Florida Panther (Photo: Rodney Cammauf/National Park Service)

The Importance of Environmental Review

One of the best tools we have to protect wildlife from harmful Corps projects is called “environmental review.” Established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—often called the “Magna Carta of environmental policy”—this process requires that the federal government consider the environmental impact of any project before deciding whether and how to proceed. When it works, it ensures that all federal projects (including water resources projects) are completed in a way that is better for wildlife, habitats, and public health. Environmental review is one of the most valuable tools we have to protect wildlife. 

However, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) — the legislation that Congress uses to guide Corps policy and say which water projects get built by the Army Corps of Engineers — is expected to be voted on by the Senate later this month, and significantly undermines environmental review.  This dangerous environmental streamlining makes it much harder for the public, scientists, and other agencies to have input on Corps projects. And not only does this bill make it harder to stop harmful Corps projects, it also fails to require the Corps to use non-structural and restoration solutions where they will work to solve a problem, despite the fact that these approaches would safeguard wildlife and habitats.  This legislation will have a negative impact on countless vulnerable species and undermine ongoing restoration and conservation efforts. 

Five reasons this bill is bad for wildlife

1. Undermines democracy by weakening public participation.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all Americans have a legal right to know about and have a say in federal decisions. The NEPA review process is the only way that the public — including hunters, anglers, gardeners, and other outdoor enthusiasts — get to tell the Corps how projects affect them and the wildlife they care about. This WRDA limits public comment periods to either 60 days or 30 days, depending on the type of environmental review. Environmental review statements are often hundreds of pages long and full of dense scientific language: 30 days is barely enough time to read and understand a review, let alone consult experts and submit informed public comments. In addition, this legislation is worded so broadly that it obstructs not only NEPA, but also reviews under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other landmark environmental laws.

2. Significantly hampers the ability of other agencies to improve Corps projects.

The environmental review process also requires other agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to weigh in on Corps projects. By setting arbitrary and unreasonably short deadlines for reviews, imposing higher level reviews of even technical disagreements, and fining agencies up to $20,000 a week for missing deadlines, this legislation makes it much, much harder for agencies to fully evaluate a Corps project. Good science takes time, and the way this legislation changes the environmental review process doesn’t give experts enough time to adequately evaluate the impacts that a project could have on vulnerable fish and wildlife.

3. Tilts the scales of the project permit review towards approval—regardless of potential environmental impacts.

By fining agencies for not meeting these arbitrary deadlines, this Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) penalizes agencies that undertake a full deliberation of important environmental issues.  We fear that, in order to avoid fines, agencies — already facing restricted budgets — will rush to complete reviews even without having all the needed information, increasing the likelihood that environmentally harmful projects will be approved.

4. Doesn’t address the real cause of Corps project delays.

Research has shown that the NEPA review process is not the main cause of delays in federal decisions and projects. Delays are really driven by funding constraints, the Corps’ $60–80 billion project backlog, and the Corps insisting on planning highly destructive and controversial projects when far less damaging approaches are available. Streamlining environmental review is not likely to accelerate completion of Corps projects; but it is highly likely to let Corps projects move forward without a full consideration of the impacts on public safety, wildlife, and ecosystems.

5. Fails to improve the safety of our communities by using floodplains and other natural resources to help protect people and wildlife.

Using low impact solutions — for example, reconnecting streams with floodplains, and other nonstructural restoration measures — is frequently more cost effective and better protects people, wildlife, and the many businesses that rely on healthy rivers, coasts, and wetlands. During the past 20 years, structural Corps projects have played havoc with the nation’s fish and wildlife resources.  During the same period, despite the construction of innumerable federal flood damage reduction projects, the nation’s flood damages have increased at an alarming rate. By continuing to promote environmentally destructive and costly structural projects even when a cheaper and safer nonstructural solution is available, this WRDA puts people and wildlife at risk.

Take Action

Tell your Senator to make sure the Water Resources Development Act is good for wildlife.

If the Keystone XL pipeline is constructed and tar sands development continues unchecked, some herds of Woodland Caribou could disappear in as little as 30 years. (Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

The Good

Thanks to the help of the many NWF members and activists who influenced their Senators, we beat back many bad environmental amendments and saw the Senate pass some positive ones.  We were especially pleased to see a majority of Senators stand up for the Clean Air Act by voting down amendments that would have struck down the Mercury Air Toxins standard and blocked agencies from curbing the pollution driving climate change. The Senate also passed amendments to insure that critical funds are available to prevent the risk of wildfires, increase funding for ARPA-E, which provides research funding for innovative energy technologies, increase the amount of funding for weatherization and energy efficiency programs, and help homeowners and small businesses mitigate against flood loss.

The Bad

Unfortunately, several amendments with harmful consequences for people and wildlife did pass.  One passed amendment undermines federal efforts to avoid the need to list the greater sage-grouse  under the Endangered Species Act.   And another amendment weakens the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—the landmark environmental law that requires every federal agency to consider the environmental impact of any government action—by saying that greenhouse gas emissions produced outside the United States by any good produced here (including fossil fuels) are not subject to the requirements of NEPA.

And finally, the Senate passed an amendment that expresses support for building the Keystone XL pipeline—something that will have a disastrous impact on the climate and on wildlife.

For more information on the Keystone amendment and to see how your Senator voter, click here and hold them accountable>>

The Amendments

Pro-environment actions

• Udall-Barasso Amendment 239 – passed by voice vote.  Ensures critical funds are available to help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which threaten communities and natural resources across the country
• Merkley Amendment 398 – passed by voice vote.  Increases the investment of government research dollars under the Department of Energy ARPA-E program
  
• Reed-Collins-Merkley Amendment 482 – passed by voice vote.  Increases the budget for weatherization and energy efficiency retrofit programs
  
• Coats-Manchin Amendment 514 – failed 46-53.  Undermines the Mercury/Air Toxins Standard under the Clean Air Act.
• Inhofe Amendment 359 – failed 47-52.  Proposes funding cuts to block agencies from curbing the pollution driving climate change.
• Menendez 619 – passed by voice vote.  Helps homeowners and small businesses mitigate against flood loss.

Anti-environment actions

A dozen bobcat subspecies range across North America. Photo Contest entry by Lori Tambakis.

Moreover, it recognizes the bipartisan legacy of the conservation movement.  As the plan says:

“This is a shared goal that many American leaders, including prominent Republicans, have consistently supported in order to protect the environment.  From President Theodore Roosevelt, who established national parks, forests and wildlife refuges, to President Nixon who created the EPA, to the bipartisan passage of laws to keep our air and water clean, leaders on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly come together to make our land and water healthier for their generation and generations to come.”

Specifically, the Senate budget plan:

• Invests in our clean energy future by recognizing the value of federal clean air regulation to public health, calling climate change “one of the largest threats to the health of the planet, and therefore the well-being of our families,” investing heavily in research and development of clean energy sources, and funding programs to make homes and offices more energy efficient. It also prepares for climate impacts by funding activities to aid in storm tracking and weather prediction and investing in disaster resiliency across the country.
• Recognizes the importance of public lands to our robust outdoor recreation economy and conservation legacy by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, enabling the reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, increasing funding for wildfire management and watershed recovery programs, and ensuring continued access to all our national parks.  It also invests in agriculture conservation programs and urges the passage of a Five Year Farm Bill, two measures key to preserving open spaces, and ensures appropriate funding for tribal land management.
• Ensures the continued safeguarding of our water resources by strongly funding large ecosystem restoration in the Great Lakes, the Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River, the Chesapeake Bay, Coastal Louisiana, the San Francisco Bay Delta, the Puget Sound, and elsewhere, recognizing the value of federal clean water regulation, and promising to update our declining water infrastructure.

It also replaces sequestration, the series of across the board spending cuts that went into effect on March 1.  Replacing the sequester is a crucial step towards ensuring vital conservation programs are funded at adequate levels. In addition, as seen in the chart below, although both the Senate and House budgets cut non-defense discretionary spending below Congressional Budget Office projections—and both keep NDD spending fairly flat over the next ten years—the Senate budget begins with about $100 billion more for NDD funding.

Source: CBO, Senate Budget Committee, House Budget Committee

The Senate Democrats’ budget isn’t perfect, yet it takes huge strides toward making conservation, protecting wildlife, and stopping carbon pollution key federal priorities. This is a promising plan, and we hope that Sen. Murray and the Senate Budget Committee continue to prioritize conservation as they shape budget legislation for fiscal year 2014.

Call your Senator today to make sure they protect wildlife in our federal budget.

Flooded wetlands in Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge after Hurricane Sandy (Flickr / US FWS)

The budget proposal says that the role of the federal government is to protect our communities and our families from “many dangers: rising health-care costs, a stagnant economy, a massive debt, an uncertain world,” and that “the first job of the federal government is to secure the safety of its citizens from threats at home and abroad.” We agree, and NWF works every day to better protect people, property, and the environment. However, NWF believes that certain policies outlined in Rep. Ryan’s budget proposal put Americans at greater risk.

Climate change and extreme weather impacts - wildfires, droughts, floods, superstorms, all of which are intensifying – are some of the greatest threats facing Americans today. According to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, continuing to ignore the impacts of climate change puts to federal government—and the country—at high risk of financial loss.

The budget plan focuses on aiding the vulnerable and their communities, yet this budget, by ignoring and potentially worsening the effects of climate change, puts millions of vulnerable Americans at risk. NWF agrees that we need to seek a balanced approach to deficit reduction; however, we cannot ignore the direct public health and safety impacts of a federal budget that turns a blind eye to the reality of climate change.

Specifically, NWF is concerned that the House Budget Resolution:

• Proposes increased investment in fossil fuels while gutting support for developing clean energy sources.  It recommends increased drilling on federal lands and on the Outer Continental Shelf, something that will increase our dependence on dirty fuels, endanger critical habitats, and jeopardize the robust outdoor recreation economy dependent on public lands.  The plan also proposes eliminating incentives for clean energy development, undermining our progress towards a clean energy future and energy security.  No mention is made of oil and gas subsidies, despite the fact that eliminating them could raise billions of dollars in revenue.  Continuing to invest in fossil fuels while cutting incentives for developing clean energy sources puts Americans at incredible risk from extreme weather and other climate impacts.
• Discredits the importance of strong protections for clean air and water, such as the current proposed Environmental Protection Agency limits on industrial carbon pollution. A clean environment is critical for both economic growth and public health. Between 1970 and 1990, actions to reduce air pollution, at a cost of $523 billion, saved the nation $22 trillion in health care expense and lost productivity—a 40-1 benefit-cost ratio. These regulations are crucial to reducing carbon pollution and ensuring public health and safety.
• Proposes selling off public lands and diverting revenue from public land sales away from the Department of the Interior.  In addition to undermining our rich national conservation legacy and restricting the revenue-generating activities of millions of outdoor recreationists, this removes land acquisition as a key tool the Department of the Interior can use in mitigating damage from future natural disasters.
• Urges approval of the Keystone pipeline.  This would dramatically increase production of the Canadian tar sands—a fuel that emits 14-20% more greenhouse gases than typical crude oil—and would endanger property, ecosystems, and wildlife all along the 2,000 mile pipeline.   In the words of NASA scientist James Hansen, building the Keystone pipeline would mean “game over” for the climate.

At the same time that the budget proposal undermines national progress towards reducing the impacts of climate change, it slashes funding for programs that safeguard our communities, ecosystems, and wildlife.  Many of these programs not only protect the clean air and water and public lands enjoyed by millions of Americans: they also mitigate the effects of natural disasters by protecting and enhancing natural barriers.

Source: Center for American Progress

These cuts came on top of decades of underfunding for conservation programs, and under the proposed budget this scenario gets even worse. The budget would extend the Budget Control Act caps on spending for another two years—until 2023—and making huge cuts in discretionary spending.  By 2023, the plan funds discretionary programs at $47 billion less than current projected spending levels. Although the current plan does not go into detail about the distribution of discretionary cuts, past budget proposals issued by Chairman Ryan strongly suggest that conservation programs will bear a disproportionate amount of these cuts.

By cutting programs that reduce carbon pollution and mitigate the effects of climate change, this budget fails to invest in the future health and safety of Americans.

If sequestration goes into effect, $1.8 million will be cut from Yellowstone, the only place in the lower 48 states where a population of wild bison has persisted since prehistoric times. Our national parks are crucial to protecting American wildlife: one-third of endangered and threatened species in the U.S. can be found within park boundaries. (Debra Boucher)

Last month, we finally got a peek at what exactly sequestration might mean for America’s habitats and ecosystems—and it’s not pretty.

A setback for conservation and the economy

According to a January 25 National Park Service memo obtained by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, sequestration will have a disastrous impact on parks and all those who enjoy them.

This is not mere speculation: in the memo, National Park Service director Jon Jarvis explicitly said that sequestration will force them to delay permanent and seasonal hiring—perhaps indefinitely, if the budget situation is not resolved—and limit access to cherished national treasures:

“We expect that a cut of this magnitude, intensified by the lateness of the implementation, will result in reductions to visitor services, hours of operation, shortening of seasons and possibly the closing of areas during periods when there is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, resources and government assets.”

And there’s more: according to additional information obtained by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees last week, sequestration will directly impact more than 1 million visitors to 12 of the nation’s leading national parks.  In a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar warned that, in addition to the steps above, the Department of the Interior will have to close 128 wildlife refuges and discontinue visitor services at all 561 national wildlife refuges.

If the Department of the Interior is forced to enact these cuts, it will not only undermine our rich national conservation legacy and restrict the activities of hunters, anglers, hikers, boaters, and all outdoor enthusiasts, it will have a serious economic impact. America’s 37 million sportsmen spent $90 billion in 2011 alone.  And 140 million Americans spend $646 billion a year on outdoor recreation, an industry that employs 6.1 million Americans.

Sportsmen agree: don’t cut conservation funding

In NWF’s 2012 national poll of sportsmen, 84% of respondents said that the federal government should make it a priority to conserve fish and wildlife habitat and manage public lands for fishing, hunting, and other outdoor recreation.

Don’t let Congress shirk their responsibility to our public lands. Indiscriminate cuts to discretionary programs that devastate our public lands and wildlife are not the solution.

Act now: click here to tell Congress  not to let the budget crisis devastate wildlife.

But today we got some good news: according to a poll released by the Pew Research Center, only 22% of Americans think we should cut spending for environmental protection, and 77% think spending on the environment should either increase or stay the same.

Investing in Conservation Gets Results

In 2011, there were 435 million visits to lands managed by the Department of Interior (DOI) — visits that supported 403,000 jobs and contributed $48.7 billion to local economies.  Clean air and water, access to public lands, and protected wildlife habitats are critical to the 37 million hunters and anglers who spent $90 billion in 2011, and to the $646 billion outdoor recreation industry, which employs 6.1 million Americans.  The National Park Service has already said that sequestration will force them to reduce visitor services and hours of operation, delay seasonal hiring indefinitely, and possibly close some or all of certain parks.

Act now — don’t let budget negotiations harm wildlife.  Click here to tell Congress that indiscriminate cuts to crucial conservation programs are not the solution.

The moose population in northeast Minnesota is being devastated by climate change. (Dick Forehand)

But this week, the chances for action on reducing the severity of climate change by reducing carbon pollution are starting to look up.  The President and Congress are giving ever more attention to the need for bold climate action, and we’re seeing growing momentum across the country.

Bold Words From President Obama

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama built upon the promise he made in his inaugural address—to “respond to the threat of climate change, knowing the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations”—by laying out his commitment to reducing carbon pollution and fighting climate change with a set of concrete proposals.

“The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Congress is paying attention

President Obama’s inaugural address and State of the Union speech emphasized the need to take strong climate action, and it looks like Congress is paying attention. On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a briefing on the latest climate science for members of Congress.  Four distinguished scientists testified that the impacts we’re seeing from climate change are just beginning: the next few years will see increasing sea level rise and extreme weather events, and failure to take serious action to cut carbon emissions will only increase the damage to wildlife, fragile ecosystems, and public health.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Senator Barbara Boxer introduced comprehensive legislation on climate change, an important first step in taking action on climate in Congress.  The legislation would tax carbon emissions at $20 a ton, with the goal of cutting U.S. carbon emissions 20% from 2005 levels for 2025.  More than half of the revenue—as much as $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years—would be returned to taxpayers as a monthly rebate.  Much of the remaining revenue would be used to fund energy efficiency and clean energy programs.  NWF sees putting a price on carbon as a key tool in fighting carbon pollution, and will continue to work with members on both sides of the aisle to advance climate solutions.

Ignoring climate change is risky

Yesterday, we got another sign that the government is starting to realize the dangers of continued inaction on climate change. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent, nonpartisan “congressional watchdog” that submits reports to Congress on how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars, announced today that it is adding the financial risks posed by climate change to its “high-risk list.” The high-risk list, released at the start of each new Congress, includes 30 federal programs that are at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse and financial loss—essentially, the GAO identifies areas where the federal government is mismanaged or inefficient.  The addition of climate change to this list is huge news: the watchdog is telling the government that the failure to address climate change is putting us at huge financial risk.  Ignoring climate change is, simply, bad business.

In the announcement, the GAO confirmed what we’ve always known: carbon pollution puts people, property, and the environment at risk, and we must both fight future pollution and adapt to become more resilient to the changes that are already occurring.  Climate change adaptation just makes sense, and ignoring climate change and its risks puts the federal government—and the country—in an incredibly vulnerable position.

Speak up for the polar bears, moose and wildlife across the country threatened by climate change–send a message to President Obama urging him to move forward on limits to carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Fund

Many of North Americans’ favorite fish—rainbow trout, smelt, striped bass, bonefish,  scamp, Alabama cavefish, snapper, black grouper, yellow perch, blackspotted stickleback, flounder, monkfish, and gefilte, to name a few—will be at risk if the sequester budget cuts go into effect. National Wildlife Federation’s four million members love to fish. And fishing and hunting are on the rise: according to the 2011 national survey released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there has been a 9% increase in hunters and an 11% increased in anglers over the last five years.

Protect America’s fishing legacy!
Photo: Colorado Division of Wildlife

The WSFR exists thanks to two pieces of legislation: the 1937 Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, which put an excise tax on sporting guns and ammunition in order to fund wildlife restoration, and the 1950 Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, which applied the same principle to fisheries restoration. Together, the two funds offer one of the most successful examples of the “user pay/user benefit” principle: the funds come entirely from a modest excise tax on fishing and hunting equipment, and are distributed to states by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to be used for conservation projects that enhance wildlife recreation and hunting and fishing opportunities.  Nevertheless, these funds already reserved for conservation will be subject to deep and catastrophic cuts under sequestration.

A Legacy of Conservation

The WSFR has had perhaps more impact than any other single conservation program. The flexible distribution of the funds means that states have considerable agency in deciding how best to use them, and WSFR has been used for an incredible variety of conservation programs. Over the past 75 years, it has helped restore countless wildlife populations and habitats, supported outdoor recreation and education program, and assisted states in acquiring delicate wetlands.

In 2012, the WSFR gave out about $720 million to states for conservation and restoration programs, funding that is crucial to the day-to-day operation of state fish and wildlife agencies.

Under sequestration, however, spending by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Fund will be cut by a total of $65 million—funds that would otherwise go towards restoring critical wildlife habitats and fisheries.

What is more, the continued funding of sportsmen-valued programs like the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program is incredibly important to our economy:  in 2011, over 37 million hunters and anglers spent $90 billion in recreational expenditures nationwide.  The recent sportsmen’s poll released by National Wildlife Federation showed that, regardless of political affiliation, America’s sportsmen are committed to conservation programs like WSFR.

At a time when climate change was almost completely absent from the presidential election , it is more important than ever to fight for the crucial conservation programs we rely on to protect wildlife for our children’s future. Click on the button to contact your Senators and Representatives today to let them know that sequestration will have a huge impact on the conservation programs you care about, and urge them to work towards a balanced approach to raise revenue, reduce the deficit, and prevent these cuts. 

If only our lobby day was this fun.
Photo: Susan McElhinney/NWF

• Further cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge System—already operating on a budget of just $3.24 per acre—will result in closed refuges and lost revenue, among other impacts.

• The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, which provides crucial funding for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered, will be cut by about $5 million, leaving only $56 million to protect wildlife in all 50 states.

• The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has provided funding for countless National Parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands, will be cut by about $20 million, almost certainly delaying or halting crucial conservation projects.

• The Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Programs and Management funding, which supports a variety of environmental protection and restoration programs—including critical Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act protection programs—will be cut by $220 million, undermining fundamental federal regulation and putting our access to clean air and water at risk.

• The Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, which makes investments in clean energy essential to our nation’s environment and economy, will be cut by $148 million.

• The Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Funds—which are used to support wildlife and fisheries conservation—will be cut by $34 million and $31 million respectively, endangering countless species and restricting the activities of the 37 million hunters and anglers who contributed $90 billion to our economy in the past year alone.  These come from a trust fund paid into by sportsmen for sportsmen via an excise tax on fishing, hunting, and boating equipment; that even funds already reserved for conservation are subject to deep cuts demonstrates the fundamental unfairness of sequestration.

Very rarely are our legislative fights this black and white: we compromise, we battle over minutiae, we strive to see strong conservation policies implemented, yet so often settle for good enough.  In this case, however, our message is crystal clear: the sequestration cuts cannot happen.

Here in D.C., NWF’s crack team of conservation advocates is doing their best to put pressure on Congress. But we need your help and your voices—act now by contacting your Senators and Representatives today to let them know that sequestration will have a huge impact on the conservation programs you care about, and urge them to work towards a balanced approach to raise revenue, reduce the deficit, and prevent these cuts.

Since starting at NWF’s D.C. office in September, I’ve come to enjoy visiting Capitol Hill: testing which offices have the best local souvenirs (personally, it’s a close call between Alabama’s peanuts and Pennsylvania’s Hershey chocolate), which offices feature the most surprising wall décor (a polar bear skin and a functioning canoe are just the tip of the iceberg) and get the most into the holiday spirit (currently, the office of Guam’s at-large congressional district is putting everyone else to shame). But my favorite part is knowing that I am speaking on behalf of the over 4 million gardeners, hikers, boaters, sportsmen, and wildlife enthusiasts that are members and supporters of NWF.

Brought to you by National Wildlife Federation.

It’s time to talk about

Photo by Theodore Mattas

In the summer of 2011, the federal government very nearly defaulted on its loans.

Photo by Nathan Meadows

It was.  So the President and Congress reached a deal: Congress agreed to increase the debt ceiling  (and prevent the government from defaulting on their loans) in return for a guarantee that the federal deficit would be reduced. A bipartisan

Photo by NSF

made up of six members of the House and six of the Senate—with each delegation evenly split between Democrats and Republicans—was formed to figure out a plan.

But things didn’t work out quite as they hoped.

Photo by Mike Bender

Yeah, it gets worse. To make sure they reached a deal in time, the

Photo by NSF

put a failsafe in place: if Congress failed to enact a bill reducing the deficit by January 15, 2012, a series of automatic spending cuts—called “sequestration”—would begin in 2013.

Photo by Vishal Bhav

But Congress DID fail to reach a deal.

Photo by James Turner

 And now unless Congress acts before January 2, mandatory spending cuts will slash $109 billion from the next year’s budget and $1.2 trillion over the following nine years.  This will have a devastating impact on key conservation programs and the wildlife and ecosystems they protect.

Photo by Mary Ellen Carter

I know. It’s a mess.

What’s worse, these cuts will have a disproportionate impact on conservation programs cherished by all those who enjoy access to our rich natural resources.

Many of these programs are already

Photo by Scott Landseidel

Like the EPA’s Environmental Programs and Management funding—crucial to Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act protection programs—which would be cut by $220 million.

And the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, which provides crucial funding for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered, and which could be cut by about $5 million, leaving only $56 million to protect wildlife like:

Photo by Bala K. Srivinas

Photo by Gregory J. Fisher

Photo by USFWS

in all 50 states.

Funds that are supposed to be dedicated to restoring land, water, and wildlife resources—like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which stands to be cut by about $20 million, and the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Fund, which would be cut by $65 million—will be 

Photo by Christine Haines

with everything else that’s being cut, endangering the conservation of critical wildlife habitats.

Tax breaks for oil aren’t affected, yet millions of dollars that protect clean air and water, wildlife conservation, alternative energy subsidies, and environmental remediation programs will be slashed.

Photo by Corel

I wish I was, believe me.

What is particularly awful about the sequestration cuts is that federal departments and agencies have no discretion about where to make the cuts: non-defense discretionary spending—which encompasses virtually all environmental programs—is subject to a cut of 8.2% at the program level.

Photo by Christopher Willis

OK, so the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, say, has a whole array of programs they fund, like the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. In this case, they can’t decide to keep the Multinational Species Conservation Fund intact and cut the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund by 16.4%; every program must be cut by 8.2%.

Photo by Dave Menke/USFWS

Basically,

Photo by Adam Davis

A TON.

Photo by Neil McCulloch

Not so fast!

Tell Congress to:

Photo by Adam Davis

on partisan bickering, and to

Photo by Howard Sheridan

Photo by Joe Robertson

To come up with a balanced approach to raise revenue and reduce wasteful spending to save the programs American wildlife (and people) count on to ensure clean air and water and habitats.

Because

Photo by Brett Klaproth

Do you really want to sequester that face?

Protect ocelots and more endangered wildlife by telling your members of Congress to preserve funding for vital conservation programs.

Action alert updated 11/20/12.