Ch. 9— Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States • 229 



Table 9-3.— Number of U.S. Species at Various 

 Stages of Listing and Recovery as of 1985 



Species identified as candidates for listing 3,908 



Candidates with completed status researcti 964 



Species listed as tfireatened or endangered 383 



Species witfi approved recovery plans 223 



Spe cies recovering 22 



SOURCE: J, Fitzgerald and G.M, Meese, Saving Endangered Species (Washing- 

 ton, DC; Defenders of Wildlife, 1986), 



Wildlife Refuges). These habitats, often called 

 critical habitats— because the species depend 

 on these areas for survival or reproduction- 

 are designated either in conjunction with, or 

 subsequent to, the listing of a species. To date, 

 critical-habitat designations have been made 

 for only about 70 listed species (13). 



A federally listed threatened or endangered 

 species is protected from any federally author- 

 ized activity that may jeopardize its continued 

 existence, even when the activity occurs en- 

 tirely on private land (4). Any Federal agency 

 undertaking or authorizing a project in the 

 range of an endangered species must consult 

 with FWS or NMFS to ensure that the impacts 

 on a listed species will be minimal. The con- 

 sultation requirement is one of the most effec- 

 tive parts of the program in protecting threat- 

 ened or endangered species [4). It is one of the 

 least well-funded areas of the Endangered Spe- 

 cies Program, however. 



To a limited degree, efforts to manage a 

 threatened or endangered species involve off- 

 site techniques, such as artificial propagation 

 of plants and captive breeding programs for ani- 

 mals. Efforts to recover several species of large 

 birds (e.g., the peregrine falcon and whooping 

 crane) demonstrate the success of such tech- 

 niques. In some cases, captive breeding pro- 

 grams provided the opportunity for species to 

 be reintroduced into their historic range. 



In addition to Federal activities, State agen- 

 cies may receive Federal funding to implement 

 species-specific recovery and management ef- 

 forts. To date, 41 States have approved pro- 

 grams for animals, and 17 have programs for 

 plants (4). 



Overall, the Endangered Species Program ef- 

 fectively maintains species already listed and 



protected under the law, but it provides insuffi- 

 cient protection for those that are candidates. 

 The program is criticized for the slow pace of 

 candidate review in the listing process. Some 

 animals and plants may have become extinct 

 between the time they were proposed as can- 

 didates and their review by FWS (4,18). The 

 Texas Henslow's sparrow and the Schweinitz's 

 waterweed are two such examples (31). This 

 delay underscores the need to list species or 

 take other action in time to prevent their loss. 



By publishing lists of candidates in the Feof- 

 eral Register, the Endangered Species Office 

 has succeeded in bringing public attention to 

 these candidates. Now the office is working 

 with other Federal agencies to promote consid- 

 eration of candidate species in agency planning. 

 However, no legislative authority currently pro- 

 tects candidates from adverse impacts of Fed- 

 eral agency actions. 



Underfunding and understaffing of the Of- 

 fice of Endangered Species hampers its ability 

 to implement listing, recovery, and consulta- 

 tion objectives (18). With an increased budget, 

 resources would be applied initially to develop 

 recovery plans for all listed species. Consulta- 

 tion among agencies is also severely under- 

 funded. Any funding increase to the Endan- 

 gered Species Program could be gradual, over 

 5 years perhaps, so the office could expand ex- 

 isting program efforts. Program growth might 

 involve annual increases of $2 million for State 

 grant programs, $500,000 for species listing, 

 $1.5 million for consultation, and $4 million 

 for recovery plans (54). 



Other programs identify and protect selected 

 species, sometimes known as public trust re- 

 sources, designated in Federal mandates. Ex- 

 amples include migratory bird management 

 and anadromous fish hatchery programs. The 

 programs provide little protection for overall 

 species diversity. The Fish and Wildlife Serv- 

 ice, the major Federal agency with authority 

 to manage biological resources, is currently 

 focusing its limited personnel and budget allo- 

 cations primarily on public trust resources. 



One Federal program focusing on public trust 

 resources is the National Wildlife Refuge Sys- 



