[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33599-33601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15729]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Use of Lands Acquired for the Columbia Dam Component of the Duck 
River Project and Future Water Supply Needs in the Upper Duck River 
Basin

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Issuance of records of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 1500 to 1508) and TVA's 
implementing procedures. TVA has decided to implement Alternative D/C 
(intermediate alternative) in its Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), Use Of Lands Acquired For The Columbia Dam Component Of The Duck 
River Project. In addition, TVA has decided to recommend to local 
utilities, government agencies, and other interested parties in the 
upper Duck River watershed that one or more of the action alternatives 
addressed in the TVA Final EIS, Future Water Supply Needs in the Upper 
Duck River Basin be pursued to meet the future water needs in that 
area. TVA is not proposing to implement any of these water supply 
alternatives itself.
    The Columbia Land Use Final EIS was made available to the public in 
April 1999. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in 
the Federal Register on April 16, 1999. TVA made a decision to 
implement Option 2 to stabilize the unfinished Columbia Dam structure 
on May 17, 1999. Under Alternative D/C, the agency preferred land use 
alternative, TVA seeks to balance public use and protection of project 
lands and to be responsive to public comments received during the EIS 
process.
    To implement Land Use Alternative D/C, TVA has decided to transfer 
all of the Columbia Project lands, 5200 hectares (12,800 acres) of land 
in Maury County, Tennessee, to the state of Tennessee subject to 
various easements and restrictions.
    Under the deed restrictions, most of the land is to be managed to 
enhance recreational use of the area and to protect natural and 
cultural resources. Up to 800 hectares (2000 acres) of land could be 
devoted to other recreational uses, including residential development 
if the State decides to do this. An additional 1550 hectares (3800 
acres) would be preserved for the possible construction of a water 
supply and compatible recreation reservoir (Water Supply EIS 
Alternative B). This reservoir was identified as one way to meet the 
future water supply needs of the Maury/southern Williamson County Water 
Service Area. In the interim, these preserved tracts would be managed 
for wildlife and other recreation uses.
    The Columbia Water Supply Final EIS was made available to the 
public in February 2001. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2001. TVA's preferred 
alternative is that one or more of the action alternatives should be 
pursued by local utilities, government agencies, and other interested 
parties in the upper Duck River watershed to meet the future water 
needs in the Maury/southern Williamson County Water Service Area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda B. Oxendine, Senior NEPA 
Specialist, Environmental Policy & Planning, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 
37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-3440 or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1968, TVA proposed the Duck River 
Project, a project that would have resulted in the construction of two 
dams and reservoirs on the Duck River in middle Tennessee, south of 
Nashville. As proposed, one dam was to be built at River Mile 248, near 
Normandy, and the other at River Mile 136, near Columbia. Congress 
began appropriating money for the Duck River Project in December 1969. 
Construction of Normandy Dam and Reservoir began in June 1972 and was 
completed in 1976. Construction of Columbia Dam and Reservoir was begun 
in August 1973, but was halted in 1983 because of potential impacts to 
at least two endangered mussel species which occur in the proposed 
reservoir pool area.
    In 1995, after conservation efforts for the endangered mussel 
species had failed to meet established criteria, TVA decided that 
Columbia Dam and Reservoir could not be completed. At that time, TVA 
proposed to address two partially-related purposes of the original 
project: future use of the lands that had been acquired, and water 
supply needs in the upper Duck River watershed.
    The Columbia Project lands are located along the Duck River between 
the city of Columbia (on the west) and U.S. Route 431, Lewisburg-
Franklin Pike (on the east), in Maury County, Tennessee. The reach of 
the Duck River included in this study extends from approximately River 
Mile 130, in Columbia, upstream to River Mile 165, at Carpenters 
Bridge, 3 kilometers (2 air miles) west of U.S. Route 431.
    When construction was halted in 1983, the Columbia Project was 
about 45 percent complete. The concrete portion of the dam was about 90 
percent complete and the earth-filled section was about 60 percent 
complete. The river had been moved to flow through a 600-meter (2000-
foot) long diversion channel located along the east side of the work 
site and a dike had been built to keep normal stream flow out of the 
spillway construction site. Approximately 46 percent of the land 
required for the reservoir (5200 of 11,140 hectares (12,800 of 27,500 
acres)) had been acquired, and approximately half of the 72 kilometers 
(45 miles) of roads affected by the reservoir had been relocated.
    Present status of sensitive resources in the project area includes 
the presence of at least four federal endangered species, unusually 
diverse aquatic and terrestrial communities, and a number of important 
archaeological sites. During the past decade, the Columbia Project 
lands have become important public hunting grounds in middle Tennessee. 
At the same time, increasing numbers of people are building homes and 
businesses around the area.
    On February 25, 1995, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 
prepare an EIS on alternative uses for the land acquired as part of the 
Columbia Project. A similar NOI for the Water Supply EIS was published 
in the Federal Register on March 9, 1995. The Tennessee Duck River 
Development Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service decided to cooperate in the preparation of both 
EIS documents. In addition, the Tennessee Department of Environmental 
and Conservation decided to cooperate in the preparation of the Water 
Supply EIS. Public scoping meetings were held at Culleoka School near 
the Project site on April 18 and May 2, 1995, on the Land Use EIS and 
Water Supply EIS, respectively. The Notice of Availability (NOA) on the 
Draft Land Use EIS was published on January 6, 1997, and a

[[Page 33600]]

similar NOA on the Draft Water Supply EIS was published on September 
15, 2000. The public and interested agencies were invited to submit 
written comments on the draft Land Use EIS and to attend a public 
meeting on January 27, 1997, at Columbia Senior High School. The public 
and interested agencies were invited to submit written comments on the 
draft Water Supply EIS and to attend a public meeting on September 28, 
2000, at the same location.
    For the Land Use EIS, TVA received a total of 2,890 separate sets 
of comments which included input from over 4,600 individuals, three 
federal agencies, four state agencies, six identified county and local 
governmental agencies, and over 20 other organizations. The comments 
indicated that most people and agencies want the bulk of the Columbia 
Project lands to be available for a variety of public uses. Comments 
also included making land available for public services, such as 
schools and convenience centers, and to resolve access problems created 
when only part of the proposed Columbia Reservoir lands were acquired. 
The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published on April 16, 
1999.
    With regard to the Water Supply EIS, TVA received comments from 130 
participants at the public meeting and a total of 364 letters, which 
included input from 339 individuals, three federal agencies, seven 
state agencies, two municipalities, eight state-level non-governmental 
agencies, and four local-level non-governmental agencies. Many of the 
comments made about the Land Use EIS also addressed issues covered in 
the Water Supply EIS.

Alternatives Considered

Land Use Alternatives

    Based on comments received during the scoping process, TVA 
initially considered four land use alternatives and three dam 
stabilization options in the Draft EIS. In response to public and 
agency comments on the Draft EIS, TVA and the cooperating agencies 
identified and evaluated a fifth, intermediate, alternative in the 
Final EIS.
    On May 17, 1999, TVA issued a Record of Decision on dam 
stabilization and decided to implement Option 2 to stabilize flood 
elevation at their present levels, address public safety concerns, and 
avoid substantial additional construction in the river.
    With respect to the land use alternatives, under Alternative A--
Continue Present Uses (No Action), there would be no wholesale change 
in TVA ownership or use of the Columbia Project lands. Most of the land 
would continue to be used for informal recreation while some would be 
licensed for agricultural uses. Parcels of land could be transferred to 
other agencies, sold at public auction, or used for specific purposes 
following completion of appropriate NEPA reviews.
    Under Alternative B--Protective River Corridor, only those Columbia 
Project lands in a narrow corridor along the Duck River would remain in 
public ownership. Informal recreation could occur on the river and in 
the corridor, so long as it did not cause negative impacts on the 
natural or cultural resources which occur there. Nearly all Columbia 
Project lands outside of this corridor would be transferred to other 
agencies or sold at public auction.
    Under Alternative C--Protective and Recreation Corridor, additional 
lands would remain in public ownership beyond those identified as part 
of the protective river corridor. The additional land would provide 
better protection for the river and enhance the potential for various 
types of formal recreational development. Lands not included in this 
larger corridor would be transferred to other agencies or sold at 
public auction.
    Under Alternative D--Resource Management Area, most of the Columbia 
Project lands would be transferred to a federal or state agency to be 
managed, in part, to protect natural and cultural resources. The extent 
of recreational development and other compatible uses of the land would 
be determined by the receiving agency. Only a few outlying parcels of 
Columbia Project land would be sold at public auction.
    Under Alternative D/C--Public Use and Protection--all of the 
Columbia Project lands would be transferred to the state of Tennessee 
or some specific state or federal agency. The extent of recreational 
development and other compatible uses of this land would be determined 
by the State or receiving agency but would have to meet land use and 
environmental restrictions included in the transfer document. Up to 800 
hectares (2000 acres) of land (Possible Development Areas) could be 
devoted to other recreational-based uses, including residential 
development. An additional 1550 hectares (3800 acres) in the Fountain 
Creek area would be set aside for a possible water supply and 
compatible recreation reservoir in the future. In the interim, this 
land would be managed for wildlife and recreation activities.
    While the land use alternatives differ from each other in several 
ways, each proposed setting aside the 1550 hectares (3800 acres) of 
project lands in the Fountain Creek watershed for a water supply and 
compatible recreation reservoir project later described as Alternative 
B in the Water Supply EIS. Of the five alternatives, four (Alternatives 
A, B, C, and D/C) include varying amounts of residential, commercial, 
and/or industrial development on parts of the Columbia Project lands; 
Alternative D/C includes no industrial development.

Water Supply Alternatives

    The Water Supply EIS was developed to achieve three purposes: (1) 
To document if one or more of the three water service areas in the 
upper Duck River basin has a projected need for additional water before 
about 2050, (2) to identify potential ways to meet any identified water 
needs in the three water service areas, and (3) to determine the likely 
environmental effects of the water-supply alternatives that were 
identified.
    The results from the needs analysis indicate that water releases 
from Normandy Dam would meet projected needs in the Bedford County and 
Marshall County Water Service Areas through 2050; however, the Maury/
southern Williamson County Service Area (the area around Columbia) 
would need additional water starting some time after 2015. Five broad 
concepts for meeting water supply needs were evaluated in detail, 
including the No Action alternative. Under Alternative A--No Action, no 
new source of water would be developed to meet the projected future 
needs of the Maury/southern Williamson County Water Service Area. Under 
Alternative B--Fountain Creek Reservoir, a water supply reservoir would 
be constructed on Fountain Creek along with a five-mile long pipeline 
to transport water from the reservoir to a new treatment plant and to 
the existing water-distribution system. Under Alternative C--Downstream 
Intake, a water-supply intake and pumping station would be constructed 
on the Duck River in western Maury County along with a 13-mile pipeline 
to transport water to a new treatment plant and to the existing water-
distribution system. Under Alternative D--Raise Normandy Pool Level, 
the pool level on Normandy Reservoir would be raised and the minimum 
discharge from Normandy Dam would be increased. Under Alternative E--
Tims Ford Intake, a water-supply intake and pumping station would be 
constructed on Tims

[[Page 33601]]

Ford reservoir along with a 20-mile pipeline to transport water to a 
discharge point on the Duck River near Shelbyville in Bedford County.
    In the Water Supply EIS, TVA found that three alternatives would 
meet the future needs of the Columbia area through 2050. Raising the 
pool level on Normandy Reservoir would meet projected water needs 
through 2035; however, the use of available water conservation measures 
could extend the utility of this alternative through 2050. Preliminary 
reviews presented in the EIS indicated that all four conceptual action 
alternatives could be constructed and operated without seriously 
harming the environment.

Decisions

Land Use EIS

    TVA has decided to implement Alternative D/C (Public Use and 
Protection). TVA will transfer all of the Columbia Project lands to the 
state of Tennessee subject to certain easements and restrictions. This 
alternative, which incorporates components of both Alternative D 
(Resource Management Area) and C (Protective and Recreational 
Corridor), responds to the public comments TVA received during the EIS 
process. The bulk of the lands will be retained in public ownership and 
devoted to recreation and natural resource management. This will 
protect the cultural and natural resources, including endangered 
species and wetlands, which exist in the area. Under restrictions in 
the document transferring ownership of the property, the State could 
choose to make up to 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of land in the Possible 
Development Areas available for other recreational uses including 
residential development which would help respond to some of the 
development pressures in the area. Prior to the transfer, TVA will 
convey certain easements to address property access issues and to 
provide for specific public uses, such as a site for a new school.
    TVA closely coordinated the formulation of Alternative D/C with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Tennessee state natural resource 
management agencies. The Service has agreed with TVA's determination 
that implementation of Alternative D/C will not jeopardize the 
continued existence of any of the endangered or threatened species that 
are present on, or could be affected by, the restricted use of the 
former Columbia Project lands. This action will preserve a substantial 
block of land for open space, wildlife management, and natural resource 
protection in an area that is under increasing development pressures. 
Devoting lands to these uses is important now and will become 
increasingly important to future generations in the middle Tennessee 
region.

Water Supply EIS

    Although agencies typically identify only one EIS alternative as 
preferable, agencies can identify multiple alternatives as preferable 
under CEQ's NEPA regulations. 40 CFR Sec. 1502.14.(e). Considering the 
programmatic nature of the Water Supply EIS and TVA's lack of 
involvement in future implementation of the action alternatives, TVA 
identified all of the action alternatives as preferable to not taking 
any action at all. Accordingly, TVA has concluded that one or more of 
the action alternatives should be pursued to meet the future water 
needs in the Maury/southern Williamson County Water Service Area. TVA 
is not proposing to design or construct any of the facilities. However 
as a regional water resource agency, TVA can assist in evaluating 
available alternatives and encourage cooperation among all communities 
that are dependent on common water resources. Local utilities, 
government agencies, and other interested parties in the upper Duck 
River watershed will be the ones to actually decide which water supply 
alternatives should be pursued.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    TVA has concluded that Alternative D, Resource Management Area, is 
the environmentally preferable alternative in the Land Use EIS. 
Alternative D would likely result in little disturbance of project 
lands and would best protect natural resources in the area. Little or 
no land would be transferred or sold out of public ownership. The 
federal or state agency recipient would commit to manage these lands to 
protect natural and cultural resources and to enhance recreational use 
of the area. Most of the Columbia Project lands would become a resource 
management area. However, TVA decided that Alternative D/C adequately 
protects the area's natural resources and is the second-most 
environmentally preferable alternative.
    With regard to the Water Supply EIS, TVA has concluded that any of 
the action alternatives could be implemented with acceptable impacts on 
the environment. However, the extent of potential environmental effects 
of the conceptual alternatives is related to the amount of land area 
that would be modified or disturbed. TVA agrees with EPA that the two 
alternatives which would involve the least amount of land disturbance 
(Alternative C--Downstream Water Intake, and Alternative E--Tims Ford 
Pipeline) also appear likely to have the least potential for adverse 
effects on the environment (almost exclusively short-term effects 
associated with construction of the pipelines and other facilities). 
Both of the other alternatives (Alternative B--Fountain Creek 
Reservoir, and Alternative D--Raise Normandy Pool Level) would involve 
modifications in much larger areas and would have substantially more 
potential for adverse environmental effects. Each of the alternatives 
also would result in some level of benefits to water quality, aquatic 
life, and recreation on parts of the Duck River where at least the 
minimum flow would be higher than under the No Action Alternative. 
Assuming that the construction impacts per mile of waterline would be 
comparable, the small size of the intake site and the shorter length of 
pipeline that would be involved would combine to make Alternative C the 
most environmentally-preferable alternative.

Environmental Mitigation

    Although implementation of Alternative D would have resulted in 
heightened environmental protection on more land, Alternative D/C was 
purposefully formulated to safeguard the sensitive natural resources 
found on the Columbia Project lands. Setting aside land in an expanded 
river corridor and protecting such lands with a set of comprehensive 
restrictions substantially avoids the risks of adverse environmental 
impacts. These comprehensive restrictions also require appropriate 
review and mitigation of any subsequent potential impacts on natural 
and cultural resources.
    In the Water Supply EIS, the action alternatives have been 
generally described in light of their conceptual nature at this early 
stage. If and when a decision is made to provide some additional water 
for the Maury/southern Williamson County Water Service Area, the 
sponsors would determine the specific purposes of each project and 
would develop site-specific plans for the various facilities. As those 
plans are developed and proposals are made, detailed, site-specific 
evaluations of environmental effects would be conducted, if required 
and as appropriate, under the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Kathryn J. Jackson,
Executive Vice President, River System Operations & Environment.
[FR Doc. 01-15729 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-U