Spread the word about these cuts to conservation spending in your region! Share this image on Facebook.

Thanks to Addie Rolnick for research contributions to this piece.

Photo credit: William Drumm

Entering Mount Rainier National Park I am automatically drawn to the White River; its braided, meandering channels flowing down from Emmons Glacier, sweeping through old growth forest, and Mount Rainier towering above, is a sight of true beauty. As I sat and admired the river, I couldn’t help but ponder its pristine state and the natural habitat it must provide for spawning salmon. This is what a healthy river looks like, I thought to myself, there must be salmon here. In truth, the answer is not as straightforward as I thought.

First the good news: In a recent report, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concluded that over a 10-year period the White River showed a trend of increasing abundance among Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations. Furthermore, White River salmon populations have some of the highest escapement trends observed; meaning a high portion of salmon escape the commercial and recreational fisheries and reach the White River freshwater spawning grounds. Great, right?

Now the bad news: though abundance trends are increasing, the average historical abundance of Upper White River Chinook was 6,700, today they are estimated at only 500. The White River is a tributary of the Puyallup River, which is heavily diked, leveed, and dammed. White River salmon need to swim up (or as in most cases, be caught and then trucked up) the Puyallup before they start their journey to spawn upstream in the White River. So, how are Puyallup River salmon doing? The answer: Not so good. Moreover, Puget Sound salmon are not doing well either. The overall trend shows that Puget Sound Chinook populations are no better than they were 10 years ago when they were first listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The driving force behind this lack of improvement: habitat loss. In Puget Sound natural habitat is being developed and altered more often than it is restored. Not only can fish not access upper river reaches because of dams and other barriers, but if they get there they find a river no longer in its natural state due to levees and dikes.

Recently, Federal Judge James Redden rejected (for the third time) the federal government’s recovery plan for the Columbia-Snake River salmon, stating it as “arbitrary and capricious” because it failed to identify adequate habitat improvement.  A similar plan in Puget Sound is being implemented to limit floodplain development and reform the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP’s) minimum criteria for eligibility in 122 communities by September 2011. But is all this going to be enough?

Probably not. Though these plans all take into account future development, they do very little to fix past mistakes. In “Is Salmon Extinction the Option” Tom Bancroft comments, “we need the federal government to recognize that their plans for salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest are lacking.” As Billy Frank puts it, “If we are going to recover salmon, we must have stronger and better-coordinated federal leadership to align the policies and actions of all federal agencies and departments that impact salmon.”

What can you do? We all need to work to protect the future of our iconic salmon species. Limiting the impact of development is critical in any highly-urbanized watershed.  Incorporate green development ideas into your next home improvement project and if possible leave previously undeveloped areas undisturbed.

Take action: speak up for endangered salmon by telling your local representative or urging the Obama administration that healthy native habitats and endangered salmon recovery is important to you.

Learn more about NWF campaigns for Puget Sound NFIP reform and salmon restoration and Columbia-Snake River salmon.

Inspiration for post comes from ”Is Salmon Extinction the Option” by Tom Bancroft of People for Puget Sound.

Photo courtesy of USDA

With the potential government shutdown looming closer and closer, many people far outside of DC are wondering what the government shutdown will mean for their daily lives.  While farmers may be miles from DC, many rely on the government for technical and financial assistance, particularly those who are trying to implement wildlife-friendly farming practices. So, what does a shutdown mean for your local farm?

With Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff sent home while the government is closed for business, a number of programs vital to the protection of natural resources on farms and ranches across the country will be delayed this year, and quite possibly severely reduced.  Farmers turn to USDA for programs that help them pay for and implement practices that conserve natural resources, such as soil and water, and protect these resources from pollution that can occur from conventional farming practices.

In the event of a government shutdown, farmers and landowners will face the following impacts:

• Sign-up for the Conservation Reserve Program, a vital program that protects highly erodible land and lands still in native ecosystems, would not occur during a shutdown. With the April 15th sign-up deadline only a week away, the timing could not be worse.
• Contract processing through the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Organic Initiative of the Environmental Quality Improvement Program will be delayed until government reopens.  Both programs help farmers with cost-share assistance and technical guidance to implement conservation practices on operating farms and farmland.

For either sign-up or contract processing, a delay caused by government shutdown would render many farmers unable to participate in these programs, even though these programs are funded through the Farm Bill.  The longer shutdown lasts, the less likely farmers will be to sign up for these programs when the opportunity occurs, since many will have to make planting and land management decisions in time for spring.

For farmers who care about conservation, this is the worst possible time for a government shutdown.

What does this mean for wildlife?

If Congress cannot agree on a budget:

• Fragile native ecosystems such as grasslands may be converted to cropland
• Many farmers will not be able to implement practices to protect water quality or wildlife habitat
• Organic farmers relying on government programs to help them transition to organic production will be left in the lurch.

While a government shutdown may last only a few days or weeks, the vital services NOT provided by federal agencies to farmers and landowners during that time will result in significant and lasting consequences for farm profitability, wildlife habitat, and water quality.

Tell Congress to stop the stealth attack on America’s air, water and wildlife.

Coal-fired power plant on Potomac River in Alexandria, VA (by NWF's Miles Grant)

The polluter agenda of using the current budget battle to hide a full-on rollback our nation’s basic public health and environmental laws is coming into full view with the government shutdown. First, there is the attempt to scuttle a budget deal unless there is the inclusion of policy riders that gut laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.  (See here and here). Second and even more nefarious, there is a willingness to go to the brink on trying to get those riders because a government shutdown amounts to a temporary polluter holiday.

Who’s Minding the Store?

As the budget battle continues, little attention is being paid to what a federal government shutdown might mean for safety of our air, water and land if government employees are forced home.  As Politico reported recently (requires subscription), a shutdown means that most of the Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) 17,000 employees will be sent home. (Read EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s memo to staff here.)  Among these employees are the men and women who staff the varying EPA compliance offices across the country that make sure polluters are held accountable in meeting our environmental laws, including the safeguards for clean air and clean water.

While a shutdown may be forced by political ideology, the impacts on communities across the country would be very real. In Alexandria, VA, a coal-fired power plant sits on the banks of the Potomac River, not far from the U.S. Capitol and just a few miles from my home. I visited the plant today and wondered: If the EPA shuts down, who’ll be monitoring the air my children breathe?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Polluter Parade

While EPA often works in tandem with the states, there is little doubt that a government shutdown will, at least temporarily, short circuit the ability of the federal government to prevent a polluter parade.  The shutdown will put a hold on the inspections and monitoring activities of the EPA in places like local power plants and refineries. In FY 2010, the agency undertook 21,000 inspections and evaluations as part of its efforts to check on whether our laws were being upheld. This means, on average,  for every week the government shuts down over 400 federal polluter inspections and evaluations won’t take place. This could impact the air, water and environment in communities across the country.

Take for example Sections 113 and 114 of the Clean Air Act. These provisions authorize EPA to enforce penalties for violating the Act and allow representatives of the agency to enter power plants, refineries, and factories to inspect air pollution monitoring equipment and sample emissions to determine if the plant if complying with the law.  Through this authority EPA helps to ensure that existing laws and limits on such things as smog-causing air pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, ozone depleting chemicals, and asbestos are met.

Water Worries

And the Clean Air Act is just one law. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act allows EPA to inspect facilities subject to the Act.  Similar to the Clean Air Act, inspectors can look at records relating to whether water discharges meet the existing pollution limits, inspect any monitoring equipment or methods used to sample the effluent and monitor the operation of the facility. Another law, section 3007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) lets the EPA conduct inspections of any company that generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes of, or otherwise handles hazardous waste. The inspector can monitor or obtain samples of any hazardous waste or any waste containers.

You get the idea - when no one is home to ensure the laws are upheld, pollution happens.  As these maps depict, when the employees are working EPA already has a lot environmental violations to police.

How convenient for the polluters. Force our kids to breathe toxic air and drink contaminated water by either gutting the law or forcing the government to close so it can happen anyway.

Tell Congress to stop the stealth attack on America’s air, water and wildlife.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Here’s what Larry Schweiger, president & CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, had to say about the plan:

Leadership starts from the top, and once again President Obama is showing his commitment to protecting our environment and promoting energy independence. This is a well-thought out plan that shows that we can significantly reduce pollution, save oil, and reduce our energy bills at the same time. This is good for taxpayers, it’s good for our children’s future, and it’s good for wildlife and the environment. If the federal government can cut pollution by 28% this decade while saving money, then imagine what the nation’s biggest corporate polluters could do if they focused on innovation and protecting our environment.

Yesterday, President Obama set a more modest goal for the nation as a whole, calling for a 17% pollution cut by 2020 as part of the Copenhagen Accord, consistent with the American Clean Energy & Security Act that passed the House last year. The Senate must pass clean energy and climate legislation this year to get America moving on the road to clean energy jobs, energy independence, and a healthy planet for future generations.

Email your Senators today!