Native Plant

Conservation

Campaign

 

HOME

(updated May, 2008!)

Conservation Economics

International

Equal Protection for Plants

Botany Staffing & Funding

Science & Law

Important Plant Areas

(c) Priscilla Titus

Contact us!

Native Plant

Conservation Campaign

 

PMB 151

1459 18th St.

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

e mail: Emily Roberson

Director, NPCC

(c) David Tibor

(c) John Game

(c) Susan Meyer

(c) Lori J. Makarick

NPCC News is an e mail news and action alert service provided by the Native Plant Conservation Campaign. This page reprints selected items previously sent over NPCC news.

Sign up for NPCC news!

Find an Action Alert by date

NEPA Under Attack

July 11, 2005

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is part of the foundation of our democracy. It requires federal agencies to perform environmental analyses (e.g. develop environmental impact statements) for projects which my significantly affect imperiled species, air or water quality, public health, and our environment generally.

NEPA further requires extensive public review of and input into these environmental analyses.

It is literally the public's way to oversee - and help decide - how our tax dollars are used to affect our environment, public health, native plants, air, water, and our publicly owned lands.

For several years, Congress and the Bush Administration have been working to narrow the scope of NEPA. They have already exempted a number of classes of projects on national forests and elsewhere from NEPA review. Now they are working on a complete overhaul of the law.

Below find a recent editorial from the Center for Biological Diversity supporting NEPA.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

ACTION:
Contact your Senate and House representatives and tell them that NEPA is fundamental to our environmental health, public health, quality of life and economy. That the public DOES have a right to know and to help decide what is done with our tax dollars, and to our imperiled plants, fish and wildlife, air, water, and public lands.

Please phone or fax if you can. E mail is also helpful, but is sometimes less frequently read by busy Congressional and Senate staff.
Fax and phone number information for your Senators and House representatives can be found online at www.congress.org. Click ignore ad and type in your ZIP code.


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Editorial from CBD supporting NEPA

White Mountain Independent, Friday, July 5, 2005

Keep the National Environmental Policy Act Intact and Protect the Public's
Right to Know

Erik Ryberg

Several members of Congress have been touring rural western America to promote changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. This law does not have a lot of name recognition, but it has rightly been called our nation's
"bedrock" environmental law. The "NEPA," as it is called, does not require
protection of the environment, but rather requires the federal government to
conduct a public review of the impacts of its actions. What those impacts
are is not a concern of NEPA; whether the federal government has disclosed them to the public and accepted public comment on them is.

The congressional tour on NEPA stopped off in Show Low last month, where it heard it from local people who all urged that the NEPA be changed. Environmental organizations, including the one I work for, were invited to the hearing only at the very last moment, and told that we had to submitforty hard copies of anything we would like to say to Representative Renzi's office in Show Low within 48 hours of receipt of the invitation. Given that NEPA itself is a law concerned with adequate notice and hearing, this struck us as an ironic turn.

The members of the public who spoke out against the NEPA at the hearing can be forgiven for not having a robust understanding of this complex law, but reading coverage of their testimony at the hearing has been a saddening moment for me. As someone who works with this remarkable law every day, I wonder who is counseling these speakers on what NEPA is all about.

For example, the White Mountain Independent reports that a New Mexico
rancher appeared before the committee to testify that the Forest Service had cut her grazing numbers in half without involving her or listening to her
concerns. I have no difficulty believing her story, but in this case the
NEPA is precisely the law that would come to her rescue if she had exercised it-the NEPA is specifically designed to ensure that federal agencies conduct their activities openly and do not make arbitrary or unjustified decisions.

The Independent also reported that a representative of the American Forest Resource Council complained that NEPA does not consider the consequences of not acting. He stated that forest health is declining because there is no evaluation of what happens when nothing is done in the forests. As I said above, it is understandable that the public does not know the ins and outs of a complex federal law, but the American Forest Resource Council should be happy to learn that NEPA very explicitly requires an evaluation of what it calls the "no action" alternative. This used to include landscape review of the "no action" alternatives in Forest Plans, but, sadly, the Bush Administration has severely curtailed this kind of analysis in forestwide planning. However, this is not the fault of the NEPA.

Although I am sympathetic to the public's misunderstandings of the NEPA, I
believe that Representative Renzi has a duty to educate himself about this
historic and bedrock law before he criticizes it in a public hearing and
champions sweeping changes to it. I have no idea where Mr. Renzi learned, for example, that NEPA's environmental reviews now average "decades" to complete, or that NEPA has prevented the Forest Service from conducting "basic service and maintenance." Like all laws that endure (the NEPA was signed into law over thirty years ago), the NEPA contains many escape clauses. And basic service and maintenance, it turns out, is one of them-the NEPA has many different levels of review, and depending just how "basic" the maintenance is, the action will require no review at all or very minimum review. For example, the Forest Service may log up to 1,000 acres for fire protection under an exclusion to NEPA that requires no more than two or three pages of analysis. Under a similar exclusion it may log an unlimited number of acres for wildlife habitat improvement.

At the rally held before the hearing, a common theme was that NEPA prevents public input into federal decisions. But this is the exact reverse of
reality: NEPA on the contrary ensures public input-in fact that is its
central objective-and without it the very people opposing this vital law
would be in a dire place indeed. The NEPA is the public's lifeline of
information to our federal government. Without it the federal government
could act arbitrarily, without concern for its impacts to local people, and
without regard for science, caution, or the public good. I can think of
nothing more American than a law that compels our government to tell us what it is doing and explain its actions when the public asks.

Representative Renzi should take a harder look at NEPA and serve his
constituents not by rashly discarding it but by enforcing it vigorously. I
suspect when he reads it he will find, like President Nixon who signed it
into law, a great deal that he will like.

Erik Ryberg is a Southwest Forest Advocate with the Center for Biological
Diversity in Tucson.

New York Times publishes article on bill that weakens and removes federal protection for endangered Species

July 7, 2005

The New York Times recently published an article on a draft bill, sponsored by Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA) and others that would weaken - in some cases - remove federal protection for endangered species.

The Times also published an editorial supporting the federal Endangered Species Act.

Both are reprinted below. A Defenders of Wildlife preliminary analysis of the draft legislation is also attached.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ON BILL TO WEAKEN FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:

Bill Would Reduce Government's Role in Protecting Species

By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: July 4, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 3 - Republican critics of the Endangered Species Act in Congress have drafted legislation hedging the government's obligation to take all necessary steps to bring back to robust health any species on the brink of extinction.

The draft envisions more limited government obligations: ensuring that the status of an endangered plant or animal gets no worse and helping to make it better.

Representatives of environmental groups who have seen the draft legislation said that the change, achieved by redefining the act's interpretation of "conservation," would severely undercut the law.

The draft measure, said Jamie Rappaport Clark, the executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, "takes a wrecking ball to the whole Endangered Species Act" by changing its mission, disabling enforcement tools and loosening controls on agencies like the Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.

But Jim Sims, the executive vice president of Partnership for the West, a group representing Western ranchers, farmers and industries, said that the draft has a "common-sense" emphasis on incremental improvements that are achievable, rather than on long-term recovery that may take decades. "The aspirational change is necessary," he said. "It's more important to incrementally improve the species' health as much as we can rather than set the bar at total and complete recovery, and nothing else."

The draft legislation, prepared by the Republican staff of the House Resources Committee, also narrows the law's reach, potentially exempting many federal actions that are now subject to review. In addition, it requires that the authority to list subgroups of a species of fish or wildlife as endangered be used "only sparingly." The draft would automatically take the Endangered Species Act off the books in 2015.

Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the House Resources Committee, has long been a critic of the Endangered Species Act, although in recent months he has spoken more favorably of its goals, and indicated that his revisions would make them more achievable.

The draft legislation was given to The New York Times by a lawmaker opposed to its provisions, who requested anonymity because the legislation had not yet been introduced. It has been circulating among interest groups focused on the issue, which tends to pit environmental groups against a loose coalition of Western ranchers, farmers and business interests. Most lobbyists believe that the committee's legislation will provide the framework for rewriting and reauthorizing the act.

The law has been a magnet for controversy since its passage in 1973. It is credited with playing a major role in preventing the extinction of hundreds of species of plants, insects, animals and birds in the United States. Nonetheless, only a handful of the more than 1,200 species listed over the years have recovered sufficiently to permit their removal from the list.

The law, as interpreted by a series of federal judges in the past quarter-century, has been instrumental in blocking dam construction, ending most logging in the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, overturning state or regional decisions on the allocation of scarce western water, and preventing some development on public and private land.

Over the past decade, efforts to rewrite the law failed to pass the House or were blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Pombo said in a recent interview that he believed he could forge a consensus and win passage of the bill, given Republican gains in the House and the Senate in the last election.

Some of his supporters are not as sure. But Mr. Sims, of Partnership for the West, is not among them. "The prospects for some updating of the Endangered Species Act are very high in this Congress," he said.

"I think the chairman has a very reasonable marker out there with this draft," Mr. Sims added. "It's not too far to the left, not too far to the right. A number of my members don't think this goes far enough."

Environmental groups are gearing up their own campaign in opposition to the legislation as currently drafted.

They may find unusual allies in property-rights advocates who have focused their criticism on the bill's requirement that the government designate, and potentially restrict the use of, territory that is essential to a species' recovery. In a June 16 letter to Mr. Pombo, representatives of groups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and Gun Owners of America urged that the bill ensure that all property owners be compensated if their land values drop.

The draft legislation permits compensation only when a property owner shows that a government action diminishes a property's value by at least 50 percent.

On the issue of what constitutes the "best available science" for making and supporting decisions under the law, the draft measure takes the unusual step of giving one scientific method preference over another. It calls for "empirical data" - which can be hard to obtain when a species's numbers are small and scattered - to be used when possible. More common currently are studies based on statistical models of a species's number, range and viability.

The draft legislation also sets new restrictions for mapping the territory considered essential for the recovery of an endangered species. It would limit such territory, called "critical habitat," to areas currently occupied by the species; the law now allows for the inclusion of a larger portion of the species's historic range. In the new proposal, expansion of the current range is possible only if that range is inadequate to prevent the species's extinction.

"It shortchanges habitat protection," said Ms. Clark of Defenders of Wildlife. "And habitat destruction is the primary reason for most species becoming endangered." She added that the law "places almost overwhelming restrictions on sound science."

Mr. Sims, in turn, argued that some of the law's proponents care more about keeping land unused than ending threats of extinction. "This is the Endangered Species Act," he said. "I would argue that a great majority of the American people believe that a focus on efforts to recover a species are more important than efforts to lock up land."

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL SUPPORTING THE ESA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05tue2.html

Editorial: An Endangered Act
Published: July 5, 2005

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is far and away the most controversial of all the landmard environmental statutes enacted during the Nixon years. It is especially so among those libertarians and property owners who think that commercial development is unduly restricted by the mandate to protect not only plants and animals, but also the habitats essential to their survival. The law is up for reauthorization again this year, and the pressures to weaken it are great. There are ways to streamline the law and make it less litigious that would not come at the expense of its core values and purpose.

Regrettably, the Bush administration is not waiting for this debate to take place. Since the day they took office, Bush officials have tried to subvert the law administratively and in the courts. They have slowed the process by which species are listed as threatened or endangered, cut scientists out of important wildlife decisions, encouraged and then sided with industry lawsuits against habitat designation, and tortured the very meaning of the act to evade its obligations.

The most recent example involves endangered salmon species in the Columbia and Snake River basins in the Pacific Northwest. These fish have long had trouble catching a break. A comprehensive recovery plan devised by the Clinton administration was tossed out by a federal judge, James Redden, who found the prescriptions too vague and the projected outcomes too speculative. But the Clinton administration never tried to shirk its lawful obligation to provide for the recovery of the species by settling, as this administration has, for the lesser goal of keeping the current rate of decline from getting any worse.

Nor did it descend to the same depths of casuistry. Among other things, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to include millions of hatchery-raised fish in its assessments of wild fish - a bit of mathematical gymnastics that would instantly make endangered wild salmon populations seem healthier than they are and thus ease the need for protection. No less preposterous is its argument that it cannot remove the dams on the lower Snake River - an option the Clinton administration held in reserve in case all other recovery measures failed - because they are immutable parts of the landscape, like a mountain.

An angry - indeed, flabbergasted - Judge Redden has now tossed out this plan as well. For good measure, he has ordered the government to increase the volume of water spilled over the dams this summer to ease the passage of young fish to the ocean and thus increase their chances of survival. Given the dwindling number of wild salmon, he was quite right to do so. The only downside is that the ruling has inflamed various members of Congress, and some of them are muttering darkly about legislative retaliation.

This would not be helpful, either for the salmon or for a broader discussion of the Endangered Species Act. In his recent ruling, Judge Redden invited all the stakeholders - the dam operators, the developers, the commercial fishermen and the Indian tribes that depend on salmon for their living - to get together to devise a common plan.

Any discussion of the law itself should be conducted with comparable transparency. It is a fundamentally sound statute with wide public support and a demonstrable record of success. By forcing a better balance between commerce and nature, it has often constrained human behavior in ways that lead to a healthier environment for everyone. The law, and our environment, deserve far better than the guerrilla warfare with which the opponents of the Endangered Species Act have tried to undermine it.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Defenders of Wildlife Analysis/Press Release

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 6, 2005
Contacts : William Lutz 202-772-0269
Brad DeVries 202-772-0237

ASSAULT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

DRAFT LEGISLATION SIDES WITH DEVELOPERS OVER MAJORITY OF AMERICANS
 
Despite Americans Strong Support for Act that Saved the Bald Eagle, Resource Committee Chairman Crafting Loopholes that are a Developers Dream

WASHINGTON  Draft legislation prepared by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Cal.) would severely undermine the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and punch loopholes in the law on behalf of oil companies, large-scale developers, timber companies, mining corporations, and other special interests. If these provisions were in place in recent years, recovery of animals like the bald eagle, American alligator, and peregrine falcon would have been extremely difficult if not impossible.
 
"We are stunned by just how bad Rep. Pombos draft bill is," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. "The bill contains at least seven proposals each of which would cripple the federal effort to help endangered species. It also creates a whole new series of loopholes that enable oil companies, large-scale developers, timber companies, mining corporations, and other special interests to dodge the Acts protections. The bill runs counter to the very intent of the Endangered Species Act which was put in place to ensure that human activity does not cause wildlife to go extinct."

Jamie Rappaport Clark, former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now Executive Vice President of Defenders, said, "This is a potentially disastrous bill. Given Mr. Pombos past statements about trying to make the Act work better, its extremely disappointing to see a draft bill that does so much to eliminate opportunities for species recovery."

An analysis of the draft bill by Defenders of Wildlife pointed to the following key problems:
 
7 It abandons the national commitment to bringing declining species back from the brink of extinction and recovering them to the point where they no longer need the Acts protection.

7 It sharply diminishes habitat protections for endangered and threatened species; the only habitat that would be required to be protected is the habitat that allows the species to barely survive.

7 It allows federal agencies to ignore their responsibility to protect threatened and endangered species. It exempts all federal agencies from the Acts requirement that they consult with wildlife experts to assess the damage potential projects may cause endangered species.

7 It changes the definition of what constitutes an endangered species, choosing a very unscientific definition that says a species is endangered only if its survival is threatened in its current remaining occupied habitat.

7 It opens a giant loophole that allows legal appeals during every step of the endangered species conservation process. Irresponsible developers, timber and mining interests and other resource exploiters would be able to tie the process into knots and avoid any meaningful implementation and enforcement.

7 It sets the year 2015 as the expiration date for the Endangered Species Act, for the first time setting a timetable for the end of federal endangered species conservation efforts.

7 It includes an onerous "takings" provision which requires the federal government to pay landowners for the costs of complying with the law, a terrible precedent to set with regard to environmental protections.
 
"The Act in place today has been wildly successful at preventing the extinction of many magnificent creatures. Since 1973, only nine out of the 1800 animals protected by the Act have been declared extinct. With this bill, Rep. Pombo has turned his back on this success and effectively eliminated any meaningful federal effort to save endangered species," Schlickeisen said.
 
For more information and detailed analysis of the Pombo bill and the Endangered Species Act, see:

 www.saveesa.org/learnmore/pdf/pomboanalysis.pdf.
 

Loss of Habitat Threatens Native Utah Wildflower With Extinction Citizen Groups Ask Courts for Help Enforcing Protection Law

July 5, 20005

Salt Lake City - Potential loss of habitat to highway expansion, suburban sprawl, and livestock overgrazing threaten a native Utah wildflower with extinction, prompting a Utah biological organization and two conservation groups to file a lawsuit today seeking protection for the wildflower's extremely limited habitat. The lawsuit also seeks to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finally adopt a recovery plan for the beleaguered species.

"This remarkable Utah native is only found at one site, and the Fish and Wildlife Service won't take even the most basic steps of adopting a recovery plan and protecting this wildflower's habitat," said Erin Robertson, staff biologist with Center for Native Ecosystems. "The Service is once again sitting on its hands instead of recovering this endangered species."

The Deseret milkvetch, a native wildflower found only in Utah County, Utah, survives in a single population of less than 300 acres near Thistle. The entire population is located within 1,000 feet of a two lane highway in a rapidly suburbanizing area. The milkvetch has been listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act since 1999, yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far refused to develop a recovery plan which would identify the specific steps necessary to recover and delist the milkvetch. The Service has also refused to designate critical habitat for the wildflower.

"We have little hope of saving this beautiful and tenacious Utah wildflower unless the Fish and Wildlife Service adopts a recovery plan,"
explained Tony Frates, a botanist and Conservation Co-chair for the Utah Native Plant Society. "Then the landowners, agencies, and other organizations can roll up our sleeves and get to work saving this important part of Utah's natural heritage."

The Fish and Wildlife Service is required by the Endangered Species Act to adopt recovery plans for protected species. These plans provide a "road map" for recovery and delisting, identifying conservation needs and a plan for achieving them. Similarly, the Service is required by the Act to designate critical habitat, which is the habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of the protected species. The Service has so far refused to take either of these essential steps.

"We owe it to our children and grandchildren to be good stewards of the environment and leave behind a legacy of protecting endangered species and the special places they call home," said Frates.

Contacts:
Erin Robertson, Staff Biologist, Center for Native Ecosystem (303) 546 0214
Tony Frates, Utah Native Plant Society, (801) 277-9240
 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/12064219.htm

Associated Press reports more troubling information on misuse and censorship of science by the Administration.

June 30, 2005

For background on this issue go to the Union of Concerned Scientists "Restoring Scientific Integrity" page: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm

or the Scientific Integrity page at the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility: http://www.peer.org/campaigns/eller/index.php

(The Native Plant Conservation Campaign's "Misuse of Science" page is undergoing reconstruction)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
ARTICLE

Scientists report pressure to alter Fisheries findings at request of commercial interests.
By JEFF BARNARD

Associated Press Writer

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP, June 28) - Many scientists at NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency responsible for balancing hydroelectric dams against endangered salmon, say they know of cases where scientific findings were altered at the request of commercial interests, according to a survey released Tuesday by two watchdog groups.

The survey was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The survey posed 34 questions and was sent to 460 NOAA Fisheries scientists across the country. Responses came back from 124, or 27 percent.

"The conclusion is that political interference is a serious problem at NOAA Fisheries," Lexis Schulz, Washington representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said from Washington.

Among the findings:

- 58 percent of respondents said they knew of cases where high-level Commerce Department appointees or managers inappropriately altered NOAA Fisheries determinations.

_ 53 percent said they were aware of cases in which commercial interests inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of NOAA Fisheries scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.

_ 13 percent said they knew of cases where environmental interests inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of NOAA Fisheries scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.

_ 44 percent said NOAA Fisheries routinely makes determinations using its best scientific judgment, even when political pressure is applied, while 37 percent disagreed.

Steven Murawski, director of scientific programs and chief science adviser for NOAA Fisheries, said from Washington that the survey represented about 6 percent of the nearly 2,000 scientists at the agency, and primarily represented the views of low-level staff who evaluate the work of others to develop management policy, not research scientists.

Murawski would not say there was no political influence over science at the agency, but said science is the foundation of policy decisions that must take into account social and economic factors.

"To say it is politicized is a cheap shot, really," he said. "These are complex decisions, and many times people don't like the outcomes for one reason or the other."

Schulz said one of the inspirations for the survey was a recent case where NOAA Fisheries adopted a policy that counts some hatchery salmon and wild salmon together when assessing their status as endangered species. The policy was adopted despite advice from the Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel, made up of independent scientists, that they should adopt rules to keep hatchery and wild fish separate.

At the time, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regional Administrator Bob Lohn said the hatchery policy was guided by a federal court ruling and staff scientists.

Robert T. Paine, professor emeritus of biology at the University of Washington served as chairman of the review panel. He said from Seattle that NOAA Fisheries rejected the first part of their report when they saw it dealt with the 2001 ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan that the fisheries agency could not give Endangered Species Act protection just to wild fish if it had previously lumped hatchery fish into the same population.

"The political wing of NOAA was outraged at us dealing with the Hogan decision," Paine said. "We were given three choices: submit the report as it was, and they wouldn't post it. To redo the report and they would be enthusiastic about it and they would help us do that. And thirdly, we were always given permission to publish."

They published their recommendations in the journal Science last year.

"I have no doubt, in fact, that there is a certain amount of tension between NOAA scientists who are charged with forming policy _ the majority of those people are political appointees, so they are going to do whatever the current administration dictates _ and the people in charge of science, if you will. There are a a lot of good scientists there. I think at times they feel terribly disappointed their recommendations are ignored or modified."
 

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passes a resolution supporting the Endangered Species Act.

June 28, 2005

Thank you to the California Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and all others who worked to make this happen.

To see the text of the resolution, go to
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/051205
.pdf

This marks the first city to pass this pro-ESA resolution. Other cities and counties throughout the nation are moving to pass similar resolutions in coming weeks.

The resolutions are part of a nationwide effort sponsored by the Native Plant Conservation Campaign, the Endangered Species Coalition, and other groups to show local support for the federal Endangered Species Act and our other environmental laws. This year, Congress and the Administration are making their strongest push yet to gut the Act.

ACTION:
We need your help to pass more resolutions to save the federal Endangered Species Act! Last year we lost many of our protections for plants, wildlife and resources in our National Forests under the National Forest Management Act.

****We do not want the ESA to be next.****

Getting involved is a two step process:
(1) find elected official(s) to introduce a resolution in your City Council, Board of Supervisors, or other local elected body supporting the ESA, and strong environmental protections generally, and
(2) build a local coalition to support and pass the resolution.

We have put together a toolkit (attached) to help those interested in working to pass resolutions in their local areas:

The toolkit contains:

*A fact sheet on the federal Endangered Species Act *How to guide: Tips on how to pass a local resolution *A copy of the Endangered Species Act Legacy Pledge - which you can use as a

template for a resolution
*A sample resolution based on the Pledge.
*A sample letter to local elected officials - you can use this as a template for a letter asking your elected representatives to sponsor and pass an initiative.

For more information, go to
http://www.stopextinction.org/Team/TeamList.cfm?c=38

Flower species thought extinct found blooming on Mt. Diablo
Grad student spots type of buckwheat last seen in 1936

- Erin Hallissy, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005


A pink powder-puff flower called the Mount Diablo buckwheat was discovered this month in a remote area of the state park, creating a buzz in the botany world because it is the first sighting in 69 years of a species long feared to be extinct.

"This is our ivory-billed woodpecker,'' said Seth Adams of Save Mount Diablo, a conservation organization, referring to last month's discovery in Arkansas of that spectacular bird, also thought to be extinct. "How often do you get to pull a species off the extinction list?''

Michael Park, a 35-year-old UC Berkeley graduate school student and botanist who has been studying plant life on Mount Diablo for years, found the buckwheat on May 10 after his professor, Bruce Baldwin, encouraged him about his hunt for the rare flower last seen in 1936 by Mary Bowerman, the founder of the conservation group Save Mount Diablo.

"I told him I didn't think I was going to find it,'' Park recalled Tuesday. "He said it was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time.''

The phrase may be a cliche, but it turned out to be prophetic that day. As Park was slowly surveying the land near an area of chaparral, "I noticed these pink puff balls, and I thought, aha!''

Seeing wasn't believing, at least not at first. Park, who works at UC Berkeley's Jepson Herbarium and has been studying plants on Mount Diablo for years, said he was "in a state of shock and disbelief.''

"I tried to disprove it,'' Park said. "I tried to think of all the characteristics. I really couldn't make it into another plant. I really never believed it was extinct, but I didn't think I'd find it.''

There are about a dozen plants in the area, which isn't being disclosed to protect them from being trampled. The Mount Diablo buckwheat's main characteristics are the pink puffy flowers and its wishbone branching pattern.

"Most buckwheats aren't quite as photogenic,'' said Park, who didn't have his camera with him the day of the discovery but returned with it, and colleagues, later. "I think we got very lucky. We found it at full bloom.''

Because the plant hasn't been seen in so many decades, botanists don't know much about it, including how long its blossoms will last. Just seven records exist of the plant, from 1862 to 1936.

Naturalists also don't know why the plant bloomed this year, although the unusually long and rainy winter and spring have created ideal wildflower conditions through the state, including in barren deserts.

Adams said the challenge now will be to find out how to sustain the plants, which are in a zone about 10 feet by 30 feet, and how to propagate them.

Park said anyone could have found the flowers if they had known what to look for.

"I think my take-home message would be that going out looking at plants is not just for specialists,'' he said. "I think that anybody could be out there making an observation.''

E-mail Erin Hallissy at ehallissy@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 5
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/25/BAGU0CU7SD1.DTL

 

Portland, ORs No Ivy League is what looks like a wonderful and effective weed control program.
 

May 6, 2005

This is something that other cities could copy.

A measure of how seriously this program is taken is that Portland Mayor Tom Potter declared May 7 as No Ivy Day. Here is the post from the Native Plant Society of Oregon Discussion List:

Portland, Oregon's Mayor Tom Potter has declared May 7, 2005, as the
official No Ivy Day in this great city with a decided attitude about
the importance of livability and sustainability. Mayor Potter had
only "words of woe" about ivy and its impact on trees as he
congratulated No Ivy Leaguers for making a difference.

Click here to read the proclamation!

http://www.noivyleague.com/Images/NoIvyDayProclamation.pdf

Thank you, Mayor Potter, for having a lot of pull!


For more information on this impressive effort to remove ivy from Portland parks see
http://www.noivyleague.com/Pages/no_ivy_work_sites05.html

Finally, an inspirational poem from the NPSO discussion list (apologies to the author, whose name I do not know, but this was simply too good not to pass on):

Our fingers are flexed and ready to grip!
Our loppers are sharp and really snip!
The sharp teeth of our saws have a big bite!
Look out, ivy, we're leading the fight!
 

•  Washington WNPS web page: http://www.wnps.org/npaw_2005/index.htm;
  
  o Governors proclamation: http://www.wnps.org/npaw_2005/gregoireproclamation.pdf

 

• Oregon NPSO web page: http://www.npsoregon.org/news/npaw/procla.jpg;
  
  o Governors proclamation: http://www.npsoregon.org/news/npaw/procla.jpg
   

NPCC parent organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, has won a crucial victory in a struggle to protect rare plants in the U.S. Virgin Islands. See press release below.

April 26, 2005

For more information, contact: Peter Galvin, Center for Biological Diversity, (707) 986-7805

Robin Cooley, Environmental Law Clinical Partnership at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, (303) 871-6039

SETTLEMENT REACHED TO PROTECT RARE VIRGIN ISLAND PLANTS

The Center for Biological Diversity (Center) reached a legal settlement

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that will move FWS toward

protecting two rare Virgin Island plants under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA).  The settlement results from a lawsuit filed by the Center in

federal district court in Atlanta in September 2004 and requires FWS to

determine whether Solanum conocarpum and Agave eggersiana should be

protected as endangered species by February 2006.

  Agave eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum are two extremely rare plants

native only to the U.S. Virgin Islands.  A. eggersiana lives only on St.

Croix.  It can grow from 16 to 23 feet tall.  Solanum is limited to the

island of St. John, where there are approximately 190 plants living in the

wild, a handful in the Virgin Islands National Park and around 185 on

private land. The largest known population is located on a small section of

private land on Nanny Point/Estate Concordia.  A project funded by the

National Park Service and directed by Dr. Gary Ray was initiated in 2003 to

propagate and reintroduce S. conocarpum into areas within the National

Park.  Both plants can be viewed at the St. George Village Botanical Garden

on St Croix.

  Agave eggersiana                          Solanum conocarpum

             Recognizing Agave and Solanum were facing extinction due to

residential and tourist development and feral animals, the Department of

Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, of the U.S.

Virgin Islands submitted a petition to FWS requesting protection for the

species under the ESA.  In November 1998, FWS took the first step required

under the law and found that the petition presented substantial information

indicating that listing may be warranted.  However, for more than six

years, FWS failed to take the second step to determine whether the species

do or do not warrant listing under the Act.  The ESA gives FWS only one

year to make this determination.  FWS missed this deadline by more than

five years.

  To force a decision, the Center sued FWS in September 2004.  The parties

have reached a settlement whereby FWS will complete the required finding by

the end of February 2006.

  Peter Galvin, Conservation Director for the Center for Biological

Diversity, stated, "We are pleased that this legal settlement will speed up

the protection process for these two rare plant species.  We are especially

grateful to the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural

Resources for recognizing the grave threats these species face and

submitting the original petition to protect these rare plants under the

Endangered Species Act."Galvin added, Sadly, due to the inaction of the

Federal Government, numerous species have gone extinct while awaiting

protection under the Endangered Species Act.  We hope this settlement will

help ensure these plants do not suffer the same fate.

  The Center is represented in the case by attorneys Robin Cooley of the

Environmental Law Clinical Partnership at the University of Denver Sturm

College of Law and Lawrence D. Sanders of the Turner Environmental Law

Clinic at Emory University School of Law.

Victory and Defeat for Plants in National Forests - and elsewhere

April 29, 2005

420 Scientists sign on to oppose Endangered Species Act Changes

July 21, 2004

Two bad Endangered Species Act bills are making their way through Congress. They are Rep. Dennis Cardozas (D-CA) Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003 (HR 2933) and Rep. Greg Waldens (R-OR) Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act (HR 1662). These bills would lessen habitat protections for endangered species and would add additional burdens to the scientific process of listing species under the Endangered Species Act. Both bills are expected to be passed out of the House Resources committee today (July 21). These bills must go through several votes in both the House and Senate before they can become law.

More than 400 scientists have sent a letter asking Congress to reject these changes to the Act. See news article below

ACTION:

Contact your House and Senate representatives and join the 400 scientists in asking Congress not to weaken the Endangered Species Act and not to undermine its scientific foundation. The ESA is our most effective conservation law. A primary reason for its effectiveness is that it is firmly based on science. These bills will weaken the role of science in imperiled species management, and thus reduce chances for recovery.

You can find your House and Senate representatives at www.congress.org Type your ZIP code to locate contact information.

More information on the bills can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/ Type in the bill number you are interested in.

More information on the Bush Administration and science can be found on Rep. Henry Waxmans (D-CA) Politics and Science website:

BACKGROUND:

CRITICAL HABITAT Rep. Dennis Cardozas (D-CA) Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003- HR 2933 sees to undermine protections for the habitats and ecological processes that imperiled plants and animals need to survive and recover. Critical habitat is one of the most important protections provided by the Endangered Species Act. The primary reason species become endangered is loss of habitat. Designation and protection of critical habitat allows conservation, not only of essential habitat, but also of key processes such as local hydrology, sedimentation patterns and other local characteristics that imperiled species require for survival. Critical habitat can also be used to conserve suitable unoccupied habitat so that endangered species can be reintroduced, reclaiming their range and increasing their chance for recovery. By removing enforceable deadlines and giving the Secretary sole discretion to designate habitat, this bill would make critical habitat designations voluntary. In addition, the Cardoza bill creates loopholes by making numerous changes in the definition of critical habitat, thus making it increasingly more difficult for species to recovery.

SOUND SCIENCE Rep. Waldens (R-OR) Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act-HR 1662 seeks to undercut the use of the best science. By requiring government agencies to give greater weight to some kinds of science over others, it seeks to restrict the use of important methods that scientists currently use to assess species protection, such as statistical tools that often provide the most telling insights about the species. Statistical models, prevalent in conservation biology, but also heavily used in other disciplines, would be given less weight than field data - even if the model represented the best science available. Scientists, not Congress, should determine which science best addresses any given question.

 From the Environmental News Network (ENN) Scientists Resist Republican Endangered Species Act Changes

WASHINGTON, DC, July 21, 2004 (ENS) - More than 420 scientists have signed a letter urging Congress to reject two pieces of legislation that aim to revise the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The House Resources Committee intends to vote on both measures today.

Proponents of the proposals say they are needed to revise a law that is failing to recover endangered species and is burdening land owners. The first bill up for consideration is the "Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2003." The sponsors of the bill contend the Endangered Species Act does not clearly define scientific standards to be used in making decisions - a finding rejected by many conservationists. Critics say the Planning Act forces agency scientists to jump through many more hoops when making key decisions under the ESA, dismisses the importance of scientific "modeling" in wildlife research and seeks to make political appointees the arbiters of what constitutes "sound science."

"Some people who are critical of the way the Endangered Species Act has been employed think that perhaps too much attention and reliance has been given to models as opposed to empirical data," said Gordon Orians, professor emeritus, department of biology, University of Washington. "This, I think, reflects a serious misunderstanding about how science works."

Orians said asking which is more important, the data or the models, "is equivalent to asking a person, which is more important, your heart or your liver?" "You cannot get along without either of them, and science simply cannot function without this constant interplay between facts, empirical data, models, and hypotheses that the models embody," he said.

The second bill, known as "The Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003," would prohibit the designation of critical habitat until a recovery plan is developed - a concept which many environmentalists support.

But the bill sets no [timelines] for [designation of critical habitat] and would call on the federal government to only issue a critical habitat designation if "practicable, economically feasible and determinable."

It would also require involvement of local governments and private landowners and would exempt areas from critical habitat designations that are already covered by other state or federal conservation plans [irrespective of the quality of the science underlying them or their effectiveness in conserving species and habitat].

Critics say this bill has the practical effect of making the designation of critical habitat the exception, rather than the rule.

"This legislation changes provisions of the ESA pertaining to critical habitat in ways likely to lessen protection for such habitat," according to the letter, which was organized by the Unified Endangered Species Campaign and sent to members of Congress.

The campaign is supported by the following seven environmental groups - The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Endangered Species Coalition, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and The Sierra Club.

Two excellent Federal Endangered Species Critical Habitat Lawsuit Decisions 

August 9, 2004

Both of these cases have far reaching implications for conservation and recovery of imperiled plants and their habitat.

NOTE: Although both were decided in California, they can be cited throughout the country as judicial opinion on the importance and proper implementation of the critical habitat provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act.

Case # 1: Desert Tortoise

A judge in the 9th Circuit just ruled that the DOI's policy reducing critical habitat protection to avoidance of jeopardy is illegal. The court agreed that critical habitat protection (i.e. the "adverse modification" standard) should be measured by the recovery needs of the species, not just preventing extinction. This is much higher standard of protection and directly undercuts the Bush administration's (and the Clinton administration before it) insistence that critical habitat does not provide a benefit above the already existing requirement to avoid jeopardy.

While previous courts have reached similar conclusions when abstractly considering the definition of critical habitat in reference to designation decisions, this ruling concerned the on-the-ground management of the 6.4 million acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. The court ruled against the BLM and the USFWS's decision to ignore the recommendations of the desert tortoise recovery plan within designated critical habitat. In particular, the court found that continuation of cattle grazing in violation of the recovery plan was illegally allowed within critical habitat zones. Note that court did not ban the agencies from ignoring the recovery plan outside of critical habitat area. Since critical habitat is the only part of the ESA which clearly requires agencies to actually recover species, the presence or absence of critical habitat has repeatedly proven to be the defining factor in whether agencies will implement recovery plans and other recovery-oriented programs.

The ruling is consistent with many examples of federal, state and private landowners/regulators who respond to critical habitat designations by creating a higher level of protection within them in order to help recover endangered species.

Case #2 Northern Spotted Owl

More courts are saying that under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), both the organisms themselfs AND their habitat (including prey, pollinators, hydrologic processes, unoccupied habitat that may be useful for reintroduction one day, etc.) must BOTH be conserved under the ESA.

The courts also are recognizing that the critical habitat portion of the ESA is about recovering (and delisting) species, rather than merely preventing their extinction  a crucial distinction that has often been overlooked or ignored.

See article on this ruling from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer below.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer Saturday, August 7, 2004

Court blocks cuts in Northwest forests By ROBERT McCLURE

A federal appeals court shot down a series of timber cuts planned for national forests in the Pacific Northwest yesterday, ruling that regulations ostensibly protecting the spotted owl and other threatened species are "blatantly contradictory to Congress' express demand." In a ruling covering 6.9 million acres but with potentially even greater implications, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it's not enough for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to merely keep threatened species from dying out. The government also must protect natural areas deemed critical to the recovery of battered animal populations so that they no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act, said the court, which is based in San Francisco and covers nine states. "The ESA was enacted not merely to forestall the extinction of species ... but to allow a species to recover," the court said in a ruling written by Judge Ronald Gould.

The ruling echoes one by a New Orleans-based appeals court in 2001 -- one never followed by the Bush administration -- and a ruling earlier this week by a federal district court judge in San Francisco. The New Orleans ruling dealt with the gulf sturgeon. The California case was about the desert tortoise. At issue in all three lawsuits was what the Endangered Species Act calls "critical habitat" for species designated as in need of federal protection. The government and environmentalists have long wrangled over the issue. The Bush administration and presidential administrations dating back to Ronald Reagan's followed rules that said critical habitat must be managed merely to keep protected species from disappearing. But that allows a lot of leeway -- for instance, permitting timber harvests in old forests suitable as a home for spotted owls.

"The agency's interpretation would drastically narrow the scope of protection commanded by Congress," the 9th Circuit court ruled. Dave Werntz, science director of Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, one of the plaintiffs in the owl case, called the ruling "a big change."

The Bush administration had argued that the Northwest Forest Plan, which was adopted by the Clinton administration to end bickering over the fate of the spotted owl, adequately protects the bird. That 1994 plan sets aside some 7.4 million acres to shelter the owl, but allows logging in an additional 5.5 million acres -- including some "critical habitat." The logging envisioned by the plan has never been realized because of challenges by environmentalists and other problems putting the plan into effect. The new ruling will make it even harder to allow logging of federal forests capable of sheltering the owls.

Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, a Portland-based timber group, faulted the Clinton administration for adopting the Northwest Forest Plan but failing to square it, as promised, with the critical habitat regulation. "We argue critical habitat is a baseline for protecting the species, not a recovery plan," which is required under a separate section of the Endangered Species Act, West said. Yesterday's ruling dealt with six proposed timber sales in Oregon and Washington national forests that would have destroyed or harmed more than 21,000 acres of critical habitat.

But the ruling could go much further, affecting development even on private land in cases where federal environmental permits are required. Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, which was involved in the desert tortoise case, called both of this week's rulings significant. Comparing the Endangered Species Act to a hospital, Suckling said the policy rejected by the court "just tries to keep species in the emergency room. The Bush administration's idea of a hospital is a place where people can live on the verge of death forever and declare it a success." A Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman said the agency had no comment, pending review of the 29-page ruling.

Special protection is sought for Kentucky Glade Cress

August 4, 2004

Pasted below find good news article on a severely imperiled plant. Unfortunately in recent years, litigation has frequently been required to get federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for species like Kentucky Glade Cress.

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign (NPCC) does not engage in litigation, but we can put interested parties in touch with organizations (and attorneys) who do. Please contact me if you need help with federal plant conservation litigation. See contact information at end of this e mail.

Special protection is sought for Kentucky glade cress

Bush Administration Endangered Species Policies Criticized

By James Bruggers

jbruggers@courier-journal.com

The Courier-Journal

A wildflower found only in Jefferson and Bullitt counties is moving rapidly toward extinction, prompting talk of including it on the federal endangered species list. But the glade cress  a small plant with white to lilac-colored flowers  would be in line behind nearly 300 plants and animals awaiting review for classification as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And the line isn't moving much these days.

The Bush administration has added only nine species per year to the federal lists, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based environmental group. That compares to an average of 65 a year during the Clinton administration, and 59 a year during the administration of Bush's father. Interior Department officials say almost all the budget for studying whether a species is threatened or endangered is spent defending lawsuits by environmentalists pressing for "critical habitat" status for plants or animals already listed as endangered.

"Simply put, the listing and critical habitat program is now operated in a `first to the courthouse' mode, with each new court order or settlement taking its place at the end of an ever-lengthening line," Craig Manson, assistant Interior Department secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, told the House Resources Committee in April.

The real problem is that the federal wildlife agency is under-funded, said Charles Phillips, central states representative of the Endangered Species Coalition of environmental groups. In 31/2 years, the Bush administration's record on environmental issues has come under attack by environmentalists who assert that federal agencies are too sympathetic toward economic interests that support the president.

The Sierra Club endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in May, saying the Massachusetts senator "has spent his entire career promoting real solutions" to protect America's air, water, and natural resources.

And in July, The Associated Press reported that Russell Train, a Republican who ran the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, announced he is supporting Kerry. "It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection but polluter protection," Train said.

The Bush environmental policies have not been "as destructive as some of the national environmental groups lead you to believe," countered Vince Griffin, who follows environmental issues for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. He said Bush has only been "more cautious" about enacting new environmental regulations and more fair in "imposing" existing rules.

Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said he believes the current administration is "more pragmatic" in balancing the environment with people's economic needs. Daniel Simberloff biology professor at University of Tennessee and a National Science Board member, acknowledged that many people might not care if a "minor" plant species such as the glade cress disappears because it is of little direct use. But the decline of the glade cress is part of "something much bigger" that concerns many biologists, Simberloff said, noting that globally, thousands of species are going extinct at an accelerating rate. Because all living things are connected in some way, losing any to extinction can add up to harm, said botanist Deborah White of the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. "We often compare it to taking pieces off an airplane. If you keep removing pieces, eventually it won't be able to fly."

White's survey of glade cress in Kentucky earlier this year found that it has declined at 37 of 50 locations where it had been found in Jefferson and Bullitt counties 10 years ago  and had vanished at 13 locations.

Most of the locations where it remains had fewer than 100 plants. Suburban sprawl is the plant's major threat, White said. In several cases, when visiting places she knew the wildflower had existed a decade ago, she found a new home and yard full of grass. She said she will forward a report on the findings to the Fish and Wildlife Service this fall so federal biologists can consider whether to put the glade cress on the endangered list. That could attract money to help pay for conservation.

"If there is no conservation intervention, the species will be gone except for a few protected areas," White said The glade cress was put on the state endangered species list four years ago, although that only encourages conservation. Still, with that status and land-use policies that encourage protection of "unique natural areas" in Jefferson County, the Louisville Metro Planning Commission has persuaded developers of two subdivisions off Bardstown Road near Bullitt County to safeguard the plant in some areas, said Connie Ewing, spokeswoman for Metro Planning and Design Services. Glade cress is also among several rare plants protected at the Nature Conservancy's 110-acre Pine Creek Barrens Preserve in Bullitt County. But Bullitt County's planning administrator, Daryl Lee, said his county has no land-use policies to protect the rare plant. "I've never heard of it," he said.

Polls show continuing wide support for the environment and Science

July 28, 2004

Several polls taken this spring and early summer show broad support for environmental protection in general and endangered species protection in particular. This is not new. Polling data has consistently shown strong, consistent support for conservation of resources and biological diversity.

However, there remains a broad misconception that the people of the U.S. do not care about the environment and do not trust science or scientists in land use and management decisionmaking.

Neither of these ideas is supported by data. The media and elected officials, who often help spread misconceptions about public opinion on the environment, need to be frequently reminded of the strong public support for the environment.

ACTION:

The data below should be helpful in reminding and convincing elected officials and the media of these facts when opportunities arise to write letters, e mails, faxes to the editor or to legislators.

Below find summaries and press releases for 3 polls with links to more complete data from the polls.

A. >From an April poll commissioned by the Unified Endangered Species Campaign

7 Nearly all voters (90%) recognize as important that the Endangered Species Act provides a safety net for wildlife, plants, and fish that are on the brink of extinction.

7 Understanding the importance of habitat protection, fully 95% of voters agree that one of the most effective ways to protect species is to protect the places they live.

7 Most voters are aware of the ESA, and fully 86% of voters nationwide support the Endangered Species Act. Even as 69% of voters agree that government is too intrusive in their daily lives, concerns about species protections trump this anti-government view.

7 Fully 90% of voters are responsive to the view that they owe it to their children and grandchildren both to be good stewards of the environment and to avoid causing species to go extinct, as people must leave behind a legacy of protecting species and the special places they call home so that future generations, too, can see animals in the wild. .

7 Voters view species protection as so important that they are nearly unanimous in their agreement that when the science is uncertain, it is better to err on the side of caution, because once a species goes extinct, it is gone forever. They are also very moved by the view that people have a duty to prevent the extinction of species because once they are gone, we cannot bring them back.

Conclusion:

While voters believe that the federal government and government regulation are too intrusive in daily life, rather than supporting a roll back in the Endangered Species Act they favor expending additional resources on species and critical habitat protections. They believe strongly that allowing species to go extinct is simply not acceptable, and we owe it to our children and grandchildren to be good stewards of the environment and to avoid causing species to go extinct, so that they too can see animals in the wild. Any perception that there is a ground swell of support for weakening the Endangered Species Act is clearly a misperception. Voters are strongly supportive of species protections in general and the ESA specifically, including and especially with regard to protecting critical habitat.

See more poll results

B. From a May 2004 Yale University National Poll.

For Immediate Release May 2004

Contact: Dave DeFusco, 203-436-4842

Yale University Releases National Poll On The Environment

New Haven, Conn. -- A Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies survey of 1,000 adults nationwide shows Americans are seriously concerned about the country's environmental health and want more political action on the environment, particularly at the national and international levels. A wide majority of voters say a candidate's stance on the environment will be a factor in how they decide to vote in November. Voters  especially younger voters  want the candidates for president to talk more about their plans for the environment.

While the country is profoundly divided when it comes to national politics, Americans of all political persuasions are as troubled by the problems of air pollution and toxic contamination of soil and water as they are by the much higher-profile issues of jobs and the cost of gas. There is also a new environmental concern in post-9/11 America: bio-terrorism and the security of the country's food and water supply.

According to Gus Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, "This poll underscores that Americans are concerned about the environment, and they want the federal government to take action to protect it. It shows that the positions the presidential candidates hold on the environment will likely be a significant factor in the voting behavior of Americans this November." Eighty-four percent of those polled say the environment will be a factor in their vote in November; 35% consider it a "major factor."

Results of the poll indicate that nearly three out of five (59%) Americans rate the quality of the country's environment overall as "only fair" or "poor," while just 3% say America's environment is "excellent." Americans are not optimistic about the immediate future of the environment. Just 16% say that the quality of the environment in the United States is getting better, while 50% say it is getting worse.

The results are even more striking when Americans are asked about global environmental conditions. Three-fourths rank global conditions as "only fair" or poor, and 63% say conditions are getting worse.

"There's a real concern on the part of the majority of Americans when it comes to the overall quality of our environment," said Speth, "and people are genuinely concerned that it's only going to get worse. Moreover, the public perceives a huge deficit between its aspirations for environmental protection and what our politics actually delivers."

Yale Professor Dan Esty, who took the lead in developing the poll with nationally recognized polling firm Global Strategy Group, said, "Political pundits usually dismiss the environment as an issue that affects elections because they think people don't listen when politicians talk about it. Clearly, that's not the case. In this presidential campaign, at least so far, neither candidate has spent much time talking about his positions on the environment. This poll indicates they might want to start talking about it  soon."

According to the poll, fully two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the United States government does not do enough about the environment and should do more. "Americans want concrete efforts taken to protect the environment," notes Esty.

The combination of strong concerns over the state of the environment and an expectation that the federal government could do more to address pollution and natural resource-management challenges translates into a "desire on the part of most Americans to hear the candidates for president talk more about their plans to protect the environment," according to Esty. A majority of Americans (56%) say that the candidates should talk more about their plans for the environment. A significant percentage of the electorate (37%) wants the candidates to talk "much more" about environmental issues.

And the public wants action as well as talk. Eighty-four percent believe the United States should enact stricter emissions and pollution standards for business and industry. This reflects substantial majorities of Democrats (92%), Independents (90%) and Republicans (68%).

The poll also indicates that Americans are concerned about the price of gasoline and the issues of jobs and the economy. But Americans view protecting the country's water and food supply from terrorists as just as serious a problem; fully 87% of Americans rate protecting the country's water and food supply from terrorist attack as a very serious problem.

Esty said, "That's a relatively new phenomenon, but not a surprising one. Just about every day since 9/11, the American people have been reading, hearing and seeing on television, news stories regarding public officials' concerns that terrorists will target a major source of water or food. After awhile, those news stories have an effect, and it's clear that they've had an impact on peoples' opinions."

In the end, said Esty, "the environment remains an issue of concern for most Americans  in one way or another. One of the hallmarks of our country has always been that one generation has passed on to the next generation a better life: better jobs, better technology and a better standard of living. To a certain extent, the price of that has been the health of our environment  and now people are saying, 'I'm worried about the environment, we need to take better care of it, and it's part of what makes for higher quality of life.'"

The survey was conducted for the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies by Global Strategy Group from April 26 to May 3, 2004. The survey was conducted using professional phone interviewers. The nationwide sample was drawn from a random digit dial (RDD) process. Respondents were screened on the basis of age, i.e., to be over the age of 18. The survey has an overall margin of error of 13.1% at the 95% confidence level. That is, if the same survey were conducted among similar respondents, the results would fall within the range of 13.1% in 19 out of 20 cases.

> Complete report in PDF format: 

C. From a Public Policy Institute of California poll focusing on energy and electoral issues

Press Release

The Green State: Californians Want Environmental Protection Despite Economic, Financial Costs

Gas Prices, Air Pollution Could Change Vehicle Preferences; High Speed Rail, Hybrid Vehicles Get Boost From Pro-Environment Attitudes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 22, 2004  Californians priorities are clear even if their air isnt. Growing concerns over air pollution and related health dangers have led residents to place environmental protection and improvement above many other policy issues  including economic growth  according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) in collaboration with the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations.

The surveys large sample size (2,505) and multilingual interviews (conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese) make this the most comprehensive  and in some ways surprising  survey on state environmental conditions and policies to date. Despite Californias fiscal woes, majorities of Californians (55%) and likely voters (54%) say that the environment should be the top policy priority  even at the expense of economic growth. Moreover, by a two-to-one margin (55% to 28%), likely voters want the state to continue funding environmental programs at current levels.

Still, the percentage of residents who think the state is not doing enough to protect the environment has dropped from 50 percent to 42 percent since 2000. The reason? Four years ago, 40 percent of Republicans said the state government was not doing enough for the environment; today just 24 percent say the same. As it has with many issues, the partisan divide over environmental protection and regulation has widened dramatically in recent years, says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare.

Spare the Air

Air pollution tops the list of most important environmental issues facing the state, surpassing the next most important issue  pollution in general  by 25 points (33% to 8%). Since 2000, the percentage of Californians who say air pollution is a big problem in their own region has increased by 7 points (28% to 35%). The concern about air pollution is most strongly held by blacks (43%), Asians (41%), and Latinos (39%). A majority (59%) of residents also believe air pollution is at least a somewhat serious health threat to themselves or their families, and very few (23%) have high optimism that the state will have better air quality 20 years from now.

Attention Detroit! Californians Give Thumbs Up to Fuel Efficiency, Lower Emissions

The growing perception that Californias air is polluted  and that air pollution poses a serious health threat  may be part of the impetus behind a willingness to spend more money on technologies and programs to help alleviate the problem. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of state residents believe automakers should be required to significantly improve fuel efficiency in new vehicles sold in the U.S.  even if it increases consumers costs. An even higher percentage (81%) say they would back a state law requiring automakers to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from new cars by the year 2009. Support for such a law is high across the political spectrum (Democrats 88%, independents 86%, Republicans 71%) and among SUV owners (77%).

Californians also appear willing to pay higher taxes and fees in the name of cleaner air: A majority of state residents (66%) and likely voters (62%) support increasing the vehicle license fee for new cars by six dollars to pay for a program to put cleaner engines in older diesel buses, trucks, and equipment.

Ironically, rising costs are the stimulus behind changing consumer behavior and preferences: Nearly half (47%) of residents say they have already cut back on their driving due to high gas prices  even more (56%) believe higher fuel prices are here to stay  and two-thirds say that rising gasoline prices will make them think about purchasing a more fuel efficient car. Indeed, 63 percent say they would seriously consider buying or leasing a hybrid car (gas-electric). A large majority of the public (67%) also favors rewarding drivers of hybrid vehicles by allowing them to use carpool lanes when driving alone.

The degree of willingness people have to dig deeper into their wallets and to readily embrace new technologies show just how deeply environmental concerns resonate with Californians, says Baldassare. These views also reflect anxiety about the dangers of greenhouse gases and a strong belief in the theory of global warming: 71 percent of Californians believe that unchecked amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will lead to global warming. Consistent with this concern, 76 percent believe immediate steps should be taken to counter the effects of this phenomenon.

Governor Gets High Ratings Overall; Lower Ratings on Environment

Although they have dropped modestly since May, Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers approval ratings remain high among residents (from 64% in May to 57% today), and likely voters (from 69% in May to 64% today). However, Californians are not as glowing when it comes to the governors handling of environmental issues: 39 percent approve and 27 percent disapprove.

Despite their caution about Schwarzeneggers environmental record, residents like his ideas for developing alternative energy sources. A solid majority of residents approve of the administrations plan to encourage the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology  a proposal that calls for the construction of a hydrogen highway comprised of 200 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. In a political twist, fewer Republicans (50%) than Democrats (59%) and independents (64%) support the idea. On many environmental issues, the governor may end up drawing his most significant support from outside his own political party, says Baldassare.

An overwhelming majority (82%) of residents also endorse the goal of having 15 percent of new homes in California run partly on solar power starting in 2006. On this issue, there is majority support from across the political spectrum (Democrats 86%, independents 83%, Republicans 75%).

Environment To Play a Role in November and Beyond

Eighty-two percent of Californias likely voters say the environmental positions of presidential candidates are at least somewhat important to them  and 37 percent say they are very important  as they think about the upcoming election. When asked which candidate they trust more to handle environmental issues, voters choose Kerry over Bush by a wide margin (56% to 30%). Only about one-third of the public (32%) and likely voters (33%) approve of the way President Bush is currently handling environmental issues. Interestingly, when Ralph Naders name is included in the question about which candidate voters trust most on environmental issues, 31 percent choose Nader, considerably narrowing Kerrys advantage over Bush (34% to 27%) on the issue.

The presidents overall performance also receives less than majority support from residents (40%) and likely voters (42%). Not surprisingly, then, fewer likely voters support the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney ticket (38%) than support John Kerry/John Edwards (49%). Five percent say they would vote for the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo independent ticket.

Beyond November, two pieces of proposed pro-environment legislation could find success if and when they appear on the ballot. A nearly ten billion dollar state bond proposal to construct a high-speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles currently enjoys majority support (57%) among likely voters. A majority of likely voters (59%) also support a proposed five billion dollar bond to fund air quality programs and reduce emissions. This measure has far more support among Latinos (70%), Asians (66%), and blacks (63%) than it does among whites (56%).

The Californians and the environment survey  a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation  is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the seventh in a four-year series intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about growth, land use, and the environment. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,505 California adult residents interviewed between June 30 and July 14, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. For more information on methodology, see page 19.

PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

See complete report