Tongass National Forest

Concern has been expressed that the Forest Plan Monitoring Plan may not address the interrelationships between resources.

Concern has been expressed the Monitoring Plan may have redundancy between monitoring questions.

Concern has been expressed the Monitoring Plan may not be statistically based.

Concern has been expressed that we do not have sufficient baseline data necessary to do wetland effectiveness monitoring.

Concern has been expressed that we may not be able to accomplish wetland effectiveness monitoring based on a data basis only.

Concern has been expressed by USFWS implementation monitoring does not include cumulative effects.

Concern has been expressed that the Forest Plan does not have a monitoring strategy for rare plants.

The Forest Plan Monitoring Plan was designed to address specific resource concerns and issues identified during the Revision process. Many of the monitoring items/questions were identified in conjunction with our other agency partners and scientists from PNW. With the emphasis on forest planning being science based, and much emphasis on standardizing data collection, storage, and analysis nationwide, some confusion of what should be in the Forest Monitoring program can be expected. Adding to this mixture is the effort to update (or stabilize) the regulations that guide forest planning nationwide. Another factor to consider is funding, which has been below that needed to be able to address all of the monitoring questions and information needs identified in the Plan. The Forest Plan also anticipated the Monitoring Plan and Information Needs would be evaluated each 5 years of the Plan.

It should be noted the Tongass Monitoring program is considered by many to be one of the best programs in the Agency.

As the Forest Plan Monitoring Plan is evaluated for the first 5 year review, an assessment of the various approaches to forest plan monitoring needs to be explored. This assessment needs to address the monitoring items that have not been monitored to the extent expected by the Plan to assure key questions for future forest planning are not being overlooked. It should also look for redundancy in monitoring efforts, as well as, identify opportunities to better integrate monitoring efforts, which would promote efficiencies or higher return on funds invested in monitoring. Items monitored to date need to be assessed to see if sufficient information is now available to answer the monitoring question. The assessment also needs to address other monitoring strategies in conjunction with the IMI and the national planning regulations when they are released.

The proposed new planning regulations appear to include a strategy that may not require periodic revisions as the 1982 regulations did. If this is the case, it is reasonable to assume the Forest Plan and future adjustments to it would be to respond to issues and opportunities as they arise. There appears to be the need to conduct Forest Plan monitoring in a manner that can contribute to larger scale ecological and scientific information needs. However, the larger scale ecological and scientific questions are usually better addressed by our PNW scientists or others in the scientific or academic communities. Information needs in these communities are often much more rigorous, and thus costly, than is needed to address most Forest Plan questions. The Forest Plan revision was based on the best available science at that time. Forest Plan implementation and monitoring takes advantage of the science incorporated into the Plan by exercising established practices embodied in the Plan standards and guidelines and using good professional judgment. This approach balanced with the adaptive management concepts included in the Plan, and in coordination with ongoing findings and efforts in the scientific and academic communities should keep the Forest Plan abreast of changing situations and new knowledge in a timely manner. This balanced approach also can help assure the methodologies and rigor is appropriate to address the monitoring needs at the Forest Plan level. For example, it may be more appropriate to rely more on anecdotal or qualitative approaches coupled with good professional judgment than statistical or research level data and study in a given situation.

Conduct an assessment of the current monitoring program. Also, consider other approaches being promoted internally and externally, including concepts found in the proposed Planning Regulations. The assessment needs to include recommendations to the Forest Supervisor relative to the current Forest Plan Monitoring Plan and how to transition to a new strategy if such is the case.

• One person IMI (lead)
• Out of Region, monitoring evaluation expert
• Line Officer
• Forest Planning Staff Officer
• Forest Monitoring Coordinator
• Regional Monitoring Coordinator

• Assessment with recommendations that could lead to Forest Plan amendment
• Monitoring adjustments