[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54613-54617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26174]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Pike and San Isabel 
National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands, 
Headquartered in Pueblo, CO

AGENCY: USDA, Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan 
for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, and the Comanche and 
Cimarron National Grasslands (PSICC), located in Clear Creek, Douglas, 
Jefferson, EL Paso, Teller, Park, Summit, Lake, Chafee, Saguache, 
Fremont, Custer, Heurfano, Costilla, Pueblo, Las Animas, Otero, and 
Baca counties in Colorado, and Morton and Stevens counties in Kansas.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement in conjunction with the revision of its Land and Resource 
Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) for the Pike and 
San Isabel National Forests, and the Comanche and Cimarron National 
Grasslands, (hereafter referred to as PSICC).
    This notice describes the proposed action, specific portions of the 
current Plan to be revised, environmental issues considered in the 
revision, estimated dates for filing the Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), information concerning public participation, and the names and 
addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional 
information.

DATES: The Public is asked to provide comments identifying and 
considering issues, concerns, and the scope of the analysis with regard 
to the proposed action, in writing by January 31, 2000. The Forest 
Service proposes to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available 
for public comment in the spring of 2001. The Forest Service proposes 
to file a Final Plan and EIS that will be available in the fall of 
2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hill, Planning Staff Officer, 
(719) 545-8737. Please send written comments on this Notice of Intent 
to: Donnie R. Sparks, Acting Forest Supervisor, PSICC, 1920 Valley 
Drive, Pueblo, CO 81008-1797.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lyle Laverty, Rocky Mountain Regional Forester at 
P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky 
Mountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the revision effort described above. 
According to 36 CFR 216.10(g), land and resource management plans are 
ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest Plan 
was approved on September, 1984. This Plan has been amended 25 times 
including two major amendments related to the December 1991 Oil and Gas 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 1993 Colorado Wilderness 
bill.
    The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an 
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed 
action so that interested or affected people can participate in the 
analysis and contribute to the final decision.
    Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision 
process openly with the public. The public is invited to help identify 
issues and define the range of alternatives to be considered in the 
environmental impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead 
these discussions, helping to describe issues and the preliminary 
alternatives. These officials will also explain the environmental 
analysis process and the disclosures of that analysis, which will be 
available for public review. Written comments identifying issues for 
analysis and the range of alternatives are encouraged to be submitted 
to PSICC by January 21, 2000. A regular schedule of public meetings 
will be in the summer of 2000. Alternative development meetings will be 
held in winter of 2000. Public notice of dates, times, and locations 
for specific meetings will be provided in local newspapers and posted 
on the Forest's web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc. Additionally, 
we will send notices and newsletters to those on the forest plan 
revision mailing list. Requests to be placed on this mailing list 
should be sent to the comment address stated above.
    Two Plans will be written in accordance with National direction 
from Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service. One will describe the 
intended management of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests; the 
other will describe the intended management of the Comanche and 
Cimarron National Grasslands.
    The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian 
tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United 
States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. As 
part of the overall effort to uphold the federal trust responsibilities 
to tribal sovereign nations to the extent applicable to National Forest 
System lands, the Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with the tribal nations on a government-
to-government basis. the Forest Service will work with governments to 
address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and 
sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian 
tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that 
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.
    Forest Plans make six fundamental decisions.\1\ These decisions 
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Citizens for Environmental Quality v. U.S. 731 F. Supp. 977 
(D.Colo. 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives, 
(36 CFR 219.11(b)).
    2. Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards 
and guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of the NFMA relating to 
future activities (resource integration requirements of 36 CFR 219.13 
to 219.27).
    3. Establishing of management area direction (management area 
prescriptions) applying to future management activities in that 
management area (36 CFR 219.11).
    4. Designation of land suitable for timber production and the 
establishment of allowable timber sale quality (36 CFR 219.14 and 
219.16).
    5. Nonwilderness multiple-use allocations for those roadless areas 
that were reviewed under 36 CFR 219.17 and

[[Page 54614]]

not recommended for wilderness designation.
    6. Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11(d)).
    The authorization of project-level activities on PSICC occurs 
through project decision-making, which is the second stage of land 
management planning, called Plan implementation. Project planning and 
decision making is an on-going process that occurs on all eight Ranger 
Districts and Supervisor's office before, during and after Plan 
revision. Project level decisions must also comply with National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a 
determination that the project is consistent with the Plan. The current 
Plan remains in effect and must be complied with until the revised Plan 
is completed and approved.

Synopsis on the Current Plan

    The current Plan emerged from a zero-based planning process that 
considered alternative management emphases within an overall context of 
multiple use. The planning process recognized the concept of 
biodiversity and incorporated various aspects of it into the Plan. The 
selected alternative--and the basis for management of PSICC's lands in 
ensuring years--established PSICC as a unit where recreation and 
wildlife (including TES species) play a key role, while production of 
commodities such a timber is maintained at moderate levels. PSICC's 
proximity is growing metropolitan area accounts for the recreation 
component, while the unit's vast geographic reach spans a wide range of 
ecosystems and habitats and accounts for the wildlife component.
    The current Plan adopted a mid-range level of timber harvest and 
projected that activities thereunder would play a central role in 
addressing the needs of wildlife habitat, forest health, and fuels 
accumulation. Soon after the Plan was approved, however, structural 
changes occurred affecting both the local timber industry and the 
regulatory environment for conducting timber harvest. The result was a 
PSICC timber harvest program that performed at much lower levels than 
projected during the planning process.

Framework for Future Planning

    Since the current Plan was approved in 1984, the biodiversity 
concept it embraced has evolved somewhat into an approach that seeks 
better recognition and integration of ecosystem components. Ecosystems 
management and sustainability have replaced multiple use and sustained 
yield. As a reflection of this, the Forest Service has adopted a 
Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st Century, which will be the 
foundation for future National Forest management and includes ecosystem 
sustainability. The agenda has four key areas:
    1. Watershed health and restoration.
    2. Sustainable forest ecosystem management.
    3. Forest roads.
    4. Recreation.
    Other developments include the Government Performance and Results 
Act (GPRA) which was passed in 1993. This act directs the preparation 
of periodic strategic plans by federal agencies. The first strategic 
plan for the Forest Service was written in 1997 and centers around the 
following three goals:
    1. Ensure sustainable ecosystems.
    2. Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of 
ecosystems.
    3. Ensure organizational effectiveness.
    Ecosystem management, the Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st 
Century, and the GPRA Strategic Plan focus on outcomes and desired 
resource conditions rather than outputs of goods and services. These 
need to be incorporated into the revised Forest Plan.

Need for Changes in the Current Plan

    In addition to the regulatory requirement to revise Forest Plans 
every 10 to 15 years and the new framework for future planning 
described above, PSICC's experience in implementing the current plan 
and monitoring its effects shows a need for certain changes. Several 
other sources have also highlighted the need for changes in the current 
Plan. These sources include the following:
    1. Public involvement, for individual projects and amendments to 
the Plan, which has identified new information, public values and an 
indication of the Plan's overall palatability.
    2. Monitoring and scientific research which has provided a better 
understanding of ecosystems structure, function and health.
    3. Forest plan implementation which has identified management 
concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.
    4. Technology improvements allowing better data collection and 
analysis.

Proposed Action

    Based on these sources of information, various aspects of the Plan 
have been identified as possibly needing change. These aspects range 
from the broad to the specific. The key broad aspect to be examined 
regards whether the current Plan adequately addresses the relationship 
between the impacts of recreation uses and the habitat needs of 
threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Since the current Plan 
was approved, changes have occurred both in specie lists in these 
categories and in ways of thinking about habitats in terms of ecosystem 
management and sustainability. In addition, recreation patterns have 
changed: more people are visiting and their means of enjoyment have 
evolved. A look needs to be taken at the interaction of recreation 
patterns and habitat needs to determine whether and how the current 
Plan might be changed to maintain a fair balance between these 
distinctly different uses of National Forest.
    A variety of more specific changes also appear to be in order. 
Additional wildernesses have been designated, but management area 
direction for them has not been cleanly incorporated into the Plan. In 
addition, many standards and guidelines redundantly state direction 
found in law, regulation and policy that must be followed in any case; 
these are to be removed. Other standards and guidelines may be revised 
to reflect improved scientific or regulatory understanding. Further, 
the current Plan's labeling of management areas will be changed to 
reflect a scheme adopted by several Forest Service Regions to achieve 
better consistency of terms among Plans.
    Overall, the types of changes to be considered are seen as being 
largely fine-tuning in nature. That is, public response and agency 
experience under the current Plan do not appear to be demanding a 
repeat of the zero-based planning process such as was conducted while 
developing the current plan. Those aspects of the current Plan that 
have proven to be good policy do not need to be changed. Accordingly, 
the revision process is expected to concentrate on improving the 
current Plan rather than exploring entirely different ways of managing 
PSICC's lands. Among other things this approach will better focus on 
the interests of PSICC's users while keeping planning costs within the 
unit's financial means.

Major Revision Issues

    Based on the experience and information sources identified above, 
revision is being initiated to meet legal requirements, and to address 
all needed changes in the Plan. In order to focus and streamline 
revision efforts, two major issues have been identified. These two 
major issues will require major changes in Plan, and their inter-

[[Page 54615]]

relationship will be the primary drivers of the analysis and the range 
of alternatives in the revision process. Both issues are complex; 
together they affect every acre of land and every resource program on 
the PSICC.

1. Biodiversity and Ecological Sustainability

Planning Questions
     How will the PSICC Plan be changed to maintain or improve 
biological diversity (biodiversity) and provide sufficient habitat for 
the long-term viability for populations of focal species, especially 
for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Species?
     How will recreation and natural resource management 
program direction on the PSICC need to change to ensure healthy 
sustainable ecosystems?

Background

    Biological diversity (biodiversity) is the full variety of life in 
an area including the ecosystems, plant and animal communities, species 
and genes, and the processes through which organisms interact with one 
another and their environment. Humans and human activity are integral 
parts of ecosystems and will be considered in the analysis. On the 
PSICC, biodiversity may have been reduced from its 1984 level because 
of increased human activity and the suppression of fires.
    The current Plan partially addresses the concept of biodiversity. 
In revision, biodiversity concepts will be used for revising management 
strategies for the physical, biological and social environment. An 
integrated analysis will incorporate the best currently available 
information and technology, and will include information from any range 
of natural variability assessments prepared for the Region. The Forest 
Service believes biodiversity could decrease under continued 
implementation of the existing PSICC Plan. The revision will review 
specific methods for management of biodiversity and provide for 
monitoring of management actions to measure progress and ensure 
ecological sustainability through adaptive management.
    Of significant concern to the Forest Service is the biological 
condition of forest and rangeland vegetation. The Forest Service 
believes it will be necessary to use prescribed fire and some timber 
harvest to begin to restore a healthy vegetation condition. Others 
believe the best way to restore this condition is to minimize human 
intervention and to allow natural processes to restore diversity. These 
options will be weighed during the revision process.
    Related topics include:
     How to restore fire to the ecosystem and engage in 
vegetation treatment in the urban/wildland interface;
     How to maintain sustainable rangeland health and protect 
TES species with a balance between domestic grazing and wildlife use;
     How can cost-effective levels of grazing be maintained so 
ranching can continue to be an element in local community character;
     How to maintain critical wildlife habitat and viable 
populations of important species on public lands; and
     How to maintain water and air quality while continuing 
multiple-use management.

2. Roadless Area Management

Planning Questions
     Which roadless areas on the PSICC qualify for Wilderness 
and should be recommended for designation to the National Wilderness 
system?
     How should roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for 
Wilderness be managed to meet current and expected demands for 
motorized and non-motorized recreation, and other resource management 
access needs?

Background

    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. Wilderness designation is a Congressional 
responsibility, so the Forest Service will only make recommendations.
    The PSICC has significant amounts of land which are roadless or 
unroaded (containing no ``classified'' or system roads), because of the 
steep terrain in many areas. All of the unroaded areas on the PSICC 
(except designated Wilderness areas) will be inventoried for roadless 
area potential. There has been relatively little development and 
moderate evidence of human use in roadless areas on the PSICC since 
1984. Recommendations for Wilderness designation will be made for those 
inventoried areas which meet the criteria and which the Regional 
Forester believes should be added to the National Wilderness System.
    The management of roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for 
Wilderness will be reviewed during the revision process. Both motorized 
and non-motorized recreationists want to maintain or improve their 
access and travel opportunities on the PSICC. Some of the roadless and 
unroaded areas are currently managed for summer and/or winter motorized 
trail or area use. Traditional forms of recreation such as driving for 
pleasure, hiking, horseback riding, and snowmobiling are showing steady 
increases. Mountain biking, cross-country skiing, all-terrain vehicle 
use, rafting, and kayaking have grown dramatically in the past decade.
    The PSICC is one of the top units in the nation for recreation 
opportunities and use, with over 3 million people living within an hour 
of the national forests and grasslands. Because of the high levels of 
current and historic recreation and other use, the PSICC has been 
implementing travel management for the past 20+ years. Travel 
management is the movement of people, goods, and services to and 
through the Forest. Travel management is an on-going process, and there 
is always more to be done to improve it. Most of the PSICC is currently 
under management that shows on maps and on the ground where people and 
vehicles can and can not go. All of the Pike and San Isabel National 
Forest lands require that wheeled vehicles stay on designated roads and 
trails, with no off road or off trail travel except for snowmobiles 
operating over snow. The Comanche and Cimarron Grasslands expect to 
complete their travel management to the same quality standard by about 
2001. This will be accomplished through District project planning, not 
through Plan revision.
    Recreation on the PSICC has a significant economic impact locally 
and in the state of Colorado. Concerns exist about the effects of high 
recreation use on the physical and biological environment. Rapidly 
increasing summer and winter recreation is creating a need to address 
the separation of motorized and non-motorized users in some areas. 
Changes needed in Plan revision will include the refinement of area 
allocations with respect to whether motorized or non-motorized uses are 
allowed. There is a need to review existing direction to determine how 
the demand for a wider variety of uses and more separation of uses can 
be met within resource capacity limits.

Other Revision Topics

    Planning regulations and fifteen years of PSICC Plan implementation 
experience were used to identify the following list of additional 
topics that will be addressed and updated during revision.

[[Page 54616]]

Special Area Management

    The PSICC includes many unique and outstanding combinations of 
physical and biological resources, and areas of social interest. These 
are collectively referred to in the regulations as ``special areas.'' 
Special areas may include Wilderness (36 CFR 219.17); Wild and Scenic 
Rivers (36 CFR 219.2); Research Natural Areas (36 CFR 219.25); National 
Trails, and special recreational areas with scenic, historical (36 CFR 
219.24), geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, 
archaeological, or other special characteristics. Management direction 
for all special areas will be updated, based on the uniqueness of the 
special area and the difference between existing and desired future 
condition of the resource(s).

Research Natural Area (RNA) Recommendations

    Currently the PSICC has 3 RNAs. In the past few years twenty new 
potential RNAs have been identified on the Pike and San Isabel NFs and 
eight new potential area on the Comanche & Cimarron NGs. These 
potential RNAs range in size from a few hundred to a few thousand 
acres. Based on the diversity of the PSICC, the Forest Service has 
recognized that additional ecosystems need to be analyzed and 
recommended for designation as Research Natural Areas.

Wild & Scenic Rivers Eligibility Recommendations

    The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended, 
requires the consideration of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers. As part 
of Plan revision, rivers and streams, determined potentially eligible 
for inclusion in the wild and Scenic River System, will be analyzed to 
determine if the ``eligible'' status is warranted. There is at least 
one, possibly two, other river segments on the State of Colorado's 
National Rivers Inventory that may also be within PSICC jurisdiction.
    (1) Segments of the Purgatoire River in Otero County, definitely on 
PSICC lands.
    (2) Chacuaco Canyon in Las Animas County. This may not be on the 
PSICC at all.
    Eligibility studies for this (these) river segment(s) will be part 
of the PSICC Forest Plan revision process. The next step in the process 
for eligible rivers and streams is suitability analysis. This step will 
be deferred to a future date.

Timber Suitable Acres and Allowable Sale Quantity

    The Forest Service is required (36 CFR 219.14) to determine which 
lands are suited and not suited for timber production. This allows an 
estimate to be made of the potential of the unit to produce a 
continuous supply of timber. Preliminary analysis shows that the acres 
of tentatively suitable timber lands on the unit will be significantly 
less than those identified in the current plan. Alternative levels of 
commercial timber harvest will be identified in the EIS.
    Similarly the suitability, condition, and trend of the Range 
resource (36 CFR 219.20) will be analyzed and expected levels of 
grazing will be estimated for Plan Revision Alternatives.

Other Potential Changes to the Current Plan

    The Rocky Mountain Region (R2) has developed a set of Management 
Area prescriptions to promote greater uniformity of direction across 
adjacent National Forests in the Region. The PSICC will use the R2 
Management Area numbering system and use the standard R2 Management 
Area direction as much as possible. The Revision will incorporate the 
basic direction and recommendations of the 1995 Recreation Capacity 
Assessment and Outfitter Guide Allocations and the 1991 Recreation 
Strategy for the PSICC. The revision will incorporate the Noxious Weed 
Environmental Assessment recommendations. Plan Revision will decide to 
retain or close vacant grazing allotments. The Revision will update 
Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines to meet new national, 
regional and PSICC priorities.

What To Do With This Information

    Writen comments on the scope of the issues, topics, and other 
potential changes identified above are encouraged to be submitted to 
PSICC by January 31, 2000.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

    A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Plan. 
The alternatives will address different options to resolve the major 
issues and other revision topics listed above, and to fulfill the 
purpose and need for plan revision. A reasonable range of alternatives 
will be evaluated and reasons will be given for eliminating some 
alternatives from detailed study. A ``no-action alternative'' is 
required. For Plan revision, no action means that current management 
would continue under the existing Plan. In describing alternatives, 
desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Resource 
outputs will be estimated based upon achieving desired conditions. Some 
preliminary information is available; however, additional public 
involvement and collaboration will be needed for alternative 
development.

Involving the Public

    PSICC's primary objective is to maintain an atmosphere of openness 
throughout the Plan revision process, where all members of the public 
feel free to share information with the Forest Service on a regular 
basis. All planning activities will be designed to support open 
discussions and public involvement that will be sustained on the PSICC 
after revision is completed.
    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance 
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, 
state, and local agencies who may be interested in or affected by Plan 
revision (36 CFR 219.6) and implementation. ``Collaborative 
stewardship,'' is defined as caring for the land and serving the people 
by listening to all constituents and living within the limits of the 
land, and will be implemented on the PSICC. Many agencies, 
organizations and individuals have already been cooperating in the 
development of assessments of current biological, physical, social and 
economic conditions. This information will be used to prepare the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
    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. Public participation activities 
could include (but are not limited to) requests for written comments, 
open houses, focus groups, field trips, and collaborative forums in 
numerous locations. Public participation will be sought throughout the 
revision process and will be especially important at several points 
along the way. The first formal opportunity to comment is to respond to 
this notice of intent, which initiates the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) identifying potential issues, (2) from 
these, identifying significant issues of those that have been covered 
by prior environmental review, (3) exploring alternatives in addition 
to No Action, and (4) identifying potential environmental effects of 
the proposed action and alternatives. Additional Public Involvement 
activities are tentatively proposed to start in the summer of 2000, and 
will be held at several locations throughout the PSICC area.

[[Page 54617]]

Release and Review of the EIS

    The Draft EIS (DEIS) is proposed to be filed with the Environmental 
protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment in the 
spring of 2001. 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 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 is meaningful and alerts an agency to the 
reviewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 
v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 533 (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 Regulation 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 (FEIS). The FEIS is proposed to be completed in 
the fall of 2002. The responsible official 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 official will document the 
decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of Decision for the 
revised Plans. The decisions will be subject to appeal in accordance 
with 36 CFR 217.

    Dated: September 23, 1999.
Tom L. Thompson,
Acting Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 99-26174 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-ES-M