{"id":14041,"date":"2018-05-14T12:11:02","date_gmt":"2018-05-14T16:11:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=14041"},"modified":"2018-05-14T12:11:02","modified_gmt":"2018-05-14T16:11:02","slug":"policy-news-may-14-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2018\/05\/14\/policy-news-may-14-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News: May 14, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

ESA Policy News<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In This Issue:<\/h1>\n

Proposed EPA Scientific Integrity Rule Will Undermine Scientific Integrity<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Scientific community opposes effort to limit the EPA\u2019s use of science in decision-making.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/u><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Appropriations subcommittees release funding bills, House passes hydropower bill to reverse salmon and steelhead protections and legislative updates.<\/p>\n

Executive Branch<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

White House proposes budget recissions, National Science Board meeting,\u00a0changes to how national air quality standards will be determined\u00a0and more.<\/p>\n

States<\/u><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Invasive species management in Florida, California details climate impacts in new report.<\/p>\n

International<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

EU bans neonicotinoids, climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany, IPBES call for nominations and more.<\/p>\n

Federal Register Opportunities<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Upcoming meetings and other opportunities for public involvement.<\/p>\n

Register to Vote<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

2018 midterm elections are happening in November.\u00a0\u00a0Register to vote and learn more about voting policies and rights in your state at Rock the Vote.<\/a><\/p>\n

ESA In the News<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

View an up-to-date list of ESA\u2019s media coverage<\/p>\n

ESA Correspondence to Policymakers<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Proposed EPA Scientific Integrity Rule Will Undermine Scientific Integrity<\/h2>\n

<\/a>
\nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt recently proposed a new administrative rule, \u201cStrengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,\u201d which threatens the transparency and integrity of scientific studies used in federal decision-making.<\/p>\n

Pruitt argues in an\u00a0EPA press release<\/a>\u00a0that the proposed rule promotes greater transparency, \u201cThe era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end\u2026 The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of rulemaking process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the scientific community interprets the proposed rule quite differently. ESA issued a\u00a0statement<\/a>\u00a0expressing its concern about the rule as did the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, and the American Geophysical Society, among others.<\/p>\n

Notably, a distinguished group of leading science journal editors questions the reasoning behind the EPA rule. Jeremy Berg (Science<\/em>), Philip Campbell (Nature<\/em>), Veronique Kiermer (Public Library of Science<\/em>), Natasha Raikhel (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/em>), and Deborah Sweet (Cell<\/em>) wrote a joint statement published in\u00a0Science<\/a><\/em>. The editors\u2019 statement surmised, \u201cExcluding relevant studies simply because they do not meet rigid transparency standards will adversely affect decision-making processes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The EPA proposed rule origin springs from a previous piece of failed U.S. House of Representatives legislation, dubbed the HONEST Act, which mandated all scientific data and findings be made publicly available before they are used to justify agency regulations. It was the brainchild of House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX). Versions of the bill passed the GOP-controlled House three times, yet stalled in the Senate. The HONEST Act\u00a0was opposed by ESA<\/a>\u00a0along with 22 other scientific organizations.<\/p>\n

Pruitt\u00a0asserts<\/a>\u00a0the regulation would ensure \u201cscience transparency,\u201d going on to argue that, \u201c[T]he science that we use is going to be transparent, it\u2019s going to be reproducible, its (sic) going to be able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace\u2026 so that we can enhance confidence in our decision-making.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the problem with the rule turns on its very concept. What indeed could be wrong with the assertion that all scientific findings should be transparent and reproducible? As explained by Michael Hiltzik in his\u00a0Los Angeles Times piece<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe answer, as Pruitt and the drafters of bills requiring disclosure of raw data and analytical methodologies well know, is that much of the scientific research important in developing regulations can\u2019t be made public. Some of it is proprietary information belonging to scientists who developed it as part of their research. Some\u00a0is\u00a0personal information about human participants in studies underlying science-based rule-making.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another aspect of the rule-making process is the length of the comment period. Usually, with a rule that has such long-term policy influence, the comment period can be open for two to three years. For this rule, the comment period is a scant 30 days and comments must be received on or before May 30, 2018, via the\u00a0Federal Register<\/a>. ESA submitted a letter to the EPA requesting that the comment period be extended by 60 days.<\/p>\n

A\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0to Pruitt, signed by U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee; Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), stated in part the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe proposed new policy will require EPA-when developing rules-to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data have been made public and are available to be reproduced. Such a policy would likely violate several laws that mandate the use of \u2018best available science,\u2019 including the Toxic Substances Control Act and Safe Drinking Water Act because it would require EPA to ignore some of the \u2018best\u2019 scientific studies.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

EPA historically has relied upon long-term population and disease surveys that have patient identifiers that are kept from public view. These studies have informed the regulations that set limits for air and water pollution. The thrust of the EPA proposed rule is less an assurance of scientific transparency than it is a tool to limit the number of scientific studies that can be utilized by the agency. It is evident this proposed rule, touted by Pruitt as the \u2018secret science\u2019 rule, could be crucial in deconstructing important safeguards on the environment and public health.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile actions on Capitol Hill, in the form of sister scientific integrity bills, could restore some semblance of protection for scientific findings if the bills can find bipartisan support for passage. Senate Democrats introduced legislation in February, which they called the\u00a0Scientific Integrity Act (S. 338<\/a>). In March, Democrats in the House introduced a similar bill,\u00a0H.R. 1358<\/a>. Both bills are aimed at securing an open exchange of scientific data among federal scientists, colleagues and the public. If passed, these bills could counter the goals of the \u2018secret science\u2019 EPA rule.<\/p>\n

The Senate bill, introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), would codify existing policies at some two dozen federal agencies. Those policies stem from a 2009 executive order from former President Barack Obama that required agencies to spell out how they would safeguard scientific integrity. Nelson\u2019s bill has 30 Senate co-sponsors, all of them Democrats.<\/p>\n

The House bill, penned by Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY), would require the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to draft policy supporting an \u201copen exchange of data and findings\u201d and preventing \u201cthe suppression or distortion of the data or findings.\u201d It also asks the heads of agencies that fund science to institute policies that prevent political intervention in practicing science, disseminating results and making personnel decisions.<\/p>\n

As is the case for both bills, there is significant Democratic support, but little from the Republican side of the aisle. Without bipartisan support, neither will likely gain ground. In turn, the EPA proposed rule, if approved, could stand unless these legislative efforts prevail.<\/p>\n

If the rule is adopted by the EPA, organizations are likely to sue the EPA resulting in a legal battle that would delay or stop the rule\u2019s implementation.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/h2>\n

<\/a>
\nAppropriations:\u00a0<\/strong>The House Appropriations subcommittees began working on Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 bills the week of May 7.\u00a0This\u00a0starts the lengthy congressional appropriations process to pass the FY 2019 bills that fund the federal government from Oct. 1, 2018-Sept. 30, 2019. The subcommittee appropriation bills will likely change, but they are important because they signal the intent of Congress. As was the case in FY 2018, Congress so far appears to be disregarding the president\u2019s budget request that would cut funding across the federal agencies.<\/p>\n

Appropriators on the House Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee included $8.2 billion for the National Science Foundation, $408 million above FY 2018 levels. NSF\u2019s\u00a0main research account would see\u00a0an\u00a0increase of 5 percent to $6.7 billion; its large facilities construction account would increase by 47 percent to $268 million; and, its education account would\u00a0be maintained\u00a0at $902 million.<\/p>\n

In the same House\u00a0bill<\/a>, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration receives $5.2 billion in funding, $751 million below FY 2018 levels. The bill reduces funding for climate change research by 40 percent and eliminates NOAA\u2019s coastal resiliency grants. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration\u00a0is funded\u00a0at $21.5 billion, $810 million more than in FY 2018.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0House\u00a0Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee approved\u00a0an FY2019\u00a0bill<\/a>\u00a0that includes $6.6 billion for the Department of Energy Office of Science, $340 million above FY2018 levels. The bill also\u00a0includes\u00a0funding of $325 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), $25 million less than FY 2018. The Trump administration\u00a0has\u00a0proposed eliminating ARPA-E in its FY 2019 budget request.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0House Department of Agriculture appropriations\u00a0bill<\/a>\u00a0proposes $3.101 billion for research that includes the Agriculture Research Service,\u00a0and the\u00a0National Institute of Food and Agriculture.\u00a0This\u00a0is $72 million above FY 2018 levels.<\/p>\n

Salmon & Hydropower Bill:<\/strong>\u00a0The House\u00a0passed a bill\u00a0(H.R. 3144<\/a>) April 25 that would negate\u00a0a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0that requiresoperators to allow more water to pass over four dams in the Columbia River basin\u00a0to\u00a0protect salmon and steelhead. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodger (R-WA) introduced the legislation and led the\u00a0effort\u00a0for\u00a0its\u00a0passage. The Democratic governors of Oregon and Washington oppose the\u00a0legislation, as do environmental groups. Similarly, the\u00a0language\u00a0in the FY 2019 House Energy and Water Appropriations bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to revert to a 2017 fish management plan for the Columbia River, preventing the agency from spilling more water over the dams.<\/p>\n

Endangered Species Act Provisions in FAA Bill<\/strong>:\u00a0Two provisions\u00a0nestled<\/a> inside a House bill authorizing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) activities weaken Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections. The bill\u2019s first provision would bestow the secretary of transportation\u00a0with authority\u00a0to override aspects of the ESA on or near airport property that\u00a0affect airport operations and security.\u00a0Its second provision, inserted by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), establishes that private parties using the National Flood Insurance Program funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency are not subject to ESA regulations. This amendment is a personal project for DeFazio- the congressman has inserted this language into several unrelated bills. The House passed the FAA bill with the\u00a0amendments\u00a0April 27.\u00a0The Senate version of the FAA authorization bill\u00a0does not include this language.<\/p>\n

Innovations in Mentoring, Training and Apprenticeships Act:\u00a0<\/strong>The House Science Committee\u00a0approved<\/a>\u00a0the \u201cInnovations in Mentoring, Training and Apprenticeships Act\u201d (H.R. 5509<\/a>) by voice vote April 17. This bill directs the National Science Foundation to support several new grant programs focused on mentoring, training and apprenticeships in STEM fields. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) sponsored the bill, which is the committee\u2019s latest effort to support STEM education programs and career pathways. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) said that the legislation began in a hearing the committee held in February that highlighted workforce development opportunities as tools to address skill shortages in the STEM workforce. The bill would build on existing NSF programs. For example, it would authorize more funding to community colleges to improve the quality of STEM associates degrees.<\/p>\n

Bill Aims to Stop EPA Cuts:\u00a0<\/strong>The \u201cHealthy Environment for Children Act\u201d (H.R. 5604<\/a>) introduced by Rep. Don McEachin (D-VA) would prevent the EPA administrator from eliminating agency offices or activities related to\u00a0scientific\u00a0research that promote public health. Specifically, the bill would \u201cprohibit any reduction, consolidation, or termination of offices and activities related to science research\u201d within the EPA.<\/p>\n

Defense Authorization Bill:<\/strong>\u00a0Members of the House of Representatives have inserted some environmental policy riders into its annual defense authorization bill. One amendment, introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), bars the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the greater-sage grouse or lesser prairie chicken under the Endangered Species Act for\u00a010\u00a0years. This amendment passed out of committee. In past years, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) has prevented this provision from appearing in the final defense authorization legislation. Another\u00a0provision\u00a0would allow the Navy to request ten-year incidental take permits for their activities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.<\/p>\n

Sea Lion Hearing<\/strong>:\u00a0The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee\u2019s, Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries\u00a0and\u00a0Coast Guard Subcommittee, held a hearing April 25 concerning changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act regarding how many California sea lions can\u00a0be killed\u00a0in the Pacific Northwest. Officials from Idaho, Oregon\u00a0and\u00a0Washington are interested in reducing sea lion numbers because the sea lions eat endangered salmon and steelhead. Currently, the Marine Mammal Protection Act permits the lethal removal of 92 sea lions per year,\u00a0but\u00a0critics say this limit is not enough. The bill under discussion,\u00a0S. 1702<\/a>, would\u00a0allow statesand tribes to kill as many as 920 sea lions a\u00a0year.\u00a0Opponents of the bill say that amending the\u00a0bill\u00a0is unnecessary because\u00a0states\u00a0have not yet euthanized their allotted 92 sea lions a year.<\/p>\n

Other legislative updates of interest:<\/strong><\/p>\n