[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31911-31915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15816]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Southern Region; Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for 
the Daniel Boone National Forest; Kentucky Counties of Bath, Clay, 
Estill, Harlan, Jackson, Knox, Laurel, Lee, Leslie, Madison, McCreary, 
Menifee, Morgan, Owsley, Perry, Powell, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Rowan, 
Wayne, Whitley, Wolfe

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the 
Southern Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for the revision of the Daniel Boone 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 
According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), Forest Plans are ordinarily revised on a 
10-15 year cycle. The existing Daniel Boone National Forest Plan was 
approved on September 27, 1985.

[[Page 31912]]

    The agency invites written comments and suggestions within the 
scope of the analysis described below. In addition, the agency gives 
notice that a full environmental analysis and decision-making process 
will occur on the proposal so that interested and affected people are 
aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
by September 19, 1996. The agency expects to file the draft EIS with 
the Environmental Protection Agency and make it available for public 
comment in January 1998. The Agency expects to file the final EIS in 
July 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Forest Supervisor, Daniel Boone 
National Forest, 1700 Bypass Road, Winchester, KY 40391.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Lawrence, Planning Staff 
Officer, (606) 745-3152.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Regional Forester for the Southern Region 
located at 1720 Peachtree Road, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30367, is the 
Responsible Official for this action, and is the deciding official.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for this action begins with the requirements 
of the National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning 
regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219. According to 
36 CFR 219.10(g), Forest Plans are ordinarily revised on a 10-15 year 
cycle. The existing Daniel Boone National Forest Plan was approved on 
September 27, 1985.
    The decisions made in a forest plan include:
    1. Establishment of the forest-wide multiple-use goals and 
objectives (36 CFR 219.11(b)).
    2. Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (36 CFR 
219.13 to 219.27).
    3. Establishment of management areas and management area direction 
management area prescriptions for applying future activities in that 
management area (36 CFR 219.11(c)).
    4. Determination of land that is suitable for the production of 
timber (16 U.S.C. 1604(k) and 36 CFR 219.14).
    5. Establishment of allowable sale quantity for timber (36 CFR 
219.16).
    6. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 
219.11(d)).
    7. Recommendation of roadless areas as potential wilderness areas 
(36 CFR 219.17).
    8. Designation of lands available for oil and gas lease and the 
leasing decision [36 CFR 228.102(d) and (e)].
    During the five-year review of the Forest Plan, monitoring results 
were evaluated and public comments were reviewed to determine needed 
changes to the Forest Plan. This review identified several areas which 
needed attention during the Forest Plan revision. These issues, and 
other changes in the management situation were identified by the Forest 
Service and by the public, and form the basis of the preliminary plan 
decisions to be examined during the revision. These are not necessarily 
the sole issues which will be evaluated. The Forest Service will 
consider public comments received on this Notice and during our public 
involvement period to develop additional topics as needed.

Proposed Action

    Initial analysis of the management situation focused on changes 
that have taken place during the current ten-year planning period. 
Those changes that seemed to warrant a revision in the Forest Plan were 
identified and form the basis for the proposed action. The Forest Plan 
decisions that are proposed to be revised are described as follows:
    1. The commitment by the U.S. Forest Service to use an ecological 
approach to management of the National Forest System was initiated in 
1992. The approach includes an added emphasis on the maintenance of 
ecosystem functions and processes. The current goals and objectives of 
the Forest Plan do not fully reflect some of the ecosystem functions, 
processes, and concerns about biological diversity that exist today.
    2. Actions have been taken by the Daniel Boone National Forest to 
better protect sensitive forest resources. Some of these new actions 
have reduced the ability of the Forest to produce the timber volume 
yields that were predicted in the Forest Plan. As a result of these 
actions, timber harvesting has been deferred during some portion of the 
past planning period on approximately 26% of the land base classified 
as suitable for timber production. Volume-per-acre yields have also 
fallen short of previous estimates. Land allocations and timber yields 
estimates will be re-evaluated in a Forest Plan revision.
    3. There is a continuing increase in public concern over the 
economics of timber management on the National Forests. In an effort to 
respond to this concern, the Daniel Boone has placed greater emphasis 
in its decision-making on cost efficiency, sometimes at the expense of 
meeting all silvicultural objectives. The goals and objectives of the 
Forest Plan will be revised to clarify the role of timber harvesting as 
a means of providing timber products and as tool that can be used to 
enhance or maintain particular ecosystems. Land allocations for timber 
management suitability will be revised, as necessary, to better reflect 
the desired cost efficiency of the timber management program.
    4. Demand has increased significantly for non-timber special forest 
products such as ginseng, other medicinal herbs, moss, grapevines, and 
various shrubs. This increase in demand has potential economic, 
biological, and management impacts. The Forest Plan goals and 
objectives, and management area prescriptions will be revised, as 
necessary, to respond to this demand while maintaining the integrity of 
ecosystems and other forest resources.
    5. Introduced pests and noxious (invasive) species are affecting, 
or have the potential to affect, the Daniel Boone National Forest. 
Pests which have had an increased impact during the current planning 
period include dogwood anthracnose and butternut canker; and pests 
which appear likely to have an increased impact in the near future 
include gypsy moth and hemlock wooly adelgid. Forest Plan goals and 
objectives, and management prescriptions will be revised to provide for 
management actions that respond to these threats.
    6. Although overall recreation use on the Daniel Boone has 
increased, it has done so at a slower rate than predicted in the Forest 
Plan. Recreation areas have deteriorated over the past nine years due 
to changes in use patterns and funding below that needed for full 
Forest Plan implementation.
    The types of recreation uses have changed, with faster growth in 
horse back riding and off-highway vehicle use, and slower increases in 
hiking and backpacking, as an example. These changes in recreation use 
patterns are significantly affecting the resources and the cost of 
carrying out the recreation program.
    The Americans with Disabilities Act provides new standards for 
improved access to Forest Service facilities. The cost of meeting these 
standards in existing facilities can be significant, limiting the 
Forest's ability to complete other maintenance needs.
    The goals and objectives, and forest-wide and management area 
prescriptions will be revised to reflect these changes in recreation 
demands

[[Page 31913]]

and in the cost of meeting the various demands.
    7. There is an increase in development, and a change in the type of 
development, adjacent to the Forest. These changes are affecting the 
management options available on lands immediately adjacent to the 
Forest boundary. Forest plan goals and objectives, and management 
prescriptions will be revised to better reflect the increasing 
pressures of the urban/rural interface.
    8. The current Forest Plan includes standards that provide for the 
maintenance of water quality and thermal characteristics in flood 
plains and riparian areas. It does not adequately reflect the habitat 
characteristics of riparian areas. The Forest Plan will be revised to 
include standards and guidelines that help ensure the biological and 
ecological integrity of this resource feature.
    9. With the introduction of ecosystem management principles and 
other changes in the management situation of the Daniel Boone National 
Forest, the monitoring needs have also changed. The cost of monitoring 
is also better appreciated by forest managers and planners than it was 
ten years ago. The Forest Plan monitoring requirements will be revised 
to address the questions arising from these changed conditions.
    10. The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (FOOGLRA or 
the Reform Act of 1987) as an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act of 
1920, has instituted a different process for mineral leasing. The 
Secretary of Agriculture was directed to identify the National Forest 
System lands which would be available for lease and which would be 
leased. FOOGLRA also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine 
the appropriate stipulations to apply to a lease to protect the surface 
resources. The Secretary or his/her officers can now make decisions to 
lease specific lands subject to NEPA compliance and consistency with 
the Forest Plan. The revision will need to identify the National Forest 
System lands which may be offered for lease, and Plan standards and 
guidelines should include the appropriate stipulations to apply to 
leases to protect the surface resources, and give guidance for making 
leasing decisions.

Preliminary Issues

    The Daniel Boone National Forest intends to reexamine the primary 
Forest Plan decisions as described above. Associated with the decision 
to be revised are the following preliminary issues:
    1. What actions and land allocations are necessary to insure the 
biological diversity and sustainability of ecosystems, considering the 
plant, animal and human interactions?
    2. What combination of land allocation, Forest regulations, 
facilities and services should the National Forest provide to assure 
public recreational opportunities that provide a minimum of conflict 
between users, and protect natural resources?
    3. What road and trail system is needed on the forest and how 
should it be managed?
    4. What should be the balance of specially designated areas, such 
as wilderness, zoological and botanical areas, which are needed to 
conserve unique forest characteristics.
    5. Should the Daniel Boone make land allocations and take action to 
maintain or improve opportunities for hunting and fishing experiences 
and enjoyment of wildlife?
    6. What role should timber harvesting play in ecosystem management, 
and in contributing to meet the demand for wood fiber by the American 
public? What economic considerations should be applied?
    7. What additional management options, if any, should be used for 
the extraction of ``miscellaneous forest products'' such as moss, and 
other plant materials?
    8. How should the Daniel Boone manage federally owned minerals?

Possible Alternative Themes

    Based upon the above changes in the management situation and the 
preliminary issues, the following are examples of alternative 
management themes that could be developed into alternatives:

Theme A

    Continue the management allocations, activities, and management 
direction of the current Forest Plan as amended. This is the ``No 
Action'' alternative and its consideration is required by the 
implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). It will serve as a benchmark against which the other 
alternatives can be compared to better assess their expected effects 
and how the alternatives address the significant issues.

Theme B

    Ecological processes would be allowed to proceed with a minimum of 
direct human influence. Fluctuations in forest characteristics such as 
age-class distribution and species composition would be affected 
primarily by natural disturbance factors such as insects, disease, and 
fire.
    Primitive recreation opportunities would be emphasized. Facilities 
and developed sites, such as trails, campgrounds, and boat ramps, would 
be reduced or eliminated. The Forest would be closed to all off-highway 
vehicles and most existing Forest Service roads would gradually be 
closed.
    There would be no change in the number of legally designated areas 
such as Wilderness, but the size of some current areas could be 
increased and the trend would be towards the development of wilderness-
like conditions across the Forest.
    There would be no active management for game or non-game species or 
their habitat. Only primitive hunting and fishing facilities and 
opportunities would be retained.
    No harvesting of timber would take place and no extraction of other 
forest products would be permitted.
    Areas of federal minerals not currently under lease would be made 
unavailable for future leasing.

Theme C

    A variety of outputs and opportunities would be provided by the 
Forest, while management for existing and potential ecosystems would be 
emphasized to reduce the potential of threatening ecological processes 
and the viability of plant and animal species.
    Existing recreation facilities would be maintained or redesigned to 
meet changes in demand for specific recreational activities. 
Cooperators and concessionaires would be used to improve operating 
efficiencies.
    Trails would be maintained to accommodate a mix of trail users and 
would be closed when necessary to protect other resource values. Forest 
Service roads would be managed to provide for a balance of public use, 
administrative access, and protection of natural resources.
    There would be no change in the number of legally designated areas, 
such as Wilderness, but the size of some may increase. More areas would 
be designated through Forest Plan management direction to better 
conserve important ecological characteristics.
    The existing level of habitat improvements would be maintained. 
Some adjustments to the design and location of those improvements would 
be made to increase overall hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing 
opportunities.
    Commercial timber harvesting would continue and be used to both 
provide wood products to the American people

[[Page 31914]]

and as a tool to help ensure the maintenance of biodiversity and long-
term sustainability of forest resources. The extraction of other forest 
products would continue as long as it does not threaten the long-term 
viability of the resource.
    Federal minerals would be made unavailable for lease where 
unacceptable impacts to surface resources are a likely result.

Theme D

    Management of the Forest would emphasize a variety of recreational 
opportunities to the extent possible, while still providing for the 
sustainability and diversity of forest ecosystems. Additional 
recreation facilities and opportunities would be provided to better 
meet anticipated demand.
    Some trails would be modified, and others constructed and 
maintained, to specifically accommodate off-highway vehicles, horse 
riders, and mountain bicyclists. Recreation needs would play a greater 
role in road management decisions, such as road location and design, 
maintenance level, and whether the road is kept open or closed to 
public access.
    There would be no change in the number of legally designated areas, 
such as Wilderness, but the size of some may be increased. More areas 
would be designated through Forest Plan management direction to better 
conserve important ecological characteristics and to maximize 
particular recreational opportunities.
    The existing level of habitat improvements would be increased, and 
adjustments in design and location would be made to improvements to 
increase overall hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing opportunities.
    Timber harvesting would be used as a tool to enhance features and 
characteristics such as visual variety and habitat diversity which are 
tied to recreational opportunities on the Forest.
    The extraction of other forest products would be managed so that it 
does not threaten the long-term viability of the resource.
    Federal minerals would be unavailable for lease where recreational 
opportunities would be adversely impacted and where unacceptable 
impacts to surface resources are likely.

Theme E

    Ecological processes would be directly influenced to optimize the 
development of various forest products. The viability of plant and 
animal species would be considered, only when it is compromised to the 
extent that the species would require listing as threatened, 
endangered, or sensitive.
    A variety of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities would 
be provided for, but management would emphasize those uses that produce 
opportunities for the greatest number of people.
    Forest Service roads and trails would be constructed, redesigned, 
or maintained to provide for the maximum opportunities to use the 
Forest.
    The current legally designated areas, such as Wilderness, would 
remain unchanged. Current administratively designated areas would be 
reduced or eliminated to increase the options available for maximum 
utilization of the forest.
    Management would provide for a diversity of ecosystems, but would 
seek to maximize habitat for game and other high demand species.
    Management direction and land allocations would emphasize the 
production of timber and other forest products as much as is legally 
feasible.
    All federally-owned minerals would be made available for lease with 
a minimum of constraints.
    These themes are offered merely to illustrate the range of 
alternatives that could be considered in response to the issues 
associated with the proposed revision. The Forest Service is seeking 
comment not just on these particular themes but, more importantly, on 
the individual components of the various themes. The final range of 
alternatives considered will be based on the final identification of 
public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities.
    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance 
from Federal, State and local agencies, and other individuals or 
organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed 
action. This input will be utilized in the preparation of the draft 
environmental impact statement. 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 scoping meetings will be conducted.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the project analysis process. The first point in the analysis is 
the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). The scoping process includes: (1) 
identifying potential issues (other than those previously described), 
(2) from these, identifying significant issues to be analyzed in depth, 
(3) eliminating from detailed study insignificant issues or those which 
have been covered by prior environmental review, (4) exploring 
additional alternatives, and (5) identifying potential environmental 
effects of the proposed action and alternative (i.e., direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects).
    As part of the first step in scoping, a series of public meetings 
are scheduled to explain the public input and planning process, and 
provide an opportunity for public input. These meetings will be held at 
the following locations, with each meeting scheduled from 3:00 p.m. to 
7:00 p.m.:

Monday, July 15, 1996, Laurel County Courthouse, London, KY.
Wednesday, July 17, 1996, McKee City Hall, MeKee, KY.
Monday, July 22, 1996, Carl D. Perkins Community Center, Morehead, KY.
Tuesday, July 23, 1996, Natural Bridge State Resort Park, Slade, KY.
Wednesday. July 24, 1996, Big Creek Fire Department, Big Creek, KY.
Thursday, July 25, 1996, Whitley City Middle School, Whitley City, KY.
Friday, July 26, 1996, Rural Economic Development Center, Somerset, KY.
Tuesday, August 13, 1996, Fayette County Extension Service, Lexington, 
KY.
Thursday, August 15, 1996, Ellis Cooperative Extension Building, 
Burlington, KY.

    These meetings will provide information on the purpose and intent 
of the Forest Plan revision, the Plan revision process and an 
opportunity for the public to provide input on the scope and need for 
change in the Forest plan.
    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be 
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and to be available for 
public comment by January 1998. At that time, the Environmental 
Protection Agency will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in 
the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 3 months 
from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notices 
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 
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 that are not raised until after 
completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be 
waived or dismissed by the

[[Page 31915]]

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 3 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 action, 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 statement. 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, the comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in 
preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in June 1998. 
The Responsible Official will consider the comments, responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this revision. 
The Responsible Official will document the decision and reasons for the 
decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to 
appeal in accordance with 36 CFR 217.
    The Responsible Official is the Regional Forester, Southern Region, 
1720 Peachtree Road, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30367.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Gloria Manning,
Deputy Regional Forester, Resources.
[FR Doc. 96-15816 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M