high priority. Several promising options exist, and they are discussed next.

End Harmful Subsidies

Billions of dollars of public subsidies for development are

Livestock Grazing
At a Glance

DAMAGE TO WILDLIFE:

• Negatively impacts 25 percent of
endangered and threatened species
in the United States.
•Destroys and degrades riparian
habitats.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS:

• Reduces hunting, fishing and
recreational opportunities.

• Estimated lost future revenue will
exceed $100 million per year in
addition to the more than $1.2
billion loss to taxpayers
since 1985.

draining the federal treasury and harming wildlife species and biodiversity. Examples include below-cost livestock grazing, mining operations and timber extraction on the almost 650 mil

lion acres of land (roughly a third of the U.S.) owned by the public and managed by the federal gov

ernment.

The most widespread of the federally subsidized, private commercial practices operating on public lands is livestock grazing, which occurs on approximately 270 million acres of rangeland managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service and FWS. For the privilege of feeding their livestock on public rangelands, ranchers pay only a fraction of what they would if their animals grazed on private property. Since 1980, the average fee paid by western ranchers to graze on private land has increased from $7.53 to $10.03 per "Animal Unit Month" (AUM) — the amount of forage needed to sustain a cow and her calf or five sheep for a single month. Meanwhile, fees for graz. ing on federal lands have decreased 32 percent over the same period, from $2.36 to $1.61 per AUM.

Despite the Clinton administration's attempts at reform, federal grazing fees are now at their

lowest since 1988. In 1993, grazing fees from these lands took in only $28 million dollars, barely 10 cents per acre. These fees are not even sufficient to pay the grazing program's administrative costs. According to a report by the Inspector General of the Interior Department, in 1990 BLM collected $1.81 per AUM from permittees while its program's operating costs were $4.59 per AUM, resulting in a net loss of $31 million. In a separate study in 1992, the House Government Operations Committee calculated that the federal government had lost $1.2 billion since 1985 because of below-cost grazing fees."

In addition to its significant economic costs, livestock grazing exacts a terrible toll on wildlife. Poor grazing management on federal land contributes directly to the decline of roughly a fourth of all species listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as harming many other species. Grazing changes the species composition of native biological communities, altering patterns of ecological succession and interfering

with normal nutrient cycling."

Habitat degradation is most pronounced in riparian (river and stream) areas, where cattle strip banks of vegetation, leading to erosion that degrades both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. A large proportion of vertebrate species in the Southwest depend on riparian areas for at least part of their life cycles. Many fish species are declining because of the loss of quality riparian habitat. Fiscally responsible management of these public resources would generate more than $150 million annually, which should go directly toward biodiversity protection."

United States mining policy is equally at odds with both the nation's economic and conservation goals. The antiquated General Mining Law of 1872, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant, gives hard-rock mining companies first claim on federal lands and then allows them to extract the minerals without paying the government any royalty whatsoever. Under the more than 600 mining-patent applications pending in 1994, the federal

gov

ernment will sell an estimated $34 billion worth of minerals for less than $1 million."

Not only is the environmental damage caused to public lands by mining techniques shocking, but the law also passes the cleanup tab right back to the taxpayer. According to the Environmental Protection

Agency, 52 designated Superfund sites, including some of the largest in the nation, are either abandoned or active mines.

Threats to wildlife come from degraded or poisoned riparian habitat, toxic-waste dumps

and cyanide ponds. For example, a northern Idaho gold mine has been leaking cyanide into a tributary of the South Fork Salmon River, poisoning the breeding grounds of threatened chinook salmon. 10 A Canadian corporation recently proposed a gold and silver mine right outside Yellowstone National Park, threatening the protected habitat of many species, including the threatened grizzly bear."

Mining companies have argued that any change in the Mining Law would force them

out of business, costing thousands of jobs, yet these same companies generally pay royalties for their activities on private lands. Moreover, oil and natural-gas industries operating on public

lands pay va 12.5 percent royalty to the federal government. Why should hard-rock mining be treated differently? The United States also loses millions of dollars yearly from below-cost sale of publicland timber. The Forest Service routinely sells timber to private logging companies for far below the fair market value of the timber -or worse. According to a 1990 General Accounting Office report, almost 40 percent of timber sales studied were offered at a price below the cost of preparing and administering the sale. The Forest Service's own accounting system reveals that 82 of the 120 national forests lost money from timber sales in 1992. These figures do not include the major cost of constructing thousands of miles of logging roads to make the timber accessible. Nor do the figures factor in the economic cost of depleting trees, soil, water and wildlife.

Like grazing and mining, poorly managed logging activities can have a devastating impact on wildlife populations. Approximately 3,000 species of animals and 10,000 species of plants are

found in national forests, including at least 260 threatened and endangered species."2 Logging puts these species in heightened jeopardy because timber harvesting often destroys quality wildlife habitat.

Overall, according to biolo

gists, logging on federal lands contributes to the decline of 14 to 17 percent of all species listed under the ESA and was directly responsible for the listing of several large forest mammals, such as the grizzly bear and woodland caribou.

Poorly planned clearcuts and logging roads also lead to changes in soil hydrology and nutrient cycling. Resulting erosion can clog trout and salmon streams with silt, harming fish populations and often depleting fisheries hundreds of miles away. Although the Forest Service and its chief, Jack Ward Thomas, deserve credit for recent attempts to implement ecosystem management in a way that benefits wildlife, logging continues to threaten some species. For the lynx, wolverine, marten, fisher and other species, survival depends in part upon the existence of uncut forests, 13

Expand Existing Funding
Programs

If the ESA is ever to succeed in fully accomplishing its mission, new funding sources will be needed. Funding for species con

servation could be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), dedicated natural-resource damage fees, the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative, public user fees and increased concessionaire charges.

Billions of unused dollars exist in the LWCF reserve," generated by a tax on offshore oil production and federal property sales. These funds were intended for use each year in purchasing conservation rights to private property, but instead are accumulating. Congress should direct that they be used to acquire conservation easements or, where that is not possible, fee-simple title to the country's most biologically important but unprotected lands. Protecting habitat before species become imperiled is the surest way to prevent further economics-versus-environment conflicts. 15 Another funding option is natural-resource damage fees dedicated to species conservation. In many pollution-related litigation cases, fines are assessed on the basis of an estimate of the violation's or action's impact on

wildlife. The money is used to restore damaged habitat, among other things. Defenders recommends that fines for actions that destroy listed species and habitat be dedicated specifically to endangered species programs administered by FWS and NMFS. 16

A proposed program, called the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding initiative," also shows promise for collecting substantial money for wildlife conservation. For years, hunters, fishermen and other consumptive users of natural resources have complained that they, through hunting licenses and taxes on firearms, fishing equipment and ammunition, have borne more than their fair share of conservation costs. Conversely, nonconsumptive users have complained that fish and wildlife agencies have focused too much on game species. To provide states with increased funding for conserving nongame species, Defenders, in cooperation with other conservation groups, has proposed putting a user surcharge on outdoor-recreation equipment. This

minimal user fee would be assessed at the wholesale level on products such as tents, binoculars and photographic film. This initiative could generate about $300 million annually and substantially aid states in funding nongame

conservation.

Another option that should be considered seriously is an increase in public user fees. By market standards, visitation fees at national parks, forests and wildlife refuges are low. Given that 83 percent of Americans consider themselves environmentalists, it seems likely that they would prefer higher user fees to lessening protection for endangered species.

Concessionaire fees at federal wildlife facilities also should be increased. From an accounting perspective, restoring endangered species, such as the gray wolf, on public lands, is analogous to capital improvements in the business world. For example, reintroduction of the gray wolf in Yellowstone and central Idaho is expected to bring an additional $20 million in tourist revenues to local businesses. Concessionaires

who benefit should be willing to accept an increase in lease fees.

Together, these recommendations can generate hundreds of millions of dollars without raising income taxes. The additional funding can pay for increased scientific review, economic incen

Below-Cost Timber Sales At a Glance

DAMAGE TO WILDLIFE:

• Roadbuilding fragments habitat, causing forest-interior bird species to dedine. •Soil runoff buries salmonid spawning beds and destroys aquatic habitat. ECONOMIC DAMAGE: •Decline of Pacific Coast salmon and steelhead fisheries adversely impacts regional economies.

tives for private landowners and an expanded state role in endangered species conservation.

Close Existing Loopholes

Congress should strengthen a number of weak provisions that now allow unnecessary species harm. The reauthorized ESA should:

•Set statutory time limits for completing species recovery plans and specify in the plans the actions necessary to achieve recovery.

• Protect threatened and endan

gered species of plants and
strengthen overall enforcement
for listed plants.
•Eliminate the 60-day-notice
requirement for any citizen suit

involving an emergency
that
poses significant risk to the well-
being of a listed species.
•Ensure that legal incidental take
of species under Sections 4(d), 7
and 10 is fully mitigated and
authorized by permit.

• Specify that the reasonable and prudent measures established as conditions of incidental-take under Section 7 are mandatory and that failure to comply with such measures is a violation of the Act.

• Ensure that the cumulative effects of federal and non-federal actions are considered for all listed species to avoid incremental loss of habitat.

• Clarify that federal agencies should not participate in actions or projects overseas that would jeopardize listed species.

As the preceding discussion has shown, it is possible simultaneously to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act while curing its perceived problems. To

accomplish these goals, a series of shifts in policy direction is needed. First, science must be better used to improve the ESA's effectiveness and monitor its implementation. Second, incentives to

promote good land stewardship by private landowners are needed. Third, the knowledge of state and local natural-resource-agency personnel should be better

tapped to enhance species recovery and prevent listings. Finally, given the severity of biodiversity loss, additional funding must be made available to expand conservation activities at all levels of society. Together, the recommended changes in the ESA and related legislation not only will make the ESA work better, but also will reduce the need for it.