[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19750-19752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7439]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Final Environmental Impact Statement--Nolichucky Reservoir Flood 
Remediation Project

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and 
TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. 
TVA has decided to adopt Alternative A--No Action, the preferred 
alternative identified in its Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), Nolichucky Reservoir Flood Remediation Project. In implementing 
Alternative A, TVA would continue to provide updated flood level 
information to local agencies and individuals. This would not preclude 
TVA working with individual landowners to address problems in the 
future. TVA would take no other action to address the impacts of 
flooding of private land and property around Nolichucky Reservoir.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles P. Nicholson, NEPA Program 
Manager, Environmental Stewardship & Policy, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 
37902-1401; telephone (865) 632-3582 or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nolichucky Dam was built by the Tennessee 
Eastern Electric Company in 1913 at mile 46 on the Nolichucky River, 
about 7.5 miles south of Greeneville, Greene County, Tennessee. 
Nolichucky Reservoir, also known as Davy Crockett Lake, extends 
upstream about 6 miles from the dam. TVA acquired the project in 1945 
and operated it as a single-purpose power production facility. By 1945, 
sand and silt from mining in the upper Nolichucky watershed in western 
North Carolina had begun to fill the reservoir. The sediment in the 
reservoir continued to accumulate to the point that TVA removed the 
electric generators from service between 1965 and 1972. Since 1972, the 
project has been jointly managed by TVA, the Tennessee Wildlife 
Resources Agency, and local organizations for wildlife management, 
environmental education, and recreation.
    The Federal government owns approximately 1,400 acres of land under 
and around Nolichucky Reservoir and holds easements giving it the right 
to flood an additional 370 acres of land along this part of the river. 
At the time TVA acquired these landrights in 1945, the landrights did 
not include all of the area affected by Nolichucky Dam during flood 
events. Since then, the 100-year flood elevation has increased up to 10 
feet due to the accumulated sediment in the reservoir. The federal 
landrights include about 54 percent of the area within the present 500-
year floodplain and about 63 percent of the area within the 100-year 
floodplain.
    TVA published a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS in the Federal 
Register on January 12, 2000. Public and agency scoping meetings were 
held on January 20, 2000; 52 people attended the public scoping 
meeting. Scoping comments were received from one Federal agency, one 
nongovernmental organization, and seven individuals. Following a series 
of agency and public workshops, the Draft EIS was released in January 
2002 and the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in 
the Federal Register on February 8, 2002. TVA held a public meeting on 
the Draft EIS in on February 21, 2002 and accepted comments through 
March 29, 2002. Comments on the Draft EIS were received from 65 
individuals. Two federal agencies and three state agencies. The Notice 
of Availability for

[[Page 19751]]

the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 
2006.

Alternatives Considered

    TVA identified four alternatives in the EIS.
    Under Alternative A--No Action, TVA would provide updated flood 
level information to local agencies and individuals but would not take 
any other actions to address flood impacts on nonfederal lands. TVA 
would continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by 
federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. 
TVA would maintain the reservoir's recreational uses through agreements 
with other agencies and organizations that provide for wildlife 
management, environmental education, and public parks.
    Under Alternative B--Acquire Landrights, TVA would address flood 
impacts on nonfederal lands by acquiring either fee title or easements 
with the right to flood all of the nonfederal land within the present 
500-year floodplain around Nolichucky Reservoir (about 1,060 acres). If 
TVA acquired fee title, TVA would buy the affected land and all 
structures built on it and would hold all rights concerning use of that 
land. If TVA acquired only a flowage easement, TVA would buy the right 
to overflow and flood specific parts of the property on an intermittent 
and temporary basis. The owner could continue to use the easement land 
in many ways, but would relinquish the right to build structures below 
a specific elevation and would have to receive TVA approval prior to 
developing the affected land. TVA would maintain the reservoir's 
recreational uses through agreements with other agencies and 
organizations that provide for wildlife management, environmental 
education, and public parks. Most new land acquired in fee would 
probably be added to the existing wildlife management area. TVA would 
continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by 
federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. 
This alternative could be implemented within 3 years and would cost 
between $15 and $20 million.
    Under Alternative C--Lower Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address flood 
impacts on nonfederal lands by lowering the Nolichucky Dam spillway 
after removing or stabilizing sediment in the reservoir. The spillway 
would be lowered by about 40 feet so that the 500-year flood elevation 
would only affect land already in federal ownership or covered by 
flowage easement. This would reduce the reservoir pool area from 455 to 
about 160 acres and convert much of it into a more riverine 
environment. All federal land around the reservoir would remain in 
public ownership and would continue to be used for wildlife management, 
environmental education, and public parks. TVA would continue to 
maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by federal dam 
safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. This 
alternative would require 5 to 10 years to implement and cost between 
$45 and $70 million.
    Under Alternative D--Remove Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address flood 
impacts on nonfederal lands by removing all visible components of 
Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse and removing or stabilizing sediment in 
the reservoir. In accordance with historic preservation requirements, 
TVA would document the dam and powerhouse and preserve qualifying 
equipment. Up to 19,000 acre-feet (30 million cubic yards) would be 
removed from the reservoir area and deposited on nearby lands. In 
cooperation with appropriate state and local agencies, TVA would 
determine how the federal lands would be used, probably as parts of 
modified versions of the existing wildlife management, environmental 
education, and public park areas. This alternative would require 10 to 
12 years to implement and cost between $90 and $150 million.
    TVA did not identify a preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. TVA 
identified Alternative A--No Action as the preferred alternative in the 
Final EIS.

Comments on the Final EIS

    TVA received comments on the Final EIS from the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and one 
individual affected by the flooding. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources 
Agency expressed a preference for Alternative B. The Environmental 
Protection Agency did not express a preference for any alternative and 
noted the positive and negative aspects of each alternative. They did, 
however, suggest further consideration of Alternative B. TVA has 
carefully considered Alternative B and, as described below, decided to 
adopt Alternative A.
    The Environmental Protection Agency requested a more detailed 
analysis of the potential impacts of the preferred No Action 
Alternative on minority and low-income populations. The Environmental 
Justice analysis in the FEIS was based on relatively large census 
tracts and concluded that the action alternatives would not result in 
disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations. TVA 
has repeated this analysis for minority populations using data from 
smaller census blocks adjoining Nolichucky Reservoir. Minority 
populations made up about 1.2 percent of the year 2000 population of 
578 persons in these blocks. This proportion is well below the 
national, state, and county levels, and below that of the larger census 
tracts in which the blocks are located. The population within this area 
is well dispersed and there are few concentrations of residents within 
the floodplain. Data on low-income populations are not available for 
individual census blocks. A small cluster of low-cost housing occurs in 
the floodplain on the right bank of the reservoir; housing on the left 
bank is widely dispersed with no similar clusters. Due to the low 
percentage of minority populations, the low poverty level in much of 
the area, and the scattered location of housing in most of the area, no 
disproportionate effect on minority or low-income populations is 
anticipated.

Decision

    TVA has decided to adopt Alternative A--No Action.
    Alternative A--No Action was selected over the other alternatives 
because it would result in few, if any, additional adverse 
environmental impacts, and could be implemented at little cost to TVA. 
As described in the FEIS, TVA has determined that the rate of sediment 
inflow into Nolichucky Reservoir has greatly decreased in recent years, 
and the present sediment inflow rate is likely close to the sand 
dredging removal rate of around 70,000 tons per year. Based on this 
sediment inflow rate, there is little potential for flood damage to 
lands and existing structures within the floodplain to markedly 
increase in the future, even in the absence of sand dredging. TVA, 
however, would continue to permit qualified sand dredging operations to 
operate in the reservoir, further reducing the potential for increased 
future flood damages. While the risk of flooding would slowly decrease 
under this alternative assuming sand dredging continues, the risk of 
flooding non-federal property would continue. Community awareness of 
flood risk, however, has increased in part because of this EIS process, 
and because TVA has provided updated flood level information to the 
community. In the event that flooding of some property occurs in the 
future, TVA would address it on a case by case basis as it has in the 
past.
    In reaching this decision, TVA has carefully considered both the 
comments

[[Page 19752]]

and concerns voiced by the public and the results of the impact 
analyses. There was some support for each alternative. Based on the 
comments TVA received during the scoping and EIS review processes, 
there was strong public support for maintaining the reservoir and the 
existing recreational uses of the reservoir and adjacent public lands; 
Alternative A does this.
    Alternatives C and D would eliminate the dam-related flooding. In 
doing so, they would partially or fully eliminate the reservoir and 
many of its current recreational uses. They would also destroy the 
wetlands habitats around the reservoir, and adversely affect the 
Nolichucky River downstream of the dam. While Alternative B would not 
have the adverse impacts of Alternatives C and D, it would cost $15 to 
$20 million to implement and could result in the relocation of many 
homeowners or restrictions on use of their property. None of the 
alternatives would restore the recreational benefits that once existed 
at Nolichucky Reservoir and have since been lost due to the 
accumulation of sediment.
    TVA has determined that the implementation of Alternative A would 
not affect historic properties and has consulted with the Tennessee 
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with Section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The SHPO concurred with 
TVA's determination on April 28, 2005. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) also concurred that implementation of Alternative A 
would not adversely affect federally listed or proposed endangered or 
threatened species.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative because 
it would accomplish the project purpose of alleviating the flood 
impacts on private land and property, would not involve any adverse 
impacts on the surrounding natural and human environment, would 
increase the land area available for public recreation, and would 
enhance the conservation of many resources. Even though Alternative B 
is the environmentally preferred alternative, Alternative A also would 
not have adverse environmental impacts.

Mitigation

    Alternative A--No Action that TVA has selected is not anticipated 
to adversely affect natural or human resources, and consequently TVA 
has determined that no associated mitigation measures are necessary. 
TVA does commit, however, to providing updated flood level information 
to local agencies and individuals so that they are better aware of 
flooding risks.

    Dated: April 13, 2007.
Kathryn J. Jackson,
Executive Vice President, River System Operations & Environment.
[FR Doc. E7-7439 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P