{"id":14447,"date":"2018-10-23T10:51:13","date_gmt":"2018-10-23T14:51:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=14447"},"modified":"2018-10-23T10:51:13","modified_gmt":"2018-10-23T14:51:13","slug":"policy-news-october-22-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2018\/10\/23\/policy-news-october-22-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News: October 22, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

In This Issue:<\/h1>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve Seen This Before: Interior Follows EPA\u2019s Lead with Order to Undermine Scientific Integrity <\/a><\/strong>
\nThe Department of the Interior releases its own \u201csecret science\u201d policy.<\/p>\n

White House Announces\u00a0Plan for Regulations, Deregulation<\/a><\/strong>
\nOffice of Management and Budget unveils agencies\u2019 plans for upcoming regulatory changes.<\/p>\n

EPA Disbands Scientific Advisory Panels, Asks for Comments on Potential Science Advisory Board Members<\/a><\/strong>
\nList of candidates for the Science Advisory Board includes ESA members and individual associated with the Heartland Institute.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/a>
\n<\/strong>Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hold hearing on state wildlife management.<\/p>\n

Executive Branch<\/a><\/strong>
\nNew Forest Service chief sworn in, Interior changes records retention policies.<\/p>\n

Courts<\/a><\/strong>
\nSupreme Court blocks children\u2019s climate lawsuit.<\/p>\n

States<\/a><\/strong>
\nPopular Science compiles list of top science issues in each state.<\/p>\n

Scientific Community<\/a><\/strong>
\nFormer ESA president pens op-ed in The Washington Post on climate change and inequality.<\/p>\n

Federal Register Opportunities<\/a><\/strong>
\nUpcoming meetings and other opportunities for public involvement.<\/p>\n

Register to Vote & Request an Absentee Ballot<\/a><\/strong>
\n2018 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>
\nView an up-to-date list of ESA\u2019s media coverage<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve Seen This Before: Interior Follows EPA\u2019s Lead with Order to Undermine Scientific Integrity<\/h2>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of Interior (Interior) implemented a new policy that echoes the \u2018secret science\u2019 administrative rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dubbed the \u201cStrengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science\u201d rule. It would restrict what scientific findings could be used to make regulations. The Ecological Society of America reported on the EPA\u2019s proposed rule in the\u00a0Oct. 10, 2018 Policy News.<\/a>\u00a0Oct. 16, the White House Office of Management and Budget released the administration\u2019s regulatory agenda, which puts the \u201ctransparency rule\u201d on the EPA\u2019s back burner with an expected final rule on hold until 2020.<\/p>\n

In tandem to the proposed EPA rule, legislative action mirroring the policy continues. The House passed its version of the measure, H.R. 1530, in March 29, 2017, and the Senate version, S. 1794, is now under consideration. In Oct. Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS, testified about the bill in a hearing held by the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight. Holt stated the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cTo put it bluntly, the initiative you consider today is not about sound science. It is about reducing regulations[.]\u2026 The effect of the rule would be a significant reduction in good, relevant science that could be used by the Environmental Protection Agency and the change would likely result in harm to people and their environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Interior\u2019s version of the policy direction of the above bills and the EPA proposed rule, the \u201cPromoting Open Science\u201d order, was issued by Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt Sept. 28. This order states:<\/p>\n

\u201cAny decision that is based on scientific conclusions that are not supported by publicly available raw data, analysis or methodology, have not been peer-reviewed, or are not readily reproducible should include an explanation of why such science is the best available information.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although Interior\u2019s exception of allowing \u201can explanation of why such science is the best available information\u201d is not a part of the EPA rule, the overall effect of Interior\u2019s order will mirror EPA\u2019s: The requirement \u201cthat Bureaus and Offices should utilize and prioritize publicly available, reproducible, peer-reviewed science to the extent possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

As reported by\u00a0E&E News<\/em>, the order could make it harder for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Interior agencies to use certain research. It also will set new data disclosure requirements for recipients of Interior funding.\u00a0E&E<\/em>\u00a0elaborates on one troubling issue to the policy: that in some cases, such as the precise location of Native American sacred spaces, Interior traditionally seeks to maintain confidentiality. This order could undermine such confidentiality.<\/p>\n

Environmental and scientific groups are critical of the order. Requiring that scientific data be publicly available means that some high-quality data are prohibited from use in federal government research. Specific issues of uncertainty regarding the order (and the EPA rule before it) include, among others: How traditionally confidential information on endangered species would be handled; and how information gathered during natural disasters in real time be considered after the fact.<\/p>\n

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) pointed out the following:<\/p>\n

Raw data may include confidential information such as private addresses and locations of sacred spaces and cultural resources or even the locations of the last remaining individuals of an endangered species. A colleague said, \u201cIt\u2019s like telling poachers where the last rhinos are living,\u201d an astute analogy. Allowing such data to be publicly available could put individuals, species, and culturally or religiously important sites at risk.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As for real-time information gained from disasters, requiring the science be \u2018reproducible\u2019 is problematic. In fact, this directive could cause significant issues for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which is part of Interior. The mission of USGS, among other directives, includes the monitoring, assessing, and conducting targeted research on a wide range of natural hazards such as wildland fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, landslides and volcanoes. These types of disasters, and the resulting scientific findings, cannot \u2013 by their nature \u2013 be reproduced.<\/p>\n

The administration\u2019s continued push of this policy, both in the executive branch and the legislative branch, is troubling. Unlike EPA\u2019s policy, Interior\u2019s order is not subject to a public commenting period. It took effect immediately Sept. 28.<\/p>\n

White House Releases Plan for Regulations, Deregulation<\/h2>\n

<\/a>
\nThe White House released its \u201cFall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions<\/a>\u201d Oct. 16. This document is a sprawling preview of the regulatory changes that agencies anticipate making in the coming months and years.<\/p>\n

Some items in the agenda show that agencies plan to finalize rules proposed earlier in 2018. One example is that the EPA hopes to finalize its Affordable Clean Energy rule, which replaces the Obama administration\u2019s Clean Power Plan in March 2019. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will finalize proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act regulations in Nov. 2018. The White House Council on Environmental Quality will continue its effort to rewrite National Environmental Policy Act regulations and plans to release a proposed rule in Feb. 2019.<\/p>\n

Agencies also plan to release new proposed rules on controversial topics. USFWS plans to propose a rule to determine if the lesser prairie chicken should be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and it will release a new rule on the ESA status of the gray wolf. The agency will also designate a \u201cnonessential experimental population\u201d of grizzly bears, paving the way for the reintroduction of grizzly bears in the North Cascades in Washington.\u00a0This past spring, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke expressed his support for the plan.<\/p>\n

Another example of an item of interest is the agenda reveals that the USFWS is hoping to move forward by March 2019 with a rule listing certain salamander species as an injurious species under the Lacey Act to prevent the spread of the deadly the fungal disease Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (B. sal). USFWS first proposed the rule change in Jan. 2016.<\/p>\n

EPA\u00a0Disbands Scientific Advisory Panels, Asks for Comments on Potential Science Advisory Board Members<\/h2>\n

<\/a>
\nThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to shift its scientific advisers. In the recent weeks, it released a list of potential candidates for its lead Science Advisory Board, eliminated two science advisory panels and announced five new members of a seven-member advisory group.<\/p>\n

There is a\u00a0list<\/a>\u00a0of 174 candidates for the EPA\u2019s Science Advisory Board, the lead group that advises the agency on scientific matters. The list includes a few ESA members along with experts in other relevant disciplines as well as several individuals with ties to the Heartland Institute, a think tank that questions mainstream climate science. The agency is accepting public comments on the nominees through Nov. 7, 2018. The EPA also released lists of candidates for two committees of the Science Advisory board \u2013 the\u00a0Agricultural Science Committee<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Drinking Water Committee<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The EPA\u00a0disbanded<\/a>\u00a0its Particulate Matter Review Panel and its Ozone Review Panel. These scientific advisory groups were charged with advising the EPA\u2019s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) about air quality standards for particulate matter and ground-level ozone.<\/p>\n

New members of the CASAC were announced Oct. 10. that includes three state and local air pollution regulators: Sabine Lange of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Steven Packham of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and Cory Masuca of the Jefferson County, AL Department of Health. The other new members are Mark Frampton, professor emeritus at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Tim Lewis, a research ecologist at the Army Corps of Engineers. The agency declined to renew the terms of three academic scientists who served on the committee.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/h2>\n

<\/a>
\nState Wildlife Management Hearing<\/strong>:\u00a0The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a\u00a0hearing<\/a>\u00a0on state agencies\u2019 role in wildlife management and conservation Oct. 10. John Kennedy, the deputy director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, touted his agency\u2019s role in sage-grouse conservation and the black-footed ferret\u2019s recovery. Similarly, Mike McCormick of the Mississippi Farm Bureau shared success stories from efforts to conserve the American alligator, the Louisiana black bear and the wild turkey. Ranking Member Tom Carper (D-DE) praised state governments\u2019 role in the recovery of the Delmarva fox squirrel \u2013 which was removed from the endangered species list in 2015 \u2013 but stressed the importance of the Endangered Species Act in the success of its recovery.<\/p>\n

Legislative updates:<\/strong><\/p>\n