For Immediate Release:
February 15, 2002

Contact:
Bart Semcer, (202) 675-6696


        Sierra Club Letter to Congress Urges Continued Support for
                       Endangered Species Protection

Washington, D.C. -- Yesterday, Executive Director of the Sierra Club Carl
Pope sent a letter to key Capitol Hill lawmakers urging them to carefully
review the facts of endangered species conservation in Oregon's Klamath
Basin. For nearly a year, agribusiness has challenged efforts to implement
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and conserve three imperiled fisheries in
the Klamath Basin.  The recent release of an interim National Research
Council (NRC) report on the role that sound science played in fisheries
conservation efforts in the Klamath has revived attention on the manner in
which the ESA is working to conserve our nation's natural heritage.  The
text of Pope's letter follows.


Dear Representative:

Over the past week, the Endangered Species Act has come under increasing
attack from its detractors.  Opponents of the ESA are challenging a
decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service to halt some irrigation in the Klamath Basin of southern
Oregon in order to conserve three imperiled fisheries.  ESA opponents are
basing their arguments on a flawed interpretation of an interim National
Research Council report on the scientific basis for the FWS & NMFS
decision.  Some in Congress are now calling for radical revisions of the
ESA as a result.

The Endangered Species Act has proven itself to be one of our nation's most
effective laws for the conservation of our fish and wildlife resources.
Since the ESA was enacted more than a quarter century ago it has worked to
prevent further losses of our collective natural heritage and put many
species on the road to recovery.  A principal reason the ESA has been so
effective is because Congress required that decisions made under its
authority be based on the "best scientific data available."

We urge the Congress to continue to recognize the merits of a strong ESA
and not rush to judgement based on a preliminary report and inaccurate
statements made in the press.  First, Congress should recognize that this
is an interim report, which has not yet analyzed all of the scientific
information that was factored into the agencies' conservation efforts.
This document is by no means the final word on the legitimacy of agency
decision making.

Second, the ESA requires that agencies use the "best scientific data
available" when making their decisions.  The interim NRC report confirms
that the FWS and NMFS did this, but concludes that more information is
needed to effectively manage the natural resources of the Klamath Basin.
According to the NRC, the available science neither supports nor undermines
the case for withholding irrigation water for fisheries conservation.  Nor
does the information support or undermine the argument that releasing water
for irrigation would have no negative impact on the Klamath's imperiled
fisheries.  In it's 1995 report to Congress, Science and the Endangered
Species Act, the NRC concluded that "there will always be uncertainty in
the estimates of risk used to trigger decisions under the ESA, requiring
policies and processes for making decisions with incomplete and uncertain
data."  Such policies and processes are in place and allowed the FWS and
NMFS - as trustees of our fish and wildlife resources - to proceed
conservatively in an uncertain environment.

Third, the interim NRC report clearly states that all aspects of the
agencies' decision, with the exception of that to retain irrigation water
for fisheries conservation, are conclusively supported by the available
science.  At this stage in its investigation the NRC has indicated that the
FWS and NMFS generally made the right decisions based on the best available
science.  As the investigation progresses and all of the scientific
information that went into the decision to retain irrigation water for
fisheries conservation is analyzed, the NRC may well conclude that this
decision was justified as well.

Each of us has a responsibility to conserve our natural heritage for future
generations.  For more than a quarter century we have worked to meet this
responsibility by applying sound science to our endangered species
conservation efforts and we should continue to do so.  Contrary to what has
been reported in the press and by some members of Congress, the NRC report
on fisheries management in the Klamath Basin reveals not the use of flawed
science in agency decision making but rather a willingness to proceed
conservatively in how we manage scarce resources when faced with
inconclusive information.  Such an approach should be valued, not
discouraged.  To do the latter would both risk the loss of irreplaceable
natural resources and ignore our responsibility to future Americans.  On
behalf of Sierra Club's more than 700,000 members I urge you to reject the
baseless arguments being made against the Endangered Species Act and to
carefully review the facts of endangered species conservation in the
Klamath Basin.


                                   Sincerely,

                                   Carl Pope
              Executive Director, Sierra Club





Erin Jordahl
Director, Iowa Chapter Sierra Club
3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280
Des Moines, IA 50310
515-277-8868
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]