April, 1999

Endangered Species are Worth More than a Postage Stamp

• Each year Congress decides to split the trillion dollar budget pie into many small pieces. And endangered species get the tiniest piece of all. On average, less than 32 cents of what you pay to the IRS goes to endangered species conservation in the U.S. -- less than the price of an endangered species stamp.
• Annually, Congress spends only about $200 million on endangered species programs for over 1,100 listed species. This sounds like a lot of money, but put it in perspective:
• $160 million -- Air Force request for each of its 438 F-22s
• $60 thousand -- Library of Congress request to produce brail copy of Playboy Magazine
• $4 billion -- DOT request for highway demonstration projects over next 5 years
• $39 million -- Value of weapons and equipment lost by one Air Force base from 1991-1994
• $13.1 billion -- Defense request for 3 new attack submarines at about $4 billion each
• $40 thousand -- Renovation of the office ceiling for the Speaker of the House (gold excluded)
• $70 million -- Savings in federal budget if military commissaries charged market tobacco prices
• $16.5 million -- Total amount given to Congress by 177 anti-wildlife political action funds
• How much is biodiversity really worth? According to U.S. News and World Report, nature provides us with a staggering $33 trillion in services each year, including:
• Crop pollination from insects, bats, and birds
• Recreational fishing, wildlife and bird watching
• Commercial uses of wild fish and plants
• Animals and insects controlling crop pests
• Medicinal derivatives from rare plants and insects
• The ESA program has been chronically -- and is currently -- grossly underfunded. A 1990 Department of Interior Inspector General's report emphasized this funding shortfall, noting "it is obvious that the Service's [ESA] mission cannot be fully accomplished at present funding levels."
• In the last 10 years ESA funding needs have increased tremendously: the number of listed species has doubled, increasing the need for recovery planning, implementation, consultations, and monitoring.
• Of the more than 1,000 species listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S., less than 10 have been recovered. But who can blame the Endangered Species Act for not reaching its goals when we never give it a fighting chance? On-the-ground conservation programs -- such as reintroduction, habitat acquisition, ecosystem restoration, and public education -- are being starved to death.
• There is broad public support for endangered species. Poll after poll shows that the American public strongly supports protection for endangered species and is willing to pay for it. For example, a recent study found that randomly selected U.S. families would be willing to pay more than 30 times the cost federal experts currently calculate is necessary to save the Mexican spotted owl. Another poll reported that 63% of Americans think more federal funding should go to the environment.
• A fully funded ESA is a more efficient ESA. For species, funding means they will receive protection when they need it, rather than at the last minute when chances of long-term survival are grim. For landowners, as well as public land managers, full funding means that the agencies can respond to their need for permit or consultation more quickly, thereby avoiding costly and frustrating delays.
• Endangered species funding is needed for:
• scientific assessments of wildlife populations
• buying important habitat areas in threat of development
• review of mining, logging, grazingt, and other harmful actions
• recovery planning and on-the-ground conservation programs
• stopping illegal trade of endangered animal parts
• Invest in species now, save later. With an efficient program that provides protection to species as soon as possible, we will be able to catch species early in their decline before recovery options have become limited and recovery costs have skyrocketed.

April 1999

The Endangered Species Coalition, consisting of more than 300 conservation, scientific, fishing, and business organizations, urges you to support Congressman George Miller's (D-CA)

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 1999

In the last Congress, ESRA gathered 100 bipartisan cosponsors because it provided incentives to landowners while encouraging endangered species recovery. Now, in the 106th Congress, it is time to turn ESRA into law.

1. Providing tax incentives for good stewardship. ESRA incorporates tax proposals endorsed by both property-rights and conservation organizations. Estate tax deferrals for lands enrolled in "Endangered Species Conservation Agreements" (ESCA) would encourage large private landholdings to stay intact. By entering into an "ESCA," landowners would agree to implement proactive conservation measures (such as prescribed burning or tree planting) not already required by law. ESRA would also allow tax credits for the costs of implementing these proactive measures. In addition, the bill authorizes additional tax deductions for certain state and local property taxes on habitat managed under an ESCA.

2. Giving planning assurances without ignoring science. ESRA significantly revises the Administration's current "No Surprises" policy, which allows private landowners to alter or destroy endangered species habitat under a long-term unmodifiable permit. ESRA ensures that the initial permit is as good as it can be up front and that the developer file a performance bond to cover the costs of all reasonably foreseeable circumstances (such as wildfires, plant diseases, and other natural events that can have devastating impacts on weakened populations of wildlife). Then ESRA sets up a Habitat Conservation Plan Trust Fund to cover all other unforeseeable costs -- a safety net for landowners and species -- while allowing changes to the permit when needed to protect species.

3. Encouraging regional planning for habitat protection. ESRA encourages ecosystem planning on a regional basis. Ecosystems do not run along political boundaries, so multi-species, multi-landowner plans are essential to ensure recovery. ESRA encourages regional governments to cooperate together, allows groups of private landowners to pool resources, and allows local governments to administer habitat plans.

4. Helping landowners with streamlining & assistance. ESRA helps small landowners by streamlining the permit process and establishing an Office of Technical Assistance. ESRA also allows the small landowners that have a minimal impact on endangered species to benefit from a quick and easy permit process and to receive planning assurances.

1. Focusing on recovery, not just survival. ESRA improves the existing ESA by clarifying approval standards. Under the existing law, pesticide application, river damming, forest clearcutting, and other habitat destruction are judged by their impact on the SURVIVAL of imperiled wildlife. ESRA requires that taxpayer-funded activities must not reduce the likelihood of RECOVERY. In addition, ESRA improves the chances for recovery by identifying specific management actions and biological criteria in recovery plans, placing deadlines on final recovery plans, and encouraging federal agencies to take preventative measures before a species becomes endangered.

2. Using the best available science to plan for recovery. ESRA strengthens the existing ESA by relying on the best scientific information available. ESRA implements recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on improving the scientific basis of important endangered species decisions. For unprotected species that means providing protection before population numbers are too low to recover. For listed species that means using independent scientists to peer review large-scale, multi-species habitat conservation plans. It also means asking biologists, not politicians, to tell us what it will take to recover and eventually delist an imperiled species.

3. Requiring federal agencies to act responsibly. ESRA improves the existing ESA by strengthening the checks and balances on taxpayer-funded agencies. While federal actions already undergo review to ensure minimal impacts on endangered species, federal agencies should also make efforts to further recovery or consider the cumulative impacts of their actions. ESRA requires federal agencies to help plan for species recovery and then implement those plans within their jurisdictions. ESRA also requires agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on imperiled species in other nations.

4. Increasing citizen participation in community planning. ESRA would improve the ESA by expanding opportunities for public participation in managing their communities. By requiring public notification when a federal activity may impact wildlife in their neighborhoods, ESRA would improve the public's right to know. ESRA would also require balanced public participation in large-scale regional habitat planning, as well as allow citizen enforcement when local plans go awry.