[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8680-8685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4681]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for Some National 
Forest System Lands in Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
in conjunction with the revision of land and resource management plans 
for several National Grasslands (NG) and Forests (NF) on the Northern 
Great Plains.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``planning area'' includes these National Forest System lands:

[[Page 8681]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Administrative unit               National grassland/forest     State              Counties          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cluster NF...............................  Little Missouri NG..........        ND   Billings, Dunn, Golden,     
                                                                                     Valley, McHenry, McKenzie, 
                                                                                     Slope.                     
                                           Cedar River NG..............        ND   Grant, Sioux.               
                                           Sheyenne NG.................        ND   Ransom, Richland.           
                                           Grand River NG..............        SD   Corson, Perkins.            
Nebraska NF..............................  Oglala NG...................        NE   Dawes, Sioux.               
                                           Nebraska NF.................        NE   Blaine, Dawes, Sioux,       
                                                                                     Thomas.                    
                                           Samuel R. McKelvie NF.......        NE   Cherry.                     
                                           Buffalo Gap NG..............        SD   Custer, Fall River, Jackson,
                                                                                     Pennington.                
                                           Fort Pierre NG..............        SD   Jones, Lyman, Stanley.      
Medicine Bow-Routt NF....................  Thunder Basin NG............        WY   Campbell, Converse, Crook,  
                                                                                     Niobrara, Weston.          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This planning effort is called the ``Northern Great Plains 
Management Plans Revisions.'' Land and Resource Management Plans 
(hereafter referred to as Management Plan or Plans) will be prepared 
for each participating administrative unit, while one environmental 
impact statement for all affected units will be issued.
    This notice describes the specific portions of the current 
Management Plans to be revised, environmental issues considered in the 
revisions, estimated dates for filing the environmental impact 
statement, information concerning public participation, and the names 
and addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional 
information.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by July 31, 1997. The agency expects to file a draft 
environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and make it available for public comment in June 1998. The agency 
expects to file the final environmental impact statement in May 1999.

ADDRESS: Send written comments to: Dave Cawrse, Team Leader, Northern 
Great Plains Planning Team, USDA Forest Service, 125 North Main Street, 
Chadron, NE 69337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Cawrse, Planning Team Leader, (308) 432-0300.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Hal Salwasser, Northern Regional Forester at 200 
East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807; and Elizabeth Estill, Rocky Mountain 
Regional Forester at P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal 
Regulation (CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Foresters for the Northern 
and Rocky Mountain Regions give notice of the agency's intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the revision effort 
described above. According to 36 CFR 219.10 (g), land and resource 
management plans are ordinarily revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. The 
existing Management Plans were approved as follows:

Custer National Forest--June 10, 1987;
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest--November 20, 1985;
Nebraska National Forest--December 14, 1984.

    The Regional Foresters give notice that they are beginning an 
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed 
action so that interested or affected people can participate in the 
analyses and contribute to the final decisions. One environmental 
impact statement will be prepared. Separate decisions, documented in 
Records of Decision, will be issued for each administrative unit. The 
combined revision effort makes sense because of common issues and 
concerns, and similar ecological landscapes. This effort will enable 
the administrative units to share assessments, plan-related analyses, 
and resource expertise, and will reduce costs.
    Opportunities will be provided to discuss openly with the public 
the alternatives to be developed, which can potentially replace the 
existing Management Plans. The public is invited to discuss and help 
define the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental 
impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead these discussions, 
helping to describe the preliminary alternatives brought forward by the 
agency. These officials will also explain the environmental analysis 
process and the disclosures of that analysis, which will be available 
for public review. Written comments concerning the range of 
alternatives will be encouraged.
    Management plans describe the intended management of National 
Grasslands and Forests. Agency decisions in these plans will do the 
following things:
    * Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11);
    * Establish grassland and forestwide management requirements 
(standards and guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 
1604 applying to future activities (resource integration requirements, 
36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27);
    * Establish management areas and management area direction 
(management area prescriptions) applying to future activities in that 
management area (resource integration and minimum specific management 
requirements) 36 CFR 219.11 (c);
    * Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11 
(d));
    * Determine suitability and potential capability of lands for 
producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for 
management indicator species (36 CFR 219.20), designate lands not 
suited for timber production, and, where applicable, establish 
allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, and 219.21);
    * Where applicable, designate those lands administratively 
available for oil and gas leasing, and when appropriate, authorize the 
Bureau of Land Management to offer specific lands for leasing (36 CFR 
228.102 (d) and (e));
    * Where applicable, recommend Wild and Scenic River designations in 
accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1274; and
    * Where applicable, recommend non-Wilderness allocations or 
Wilderness recommendations for roadless areas (36 CFR 219.17).
    The authorization of project level activities within the planning 
area occurs through project decision-making, the second stage of forest 
and grassland planning. Project level decisions must comply with 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a 
determination that the project is consistent with the Management Plan.

Need for Changes in the Current Management Plans

    Nearly a decade or more has lapsed since the current Management 
Plans were approved. Experience has shown the need for changes in 
management

[[Page 8682]]

direction for some resources or programs. Several sources have 
highlighted needed changes in the current Management Plans. In brief, 
these sources include:
    * New issues and changing public values identified through public 
interaction;
    * New information and knowledge gained through scientific research 
and effectiveness monitoring;
    * Management concerns derived through implementation experience and 
insight into relationships between prairie and forest vegetation and 
other resources and better ways of accomplishing desired conditions.
    In addition to changing public views about how these lands should 
be managed, a significant change in the information and scientific 
understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is 
a product of research, while other information has resulted from 
changes in technology.

Major Revision Topics

    Based on the information sources identified earlier, the combined 
effect of the needed changes demand attention through plan revision. 
The major revision topics described below influenced the decision to 
revise the plans.

Rangeland and Forest Health

Planning Questions
    * What management goals, direction, and prescriptions will best 
attain desired conditions for rangeland and forest health?
    Background. Issues and concerns over rangeland health frequently 
relate to the current productivity of these lands and the resulting 
capacity to provide livestock forage and wildlife food and cover. The 
quality and quantity of grass and other vegetation produced on these 
lands are influenced by soil type, weather, land use, disturbances such 
as fire and drought, and many other factors. Livestock grazing can help 
maintain, enhance or decrease rangeland productivity, depending on 
management. This planning effort will provide an opportunity to assess 
how livestock grazing can be used to best attain desired rangeland 
productivity. The issue of rangeland productivity is also relevant to 
addressing the role of National Grasslands in ``* * * administering 
sound and progressive principles of land conservation and multiple use, 
and to promote development of grassland agriculture and sustained-yield 
management of the forage, fish and wildlife, timber, water and 
recreation resources * * *'' (36 CFR 213.1). This role for the National 
Grasslands is established by regulation and pertains to those lands 
administered by the Forest Service under Title III of the Bankhead-
Jones Farm Tenant Act.
    Forest health issues on these lands are closely tied to the ability 
of riparian and other prairie woodlands to regenerate and sustain 
themselves. Fire suppression, and insect and disease damage in 
coniferous forests are other issues related to forest health.
    Biological diversity is another aspect of rangeland and forest 
health. Numerous individuals and groups have expressed concerns about 
land-use effects on the diversity, abundance and distribution of native 
plants and animals. These concerns extend to terrestrial and aquatic 
plants and animals, rare species, declining grassland bird species, 
game species and other wildlife. For example, interest in black-tailed 
prairie dog colonies as habitat for threatened and endangered species 
and other wildlife on National Grasslands is high. Others suggest that 
more focus be placed on returning bison to their native habitats. 
Habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and sensitive species 
occurs on these areas, and the likelihood of other species being 
proposed for protection under the Endangered Species Act supports the 
need to revise current management plans. State fish and wildlife 
agencies and others have also expressed considerable interest in 
management and fish and wildlife habitats on these lands and have 
expertise to provide for conservation of these species and their 
habitats. The Council on Environmental Quality recommends incorporating 
biodiversity conservation in environmental analyses.
    Other issues and concerns about rangeland and forest health include 
soil stability, water quality, noxious weeds, exotic plants and 
animals, and wetlands management.

Community and Lifestyle Relationships

Planning Questions
    * How may communities, people and their lifestyles be affected by 
decisions made in the revision effort?
    * How do communities and people and their lifestyles affect uses 
and management of these public lands?
    * How do management decisions affect the interdependent 
relationship of resources, people, lifestyles, and economies?
    Background. Commodity and amenity benefits from public lands within 
the planning area have contributed to the social systems and economic 
base of many neighboring communities. The human environment includes 
natural and physical environment and the interdependent relationship of 
people to that environment.
    Management decisions determine public land uses and resource 
availability from those lands. In resource-based economies, these 
decisions can perpetuate or disrupt relationships between public land 
management, communities, and lifestyles. Communities with more diverse 
economies may be better able to adopt to changes, even though some 
economic sectors may be strained as change occurs. The capacity to 
handle change without major hardships or disruptions to social groups 
or institutions is an important component of community and lifestyle 
relationships.
    Economic effects can include changes in local employment and 
income, payments to state and local government, and can also have 
possible implications to local government services and community 
infrastructure.

Livetock Grazing

Planning Questions
    * How will management of vegetation affect availability of forage 
for permitted livestock?
    * What are the desired vegetation conditions and how can livestock 
grazing be used to help achieve them?
    Background. Livestock grazing occurs on most of these lands under a 
permit system and is a major economic activity in these rural areas. 
Livestock grazing levels and strategies need to provide for sustained 
stewardship of the land, resources and rural communities. However, 
appropriate grazing levels and strategies continue to be debated. 
Researcher, scientist and resource management specialists at various 
universities, agencies and institutions are currently gathering 
information that will be valuable in assessing issues related to 
livestock grazing.
    The Forest Service is required by regulation (36 CFR 219.20) to 
determine suitability and potential capability of National Grasslands 
and Forest to produce forage for livestock. This regulation prescribes 
that the grazing systems and facilities (such as fencing and water 
developments) to support livestock grazing also be evaluated and 
considered during the planning process. The amount of facilities and 
structural developments on these lands to support livestock grazings is 
an issue. Some individuals want to see more

[[Page 8683]]

developments on public lands while others want to see less or current 
levels.
    Another issue related to livestock grazing is drought. Droughts can 
substantially reduce available livestock forage and, if prolonged, can 
result in long-lasting changes in plant species composition and 
rangeland productivity. Livestock grazing strategies during and after 
drought can affect range recovery so grazing guidelines for drought 
period may be proposed for some areas.

Oil and Gas Leasing

Planning Questions
    * Which National Forests System lands (or portions) are 
administratively available for oil and gas leasing?
    * What specific lease stipulations will apply to those lands 
determined to be administratively available for leasing?
    * Are existing lease decisions and stipulations consistent with 
management goals and objectives?
    Background. In 1987, Congress passed the Federal Onshore Oil and 
Gas Leasing Reform Act, which expanded the Secretary of Agriculture's 
role in the leasing decision process. Within the National Forest 
System, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to identify lands 
where leases can be sold and to determine appropriate stipulations to 
protect surface resources. Regulations to implement this Act were 
developed by the Secretary and became effective April 20, 1990 (36 CFR, 
Part 228, 100 et. seq.).
    Leasing analyses in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 
228.102(c) have been completed for about 1.7 million acres of the 
planning area, including the Little Missouri, Cedar River, and Thunder 
Basin National Grasslands and the western half of Fall River County on 
the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Existing leasing decisions will be 
reviewed in light of new information generated as a result of Northern 
Great Plains Assessments and other sources since the leasing decisions 
were made (e.g., newly listed threatened and endangered species, rare 
ecosystem elements or habitats). This new information may result in 
changes to previous leasing availability decisions or to leasing 
requirements, or both. Existing leases will not be affected by these 
changes.
    The remaining 1.2 million acres of the planning area (Sheyenne, 
Grand River, Fort Pierre, Oglala National Grasslands, the remainder of 
the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie 
National Forests) will be examined for oil and gas potential and, based 
on the potential, may have a leasing analysis completed.

Plant and Animal Control

Planning Questions
    * How and when should resource or property damage caused by noxious 
weeds, exotic plants, insects, disease, rodents and other animals be 
controlled or managed?
    Background. Under certain conditions, some plant and animal species 
can cause unacceptable economic and/or environmental damage. Plant and 
animal damage control activities currently conducted or authorized by 
the Forest Service on National Grasslands and Forests are largely 
directed towards noxious weeds and prairie dogs. Biological controls 
and herbicides are currently being used to control noxious weeds such 
as leafy spurge and Canada thistle. These weeds can substantially 
reduce native plant species and forage production. Prairie dog 
reductions in selected colonies on the National Grasslands are 
primarily in response to concerns of neighboring private landowners who 
do not want prairie dogs moving onto their lands. Concerns expressed 
about these programs range from the economic losses from damage to 
potential effects of the control activities on wildlife and the 
environment. Human health and safety issues are also associated with 
the use of pesticides and herbicides.
    Predators are occasionally removed from some of the National 
Grasslands and Forests to protect livestock, wildlife, and public 
health and safety. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) is the lead federal agency for predator control on these public 
lands and is conducting its own evaluation and planning for these 
activities. However, in South Dakota, predator control is conducted by 
the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks through an 
agreement with APHIS. Under this agreement, APHIS acts in an advisory 
capacity. APHIS also has the lead responsibility for evaluating, 
planning and initiating grasshopper control projects on the National 
Grasslands. Issues related to the responsibilities of APHIS will not be 
addressed in this planning effort.

Recreation and Travel Management

Planning Question
    * What recreation opportunities should be provided?
    * What travel opportunities should be provided?
    Background. Demand for recreational opportunities on these public 
lands is increasing dramatically. Contributing factors are: 1) 
Increasing number of hunters on public lands; 2) increasing 
appreciation for the beauty of the prairie; and 3) people taking 
shorter vacations on nearby public lands. The public is asking us to 
address recreational uses and values on these National Grasslands and 
Forests. During revision, scenery management objectives and 
recreational opportunities will be determined. Results from customer 
surveys will help determine public expectations for recreational 
opportunities.
    Recreational uses and interests vary widely across the planning 
area. Some recreational activities, such as mountain biking and use of 
all-terrain vehicles, have increased in popularity since land and 
resource management plans were written. Current recreational use in 
some units exceeds levels anticipated in the existing plans. Increased 
recreational use highlights the importance and value of these National 
Forests and Grasslands in filling recreational, esthetic and spiritual 
needs.
    Upland bird and big game hunting are major dispersed recreational 
activities on many of these public lands. Hunters are interested in how 
wildlife cover on these areas is managed. This concern is not fully 
addressed in existing land and resource management plans. Prairie dog 
shooting is another popular activity on the grasslands. Hunters have 
expressed concern over prairie dog management activities that might 
affect their recreational opportunities.
    Travel management is often an important element in recreational 
experiences. Some users desire primitive recreational experiences with 
restricted motorized travel. Some recreationists rely on motorized 
access for their experiences, such as all-terrain vehicle users. 
Because recreational use on these public lands has increased over the 
last decade, the potential for conflicts has also increased. The 
appropriateness of motorized travel as it complements or conflicts with 
specific recreational settings and associated experiences will be 
examined and determined during the revision process.

Special Area Designations

Planning Questions
    * Which, if any, roadless areas should be recommended to Congress 
for Wilderness designation?
    * How should roadless areas not recommended for Wilderness 
designation be managed?
    * Which rivers on the planning units are eligible for inclusion in 
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System?

[[Page 8684]]

    * Which, if any, eligible rivers are suitable and should be 
recommended for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River 
System?
    * How should eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion be 
managed?
    * What, if any, Research Natural Areas or Special Interest Areas 
may be needed for their contributions to furthering knowledge about 
natural systems or other objectives?
    Background. The planning area includes many unique and outstanding 
combinations of physical and biological resources, and areas of social 
interest. These are collectively referred to as ``special areas.'' 
Interest in protecting special areas has been shown by the public, 
other agencies, and Forest Service employees.
    Special area designations may include Wilderness; Wild and Scenic 
Rivers; Research Natural Areas (RNAs); and special recreational areas 
with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological, 
paleontological, archaeological or other special characteristics. These 
special areas may influence land allocation and management.
    Maintaining grassland roadless areas and establishing grassland 
Wilderness areas have become important to some people. Within the last 
few years, various groups have offered proposals for grassland 
Wilderness in South Dakota and North Dakota. Likewise, interest for 
Research Natural Areas in grassland ecosystems has increased since the 
planning effort. Some would like to see the Forest Service preserve and 
study some areas of native prairie vegetation.
    The Forest Service is required (36 CFR 219.17) to evaluate all 
roadless areas for potential Wilderness designation during the revision 
process. This process will produce an inventory of roadless areas 
meeting minimum criteria for Wilderness according to the 1964 
Wilderness Act or 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act, as appropriate. Actual 
Wilderness designation is a Congressional responsibility; the Forest 
Service only makes recommendations.
    The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers are 
in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. All 
rivers and streams determined eligible for potential inclusion in the 
Wild and Scenic River System will be examined. The Custer National 
Forest Management Plan (1987) identified the Little Missouri River as 
an eligible river. A suitability study will be done as part of the 
revision process.

Topics Outside the Scope of Management Plan Decisions

    Some topics are raised by the public that are outside the scope of 
this action. They include topics that require departmental or 
legislative actions or topics that come under the authority of other 
governmental agencies. Examples of topics that fit these categories are 
listed below:
    Departmental and Legislative Topics--grazing fee levels; recreation 
user fees; sale or transfer of administration of National Grasslands; 
transfer of Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands to the 
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; and transfer of Buffalo Gap National 
Grassland to the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
    Topics for Other Governmental Agencies--predator control; 
grasshopper control; and transfer of Shadehill Reservoir to another 
federal agency.

What To Do With This Information

    This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management 
direction to:
    * Provide goods and services to people;
    * Involve people and communities; and
    * Sustain ecosystem functions.
    ``Collaborative stewardship,'' which is defined as caring for the 
land and serving the people by listening to all constituents and living 
within the limits of the land, will guide the revision effort.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

    A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the 
Management Plans. The alternatives will address different options to 
resolve concerns raised as revision topics listed above and to fulfill 
the purpose and need. Reasonable alternatives will be evaluated and 
reasons will be given for eliminating some alternatives from detailed 
study. A ``no-action alternative'' is required, meaning that management 
would continue under existing plans. Alternatives will provide 
different ways to address and respond to public issues, management 
concerns, and resource opportunities identified during the scoping 
process. In describing alternatives, desired vegetation and resource 
conditions will be defined. Resource outputs from Management Plans will 
be estimated based upon achieving desired conditions. Preliminary 
information is available to develop alternatives; however, additional 
public involvement and collaboration will be done to complete this 
development.

Involving the Public

    An atmosphere of openness is one of the objectives of the public 
involvement process, where all members of the public feel free to share 
information with the Forest Service and its employees on a regular 
basis. All parts of this process will be structured to maintain this 
openness.
    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance 
from individuals, organizations and federal, state, and local agencies 
who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action (36 CFR 
219.6). The Forest Service is also looking for collaborative approaches 
among all landowners who desire health and productivity for the 
planning area. Many federal and state agencies and some private 
organizations have been cooperating in the development of assessments 
of current biological, physical, and economic conditions. This 
information will be used to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS). The range of alternatives to be considered in the 
DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource 
management opportunities, and specific decisions to be made.
    Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/
or by mail known interested and affected publics. News releases will be 
used to give the public general notice, and public scoping 
opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. Public 
participation activities will include (but are not limited to) requests 
for written comments, open houses, focus groups, field trips, and 
collaborative forums.
    Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process 
and will be especially important at several points along the way. The 
first opportunity to comment is during the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) identifying potential issues, (2) from 
these, identifying significant issues or those that have been covered 
by prior environmental review, (3) exploring additional alternatives, 
and (4) identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives.

Release and Review of the EIS

    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by June 1998. At 
that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the DEIS 
in the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days 
from the date the EPA

[[Page 8685]]

publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review 
of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the 
reviewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 
v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that 
could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after 
completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be 
waived or dismissed by the courts; City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc., v. Harris, 
490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court 
rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed 
action participate by the close of the three-month comment period so 
that substantive comments and objections are made available to the 
Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and 
respond to them in the FEIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS should be as 
specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific 
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the 
adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and 
discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council 
on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in 
addressing these points.
    After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in 
preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in May 
1999. The responsible officials will consider the comments, responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies in making decisions regarding these 
revisions. The responsible officials will document their decisions and 
reasons for their decisions in a separate Record of Decision for each 
Management Plan. Each decision will be subject to appeal in accordance 
with 36 CFR 217.
    The responsible official for each of the Management Plans is the 
appropriate Regional Forester.

    Dated: February 11, 1997.
Kathleen McAllister,
Deputy Regional Forester, Northern Region.
    Dated: February 13, 1997.
Elizabeth Estill,
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 97-4681 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M