222 • Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity 



FEDERAL MANDATES AFFECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 



CONSERVATION 



No Federal law specifically mandates the 

 maintenance of biological diversity, either off- 

 site or onsite, as a national goal. The term it- 

 self is used only in Title VII of the Foreign Assis- 

 tance Act of 1983 (discussed in ch. 11). A 

 number of Federal laws require the conserva- 

 tion of resources on Federal lands, however, 

 or require that consideration be given to re- 

 sources in Federal agency activities. Offsite 

 maintenance of agricultural plant germplasm 

 diversity is mandated indirectly through legis- 

 lation authorizing the National Plant Germ- 

 plasm System (discussed later in this chapter). 

 But offsite maintenance of wild plants, wild ani- 

 mals, and microbial resources is not explicitly 

 mandated by Federal legislation. 



The lack of a comprehensive Federal onsite 

 policy leads to uncoordinated programs, fre- 

 quently leaving important gaps in conservation. 

 Generally, Federal agencies coordinate conser- 

 vation activities onsite for species that are spe- 

 cifically mentioned in Federal protection laws, 

 but this coordination frequently does not ex- 

 tend to nonlegislated species. For example, on- 

 site conservation can be coordinated among 

 Federal agencies for threatened and endan- 

 gered species under the Endangered Species 

 Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205). But no formal 

 institutional mechanism exists to coordinate 

 conservation of thousands of plant, animal, and 

 microbial species not recognized as threatened 

 or endangered. 



Offsite germplasm conservation mandates 

 are equally vague. For example, the Agricul- 

 tural Marketing Act of 1946 is intended to "pro- 

 mote the efficient production and utilization 

 of products of the soil" (7 U.S.C.A. 427), but 

 it is interpreted narrowly by the Agricultural 

 Research Service to mean domesticated plant 

 species and varieties. Little consideration has 

 been given to conservation of wild plant 

 species. 



Federal mandates give even less attention to 

 offsite conservation of domesticated and wild 

 animals. Legislative authority is vague and pro- 



vides little direction to the Agricultural Re- 

 search Service. 



Table 9-1 lists the major Federal mandates 

 pertinent to diversity maintenance. Species pro- 

 tection laws authorize Federal agencies to man- 

 age specific animal populations and their habi- 

 tats onsite. Legislation on the protection of 

 natural areas authorizes the acquisition or des- 

 ignation of habitats and communities that help 

 maintain a diversity of natural areas under Fed- 

 eral stewardship. Federal laws for offsite main- 

 tenance of plants authorize conservation and 

 development (or enhancement) primarily of 

 plant species that demonstrate potential eco- 

 nomic value. Offsite maintenance of domestic 

 animal germplasm is authorized indirectly by 

 the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 is in both cat- 

 egories of table 9-1 because it authorizes wild 

 plant and animal species protection, habitat 

 protection, and offsite conservation for those 

 species considered threatened or endangered 

 in the United States. 



Although the National Forest Management 

 Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) is the only Fed- 

 eral legislation that includes in its mandate the 

 onsite conservation of a "diversity of plant and 

 animal communities," it offers no explicit con- 

 gressional direction on the meaning and scope 

 of onsite maintenance of biological diversity. 

 Interpretation of this provision has been a dif- 

 ficult process and has involved lengthy consul- 

 tation with scientists and managers around the 

 country (50). The U.S. Forest Service ultimately 

 decided the law gave them a mandate to main- 

 tain terrestrial vertebrate species diversity and 

 the structural timber stands on all Forest Serv- 

 ice lands in conjunction with planning and 

 management processes (44 F.R. 53967-53779). 

 Whether this interpretation fulfills the congres- 

 sional intent on conserving diversity has not 

 been challenged. 



Such terms as biological resources, wildlife, 

 animals, and natural resources can and have 

 been interpreted differently by Federal agen- 



