From ssi@ucsusa.org Sun Sep 29 11:53:34 2002 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:53:26 -0400 From: SSI MailboxSubject: SSI Update: Sound Science and the ESA ************ SSI INFORMATION UPDATE ************ The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the most important law for protecting endangered and threatened species in the United States. Since President Nixon signed it into law in 1973, Congress has amended the ESA several times. In the latest effort to do so, Representatives James Hansen (R-UT), Greg Walden (R-OR), and Richard Pombo (R-CA) introduced a bill in May and named it the "Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2002" (H.R. 4840). This SSI Information Update brings you information on H.R. 4840, which was voted out of the House Resources Committee in July. In UCS's view, the provisions of this bill are not consistent with sound science, and if passed, would weaken key provisions in the ESA. Among other concerns, H.R. 4840 puts at risk the use of the best available science in the ESA's listing process for endangered and threatened species. Although the ESA has been threatened in the past, this most recent attempt is particularly troublesome because the issue is complex and its proponents seek to promote the changes under the guise of "sound science." Scientists can help elected officials understand the nuances of this threat. UCS has gone on record as opposing H.R. 4840 by signing on to a letter from the environmental community to members of the House Resources Committee in June. The letter is attached at the end of this Update. Depending on how the bill fares in Congress this fall, there may be times when scientists' voices would be crucial to ensure that these threats against the ESA do not become reality. At those points, we will notify you with SSI action alerts. This Information Update lays the foundation for possible future SSI action. This SSI Update provides information on: -- the ESA listing process -- some specific effects of the bill on the ESA process -- the bill's status in Congress -- sources for further information -- a copy of the letter opposing the bill ** THE ESA LISTING PROCESS The current process by which a species is "listed" as endangered or threatened - which triggers its protection under the ESA - involves the use of several kinds of evidence. Empirical field data on the species' numbers are of course critical; but since such data are often scarce and difficult to gather, especially if the species is rare, other kinds of evidence are also important. Population viability analyses, which use theoretical models to project the future of the species, can be of critical value, as can information regarding market pressure on the species, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of current regulations in protecting it, and anticipated development pressures on the species' habitat. Since publication of studies in peer-reviewed journals often requires years of data collection and further months or years in the reviewing, editing, and publication process, the current Act allows both peer-reviewed and non-peer- reviewed studies to be used. The basic standard is "the best available scientific and commercial data," without prejudgments as to what kind of data will be most valuable in any particular case. The major problem in enforcing the ESA today is the substantial delay in listing, which has resulted in a backlog of hundreds of species awaiting legal protection. Proposals from scientists and conservationists for improving the Act have focused on increasing funding so the backlog can be reduced. UCS and many others recommend that the "precautionary principle" - under which, in the face of uncertainty, we act to prevent extinctions rather than waiting for a definitive answer, at which point it may be too late - should guide consideration of changes to the listing process. ** SOME SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF THE BILL ON THE ESA PROCESS At first glance, H.R. 4840 - both in its title and language - could seem like a bill with the noble aim of increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Further inspection, though, reveals that the effect of this bill would be to weaken the ESA. It limits the types of scientific evidence that can be used and slows down the already lengthy listing process, among other things. Further delays could mean that some species could become extinct while awaiting evaluation. A specific example involves Section 2 (Sound Science) of H.R. 4840, which requires government agencies to use the "best scientific and commercial data available as basis of determination" of the status of a species. But at the same time, "the Secretary shall give greater weight to any scientific or commercial study or other information that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed." This approach is intended to discourage the use of theoretical tools that scientists often use to predict if a species will become extinct or how it might fare under certain conditions. For instance, such theoretical models, including population viability analyses, were important in the listing decision for the northern spotted owl. These tools can sometimes offer the best available science since empirical data only tell the past and present status of a species, which is not adequate for predicting the future. Under H.R. 4840, the evidence that theoretical tools provide could be disregarded and replaced by less relevant empirical studies or by data provided by commercial interests. The bill's own sponsors say that their bill "establishes a higher scientific threshold for the petitioner [asking that a species be listed] to meet before the petition can be considered, including clear and convincing evidence that a species is in peril" (Press Release, Rep. James V. Hansen, July 10, 2002). Increasing the threshold for listing species and raising the requirement for evidence to "clear and convincing" run exactly counter to the precautionary principle. Rather than speeding up the already-too-slow consideration process, this change will further delay protection for species in peril. In addition, the bill also changes deadlines, puts the selection of peer-reviewers in the hands of political appointees, and enhances industries' rights - all of which are discussed in the attached sign-on letter of June 25, 2002. ** THE BILL'S STATUS H.R. 4840 was referred to the House Resources Committee in May 2002; hearings were held in mid-June, and a mark-up session was held on July 10. At that time, the committee approved the language of the bill by a vote of 22-18 and reported it back to the House floor. The bill has not yet been put to a vote of the full House; at this point, it is unclear whether the vote will happen this session and if so, which way the vote may go. Two items of note emerged from the Committee action. Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) attempted to soften the worst effects of the bill by offering a substitute that allowed for peer review without causing delays - but his alternative bill was defeated by a vote of 18-22. A second unpleasant surprise was that Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (MD), normally a strong congressional advocate for the environment, voted in favor of H.R. 4840. On the other hand, no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. Even if one is introduced, it seems unlikely that both the House and Senate would take up the legislation during this session of Congress. It is late in the legislative calendar and other bills seem to have higher priority. But even if this bill dies in the current Congress, its further progress in the House could signal the types of challenges the ESA would face if the control of the Senate changes in the November elections. ** SOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SSI will continue to watch for developments on H.R. 4840 and related bills, and will inform you at important points in the process. Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about the issue, you can read the following documents: - An SSI Update on the Endangered Species Act from March 1998 includes information that is still relevant. Access the document on the SSI Members part of UCS' web site: < http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/ssi_esa.html >. When prompted for username and password, enter "ssi" for the username and "aristotle" for the password. Please note that all characters must be in lower case. (This page is intended for SSI members only - please do not share the password.) - The Ecological Society of America produced a white paper entitled "Strengthening the Use of Science in Achieving the Goals of the Endangered Species Act: An Assessment" in 1996. To see the paper, visit the following web site: < http://esa.sdsc.edu/esarpt.htm >. - To see the actual wording of the bill, go to < http://thomas.loc.gov > and enter the bill number. If you feel so inclined, you can also send a Letter to the Editor (LTE) to your local or regional newspaper to help legislators and the public better understand this complex issue. It also lets legislators know that their scientist- constituents feel strongly enough about the issue to write about it. For more about writing an LTE, please see: < http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/ssi_lte.html > *** THE SIGN-ON LETTER *** The Union of Concerned Scientists signed on to the following letter to members of the House of Representatives to express our concern about H.R. 4840: June 25, 2002 Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of people our organizations represent, we write to express our strong opposition to H. R. 4840, a bill to amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA), introduced by Rep. James Hansen (R-UT). This bill will be marked up by the House Resources Committee on June 26th. We urge you to oppose it in Committee and thereafter if it should be reported out of Committee. This bill is a stealth attempt to undermine science and to weaken the Endangered Species Act. While it purports to ensure "sound science" in decisions under the ESA, the bill actually seeks to hamstring the scientific process by attempting to dictate the use of specific kinds of scientific information in every situation and by limiting the scientific tools available to scientists to evaluate the threats facing species and people. Under the guise of expanding scientific "peer review," the bill would effectively delay actions that are supported by sound science and necessary to protect species facing extinction. The bill also seeks to make it virtually impossible for citizens to petition for species listing, while at the same time giving special access and special rights to regulated industries and development permit applicants. Finally, the bill is unfair and unbalanced, mandating additional review and process largely for those actions that protect species, but not for actions that reduce species protection. * The bill seeks to limit the ability of scientists to use the best available science to conserve endangered species. The ESA is a strong, effective, and flexible science-based conservation statute. It specifically requires use of the "best available scientific and commercial data" in decision- making. This bill seeks to undercut the use of the best science by defining a narrow, "one size fits all" approach to what will count as scientific evidence and by changing the standards for applying that evidence. By requiring government agencies to "give greater weight" to some kinds of science over others, even if that science is not the best available, it seeks to restrict the use of important tools that scientists currently use to assess species' protection, such as population viability analysis and other statistical tools that often provide the most telling insights about a species. This attempt to legislate science is tantamount to requiring a doctor to attempt to diagnose cancer with only a stethoscope. * Independent scientific review and extended deadlines could be used to delay and hamstring species protection. By extending the statutory deadlines in the ESA and adding additional peer review, the Hansen legislation would cause major delays and adversely affect the timing of action related to both species and proposed projects. * The bill fails to ensure that reviewers are independent and come from qualified scientific bodies. The proposed language of H.R. 4840 does not actually require an *independent* scientific review, but only the appearance of one that actually is controlled by political appointees who may have little or no scientific experience. Neither the National Academy of Sciences nor any other scientific body would be involved in identifying the pool of scientists eligible to serve on committees; which scientists are eligible would be determined by the Secretary. Finally, the potential authority of the peer reviewers is vastly expanded. * The bill attempts to drastically limit the ability of citizens to petition for species preservation by requiring them to do the government's job. Added in 1982 because federal agencies were failing to list species at high risk of extinction, citizen petitions have become an important mechanism for protecting endangered species. Ninety-two percent of all listings in California during the past ten years were initiated by citizens. This bill seeks to shift the responsibility for scientific inquiry to citizen petitioners and could have the effect of seriously restricting citizen petitions. Furthermore, the requirement that a petition demonstrate "clear and convincing evidence" in support of listing in order to be accepted would place a higher burden on those seeking to protect at-risk species than is currently required to show that cigarette smoking is harmful to an individual's health. H.R. 4840 seeks to give special rights to industry by allowing them special access to the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce when their activities are being reviewed for ESA compliance. It would not give the same rights to individuals and communities who also may be affected - possibly severely - by species declines that may result from the proposed activity. The law already requires Federal agencies to consult with the Secretary "in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant." There is no reason to give the applicant additional "super status" in this process. Today many species hover on the brink of extinction and need immediate, scientifically-based action to ensure their survival and eventual recovery. Unfortunately, H.R. 4840 is nothing more than an attempt to undermine science and impede the implementation of the ESA. Sincerely*, American Rivers (S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Director, Government Affairs) Defenders of Wildlife (Michael Senatore, Litigation Director) Earthjustice (Susan Holmes, Legislative Representative) Endangered Species Coalition (Brock Evans, Executive Director) Environmental Defense (Michael J. Bean, Chair, Wildlife Program) Friends of the Earth (Sara Zdeb, Legislative Representative) Marine Conservation Biology Institute (Elliott Norse, Ph.D., President) National Audubon Society (Perry Plumart, Director, Government Relations) National Environmental Trust (Kevin S. Curtis, Vice President, Government Affairs) National Parks Conservation Association (Craig Obey, Vice President, Government Affairs) National Wildlife Federation (John Kostyack, Senior Counsel) Natural Resources Defense Counsel (Alys Campaigne, Legislative Director) Sierra Club (Debbie Sease, Legislative Director) Union of Concerned Scientists (Alden Meyer, Director, Government Relations) The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society (Jim Winkler, General Secretary) U.S. Public Interest Research Group (Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director) The Wilderness Society (Linda Lance, Vice President, Public Policy) * The people listed above, following the organizations, signed the letter on behalf of their organizations. [UCS Biodiversity Outreach Specialist Andrea Shotkin prepared this SSI Information Update. Doug Boucher, Michael Bean, David Blockstein, and UCS staff Nancy Cole, Peter Frumhoff, and Jason Mathers provided information and review.] ************************************** THE SOUND SCIENCE INITIATIVE This Information Update was prepared for and distributed to UCS' Sound Science Initiative (SSI). SSI is an effective email-based vehicle for scientists to familiarize themselves and the public with environmental issues of global significance, with a special focus on climate change and loss of biological diversity. SSI also provides the tools for individuals to respond to and influence fast-breaking media and policy developments. Membership in SSI is open to professionals and graduate students in the physical, natural, and social sciences. To learn more about or join SSI, please visit our website at: < http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ssi.html >, or email us at < ssi@ucsusa.org > THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions. To learn more about UCS, please visit us on the web at: < http://www.ucsusa.org > This report may not be reprinted or posted to electronic networks without permission and acknowledgement. From ssi@ucsusa.org Sun Sep 29 12:51:50 2002 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:02:49 -0400 From: SSI Mailbox Subject: SSI Info Update: Forest Roadless Rule ***************SSI INFORMATION UPDATE************** Roadless Policy in National Forests 25 July 2002 On January 16, 2001, shortly before leaving office, the Clinton Administration adopted an administrative rule preventing development -- such as logging, mining, grazing, and constructing new roads and paths for vehicles -- on the nearly 60 million acres of the national forests which are inaccessible by road. These "roadless" areas, sometimes referred to as "the de facto wilderness areas," cover nearly 1/3 of the total area of the national forest system and about 2% of the total landmass of the United States. The roadless decision, which came after several years of public debate and a 1999 moratorium on development, was to have increased federally protected forest areas in the US by 40%. The lengthy process that led to the decision included over 600 public meetings and 1.6 million comments on the proposed rule -- the vast majority of which supported the roadbuilding ban. Since the final ruling, however, a combination of court decisions and administrative steps by the Forest Service has delayed implementation of the rule. This Update explains what has happened to the roadless rule since early 2001, including actions in all three branches of the federal government, and concludes with links to several sources of updated information on both the science and the politics of the roadless question. This Update also touches on the political debate surrounding roadless areas and this summer's forest fires, and suggests how scientists might usefully clarify some of the misinformation common in this debate. ACTIONS IN GOVERNMENT ** The Executive Branch The Bush Administration announced soon after taking office that it would "review" but not overturn the roadless rule. Essentially opposed to the roadless rule but reluctant to undertake a visible political battle to reverse it, the Bush Administration announced that, pending a resolution in court, it would review proposals for logging in roadless areas on a case-by-case basis. The new Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, implemented this decision in a letter to his National Forest supervisors in June 2001. Chief Bosworth instructed forest supervisors to forward all proposals for development in roadless areas to his Washington office for resolution. So far, Bosworth has refrained from approving large-scale timber sales in roadless areas. The Forest Service has, however, manifested its opposition to the rule more covertly. The Forest Service reviews and revises National Forest management plans every several years. If the roadless rule were being fully implemented, these forest management reviews would require that additional protection be extended to roadless areas. But in several cases, the Forest Service has refused to extend any additional protection to roadless areas, thus leaving these areas open for development despite the roadless rule. The most important of these reviews so far concern the national forests in Alaska. There, the Administration is favoring a "no action" alternative for the Tongass National Forest plan revision. Rather than preventing development in roadless areas of one of the earth's largest intact temperate rainforests, the Forest Service's "preferred alternative" (for no action) simply maintains the status quo without roadless protection, thus leaving large areas of this forest open for logging. A similar result would come from the Administration's wilderness proposal for the Chugash National Forest in Alaska, where Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey (a former timber industry lobbyist) announced that the decision declining additional protection to roadless areas was "final." Formal reversal of the roadless rule on a nationwide basis requires a long process involving many public meetings and open comment periods, and it seems unlikely that the Administration will undertake such a process until at least 2003. ** The Legislative Branch Congress has been relatively silent on the roadless issue in the last few years, but this may be changing. Legislation to make the roadless rule into federal law was introduced in June 2002 by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). Although this bill has no chance of passage in the current House of Representatives, congressional sponsors' strategy is to seek an impressive show of support that might be built into a majority (218 in the House) in next year's session. Working toward a goal of 200 cosponsors, the Roadless Area Conservation Act (HR 4865) has 177 as of mid- July -- indicating a higher level of support for the roadless policy, even in the House, than had been anticipated. Another bill, specifically protecting the roadless areas in Alaska (HR 2908), was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) in September 2001 and currently has 117 cosponsors. Since neither of these bills is likely to come to a floor vote or to even be considered in committee, an alternative strategy was developed by roadless policy champions in Congress -- an amendment on the issue was proposed to be offered to the Interior Appropriations bill (HR5093). The "Roadless Area Conservation Amendment" would have halted over 50 development projects being considered for roadless areas, thus effectively continuing the moratorium in place since 1999. Unfortunately, this approach was blocked by a procedural maneuver in the House, and it is unclear whether such an amendment will be offered in the Senate version of Interior Appropriations. ** The Judiciary The Bush Administration announced soon after taking office that it would "review" but not overturn the roadless rule, but several timber companies and their allies sued to do just that. Plaintiffs in the nine cases filed include Boise Cascade Timber Company, the American Forest and Paper Association, Boise County, various off-road vehicle groups and livestock companies, the States of Alaska, Idaho, and Utah, the Kootenai Tribe, and others. They won an initial victory in May 2001, when federal judge Edward Lodge issued an injunction preventing the roadless rule from going into effect. A coalition of environmental groups appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which took up the case in the summer of 2001 and heard oral arguments in October. It is traditional for the Justice Department to support actions of previous administrations in court; but in this case, the Bush Administration sided with the timber industry on the appeal by refusing to defend the roadless rule. Pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit, the rule has been stayed, and the country's roadless areas remain without protection against logging, mining, grazing, and other development activities. Whichever side loses is certain to appeal, but it is not clear that the Supreme Court will hear the case. Because implementation of the roadless rule has been stayed by the court, efforts to protect roadless areas have had to be based on other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act. These federal laws have in effect protected roadless areas; but, for obvious reasons, this approach is less desirable than a dedicated roadless policy. Nonetheless, in the interim, lower court decisions have protected roadless areas in specific national forests. Conservation groups won a victory in April 2002 when a federal judge stopped logging on more than a thousand acres of Northern California's Six Rivers National Forest. The proposed timber sale in this case represented the first logging in a roadless area since the January 2001 announcement of the rule, and was stopped because it would have destroyed important old growth habitats for the northern goshawk and Pacific fisher. A second court victory came in the same month in Alaska, where a US District Court judge blocked timber sales in the 17.8 million-acre Tongass National Forest -- America's largest national forest. The judge's decision stopped future timber sales, as well as timber sales retroactively to 1999, until a full environmental review can take place. THE ROADLESS RULE AND WESTERN WILDFIRES There has been relatively little public discussion of the roadless question in the last year, although a Scientists' Letter supporting roadless protection released in April 2002, with over 300 signatories, did get substantial press coverage. But Western wildfires in summer 2002 have raised the issue to prominence again. ** The Science The science is clear that protecting forests from roadbuilding and other development activities bears little relationship to catastrophic forest fires. The serious wildfire threats to society are in the "wildland-urban interface" (WUI). In these interface locations, houses have been built on the edge of forests that have been protected against past fires. This results in the growth of a large number of small, more fire-susceptible trees. Roadless areas, on the other hand, are far from residential development and retain large trees that are less susceptible to burning. Furthermore, in some cases, commercial logging (in obviously unroaded areas) can actually increase the risk of catastrophic forest fire. Timber companies frequently cut down the largest trees, which are the most fire resistant, and leave behind flammable smaller trees and piles of debris. An extensive new report from the World Wildlife Fund, "The Scientific Basis for Roadless Area Protection," makes this case clearly, and also documents that roadless areas are more resistant to insect outbreaks and other forest health problems. Prescribed burning and non- commercial thinnings, rather than commercial logging, are necessary to reduce fuel loads and thus the risk of catastrophic fires. (Good references for this forest health data, including from the Forest Service itself, are available in the WWF report on-line.) ** The Politics Unfortunately, roadless area protection and catastrophic fires are often conflated in the public's mind, and this confusion can then be exploited by politicians who may be seeking to support extractive and other harmful-use industries. This summer, allegations were made that preventing logging to reduce fuel loads in roadless and other areas was responsible for the particularly destructive fires. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), for example, speaking at a hearing on the fires in June 2002, argued that: "The campaign to keep people out of the forest with a hands-off philosophy is dangerous to the very existence of our forests." Scientists could play a very important role in clarifying for the public that the roadless area policy is not contributing to forest fires that threaten human communities, and we suggest that you seek out opportunities to address and explain this distortion. You might, for example, keep an eye out for stories in your local paper about the forest fires or other forest health issues -- and then write a letter-to-the-editor to explain the roadless issue. You could also send a message to your senators and representative, describing your expertise and explaining the roadless issue. In fact, consider visiting your congressional delegation in person when they are home for the August recess. [To find out if your Representative should be thanked for co-sponsoring the Roadless Area Conservation Act, please see below.] NEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION Much of the scientific rationale for roadless area protection remains the same as in previous years. (Contact us at ssi@ucsusa.org for previous information.) Several additional reports and other sources, however, have appeared in recent months. These include: * The USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior reported to the President on the roadless/wildfire issue in September 2000. Titled "A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000" it can be found at < http://www.fireplan.gov/president.cfm > * The World Wildlife Fund report on "The Scientific Basis for Roadless Area Protection," available at :< http://www.worldwildlife.org/forests >. Note that the complete report is 24.5 Megabytes in size; the Executive Summary is posted at < http://www.americanlands.org/science_review.htm > The "Scientists' Letter" of April 2002, which can be found at: < http://www.sierraclub.org/logging/letter/ > * The court case on roadless rule, now under appeal to the Ninth Circuit, can be followed through the Web site of the Earthjustice Legal Foundation, at < http://www.earthjustice.org/urgent > The official Forest Service website for the roadless issues is < http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us > The current list of cosponsors of the Roadless Area Conservation Act (HR 4865) and the Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act (HR 2908) can be found by going to < http://thomas.loc.gov >and entering the bill numbers. [This Information Update was prepared by UCS consultant Doug Boucher, with assistance from Michelle Manion, Aaron Rappaport, and Nancy Cole at UCS.] From ssi@ucsusa.org Sun Sep 29 13:03:28 2002 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:12:30 -0400 From: SSI Mailbox Subject: SSI Alert: Invasive Species and Security - Sign-on ************** EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ***************** ISSUE: Several environmental groups - including the Union of Concerned Scientists - are soliciting scientist signatories for a letter to President Bush, his advisors, and key members of Congress and the Cabinet expressing concern about the environmental implications of moving two government agencies to the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security. Briefly, these concerns involve ensuring that the invasive species-related functions of both the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Department of Transportation's Coast Guard not be weakened. We are especially seeking U.S. scientists and natural resource managers with biodiversity and invasives expertise to join us in signing this important letter. ACTION: Join the sign-on letter in one of three ways: as an individual without your affiliation listed; as an individual with your affiliation listed; or as a representative on behalf of your organization's endorsement - ENDORSEMENTS THAT YOU WANT STATED ON BEHALF OF YOUR ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE SENT BACK EXPLICITY INDICATING THAT YOU ARE SIGNING ON "FOR" OR "REPRESENTING" YOUR ORGANIZATION. INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS FOR WHICH YOU WANT YOUR AFFILIATION EXCLUDED SHOULD BE CLEARLY INDICATED. All sign-ons should be sent by email to Peter Jenkins of the International Center for Technology Assessment at < peterjenkins@icta.org > and should include your name; degree; title and institutional affiliation (if appropriate); and city and state. MAIN MESSAGE: We support our nation's efforts to improve protection against terrorism, but we need to do so in a way that maintains and strengthens invasives species prevention and control programs. DEADLINE: As soon as possible, but no later than 12 noon (Eastern time) on Monday, July 1, 2002. ****************************************** *** THE ISSUE *** President Bush proposed on June 6, 2002 that several existing federal agencies or parts of agencies be pulled together to form a new government entity, the Department of Homeland Security. Two of the agencies included in this plan are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Coast Guard. A group of environmental and scientific organizations - spearheaded by Faith Campbell of American Lands Alliance, Peter Jenkins of the International Center for Technology Assessment, and Phyllis Windle of the Union of Concerned Scientists - is circulating a sign-on letter asking leaders on Capitol Hill and the President's advisors to safeguard invasives-related responsibilities if the two agencies are moved. You can express your concern about these changes by joining with other scientists to bring your collective credibility and expertise to bear on this important issue. Please review the letter, appended below. If you agree with the letter, please send your contact information as requested under "ACTION" above to < peterjenkins@icta.org > in order to sign on. Please also circulate this request to colleagues whom you think would be interested and qualified to sign on. SSI will keep you informed of the letter's progress and release. *** FOR MORE INFORMATION *** If you would like more information about the issue, we suggest the following: See the June 14, 2002 issue of Science, which has a article entitled "NATIONAL SECURITY: Research Chiefs Hunt for Details in Proposal for New Department" by Martin Enserink and Andrew Lawler, pp. 1944-1945. See the June 20, 2002 issue of Nature, which has an editorial, "Rethink anti-bioterrorism plans," mentioned in the letter below. See also a June 7, 2002 interview with Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman about the uncertainties involved in the restructuring: < www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/06/0238.htm >. *** THE LETTER *** [plain paper] July 1, 2002 Dear : The undersigned environmentalists and scientists share all Americans' determination to defend the Nation against international terrorism. At the same time, we want to ensure that governmental reorganization undertaken to protect America from terror enhances rather than impairs the work of two key agencies: the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Department of Transportation's Coast Guard. Both agencies provide vital services in the prevention and control of a major, but often under- recognized, threat - the arrival and spread of harmful, non-native, invasive species. Our key points: - We are highly concerned that reorganization must not be at the expense of the current responsibilities of APHIS and the Coast Guard in the prevention and control of harmful invasive species. - With respect to APHIS, we support reorganization only to the extent that it improves border and port inspection capabilities and coordination. We ask you to oppose movement of the entirety of APHIS into the new Homeland Security Department unless its invasive species-related regulatory and scientific functions are given explicit high priority in the implementing legislation and provided with enhanced long-term funding. - With respect to the Coast Guard, we ask you to either explicitly support its invasive species prevention function in the implementing legislation for the new Department, and enhance its long-term funding, or else to transfer that function to another appropriate agency and provide it with the enhanced long-term funding needed for success. Background Harmful invasive species brought into the country from abroad have become severe threats to our native species, damaged our economy and in several cases, such as the Asian tiger mosquito and the Africanized bee, have become public health threats. Some other pertinent examples: - the Asian longhorned beetle, a major forest pest, has caused the destruction of more than ten thousand urban shade trees and threatens to decimate maples and other valuable hardwood species throughout the country; its arrival has been limited by new APHIS regulations requiring that wooden packing material imported from China be treated first; and - aggressively prolific zebra mussels, which inflicted economic costs totaling approximately $1 billion between 1989 and 2000, as well as major ecological damage; after long delay, the Coast Guard is poised to tighten protections against these and other aquatic invaders of our vulnerable waters that arrive via discharges of ballast water from ships. Harmful invasive species cost farmers, the timber industry, utilities and numerous other sectors of our economy a staggering cumulative amount - estimated in the range of $100 billion per year. Further, invasive species are a leading cause of listings of native species under the Endangered Species Act and they seriously degrade many parks and natural areas. Concerns We are particularly concerned that preventing invasions of weeds, pests, aquatic invaders, and plant and animal pathogens - and controlling them if they do invade - will receive low priority in a Department that rightfully is focused on entry of possible terrorists and potential chemical and biological components of weapons of mass destruction. Considering the incredible stakes, we oppose the proposed movement of the entire invasive species-related regulatory and scientific functions of APHIS into the new Homeland Security Department unless they receive explicit high priority in the implementing legislation and enhanced long-term funding. The vast bulk of APHIS's work is not in line with the Homeland Security mission; that work is likely to suffer from the transfer. APHIS's functions include: Agricultural Biotechnology, Agricultural Trade, Animal Health, Animal Welfare, Aquaculture, Excluding Pests and Diseases, Plant Health, Veterinary Accreditation and Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage Control). Few of these regulatory, scientific, animal control and other non inspection-related functions sensibly fit in the proposed Homeland Security Department. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has already gone on record opposing the APHIS move, calling it "counter-productive," as have several other voices. The June 20th lead editorial in the major scientific journal, Nature, states: "Alarmingly, the administration has so far failed to make the case" for moving APHIS. We anticipate that confusion; delays; a large number of resignations, early retirements and transfers; unanticipated expenses; and other very serious transitional problems will arise from reorganizing, adding more duties to, and moving APHIS personnel to a new location. This would further delay long-overdue improvements in its programs. For example, the USDA is a Co-chair, and APHIS provides USDA's representation, in the interagency National Invasive Species Council. We fear that APHIS's removal will stifle momentum as the participating agencies recently agreed to implement a detailed, proactive National Invasive Species Management Plan. Further, APHIS already has a difficult time hiring and retaining highly-qualified scientific personnel. Its employees are dedicated, but they are overworked in their current duties. A wrenching transition period would lead to less vigilance, resulting in introductions of more harmful invaders. We have many of the same concerns for the Coast Guard, and note that it is a key player in the Federal/State Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Some of the Coast Guard's duties are directly in line with the mission of Homeland Security, but others are not. Under the National Invasive Species Act, the agency is charged with preventing introductions of harmful non-native aquatic organisms, which have severely degraded many of our nation's waters ecologically as well as economically and in some cases pose human disease threats, such as cholera. These invaders typically come into this country via ballast water discharges, which the Coast Guard has the duty to regulate. We ask you to either strongly and explicitly support this Coast Guard function in the new Department, and enhance its long- term funding, or else move the function to another appropriate agency and provide it with the enhanced long-term funding needed for success. Further, we are concerned that APHIS and the Coast Guard, if moved to Homeland Security, will be less able to work with people outside the Department who have both a stake in invasive species prevention efforts and the technical expertise to aid their success. Please make sure that implementing legislation supports the continued involvement of the public, outside peer review scientists and stakeholders in this area and does not allow their participation to be diminished by new security classifications. We support the concepts of better coordinating and perhaps in some areas combining, under Homeland Security, the myriad border and port inspections of incoming vessels, luggage and cargo for any dangerous or prohibited items. These functions are performed now by inspectors with APHIS, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and in some cases the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. We urge you to seek positive efficiencies and mutual reinforcement of inspection capabilities at the borders and ports. These inspectors should use compatible computer systems, share inspection technologies, integrate record keeping, be cross-trained where appropriate and commit to better interagency cooperation. Even with these improvements, more inspections and more extensive use of modern detection technologies will be needed. Conclusion Thank you for considering our views. We look forward to working with you to ensure that America's natural resources, economic interests and public health receive strong protection as the Nation confronts international terrorism. Please call on any of us if you would like more information or if we can assist. Our point of contact is: Peter T. Jenkins, Policy Analyst, International Center for Technology Assessment, Ste. 302, 660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003; tel: 202.547.9359; email: peterjenkins@icta.org. Sincerely, ******************** NOTE: If you join the sign-on letter, please let us know. When you send your contact information to Peter Jenkins, send a blind copy (BC or BCC) also to: ssi@ucsusa.org. CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS: Help us keep you posted! If your email address will soon change, or if you'd like us to use a different address, please let us know by sending a message to ssi@ucsusa.org with your new email address. Thanks!