Federal Endangered Species Decisions Faulty

Congressman Doc Hastings, Endangered Species Act, ESA, Peer Review, Photo by Dave HarbourHouse Natural Resources Committee majority staff released a report today that questions the independence and accountability of  the peer review process in recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decisions.  The report entitled, “Under the Microscope: An examination of the questionable science and lack of independent peer review in Endangered Species Act listing decisions” studies the federal government’s peer review process for 13 different ESA listing decisions made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) since July 2013.  The report found numerous examples of potential bias and conflicts of interests with the peer reviewers and a lack of transparency and consistency in the peer review process. 

The decision of whether or not to list a species under the Endangered Species Act has significant implications for the economy and livelihoods of impacted communities and private landowners.  As such, these important decisions must be based on sound science that has undergone an independent peer review.  This report raises troubling concerns about the lack of independence of the peer review process and whether many current, upcoming or recently finalized listing decisions, such as the White Bluffs Bladderpod in my Central Washington district, are scientifically sound,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (NGP Photo).