WSP09638

• File Number: 8027
• Description: Section D General Correspondence - Federal Agencies ‎(Alpha, not Basin Related)‎
• Date: 12/6/2002
• Author: USDA Forest Service
• Title: RMP - Proposed Rules - Federal Register - Part III - 36 CFR Part 219 - National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning: Proposed Rules
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

U !) IJL 3 1

72786

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No, 235/Friday, December 6, 2002/Proposed Rules

biological diversity at these two levels
should be tailored to the particular
planning or assessment area, 10 the
availability of information. to the issues
identified in the planning process, and
to the risks to ecological sustainability.
Consideration and evaluation of
ecosystem diversity within the
framework of biological diversity
constitutes the core approach of Option
2 and is the primary focus of ecological
information and analyses. Option 2
focuses attention on similar
characteristics of ecosystem diversity as
Option 1. but adds additional spatial
attributes to the list of characteristics to
be considered. Similarly, in addition to
analyses specified in Option 1, Option
2 focuses evaluations on identification
of unique or rare ecosystems and
ecosystems at risk, specific threats to
these systems, and measures required
for their conservation or restoration.
In Option 2, consideration and
evaluation of species diversity is a
complementary approach that extends
ecosystem analyses to provide a more
complete understanding of the effects of
past, current. and anticipated future
management direction on biological
diversity. including the status of species
and the ecosystems in which thev occur.
This second 'option requires that -species
should be selected for evaluation to
develop a more complete understanding
of the condition and trends of
ecosystems. or where substantive
concerns exist regarding the continued
persistence of the particular species
within the planning or assessment area.
In such GISeS, evaluations under Option
2 should identify specific threats to
these species and specific measures
required for their conservation or
restoration.
In addition to the primary evaluations
of biological diversity specified at
ecosystem and species levels, Option 2
also requires three additional types of
analyses of biological diversity at
ecosystem and species levels. First, this
option requires that biological diversity
be evaluated across multiple geographic
areas and time frames. especially over
large areas and long time frames. to
assess the dynamics of wide-ranging
species and cumulative impacts of
managemant actions on, among other
factors, biological diversity. Second,
Option 2 requires that impacts of
natural and human disturbance regimes
on biological diversity be evaluated.
induding consequences of altered
disturbance regimes for diversity. Third,
this second option requires evaluations
of the effects of landscape context on
bio\ogical diversity, where landscape
context refers to the ecological
condition, structure, and land use

history of the planning or assessment
area and effects on biological diversity.
Of special interest in these evaluations
are differences in ecological structure
and condition between NFS lands and
surrounding or interspersed ownerships
and the consequence of such differences
for options and opportunities 10 manage
NFS lands to achieve biological
diversity objectives at ecosystem and
species levels.
In contrast to Option 1, Option 2
formulates a substantially different and
more general biological diversity
standard for judging achievement of the
NFMA diversity requirement.
Specifically. this option requires that
plan decisions foster the maintenance
and restoration of biological diversity in
the plan area at both ecosystem and
species levels within the range of
biological diversity characteristic of
native ecosystems in the surrounding
landscape within which the plan area is
embedded. When reaching plan
decisions regarding biological diversity.
Option 2 requires the Responsible
Official to consider disturbance regimes
and landscape context and the effects of
these factors on options ar'.d
opportunities to manage NFS lands in
order to achieve biological diversity
objecti ves.
The biological diversity standard
embedder! in Option 2 provides a degree
of flexibility in managing NFS lands to
achieve biological diversity objectives in
a multiple use framework. However,
this flexibility is clearly bounded. Some
amount of change in the I.lbundance,
extent. and distribution of components
of biological diversity at ecosystem and
species levels is acceptable within the
intent of fostering the maintenance and
restoration of biological diversity in the
plan area at ecosystem and species
levels within the range of diversity
characteristic of native ecosystems in
the planning or assessment area, The
loss of an ecosystem type or species
from all or a significant portion of the
plan area or a substantial reduction in
abundance. extent. or distribution
within all or a substantial portion of the
plan area as a result of actions under the
direct control of Forest Service land
managers, however, is not consistent
with, and thus outside the bounds of,
the standard established for Option 2.
If Option 2 is selected for inclusion in
a final rule. the agency will need to
develop detailed guidance in the
Directive System and othl~r appropriate
outlets (e.g., white papers) regarding
how 10 implement and apply the
standard it contilins for biological
diversity. Determining whether this
standard is being achieved and thus
whether the NFMA diversity

requirement is being met will require
monitoring data that will allow an
assessment as to whether amounts and
components of diversity. at both
ecosystem and species levels. are within
the bounds or range of what would be
expected of natural or native ecosystems
located within the larger landscape in
which the plan area is embedded. It will
also require baseline information that
allows clear determination of the range
of ecosystem and species diversity that
is reasonable to expect for native
ecosystems in this larger landscape.
relative to the characteristics of
ecosystem and species diversity
enumerated in Option 2. In this sense,
this standard is conceptually similar to
the ecosystem diversity standard
referenced to the expected range of
variability in the 2000 rule. bul here it
is applied at both ecosystem and species
levels of ecological organization. As
compared to the 2000 rule, this option
explicitly recognizes the important
effecl that both landscape context and
disturbance regimes can have on the
ability to maintain or restore biological
diversity within the range of diversity
that is characteristic of na\ive
ecosystems in the surrounding
landscape, especially when landscape
structure and disturbance regimes have
been significantly allered by past human
activities.
In reaching plan decisions related to
biological diversity, Option 2 requires
the Responsible Official to consider the
landscape context in which NFS lands
exist and to use that information as a
basis for identifying the special role and
unique contributions of NFS lands for
conserving and restoring biological
dh'ersity within the larger landscape in
which the plan area exists.

Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2

For both options. the consideration
and evaluation of diversity is i.mportant
not only in order to meet the NFMA
diversity requirement. but also because
diversity is viewed in each option as an
important indicator or surrogate for
other important characteristics of
ecosystems. In addition to diversity
(diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species in Option
1. biological diversity in Option 2). both
options define the ecological component
of sustainability as including the
productivity, health. and function of
ecosystems and the quality of soil.
water, and air resources. In relation to
these characteristics of ecosystems,
maintaining key ecological processes
that are responsible for sustaining the
functioning and resilience of ecosystems
is of fundamental concern. HO\vever, it
is difficult to observe or measure