NWF’s Yakima River salmon and ecosystem restoration project in Washington state, led by Steve Malloch,  is a good example of how this kind of engagement with local communities pays off.  As this editorial by the conservative Seattle Times points out, the conservation community has negotiated a very promising deal with farmers and the Native American tribe in the Yakima basin.  Declining snow pack and other impacts of climate change on local hydrology poses huge threats to the livelihoods of farmers as well as to the future of the salmon that the Yakima Nation tribe depends upon. These threats caused everyone – the farmers, the Yakama Nation, conservationists and government at all levels – to take a new look at how to manage the water.

Yakima River

This formula for achieving  broad support of a new water management policy may not work everywhere, but in this basin, it is the only way to create a more resilient ecosystem and economy – good for fish, farmers, forests and families.

Much has been written on how this might be accomplished. Rather than summarize the literature, I’d like to focus on an exciting development that offers great promise for movement building: the explosion of hands-on habitat restoration and wildlife gardening being carried out in urban and suburban communities around the nation.

Redefining the Conservation Base

In Fayetteville, Arkansas, for example, community volunteers and local officials have committed to provide habitat for wildlife on over 250 sites, including city parks, school yards, backyards, businesses and even wastewater treatment plants. The mayor attends the dedication of every Schoolyard Habitat® and educates school kids about the importance of conserving wildlife. As a result of these volunteer-driven efforts, the National Wildlife Federation has certified Fayetteville as a Community Wildlife Habitat.

Fayetteville volunteers and officials celebrate the city’s certification as Community Wildlife Habitat.

I anticipate that many readers of this blog will wonder why I would bring up hands-on neighborhood improvement efforts in a discussion of the environmental movement. After all, the term “movement” implies collective political action, doesn’t it? A search of the 150 most recent U.S. news articles using the terms “environmental movement” and “conservation movement” reveals that this indeed has been the connotation: 91 percent used the term in a political or policy context.

I wonder whether by defining itself in political and policy terms and excluding community cleanups and other hands-on volunteer work, the movement has understated its scope and influence—and perhaps even turned people away. A March 2010 Gallup poll found that the proportion of Americans who were either active in, or sympathetic to, the environmental movement had declined from 71 percent to 61 percent between 2000 and 2010. Those who were neutral toward the movement rose from 23 to 28 percent and those unsympathetic went from 5 to 10 percent. Gallup attributed these changes in part to increased political polarization.

Historian Christopher Sellers reminds us that environmental causes were “extraordinarily popular” in the 1960s and 1970s. Inspired by Rachel Carson’s landmark book Silent Spring, environmentalists rallied suburbanites around excessive pesticides and other direct threats to their personal well-being. Sellers argues that for the environmental movement to regain widespread acceptance, it must return to its suburban roots and refocus on local concerns. According to Sellers, even climate change can be placed in a local context.

Easy Steps with Concrete Outcomes Lead to Increased Engagement

I mostly agree, except I think it would be naïve to believe that many of the people who are currently uninvolved with conservation issues will immediately leap into the political fray once global issues are reframed as local ones. A key lesson from the behavioral researchis that education on the issues, by itself, rarely stimulates action. Many people fail to take action on the environment despite being both knowledgeable and concerned. Behavioral change typically comes about after an individual completes small first steps and sees positive and concrete outcomes.

Virginia volunteer displays oysters he helped to grow for the benefit of Chesapeake Bay

This is one of the reasons why I am so excited about the volunteer habitat restoration and wildlife gardening projects that are now proliferating across the country. The actions are very manageable and they produce very tangible outcomes that benefit local quality of life.

One project that impresses me is the recent effort to restore a nature education facility in Atlanta led by the West Atlanta Watershed Alliance, with support from the National Wildlife Federation’s Earth Tomorrow program. The Outdoor Activity Center, sited in one of the largest urban forests in Atlanta, was falling into disrepair when WAWA and Earth Tomorrow volunteers stepped in to remove invasive plants, prepare wildlife gardens, install bird feeders and repair trails and foot bridges. The facility is now providing a site for science-oriented field trips for Atlanta public schools as well as serving as a nature oasis for the local community.

Volunteers plant trees for nature center in West Atlanta

Positioning Ourselves for Success with Wildlife and Habitats

As volunteer efforts proliferate, a key challenge for local leaders and their partners in conservation organizations will be to design projects that measurably improve the condition of imperiled wildlife species and habitats. One example of how this might be accomplished comes from the Chesapeake Bay watershed, near Washington, D.C. where I live. In the Oyster Gardening Program, volunteers in Maryland and Virginia sign up with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation(CBF) to grow oysters in rivers and streams in their communities. Volunteers place seed oysters into cages and install the cages at private docks, community piers and marinas. After a year and inch or two of growth, the volunteers return the oysters to CBF, which then plants them in a sanctuary (non-harvestable) reef. As the reef grows, CBF will be able to quantify the oysters’ role in filtering the bay and restoring it to health.

A key focus for the National Wildlife Federation is finding ways to achieve similarly measurable and achievable gains for species and habitats in cities and suburbs. As is the case around the globe, metropolitan areas in the U.S. are generally located in biologically rich locations, with roughly 60 percent of the nation’s imperiled species found there. The urban and suburban residents who are willing to get their hands dirty to improve local parks, school yards and other open spaces will be key to our success in conserving imperiled wildlife.

Over time, as more citizens become engaged in stewarding their local land, water and wildlife and become better connected with conservation organizations, the clout of the environmental movement will grow. For some citizens, a degree of engagement with politics will flow from hands-on stewardship work, since politics can so easily jeopardize hard-won progress. Others may want to focus solely on achieving on-the-ground progress and will want to steer clear of politics. In fact, given the political context in which many people in the U.S. and around the globe operate, this may be the only feasible way to have an impact in the near term.

Conservation organizations should be willing to accept these volunteers and work with them on their terms. If they do, and legions of local stewards become better integrated into the broader environmental movement, the cause of conservation will greatly benefit.

Editor’s note: This essay was also published at the Nature of Cities blog.

An Expert Opinion?

It is March 2009, a time of great promise and hope. The Obama Administration, fresh off its historic electoral victory, committed itself to tackling climate change with comprehensive legislation, as did the top leaders in both the House and Senate. For the first time ever, successful enactment of legislation capping carbon emissions across the U.S. economy seemed like a realistic possibility. Given that scientists were already sounding the alarm about how climate change and ocean acidification were disrupting the natural systems that support people and wildlife, the stakes could not have been higher.

Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), on the eve of their release of the bill known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, scheduled a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 25 to discuss a key issue that would be addressed by their bill, climate change adaptation. The National Wildlife Federation was invited to testify because we were leading a coalition advocating for the “polluter pays” principle of adaptation, in which the costs of helping natural and human communities cope with the damage caused by carbon pollution are paid for by selling carbon emissions permits to polluters. I had the responsibility of preparing my boss, National Wildlife Federation CEO Larry Schweiger, to appear before the committee.

One might have expected that the top Republicans on the committee, closely allied with fossil fuel interests opposed to the Waxman-Markey effort, would populate their witness slots with highly articulate experts on climate science or policy. The lobbyists fighting climate action could certainly have produced well-compensated spokespeople with in-depth knowledge of the issues.  Instead,  the Republicans put forward the Right Honorable Lord Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a British politician affiliated with the oil industry-funded Heartland Institute, and Calvin Beisner, a former theology professor now with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an advocacy group funded by the oil industry.

Both witnesses attacked the idea that global warming is caused by human activities and represents a serious societal problem, without offering any peer-reviewed scientific studies to support their position. Instead, they spoke in value-laden terms about the supposed job-creating benefits of free markets and about how wrongheaded economic policies hurt the poor. Thus, for example, Lord Monckton, criticizing the idea of setting a price on carbon emissions through cap and trade legislation, argued that “protectionist tariffs are the last resort of the economically-illiterate and the politically-desperate.”  Mr. Beisner tried to show that global warming is not an important policy problem by relying on his interpretation of scripture:

The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and providential preservation and therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating–like the product of any good engineer who ensures that the systems he designs have positive and negative feedback mechanisms to balance each other and prevent small perturbations from setting off a catastrophic cascade of reactions.  To assume that man can control the world’s climate is a very dangerous and a very arrogant position. It reminds me of the biblical story of the Tower of Babel when man thought they could build a tower to reach God. It was in their arrogance that they thought they could do things that only God can do.

Why would the opponents of this high-stakes legislation put forward witnesses so obviously unqualified to speak about the science and policy of climate change?  My conclusion is that the Republican leaders and their industry allies were aware that no one of importance was paying attention to the hearing and so they invested little time in preparing for it.  Also, to the extent that anyone was paying attention, the messages about free markets and adherence to scripture communicated a commitment to values that are deeply held by many conservatives.

A Facts vs. Values Approach

The key lesson I drew from the hearing, and from my other experiences working to shape national climate change policy, is that sharing technical knowledge and information with policy elites accomplishes very little. Winning a national policy solution to the climate crisis requires communicating about values. And it requires aiming those communications toward people who are not already committed, through financial compensation or otherwise, at opposing action on climate change.

A recent paper by Kahan et al. provides insights on how to communicate, and how not to communicate, with the large numbers of people who are not partisans in the fight against climate change action. Using statistical analysis, they demonstrate that increased exposure to scientific data does not change the perception of risk from climate change. As they become exposed to increasing amounts of data, those with “hierarchical individualist” values are likely to choose the data points that support their worldview, and those with “egalitarian communitarian” values are likely to choose data points consistent with their worldview.

If instead we speak to these nonpartisans in terms of values that all of us share–such as making the world a safe place for the people and wildlife that inherit it from us–then we have a real chance of mobilizing the kind of action on climate change that we need.

Take action to protect cherished wildlife from global warming, and as you do, check out NWF’s efforts to connect with a core value held by our supporters and the many others concerned about the future of  wildlife: the value of protecting wildlife for future generations.

The Deepwater Horizon rig before sinking (photo: Ideum/Flickr)

The trial was set to begin this week, but it was postponed to allow more time for settlement talks between BP and its co-defendants on the one side, and the U.S., the five Gulf states, and numerous injured people and businesses on the other.

The stakes for people and wildlife have never been higher in an environmental lawsuit.

The explosion at BP’s Macondo well was by far the largest environmental disaster in the U.S. history; the well gushed 206 million gallons of oil, nearly 20 times the amount released by the Exxon Valdez.

Among other harmful effects of the Gulf disaster on wildlife and natural resources, it badly damaged coastal wetlands that provide nurseries for much of the Gulf’s seafood and shellfish.

The oil continues to wash ashore and will do so for many years, causing untold damage to wetlands and other sensitive ecosystems. The remaining oil continues to threaten populations of whales, dolphins, sea turtles, deep sea corals and a host of other marine species.

Will BP and its Co-Defendants Be Held Responsible for Restoring the Gulf?

If the right amount of money and the right legal framework for Gulf restoration can be secured, and the costs and uncertainties of trial can be avoided, settlement of the environmental claims would be a very positive thing. However, government attorneys face all kinds of pressures to settle cases on terms that shortchange the environment.

Ultimately, it is up to our elected officials – President Obama and the five Gulf state governors – to ensure that justice is truly done for the Gulf, its wildlife, and the many people who depend on the Gulf’s health for their livelihoods and quality of life.

Sea turtle swims through oily gulf waters, May 2010

According to the relevant environmental laws (described below), BP and its co-defendants are responsible not only for fully restoring the Gulf’s natural resources to their pre-spill condition, but also for many billions of dollars of civil and criminal penalties based on the magnitude of the spill and the recklessness of the behavior that caused it.

Fairness and common sense dictate – as the official oil spill commission and other major studies all have called for, and as the President has promised – that those billions be directed back to the Gulf Coast as a much-needed down payment toward rectifying the decades of environmental insults inflicted upon the ecosystem by the oil industry and others.

Good public process also mandates ensuring citizen oversight and scientific input into the many decisions affecting the health of the Gulf that will be made over the course of settlement implementation. And, given the many unknowns about future impacts of the Gulf disaster on wildlife and natural resources, any deal also must contain a strong reopener provision, one with an enforceable trigger and a reliable funding mechanism to remedy environmental problems if impacts prove to be worse than predicted.

Some commentators have suggested that a $15-$30 billion settlement amount is likely. As discussed below, such amounts may prove to be inadequate. As the details emerge about the government’s draft plan to restore the Gulf to its pre-spill condition, it may become apparent that tens of billions of dollars are needed for this purpose alone. Civil and criminal penalties will add tens of billions of additional liability. The key principles of criminal law – deterring future bad behavior and expressing society’s condemnation of wrongdoing – both must come into play here. Given BP’s financial resources – it netted $25.7 billion in profits in 2011 – the Obama administration and the five Gulf states should make full use of their authorities to secure settlement payments large enough to send a powerful message about the seriousness of the disaster that BP and its co-defendants created.

Factors to Consider in Evaluating a Proposed Settlement

Recent reports suggest that settlement talks about environmental claims are on a much slower track than those involving the tort and admiralty claims filed by individuals and businesses; however, a settlement deal on the environmental claims could emerge in the coming weeks.

If and when a proposed settlement is announced, NWF will insist that it be placed before the public for review and comment before it is finalized. This topic is far too important to be left entirely in the hands of a small number of decision makers in a closed-door settlement conference in New Orleans.

At this juncture, before the details of any settlement are released, reaching any conclusion about what would be a fair settlement amount for the environmental portion of BP’s and its co-defendants’ liability is extremely difficult. Rather than attempting to reach such a conclusion, I will focus on some of the key factors that must be considered.

Lesson Learned: Don’t Trust the Assessments of BP and its Allies

During the first year of the nation’s largest oil spill disaster, BP invested enormous sums in creating the false impression that the devastation in the Gulf was not so bad and that everything was under control.

For example, BP estimated that a mere 1,000 barrels were gushing from the Macondo well each day; the actual figure turned out to be 53,000.

As we approach the second anniversary, BP is at it again, launching 60 second commercials and online ads peddling its “ongoing commitment” to clean up the Gulf and preaching how all is well there. A key task in evaluating any settlement will be ensuring that it confronts the real problems facing the Gulf ecosystem and does not adopt the BP approach of sweeping problems under the rug.

Tallying up the Environmental Law Violations

Three types of payments for environmental law violations must be assessed against BP and its co-defendants: cleanup costs, restoration costs and civil and criminal penalties.

The oil spill particularly affected the Mississippi River Delta. (Image: Louisiana Governor's Office)

2. Restoration costs. The Oil Pollution Act states that the responsible parties must pay the costs of restoring natural resources back to the condition they were in at the time of the disaster.

Restoring the Gulf will be an extremely complex enterprise; no one has ever attempted to rectify an environmental disaster of this magnitude. Some of the natural resources destroyed by the oil, such as wetlands at the very edge of the Mississippi delta, do not appear to be replaceable at their original locations, and so difficult judgments must be made about which newly-restored habitats would create resources of equivalent value.

Although a few relatively small early restoration projects have been identified, the full federal restoration plan is not expected to be completed until late 2012 at the earliest. Until that plan’s restoration actions and costs are vetted with the public, it is very difficult to estimate what kind of payment will be needed to truly restore the Gulf back to its condition in April 2010. For now, the best guide is the settlement agreement in the next-largest oil disaster in the country, the grounding of the Exxon Valdez tanker in April 1989. In that case, the per-gallon amount paid by Exxon for restoration Alaska’s Prince William Sound was $152 (inflation-adjusted to reflect today’s dollars). Assuming the parties to the Gulf disaster negotiation settle at roughly the same per-gallon amount for the 206 million gallons released from the Macondo well, a restoration payment in the amount of $31 billion would be in order.

Some will argue that focusing on the Exxon Valdez settlement amount obscures the important differences between Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Mexico. It is true that oil breaks down more rapidly in the warm water of the Gulf than in the cold water in Alaska. And it is true that restoration work in Alaska required costly transportation of people and infrastructure from the lower 48 states. On the other hand, there are challenges in the Gulf that did not exist in Prince William Sound, such as the impacts of large volumes of dispersants, the difficulty of skimming off lighter crude, and the near impossibility of removing oil from wetlands.

Ultimately, the methodology for calculating restoration costs in the Gulf needs to be much more sophisticated than applying the Alaska per-barrel restoration cost in the Gulf. However, looking at the per-barrel cost in Alaska tells an important story about how very expensive restoration projects can be.

3.  Civil and Criminal Penalties. The third and final category of environmental payments are the civil and criminal penalties owed under the applicable environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. These penalties provide a critical mechanism for addressing the legacy of environmental injuries inflicted on the Gulf by the oil industry and others.

In estimating a fair settlement amount under these statutes, it is crucial to evaluate the evidence of whether BP and any of its co-defendants were grossly negligent in their operation of the Macondo well. A finding of gross negligence would lead to substantially higher civil penalties under the Clean Water Act and a greater likelihood of criminal prosecution as well.

Few if anyone would dispute that BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and cement contractor Halliburton Energy Services Inc. share the blame for taking unnecessary risks at the Macondo well. Investigations performed by the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior and the presidentially-appointed oil spill commission all concurred that a host of reckless actions by these companies to save time and money led inexorably to the disastrous blowout. The facts of the case clearly point to gross negligence.

Clean Water Act Penalties

The Clean Water Act provides for a minimum civil fine of $1,100 per barrel of oil discharged into navigable waters by owners, operators, or persons in charge of offshore facilities or vessels. However, for any defendant found to be grossly negligent or engaged in willful misconduct, the penalty is $4,300 per barrel spilled. Thus, with 4.1 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf and a likely gross negligence finding against BP and Transocean, one could reasonably expect civil Clean Water Act liability for these defendants at up to $17.6 billion each. Liability for the other owners and operators would likely be substantially lower.

Oil against booms in Louisiana Marsh, June 2010

It is appropriate to think in terms of billions of dollars when considering criminal liability for BP, Transocean and Halliburton under the Clean Water Act, however.

University of Michigan Professor David Uhlmann, former chief of the Justice Department’s environmental crimes unit, states that “a multi-billion-dollar criminal fine for BP is likely.”  Moreover, according to Professor Uhlmann, “the total criminal sentence – a combination of fines, restitution and restoration projects – may reach into the tens of billions of dollars.” Uhlmann characterizes the Gulf oil spill as “the most significant environmental case ever prosecuted.”

In deciding what kind of settlement of Clean Water Act criminal penalties is acceptable, prosecutors will consider not only the defendants’ negligence, but also ability to pay, the unprecedented damage to the environment caused by the defendants’ actions, the need to deter future violations and the need for society to make a strong expression of condemnation.

With these factors in mind, and based on the facts publicly available, I estimate that a fair settlement of civil and criminal penalties under the Clean Water Act would require a combined payment of well over $25 billion from all defendants, with BP contributing the lion’s share in light of its ability to pay.

MBTA, MMPA, ESA and OCSLA

A Brown Pelican covered in oil.

Ensuring that Clean Water Act Civil Penalties are used for Gulf Restoration

Under the Clean Water Act, civil penalties recovered by the federal government due to oil spills are deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, where they may be used for oil spill cleanups anywhere in the country. This provision is problematic in this case, where fairness calls for using penalties now to remedy the legacy of environmental harms inflicted on the Gulf of Mexico by the oil and gas industry and others.

To ensure that Clean Water Act civil penalties are invested in Gulf recovery, Senators Landrieu, Shelby, Nelson and others have introduced the Restore the Gulf Coast Act of 2011 (RESTORE). The bipartisan bill, which dedicates 80% of potential Clean Water Act civil penalties to restoration of the Gulf, has already cleared a key committee and is poised for a possible full Senate floor vote as part of the transportation bill. National Wildlife Federation is part of a broad coalition of organizations strongly supporting RESTORE in part because we believe it is the surest way to ensure that Clean Water Act penalties are not diverted to the federal treasury.

If Congress fails to pass RESTORE, two settlement strategies are potentially available to direct necessary funds to restoration. First, the CWA enables the EPA to negotiate a settlement in which penalties are reduced in return for the violator making a contribution of a similar amount to environmental restoration projects in the affected area. An advantage of this “Supplemental Environmental Projects” approach is that the projects are identified at the time of the settlement and thus the government can ensure that financial resources are focused on Gulf restoration. The recent CWA settlement with MOEX, an owner of a small share of the Macondo well, shows that the government can use the SEP tool to keep at least some CWA civil penalties in the Gulf.

Second, the government plaintiffs can potentially structure a settlement to ensure that the bulk of payments are made by defendants pursuant to environmental laws other than the CWA civil penalty provisions, such as the Oil Pollution Act and the CWA criminal penalty provisions.

Dolphins swim next to oil booms at Petit Bois Island, MS, June 2010 (via Flickr's Deepwater Horizon Response)

The clock is ticking. Coastal Louisiana is currently losing an average of 16.5 square miles of wetlands each year, due in part to oil and gas development. The BP disaster worsens this situation because oil kills the vegetation that holds wetlands together. If no restoration is undertaken, scientists estimate the state could lose an additional 1700 square miles over the next 50 years, with the resulting loss of vital habitats and a crucial storm buffer for New Orleans and other communities.

BP and its co-defendants owe a very large debt to the nation for the April 2010 disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, probably well in excess of the $15- $30 billion estimate put forward by some in the media.

Help ensure that the Gulf ecosystem and its wildlife benefit from any BP settlement >>

Standing on top of another decapitated mountain.

Last week I travelled to Charleston West Virginia to see mountaintop removal coal mining. I saw the scale of mining underway and was taken aback. No community should be forced to tolerate this amount of environmental destruction.

The mountain forests and streams of Appalachia are magical places, with some of the richest biodiversity in North America. In my hikes through these forests, I have been fascinated by dazzling array of salamanders, crayfish, mussels and other unique aquatic species. Much of this treasure is now at risk because of mountaintop removal (MTR) mining.

What Is Mountaintop Removal?

MTR involves the removal of coal seams by destroying the forest, soil and rocks laying above them. This differs from traditional mining, where miners get to the coal with underground methods and leave the vast majority of the mountain undisturbed. The enormous amount of waste from MTR – 16 tons of material is displaced for every ton of coal mined - is either placed back on the ridge or dumped into neighboring valleys in a process known as “valley fill.”  Valley fills have caused the destruction of nearly2,000 miles of streams in Appalachia.

Because the region’s thick, easy-to-reach seams of coal are running out, coal companies in Appalachia are abandoning traditional mining and rapidly expanding MTR operations. In this respect, MTR closely parallels the oil industry’s shift to the more environmentally destructive deepwater drilling in the face of disappearing onshore and shallow water reserves.

As this map shows, nearly 1.2 million acres, an area roughly the size of Delaware, has now been heavily mined in Appalachia in large part due to the explosion of MTR mining. Dozens of permit applications for additional large-scale MTR projects are pending before state and federal regulators.

It is sad enough to think so many children from West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia could grow up without knowing the solace of a healthy mountain forest or without enjoying fishing in a vibrant mountain stream. But the consequences of MTR go beyond the loss of wildlife heritage.  Appalachian communities are now increasingly exposed to dangerous flooding as the forests that absorb and filter rainwater are removed.  Residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites increasingly complain of orange and black tap water flowing from their faucets.  Meanwhile, a series of studies are emerging that suggest a disturbing connection between MTR and birth defects, cancer and other health problems.  

What You Can Do

Downhill from mountaintop removal, a lifeless stream

So how can everyday citizens help turn this situation around?  The first thing we can do is insist that the coal companies and state and federal agencies comply with environmental, health and safety laws.  Write to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at this address and insist that she veto any pending applications for MTR projects until new rules are put in place to protect people and their environment and compliance with the Clean Water Act is achieved. In particular, Administrator Jackson should reinstate the rule protecting streams from “valley fills” that was arbitrarily revoked by the Bush Administration in 2002.

To become an effective advocate, it helps to become more informed.  To study up more on this issue, I recommend the documentary “The Last Mountain,” starring Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Goldman Prize winner Maria Gunnoe, and a host of other leading voices in the MTR fight.

Once you hear these voices and see the images, it will be hard to sit on the sidelines.

On the overall subject of environmental protection, the mood in the House of Representatives lately is surly at best. For example, several months ago, in passing the spending bill for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the House attached over a dozen bad policy “riders” designed to weaken protections for air, water and wildlife. This week, the House is at it again, with a proposed 2012 spending bill for the Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency that cuts deeply into the funds these agencies need to operate and again removes a host of environmental safeguards.

But one of the provisions in this bill raised serious alarm bells.   It would have prevented the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services from designating new species and critical habitats for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The ESA is the nation’s safety net for its most imperiled wildlife.  This law is one of the key reasons why treasured species such as the bald eagle (our nation’s symbol), Florida panther, American alligator, whooping crane and several populations of Pacific salmon remain on the planet today.  It also protects habitats that provide us with recreational opportunities, drinking water, flood protection and a host of other benefits.  More than 250 additional species, such as the wolverine and walrus, are heading toward extinction and may only survive if they receive scheduled ESA attention.

Some members of Congress don’t think much about the fate of wolverines and walruses.  All they know is that they dislike the ESA because it requires their big industry friends to slow down their activities while expert biologists identify threats to species survival and  find ways to modify projects to minimize those threats. When these anti-ESA House members inserted the noxious provision denying protections to species in trouble, Representative Norm Dicks and his allies in the conservation advocacy community leapt into action.  They reminded the House of Representatives of their fundamental obligation to protect wildlife for their children and future generations. And today, a bipartisan majority of the House listened and restored ESA protections.

Given all of the bad news coming out of Washington these days, this was surprising to me.  I like surprises.

Pacific Fisher: WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently announced that it has resolved a host of lawsuits concerning deadlines it missed to protect wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

As someone working to defend and strengthen our nation’s premier wildlife protection law, I am pleased by this news.

Moving Endangered Species Out of Purgatory

For many years, hundreds of species – species like the Pacific fisher (see right), a beautiful weasel-like carnivore inhabiting the Western U.S. - have sat in the purgatory known as the “candidate species list.” The USFWS designates certain wildlife as “candidates” for listing when it finds that, despite their imperiled condition, it has higher priorities.

As a result, species that need extra attention and protection do not make it onto the ESA list.

The absence of Endangered Species Act safeguards for these creatures means habitat destruction continues unabated, the costs and difficulties of recovery continue to grow, and the possibility of extinction in our lifetimes becomes even more real.

USFWS to Decide on Fate of 250 Candidate Species in Six Years

As part of the settlement, the USFWS commits to clearing up the entire backlog of more than 250 candidate species within six years.

This means that for most of these species, action under the Endangered Species Act will finally be taken to rescue them from extinction.

It also means that the expert biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be working on protecting species rather than wasting precious resources defending the agency’s failure to meet its court deadlines.

Ultimately, it will be exciting to see what we as a nation can accomplish in restoring these and other crucial parts of our natural heritage once the tools and resources of the Endangered Species Act become available for all imperiled species.

Read More

• About the Endangered Species Act
• What is the National Wildlife Federation Doing to Protect and Strengthen the Endangered Species Act?

The Players

Utilities annually dump millions of tons of carbon pollution into our atmosphere and oceans (via Eutrophication & Hypoxia on Flickr)

On one side of the case we had five biggest electric power utilities in the country, who annually dump millions of tons of carbon pollution into our atmosphere and oceans, 10 percent of the nation’s total carbon emissions.    Their attorneys rejected the idea of courts grappling with the harm this causes – they said that carbon pollution is a matter best handled by EPA.   This is an interesting and ironic argument coming from the very special interests who are working in Congress every day to prevent EPA from taking action.

On the other side of the case – the side in favor of the courts taking action – was the Solicitor General of the State of New York, who argued on behalf of several states, one city and several land trusts, all of whom are experiencing sea level rise and a host of other negative effects of climate change on their people and natural resources.   The New York attorney essentially asked the same questions we here at NWF have been asking.

The Critical Questions

Isn’t it past time that we held the polluters accountable?   Isn’t it wrong that they can cause all of this harm to our planet and our kids’ future and no one tells them to stop or even cut back?  This is the exact situation that the common law doctrine of “nuisance” was designed for – it was designed to empower the courts to fashion a remedy for environmental harms in cases where the legislature and executive fail to act.

What will the Court do in response to this compelling moral and legal argument?  It is always difficult to predict the outcome of court cases, but my guess, based on the comments and questions from the Justices, is that they will rule against taking action on global warming under the common law and, in particular, they will find that the courts’ power to limit carbon pollution under the common law has been “displaced” by Congress and the Executive.

NWF would be absolutely thrilled if these two branches took on the fight against climate change and displaced the role of the courts.  But right now Congress appears to be immobile at best on climate change, and although EPA is thankfully beginning to take action, it has not yet gotten around to dealing with existing power plants and some in Congress appear determined to stop it from doing so.   Until Congress and the EPA take action, the states and land trusts have every right to ask the courts to impose limits on the amount of carbon pollution that the large utilities emit.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Kirtland's warbler

Now is a perilous time for the Endangered Species Act.  Many members of Congress seem to have forgotten why this law was enacted in 1973 and why it remains the nation’s most important wildlife protection law.  Proposals to remove the safety net of protection for endangered species are flying around fast and furious.

Species Not Recovered in 15 Years? No More Protection Then

Last week Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) introduced a bill (H.R. 1042) that would lift Endangered Species Act protections from virtually any endangered or threatened species that does not experience significant population increases within its first 15 years after listing.

Baca is upset that the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, an endangered pollinator in his district, has not yet been declared recovered after 19 years on the Endangered Species Act list.

Rather than encouraging the constructive efforts underway in his district to strike a balance between developing real estate and protecting natural systems and the web of life, Baca would tip the balance entirely in favor of unfettered development.

Why the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Matters

I see several big problems with his thinking.  First, although pollinators are not always charismatic, they are essential to our health and well-being. According to a recent Senate resolution put forward by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), pollinators help to produce roughly one-third of the food consumed in the United States and help to reproduce at least 80 percent of flowering plants.

If we decide we cannot afford to protect the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly when it starts plummeting to extinction, what makes us believe that we will have the will to protect the numerous other endangered pollinators that help maintain our food supply and our flowering gardens?

Recovery Takes Time. Ask the Bald Eagle and Kirtland’s Warbler

Second, the idea of throwing in the towel for any species that doesn’t show immediate signs of recovery after listing flies in the face of common sense and experience.

Many treasured wildlife species have benefitted from Endangered Species Act protections, but only after one or two decades of getting protection and recovery efforts kick-started.

For example, the bald eagle, our nation’s symbol, did not see a resurgence in its numbers until at least 15 years after it received the protection of the Endangered Species Act.  In Maine, for example, the number of eagles hovered around 30 to 50 for roughly two decades after listing, and then recovery efforts started bearing fruit and we now have more than 385 eagles gracing the skies there.

The number of Kirtland’s warbler males hovered around 200 for the first two decades after it was listed, then conservation efforts under the ESA finally paid off and now there are more than 1,700 across the bird’s range.

The Real Way to Deal With Concerns Of How Long It Takes to De-List Species

If members of Congress are truly concerned about the pace of endangered species recovery, there are plenty of ways to address this problem without resorting to the draconian step of pulling the plug and letting developers drive them to extinction.  Many species are listed only after their numbers have plummeted to dangerously low levels.  This delay in providing ESA protection makes recovery much more costly and difficult.  Congress could immediately reduce the cost and difficulty of recovery by helping conserve wildlife while populations are relatively abundant.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would do just the opposite – it would drastically cut many of the programs designed to conserve wildlife species before they become endangered.  This is a classic case of “penny wise and pound foolish” behavior – achieving small savings in the short term while setting us up for big costs over the long haul.

Take Action

Help us persuade Congress not to weaken endangered species protections and to restore funding for the Endangered Species Act and other crucial wildlife programs >>

What incredible images of this majestic animal, and what a great success story for the many conservationists who helped make these wildlife road crossings a reality.   With millions of miles of roads slicing up the American landscape, it is really exciting to see that we have now found a way to build tunnels, culverts and other crossings above and beneath roads to connect habitat areas, and that panthers and many other wildlife species are actually utilizing them.

The national movement to build wildlife crossings began with efforts by the National Wildlife Federation and others to protect the Florida panther from the harmful effects of converting State Road 84 to Interstate 75 across so-called Alligator Alley in the 1980s.  Working with its affiliate Florida Wildlife Federation and others, NWF attorneys filed a lawsuit and ultimately persuaded the Department of Transportation to add 23 wildlife crossings to the project’s design.  Completed in the early 1990s, these crossings have been essential to allow Florida panthers and other wildlife to move through their habitats and avoid collisions with vehicles.   They also have served as a model for wildlife crossings efforts around the country and around the world.

Another exciting piece of Florida panther news was the announcement that 2010 was a year with a record number of panther kitten births.  According to state wildlife officials, 29 documented Florida panther kittens were born in 2010, and another 30 to 40 likely were born to panthers without radio collars (and whose movements are therefore not being documented).  In contrast, just 11 documented panther kittens were born in 2009.  This population boomlet – the estimated total size is now around 160 cats, after having dropped to as low as 30 to 50 in the mid-1990s  - is due in part to the hard work of the National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, state and federal wildlife agencies, and many other conservation partners in the past few decades.

Despite receiving the protection of the Endangered Species Act in the 1970s, the panther was rapidly heading toward extinction in the 1990s because of genetic inbreeding (due to its small population size) and habitat loss (due to sprawling residential and commercial development).  To bolster the cat’s genetic diversity , and with the support of the conservation community, the state wildlife agency introduced western cougars (a close cousin of the Florida panther).  This genetic restoration has proved to a major wildlife success story that serves a model for wildlife managers worldwide.

Stopping development from destroying and fragmenting the panther’s habitat has been a much bigger challenge.  Until the recent financial downtown, southwest Florida was one of the most rapidly developing areas of the country.   Although the panther’s habitat was supposedly protected under the Endangered Species Act, some developers found creative ways to circumvent the law.   One strategy was to develop a self-serving and unscientific methodology for identifying important panther habitat.   The developers used this methodology, as well as political pressure tactics, to convince wildlife officials that panther habitat was not really panther habitat, thus leading to the destruction of thousands of acres of valuable habitat for sprawling golf course communities, roads and other development.  National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation and Florida Panther Society sprung into action.  We issued two scathing reports and won two major lawsuits that limited harmful development and highlighted the way that junk science had infected in permitting decisions.  Due in part to these efforts, wildlife officials are now using a more scientifically rigorous approach to identifying panther habitat.

Today, the panther is thankfully reproducing successfully and roaming across the southwest Florida landscape just as it has done for tens of thousands of years.  But it is hardly out of danger.  Roads and vehicle collisions continue to pose serious threats – in fact, 2010 was a near-record year for panther mortality due to vehicle collisions.   Despite occasional movements of male panthers into central Florida, the panther population is effectively boxed into a small portion of southern Florida and longtime calls by scientists to reintroduce the cat into other parts of its historic range do not yet appear to be gaining traction.  And the financial incentive for developers to build on the panther’s habitat on private land remains strong.

Fortunately, National Wildlife Federation (working at the national level) and Florida Wildlife Federation (working at the local level) continue to serve as vigilant advocates for the nation’s largest endangered cat.  Among other things, we are working to expand the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge.  Given the relatively low prices for land in south Florida, now is a rare opportunity to provide crucial habitat and expedite the protection and recovery of the Florida panther by expanding the boundaries of the 26,000-acre refuge. Click here if you would like to help us advocate for expansion of protected habitat for this special animal.