What do 4,000 kids, 4 polar bears and 1 Center for Native Ecosystems staffer have in common?  We were all at the Denver Zoo for Endangered Species Day Friday, May 18th. 

Students of all ages from more than 70 schools came out to the Denver Zoo on the second annual Endangered Species Day to help celebrate successes in saving native species from extinction, like the Canada lynx and the black-footed ferret.  At our interactive display in front of the polar bear exhibit, the children and their teachers learned that while neither species is completely recovered, releases of lynx in Colorado have gone very well, resulting in more than 100 wild lynx kittens being born over the past several years.  The black-footed ferret, meanwhile, has done very well with breeding programs, but until prairie dog habitat along the Front Range is protected, the black-footed ferret will have little chance of survival in the wild.  The students were shocked to learn that ferrets depend on the prairie dogs for habitat.  They were especially shocked that ferrets EAT prairie dogs (though I suspect they were secretly and morbidly entranced by the idea).

Many of the children, especially those from the Ft. Collins/Loveland area, were surprised to know that the black-tailed prairie dogs that provide sustenance for the ferret are threatened along the Front Range because of habitat destruction.  They often see prairie dog colonies in their communities and were amazed to learn that these colonies are actually a fraction of their historical size.  Few of them could deny the importance of prairie dog recovery though once understanding the important role that this critter plays in the ecosystem.  While many of the children knew of the plight of exotic animals like the polar bear (reduced habitat from climate change has put a serious strain on this artic bear as they search for food in the ever shortening winter months), few of them were aware of the threatened and endangered critters in their own backyard.  Our display showed them that not only could critters in the Front Range be threatened, but that it was up to them to protect these native animals and their habitat.

Most of the students  showed a real understanding for the intricacies of our native ecosystems that adults often have a hard time grasping.  Perhaps it is because of their dependence on others for food and shelter that makes them more sensitive to the interconnectedness of the natural world and more likely to appreciate the plight of these imperiled critters.  Whatever the reason, I know that this Endangered Species Day was an eye-opening event for many of those who stopped by the Zoo, and I can only hope that they take that appreciation for the natural world back to their own community and become the next generation of conservationists.

The destruction of species through climate change, energy development, urban sprawl, or other factors affects the bottom line. Period.

Just this week, a study released by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research found that climate change could result in the loss of habitat for many native plants, which would eventually threaten their very existence. The study found specifically that over the next 50 years more than 60% of wild peanut species and 12% of wild potato species could become extinct due to climate change. Why should we care about wild peanuts and potatoes? Because farmers often rely on the genes from wild plants to help them breed stronger and more disease-resistant crops. The scenario that is expected to play out with wild peanuts and wild potatoes and their domesticated counterparts may very well extend to many of the major crops being harvested in America and around the world. Why should you care? Because the extinction of these wild plants may mean less hardy crops, leading to a lower yield, leading to higher prices for consumers. Bottom line.

Despite our best efforts to motivate corporate America to care about our native plants and critters, and to sway public opinion with pictures of cute, fuzzy animals and stories of their habitat destruction, we have always run up against the obstacles of convenience and commerce. As long as it continues to be easy and lucrative to destroy native habitats and run roughshod over delicate native species, or at least not directly detrimental to our collective pocketbooks, we will have to fight an uphill battle in both the boardroom and the court of public opinion. But now, with an onslaught of climate change studies shaking the very ground that commerce stands on, our chances of protecting imperiled native plants and critters have grown exponentially.  While we'll accept any reason for protecting our native wildlife, we'd like to think that it's not solely based on the financial impact of extinction, but rather because it’s the right thing to do.

May 2, 1982:  The day the oil shale boom died.  Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the day, as Grand Junction City Councilor Jim Spehar wrote in a Writers on the Range column, "Exxon announced that it was pulling the plug on the largest boom in modern western Colorado history."  More than 2,000 people lost their job on that day, with devastating and long-lasting effects in many western Colorado communities, including Rifle, Parachute, Grand Junction, and others.

We are fortunate, I think, that so many people around today were around back then.  Still, it doesn't seem that we are being nearly as cautious as we should be.  President Bush's Energy Policy Act (signed in 2005 with the support of both of Colorado's Senators) calls for the completion of an Environmental Impact Study on commercial oil shale leasing next year, perhaps ten years before Shell even figures out if it thinks commercial development is plausible, much less what the impacts are likely to be.

The very premise of oil shale exploitation is mind-bending.  The rock in these oil shale areas contains a material called kerogen.  Heat the kerogen to a high enough temperature and it releases petroleum products.  How do you accomplish this?  Drill a bunch of wells, insert giant heaters, superheat the rock across a large area, and drill a bunch of wells around the perimeter of the hot wells and insert giant cooling devices to freeze the surrounding rock (the theory being that the frozen rock will prevent contamination of water supplies).  The engineering is challenging, to say the least, the predicted water use staggering, and we've seen estimates that another 1-4 new coal fired power plants would need to be constructed to provide the necessary electricity.

Even aside from the considerable environmental impacts, and the daunting challenge of producing oil shale in a manner that uses less energy than you get at the other end, many of the local communities are struggling.  Yes, it's true that the boom has meant increased revenues in the affected towns.  But the costs of the boom to these communities are outpacing the resources available to deal with them.  Overflowing schools, crumbling roads, dramatically increased demand for police and other emergency services, the lack of affordable housing for those not working directly for the energy industry (many of whom are imported from other states), and overwhelmed wastewater systems are among the escalating impacts.  Even the most significant tool in Colorado for supporting these local communities - the state's severance tax - are hampered by severe underpayments on the part of the oil and gas industry (in fact, 30% of the companies audited last year hadn't even filed tax returns).

The memory of Black Sunday offers a powerful cautionary tale about boom and bust, long-term community health, and the health of western Colorado's magnificent landscape.  We are hopeful that the research happens slowly and carefully, that local communities get the support they need, and that we are very cautious in deciding on an appropriate balance between oil shale exploitation and protecting Colorado's wildlife and spectacular natural landscapes.

Julie MacDonald’s resignation, while a necessary first step, must not be the end of the story.  Instead, it should be taken as a jumping-off point, an opportunity for the Interior Department and this administration to address the real problem, which is the manipulation of science in decisions about endangered wildlife and plants.

This is not a story about one bad apple but rather an example of a deeper cultural problem within Interior, perhaps throughout the Bush administration.  The Seattle Post Intelligencer just reported on Friday on another example, where a “Washington Oversight Committee” was formed to change the direction of recovery planning for the northern spotted owl.  For another perspective on how widespread and pervasive the problem of political manipulation of science is under this administration (something the Seattle Post Intelligencer editorial staff chalked up to the Bush administration's "lapdog eagerness to ignore science and serve corporate interests"), see also the recent Union of Concerned Scientists survey of Fish and Wildlife Service employees, in which nearly half of respondents who worked on endangered species decisions said they had experienced political interference in their work.  Julie MacDonald was a symptom of a larger problem, one that will not be solved by her departure alone.

The solution is to buffer the agency scientists and scientific decision making from interference by political appointees.  Specifically, this could be done by adopting a guarantee to the right of final review for agency scientists, so they at least have the opportunity to see documents they worked on before they are made public and can attest that their expert opinions have been faithfully portrayed.  In addition and as a form of protection of last resort for agency scientists, Congress should pass the whistleblower legislation before them now (it has passed the House and is now in the Senate) that specifically protects scientific speech (there is more information on this legislation on the Union of Concerned Scientists website).  Finally, and at the very least, Secretary Kempthorne needs to make a strong statement that manipulation of scientific conclusions is unacceptable in the Interior Department.

Also, we just learned that a Congressional hearing on science in endangered species decisions has been scheduled for May 9^th at 10am.  Lynn Scarlett of the Department of the Interior will be testifying, as well as representatives from Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.  We believe the hearing will be webcast, and we will provide more information as we get it.

For background on the investigation of Julie MacDonald and her role in preempting protections for the white-tailed prairie dog, Gunnison sage grouse, and other imperiled wildlife, take a look at our earlier press release and our information on the white-tailed prairie dog and Gunnison sage grouse in the "Species" section of our website.