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

~'

UIJIJL2G

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

72781

extensive information and analvsis
requirements of the 2000 rule are
necessary. In fact, the extensive work
required to initiate revision will create
further delavs in revision of plans.
Both the proposed rule and the 2000
rule address the slatutory requirements
for plan initiation; however, the 2000
rule includes more extensive direction
on the revision process than does the
proposed rule. Both also include public
notice requirements. The 2000 rule
includes a 45-day public comment
period. The proposed rule does not
include a specified comment period.
although notice is required to invite
comment. This proposed change would
allow the Responsible Official to tailor
the comment period for initiation of
plan revision to the scope and
complexity of planning issues and
opportunities for the unit.
The proposed rule and 2000 rule have
the same substantive requirement for a
gO-day publIc comment period of a draft
proposed revision.
Proposed section 219.9-Developing a
new plan. This proposed section
recognizes that, over time, additional
units may be added to the National
Forest System, such as occurred with
the recently established Midewin Prairie
in IlIl1lois. .Should Congress establish a
new national forest, grassland, prairie,
or other unit of the National Forest
System, the Responsible Official must
determine whether a separate plan is
needed or whether an existing plan can
be amended. If a new plan is needed.
the Responsible Official must follow the
requirements of this regulation. The
:WOO rule did not address this issue.
Proposed section 219.1O-Application
of plan direction. Paragraph (aJ of this
proposed section addresses the statutory
requirements of the NFMA (16 U.S.c.
1604(h)(3)(i)) that permits, contracts,
and other legal instruments must be
consistent with the applicable plan.
This paragraph is similar to the
provisions of the 2000 rule at 9219.10
requiring all site-specific project
decisions, permits, contracts. and other
authorizations to be consistent with the
applicable plan, which is required by
NFMA,
However, unlike the 2000 rule. this
proposed paragraph adds a specific
requirement that project decisions
disclose the relationship of the praiect
to the plan desired conditions. While all
project decisions Illust be consistent
with the plan, it is not practical to
require each project decision to be in
strict compliance with all aspects of a
plan's desired conditions. Sometimes a
project may have positive effects on one
aspect of desired conditions and
negative effects on another. It is also

possible that a project may have short-
term negative effects that relate to a
specific desired condition. with
predicted long-term positive effects. At
other times a project may have neutral
effects related to desired conditions.
These examples illustrate the
complexity of the relationship of a
particular project to the desired
conditions in a plan. The agency
therefore. has chosen not to include a
specific requirement that projects
comply with the plan's desired
conditions, but rather a requirement that
the project decision disclose how the
decision relates to the applicable plan
desired conditions.
Also in contrast to the 2000 rule, this
proposed paragraph specifically
requires that a new plan, amendment, or
revision decision document consider
the effects of the plan on occupancy and
use already authorized. This change is
proposed to ensure that there will be an
orderly transition when a new plan.
amendment, or revision is authorized.
This proposed section also
acknowledges that modificalions of
instruments authorizing ongoing
occupancy and use of the plan area
necessary to make them consistent with
the changes in the plan are subject to
any valid existing rights.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed section
provides that direction in plans
undergoing amendment or revision
would remain in effect until the
Responsible Official signs a decision
document for a new amendment or
revision. This provision is the same as
in S 219.1 0 of the 2000 rule.
Paragraph (c) of this proposed section
makes clear that nothing in the rule
itself requires a change of approved
projects while new information is being
assessed. This provision is proposed to
clarify the effect of considering new
information and fills a gap in both the
1982 rule and the 2000 rule.
Paragraph (d) of this proposed section
retains the provisions of S 219.10 of the
2000 rule that lists options available to
a Responsible Official when a proposal
for a project or activity would not be
consistent with plan direction.
Paragraph {e} of this proposed section
recognizes the need for testing and
research projects to gain information
and knowledge that will assist the land
manager. This paragraph makes clear
that testing and research projects are
subject to all applicable laws,
regulations, and Executive orders and
must be consistent with the plan. This
is a new paragraph developed to
acknowledge the important role of
research in National Forest System land
management and the role of NFS lands
as sites for research. This provision also

further strengthens the emphasis of this
proposed rule on monitoring and
evaluation.
Proposed section 219.11-Monitoring
and emluation. As at 9219.11 of the
2000 rule, this proposed section
specifies that plans must include
requirements for monitoring and
evaluation, although this proposed rule
does not refer to such requirements as
a "strategy." This proposed section
provides direction on the purpose of
monitoring and evaluation, the data
sources that may be used, the
coordination of monitoring that may
occur, possible evaluation activities,
and direction on record keeping.
Paragraph (a) provides that the
Responsible Official ensure that
monitoring occurs and that monitoring
methods may be adjusted without plan
amendment or revision, As with the
2000 rule, monitoring could be
conducted jointly with other interested
parties such as other governmental
agencies, Tribes, and scientific and
academic organizations.
Paragraph Ol) lists situations where
evaluation may be used to determine,
among other things: trend identification;
information and analysis validation: use
of performance measures to assess the
effects of programs, projects, and
activities; and the effectiveness of plan
standards. Paragraph Ie) of this
proposed section would require
information to be collected from any of
a variety of sources to meet the
monitoring requirements. Paragraph (d)
requires findings and conclusions to be
published annually in reports Ulat are
made available to the public.
At 9 219.11(b), the 2000 rule requires
that if there is a need for monitoring and
evaluation of site-specific actions,
decision documents must include a
description of the monitoring and
evaluation and the Responsible Official
must determine that funding is adequate
10 conduct monitoring and evaluation
before authorizing the site-specific
projoct. This provision is not retained in
the proposed rule which is limited to
programmatic planning.
The monitortng and evaluation
provisions of tile proposed rule differ
from the monitoring provisions of the
2000 rule, which impose far more
detailed and specific requirements for
monitoring characteristics of
sustainability, ecological conditions,
and populations of focal species/
species-at-risk and for site-specific
activities. Monitoring is very important,
but given the testing and
experimentation inherent in monitoring
and evaluation. Responsible Officials
need considerable flexibility to design
monitoring strategies to fit local