This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

31911

Vol. 61, No. 121

Friday, June 21, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Notice and Request for Comments on

Information Collection for Visitor

Information Use Study

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Forest Service announces its intent to

establish a new information collection.

The new collection is necessary to

evaluate how agency information

services, such as visitor centers,

interpretive services, brochures, or

informational flyers, are used by visitors

to National Forest System lands

geographically situated in close

proximity to urban communities in

southern California. The San

Bernardino, Angeles, Los Padres, and

Cleveland National Forests are the focus

of this information collection.

Information also will be collected to

determine how people living near

National Forest System lands in

southern California urban areas get or

receive information about the lands. The

data will be used to evaluate the

accessibility of information about the

four forests in these urban communities,

the usefulness of the information, the

method or media by which the

information was received, and the

agency’s effectiveness in disseminating

National Forest System information to

southern California urban communities.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing on or before August 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Forest Service, USDA,

Visitor Information Project, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr.,

Riverside, CA 92507.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

James Absher, Pacific Southwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station, at (909)

680–1559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description of Information Collection

Title: Visitor Information Use Study.

OMB Number: New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: The following

describes a new collection requirement

and has not received approval by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Abstract: The data collected will be

analyzed to gain an understanding of

how urban residents in southern

California, living close to the San

Bernadino, Angeles, Los Padres and

Cleveland National Forest System lands,

get or receive information about

recreational opportunities on the lands;

about rules governing the lands, such as

permits or costs; if residents share the

information with others in their

communities; and how southern

California urban residents utilize the

informational dissemination services

provided by the agency, such as

National Forest System land visitor

centers, interpretive services, brochures,

or informational flyers.

The data also will be used to identify

which agency informational services are

utilized by southern California urban

residents and sources by which

residents get or receive information

about National Forest System lands. The

data will be evaluated to define agency

information dissemination and urban

communication patterns: for example, if

southern California urban residents

share the information they get or receive

with other residents in their

communities, what their informational

source preferences are (newspapers,

television, radio, visitor centers,

brochures, or flyers), and if there are

differences in informational source

sharing among culturally diverse user

groups.

Southern California urban visitors to

National Forest System lands will be

mailed a postage-paid survey, which the

visitor may fill out and return. Data

gathered in this information collection

is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals and

groups visiting National Forest System

lands in southern California.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

2,400.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 800 hours.

The agency invites comments on the

following: (a) Whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated, electronic, mechanical, or

other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology.

Use of Comments

All comments received in response to

this notice will be summarized and

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will also

become a matter of public record.

Dated: June 14, 1996.

Mark A. Remers,

Acting Chief.

[FR Doc. 96–15866 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

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.
31912 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices

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 decisionmaking 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 forestwide and management area

prescriptions will be revised to reflect

these changes in recreation demands
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices 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
31914 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices

and as a tool to help ensure the

maintenance of biodiversity and longterm 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices 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

Transfer of Administrative

Jurisdiction; Sam Rayburn Dam and

Reservoir Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of joint interchange of

lands; correction and republication.

SUMMARY: On April 23, 1996, the Forest

Service published a notice in the

Federal Register (61 FR 17872) of a joint

interchange of lands with the

Department of Army. The summary of

that notice had two minor errors;

additionally, the legal land descriptions

(Exhibits A–1 and B–1) were not

published with the notice. The agency

is republishing the notice to correct

these errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The order was

effectively April 23, 1996, when

originally published in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David M. Sherman, Lands Staff, Forest

Service, USDA, Telephone: (202) 205–

1362.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 10, 1995, and January 11, 1996,

the Secretary of the Army and the

Secretary of Agriculture respectively

signed a joint interchange order agreeing

to the transfer or administrative

jurisdiction from the Department of

Agriculture to the Department of the

Army of 36.286 acres, more or less,

lying within the Angelina National

Forest in Jasper County, Texas, and from

the Department of the Army to the

Department of Agriculture of 48.29

acres, more or less, lying within the

exterior boundaries of the Sabine

National Forest in Sabine County,

Texas. As required by the Act of July 26,

1956, Congress received 45 days

advance notice of this action.

A copy of the Joint Order, as signed,

and the accompanying Exhibits A–1 and

B–1 are set out at the end of this notice.

Exhibits A and B, references to which

are in the Joint Order, are maps that are

on file and available for public

inspection in the office of the Director,

Lands Staff, Forest Service, USDA, 4

South, Auditors Building, 14th and

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Dated: June 6, 1996.

Valdis E. Mezainis,

Acting Chief.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sam Rayburn Reservoir, Texas

Joint Order Interchanging

Administrative Jurisdiction of

Department of the Army Lands and

National Forest Lands

By Virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of Agriculture and the

Secretary of the Army by Public Law

804 dated July 26, 1956 (70 Stat. 656; 16

U.S.C. 505a, 505b) it is ordered as

follows:

(1) The jurisdiction now held by the

Secretary of the Army over the Army

lands described in Exhibits A and A–1,

attached hereto and made a part hereof,

which lands are within the boundaries

of the Sabine National Forest, Texas, is

hereby transferred from the Secretary of

the Army to the Secretary of

Agriculture, subject to the Corps of

Engineers’ full, complete and perpetual

right, power, privilege and easement

occasionally to overflow, flood and

submerge the land described in Exhibits

A and A+1 lying below elevation 179′

National Geodetic Vertical Datum

(NGVD), and its right to maintain

mosquito control as may be required in

connection with the construction,

operation and maintenance of the Sam

Rayburn Reservoir Project, Texas,

provided that no structures for human

habitation shall be constructed or

maintained on said land, and that no

other structures shall be constructed or

maintained on said land except as may

be approved in writing by the

representatives of the United States in

charge of the Project, and that no

excavation shall be conducted and no

landfill placed on the land without such

approval as to the location and method

of excavation and/or placement of

landfill, provided further that any use of

the land shall be subject to Federal and

State laws with respect to pollution.

(2) The jurisdiction now held by the

Secretary of Agriculture over the

National Forest lands described in

Exhibits B and B–1, attached hereto and

made a part hereof, which are a part of

the Angelina National Forest, Texas, is

hereby transferred from the Secretary of

Agriculture to the Secretary of the

Army, subject to continued access

thereover by the Forest Service as may

be necessary for National Forest

purposes.

(3) Pursuant to Section 2 of the

aforesaid Act of July 26, 1956, the

National Forest lands transferred to the

Secretary of the Army by this order are

hereafter subject only to the laws

applicable to the Department of the

Army lands comprising the Sam

Rayburn Reservoir Project, Texas. the

Department of the Army lands

transferred to the Secretary of

Agriculture by this order are hereby

subject to the laws applicable to lands

acquired under the Act of March 1, 1911

(38 Stat. 961), as amended, in addition

to the laws applicable to the Department

of Army necessary to provide for flood

control as specified in paragraph 1 of

this Order. Pursuant to authority

contained in section 11 of the Act of

March 1, 1911, the Secretary of

Agriculture hereby orders that those

lands transferred to the Secretary of

Agriculture shall be administered as a