70 



sioned under Federal law. We calculate that the Black Fox area still retains 9,000 

 acres even with removal of the area under the 1990 timber sale. 



The Pilger Mountain area was "disqualified" due to range improvements and low 

 standard roads. The range improvements, including pipelines, are compatible with 

 wilderness, with only clarification of "reasonable access" being required to assure 

 permittees of their rights and obligations. The "low standard" roads in Pilger were 

 indeed that, at least until the unnecessary "routine maintenance" was done this 

 past summer. This vandalism on the part of the Elk Mountain District is outra- 

 geous, and scarcely indicative of a "thorough review" of roadless areas. These non- 

 engineered roads can be returned to natural contours, with hand tools if necessary, 

 but do not at present constitute an obstacle to wilderness designation. 



The AMS indicates that the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve was not even included in 

 the review because an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared in 1989 

 wherein "an alternative leaving the preserve in an unmanaged State was deter- 

 mined to be inconsistent with the 1920 law that established this area to protect 

 game animals and birds and to provide them a breeding place" (AMS p. VIlI-4). The 

 AMS also blithely admits ". . . Harney Peak was designated by Congress in 1980 as 

 the Black Elk Wilderness" (AMS p. VIII-I). 



Your failure to address the suggested Black Elk Additions in the Norbeck Wildlife 

 Preserve is in direct violation of 36 CFR 219.17(a)(l)(ii), which states that ". . . (1) 

 During analysis of the management situation, the following areas shall be subject to 

 evaluation . . . (ii) Areas contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, or ad- 

 ministratively proposed wildernesses, regardless of which agency has jurisdiction for 

 the wilderness or proposed wilderness; . . ." (emphasis added). 



The Analysis of the Management Situation dismisses the proposed Norbeck addi- 

 tions to the existing Black Elk Wilderness with unsound and illogical arguments. 

 Nothing in the Wilderness Act or the 1920 Norbeck Act indicates that Norbeck is 

 outside of the review required in 36 CFR 219.17(a). 



Aside from the fact the 1989 Norbeck EIS was remanded by the Chief, and the 

 subsequent decision is now under appeal, the "argument" presented above is entire- 

 ly without merit. The Norbeck EIS is an amendment to the existing 1983 Forest 

 Plan; the roadless review is a part of the 1993 Forest Plan Revision. Since the new 

 plan by definition supersedes the existing plan, the EIS argument is irrelevant. 

 Also, the fact that an alternative was considered in no way solidifies any conclu- 

 sions allegedly flowing from that alternative. 



The argument that the 1920 law precludes additional wilderness designation in 

 Norbeck is also logically flawed, since it totally sidesteps the fact that the discussion 

 is about additions, and that part of Norbeck has already been designated as wilder- 

 ness, in no apparent conflict with the 1920 law. We have specifically requested the 

 Forest to provide one single instance in which a wildlife preserve, refuge or sanctu- 

 ary has been determined to be incompatible with wilderness. In the case of Norbeck, 

 the Congress has already established the compatibility of wilderness designation 

 with Norbeck's designation for wildlife preservation, when it established the Black 

 Elk Wilderness. 



The position of the Forest Service that wildlife preserves are incompatible with 

 wilderness can only produce increasing confrontation with environmental and con- 

 servation groups, at both the administrative and legal levels. We find it totally in- 

 comprehensible that the Forest can conclude that wilderness designation would be 

 harmful to wildlife, while large-scale commercial logging would magically be "bene- 

 ficial". These claims have been thoroughly refuted in our Norbeck Appeals. 



The NFMA also requires a review of Wild and Scenic Rivers in Forest Plan revi- 

 sions. To date, we have seen no indications of any such review, even though such a 

 review was one of the conditions of the French Creek agreement. We fully expect 

 you to involve the public in a thorough review of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the 

 Black Hills. 



The Forest has a responsibility to the public to perform the environmental analy- 

 ses required by law, including the roadless review. If the agency persists in its ada- 

 mant refusal to accept this responsibility, it should let another, more responsible 

 agency manage our public lands. 



C. Impact on Timber Jobs 



Is increased public involvement in the management of our public lands responsi- 

 ble for the current timber woes? The simple answer is no, of course not. At least not 

 in the sense of being a principal cause of the current difficulties within the Black 

 Hills timber industry. There are four main reasons for the current difficulties 

 within the local timber industry, as exemplified recently by Custer Lumber, Little 

 River and Continental Lumber. 



