to rewrite species act

Post by Crowdog »

Republicans begin effort to rewrite species act

Rep. Greg Walden cites the Klamath experience as bad science, but others say the changes aren't necessary

02/05/04

TOM DETZEL

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans began laying groundwork Wednesday for a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act, questioning whether the work of federal scientists should face more outside scrutiny before it results in costly regulations.

Citing the experience of Klamath Basin farmers two years ago, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said "unsubstantiated science" led to a $200 million economic catastrophe when federal agencies suspended irrigation flows to protect imperiled fish.

"I challenge anyone to find a group that has been more negatively affected by the inadequacy of the science used in making decisions under the Endangered Species Act," he told members of a House Resources subcommittee, referring to Klamath farmers.

Walden was promoting his own bill, the "Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning," to require federal agencies, when deciding to list a species for protection, to give greater weight to scientific and commercial data that has been "peer reviewed."

In addition, the bill prohibits listings unless they are backed by data observed in the field. Also, a panel of three independent experts would have to review and report on the science behind any proposed agency listing before it could become final.

The hearing marked the start of a renewed effort by House Republicans to rewrite parts of the endangered species law, which turned 30 years old in December. The issue is a top priority for the resources chairman, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif.

"Handcuff" for managers Environmental groups did not testify at the hearing but said later that Walden's bill was unnecessary and would create more obstacles and delays under the act.

"What (the bill) does is handcuff natural resources managers from using the full spectrum of science that is before them," said Bart Semcer, fish and wildlife policy manager for the Sierra Club.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., has introduced a companion bill to Walden's in the Senate. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is pushing new rules to enforce consistent peer review practices across all agencies, an effort many scientists have attacked.

Complaints about "junk science" underlying government decision-making have long been a staple for congressional and industry critics of the Endangered Species Act and other health and safety regulations.

Their strategy has been to call for "sound science," independent peer reviews like those required before studies are published in major scientific journals, along with greater use of risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis that opponents say favor industry views.

Past chemical bans cited In promoting Wednesday's hearing -- under the heading "A History of Crying Wolf" -- Republicans cited bans on PCBs and the pesticide DDT and controversy about use of Alar on apples in addition to the Klamath decision, made during a drought in 2001.

The Bureau of Reclamation suspended irrigation deliveries to farmers, saying the water was needed for endangered sucker fish and threatened coho salmon. But later reviews by the National Research Council found the scientific evidence questionable.

"If you went to a doctor, and he said to you, 'We are going to have to take off your right leg,' you'd probably want a second opinion," Walden said. "Right now under the Endangered Species Act, you just get cut off at the knees."

Betsy Loyless, chief lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters, said the act already requires agencies to use the "best available" science. Instead, Walden's bill would slant the science by requiring field data in cases where it is inappropriate, she said.

The measure "creates an atmosphere in which scientists are not really able to operate within the intent of the Endangered Species Act, which is to give the benefit of the doubt to the species," Loyless said.

Besides Walden's bill, Pombo is considering a measure by Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., that would force wildlife agencies to give greater weight to economic consequences of listings and would remove some deadlines, allowing agencies to delay.

Tom Detzel: 503-294-8100; tom.detzel@newhouse.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonia ... 953210.xml

User avatar
Crowdog
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Post by Crowdog »

Walden urges Endangered Species Act reforms
Testifies on legislation pending in House

From Bend.com news sources
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 5:00 PM
Reference Code: AR-13553

February 4 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., offered testimony Wednesday in support of legislation he has introduced in Congress to reform the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Walden's legislation, the Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2003 (HR 1662), would require that greater weight be given to field-tested and scientifically peer-reviewed data under the ESA. Walden's testimony was delivered today before the Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, which held a hearing today entitled, "Issues Affecting Jobs in the Forest Industry."

Since the 2001 water crisis in the Klamath Basin, Walden has helped lead the effort in Congress to require ESA decisions to be field-tested and peer-reviewed.

In April of 2001, more than 1,200 farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin were denied irrigation water following a decision made by federal officials under the ESA. The water-shut off was later determined by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to have been made without sound scientific justification.

Walden testified, "We learned from the NAS that the decisions made either weren't based on adequate science or were made by misinterpreting the data they had. In either case, more than 1,000 farm families didn't receive vital irrigation water and nearly two-dozen farmers went bankrupt.

"I pledged then and there to pursue changes in the ESA to require outside, independent peer review of the decisions made by the government when it comes to listing or delisting a species and in formulation of recovery plans."

Walden continued, "If you went to a doctor and he said to you, 'we are going to have to take off your right leg,' you'd probably want a second opinion. Right now, under the Endangered Species Act, plants, animals and people don't have the chance to seek a second opinion; you just get cut off at the knees.

"That is why I feel so strongly about this issue and why we have tried to take a very reasonable and prudent course to improve the decision-making process and make sure the science is valid and the decisions are sound. Too much is at stake to do less than that."

Walden's bipartisan ESA reform legislation has been cosponsored by 62 House members, including eight Democrats.

HR 1662 had also been endorsed by 14 state and national organizations, including the Oregon Wheat Growers League, Oregonians for Food and Shelter, the Oregon Potato Commission, the Oregon State Board of Agriculture, the Klamath Water Users Associations, the American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the National Water Resources Association.
***** :idea: How about adding the ASA to this list ******

On January 20, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-ore., introduced identical legislation to Walden's bill in the U.S. Senate.

To read Walden's testimony in its entirety, click here: http://walden.house.gov/issues/esa/108t ... tement.pdf.

Congressman Walden represents the Second District of Oregon, which includes 20 counties in southern, central and eastern Oregon. He is a Deputy Whip and a member of both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Resources.

http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3Far ... tm#no-hash

User avatar
Crowdog
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Post by Crowdog »

Congressman Greg Walden
Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals
Committee on Resources
February 4, 2003
Thank you, Madame Chairman. I would like to begin my remarks by commending you and the distinguished chairman of the full committee for holding this hearing today on the need for sound science and scientific review. As you know, these topics are near and dear to the hearts of many of the constituents I represent in the Klamath Basin of southern Oregon. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a group that has been more negatively affected by the inadequacy of the science used in making decisions under the Endangered Species Act.
So what happened in the Klamath Basin? What happened to inflict more than $200 million in damage to the local economy? What happened to turn the fields of the Basin into a scene reminiscent of the Grapes of Wrath?
Madame Chairman, on April 6, 2001, the federal government told the farmers and ranchers of the Basin that they wouldn’t be receiving any water deliveries for 2001 -- a first in the nearly 100 year history of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project. They were told that instead of sending water down the “A” canal and other canals in the Project, water levels would be maintained in the Upper Klamath Lake for the Lost River and shortnose sucker fish. The irrigators were then hit with another whammy when the National Marine Fisheries Service stipulated in its biological opinion that the Bureau of Reclamation would need to release water from Iron Gate dam to help the listed salmon in the Klamath River.
In short, it was a case of one federal agency demanding high water levels be maintained in the lake while another federal agency demanded higher stream flows down the river. Combined, the two new demands left no water for the farmers.
Most people who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the ESA would think that a decision bringing such major social, economic and environmental consequences would be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that the data and
government decisions were rock solid. After all, the government is charged with protecting the endangered fish and with providing water to the farmers.
This Committee held a hearing before some 1,500 people at the fairgrounds in Klamath Falls in 2001 and we called on the Administration to have these decisions peer-reviewed. To get an independent group of scientists to review the data used by the government and determine if those decisions and those data were sound.
The Bush Administration called on the prestigious National Research Council and its National Academy of Sciences to conduct this review. After months of careful review, the independent scientists reached their stunning conclusion:
“In allowing professional judgment to override site-specific evidence in some cases during 2001…the agencies accepted a high risk of error in proposing actions that the available evidence indicated to be of doubtful utility.” Moreover, the report found that some of the biologists’ proposed actions lacked “substantial scientific support.”
And what did this esteemed panel say about the maintaining of higher lake levels in Upper Klamath Lake for the suckers? They found that,
There is no evidence of a causal connection between water level and water quality or fish mortality over the broad operating range in the 199Os, the period for which the most complete data are available for Upper Klamath Lake. Neither mass mortality of fish nor extremes of poor water quality shows any detectable relationship to water level. Thus, despite theoretical speculations, there is no basis in evidence for optimism that manipulation of water levels has the potential to moderate mass mortality of suckers in Upper Klamath Lake.
We learned from the NAS that the decisions made either weren't based on adequate science or were made by misinterpreting the data they had. In either case, more than 1,000 farm families didn't receive vital irrigation water and nearly 2 dozen farmers went bankrupt.
I pledged then and there to pursue changes in the ESA to require outside, independent peer review of the decisions made by the government when it comes to listing or delisting a species and in formulation of recovery plans .
HR 1662 would require the Secretary of the Interior to accept and acknowledge receipt of landowner data and include that data in the rulemaking record.
It provides the public with the opportunity to seek a second opinion before a federal agency makes a decision to list, delist, consult or recover. When the survival of a species hangs in the balance, doesn’t it make sense to make sure the government makes the right decisions?
If you went to a doctor and he said to you, ``we are going to have to take off your right leg,'' you’d probably want a second opinion. Right now under the Endangered Species Act plants, animals and people don’t have the chance to seek a second opinion; you just get cut you off at the knees.
That is why I feel so strongly about this issue and why we have tried to take a very reasonable and prudent course to improve the decision-making process and make sure the science is valid and the decisions are sound. Too much is at stake to do less than that.
HR 1662 would require the NAS to select a qualified list of reviewers to conduct an analysis, which would then be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior. At her discretion, the Secretary would then pick three names off this list to conduct a thorough review of the science used in determining whether to list, delist, consult or recover.
Let’s look at some of the other issues that would be decided by HR 1662.
Currently, the ESA gives the Secretary broad discretion in developing recovery plans. Public input is restricted to comment on a draft recovery plan. Nothing else, that is it.
My legislation requires agencies that are preparing recovery plans to identify, solicit, and accept scientific or commercial information that would assist in preparing the recovery plan. In other words, get more information, get better information, do it right and involve the public more.
HR 1662 would also set minimum standards for scientific and commercial data not now required by the ESA. The listing actions must be supported by field data on the species and they must accept data on species collected by landowners.
Finally, HR 1662 would require the Secretary to solicit and consider information provided by the States; and also allow an individual to submit and gain information used in crafting a biological opinion by being able to:
• · Submit and discuss with the Fish and Wildlife Service, or relevant federal agency information about the proposed action and possible reasonable and prudent alternatives. Basically, it allows us to see if there are some alternatives out there that would be better than what a federal agency is proposing.
• · Obtain information used to develop the biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternatives. In other words, we ought to have a right to know where Fish and Wildlife obtained their data before it is incorporated into a final biological decision.
• Provide comments prior to publication of the final biological opinion. If these comments aren’t included in the final biop, the Fish and Wildlife Service or other federal agency must explain why these suggestions were rejected.
These modest changes benefit all citizens who want to participate in what should be a much more inclusive public process, and they make the ESA process more transparent.
At last count, Madame Chairman, HR 1662 has 62 bipartisan cosponsors has been endorsed by 14 Oregon and National based organizations.
I thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

User avatar
FunRunner
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 1:50 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by FunRunner »

Walden continued, "If you went to a doctor and he said to you, 'we are going to have to take off your right leg,' you'd probably want a second opinion. Right now, under the Endangered Species Act, plants, animals and people don't have the chance to seek a second opinion; you just get cut off at the knees.
They did worse than that to us at the ISDRA; they cut out the middle of the dunes with bad science.

Sandemon
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 7:10 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Sandemon »

What they did to us is like cutting out all the leg from mid thigh to mid calf just leaving the skin on the outside half of the leg and then saying "your foots still attached you can still use it" :twisted: 8) :)
The ORIGINAL Sandemon
Member of D.U.N.E.R.
Go Hard or Go HomePick Up Your Trash

User avatar
ggorman
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 2331
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 10:31 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Post by ggorman »

Write your representatives RIGHT NOW. This is one of the most important initiatives the ASA is working on as we speak. Come to the board meetings, you would be impressed with your hard-working volunteers and what they are accomplishing!

Do it, you'll feel better. You can make an impact. Do it.


Greg
ASA Volunteer and Supporter
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.

Post Reply

Return to “Wide Open Sand”