WSP09638 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l' IJ U I) 11 7 72772 Federal Register/Vol, 57, No, 235/Friday, December 5, 2002/Proposed Rules scross the agency; for example. species \'iabiJity. population monitoring. and the range of variation within the current climatic period; (2) Compliance with the regulatory direction on such matters as ecological sustainability and science consistency checks would be difficult, if not impossible. to accomplish: and (3) The complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and expensive to implement. Sustainabi1itJ'. The planners particularly questioned whether or not the agency could achieve the ecological. social. and economic sustainability standards established in ~ 219,19 of the 2000 rule. Similar concerns were noted regarding the viability pro\'isions for the diversity of plant and animal communities. also in ~ 219.19 of the rule. The reviewers found that the ecological sustainabiJitv requirements in the rule are not only co-mplex. but needlessly so. Although the 2000 rule was intended to increase the focus on ecosystem-level analyses for addressing the diversitv of plant and animal communities and, thereby. reducing the far more costly species-by-species approach. the means to accomplish the intent of the rule are not dear. There was disagreement among the reviewers about the degree of potential reduction in the speciAs-by-species imalysis burden in the 2000 rule. The role of science. The reviewers affIrmed the importance of using the best available science in planning. However. the detailed provisions of the 2000 rule for the use of science and scientists in t1l8 planning process raised many concerns. (1) Field-Ie....el planners believed the 2000 rule includes unnecessarily datailed procedural requirements for scientihc peer reviews. broad-scale assessments, monitoring, and science advisory boards. (2) Moreover, these requirements do not recognize the limits of budgets for use of science, nor does the 2000 rule clearly relate use of science to the scope of issues in the planning process. (3) The 2000 rule also does not recognize limitations on the availability of scientists. The reviewers believed it to be unwise to place such detailed requirements on the use of scientists in the rule given the ambiguities of the rule te>:t and the limited availability of scientists. Although science is needed to inform the Responsible Official. the reviewers concluded that the 2000 rule anticipates a level of involvement by scientists that lTIay or may not be needed considering the planning issues or the anticipated amount of project activities during on-the-ground implementation of the plan. Monitoring. Reviewers identified three major issues arising from the monitoring requirements of the 2000 rule. First, the unnecessarily detailed requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the 2000 rule are likely beyond the capacity of many units to perform. Second, it was considered to be generally confusing throughout the rule to mix programmatic and project level planning direction. Third, the monitoring requirements in the 2000 rule are overly prescriptive and do not provide the Responsible Official sufficient discretion to decide how much information is needed. Also, during development of this revised proposed planning rule. it became apparent that monitoring should be focused on whether on-the-ground management is achieving desired conditions identified in the plan. This focus was not clear in the 2000 rule, as its monitoring direction primarily required a broad array of techniques intended to measure indicators of sustainability. This conceptual change reflects a fundamental difference in philosophy between the 2000 rule and this proposed rule. The 2000 rule tends to be highly prescriptive regarding a variety of aspects of planning. This proposed rule tends tu focus more on results, rather than on techniques for achieving results. The Responsible Official is guided by a very large body oflaw. regulation, and policy that helps ensure responsible management on the ground. The much lower amount of procedural detail in this new proposed rule reflects the agency's assumption that the Responsible Officials will discharge planning duties responsibly and will conduct planning within the bounds of authority. Transition from the 1982 to the 2000 rule. The reviewers also identified concerns with the transition requirements of the 2000 rule. There is a lack of clarity about how projects are to be compliant with the 2000 rule and how the entire rule is to be used in the more limited scope of plan amendments. Planners expressed uncertainty about how transition to the 2000 rule would occur. particularly for site-specific decisions. Finally, to fully implement the 2000 rule the planners felt the relatively short transition period provided is unrealistic given the complexities and uncertainties identified. Having considered the reports of the review teams. the Acting Deputy Under Secretarv for Natural Resources and Elwironment requested that the Chief of the Forest Service develop a proposed rule to revise the 2000 rule. Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule O\'en'iew The Forest Service is now proposing changes to the planning rule at 36 CFR part 219, adopted November 2000, to address issues and concerns raisE!d in the various reviews. The proposed rule retains many of the basic concepts in the 2000 rule, namely sustainability. public involvement and collaboration. use of science, and monitoring and evaluation. The agency has attempted to substantially improve these aspects of the 2000 rule by eliminating unnecessary procedural detail, clarifying intended results, and streamlining procedural requirements consistent with agency staffing, funding. and skill levels. Because of the concerns identified regarding the 2000 rule and because this proposed rule changes the 2000 rule, it is necessary to explain exactly how and why the 2000 rule has been adjusted in this proposal. However, the agency believes it is productive to begin this overview with a vision of the planning process and the contents of resource management plans. The Forest Service believes the direction of many aspects of current planning activities and the basic concepts of the 2000 rule are very valuable and reflect the expectations of the American people for planning on their public lands. Planning The agency expects programmatic planning to be accomplished in the following ways: . The extent of a plan analysis will be proportional to the kinds of decisions being made. . Plans will be kept up to dato. because planning will be simpler ..md thus, plans will be more efficiently amended. . Plan revision will be based on a "need for change." . Plan monitoring and evaluation will be emphasized more and will measure the success of adaptive management efforts, and the attainment of. or progress toward. desired conditiuns. This monitoring and evaluation will provide key information to help keep plans current and will help inform project-level decisionmaking. States, other Federal agencies, local governments, Tribes, and the public will be more closely involved in monitoring efforts. . Public involvement is expected to be collaborative, vigoruus, and focused