[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30559]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 13, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

 

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

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 shade-
tolerant 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 shade-
tolerant 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:
     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;
     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;
     Wildlife management activities would continue to support 
hunting and wildlife viewing activities;
     The combination of forest management activities used, in 
conjunction with a large biosphere reserve area, would enhance site-
level, landscape-level, and regional biological diversity;
     Hiking, horseback riding, and bicycle riding experiences 
would be enhanced; and
     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, even-
aged 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 even-
aged 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