SCB Asks Forest Service to Improve Proposed NFMA Rule
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) contains some of the most powerful mandates to preserve biodiversity on our public lands. NFMA requires the Forest Service to maintain all plant and animal species found on forests and grasslands as viable components in their ecosystems. On January 26, the federal government finalized a new set of regulations that revise how NFMA is implemented. In April 2011, SCB scientists reviewed the proposed changes and suggested improvements. In an article covering the revisions, the Washington Post quoted Society for Conservation Biology policy director John Fitzgerald that the rule continued to have “several weaknesses” include the fact that it would “assume and not require the responsible official to show that the plan includes all practicable steps to conserve the full biological diversity” within a given forest.” Fitzgerald stated that the “the Society for Conservation Biology cautioned against these weaknesses in its comments in the spring of 2011. We hope they will be repaired. Instead of adopting a management approach that will ensure biodiversity is maintained, the Forest Service seems to be going down a path where there will be little accountability if a Forest Supervisor chooses to ignore this mandate. By given each separate forest manager the choice as to whether to fully protect biodiversity on his or her National Forest, and by leaving other significant decisions in the hands of Federal Advisory Councils, the Service is taking a risky approach that could jeopardize the long-term health of our Nation’s forests. For example, perhaps the most important requirement of the existing 1982 rules for conserving the diversity of animals and trees on the National Forests would appear to be undercut by the proposed rule as it would:
1. assume and not require the responsible official to show that the plan includes all practicable steps conserve the full biological diversity of the planning unit as measured by indicators that are reasonably measureable;
2. not protect as species of concern many species that we have a duty to conserve under international law, such as many migratory birds,
3. not conserve species listed as threatened or endangered by the states in which the Forests occur;
4. focus on species that are present and not require the Service to maintain conditions needed for the endangered species to reoccupy areas needed for their recovery and delisting;
5. require only that the plan “contribute to” maintaining viable populations that depend on conservation on non-Forest Service lands, but does not specify that the Service’s contribution should reflect others’ contributions so as to ensure that the combination is most likely to be effective.”
