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

000127

72782

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

situations. The specificity of the 2000
rule does not allow for such flexibility
and discretion. To the extent that -
guidance is needed on who should do
monitoring. how monitoring should be
done. what monitoring should be done.
and how monitoring information should
be evaluated. Ihat can best be provided
through the agency's Directive System
rather than specified in a rule.
For example, the detailed provisions
in 9 219,11(a)[1)[iiJ(B) and (e) of the
2000 ruh! are being evaluated for
issuance in the Forest Service Manual or
Handbook. Some of lhese current
regulatory requirements will be made
optional in order to be responsive to
variations in funding, staffing. and
information needs among individual
National Forest System units.
Other monitoring and evaluation
provisions of the 2000 rule that are
proposed to be removed from the rule
are those for which there is no
corresponding provision elsewhere in
the proposed rule, Also, at 921 9,23(c),
the 2000 rule requires that scientists
playa significant role in developing and
evaluating monitoring strategies. The
agency certainly believes use of science
is important in monitoring and in
evaluating results; however, the agency
has determined upon review that the
degree ofrequired participation of
Forest Service research scientists
specified in the 2000 rule would
overburden the Research and
Development mission area of the Forest
Service. f\..toreover. not every plan
amendment or revision will require the
same degree and intensity of scientific
review.
Monitoring may take many forms and
include different requirements for the
understanding of science and
involvemant by scientists. Different
types of monitoring require different
levels of scientific rigor in their
development and application. For
example. if a plan has a standard to
keep fencos repaired and gates closed to
aid with the restoration of certain
degraded riparian systems, then
monitoring to assess the ability of the
managers to keep the fences standing
and the gates closed requires little. if
,my, involvement of science. However,
to assess if keeping the fences closed
and gates repaired was an effective
approach to reach the desired condition
of a restored riparian system may well
require development and application of
particularly rigorous, scientifically valid
monitoring protocols. The consistency
evaluation process described in Section
219.14 would evaluate the likelihood
that the designed monitoring plan
would be able to determine the
effectiveness of the action (keeping the

gates closed and fences repaired) in
achieving the objective of ecosystem
restoration.
As this proposed rule was being
developed, a great deal of internal
discussion occurred regarding direction
for. and decisions on, adaptive
management and on whether the
proposed rule needed to specifically
address this concept. The term
"adaptive management" has been used
formally and informally within the
agency to describe the process of
continually adjusting management
techniques in response to new
information, knowledge, or
technologies. The Forest Service
recognizes that uncertainty and
unknowns exist in the course of
achieving any natural resource
management goal. The adaptive
management process relies on focused
monitoring to measure success in
achieving desired conditions and to
determine if there is the need to make
further changes in strategies and
implementation. Whether such
monitoring would be scientifically
rigorous would depend on the resource,
the lise, and the specific situation.
The 2000 rule uses the term "adaptive
management," and explains adaptive
management concepts and purposes, but
it has 110 specific requirements for how
the concept and purposes were to be
carried out. Although the agency
believes that adaptive management
concepts are valid, the agency maintains
that it is not necessary for the planning
rule to specifically address these
concepts beyond staling that
measurement of adaptive management
results is one of the purposes of
monitoring and stating in 9219.4 that
the need to provide adaptive
management is one reason why plan
standards should not be overly rigid.
A plan can allow for and address
adaptive management without specific
direction to do so in the planning rule.
Essentially, there is no real difference
between the 2000 rule and ilie proposed
rule in the area of adaptive
management. Under both rules. plans
can include adaptive management
strategies and methods in their
direction.
In facl. both conceptually and
operationally, adaptive management is
integral to the planning process laid out
in this proposed rule, and monitoring
and evaluation represent a fundamental
component of the adaptive management
process, as was the case in the 2000
rule. In this context, an essential linkage
exists between plan requirements for
monitoring and evaluation, discussed
previously, and those for the ecological
component of sustainability, discussed

later in this preamble under proposed
section 219.13. The ecological
information and analyses focused on
assessing ecosystem and species
diversity, as specified in proposed
9219, 13(b1l1), contribute directly to
adoption of plan decisions that provide
for ecosystem and species diversity in
the plan area within the multiple use
objectives of the plan, Results of
monitoring and evaluation are among
the information and analyses that may
contribute to the development of future
plan decisions affecting diversity.
Moreover, monitoring and evaluation
provide an essential feedback loop to
assess whether implementation of plan
direction is producing progress toward
attainment of desired conditions and
plan objectives. as well as the basis for
deciding whether plan direction should
be modified or changed through plan
amcndments or revision.
As specified in ~219.11[a), data and
other information pertinent to
characteristics of ecosystem and species
diversity, as determined relevant by the
Responsible Official. should be
included in the monitoring information
to be collected. Evaluation of this
information should revcal whether
progress toward achievement of
divcrsity objectives is being achieved, or
wh8lher plan direction or plan
implementation must be changed. In
this sense, and wilh specific reference to
the ecological component of
sustainability, monitoring and
evaluation complete the essential
feedback loop of adaptive management
to assess whether plan direction is
achieving the NFMA requirement that
plans provide for diversity in a multiple
use context. Monitoring and evaluation
focused on the characteristics of
diversity thus inform both the
devclopment of plan decisions and the
decision to undertake plan amendments
or revisions, thereby ensuring that
adaptive management is an integral part
of this revised planning rule.
Proposed section 219.12-
CoJ/aboration, cooperation, and
consultation. This proposed section
combines 9~ 219.12 through 219.17 of
\he 2000 rule. Paragraph (al of this
section is similar to paragraph (a) of
~219.12 of the 2000 rule in requiring
the Responsible Official to provide early
and frequent opportunities for the
public to participate in the planning
process, using any of several specified
roles, and to encourage such
participation, Paragraphs (a)(l) and
(a)(2) incorporate the provisions of
99219,13,219.14,219,16 and 219,17 of
the 2000 rule which address engaging
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, interested individuals and