Land Between The Lakes Natural Resources Management Plan, Lyon and Trigg Counties, Kentucky and Stewart County, Tennessee; Record of Decision

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

Land Between The Lakes Natural Resources Management Plan, Ly

[Federal Register: December 13, 1994]

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Sec. 5.4.9 of TVA's implementing procedures, 48 FR 19264 (1983). TVA has decided to adopt the modified preferred alternative (Alternative E) identified in its ``Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) at Land Between The Lakes (LBL).'' The Final EIS was made available to the public on October 17, 1994. Under Alternative E (modified), natural resource management will be used to enhance recreation and environmental education, with emphasis on scenic beauty, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, and a more natural appearance of the forest. Multiple use of resources will be allowed, including hunting, fishing and timber harvesting. The final NRMP also identifies measures to integrate LBL's designation as a United Nations Man and the Biosphere Reserve into resource planning and management.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale V. Wilhelm, Manager, National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (615) 632-6693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LBL is a 170,000-acre tract of federal land in western Kentucky and Tennessee. It is located between Kentucky Reservoir and Lake Barkley. The area was established in 1963. TVA manages LBL to promote recreation and environmental education. Management of the area's natural resources is a very important element in the fulfillment of these goals. Natural resources which are managed include forests, open lands (e.g., agricultural fields, wildlife openings), wildlife, and water.
TVA first developed an NRMP in 1964 and subsequently revised it several times. The NRMP was last revised in 1985. Since then, a number of new resource management issues have arisen and there have been changes in public desires for resource management. In addition, LBL was designated an international biosphere reserve by the United Nations in 1991. The UN's biosphere reserve program identifies examples of the world's major managed and preserved ecosystems and emphasizes resource conservation and research at those areas. LBL was designated a UN biosphere reserve ``to provide a research demonstration of how preserved lands, managed lands, and man can coexist.'' To obtain the public's views on new resource issues and possible changes to the management plan, TVA decided to prepare an EIS in concert with its consideration of possible revisions to the NRMP. Following scoping, TVA released a draft EIS and NRMP on November 10, 1993. A public hearing was held on December 14, 1993, and a 60-day period was provided for receipt of written comments. TVA received approximately 2,900 letters and 64 statements were made at the public hearing. After considering all comments, TVA revised the EIS appropriately. The Final EIS was distributed to commenting agencies and the public on October 17, 1994.

Alternatives Considered

In light of LBL's broad goals, a number of management philosophies and plans could be implemented. Consequently, TVA purposefully formulated alternatives for the EIS that captured a reasonable range of appropriate management approaches. Certain of the alternatives were then modified, first in response to comments received during the scoping stage and then in response to comments received on the draft EIS. As presented in the Final EIS, the alternatives evaluated and considered included:

Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A, there would be no change in the basic management guidance provided by the 1985 Natural Resources Management Plan. Since 1985, there have been several modifications in management practices used at LBL as knowledge has improved and new management techniques were developed. These modifications will be formally incorporated into a revised NRMP. Aside from these modifications, choosing Alternative A would essentially mean taking no action because it represents current management objectives and guidelines for LBL's natural resources. The basic management approach for forest resources would continue commercial forest management (the removal and sale of merchantable timber) by even-aged management, including shelterwood and clearcut harvests. However, harvest levels would be substantially lower than annual growth, with a rotation age for hardwoods of 276 years. Approximately 13,150 acres would be designated as biosphere reserve core area. TVA would protect water resources through use of silvicultural and agricultural best management practices (BMPs), would manipulate water levels on selected interior ponds, and would construct artificial wetlands to benefit shorebirds and waterfowl.

Alternative B: Emphasis on Wildlife Management for Game Species

Even-aged forest management practices would continue to be used, including shelterwood and clearcut harvests but the volume of trees cut would be increased. Increasing even-aged practices would retard shadetolerant hardwood encroachment into LBL's forests and maintain a higher proportion of oak-hickory forest types. Oak-hickory forests produce more mast (seeds and nuts such as acorns and hickory nuts) than other forest types. Increasing even-aged practices also would increase the amount of young plant growth and edge communities. Both changes would benefit wildlife, especially game species, and associated recreational activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. Timber harvest levels would still be less than annual growth (less wood volume would be removed than grows each year). However, the rotation age for hardwoods would decrease to approximately 100 years. Biosphere reserve core areas would total 20,650 acres. Water resource and wetland management would be the same as in Alternative A.

Alternative C. No Active Natural Resource Management

Under Alternative C, commercial forest management would not be practiced, and natural succession would be allowed to convert approximately 40 to 50 percent of the forest to shade-tolerant hardwoods such as maple and beech. In addition, open land management for the purposes of creating wildlife habitat would cease, and hunting and other consumptive recreation would not be allowed. The biosphere reserve core area would total 161,500 acres, essentially all of LBL except those areas devoted to the interior highway system and facilities. Water level manipulation on interior ponds would benefit waterfowl and shorebirds, but no artificial wetlands would be constructed.

Alternative D: No Active Forest Management, Hunting Allowed

Under Alternative D, commercial forest management would cease as in Alternative C. However, open land management would continue as in the past, and hunting would be allowed. Biosphere reserve core area would total 151,050 acres. Water and wetland management would be the same as under Alternative A.

Alternative E (modified): Combination of Even-Aged and Uneven-Aged Forest Management With Expansion of Biosphere Reserve Core Area

Under Alternative E, even-aged forest management would be used on moist, lower slopes and bottomland habitats where conversion to shadetolerant species through natural succession is most likely. Uneven-aged forest management practices would be used on upper slopes and ridges where conversion is less likely to occur. The goal of both management systems would be to maintain a high proportion of healthy, vigorous oak-hickory forest stands. For aesthetic reasons, clearcuts would not be used. To further reduce aesthetic impacts, final shelterwood harvests would be deferred for 20 to 40 years following the initial harvest. The rotation age for forests under even-aged management would be 150 years. Group selection harvests under the uneven-aged system would be limited to about one acre or less in size. Although set rotations would not apply to uneven-aged management, hardwood trees would be allowed to reach an age of 150 to 200 years. Open land management would continue as in the past; however, any open lands within biosphere reserve core areas would be allowed to revert to forest. Biosphere reserve core areas would be increased to a total of 42,500 acres. Water level and wetland management would be the same as under Alternative A.

Preferred Alternative

The Final EIS identified Alternative E as TVA's preferred alternative. In TVA's opinion, Alternative E represents an environmentally balanced approach which best provides for the recreational and educational goals of LBL. This approach is largely consistent with and builds upon the management approach currently in use at LBL (Alternative A). It provides for increased outdoor recreation and environmental education opportunities but does so in the context of ecologically sound natural resource management. Under Alternative E, active forest and wildlife management would occur at reduced level's compared to the no action alternative (Alternative A). However, the forest should have a more natural appearance compared to alternatives A and B--a difference which TVA's analyses indicate is preferred by the general public. A larger biosphere reserve core area would enhance conditions for those species which benefit from unfragmented forest blocks and closed canopies. This would include forest interior neotropical migratory birds which are of current concern. There are a number of other attributes that make Alternative E preferable:
<box> Scenic beauty would be emphasized--timber harvesting methods would be employed that decrease the visual impact of tree removal. Areas along roadways and adjacent to facilities would be planted to native prairie grasses, native wildflowers and native flowering trees and shrubs;
<box> Timber harvesting would continue but at a level of 5.3 million board feet annually, a 20 percent decrease from prior levels of 6.6 million board feet;
<box> Wildlife management activities would continue to support hunting and wildlife viewing activities; <box> The combination of forest management activities used, in conjunction with a large biosphere reserve area, would enhance sitelevel, landscape-level, and regional biological diversity; <box> Hiking, horseback riding, and bicycle riding experiences would be enhanced; and
<box> A slight increase in tourism spending would be expected, while the loss of timber-related jobs would be minimized. As finally formulated, Alternative E reflects modifications which were made to it in response to public comments on the Draft EIS. Specific comments and responses were:
Comment: The biosphere reserve core acreage should be increased to address concerns about forest fragmentation, habitat for forest interior neogropical migratory birds, and regional biological diversity.
Response: The biosphere reserve core acreage was increased from 20,650 acres to 42,500 acres (approximately 25 percent of LBL). Comment: Silvicultural recommendations (e.g., timber harvesting methods) should be based on specific site conditions; therefore, evenaged management should not be eliminated as a management tool. Response: Even-aged management was added to the alternative as an appropriate practice on moist and bottomland sites. Comment: Management actions should provide for improved forest health and vigor (especially in light of anticipated future gypsy moth infestations).
Response: Even-aged and uneven-aged management practices were included with a goal of maintaining a healthy and vigorous forest. Comment: Aesthetic resources should continue to be protected and improved through resource management activities. Response: Silvicultural practices such as shelterwood with a delay in the final shelterwood harvest were included as an alternative to clearcutting.
Comment: The use of pesticides and other chemicals should be reduced.
Response: The alternative was modified to establish as a target a 25 percent reduction in the amount of pesticides used at LBL by the year 2000.
TVA received a substantial number of comments that supported the more aggressive timber harvesting activities allowed under Alternatives A and B. TVA agrees that Alternative A has been a successful management strategy in the past at LBL, particularly in the area of enhancing wildlife habitat. As a result, even-aged forest management, a critical component of Alternative A, has been included in Alternative E although at reduced levels. Even-aged forest management will help to meet the long-term needs of early successional wildlife species by increasing the amount of young plant growth. Even-aged management is more effective in maintaining the oak-hickory forest of the area. However, the public's perception of even-aged management is generally negative and there is less acceptance of this than in the past, particularly on public lands. The reduced use of even-aged management under Alternative E attempts to strike a balance between the ecological benefits of evenaged management and the public's perceptions. TVA also agrees with commenters that Alternative B would represent sound resource management from a biological standpoint. However, increasing the level of even-aged timber management would have negative visual impacts and is not desirable for that reason. In addition, as pointed out by a number of commenters, LBL offers the opportunity to maintain a large block of mature forest in a region where most private forests are fragmented and other tracts of public land are small in size.
A number of comments were received that supported an end to commercial forest management activities (the harvesting of commercially-usable timber) on all of LBL. This would occur under Alternatives C and D. As stated in TVA's EIS, Alternative C or D would be consistent with and help advance LBL's broad goals. However, over the long term, these alternatives are expected to change 40 to 50 percent of the stands in LBL's forests from oak-hickory to beech-maple. Oak-hickory species are better mast producers and many wildlife species rely on mast for food. In addition, wildlife species which depend on early-successional vegetative habitats would be adversely impacted by the change to mature, old-growth forest. There is also likely to be a decline in overall visitation under Alternatives C and D because of adverse effects on hunting. Under Alternative C, hunting would be eliminated. Under Alternative D, the habitats preferred by certain game species would be reduced and hunting opportunities would be adversely affected. The diversity of habitats and associated recreational opportunities offered by Alternative E better support LBL's recreational and education goals.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Because of LBL's goals of recreation and environmental education, none of the alternatives would be environmentally destructive and none of the alternatives would likely result in significant environmental impacts.
There are environmental differences among alternatives. Depending on the alternative, there could be greater or lesser impacts on certain resources and certain species. For example, Alternative C would eliminate future commercial timber harvesting and likely eventually result in an old growth forest. This would benefit species which prefer such habitat such as some neotropical birds. However, those neotropical birds which favor early successional vegetation would be adversely impacted. In contrast, Alternative B, which would allow the most timber harvesting, would result in more early successional habitat and benefit game species, such as deer, that prefer such habitats. Consequently, depending on the habitat or species one wants to enhance or foster, any one of the alternatives evaluated in TVA's EIS could be characterized as environmentally preferable.

Environmental Consequences and Commitments

In choosing Alternative E, all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted. Site-specific environmental reviews will be conducted prior to implementation of natural resource management actions that could potentially impact the environment. Typically, mitigation will be accomplished by avoiding sensitive areas, changes in intensity or method of management, or providing off-setting resource enhancement or replacement at other localities. Common mitigation measures include silvicultural and agricultural BMPs to ensure that minimal amounts of soil and nutrients enter any water course. Other mitigation measures include archaeological and historic surveys, use of integrated pest management techniques, and implementation of visual quality zones. Wildlife management mitigation includes bat management zones and eagle nest management zones. To address the issues of fragmentation and biological diversity, large blocks of biosphere reserve core acreage are an integral part of Alternative E.
The results of implementing Alternative E will be continuously monitored to determine if management objectives are being achieved. The results of forest and open land management activities will be monitored through the use of forest inventories, logging inspections, annual mast surveys, and use of gypsy moth traps among other activities. Management impacts on wildlife are monitored through periodic surveys of bats, breeding and wintering birds, eagles, grouse, turkeys, and deer, as well as through hunter harvest data and wildlife disease surveillance activities. Water and soil will also be monitored through testing and survey activities.
Innovative natural resource management is crucial to the fulfillment of LBL's mission and to TVA's role in environmental leadership. TVA believes this plan will further the recreation and environmental education mission of LBL. At the same time, this plan will maintain and enhance a nationally significant tract of public land in western Kentucky and Tennessee.

Dated: December 6, 1994.
Kathryn J. Jackson,
Senior Vice President, Resource Group, Tennessee Valley Authority. [FR Doc. 94-30559 Filed 12-12-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-01-M

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Land Between The Lakes Natural Resources Management Plan, Lyon and Trigg Counties, Kentucky and Stewart County, Tennessee; Record of Decision

Local Navigation