| April 27, 2009 |  |
Biologists Call on Obama Administration to Overturn Bush Rules that Cut Science Out of Endangered Species Legislation
Interior and Commerce Secretaries Must Act by May 9
More than 1,300 federal and independent scientists with biological expertise and three leading scientific societies today called on the Interior and Commerce departments to overturn rule changes made in January that weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act.
In a letter, the scientists urged the department secretaries to rescind changes to Endangered Species Act regulations that allow federal agencies to decide for themselves if their own projects—such as roads, dams and mines—would threaten imperiled species. Previously, federal agencies were required to consult with biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service before undertaking or permitting projects. (For a copy of the letter, go here.)
"Many federal agencies do not have the scientific expertise to determine the consequences of federal projects on endangered species and may have vested interests in the implementation of a project," said Stuart Pimm, Doris Duke Professor of Conservation Ecology at Duke University, who helped organize the scientists' letter. "The new rules exclude expert scientists—who for decades have provided impartial review and critical analysis—from the process."
The Ornithological Council, Society for Conservation Biology and the Wildlife Society, which collectively represent more than 20,000 scientists, also sent a letter today asking the Interior and Commerce secretaries to rescind the changes and make other improvements to the scientific base of the Endangered Species Act. (For the letter, go here.)
"As the threats we face continue to evolve, federal scientists must be able to evaluate their consequences for imperiled species. Putting boundaries on the science that informs the Endangered Species Act fundamentally undermines the ability of science and scientists to protect our nation's biodiversity," said Alan Thornhill, an ecologist and executive director of the Society for Conservation Biology. "Politics plays a huge role in such decisions," said Michael Hutchins, executive director and CEO of The Wildlife Society. "Expert review and oversight are critical."
The rules generated concern when they were hastily pushed through at the end of the last administration with little discussion or debate. The Obama administration has addressed the rule change, but has not formally overturned it. On March 3, President Obama directed the Commerce and Interior departments to review it, stating that "we should be looking at ways to strengthen [the Endangered Species Act]—not weaken it." President Obama also directed federal agencies to continue consulting with scientists on projects that might harm endangered species.
Congress also has taken steps to address the problem. A provision in an omnibus spending bill signed by President Obama on March 11 allows Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to rescind the rule changes within 60 days. Secretary Salazar has said publicly that he is concerned about the rule changes, but has not indicated that he will act by the May 9 deadline. On Friday, it was reported that the Interior Department sent a rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget that addresses the interagency review process but not other parts of the rules that the scientists want repealed, particularly the limits on what kinds of information can be used in determining how to protect the polar bear. The content of the rule was not released.
The two letters also urge the administration to take a more comprehensive look at how science can better inform decision-making under the Endangered Species Act. According to the scientists, other recent changes create unrealistic deadlines for scientific consultations and limit the types of information federal scientists can consider when evaluating federal projects.
"These changes chop down the role of science in governmental decision-making, leaving less than a stump behind. The loss of science translates into real loss of biodiversity," said Francesca Grifo, a biodiversity expert and director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program. "The new rules weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act and make it easier to base decisions on politics instead of science. In giving the departments the authority to roll back these rules, Congress has given the American People a gift, and the department secretaries need to open it."
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
