Tipton, others seek transparency in species act

RBC I During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) underscored that federal agencies’ refusal to disclose scientific data used in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing process raises questions on the validity of the data and undermines species preservation efforts.
“The lack of transparency and unwillingness of federal agencies to disclose scientific data used in endangered species listings calls into question the validity of the data,” Tipton testified. “If ensuring a species’ well-being is truly the goal, there is absolutely no reason that this data should not be shared to ensure that it is scientifically sound and that efforts constructed around it are the most effective methods to preserve a species.
“We’ve heard testimony in this committee numerous times on how, from a scientific standpoint, state and local preservation efforts that take into account the unique ecology and topography of the habitat are more effective than one-size-fits all federal approaches,” Tipton said. “With regard to the sage grouse, not only have federal agencies refused to disclose the scientific data on which they are relying to determine potential ESA listings, they have failed to even provide preservation goals to state and local entities already working to effectively preserve the species despite numerous requests. There is a fundamental problem with this process.
“The legislation we are considering would bring greater transparency to the ESA process by requiring federal agencies to disclose scientific data and cooperate with states,” he said. “This would ensure the best available scientific data is being used to most effectively preserve a species.”
Garfield County Commissioner Tom Jankovsky also testified during the hearing about the county’s experience with this lack of transparency and freedom of information as a Cooperating Agency with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Greater Sage Grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
“The underpinning message to be conveyed is there is a serious lack of openness and fairness (transparency) in decisions being made by state and federal agencies that are hidden behind the cloak of the ESA that have serious impacts on local communities,” Jankovsky said. “Information used by these agencies to make extraordinary decisions with enormous impacts on local communities such as is done with the ESA should be available for review and verification by those it impacts.
“To operate otherwise, furthers the appearance and perhaps the fact that the information is inaccurate, misleading and erroneous, has no scientific basis, and is agenda driven by special interests,” he said. “Therefore, by design, is meant to remain hidden from objective review and ironically, the ultimate casualty is the ESA and the species it is meant to protect.”
Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II, a biologist from Nederland, Colo., testified that the lack of transparency raises serious concerns about the data being relied on for ESA listings.
“When data are not publicly accessible, legitimate scientific inquiry is effectively eliminated as no third party can independently reproduce the results, Ramey testified. “Such secrecy does not further the goal of species recovery.
“Such secrecy also puts the evidentiary basis of some resource agency decisions outside the realm of science and in clear violation of the Information Quality Act,” he said. “And finally, it has the effect of concentrating power, money and regulatory authority in the hands of those who control access to the data.”