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

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