# Presentation: 913194

## Science and the 2004 Planning Rule

**§ 219.11 Role of science in planning**
- (a) The Responsible Official must take into account the best available science.  For purposes of this subpart, taking into account the best available science means the Responsible Official must:
- (1) Document how the best available science was taken into account in the planning process within the context of the issues being considered;
- (2) Evaluate and disclose substantial uncertainties in that science;
- (3) Evaluate and disclose substantial risks associated with plan components based on that science; and
- (4) Document that the science was appropriately interpreted and applied.
- (b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the Responsible Official may use independent peer review, a science advisory board, or other review methods to evaluate the consideration of science in the planning process.

**Science and the 2004 Planning Rule**

## Explanatory text: 

**From Summary:**
- The intended effects of the final rule are
- to streamline the planning process.  Plans are “strategic documents”.
- to strengthen the role of science.  New science, adaptive mgt and EMS.
- to strengthen collaborative relationships with public and other entities
- to reaffirm the principle of multiple-sustained use.  Continuous flow of goods and services.
**From Overview:**
- “This final rule allows the Forest Service to rapidly respond to changing conditions like hazardous fuels, new science, and many other dynamics that affect NFS management.  Protection and management of the NFS should be based on sound science, which is fundamental to this final rule.”...
- “The 2004 planning rule allows plans to easily adapt to new science findings. This is important as ongoing management of the national forests, grasslands, and prairies needs to take into account the best available science.”

## Some background...

**Some background...**

**Length of the ****“role of science”**** section in the Planning Rules **

## Number of times the words “science”, “scientific”, or 

**Number of times the words ****“science”, “scientific”, or **
**“****scientifically”**** appear in the Planning Rules**

**Some background...**

## More explanatory text: 

- 2002 Rule: Forest Service decisions must be “consistent” with the best available science.
- 2004 Rule: the Responsible Official must “take into account” the best available science
- 	Science is “a significant source of information for the Responsible Official”, but only one aspect of decision-making.  R.O. must also consider public input, competing use demands, budget projections, and many other factors as well as science.
- 	“The use of science in planning provides the Responsible Official with knowledge, methods, and expert review in order to make an informed decision. Science informs the process.  Forest, Grassland, and Prairie Supervisors, not scientists, make land management decisions based on science as well as other information and factors.”
- 	“...the likelihood of reaching a plan's desired future condition is dependent not only on the application of science, including its inherent uncertainty, but also other factors of risk not associated with the science information.”

## The fundamental question:

- How does the Responsible Official ensure that land management plans take into account the best available science?
- “R.O. must take into account the best available science, and document in the plan that science was considered, correctly interpreted, appropriately applied, and evaluate and disclose incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.”
- “Details ... (are found) in the directives...”

## FSM 1921.8  The Role of Science

**FSM 1921.8  The Role of Science**
**Summary of key points**
**1921.81  Best Available Science**
- Perform the following to take into account the best available science in planning (36 CFR 219.11):
- 1. Conduct a timely and substantive review of available information in published peer reviewed and other quality-controlled literature, studies, or reports.
- 2. Document for future indexing the sources of information reviewed.
- 3. Synthesize the relevant information for use in the planning process.
- 4. Assess the quality of the information used for objectivity, utility, relevance, and integrity.

## 1921.81a Uncertainty in Science

- Uncertainty in science is important to acknowledge if the uncertainty was part of the rationale of the planning process or approval.  New scientific information may create additional questions, it may only partially answer questions, and/or it may contradict previously accepted theories
- This uncertainty may be addressed by the Responsible Official through:
- 1. A description of the rationale for assumptions and how these assumptions influence the planning process.
- 2. A discussion of temporal aspects of uncertainty where more distant past or future projections of trends are likely to have greater uncertainty.
- 3. A description how the planning framework is designed to respond to uncertainty, including such elements as monitoring program and evaluation requirements.
- The evaluation and disclosure of uncertainty shall be documented by the Responsible Official commensurate with the importance of the uncertainties in making decisions on the plan components.

## 1921.81b Risk in Plan Approval

- The application of science in the planning process should include a risk assessment, including confidence of data for the appropriate plan components.
- These sources of risk should be considered by the R.O.:
- 1. Incomplete knowledge of the systems and processes driving the systems.
- 2. Trade-offs between resources. For example, while trade-offs between resources are value choices, the Responsible Official is guided by law, policy, regulation, science, and public input. An action that benefits one resource may be detrimental to another.
- 3. Short-term detrimental effects may lead to long-term gains for the same resource.
- Any substantial risks associated with the approval of the plan must be disclosed in the plan document or set of documents. Substantial risk is that risk that may cause the loss or considerable deterioration of specific elements of sustainability. Based on scientifically informed reasoning and judgment, the Responsible Official shall determine situations or conditions where substantive risk is likely.

## 1921.82 Consideration and Application of Science

- The Responsible Official shall document that science was appropriately interpreted and applied in the planning process.
- Evaluation of the quality of the underlying science.
- Peer reviews will typically be done for scientific and technical information used in the preparation of plans.
- Peer reviews of “highly influential” science assessments must follow OMB information quality guidelines (OMB memorandum 05-03):
- The term “influential scientific information” means scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions (e.g. interagency; $500 million rule)
- Agency must make public the directions to the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, their reports, and the agency’s response to those reports. The agency must ensure that the reviewers possess necessary expertise, must disclose possible conflicts of interest, etc.

## 1921.82 Consideration and Application of Science (cont.)

- 2.  Evaluation of interpretation and application of science in the planning process.
- Differs from peer review of scientific information quality
- Involves a policy component
- Science advisory board/science consistency review
- Much discretion left to Responsible Official
- Science consistency reviewers should be knowledgeable re. the information used in the planning effort and of the synthesis and assessment process

## 1921.83 The Role of Science in Assessments, Analyses, and Monitoring

- The Responsible Official should use the following guidelines when considering the role of science and integrating it into assessments, analyses, and monitoring:
- Review, synthesize, and assess scientific information commensurate with the scale/importance of the assessment being undertaken.
- If complexity of issues is clearly beyond capabilities of the R.O.’s
- 	technical resource pool, additional support should be requested.
- 3. Systematically apply a standardized set of procedures and methods. When appropriate, implement monitoring to establish baseline and trend information for the resources involved.

## 1921.84 Documentation

- To ensure effective and efficient science interpretation and application, the Responsible Official should identify, maintain, and index a documentation trail of the sources of scientific information.  An independent peer review, science advisory board or other review method should be able to refer to the indexed documentation at any point in the planning process to determine how and what scientific information was acquired, analyzed, and used.

## The Data Quality Act – does it apply here?

- The DQA directs OMB to issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the “quality, objectivity, utility and integrity” of information “disseminated” by Federal agencies. Individual agencies responsible for reviewing challenged data and deciding whether they are reliable.
- DQA applies to all agencies subject to Paperwork Reduction Act, i.e. *not* to GAO, governments of the territories or Washington, D.C., or government-owned contractor-operated facilities (e.g. national defense labs)
- “*Dissemination*” = government transfer of information to the public.  Must be agency initiated or sponsored (i.e. does not apply to FOIA, press releases, personal correspondence, subpoenas, etc.)
- Rule-making does not involve active “*dissemination*” of information (it involves more *receiving* of info).  Current belief in WO is apparently that DQA does not apply to the Planning Rule itself.  It *may* apply, however, to information dissemination activities that arise during planning.
- DQA has no judicial review provision.  Courts will have to decide if there is judicial review of DQA challenges.

## Science and 2004 Planning Rule

**Summary**
**One of the primary intended effects is to “strengthen the role of science”**
**The 2004 Rule is significantly less “burdened” by explicit reference to science and scientific standards than the 2000 or 2002 Rules**
**Science only one of many factors that must be considered**
**Responsible Officials are directed to “take into account” the best available science**
**Stresses risk and uncertainty in use and application of science**
**Details are in the Directives (but not much detail)**
**Generally stricter guidelines for peer-review**
**Unclear if and where Data Quality Act applies**