Page 9: Benefit (Outcome)
This is confusing, given that there is a definition of outcome provided later.
o Suggest deleting the entry.
o If there’s a desire to keep the entry, delete the definition and add the parenthetical “see Outcome” (see my comments on the definition for “Outcome,” below)
Page 9: Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity
The current wording of the parenthetical in the first phrase connotes rarity as attributable only to vegetation, and the list then seems to leaves out those elements that are neither major nor rare. It is also problematic to use “system” as a composition parameter for ecosystems. The parenthetical also lists composition elements that are of different scales for example, “riparian systems” that can include different vegetation types.
o For a little more equivalency of scale, suggest the parenthetical of the first phrase reads, “(such as vegetation types, hydrologic cataloguing units, and soil types)”
In the second phrase, “water quality” is not an element of “structure.”
o Suggest omitting “water quality.”
The last phrase is not very helpful – all ecosystems (at least on Forest Service lands as opposed to hydroponic farms) have soil, water, and air.
o Suggest omitting “soil, water, and air resources.”
o If there is a need to include something about soil, suggest addressing it with an example under the “ecological processes” phrase, for example, “nutrient cycling.”
The last phrase inserts the word “principal,” which is not found in the definition on page 11 for “ecosystem diversity.”
o Suggest omitting “principal.”
Page 10: Conservation
The “without impairing” phrase set ups the human uses as being more important than species goals. The intent may be to ensure we look at species and human uses, but the balancing act and give-and-take is a decision to be made, not the foundation of conservation.
o If the intent was to ensure inclusion of human uses as that which we wish to conserve, suggest replacing “without impairing” with “and to provide”
Recent Comments