EPAs Secrecy Speculation & Contradiction in Government Regulatory Process

The Dunes Sagebrush Lizards ESA listing must be brought into the open. By Marita Noon Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON D.C. The most controversial reptile in Texas & New Mexico does not deserve a place on the federal endangered species list said a group of independent researchers Monday. And despite the fact that the New York Times June announcement Sen. Cornyns Amendment Would Pre-Empt Listing of Southwestern Lizard" has received little attention this is big news.   State Rep. Dennis Kintigh R-Roswell led a volunteer panel that in May began studying the dunes sagebrush lizard. Kintigh a retired FBI agent with no background in biology said from the start he did not support endangered status for the lizard. He said his groups research backed up his initial hypothesis. Before the Endangered Species proposal for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard threatened a large segment of West Texas Southeastern New Mexico and U.S. domestic oil production there is not a big body of evidence showing how the listing decisions were made.  Rallies in opposition to the listing have drawn hundreds of irate citizens hearings on the matter have had overflow crowds and the public register has pages & pages of public comment.   Both ABC and Fox News have done stories on the lizard. For those in Southeast New Mexico and West Texas whove been working to draw attention to a little lizard with the potential to kill jobs and hurt the regions economy Senator Cornyns actions represent a giant step toward rational thinking. History tells us that listing a critter as an endangered species does little for the species and can do a great deal of harm to the local economies the spotted owl and the delta smelt are two oft-cited cases. It was just assumed that the species plight warranted protection.   Acting on the outrage of his constituents and using his law enforcement background New Mexico State Representative Dennis Kintigh gathered a group of independent scientistsseveral from area universitieswho have spent the last several months reviewing the science underlying the listing. On Monday August 15 their report was released in a public meeting in a roundtable format with the scientists available for questions. Combining Kintighs FBI skills with the scientists expertise the team is exposing fatal flaws in the proposed rule that should bring every previous listing and the entire process into question. One of the biggest concerns is the supposedly independent peer review of the science on which the proposed rule is based. The Federal Register states:

It is the policy of the services to incorporate independent peer review in listing and recovery activities."

To the average citizen the underlying science may appear to have that independent peer review as five different universities are listed as offering review however no names of the individuals or their qualifications are provided. The anonymous peer review process is routine in scientific journals but in such settings there is an established and trusted editorial board and reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest. But in Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings the public should be appalled by the shroud of secrecy. This decision involves public money and has a large potential for direct economic impact on the surrounding communities and to a lesser extent the whole country. At the least peer review needs to be transparent. Better yet would be a process where advocates from each side can clash openly before independent decision makers. Due to the Kintigh investigation it has been discovered that at least two of the independent" reviewers have conflicts of interest: Dr. Lauren Chan and Dr. Howard Snellthey wrote the foundational studies for the proposal. Is it likely that someone who wrote the study could review the rule and question the accuracy of his or her own work? The five unattributed peer reviews of the ESA listing proposal provided online have two positive reviews two with minimal comments and one that contains devastating criticisms. We can assume that the complimentary reviews were from Chan and Snell. The latter is from Texas A & M University which questions the sampling process and finds many unwarranted conclusions. However nowhere are these criticisms addressed. In researching the process it was discovered that for ESA the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) doesnt go through what the science community would call peer review." They have an internal peer review"FWS checks over FWSs own work. The agency does not disclose the identity of the report writer or the peer reviewers." Officially no one knows who wrote the proposed rulethough investigation indicates that it was written by FWS staffer Debra Hillmeaning she has no accountability. Additionally her husband is the author of some of the researchwhich brings into question her ability to be independent. Whoever wrote the proposed rule clearly wanted the lizard listed as the document is filled with contradiction and speculation but it was issued anyway. In the proposed listing it states:

We do not know the magnitude or imminence of the direct or indirect impacts of competition and climate change on the status of the species at this time. However we consider exposure to oil and gas pollutants to be a threat to the species throughout its range both now and continuing into the foreseeable future."

Wait you the unknown author are willing to destroy the regional economy based on we do not know" and we consider"? In other cases the word likely" is used to describe a population reduction. Elsewhere it is stated that the species is persisting." Could" can" we believe"… One example of the contradictions within the listing rule is in reference to the pipelines found in the habitat area and used in oil and gas activities. Early in the pipeline section it states: It is not known how dunes sagebrush lizards utilize pipelines." Then in the concluding comments it says that pipelines are a significant threat" Additionally one of the studies the rule is based on indicates that the lizards like pipelines and service roads: …pipeline cuts and sand roads serve as preferred habitat…" The Kintigh report has these comments in the closing:

The committee was surprised by the contradictions the data presented. There is a clear lack of an unequivocal sense about the actual range of the species and habitats preferred. There is surprising information that anthropogenic activities may well enhance habitat preferred by the species. Other examples of inadequate reporting or outright error can be found in the body of the committee report."

How would you feel if your family lost the farm because the needed water was diverted to save the smelt or your livelihood was taken away because of the spotted owl and you discovered that like the dunes sagebrush lizard the ESA listing was based on secrecy speculation and contradiction? It is imperative that the process be brought out into the open. In short the proposed rule plays on fear uncertainty and doubt and fails to scientifically show that the lizard is endangered or is negatively impacted by human activity.