171 



Regional Forester, R-10 



deteminat ion of a need to change. Therefore, they will not be minimized in 

 importance during revision, but rather framed in context of the existing Forest 

 plan as amended. 



With this in mind, there will be differences when doing a revision as compared 

 to an initial Forest plan. For example, the minimum and maximum resource 

 potentials which frame the distribution of alternatives per 36 CFR 219.12(f)(1) 

 should be defined in a revision with respect to the issues and "need to change" 

 rather than the benchmarks. With regard to NEPA, the purpose and need 

 statement in the EIS should focus on those elements of current direction which 

 have been identified in the "need to change" determination. The proposed 

 action is thus defined by only those elements of current direction identified 

 thru the "need to change" determination, rather than all aspects of forest 

 management. 



It should be noted that the "need to change" determination in the N AMS does not 

 commit the line officer to a decision to alter current direction, but rather 

 identifies those elements of current direction which merit further indepth 

 analysis due to one or more of the five components of the determination 

 highlighted above. 



There are certain elements of current direction which must be reevaluated in a 

 revision. These Include a determination of lands not suited for timber 

 production and roadless area determinations. Data gathered during plan 

 implementation should be available to assist in making these determinations 

 during revision. 



The key point to remember is that a revision is not "zero-based" planning as 

 was the case during initial development of the plans. Instead, it is an 

 opportunity to fully review the plan, updating its direction only as needed. 

 The aaount of effort which this will require may vary greatly depending on the 

 circumstances of each Forest. In those instances where the plan has had 

 effective monitoring and evaluation coupled with timely amendments, the 

 revision effort should be considerably less demanding than initial plan 

 development. If this has not been the case, however, or if there has been a 

 major change In conditions or widespread controversy, then the scope of a 

 revision may prove as encompassing as the initial planning effort. 



/%/ Jaaes C. Overbay ** „ 



JAMES C. OVERLAY 

 Deputy Chief 



