WATCHDOG
Conflict of interest claims foul studies favoring more Sage Grouse protection

BY ETHAN BARTON |
MARCH 18, 2015 | 6:16 PM


Federal officials are using flawed studies as the basis for forthcoming regulatory decisions that could result in economic damage to western states, according to a coalition representing county governments and trade organizations from the region.

The coalition, led by the Western Energy Alliance, a nonprofit trade association, reported that the studies used selective, false and biased information. The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey are basing their decisions on listing the Greater Sage-Grouse as endangered on the flawed research.

The Greater Sage-Grouse is the largest of such birds and is found throughout the western U.S. and parts of Canada.

"We looked in-depth into the science that they're using and found very fundamental flaws," said Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs for Western Energy Alliance. "The agencies are proposing restrictions on economic activities that will put people out of work, and they're doing it on the basis of faulty science."

The coalition claimed the researchers who conducted the studies being used by federal officials were involved in conflicts of interest.
"It's a small group of scientists that have an idea of how public land should be managed," Sgamma said. "They've started advocating policies. It's conflicts of interest abound."

Sgamma noted that the researchers have accepted grant money from the agencies and simultaneously advocated for conservation.
As an example, Sgamma said peer reviewer Dr. Terry A. Messmer, a professor at Utah State University, claimed to have no conflicts of interest, but listed $2.3 million in contracts and grants from the government for Greater Sage-Grouse work from 2005 to 2012.
Another unidentified researcher nearly $253,000 in grants for sage-grouse research for the government.

The coalition said it was unable to obtain complete information on all the funding received by the researchers.

Putting the bird on the endangered species list would result in new government restrictions on land use for up to 186 million acres, including measures such as requiring four-mile buffers around the thousands of breeding grounds scattered throughout the western states, according to the coalition.

"You'll put a lot of activities off limits," Sgamma said. "That harms the livelihood of local communities."
Such activities include cattle grazing and energy operations, including both fossil fuel and alternative energy projects such as wind farms.

While the coalition is challenging the data used by the government, it is not arguing against the preservation of the birds.

Sgamma said state governments have taken "various measures that are tailored to the unique features of each state. Then, you have localities doing the same thing. Meanwhile, the government is coming with a one-size-fits-all approach."

The House Committee on Natural Resources issued a report December that said studies used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were conducted by researchers with similar conflicts of interest.

In a related development Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to use only publicly available science. Similarly, the chamber approved a measure Tuesday designed to ensure the independence of experts at the agency's Science Advisory Board, a panel that is supposed to provide professional assessments of studies used by the agency to justify its regulatory proposals.

The bill to ban "secret science," which passed 241-175, would prohibit the environmental agency from creating new regulations without making their underlying documentation public. The agency has long been been criticized for concealing its scientific evaluations, particularly those concerning emissions regulations.

The bill to increase the advisory board's integrity, which passed 236-181, bans registered lobbyists from being members and requires at least 10 percent of its members to be from state, local or tribal governments.

Voting on both bills primarily fell along party lines. Republicans argue that they will bring needed transparency to the agency, while Democrats claim they will force unnecessary and expensive limitations.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561711