The other parents gathered at the bus stop with their pre-schoolers in tow hadn’t seen them, but then the air filled with the raucous call that can only be Sandhills.   The little childrens’ fingers pointed to the sky, their faces up-turned and filled with wonder and joy, the parents faces too, filled with the awe and delight of these noisy, spectacular wild birds flying north, returning home, harbingers of spring. 

They were a life-affirming gift in a time when we are hungry for joy and comfort.  They gave our little group of witnesses a reminder that the ancient rhythms of nature are unswayed by human political conflict, the state of the stock market, and the many other things that weigh on our minds.  On a gray day at the beginning of a war, they gave us something to celebrate.  After the dark winter, spring will come again.

●

●

Saving the Biological Heart of the Arctic

●

●

●

These major policy areas are only part of the domestic agenda that needs attention to protect biodiversity.  A whole host of related issues, such as forest policy, wetlands and stream protection, and regulatory standards for air and water quality are also at play.  We can’t take domestic protections for biodiversity for granted in these turbulent times, but we can get involved, speak out, and weigh in.  One of the peace demonstrators along our route to work had a sign that said, “Do Something: You’ll Feel Better.”  I think she’s on to something.

Nearly three decades ago Congress overwhelmingly passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by a 355-4 margin in the House and 92-0 in the Senate. President Nixon signed our most revolutionary, our strongest, and our most denounced environmental law with little fanfare on December 28, 1973. 

How little we understood the enormity of the ESA then, the incredible positive effect it was to have on our country far into the future. Only because of it do hundreds of species that share the nation with us still exist at all. Just as significantly, millions of acres of forests, beaches, wetlands and wild places—those species’ essential habitats—also survive.

That’s because the Endangered Species Act is more than just a wildlife protection law. It is also a land use statute.  Because the ESA exists, millions of acres of the best of wild America also still exist—acres that surely would have been developed otherwise.

Today there are over 1,250 U.S. species on the list. There ought to be more, and the whole enterprise needs better funding and support. It’s not a perfect law. But we should ask ourselves: “what if the ESA had never existed at all? What then? How many species, forests, open spaces, wild places now protected, would there still be? If it falls, what will happen to what’s left?”

We may soon find out, because, as this is written, the entire law, not to mention its funding and legal support, is under the fiercest and most sustained assault in its history. How can this be?

After the 2002 elections, the far right is sensing victory at last. Already, on public lands across the nation, the law is being implemented by a Secretary of Interior who has asserted that the ESA is unconstitutional, backed up by a President whose close ties to extractive industries don’t even raise eyebrows.  With industry-favored appointees in every key post, carefully disguised “administrative reforms” are being crafted to undermine the gains of the last 30 years. 

In the courts a series of rulings and sweetheart settlements of industry lawsuits have put the listing of some two dozen Pacific coast salmon and steelhead species in doubt and have undermined the act’s critical habitat protection for many others.  The hounds are baying in Congress too, with the ascension of “wise use” darling and ESA foe, Rep. Richard Pombo, to chairmanship of the House Resources Committee. 

Given the current political climate of the country, I would not venture a prediction on how this will end.  I only know that it will be a struggle and that we must not fail.  If the ESA is lost we lose something even more precious 

than the marvelous and wondrous creatures that will surely go extinct without its protections. We also lose our hopes for a better, more gentle, future for this great, yet troubled, nation of ours. 

This is because the Endangered Species Act has been much more than just a magnificent tool to protect wild and natural America. It is a profoundly moral statement, uniquely American in its vision, its optimism and its promise. Back in 1973 the legislators of a great nation said—for the first time in history—that henceforth that nation would not permit any of the living species of plants and animals that shared its national territory to become extinct—not if they could prevent it. 

It is hard to imagine a more powerful educational tool. The existence of the ESA has profoundly altered the American consciousness about biodiversity and its importance to our own health and national well-being. Each battle—over listing, over critical habitats, over regulations—has educated more citizens about the importance of the whole web of life around us—plants and mice and mussels, as well as the larger “charismatic” animals.  The result—if the polls are to be believed—is that millions now understand more of what biodiversity is all about than they would have had there not been a strong law, strongly enforced.

We now must ask ourselves: “what would our country’s landscape, and the precious living web of wondrous other beings it supports, be like if the ESA had never existed? What’s the alternative?”  To us, the answer is simple:  we must keep its vision and its promise intact.

To learn more about Endangered Species Act, visit the Endangered Species Coalition Web site at www.stopextinction.org.

Saving the Biological Heart of the Arctic
by Randall Snodgrass, Director, Government Relations and
Brooks B. Yeager, Vice President, Global Threats, World Wildlife Fund

But even this most recent setback has not deterred drilling proponents.  Within hours of the elections in November, the White House and Republican leaders in Congress renewed their calls for drilling in the refuge. 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located in remote Northeast Alaska and is approximately 19 million acres in size, an area about the size of South Carolina.  The portion of the reserve threatened by oil development is a 100-mile long section of the Arctic Coastal Plain—what government biologists refer to as the "biological heart" of the refuge.  The refuge is the only part of Alaska’s northern coastal region or North Slope where Congress specifically prohibits petroleum development.

The Arctic refuge is unique in North America.  The reserve protects the full spectrum of sub-arctic and arctic plants and animals. Near its southern boundary, taiga forest gives way to the magnificent high peaks of the Brooks Mountain Range. The range and its foothills form a picturesque backdrop for a narrow strip of tundra plain that extends north to the Arctic Ocean. 

The plain is a critical calving ground, insect relief and summer feeding area for the 129,000-animal Porcupine caribou herd, named after the ice-choked Porcupine River the animals must cross in migrating from their wintering area in Canada’s Yukon Territory.  The refuge also provides habitat for many other species such as polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, musk oxen, arctic fox, Dall sheep and 160 species of birds.  Alaska’s Arctic Coastal Plain is a region of such high biological significance that scientists at World Wildlife Fund included it among the Global 200 Ecoregions—the 200 most critical ecoregions for biodiversity conservation in the world.

Based on seismic exploration in the 1980s, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the mean economically recoverable oil under the wildlife refuge is 3.2 billion barrels.  To put this amount in perspective, Americans consume this much oil every six months.  If there is any recoverable oil in the refuge, the government predicts it will take approximately 10 years before it would be available to consumers. 

In contrast to the Administration’s claim that drilling would require only a “small footprint,” conservationists believe oil exploration and production in the fragile tundra wetlands of the refuge would destroy the area’s wilderness values as well as damage wildlife habitat and displace wildlife species.  Government biologists predict that caribou, polar bears and musk oxen would be most impacted by the network of roads, pipelines, and drilling pads and the noise from traffic, aircraft and hundreds of oilfield workers.  Gravel mining for roads and drilling pads and siphoning huge volumes of water from rivers and streams to produce oil from wells will have a negative effect on fish and other wildlife. 

Public opinion polls consistently show a majority of Americans oppose drilling in the Arctic refuge.  The surveys also find that people feel strongly that the U.S. should address U.S. energy needs by increasing automobile fuel efficiency and developing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power.  A careful energy approach would not only spare the Arctic refuge and other public lands from development, it would address other pressing concerns such as climate change.

Even as this debate unfolds, organizations and individuals that are united in defending the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are working together to protect the refuge as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.  In this way the unique biodiversity of this arctic wilderness can remain a legacy for all Americans, rather than being sacrificed for the lack of a better answer to our nation’s dependency on oil.

To learn more about the World Wildlife Fund’s work on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, visit http://www.worldwildlife.org/arctic-refuge/.  For more information about the Refuge itself, visit www.anwr.org.  For links to other organizations working on protecting the Refuge, visit the Alaska Coalition Web site at www.alaskacoalition.org.
 

      
Safe Again, For Now?

On Wednesday, March 19, the U.S. Senate rebuffed another attempt to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. By a 52-48 margin, the Senate approved an amendment co-sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and others to strip from a pending budget bill a provisionthat would have paved the way for drilling.

The vote marks the second time in a year that the Senate has refused to allow drilling in the coastal plain, sometimes referred to as “America's Serengeti” for its wealth of wildlife.  Support for the Arctic was once again bipartisan, with eight Republicans joining all but five Senate Democrats to pass the amendment.

While this vote stopped the most recent attempt to open up the Refuge, it does not necessarily guarantee permanent protection.  Congress is continuing to work on the budget process, and drilling interests are still seeking support through a complex set of procedural   moves.  To receive alerts about the Arctic Refuge and about other issues related to protecting wild places, you can sign up to be part of the Wilderness Society’s WildAlert network.  It provides free timely E-mail notices about actions you can take to protect wild places, and they promise to never sell your name for other lists. To sign up, go to http://ga1.org/wilderness/home.html.
 

What’s a citizen to do?

Here are some of the points that Smart Growth America and the Surface Transportation Policy Project urge you to convey to decision makers.

·          Keep federal gas tax money flowing toward mass transit, planning and environmental mitigation efforts.   Because an increased gas tax hike is unlikely in this economy, road building interests are likely to press to move money out of other gas-tax financed programs, such as mass transit infrastructure. Ironically, as more money goes toward pavement, critical planning money that might mitigate its effects on nature may be in short supply.

·          Check whether your state is using the federal money available for mass transit, planning and mitigation. State officials need to hear your concerns.  States may be encouraged to shift money out of environmentally beneficial programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). First incorporated into the 1991 transportation bill, CMAQ funds projects such as public transit improvements, designated bus and carpool lanes, employer-based transportation management plans, limits on vehicle use in downtown areas during periods of peak use and more.

·          Get involved in the planning process on specific projects and on land use in your area.  From community “visioning” projects to zoning decisions, local communities make decisions about transportation systems all the time.  Becoming an active voice for sound transportation that is good for people and for the environment can help shape decisions close to home.

·          Make a personal choice not to sprawl.  It’s not just the highways; it’s the people. Personal choices, like opting to live in established areas rather than building in new developments can help keep down the number of exurban roads, private roads and total paved area—all of which degrade habitat.

For more information, visit the Smart Growth America Web site at www.smartgrowthamerica.org. 
 

Global Warming and Biodiversity
by Tom Lovejoy, President, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment

Thomas Lovejoy

Organisms relate to a wide variety of climatic conditions—polar bears need sea ice, many species of cactus need dry environments, Monarch butterflies cannot survive freezing. So it is no surprise that the diversity of living things on earth is likely to be affected by a changing climate. 

A changing climate is certainly not new in the history of life on Earth, and indeed, the ebb and flow of glaciers

One thing that is different today is that landscapes are heavily modified by human activity such that landscapes often are tantamount to obstacle courses to dispersal of species to more favorable sites. That alone is a matter for concern about the ability of many species to survive climate change. If we could create corridors and connections between isolated patches of natural habitat, we might be able to improve the survival chances for many species.

Already there are signals in nature of response to the climate change already generated by human activity. Flowers—including Washington’s famous cherry blossoms—are blooming earlier. Migration times are changing too. Ranges of many species of birds and butterflies are shifting up slope (to higher altitudes) or up latitude. In the first issue of Nature this year there were two separate analyses statistically demonstrating that these recorded changes are significant as a broad phenomenon. And it is believed that the first documented extinction from climate change has occurred – the golden toad of Costa Rica’s fabled Monteverde cloud forest—because the cloud base so essential for the forest’s well-being has moved upward.

With such biological change occurring at the current level of climate change, what further change might be expected with greater warming? The prospects are quite grim, and I believe there is a picture developing which suggests massive biological disruption as a doubling of the pre-industrial level of CO is approached. Coral reefs, already extensively experiencing

Biodiversity hotspots in South Africa, such as the succulent karoo and the fynbos regions, will be negatively affected. The fynbos region, with over 7,700 plant species (70% of which are endemic), will shrink to 35 to 55% of its present extent.  In the United States certain reptiles, including alligators, crocodiles and turtles, are likely to decline because the gender of the developing embryos is determined by nest temperature.  One global climate model (from the U.K.’s Hadley Center) projects considerable drying in the Amazon basin, which is essentially the world’s largest single repository of biodiversity.

The International Convention on Climate Change specifically mentions ecosystems, agriculture and sustainable development as needing protection against “dangerous interference” with the climate system. It appears that biological systems will be the most sensitive of the three to climate change.

To learn more about global warming, visit the Union of Concerned Scientists Web site at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm?pageID=27.

Let’s Get to Work
by Howard Ris, President, Union of Concerned Scientists

From a presentation given at Pocantico, January 2003 

If we don’t start to take action now—to reduce the use of fuels that emit carbon when burned—we’ll lose several years or decades to the accumulation of these gases. The heat-trapping blanket will get thicker and thicker, making the problem harder and harder to solve. Climate change may indeed be the ultimate long-term problem that requires us to implement practical solutions well before we may think we need to. That is now the firm consensus of scientists throughout the world. 

Solutions to energy problems are available. With the right kind of planning, teamwork and investment we can bring them about in ways that won’t cause major disruptions to our economy or lifestyle. Indeed, if we do it right, we will not only assure safe and reliable supplies of energy in the future, but we will save consumers money and protect the environment.

Many new technologies are now available, and increasingly cost effective:

·          Natural gas, which is about twice as clean as coal, is now the second most widely used fuel for electricity generation in power plants;

·          Renewable energy technologies, such as windpower and solar, are some of the fastest growing sources of electricity and their costs have come down dramatically

·          Efficiency in manufacturing has shown great progress—the amount of energy required per unit of production output has dropped steadily over the last several decades;

·          Advanced vehicle design and alternative fuels are beginning to give us more efficient and less-polluting vehicles; and

·          Newer technologies—like fuel cells—are almost universally believed to be coming a lot sooner than previously expected.

There are immense possibilities for contributing to the solutions at all levels:

·          Individuals: through more informed choices about the products they buy and how they use them, without having to make big sacrifices in life style;

·          Business: through innovation to be more efficient and produce better products, and by investing in new markets; and

·          Government: to provide carrots and sticks to correct failures in the market, accelerate a transition to new sources of energy; and create “win-win-win” solutions so everyone can benefit. 

Individuals can help by choosing the right kind of car or SUV when it comes time to replace their current vehicles. Since every gallon of gasoline burned in a car yields twenty pounds of CO into the atmosphere, fuel economy can make a big difference. As I noted earlier, hybrid vehicles offer great hope in this area. Businesses can help by offering consumers better cars and SUVs and by educating people about the environmental and national security implications of the products they sell. They can also inventory emissions of heat-trapping gases throughout their manufacturing facilities and figure out how to reduce them, creating less waste, saving energy and money, and, ultimately, producing a better balance sheet and more profit. Government can help by setting clear and enforceable goals for reducing heat-trapping gases, while allowing companies maximum flexibility to comply. And, at the international level, our government can and should lead the way. Since the U.S. has only five percent of the world’s population, but consumes ten percent of its energy and produces twenty-five percent of global heat trapping gases, we have a huge responsibility to be a leader.

America holds the keys to a new energy future.  As I said in the beginning of this talk: we have extraordinary wealth, exceptional strength and resolve, great capacity for technical innovation, and proven ability to change course when we need to. So, let’s flip the switch and get to work!

The Freshwater Policy Gap
by Jane Elder, Executive Director, Biodiversity Project

Fresh water is a hot topic both at home and across the globe. From the Great Lakes in North America to Lake Tanganyika in Africa, demands for the finite resource continue to increase, as do conflicts over access and use.  In typical water allocation schemes, wildlife and ecosystems are the last in line.  Rarely is biodiversity conservation a topic in those debates. 

However, water supply isn’t just a western U.S. issue.  We’re drinking and irrigating and using water faster than precipitation can replenish groundwater from the Great Plains to the Chicago suburbs to the Everglades.  In 2001 and 2002, countless communities in the East and South struggled to maintain municipal water supplies during the sustained drought, and changes in weather patterns tell us that old assumptions about supplies may no longer be reliable.  With no signs of demand dropping, species that depend on wetlands, headwaters, fast-flowing rivers, clean lakes, estuaries and other freshwater systems have no guarantees of water for habitat. These are the same systems that help to purify and store water and to recharge groundwater supplies.  We have few safeguards that will protect the systems that sustain us.
 

photo: Fred Gasper, USDA NRCS

In one of the Biodiversity Project focus groups on Great Lakes water, when the researcher posed the question, “Who owns the Great Lakes?” one woman paused, pointed her finger skyward and said, “God does.”  The response was a reflection, shared by many people, that the natural resources of our world are collective blessings, not commodities.  But for water, our legal frameworks don’t mirror her view.  The patchwork of American water policy is complex, making strategies for biodiversity protection equally complex. 

In the West surface water is managed through a system of “prior appropriation.” For the most part, this system gives the first person to use water from a river or stream the legal right to do so forever, regardless of the effect on the river, the environment, or even other water users. The earliest water rights take precedence over all other uses—the first user gets as much as his or her right allows, the next person gets part of what is left, and so on until there is nothing left to distribute.  In most eastern states surface water use is based on a riparian system, where property owners who are adjacent to a river or lake have the right to reasonable use of the water. However, they have much more limited discretion over how the water can be used than their western counterparts, because the public collectively owns the surface water.

For groundwater, the picture is less clear.  Water law developed as common law before hydrology developed as a science, and today the law desperately needs to catch up with the science.  Current law does not adequately recognize the connection between surface water and groundwater and the finite nature of aquifers and their water supplies.

What is clear is that demand for freshwater resources is rising.  With private interests increasingly looking to profit from water supplies, biological systems face even greater threats. This is especially true because water policy is weak and piecemeal when it comes to protecting ecological integrity.  The notion that water is a commodity available to the highest bidder is an uncomfortable concept for many Americans.  

Given the history and complexity of U.S. water policy, a national water management policy is unlikely, although increasingly the need for a cohesive approach is clear, and resource protection will depend on government action.  Recently, the American Water Resources Association (AWRA), a publicly owned wastewater treatment works association, called on the Administration and the Congress to develop a National Water Vision that would determine, in cooperation with the states and local governments, how the nation wants to deal with water resources. AWRA emphasized that it is not calling for a federal water policy that directs the actions of federal, state and local governments, but for a policy that defines the shared responsibilities at each level of government.

Regional models may prove the best approach, responding to regional needs and uses, as well as climate.  One promising model is a planned agreement among the eight Great Lakes governors and two Canadian premiers to establish a water management regime for all the waters of the Great Lakes basin. 

When the Perrier Group of North America (a subsidiary of Nestle^´ Waters) sought to place high capacity wells in rural Wisconsin, local groups organized to protect river headwaters threatened by the wells.  While public sentiment was on their side, they soon found that the laws that regulate permits for high capacity wells aren’t designed to protect living resources like headwaters and wildlife.  Perrier pulled out of Wisconsin, but was welcomed with open arms and tax breaks by Michigan, which also lacks regulations that will protect local ecosystems.  In both states the Perrier controversy has helped hone a new awareness of the need to develop water resources policy that protects groundwater and biological resources.

In 1985, U.S. and Canadian officials signed the Great Lakes Charter to improve water stewardship in the region.  In June of 2001, the governors and premiers outlined an annex to the Charter—a set of principles or standards by which Great Lakes governments would evaluate new water withdrawal projects.  Broadly, “Annex 2001” would provide that anyone proposing to extract Great Lakes basin water must implement strategies to conserve water, must not harm surrounding waters and water resources, and must actually improve aquatic resources (for example by restoring wetlands)—the notion being if you are going to use the system, you have an obligation to improve it.  The next steps will be for the governors to agree to the principles, and then each state legislature must pass legislation to make the principles legally binding.  The governors had pledged to complete the annex within three years after signing it in principle on June 18, 2001.  Unless the process picks up momentum, that goal may slip away.

The agreement has the potential to provide the groundwork for an ecosystem model for water management, fulfilling the charge of the 1972 U.S.- Canada Water Quality Agreement to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Charlie Rahm, USDA NRCS

Fresh water is essential to all life, and in a world facing predicted water shortages the U.S. and Canada have the opportunity to provide a model for other freshwater systems in both nations and around the globe.  Neglecting the biological needs and functions of our freshwater ecosystems is shortsighted folly.  The U.S. has the opportunity to be a leader and innovator in shaping sound freshwater policy that is good for people, and great for biodiversity.

 This kit is designed to help journalists, advocates and educators alike to stimulate a public dialogue on the role these vital ecosystems play in our lives, and what Americans can do to protect the forests close to home. 

Reserve your copy of Getting on Message: Eastern Forests and Biodiversity today!  The cost of the kit is $15 per copy.  For information on ordering, contact the Biodiversity Project at project@biodiverse.org (please include the subject line: Forest Kit), or call (608) 250-9876. 

View the message kit online here.