From ssi@ucsusa.org Sun Sep 29 11:53:34 2002
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:53:26 -0400
From: SSI Mailbox 
Subject: 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!