FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2004

CONTACT:
Chris Matthews

202/224-8329

Tucker Bounds
202/224-8329

Smith Introduces Endangered Species Act

Peer Review Legislation

Washington, DC – On the opening day of the second session of the 108^th Congress, Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) introduced the Sound Science for Endangered Species Planning Act (S. 2009) which would require greater weight be given to field-tested and scientifically reviewed data when making decisions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Decisions based on bad science can take a tremendous toll on people who make their living from the land,” Smith said.  “Just as importantly, the environment doesn’t benefit from flawed policies.  Preventing these mistakes is something everyone can support.”


In recent years, a number of cases have been exposed where federal agency scientists either demanded actions not supported by scientific data, or actually fabricated the data itself.   In December 2001, it was revealed that federal employees had falsely submitted hairs from a captive Canada lynx during field surveys in several national forests meant to determine the habitat of this threatened species.  


In an Oregon newspaper, a Forest Service biologist criticized his own agency for shoddy work.  The scientist questioned much of the information collected over 18 years on one national forest, claiming that decisions were based on sketchy information not obtained according to protocol, or not collected at all.   The Forest Service acknowledged the validity of the charges, and launched an investigation.


In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service developed two biological opinions on the operation of Oregon’s Klamath Project, as it related to suckers and coho salmon, respectively.  In an effort to raise lake levels and water flows, irrigation was stopped on the same agricultural lands that had received water from the Project for almost one hundred years.  The result was financial devastation for thousands of Oregonians before the National Research Council found that the Klamath operating decisions lacked “substantial scientific support.”


Specifically, S. 2009 includes provisions that would:

! Require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to give greater weight to scientific or commercial data that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed when making decisions under the ESA


!Establish a mandatory independent scientific review requirement for all ESA listing and delisting proposals as well as biological opinions to ensure the use of sound science and provide a mechanism for resolving disputes during the rulemaking process


!Require the Secretary of the Interior to solicit and obtain data from stakeholders to assist in  developing recovery plans, including recovery goals


!Require the Secretary to solicit recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences in order to maintain a list of qualified reviewers