230 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity 



tern, administered by FWS (3). Many of the ref- 

 uges have been created by revenues from an- 

 nual waterfowl hunting permits. Consequently, 

 most refuges are purchased to protect habitats 

 for migratory birds. Refuges may also protect 

 habitats of threatened or endangered species 

 (e.g., Atwater Prairie Chicken National Wild- 

 life Refuge in Texas) or large mammals (Na- 

 tional Bison Range in Montana), with funding 

 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

 a land trust funded by the sales of grazing 

 leases, offshore oil, mineral rights, and other 

 sources on Federal lands. The Land and Water 

 Conservation Fund is the principal source of 

 money for land purchases by Federal agencies. 



Refuges may provide habitats for a diversity 

 of species, but the designation of the refuge is 

 to benefit one or a few species of special inter- 

 est. Woodland habitats along some east coast 

 refuges, for example, have been converted to 

 grassland-wetland habitats to enhance water- 

 fowl at the expense of overall diversity. 



State programs also tend to focus on selected 

 species of fish, wildlife, and plants, although 

 the emphasis differs somewhat from Federal 

 programs. States generally receive revenues 

 from hunters, fishermen, and Federal grants, 

 for management and conservation of harvested 

 species. Interest in nongame species is increas- 

 ing, however. State agencies, through referen- 

 dums, are expanding their fish and wildlife pro- 

 grams to a wider array of species' conservation 

 efforts. Public pressure to conserve and manage 

 nongame populations and increased budgets 

 to implement programs (62) are increasing State 

 efforts. However, State nongame programs are 

 funded by add-on monies from tax checkoffs, 

 which hampers the ability of most States to ade- 

 quately fund or maintain personnel for their 

 nongame programs. In addition, this type of 

 funding severely hampers long-range planning 

 and implementation of nongame projects. An 

 alternative to this type of funding is to provide 

 monies from the State's general fund, as is be- 

 ing done by the Florida Fresh Water Game and 

 Fish Commission (31). 



Another State activity is the Natural Heritage 

 Program, a set of public and private programs 



to protect diversity in each State (46). Each pro- 

 gram develops an inventory of the State's rare 

 species and ecosystems and identifies priority 

 actions. The Nature Conservancy establishes 

 and initially supports the programs. In some 

 instances. States will take over the program de- 

 vised by TNC and incorporate activities into 

 the State government. In other instances, States 

 and TNC share responsibilities. 



State Natural Heritage Programs and data- 

 bases are designed to be compatible so national 

 information on species diversity can be col- 

 lated. As of February 1986, 44 States had con- 

 tracted for the program and 26 of these had as- 

 sumed administration of the program from TNC 

 (30). The Conservancy also maintains four non- 

 contracted programs and has separate contracts 

 with the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Na- 

 vaho Nation, and Puerto Rico. 



Programs' abilities to protect diversity are 

 limited by their resources and the degree of in- 

 fluence they have in the State governments. The 

 Rhode Island program, for instance, although 

 part of the State government, receives its fund- 

 ing from the Federal Fish and Wildlife Serv- 

 ice. Thus, its inventory is primarily limited to 

 species identified by the Endangered Species 

 Act. A lack of resources and influence hamper 

 this program's ability to comment on State and 

 Federal developments and State land-acquisi- 

 tions. The South Carolina program, also part 

 of the State government, is supported by a 

 $400,000 State grant fund and income-tax 

 checkoff (21). With these resources, the program 

 maintains a larger inventory, buys and manages 

 land, and comments on all relevant State and 

 Federal developments. 



Programs that are not part of a State govern- 

 ment have fewer resources and opportunities 

 to affect Federal and State decisions. Two fur- 

 ther constraints are the limited information that 

 programs are able to collect and the lack of a 

 national classification system for natural eco- 

 systems. 



Nevertheless, State Natural Heritage Pro- 

 grams perform a function unfulfilled by exist- 

 ing institutions. The continuing inventory of 

 rare species and ecosystems enables the pro- 



