April 2008 page 3 Legislative and Advocacy News

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) adopted a resolution on 4 September 2007 concerning the teaching of alternatives to evolution in public school science classes. The resolution “affirms that the theory of evolution is the only current scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth for inclusion in the science curricula of public schools.”

Read the AFS Resolution

Proposed Revisions to Stream Buffer Zone Rule Draws Criticism from Stream Scientists

This past August, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) proposed a drastic change to rules for mountaintop mining in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement “Excess Spoil Minimization/Stream Buffer Zones.” The law currently states that land within 100 feet of a stream cannot be disturbed by mining unless a company can prove it will not adversely affect the water quality and quantity of the stream. However, under the new rule, companies would be allowed to conduct activities within that zone, including depositing material directly in streams, provided they mitigate the damage afterwards.

Thirty-six eminent stream scientists and the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO), the world’s largest professional society for aquatic sciences, disagree with the revised rule that OSMRE claims will “reduce the environmental impacts of surface coal mining.” In letters to the agency, the scientists and ASLO say that the Draft EIS is “fundamentally flawed” and “should be withdrawn and completely revised.”

The scientists express serious concerns that the conclusions of the EIS – namely, that allowing variances to the buffer zone rule would be “impact neutral” – are based on poor or non-existent data. The scientists argue that this claim in the EIS is particularly egregious considering “the overwhelming scientific evidence is that riparian buffer zones consisting of native vegetation communities are the best method for stream protection from disturbances upslope such as mining or logging.” Additionally, the scientists criticize OSMRE for consulting neither a stream ecologist nor an aquatic ecologist in preparing the Draft EIS, and offer their assistance to work with the agency in the future.

The OSMRE has received more than two thousand comments on the draft EIS. The agency extended the original 60-day comment period by 30 days for a close date of 23 November 2007. Further information regarding the rule, including the ability to submit comments, can be accessed at http://www.osmre.gov/.

Source: AIBS Policy Watch

UCS Sound Science Initiative (01/17/2008)

Endangered Species Act

High-ranking interior department official Julie McDonald resigned in May 2007 after an internal investigation criticized her for bullying and manipulating the work of federal scientists working to protect endangered species. Her resignation, while welcome, does not solve the broader problem of political interference in federal government science.

Following a hearing in the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, where Dr. Francesca Grifo, UCS Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program, testified, members of SSI wrote to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne calling for a systematic review of all recent decisions affecting endangered species in which MacDonald participated to ensure that the distorted science did not lead to an incorrect outcome.

The interior department recently announced it would revise seven ESA decisions (a tiny fraction of the decisions with evidence of interference) in which Julie MacDonald had participated, acknowledging that she had "inappropriate influence" in scientific determinations. Furthermore, the interior department's internal investigator is investigating an additional 18 ESA decisions based on strong evidence of interference in those decisions as well. UCS will continue to monitor these investigations and work to restore scientific integrity and ethics at the interior department.

UCS Scientific Integrity Program

With your help and the help of thousands of other scientists like you, the Union of Concerned Scientists is making progress in defending government scientists and science from political interference. At the same time, we know that significant responsibility for restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making will lie with the next president.

Over the next six months, presidential candidates will crisscross the county to try to gain your support. As president, what steps will these candidates take to restore scientific integrity to federal policy making? The 2008 presidential election provides a great opportunity to educate and engage the candidates and other voters on the importance of independent science to our health, safety, and environment.

We have developed several online resources to help you along the way, including:

Scientific integrity questions to ask the candidates: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/restoring/engaging-the-presidential.html

Scientific integrity policy solutions: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/restoring/solutions.html

Contact information for the 2008 presidential candidates: http://www.ucsusa.org/ucsaction/candidates2008.html