[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
