327 



b. Mr. Overbay is charged with directing "TLMP planners to scuttle plans 

 for a comprehensive meaningful TLMP revision." Is Mr. Overbay trying to 

 scuttle the TLMP revision process, and if not, how do you explain 

 Attachments I and J to SEACC's testimony? 



Answer: Deputy Chief Overbay has not acted to "scuttle" the revision process 

 of the Tongass Land Management Plan. His letter of February 6, 1989 (SEACC 

 Attachment I), does not address revisions. His letter of August 1, 1989 

 (SEACC Attachment J), provides advice about how to conduct Forest Plan 

 revisions . 



In his February 6, 1989, letter (SEACC attachment I), Mr. Overbay provides 

 important direction on Forest Plan implementation procedures to all Regional 

 Foresters. In this letter, there is no mention of the Tongass Land Management 

 Plan revision or direction for the revision process as it may apply 

 elsewhere . 



In responding to a Regional request for advice, his August 1, 1989, letter 

 clarifies the differences between the development of a Forest Plan and the 

 revision of the plan. It advises that revision processes should focus on "the 

 need for change" in the management direction of the existing plan and should 

 not replicate the protracted "zero-based" planning that typified the 

 development of initial Forest Plans. It also clarifies how a critical step in 

 the revision process, the determination of the need to change the management 

 direction, should be handled. This clarification served to focus the TLMP 

 revision process on the direction of the existing plan which needs to be 

 changed, rather than all the other direction of TLMP which is still relevant 

 and applicable. 



c. Mr. Barton, the Regional Forester is accused by SEACC of forcing 

 ■unprecedented short deadlines that obviate meaningful professional 

 planning." How does the Forest Service respond to that charge? 



Answer: We are working on a very tight schedule. But we believe the 



professional quality of our planning to date is evident in the work we have 



produced, including the summary document entitled "Understanding the 



Past . . . Designing the Future." It has been well-received by most members 



of the public, and is backed up by a comprehensive and detailed technical 



document. 



Up until the end of last year, the interdisciplinary team has largely been in 

 a "building mode" of operation. Now that the needed data is available and the 

 forest planning model that the team is using for analysis is operational, the 

 team is now in an accelerated "production mode" in order to complete the 

 remaining revision process steps in a timely fashion. 



Question 15. At page 9 of its testimony, SEACC says that the TLMP Revision 

 will be less site-specific than the existing TLMP because the Forest Service 



