Wildlife Refuges Carry on With a Shrinking Budget

by Scott Maxham

Three dollars.

Roseate spoonbills, J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge.

Roseate spoonbills, J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Credit: Fotophilius/Flickr

That is the amount of money per acre the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System has to spend to protect the 150 million acres of land under its care. In return, the 561 national wildlife refuges provide America with 34,000 jobs and an estimated $4.2 billion to local economies according to a report released last week by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE). The report goes on to detail that 47 million people visit the refuges every year and that every dollar invested in the system returns up to $8 to local economies. And while national wildlife refuges benefit local economies, their main purpose is to provide habitat for animals that are frequently pushed out of their native lands.

Refuges provide a habitat for some 700 bird, 220 mammal, 250 reptile and amphibian, and 1,000fish species. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a wide range of responsibilities in all 50 states and even the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Navassa Island. With the increasingly tight budget, the refuges get added help from volunteers that help to accomplish 22 percent more work than can be accomplished by staffed positions. The combined efforts help protect some 280 threatened and endangered species. At American Forests, we want to help protect nature in every way possible — and help an agency that is already doing so much with so little — so we do our part by aiding restoration efforts in national wildlife refuges.

Each year, we help out various wildlife refuges. For instance, this year, we are helping put an end to forest fragmentation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge by planting more than 33,000 trees — augmenting our more than 15 years of cooperative work in this refuge alone. This area of Texas is home to a wide variety of animals. The refuge is a popular destination for migrating birds with 530 species of birds accounted for. In addition, the refuge provides a safe living space for two big cats, the ocelot and jaguarundi. These animals help to keep the balance of a healthy ecosystem. The wildlife refuge land we work to keep healthy gives back to more than just wildlife, though. It gives back to us, too, through an array of ecosystem services.

Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Credit: International Rivers

The 150 million acres of refuge land serve Americans with countless recreational activities and a wide variety of ecosystem services, such as cleaning water and air, preventing floods and storing carbon. The ecosystem services these lands provide are estimated to be somewhere around $32.3 billion a year according to the CARE report.

National wildlife refuges are essential to the environmental well-being of this country, but it takes a certain amount of funding to keep them up and running. However, the money invested is gained back by local economies that rely on tourists who support business such as eco-tourism and the necessities like food and lodging. As previously stated, the returns can be up to 800 percent for these local economies. Beyond the money, we must realize how important and priceless these refuges are. Big and small, we support them all. Without them a great deal of biodiversity would be lost, and we would live in a country facing an increased amount of environmental problems. So, go out and enjoy your favorite wildlife refuge and remind our politicians that they should not cut funding for our national wildlife refuges.


Action Against Climate Change

by Loose Leaf Team

By Michelle Werts

President Obama revealing his Climate Change Plan at Georgetown University.

President Obama revealing his Climate Change Plan at Georgetown University.

This week has been rather historic in D.C. between Supreme Court decisions and new presidential initiatives, and as you can imagine, the latter has us pretty revved up.

On Tuesday, citing the need to address climate change for the health of our children and our children’s children, President Obama revealed his wide-ranging agenda regarding climate change. His executive plan outlines three core areas of focus:

  • Cutting carbon pollution in America.
  • Preparing the United States for the impacts of climate change.
  • Leading international efforts to address global climate change.

Some of the ways the plan aims to address these areas include reducing carbon pollution from power plants, investing in clean energy, improving energy efficiency, supporting climate-resilient investments and working with other countries to take action around climate change.

But, as most of us know, you can’t talk about climate change and carbon sequestration without talking about forests. And the plan does just that, and we want to make sure forests remain a powerful tool in mitigating the effects of climate change. This is why we’ve developed a new advocacy letter that supports the president’s climate change plan, but also encourages the administration to prioritize forest restoration and conservation efforts as part of the solution.

As the plan acknowledges, America’s forests remove nearly 12 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year, but we can’t rely on them to continue to perform this massive feat unaided. They are continually being threatened by the very thing they’re helping fight in the form of intense wildfires, drought, pests and disease, so we’re gratified that “the administration is working to identify new approaches to protect and restore our forests, as well as other critical landscapes including grasslands and wetlands, in the face of a changing climate” — this is something we’ve been doing for more than a century.

At an American Forests Global ReLeaf restoration site in 2013

At an American Forests Global ReLeaf restoration site in 2013. Credit: American Forests

Back in the 1800s, American Forests’ founders recognized a disturbing trend in the country: Healthy forests were being destroyed at an alarming and unnecessary rate. As a result, in 1875, they formed this organization for “the protection of the existing forests of the country from unnecessary waste.” It’s hard to believe that almost 140 years later, we’re still fighting some of those same concerns, but over the years, we’ve become pretty good pugilists.

In just the last few decades, we’ve planted more than 44 million trees in diverse landscapes across the country and around the world. We’ve helped restore swamps in Maryland, streamside vegetation in Washington, severely burned forests in California, wildlife refuges in Texas and endangered bird habitat in Michigan, to just name a few. It is no wonder to us how similar to the climate change plan’s call to implement “climate-adaptation strategies that promote resilience in fish and wildlife populations, forests and other plant communities, freshwater resources, and the ocean” this sounds.

So, go sign and send our advocacy letter welcoming the administration to the forest-saving party, and if you aren’t already a member of the American Forests family, join us today to help protect our forests, wildlife, health and so much more.


Urban Forests & Carbon Markets

by American Forests Science Advisory Board

By Dr. E. Gregory McPherson, American Forests Science Advisory Board Member with the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station

Editor’s Note: For a brief introduction to the issues discussed in today’s post, see yesterday’s post, “A Carbon Market Primer,” by our Urban Forests Program director, Melinda Housholder.

“Cashing-in” on urban forestry projects by selling credits for carbon stored in growing trees has been elusive. Several urban forest organizations have developed voluntary carbon market projects, while the City of Santa Monica’s 1,000 tree planting project is the only one in the compliance-based market.

An urban tree planting project

An urban tree planting project. Credit: American Forests

Although urban forest projects are promising because they not only sequester carbon, but also provide other valuable co-benefits such as energy savings, stormwater mitigation and air quality enhancement, they face special challenges. They are more expensive to implement than other measures, such as tropical forest protection or methane capture. Also, high tree mortality rates and changing urban environments result in high levels of uncertainty and risk. Project investors and purchasers of carbon credits seek assurance that their carbon credits are real and permanent. I’ve been working with others to revise The Climate Action Reserve’s (CAR) Urban Forest Project Protocol and develop another protocol for carbon mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would be an important endorsement of tree planting and stewardship projects. Guidance provided by these protocols addresses issues of quality assurance and legal defensibility required by future investors. This blog focuses on revisions to the CAR protocol.

The Urban Forest Project Protocol was adopted in 2008 and revised in 2010. In 2011, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adapted the CAR protocol for the compliance-based cap-and-trade market. The resulting protocol is very similar to the CAR protocol. A workshop held in June 2012 and supported by American Forests found that hurdles to implementing the current compliance protocol are profound. Strategic efforts are needed to both overcome these hurdles through innovative project design and to revise the existing protocol to make urban forest projects more workable. For example, pilot projects will have to be undertaken by entities that have the institutional capacity to deliver large-scale projects, are well-funded and willing to take risks to lead the way. A long-term perspective that incorporates the value and future marketing of environmental co-benefits is essential for project developers, given the narrow regulatory emphasis on carbon benefits and the uncertain impacts of climate change on future tree performance. Research is needed to develop more cost-effective monitoring and data management approaches. Because space for new trees in some cities and campuses is limited, it may be difficult to deliver cost-effective projects unless operators have flexibility to aggregate smaller projects. Potential exists to make projects more affordable through training of public sector verifiers and streamlining proof of carbon ownership/access for private property trees.

An example of an urban tree canopy (UTC) map

An example of an urban tree canopy (UTC) map. Credit: Bill McChesney

With funding from CalFIRE, CAR has begun a one-year effort to revise the protocol. The work team is exploring expanding the scope of projects from tree planting to include management of existing trees. This increases potential revenue by including carbon sequestered by existing trees through the application of best management practices. It reduces monitoring and verification costs by using sample field plots and urban tree canopy (UTC), instead of tracking individual tree sites.

Monitoring UTC change can be achieved at relatively low cost by using remote sensing and GIS. Also, increasing UTC can be easily incorporated as an urban forestry strategy in community climate action plans. A recent study (Novak, D.J. and Greenfield, E.J. Tree and Impervious Cover Change in U.S. Cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2012, 11, 21-30.) found that UTC had significantly declined over the past five years in 17 of 20 U.S. cities. This outcome suggests that even maintaining the current level of UTC is challenging and a defendable benchmark for measuring additional carbon benefits due to project activities. Avoided reductions in UTC where development plans or trends are clearly altered might also be considered additional.

Switching the focus from carbon stored by newly planted trees to carbon stocks associated with all trees raises legal/policy issues, such as ownership of carbon when trees are on private land. The work team welcomes your input on this and other challenging issues we face. You can observe and comment on the work team’s progress at http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/urban-forest/rev/.


A Carbon Market Primer

by Melinda Housholder, Urban Forests Program Director

Editor’s Note: Last June, American Forests’ Urban Forests Program director, Melinda Housholder, wrote a blog post detailing the tricky web that is carbon offsets and how they relate to urban forests. A year later, there have been some interesting developments on that front, so before we dive into those updates tomorrow, we wanted to re-share a slightly updated version of Melinda’s post as a quick refresher on the complicated issue of carbon markets.

Smoke stack

Credit: Marc Falardeau

In June 2012, I attended a workshop in Davis, Calif., called “Urban Forests & Carbon Markets” that American Forests participated in and co-sponsored through a grant with the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban & Community Forestry Program. As California takes the lead to develop a cap-and-trade model to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statewide, American Forests is excited to be involved in efforts to advance urban forest projects for use in this cap-and-trade model.

What’s going on in California?
In 2006, California committed to reduce GHG emissions and passed Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act, often known as “AB 32.” This act directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce GHG emissions throughout the state by 2020 to the levels of emissions in 1990. To accomplish this goal, CARB has played an integral role in developing California’s Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program.

With this Cap-and-Trade Program, the state of California sets an absolute limit, or cap, on the amount of GHG emissions allowed throughout the state. Allowances to discharge a certain amount of pollution are auctioned off to emitters such as industries, buildings and manufacturers. To comply with the cap, the emitter then has the choice to either 1) reduce their emissions on site; 2) buy allowances to emit; or 3) buy offsets.

How do offsets work and where do urban forests fit in?

If an entity is emitting more than their allowed amounts of GHG, they have the option to buy a certain amount of offset credits issued through approved sources. In California’s case, these projects are approved under The Climate Action Reserve. Urban forest projects all over the country can apply under the Climate Action Reserve’s Urban Forest Project Protocol to receive offset credits that they can then sell to firms in California that are emitting more than their allowed amounts of GHGs.

3rd Street promenade, Santa Monica, Calif.

3rd Street promenade, Santa Monica, Calif. Credit: Alexis Fam

There is great potential for urban trees to help reduce GHG emissions throughout the state. According to an article from the nonprofit California ReLeaf, researchers estimate that “if 50 million urban trees were planted strategically, then they could offset emissions of an estimated 6.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually — around 3.6 percent of the statewide goal.” Currently, the only urban forestry project registered under the Urban Forest Protocol for carbon offset credits is a Greenhouse Gas Tree-Planting Project in Santa Monica that is designed to plant 1,000 new trees in parkways along boulevards.

As I learned at the workshop at UC-Davis last year, it has been challenging to register urban forest projects under this protocol to serve as offset projects. Tomorrow, American Forests Science Advisory Board member Dr. Greg McPherson will be on Loose Leaf to provide information on the exciting updates to urban forests and carbon markets since last year’s workshop and steps that have been taken to help make urban forests a successful component of the carbon market.


Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks

by Alison Share, Environmental Public Policy Associate, Crowell & Moring LLP

The House of Representatives had a busy week last week, even beyond the machinations surrounding the Farm Bill. On Monday, June 17, the House passed a raft of environmental bills, including ones addressing land exchanges, creating a new national historic trail and analyzing forest sites for potential inclusion in the National Park System. Two of the more interesting bills are H.R. 674 and H.R. 520.

Rota, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Rota, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Credit: ctsnow/Flickr

H.R. 674 is the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act, directing the Secretary of the Interior to examine the suitability of designating prehistoric, historic and limestone forest sites on the island of Rota, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which is located just east of the Philippines and north of Guam in the Pacific Ocean. As an insular area of the Commonwealth, Rota is recognized by archeologists as having the most numerous and intact prehistoric sites of any of the many islands in the Mariana Archipelago. The bill recognizes that beyond natural beauty, Rota also possesses a great deal of historical value, namely from the period of Japanese ownership from 1914 until 1945 due to its importance in World War II. A study on the island is to be completed once funds are available and the results will be reported back to the House and the Senate.

Also interesting from a historical standpoint is H.R. 520, known as the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This act, like the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act, addresses a topic of historical significance. It calls for the Secretary of the Interior to study potential alternatives to commemorating the role of Buffalo Soldiers during the beginning of the National Park System. And who are the Buffalo Soldiers? Glad you asked.

Five U.S. Army soldiers of the 24th Mounted Infantry, mounted on horses in Yosemite National park.

Five U.S. Army soldiers of the 24th Mounted Infantry, mounted on horses in Yosemite National park. Courtesy of San Joaquin Valley Library System.

H.R. 520 identifies the main points of their history. While Bob Marley may have brought the buffalo soldier into popular culture, it isn’t until you really examine their full role that you can appreciate how vital they were in the Western United States at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Originally based out of the Presidio, a former military base and current national park, the Buffalo Soldiers were African-American regiments, which included many former slaves, assigned to patrol the western frontier. They assisted with constructing roads and telegraph lines, but also fought in numerous campaigns against American Indians, including the Sioux, Cheyenne, Comanche and Apache. They also participated in the Spanish-American War. But one overlooked aspect to the history of the Buffalo Soldiers is their role as some of the first national park rangers in the Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks.

Assigned to the parks to help evict poachers and timber thieves, they also served as firefighters and park police before the National Park Service was established. Working in the parks at the turn of the century, the soldiers also assisted with trails, roads and other park infrastructure. Some of their many noteworthy accomplishments included constructing the first usable road into the Giant Forest and completing the first trail to the top of Mt. Whitney (the tallest peak in the lower 48 states) in Sequoia National Park. In Yosemite, they built an arboretum close to the Merced River’s south fork.

H.R. 520 is designed to study the most effective ways to raise awareness of the Buffalo Soldiers’ roles in the early years of our national parks and may include establishing a national historical trail to commemorate their journey from the Presidio to the Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks; identifying places that could be recognized in the National Register of Historic Places; and creating educational opportunities for visitors to these parks.

While Congress has not gained a reputation for expediency this term, there are still some noteworthy and important bills being passed. Highlighting those that worked to protect our national parks is certainly worth celebrating, and the Buffalo Soldiers are a key part of that history.


The Successors of Giants

by Susan Laszewski

The hemlock wooly adelgid quickly transforms entire swaths of forests to skeletons. Credit: Will Blozan

The hemlock wooly adelgid quickly transforms entire swaths of forests to skeletons. Credit: Will Blozan

It’s been a little more than two years since Will Blozan of the Eastern Native Tree Society shared his story of documenting the last giants of a dying species in American Forests magazine. In “The Last of the Giants,” Blozan tells of his race against the clock to document some of the East’s most magnificent trees before the invasive hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) decimated the species. The Tsuga Search Project he headed produced an “ecological snapshot” of southern Appalachian forests in the age of the hemlock.

Since then, HWA has continued to decimate hemlock populations, while other species gradually move in to fill their place. A new study from the U.S. Forest Service Coweeta Hydrological Laboratory in North Carolina more closely reveals some of the effects the replacement of hemlock with other species is having on the southern Appalachian forest — specifically on the hydrologic cycle.

A stream meanders through a forest of hemlocks and mixed hardwoods. Credit: Nicholas A. Tonelli

A stream meanders through a forest of hemlocks and mixed hardwoods. Credit: Nicholas A. Tonelli

Because of their dominance in riparian areas and constant year-round transpiration — the loss of water from needles or leaves — hemlocks have played a huge role in forests’ hydrologic cycle. As the hemlocks decline, they are largely being replaced by deciduous trees like sweet birch and red maple, which do not transpire year-round. The only evergreen which has been a contender to replace the hemlock has been the woody shrub rosebay rhododendron, which has a lower total leaf area and thus lower transpiration rate than hemlock. The researchers, led by Steven Brantley, found that as a result of the new species composition, annual transpiration rates fell by 22 percent from 2004 to 2011, while winter transpiration rates fell by 74 percent.

As Brantley says in the U.S. Forest Service publication CompassLive, “In the growing season, transpiration rates will likely rise, leading to lower streamflow in the summer. However, transpiration rates in the winter will be reduced, which could cause increased winter stream discharge.”

Not that streamflow is the only thing that would be affected by hemlock loss along riparian areas. The loss of shade is also causing increased water temperatures, threatening eastern brook trout and other species that live in the cold water. That was a problem in Fridley Gap in George Washington National Forest, Va., for example, where American Forests planted 240 trees in riparian areas to restore cooler water temperatures for the benefit of brook trout.

It remains to be seen what these forests will look like in the future, but by researching what to expect, we can hope to head off some of the negative effects to ecosystems.


The Slaughter of Innocent Trees

by Scott Maxham

There is a new threat facing trees in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that in September, park officials noticed 28 young trees that were damaged. While 28 may not sound like a lot of trees when you think how many trees are in a rural forest, in an urban forest, each tree is crucial. Then, there is the oddity of the event: In a normal year, 20 to 30 years are reported damaged in Golden Gate, but somehow, 28 trees were damaged in just one night. Fast forward to May 21 and more than 200 trees have been damaged throughout the park. An atypical number, which when combined with how the trees are being damaged, indicates something sinister is afoot.

Golden Gate Park

Golden Gate Park. Credit: Daniel Ramirez

The damage reported on the Golden Gate trees is not simply a fallen or sheared limb from natural causes. Large portions of the tops of trees are snapped off, and this causes the trees to rot or become infected with a life-ending disease. These high numbers of tree battery lead park workers to the conclusion that some tree-killing lowlifes are sneaking around the park at night to do their dirty work. It is estimated that the damage done is around $50,000.

Most of the trees damaged were just three to five years old, meaning they were just reaching the stage of self-sufficiency — a major accomplishment, as tree survival is also a major challenge for restoration projects. In many reforestation efforts, it is important to plant more trees than necessary because not all the trees will survive so when an outside force comes in like this and takes out the survivors, it is especially heartbreaking. Reforestation projects involve more time and effort than many realize. Digging holes and plopping in trees is the fun part of reforestation, but for true success, there is a continued commitment to caring for trees for many years after they are planted.

Above is a depressing story of trees being destroyed with no silver lining. Elsewhere in San Francisco, arborists have made the best of a potential sad story. A strong windstorm caused a city-dwelling tree to crack under the pressure. Instead of simply cutting the sidewalk-adjacent tree to make a flat, boring stump, though, the tree was cut by someone in the San Francisco Department of Public Works in such a way that it is now a small seat for weary city walkers (Check out the story from The Atlantic Cities to see a picture of the new “bench.”). Eventually, the stump will be removed, but on the bright side, another tree will be planted in its place. Now, if only someone can catch and stop those pesky tree vandals from destroying the urban forest the city is working so hard to create for its residents.


We Grow ’Em Big Out Here

by Loose Leaf Team

By Josh DeLacey

The world’s biggest Sitka spruce. Credit: Josh deLacy

The world’s biggest Sitka spruce. Credit: Josh deLacy

There is a rivalry between Washington and Oregon that has been going on for decades, and it isn’t just about football and hipster cred — we fight over trees, too. For 15 years, each state had a claim to the “world’s largest Sitka spruce,” as judged by American Forests, and whenever it was time for the annual measuring, Pacific Northwesterners on both sides of the state line would bristle a little that their tree was only a “co-champion.” When a 2006 storm took Oregon’s tree out of the running, Oregonians half-jokingly blamed the northerners.

Last week, I visited the surviving champion while backpacking in Washington’s Quinault Rain Forest, part of which is in Olympic National Park. At 191 feet tall and almost 60 feet around, the 1,000-year old Sitka spruce is big. But compared to its neighbors, not especially so.

In Quinault Rain Forest and Olympic National Park, big trees are at home. Five other national champion trees populate the area: western redcedar, Alaska-cedar, Douglas-fir, western hemlock and mountain hemlock. They all grow within a few miles of the Quinault River, along a stretch less than 30 miles long.

In Quinault Rain Forest, big trees, moss and lichens abound.

In Quinault Rain Forest, big trees, moss and lichens abound. Credit: Josh deLacy

This area is a temperate rainforest, one of several in the western Olympic Peninsula. Outside of this narrow area between mountains and coast, though, temperate rainforests are rare. Less than one fifth of one percent of the world’s land has ever been classified as temperate rainforest, and logging and development have shrunk that number even more. It’s no surprise that trees in the protected Olympic National Park hold so many records — most of their peers are holding up bridges or ceilings or doing some other job.

The surviving temperate rainforests crank out big trees because, for starters, they get a lot of rain. Twelve to 14 feet annually, in fact, which is about four times more rain than Seattle gets. Consistently moderate temperatures allow for massive trees, as well, as extreme cold and heat both can cause cavitation in a tree, a phenomenon that limits the flow of fluid and nutrients from roots to leaves. In Quinault, temperatures rarely fall below freezing or creep above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. On top of that, temperate rainforests have nutrient-rich soil. It’s an ideal location, plant-wise. Instead of struggling to survive, trees have nothing to do but grow and set records.

A map based on NASA images shows the world’s distribution of average tree heights, and aside from a small region in south Asia, the Pacific Northwest’s rainforests tower high above everywhere else. Forests in Indonesia, New Zealand even the Amazon don’t come close.

So if you want to see big trees, visit Quinault Rain Forest. Just don’t tell an Oregonian.


Help Forests by Supporting the Farm Bill

by Loose Leaf Team

By Michelle Werts

What do food stamps, biofuels and environmental conservation have in common? A little something called the Farm Bill. And when I say little, I’m being facetious: The Farm Bill is a big, expensive, important deal to the tune of $939 billion in government spending and programs.

Larriland Farm, Md.

Larriland Farm, Md. Credit: Travis Modisette

What is it exactly? To use legislative speak, it’s an omnibus bill pertaining to agriculture and food policy that comes up for debate and renewal every five years. In layman terms, it’s a massive piece of legislation that contains a whole ton of laws that impact a heck of a lot of stuff, including forests and conservation. And for the last eight months, the programs it controls have been operating under an extension, as the last Farm Bill was originally set to expire in October 2012, which is not an ideal situation and needs your support to help rectify.

Right now, as I write this, the House is debating its version of the Farm Bill reauthorization — the Senate passed its version earlier this month — with a vote expected tomorrow. At stake are myriad forest and conservation-related programs. If the House does not vote “yes” for a new Farm Bill, we’ll most likely end up with another extension, which means we’ll continue to be operating billions of dollars’ worth of programs circa 2008. Translation: not as cost-effective or up-to-date as we should be. The new Farm Bill is designed to save money and improve the programs under its purview, which means strengthened conservation programs.

So head to our Action Center and send our pre-written letter to your congressional member asking him or her to vote “yes” on the Farm Bill reauthorization, as this is the crucial next step in getting a new Farm Bill approved. Once the House has approved its version, conferencing can begin, where the two houses negotiate about the differences in the two bills and come up with a final version to go before President Obama.


Farewell, Skippers

by Susan Laszewski

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Pollinator Week is a time to celebrate pollinators and marvel at how some of the smallest among us — bees, hummingbirds, bats and others — facilitate the reproduction dance of so many of our flowering trees. In fact, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), more than 75 percent of all flowering plants are pollinated by animals. Without pollinators, we wouldn’t have crops like coffee, chocolate or many fruits and vegetables. Pollination by insects alone contributed to approximately $30 billion worth of crops in 2010.

zestos skipper

The Zestos skipper hasn’t been spotted since in Florida 2004. Credit: Marc AuMarc

But, this year, there is also sad news: Last week, the FWS, alongside other members of the Imperiled Butterflies of Florida Working Group, concluded that two south Florida pollinators, both butterflies, are likely extinct. The rockland grass skipper hasn’t been spotted since 2000, while the Zestos skipper was last seen in 2004 and even that was after decades without any sightings. What makes the Zestos skipper’s story particularly poignant is that it was only recently discovered to be a separate subspecies, distinct from the Zestos skippers in the Bahamas and eastern Antilles. Those skippers’ healthy populations account for why the disappearing Florida butterfly was never listed as endangered.

While many factors may have contributed to the skippers’ disappearances, including pesticides, invasive species and poaching, scientists believe the main culprit is habitat loss and fragmentation. That’s why we work to protect and restore wildlife habitat in order to protect biodiversity. We’ve planted more than 44 million trees, including some projects focused specifically on pollinator habitat, such as our Forests for Monarchs partnership with the La Cruz Habitat Protection Project, planting 100,000 trees in the monarch’s winter habitat. But our habitat restoration work depends on the support of people like you. Please help us continue our protection and restoration efforts.