Record of Decision for Revision of Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan); Black Hills National Forest; Custer, Fall River, Meade, Lawrence, Pennington Counties, SD; Crook and Weston Counties, WY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Record of Decision for Revision of Black Hills National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan); Black Hills National

Forest; Custer, Fall River, Meade, Lawrence, Pennington Counties, SD;

Crook and Weston Counties, WY

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: On June 24, 1997, Elizabeth Estill, Regional Forester, Rocky

Mountain Region, signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Revised

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National

Forest. This decision rescinds the March 13, 1997 decision revising the

Plan because of a problem with an incomplete record. After receiving

the full record, and after further consideration, the earlier decision

is reissued unchanged. While the new decision makes no substantive

change to the prior decision, it does have consequences. The new

decision restarts the administrative appeal clock and also the

effective date of the Revised Forest Plan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This decision is effective August 1, 1997 (NFMA, 16 USC

1604(J)). A legal notice is also being published in the Denver Post,

Denver, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Rupe, Forest Planning Team

Leader, 605-673-2251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 28, interested organizations which

participated in the public scoping process for the Revision, issued a

request to the Chief of the Forest Service to vacate the March 13

Record of Decision (ROD), based, in part, on issues connected to the

availability and finalization of the analysis of the public comment

record prior to issuance of the decision.

The March 13 ROD discussing public involvement stated: ``Individual

responses to each comment have been prepared and are available upon

request.'' When commentors sought copies of these individual responses,

the Forest staff discovered that computer software malfunctions had

occurred leaving the database incomplete. Upon further investigation,

it was discovered that some of the promised individual responses had

not even been prepared when the earlier ROD was signed. Upon discovery

of the situation, the Regional Forester directed the Forest Supervisor

to complete the record and resubmit it for review. The Forest

Supervisor submitted the complete record for the Regional Forester's

review on June 13.

The following explains the public involvement process to put this

decision in context. The Forest Service received approximately 5,400

comments on the Draft Revised Plan and Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS). The comments were reviewed individually and

individual responses were to be prepared for the record. However, the

Forest Supervisor chose not to include the individual responses to each

comment in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). For public

disclosure with the FEIS, comments were grouped into subject matter

areas along with Forest Service responses to the broader concerns which

were expressed.

This evaluation of the public comment was included in Appendix A to

the FEIS. This Appendix explained how public comments were evaluated

and responses were prepared in accordance to 40 CFR 1503.4(a). The only

type of comment which was not fully addressed prior to the March 13

decision was the type that the Forest Service concluded ``do not

warrant further agency response'' under the regulations. The

regulations do require that the agency explain why it has concluded

that the comments don't warrant further agency response. This step had

not been completed for all comments when the earlier ROD was signed.

This final step has now been completed.

As a result of an additional interdisciplinary team review, the

Forest Supervisor concluded that all comments in the database were

addressed in the FEIS or ROD, and recommended to the Regional Forester

that individual responses to public comment should not affect the

disposition of the March 13 decision.

After reviewing the record, the Regional Forester has concurred

with the findings of the Forest Supervisor. Moreover, the Regional

Forester has determined that the findings of the review reaffirm the

March 13 decision in its entirety.

Following are the specific features of the decision:

--It incorporates the March 13 decision in its entirety, including all

rationale, elements, findings and implementation schedules.

--To date, the Forest Supervisor has implemented the revised Forest

Plan through the issuance of nine project decisions. All decisions are

currently in respective appeal periods and subject to administrative

appeal under 36 CFR 217.10(c). None of these actions would be

implemented before the effective implementation date of this decision.

Moreover, the decision results in no changes or alternations in the

Revised Plan or supporting FEIS. Therefore, the Regional Forester has

determined that no adjustments or stays of these nine project level

analyses or decisions will occur as a part of this action.

--There are an additional six projects with decisions pending. These or

any other new decisions issued under the Revised Plan will not be

implemented until thirty days from this notice.

The effective implementation date for this decision will occur 30

days from this notice. A legal notice is also being published in the

Denver Post, Denver, Colorado.

This decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36

CFR 217. Any appeal of this decision must be fully consistent with 36

CFR 217.9 and be filed in duplicate with the Chief, USDA--Forest

Service, P.O. Box 96090, NFS, 3NW, Appeals Office, Washington, DC

29909-6090. The appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date this

decision is published in the Denver Post. Anyone concerned about the

decision is urged to contact the Forest Supervisor before submitting an

appeal. It may be possible to resolve the concern in a less formal way.

Dated: June 26, 1997.

Joe L. Meade,

Acting Deputy Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 97-17276 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M