Center for Biological Diversity California Native Plant Society

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

Barriers toNative PlantConservation in theUnited States:

Funding, Staffing, Law

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................. 2

Introduction........................................................................................... 4

The Need for Native Plant Conservation .............................................. 5

The Value of Native Plants ................................................................... 6

Plants are the Foundations of Ecosystems and Economies............ 6

Non-native Species Threaten Ecosystems...................................... 7

Barriers to Native Plant and Ecosystem Conservation ......................... 9

Legal Requirements for Conservation are not Met.......................... 9

Better Science Is Needed.............................................................. 11

Federal Botany Staffing Does Not Meet Science and Management Needs ................................................................ 12

The Law Treats Plants as Second Class Conservation Citizens... 14

Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................... 16

Plants and Animals Require Equal - and Effective - Protection..... 16

Action Plan for Plant Conservation................................................ 16

LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................ 18

Appendix 1 - Typical Duties of Land Management Agency Botanists. 21

Appendix 2 – Botany Staffing Budget Proposal .................................. 22

Appendix 3 – Global Targets for Plant Conservation.......................... 24

Appendix 4 – The Equal Protection for Plants Campaign................... 25

2

Executive Summary

Plants are primary foundations of life on earth. Plants produce foods, fibers and medicines that fuel our economies and sustain our societies. Plants anchor the ecosystems that we depend on for invaluable services including water purification, crop pollination, and erosion control.

Few people realize, however, the importance of plants to ecosystems, societies or

economies. When they think of nature, they tend to focus on charismatic animals such as bears, eagles and hummingbirds. Few make the basic connection between bears and the native grasses and berries they eat, or between hummingbirds and nectar-bearing flowers. Even fewer link ecosystem services such as oxygen production with photosynthesis or water quality maintenance with the wetland plants that maintain it.

Unfortunately, an imbalance has developed in laws, budgets and policies which treat native

plants as second class conservation citizens. As a result, native plants lose ground daily to sprawl, pollution, invasive exotic organisms, and, most tragically, to neglect.

This report documents the neglect of native plant conservation in the United States in three

key areas: (i) unequal implementation of species conservation laws (ii) understaffing in federal resource and land management agencies (iii) unequal protection under state and federal endangered species law Unless these obstacles are removed so that plant conservation programs can be effective

and successful, efforts to conserve native species and ecosystems that depend on native plants are doomed to failure.

FINDINGS Imperilment∗ is Extreme • According to state heritage programs, there are more than three times as many imperiled

plants in the U.S. as imperiled animals. Fully one third of our flora is considered to be at risk of extinction.

• Almost 60% of species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) are plants – roughly 700 taxa.

Endangered Species Laws are not Implemented • Imperiled plants are half as likely to receive listing protection under the ESA as imperiled

animals. • Of the roughly 700 plants that are listed under the ESA, only 4% have habitat protection

through federal designation of critical habitat.

∗ Throughout this report, ‘imperiled species’ are defined as those with a global conservation

status rank of G1 (critically imperiled), G2 (imperiled), or G3 (vulnerable). Imperiled species may or may not be listed under the ESA.

3

• The federal government spends 25 times more towards recovery of animals listed under the ESA than towards plant recovery programs.

Botany Understaffing • Botany staffing in federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and

the Forest Service is wholly inadequate to meet legal, scientific, or management requirements for native plant species and communities. The BLM employs only 68 botanists nationwide to manage 264 million acres (1 botanist per 4 million acres). The Forest Service employed only 128 botanists nationwide in 2001. At the same time, nearly 3,000 foresters (who primarily manage commercial timber) were on staff. Botany understaffing means that some of the many imperiled plants in the U.S. are disappearing from public lands simply due to lack of personnel to perform routine, and legally required, surveys and monitoring.

Unequal Protection under Law • The ESA provides much weaker protection for listed plants than for listed animals.

Although it is illegal to kill any listed animal without a permit, under current law many federally listed plants can be deliberately killed without a permit and with no requirements for mitigation. This destruction is happening day after day throughout the U.S.

• At the state level, only 29 state endangered species acts provide any protection for plants.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We propose the following action plan to address these deficiencies in state and federal plant conservation law, budgets, staffing and policy:

1. Federal agencies must employ adequate numbers of botanists to comply with legal

requirements for scientific analysis of the environmental impacts of agency actions and to fully participate in project planning, rare plant conservation, monitoring, weed control, restoration and other key conservation activities.

2. Funding for recovery of federally listed species must be increased so that recovery plans are developed and implemented for all listed species.

3. Funding for listing of imperiled species must be increased so that imperiled plants and animals which legally merit listing protection receive it.

4. The Federal Endangered Species Act must be amended to provide equal protection for plants and animals.

5. State Endangered Species Acts must provide adequate protection to plants and animals. 6. Federal budgets for invasive species control must be increased so that new invasions are

prevented and the expansion of existing invasions is halted. 7. The United States must ratify the Global Convention on Biological Diversity and promote

attainment of the conservation targets in the Convention’s Global Plant Conservation Strategy.

4

The extinction of even a single plant species may result in the disappearance of up to 30 other species of plants and wildlife

US Forest Service Fact Sheet

Introduction

Native plants are among the most important resources of the United States. They are the primary producers in almost all ecosystems. We rely on native plants and the ecosystems they support for critical services and products, from oxygen production, water purification, erosion control, and production of foods, fibers and thousands of commodities, to our ability to enjoy our magnificent forests and wildflowers.

Unfortunately, native plants are in decline, steadily losing ground to poor land management,

uncontrolled sprawl, pollution, climate change, habitat destruction and invasive species. We are not responding adequately to the threats to native plants and their habitats. Funding and staffing for all aspects of biological diversity conservation and recovery is dangerously inadequate in the United States. However, at every level, both within and outside of government, spending for and attention to plant conservation lags far behind that given to animals. This report provides an overview of the importance of native plants and of key challenges in our efforts to conserve them and the ecosystems they support.

5

The Need for Native Plant Conservation

The United States is botanically rich The United States is home to 15,300 vascular plant species, about 7% of the global total. Of

these, approximately 4,000 species are endemic to the U.S.—they are found nowhere else on earth. Fifteen percent of the world’s gymnosperms (conifers and related species) live only in the U.S.A.1

We are losing our natural heritage

Accelerating habitat destruction, pollution, and destructive resource use are consuming our native plant communities. According to the Sierra Club, between 1960 and 1990, sprawl consumed an area approximately the size of West Virginia as urbanized lands in the U.S. doubled from 25,000 square miles to 51,000 square miles. Approximately 80% of the nation’s coastal ecosystems have been damaged or destroyed by development. Invasive non-native species,

excessive and poorly planned logging, mining, and other activities also besiege native plants. Less than 10% of northwestern ancient forests remain intact. More than half the nation’s original wetlands have been destroyed, a loss of 117 million acres.2

These trends are taking their toll on plant species. According to the Association for Biological

Diversity and state heritage programs, 5,103 U.S. vascular plant species are currently imperiled (Global Heritage Rank G1-G3)3∗—one third of the nation’s total. Over 700 plant species and subspecies are listed under the ESA.4

The United States has special plant conservation responsibilities

Because it is so ecologically diverse, the United States has unique responsibilities. Some of the planet’s most extraordinary species and ecosystems occur within our borders, and many are at risk.

Numerous studies have identified Hawaii, large areas of California, the Florida Panhandle,

and the southern Appalachian mountains as among the most urgent priority areas for global habitat and species conservation efforts because of their species richness and the threats they face.5 As the world’s wealthiest nation, and as global leaders in science, we have no excuse not to do what is needed to conserve this natural heritage.

∗ Throughout this report, ‘imperiled species’ are defined as those with a global conservation

status rank of G1 (critically imperiled), G2 (imperiled), or G3 (vulnerable). Imperiled species may or may not be listed under the ESA.

Over 5,000 U.S. plant species are recognized as imperiled – 1/3 of our species.

6

The Value of Native Plants

Plants are the Foundations of Ecosystems and Economies

Plants are essential to life on this planet Plants are the foundations of ecosystems in many ways. Through photosynthesis, plants

convert water and carbon dioxide into the oxygen we breath and are the primary producers of biomass that fuels life. Plants convert atmospheric nitrogen into protein—one of the basic building blocks of life.6 Without these and other plant-mediated processes, almost all life on this planet would cease to exist.7

Native plants are essential to wildlife

Native plants and wildlife have coevolved over the millennia. Native plants meet the exact food and shelter needs of native wildlife through mutual adaptation.

Wildlife-plant relationships are often extremely specialized. For example, the Clark’s

Nutcracker, a bird native to the Sierra Nevada, cannot survive or reproduce without nutrition from the seeds of a specific native plant: the Whitebark Pine. For its part, the nutcracker helps the pine reproduce by spreading its seeds.8 Neither native species can survive without the other. Many butterflies, such as the imperiled Bay Checkerspot, feed on, lay eggs in, and pollinate only specific native plants.9 This type of obligate interrelationship is one reason why land managers, such the U.S. Forest Service, use the composition and health of plant communities to evaluate the quality of wildlife habitat through systems such as the Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (WHR) system.10

Native plants are essential to ecosystem function

Through photosynthesis, cycling of nutrients, climate regulation, regulation or fire frequencies and other processes, native plants create and maintain the integrity of ecosystems. For example, plants are central to hydrologic cycles. Plants facilitate water infiltration into soil, intercept runoff, and absorb and transpire water.11 A single large tree may transpire several hundred gallons of water per day. Plants also clean water by absorbing and trapping contaminants with their roots, particularly in wetlands.12 All of these processes help moderate flooding and improve water quality.

Plants also build soil. Soil stores water, buffers climate change, and produces the foods we

eat and commodities we use.13 Plant roots, shoots, and foliage also reduce soil loss to erosion by binding soil together and helping soil resist the erosive force of raindrop impact.14

More often than not, we do not know what critical functions particular native plants may

perform, now or in the future. They may provide essential ecosystem services, such as erosion control, water flow regulation, or water purification. They may be reservoirs of genetic diversity that will maintain sustainable food and commodity production into the future. They may be required by other species or by ecosystems to survive climate change or disturbances such as flood, fire or disease. This is why a U.S. Forest Service fact sheet on biological diversity states:

“The extinction of even a single plant species may result in the disappearance of up to 30 other species of plants and wildlife.”15

7

Genetic diversity within native plants also helps to protect species and ecosystems from disease, climate change, and other environmental fluctuations. As the United Nations Environmental Programme stated in its 1995 “Global Biodiversity Assessment” (UNEP, 1995), based on contributions by more than 1,500 scientists:

“…it is clear that the loss of biodiversity has serious economic and social costs. The genes, species, ecosystems and human knowledge that are being lost represent a living library of options available for adapting to local and global change.”16

Native plants produce valuable commodities Timber, food, fibers, medicines, and numerous other products are made from plants.

Twenty-five percent of prescriptions written in the United States are for medicines originally derived from plants. The life-saving cancer drug taxol was developed from the Pacific Yew, a native of moist stream canyons in western ancient forests (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/8/95). Insects and birds that depend on native plants for habitat and survival pollinate billions of dollars of crops each year.17 The genetic diversity within native plants may be useful for the production of medicines and other commodities and for the maintenance of crop health and food supplies.

Native plants provide aesthetic and recreational

values Finally, native plants provide invaluable aesthetic and

recreational benefits. Plants are the most visible elements of ecosystems. Up and down our coasts, valleys, and mountains, native wildflowers and trees delight the eye and perfume the air throughout the year. The nation’s multi-billion dollar wildland recreation industry depends on native plants. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, outdoor recreation (wildlife watching, hunting and fishing) generated more than $101 billion in economic activity in 1996. Wildlife watching alone generated $29 billion and supported almost 1 million American jobs.18

The American people want to protect native ecosystems

Polls repeatedly and unequivocally show that the public appreciates these values and strongly supports protection of native plants, animals and their habitats.

• In 2001, the Los Angeles Times found that a large majority (58%-34%) of Americans favored

protecting plants and animals over other policy initiatives—a sentiment that held true even in Alaska and the mountain West, places with a traditional aversion to government control (Los Angeles Times, 4/30/01).

• A CNN/Time poll found that 63% of Americans oppose reducing protection for endangered species (CNN/Time, 1995)

• The US Fish and Wildlife Service reports that Americans spent $29.2 billion dollars to observe photograph, and enjoy wildland plants and animals in 1996.19

Non-native Species Threaten Ecosystems

As noted above, native plants are encircled by threats. One of the most serious is invasions by non-native plants, insects, and disease organisms. In the United States, invasive non-native

Recreation in native wildlands generated $101 billion in economic activity in the U.S. in 1996 .

8

species are estimated to be the second greatest cause of species decline and extinction, following only direct habitat conversion.20 Successful conservation of native plants, ecosystems and the services and values they provide depends on preventing and controlling infestations by invasive non-native species.

Non-native plants degrade wildlife habitat

As noted above, many native wildlife depend on specific native plants for survival. Invasion by non-native plants can interfere with wildlife survival. Numerous studies demonstrate reduced numbers and/or diversity in birds, reptiles, small mammals, and insects in areas infested with non-native plant species.21 For this reason, land management agencies and wildlife conservation groups such as the Audubon Society often replace non-native plants with natives to restore habitat for imperiled animals such as the California Quail (San Francisco Chronicle 12/27/01).

Non-native plants destabilize ecosystems

Native plants are specifically adapted to function optimally in concert with their native soils, wildlife and climate. Infestation by non-native plants tends to decrease the ability of ecosystems to provide the valuable, high quality services we depend upon.

The roots of many noxious, non-native weeds such as tamarisk, star-

thistle, and knapweed are known to penetrate deep into the soils and to deplete water tables and increase competition with natives for limited nutrients. Other common non-natives, particularly annual grasses, have weaker root systems than natives. In addition to competing with native plants for water and nutrients, infestation with these species substantially increases erosion risk. For example, soil loss can be almost 200 percent higher on hillsides dominated by Spotted Knapweed than for native bunch

grass vegetation types, causing costly damage to soil productivity, water supplies and reservoirs.22 Conversion of native shrubland to non-native grassland has been found to increase risk of slope failure and erosion.23

Non-native plants tend to alter other key ecosystem processes, such as fire regimes, as well.

For example, infestation by annual Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has greatly increased fire frequencies in much of the western United States. With each fire, more native grasses and shrubs are killed and the dominance of Cheatgrass increases.24 Other non-native annual grasses have similar effects.

Non-native pests destroy native plants

The American Chestnut, the American Elm, the Port Orford Cedar, and the California Black Oak are a few of the tree species that have been devastated by exotic fungal diseases in the past century.25 These organisms are generally introduced by accident and spread by vehicles, livestock, wildlife, wind, and water. Millions of acres of forests and other native plant communities nationwide have been affected by these and other non-native fungi, insects, viruses, and bacteria.

Erosion can increase up to 200% when weeds replace native plants.

Fire danger and fire frequency are often substantially increased by non-native weed infestation.

9

Barriers to Native Plant and Ecosystem Conservation

Given the value and imperilment of native plants, what is being done to conserve them? Not enough. In the United States, a wide array of obstacles stand in the way of efforts to conserve and restore native plant species and communities.

Legal Requirements for Conservation are not Met

The Federal Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, and other laws direct federal agencies and land managers to conserve native plant species and communities. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC § 4321 et seq.) establishes that the policy of the United States is to

“…promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation…” (emphasis added)

The Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) recognizes that rare species of

“…fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people…”

These and other laws set strict requirements for conservation of imperiled species and habitats, particularly on public lands. They also require rigorous scientific analysis of potential impacts to species and habitats from land use and management. Neither the letter nor the spirit of these laws are consistently or fully implemented for either animals or plants, but the situation is worse for plants. An example is provided by the inadequate and unequal implementation of the ESA.

Imperiled plants are less likely to receive protection under the Federal

Endangered Species Act The ESA is the strongest protection the law provides for species at risk of extinction. As

noted above, thousands of plants and animals throughout the U.S. have been identified as being at risk by the scientific community and state heritage programs. Within this group imperiled plants (Global Rank G1-G3) are less than half as likely as animal species to be listed and protected under the ESA (see Figure 1). Only approximately 700 of the more than 5,000 imperiled plants in the U.S. are federally listed while roughly 500 of the 1,400 imperiled U.S. animals are protected.26

The pattern is also problematic for critical habitat designation under

the ESA. This designation identifies and conserves habitat and ecosystem processes which are essential to the recovery of listed species. As of June 2002, critical habitat has been protected for only 4% of listed plants while approximately 30% percent of listed animals have designated critical habitat.27 This means that essential habitat and ecosystem functions necessary for recovery remain unprotected for fully

96% of federally listed plants.

Federal Critical Habitat has been designated for only 4% of listed plants.

10

Figure 1. Percentage of Imperiled Species Listedunder Federal Endangered Species Act

14%

36%

0% 20% 40%

ListedPlants

ListedAnimals

This situation may be changing. Since the early 1990s, public interest groups including the

California Native Plant Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the Conservation Council of Hawaii, Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Hawaiian Botanical Society and others have brought a series of successful lawsuits to address the failure of the federal government to list and designate critical habitat for imperiled plants. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of designating critical habitat for more than 200 plant species in Hawaii, California and other states.

Nevertheless, the ESA still has strong opponents in and out of Congress. Threats to weaken

the ESA statute emerge each Congressional session. Underfunding is also a serious problem. In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated in Congressional testimony that it required a budget augmentation of at least $120 million merely to meet their backlog of legally mandated listing, critical habitat designation, and other responsibilities. As long as Congress continues to underfund the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and remains hostile to the ESA, it is likely that the agency will remain unable to meet its obligations to list and protect imperiled plants and animals in a adequate and proactive manner. Spending for recovery of listed animals far exceeds that for listed plants

Recovery is the most important function of the ESA. The Act states that its primary purpose is to recover listed species and “the ecosystems on which they depend,” and to remove such species from the endangered species list (ESA Section 2; (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)).

Recovery plans and programs include conservation of essential habitat for listed species, management of fire and invasive organisms in listed species’ habitats, restoration of hydrological regimes, and other complicated and expensive

activities. Funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery program is so low that recovery plans have not yet been developed for more than 250 listed species.

For species with recovery plans, implementation is highly variable. Plants receive much less

attention than animals. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Congress in 1997, $265 million was spent by the federal government overall on recovery efforts for listed species. This includes spending by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service itself, as well as by the

The Federal Government spends 25 times more towards listed animal recovery than towards listed plant recovery.

11

U.S. Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, Department of Defense, and other agencies which manage listed species. Of this, expenditures for plants totaled a mere $10.6 million.

Of the 1,111 species listed at that time, the top 100—including only 1 plant—accounted for

90% of the expenditures while the remaining 1,012 taxa, including more than 600 plants, split the remaining 10% of allocated funds.

Figure 2. Recovery Spending, 1997

10.6

265

0 100 200 300

Total

Plants

$ (Millions)

Better Science Is Needed

Soil, hydrological, nutritional, microclimate, reproductive and other requirements must be identified, monitored, and met Proper management of imperiled species and ecosystems is demanding. In order to

effectively manage and conserve species, we must understand the species, their lifecycles, and their habitat needs.28 Threats must be identified and addressed. Quantitative indicators of species viability and habitat quality must be identified and monitored.29 Habitat restoration must be performed where needed. These are difficult and time-consuming tasks. According to the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, development of even a single species management or recovery plan can require months of research. Multi-species or habitat based conservation and recovery planning are of course considerably more time-consuming.

The need for science is reflected in the law

The National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land and Policy Management Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act and other laws all recognize the need for rigorous science in resource, species, and land management. These laws require meticulous species and resource inventories, examinations of environmental impacts of proposed

12

Many BLM Field Offices and National Forests have no botanists on staff.

projects, analyses of species viability, and other scientific analyses as integral and continuing features of species, resource, and public land management programs.

Meeting the legal and practical requirements for science-based management requires

significant funding and hard work by qualified experts. Unfortunately, as demonstrated below, staffing and funding for both federal wildlife and botany programs does not come close to meeting the needs either of land managers or the resources they manage.

Federal Botany Staffing Does Not Meet Science and Management Needs

There are greater numbers of imperiled plants than animals There are approximately 1,327 imperiled animals in the U.S. but over 5,000 imperiled

plants.30 Despite the fact that imperiled animals depend on plants for survival, and despite the fact that there are more plants than animals at risk, federal land management and regulatory agencies employ far fewer plant specialists than animal specialists. This leads to an unmanageable workload for the few botanists in our federal agencies and to inadequate management of botanical resources.

Federal agencies employ inadequate numbers of plant and wildlife specialists

Federal staffing for wildlife conservation is well below what is required to meet legal, scientific, and management requirements for our native wildlife.

But the situation is even worse for plants. For example, the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 264 million acres but employed only 68 botanists in 2001. The Forest Service employed only 714 wildlife biologists and only 128 botanists nationwide to manage 191 million acres and thousands of species of wildlife and plants in 2001 (see Figure 3). Many National Forests and BLM field offices employ no botanists at all. At the same time, nearly 3,000 foresters, primarily responsible for managing the small subset of plant species used for commercial timber, were employed on USFS staffs.

Figure 3. Botanists' Responsibilities on Public Lands

1.49 million

3.88 Million

0.00 2.00 4.00

BLM

USFS

Million Acres/Botanist

13

For every Botanist employed by USFS, more than 22 Foresters are on staff.

California’s National Forests provide an example (see Table 1, Figure 4) of the consequences of these policies. As described above, management of imperiled species is labor intensive. Although local priorities mean that certain animals, such as Spotted Owls, receive greater attention than others, on average the larger number of wildlife biologists means that each wildlife biologist is responsible for fewer sensitive species. Wildlife biologists thus generally have greater opportunities to learn the individual habitat requirements and lifecycles for each animal, leading to better management.

In contrast, each California National Forest botanist must learn the key characteristics and

habitat requirements for an average of 14 designated sensitive plants. Because species occur in more than one jurisdiction, California National Forest botanists may be required to be experts on as many as 40 rare species and hundreds of common plants.

Table 1. Botany and wildlife specialist workload on California National Forests

Plants Animals

Sensitive species 366 83 Full time staff specialists 29 85 Acres/full time specialist 700,000 250,000 Sensitive species/ full time specialist 14.02 0.98

Advocacy makes a difference The botany workload is in fact unusually light in California compared to most National

Forests. As shown in Figure 3, on average, the Forest Service employs one botanist for every 1.5 million acres it manages nationwide, while Table 1 shows that in California there is an average one botanist per 700,000 National Forest acres. One reason that California National Forests are better staffed in botany than those in other states may be attributed in part to the presence of a strong plant conservation community in California, led by the California Native Plant Society. The California Native Plant Society has made public lands botany staffing an advocacy priority for more than 2 decades.

Inadequate staffing leads to inadequate management

Inadequate staffing leads to management problems on the ground, according to federal biologists. Appendix 1 presents a partial list of the typical duties of federal agency botanists, from sensitive plant management to weed control. Where well-trained, full time botanists are absent, these duties are either not performed or performed poorly by undertrained substitutes who are forced to add botany to their other responsibilities. Many dedicated wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, and others throughout the BLM and Forest Service labor tirelessly in an attempt to maintain semblances of botany programs, but dedication and hard work cannot substitute for trained professional botanists who understand the local flora and habitats.

14

Figure 4. USFS California Botany and Wildlife Staffing

��������������������������������������0

0.4

0.8

1.2

Staff/sensitiveplant

Staff/sensitiveanimal

In the absence of trained full-time botanists, fewer management plans are developed for

sensitive plants. Sensitive plant populations are monitored less frequently and thoroughly. Projects such as logging or road construction may be planned with little or no information on potential impacts to imperiled plants in the area. Important plant areas—sites high in endemism or rich in rare species—are neither identified nor protected. Weed infestations may remain undetected—and uncontrolled—for months or even years. Restoration projects linger unimplemented. Appendix 2 presents a budget proposal developed by the Native Plant Conservation Campaign to begin to remedy the understaffing in BLM and Forest Service botany programs.

The Law Treats Plants as Second Class Conservation Citizens

The Federal Endangered Species Act provides inferior protection to plants than to animals

Few people realize that the ESA provides almost no protection to most federally endangered and threatened plants. In fact, although the ESA protects federally listed animals everywhere, it allows nearly unlimited destruction of many federally listed threatened and endangered plants outside of federal lands—where most federally listed plants live.

Section 9 (a) (1) of ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)

gives animals full protection from destruction “within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States”

or “upon the high seas.” But Section 9 (a) (2) (B) of the ESA prohibits destruction of federally listed plant species only on “areas under federal jurisdiction.” Plants also cannot be killed in knowing violation of state law, while trespassing, or in violation of Section 7 of the ESA which governs federal agency actions (see Equal Protection for Plants Campaign, Appendix 4).

The Endangered Species Act provides almost NO protection to most Federally listed endangered and threatened plants – among the most imperiled American species.

15

Therefore, listed plants are only protected (1) on federal lands or during activities that are funded, permitted, or carried out by a federal agency and are therefore under federal jurisdiction, or (2) in the unlikely event that it can be proved that they are destroyed in knowing violation of state law or during trespassing. Logging, housing development, mining, and other activities may all kill unlimited numbers of federally listed plants, even cause extinction of species, as long as the destruction does not meet these conditions.

Thus, plants that are on the brink of extinction frequently have little or no protection from

destruction even if they are listed under the ESA. Examples of extremely rare and federally listed plants which we currently know are being deliberately destroyed include the Pima Pineapple Cactus in Arizona which is being damaged by livestock management operations. In California, the federally endangered Braunton’s Milkvetch is subjected to uncontrolled bulldozing, herbicide application and other methods to remove it from the site of a development near Los Angeles.

Few state Endangered Species Acts protect plants

State endangered species laws do little to offset the problems in the federal law. According to a 1998 Defenders of Wildlife report31 (see Figure 5), 45 of the 50 states have some form of a state-level endangered species act. However, of these, only 29 state acts provide any protection for state-listed plants. Many of these protections are inadequate.

In states where endangered species laws do not cover plants, or in which plants are poorly

covered, imperiled plants must rely on the deeply flawed Federal Endangered Species Act for whatever protection it can provide. As noted above, this often leaves them vulnerable to unlimited destruction.

Figure 5. State ESAs which Protect Plants (shaded states have plant protection statutes)

16

Conclusion and Recommendations

Plants and Animals Require Equal - and Effective - Protection Science—and commonsense—tell us that we must conserve plants in order to conserve

wildlife, ecosystems and biological diversity successfully. As the National Academy of Science put it in its critique of the ESA, which provides weaker protections for plants than animals,

“There is no scientific reason (other than lack of knowledge) to [provide inferior protection to] nonvertebrate animals and plants … under the ESA.”32

This is true not only for protection under the ESA, but also for staffing of public lands, for recovery, research, education, designation of critical habitat, and listing of imperiled species.

We know that good science and effective ecosystem conservation require hard work by

qualified experts, serious commitment by leaders and resource managers, and adequate funding. But our current laws, budgets, and policies do not reflect these basic facts. We are failing to meet the basic needs of plants and animals, putting species, ecosystems, and this planet’s future at risk. This is poor and shortsighted policy. These problems must be corrected.

Action Plan for Plant Conservation

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign proposes the following strategy to improve the effectiveness of plant conservation programs in the United States.

1. Botany understaffing within federal agencies must be addressed. Specifically,

• the U.S. Forest Service should, at minimum, employ one full time, qualified botanist per Ranger District

• the Bureau of Land Management should, at minimum, employ one full-time, qualified botanist per 500,000 acres under management (see Appendix 2)

2. Spending for the federal recovery programs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM,

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Department of Defense, etc.) must be increased so that

• recovery plans and budgets are developed for all listed species within 1 year of species listing

• recovery plans are fully implemented for all species listed for 6 years or more • recovery plan budget requests are funded to at least 50% of the amount

requested annually for each species33

3. The budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Listing Program must be increased so that

• all imperiled plants and animals meeting the legal criteria for federal listing are listed

• critical habitat is designated for all plants and animals for which designation would provide conservation benefit

17

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a budget allocation of $24 million/year for 5 years is needed merely to relieve their current backlog of species already identified as candidates for listing and critical habitat designation. This minimum allocation should be continued in order to provide the protection of the ESA to the many other imperiled plants and animals in need of conservation

4. The Federal Endangered Species Act must be amended to provide equal protection to plants and animals

5. State Endangered Species Acts must be amended to provide equal and effective protection to plants and animals

6. Federal budgets for invasive species control must be increased so that new invasions are prevented and the expansion of existing infestations is halted

7. The U.S. must ratify the Global Convention on Biological Diversity and promote attainment of the conservation targets specified in the Convention’s Strategy for Plant Conservation (Appendix 3) both within the U.S. and internationally

18

LITERATURE CITED

1 Stein, B.A., L.S. Utner, and J.S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. NatureServe, Washington DC; Noss, R.F. and R.L. 2 Noss, R.F. and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems. Defenders of Wildlife,

Washington DC. 3 Stein, B.A., L.S. Utner, and J.S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. NatureServe, Washington DC; Noss, R.F. and R.L. 4 Suckling, K. 2002. Database of federally threatened and endangered species as of 6-13-02.

Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Endangered Species Box Scores.

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html 5 Stein, B.A., L.S. Utner, and J.S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. NatureServe, Washington DC; Noss, R.F. and R.L. Noss, R.F. and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems. Defenders of Wildlife,

Washington DC. Olson, D.M. and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The Global 2000: A representation approach to con-

serving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12(3): 502-15.

Wilson, E.O. and D.L. Perlman. 2001. Conserving Earth’s Biodiversity CD ROM. Island Press, Washington, DC.

6 Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 1999. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th ed. Prentice Hall,

Upper Saddle River, NJ. 7 Raven, P.H., R.F. Evert, and H. Curtis. 1981. Biology of Plants, 3rd edition. Worth Publishers,

New York, NY. 8 Lanner, R.M. 1996. Made for Each Other: A Symbiosis of Birds and Pines. Oxford University

Press, Oxford, England. 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Determination of Threatened Status for the Bay

Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). Federal Register September 18, 1987

10 Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.

California. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA. 11 Wilson, E.O. and D.L. Perlman. 2001. Conserving Earth’s Biodiversity CD ROM. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

19

12 Ewel, K.C. 1997. Water quality improvement by wetlands. In: Nature’s Services: Societal

Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (G.C. Daily, Ed.). Island Press, Washington DC. 13 Daily, G.C., P.A. Matson, and P.M. Vitousek. 1997. Ecosystem Services Supplied by Soil. In:

G.C. Daily Ed. Natures Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC.

Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 1999. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

14 Myers, N. 1997. The World’s forests and their ecosystem services. In: Nature’s Services:

Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (G.C. Daily, Ed.). Island Press, Washington DC.

15 USDA Forest Service. 1993. Every Species Counts: Conserving Biological Diversity. Program

Aid 1499. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC. 16 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Cambridge University Press. New York, NY. 17 Abramovitz, J.N. 1997. Valuing Nature’s Services. In: State of the World 1997. W.W. Norton

and Co., New York, NY. 18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National Survey Of Fishing Hunting, And Wildlife-

Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National Survey Of Fishing Hunting, And Wildlife-

Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

20 Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to

imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48(8): 607-15. 21 Huenneke, L. 1996. Ecological impacts of invasive plants in natural areas. Proceedings:

Western Society of Weed Science 49:119-121. 22 Lacey, J. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed

Technology 3:627-631. 23 Barro, S.C. and S.G. Conard. 1987. Use of Ryegrass Seeding as an Emergency Revegetation

Measure in Chaparral Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-102

24 D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M Vitousek. 1992. biological invasions by exotic graces, the grass/fire

cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 23: 63-87. 25 Schlarbaum, S.E., F. Hebard, P.C. Spaine, J.C. Kamalay. 1997. Three American tragedies:

Chestnut Blight, Butternut Canker, and Dutch Elm Disease. In: Britton, K.O., ed. Proceedings, exotic pests of Eastern forests; 1997 April 8-10; Nashville, TN.: Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council: 45-54.

20

Garbelotto, M.P. Svihra, and D.M. Rizzo. 2001. Sudden Oak Death syndrome fells three oak

species. California Agriculture January-February, 2001: 9-19. 26 Suckling, K. 2002. Database of federally threatened and endangered species as of 6-13-02.

Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Endangered Species Box Scores.

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html Stein, B.A., L.S. Utner, and J.S. Adams, eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. NatureServe, Washington DC; Noss, R.F. and R.L. 27 Suckling, K. 2002. Database of federally threatened and endangered species as of 6-13-02.

Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Endangered Species Box Scores.

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html 28 Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning:

Habitat Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, DC. 29 Manley, P.N., and others. 1995. Sustaining ecosystems: a conceptual framework. Version

1.0. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates,

Sunderland, MA. 30 Stein, B.A., L.S. Utner and J.S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. NatureServe, Washington DC; Noss, R.F. and R.L. 31 Defenders of Wildlife, 1998. State Endangered Species Acts: Past, Present and Future.

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC. 32 National Academy of Science. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National

Academy of Science, Washington, DC. 33 Miller, J.K., J.M. Scott, C.R. Miller and L.P. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act:

Dollars and Sense? BioScience 52(2): 163-8.

21

Appendix 1 - Typical Duties of Land Management Agency Botanists

• Biological evaluations – develop risk assessments of probable effects of projects

(logging, grazing, prescribed burning, road construction, recreation) on sensitive plants

• Important Plant Area management guides – development of management guides for botanical special interest areas, research natural areas

• Planning and implementation for restoration and recovery – develop and implement habitat restoration and species recovery plans

• Interdisciplinary teams – participate in planning for protection of botanical resources during all projects and management activities, including grazing, road construction, logging, recreation, etc.

• Rare plant survey and monitoring • Species management guide development and implementation for rare species • Weed survey and management • Prescribed burning planning and implementation – ensure that prescribed burns are

consistent with needs of botanical resources • Regulation of use of native plant products such as mushrooms, basket weaving

materials, gardening materials, medicinal plants, etc. • Public education and outreach, including presentations to schools, media, and local

clubs • Management of botanical resources during wildfire fighting and post fire restoration • Landscape/watershed assessment • Consultation with state and federal agencies regarding management of listed species

Center for Biological Diversity California Native Plant Society

NNaattiivvee PPllaanntt

CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn CCaammppaaiiggnn

c/o California Native Plant Society 1722 J. St., Suite 17 Sacramento CA 95814 Ph: 415 970 0394 e mail: EMILYR@cnps.org

22

Appendix 2 – Botany Staffing Budget Proposal

Testimony of Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director Native Plant Conservation Campaign

Regarding Botany Staffing of USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management

March 26, 2002

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign (NPCC) is a nationwide network of native plant

societies and other plant conservation organizations. The NPCC is a project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society. Our mission is to promote appreciation and conservation of native plant species and communities through education, law, policy, land use and management. Currently the NPCC represents more than 46,000 laypersons and professional botanists in 13 states. The NPCC requests that Congress augment the budget of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by $19,174,640 and that of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) by $17,298,860 to adequately staff botany programs within these agencies.

Background

Americans treasure our public lands. They are central to our quality of life and to our

economic well being. Botanists are among the most important resource managers on public lands, but Federal land management agencies are severely understaffed in botany. This is a serious problem for a number of reasons.

First, plants are the foundations of ecosystems. Proper management of native vegetation is

a primary factor determining the quality and quantity of goods, services and enjoyment that Americans derive from their public lands. Second, eagles, bears, salmon, and other native wildlife that the public enjoys require healthy, well-managed native plant communities for food, cover, and safe habitats to raise their young. Third, rare species conservation, timber harvest, recreation, energy development, livestock management and other important programs all require input and review from qualified botanists to be successful. Fourth, success of these programs means better ecosystem health and fewer costly and time-consuming conflicts under the Federal Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws. Finally, the President’s current priorities for public lands include increased emphasis on fire and invasive weed management to prevent further ecological degradation. Because both priorities focus on vegetation, botanists are integral to implementing them effectively.

Nationwide, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employs only 68 botanists to manage

vegetation on its 264 million acres (1 botanist per 4 million acres). The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employs 128 botanists across 191 million acres of National Forests (1 botanist per 1.5

23

million acres). These staffing levels are clearly inadequate to meet the agencies’ duty to taxpayers or the needs of the public lands.

Request

We request the following augmentations as the minimum necessary to begin to move the

agencies towards adequate botany staffing: Each USFS Ranger District should be staffed with at least one full time series 430 botanist. BLM office organization varies considerably from state to state. Therefore our

recommendation is based on acres managed, rather than numbers of districts or offices. We propose that BLM employ one series 430 botanist for each 500,000 acres under management.

Based on a GS-11salary ($41,684/yr), these staff levels would require the following budget

augmentations:

Agency Current FTEs FTE Goal Needed

Additional Cost (over current

budget)

USFS 128 543 (1 FTE per Ranger District) 415 $17,298,860

BLM 68 528 (1 FTE per 0.5 million acres) 460 $19,174,640

Total $36,473,500.00

We hope that you will take this proposal and these issues into account as you

formulate budgets for FY 2003 and beyond. Sincerely,

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D. Director

24

Appendix 3 – Global Targets for Plant Conservation

Adopted April 12, 2002

by the

6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Targets for the Year 2010

• Assemble widely accessible working list of known plant species • Develop preliminary assessment of conservation status of known plant species at

national, regional, international levels • Develop model protocols for plant conservation and sustainable use • Effectively conserve at least 10% of global ecological regions • Effectively conserve at least 50% of worlds Important Plant Areas (IPAs) • At least 60% threatened species conserved in situ • At least 30% of production lands managed consistent with the conservation of

plant diversity • 60% of threatened plant species in accessible ex situ collections, preferably in

country of origin, and 10% of them included in recovery and restoration programs • 70% of genetic diversity of crops and other major socio-economically valuable

plant species conserved, and associated local and indigenous knowledge maintained.

• Management plans in place for at least 100 major alien species that threaten plants, plant communities and associated habitats and ecosystems

• No species of wild flora endangered by international trade • At least 30% of plant based products derived from sources that are sustainably

managed • Decline of plant resources, and associated local and indigenous knowledge,

innovations and practices that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care halted

• The importance of plant diversity and the need for its conservation incorporated into communication, educational and public-awareness programmes

• The number of trained people working with appropriate facilities in plant conservation increased, according to national needs, to achieve the targets of this strategy

• Networks for plant conservation activities established or strengthened at national, regional and international levels.

For more information on the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, read it online at http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&m=cop-06&d=09

25

Appendix 4 – The Equal Protection for Plants Campaign

Open Letter calling for Equal Protection for Plants under the

Federal Endangered Species Act June 24, 1999

Plants and animals contribute equally to the stability, health, and functions of the ecosystems

on which we all depend for survival. However, plants and animals are not treated equally under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

Federally listed plant species are among the rarest and most imperiled species in our nation.

But although the Federal Endangered Species Act prohibits the unauthorized destruction or even harm of Federally listed animals everywhere they occur, it allows many listed plants to be killed, without limit, on non-Federal lands, except in restricted circumstances.* In fact, some plant species can be knowingly driven to extinction without violating the Federal Act.

Lesser protection for plants is unsupportable biologically. It disregards our current

understanding that plants and animals are inextricably intertwined in the structure and functioning of healthy ecosystems.

Unless plant species are protected from extinction as vigorously as animals, efforts to

conserve biological diversity will inevitably fail. Plants and animals depend upon each other for food, habitat, indeed for their very survival. We cannot arbitrarily pick only one kingdom to protect. Ecosystems cannot survive with only one group or the other.

For these reasons, the undersigned organizations urge that the Federal Endangered Species

Act be amended to provide the same protection for plants that it currently provides for animals through all of its policies, programs, and penalties.

Signed (as of June 20, 2002), 1. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington DC 2. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC 3. American Lands Alliance, Washington DC 4. Endangered Habitats League, San Diego, CA 5. Endangered Species Coalition, Washington DC 6. Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, Sacramento, CA 7. Pacific Rivers Council, Portland, Or 8. California Botanical Society, Sacramento, CA 9. Oregon Natural Resources Council Action, Eugene, OR 10. Sequoia Forest Alliance, Weldon, CA 11. Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, Hayfork, CA 12. Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers, Missoula MT 13. Forest Issues Group, Grass Valley, CA 14. Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Georgetown, CA 15. Whidbey Environmental Action Network, Seattle, WA 16. Oregon Natural Desert Association, Portland, OR 17. Grassroots Environmental Effectiveness Network, Washington DC 18. Center for Biological Diversity, Tuscon, AZ 19. Society for Conservation Biology 20. Student Environmental Action Coalition, Normal Il 21. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC

26

22. John Wesley Powell Audubon Society, Normal IL 23. US PIRG, Washington DC 24. Florida Native Plant Society 25. Native Plant Society of Oregon 26. Texas Committee on Natural Resources (TCONR) 27. Washington Native Plant Society 28. Southern California Botanists 29. Indiana Native Plant and Wildflower Society 30. The Wilderness Society, Washington DC 31. The Sierra Club, Washington DC 32. Friends of Georgia, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA 33. North Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society 34. Botanical Society of America 35. Society for Conservation Biology, Missouri Chapter 36. T&E Inc., Cortaro, Arizona 37. Utah Native Plant Society *Section 9 (a) (1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) gives animals full protection from

destruction “within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States” or “upon the high seas.” But Section 9 (a) (2) (B) of the ESA prohibits destruction of Federally listed plant species only on “areas under Federal jurisdiction.” Plants also cannot be killed in knowing violation of state law, while trespassing, or in violation of Section 7 of the ESA which governs Federal agency actions.

Therefore, listed plants are only protected (1) on Federal lands or during activities that are

funded, permitted, or carried out by a Federal agency and are therefore under Federal jurisdiction, or (2) in the unlikely event that it can be proved that they are destroyed in knowing violation of state law or during trespassing. Logging, housing development, mining, and other activities may all kill unlimited numbers of Federally listed plants, even cause extinction of a species, as long as the destruction does not meet these conditions.

27

For more information contact the

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

c/o California Native Plant Society 1722 J. St., Suite 17

Sacramento CA 95814

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D. Project Director

Phone: 415 970 0394

Fax: 916 447 2727 e-mail: EMILYR@cnps.org

Web:

www.cnps.org www.biologicaldiversity.org

A project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society

This report may be cited as Roberson, E.B. 2002. Barriers to Native Plant Conservation in the United

States: funding, staffing, law. Native Plant Conservation Campaign, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA and Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ Photos courtesy Emily B. Roberson, Lorena and Dan Moore, and Hugh and Carol Nourse

©Native Plant Conservation Campaign, 2002

28

The mission of the Native Plant Conservation Campaign is to promoteappreciation and conservation of native plant species and communities

through education, law, policy, land use and management.