Douglas and Nolichucky Tributary Reservoirs Land Management Plan, in Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, Jefferson, and Sevier Counties, TN, 77691-77693 [2010-31171]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Notices
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.6
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–31224 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am]
Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA).
ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision
(ROD).
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Revocation of License of Small
Business Investment Company
Pursuant to the authority granted to
the United States Small Business
Administration by the Final Order of the
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division, dated October 22, 2007, the
United States Small Business
Administration hereby revokes the
license of SBIC Partners II, L.P., a
Delaware Limited Partnership, to
function as a small business investment
company under the Small Business
Investment Company License No. 06/
76–0316 issued to SBIC Partners II, L.P.
on June 16, 1998 and said license is
hereby declared null and void as of July
28, 2010.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Sean J. Greene,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2010–31153 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Surrender of License of Small
Business Investment Company
Pursuant to the authority granted to
the United States Small Business
Administration under the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, under
Section 309 of the Act and Section
107.1900 of the Small Business
Administration Rules and Regulations
(13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small
business investment company under the
Small Business Investment Company
License No. 02/72–0616 issued to
RockMaple Ventures, L.P., and said
license is hereby declared null and void
as of August 4, 2010.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Sean J. Greene,
AA/Investment.
[FR Doc. 2010–31152 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:42 Dec 10, 2010
Douglas and Nolichucky Tributary
Reservoirs Land Management Plan, in
Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, Jefferson,
and Sevier Counties, TN
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
6 17
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Jkt 223001
This notice is provided in
accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations (40
CFR 1500 to 1508) and TVA’s
procedures for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). TVA has prepared the Douglas
and Nolichucky Tributary Reservoirs
Land Management Plan for the 3,191
acres of TVA-managed public land on
these reservoirs in northeastern
Tennessee. On November 4, 2010, the
TVA Board of Directors (TVA Board)
approved the plan, implementing the
Preferred Alternative (Alternative C,
Modified Land Use Alternative)
identified in the final environmental
impact statement (FEIS). Under the plan
adopted by the TVA Board, TVAmanaged public land on Douglas and
Nolichucky tributary reservoirs has been
allocated into broad use categories or
‘‘zones,’’ including Project Operations
(Zone 2), Sensitive Resource
Management (Zone 3), Natural Resource
Conservation (Zone 4), Industrial (Zone
5), Developed Recreation (Zone 6), and
Shoreline Access (Zone 7). Allocations
were made in a manner consistent with
TVA’s 2006 Land Policy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Henry, NEPA Specialist,
Environmental Permits and Compliance,
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West
Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37902–1499; telephone (865)
632–4045 or e-mail abhenry@tva.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA
manages public lands to protect the
integrated operation of TVA reservoir
and power systems, to provide for
appropriate public use and enjoyment of
the reservoir system, and to provide for
continuing economic growth in the
Tennessee Valley.
Douglas and Nolichucky tributary
reservoirs are located in northeastern
Tennessee. The reservoirs are along the
Nolichucky and French Broad rivers,
which flow west from North Carolina to
the Tennessee River. Existing uses
around the reservoirs on public and
private land include TVA project
operations, developed and dispersed
recreation, private residences, and
undeveloped areas. A total of 597 miles
of shoreline surrounds these reservoirs,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77691
but the portion of shoreline owned and
managed by TVA differs greatly between
them, with 19 of 36 miles of Nolichucky
Reservoir shoreline being managed by
TVA while only 69 of the 561 miles of
Douglas Reservoir shoreline are
managed by TVA.
TVA originally acquired nearly 3,760
acres of land on the two reservoirs.
About 15 percent of that land has been
transferred to State and other Federal
agencies for public recreation or natural
resource conservation use. TVA
presently manages approximately 3,191
acres along these reservoirs. Reservoir
properties on Douglas Reservoir
previously were planned in 1965
utilizing a Forecast System. Nolichucky
Reservoir has never been planned.
The plan is designed to guide future
decision-making and the management of
these reservoir properties in a manner
consistent with the 2006 TVA Land
Policy and other relevant TVA policies.
Public Involvement
TVA published a notice of intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register
on May 30, 2008. Between May 30 and
July 15, 2008, TVA sought input from
individuals, various State and Federal
agencies, elected officials, and local
organizations. Thirty participants
attended a public scoping meeting held
on June 12, 2008, in Morristown,
Tennessee. TVA received over 100
scoping comments, the majority of
which concerned management of
natural and recreation resources,
reservoir water levels, and land
ownership issues on the Nolichucky
Reservoir. TVA used these comments to
develop three alternatives for
assessment in the EIS: Alternative A—
No Action Alternative; Alternative B—
Proposed Land Use Alternative; and
Alternative C—Modified Land Use
Alternative.
The notice of availability (NOA) of the
Draft EIS (DEIS) was published in the
Federal Register on March 12, 2010.
TVA accepted comments on the DEIS
until April 26, 2010. Approximately 40
people attended a public meeting on
April 6, 2010, in Newport, Tennessee.
TVA received a total of 38 comments
from individuals; interested
organizations; and Federal, State, and
local government agencies.
The majority of the public responses
focused on land use allocation for
specific parcels of TVA-managed land,
in particular on the Nolichucky
Reservoir. There were also comments
about the NEPA process and alternative
selection, stewardship of public lands,
recreation on public lands including the
safety of hunters and adjacent
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
77692
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
landowners, land use, and ownership.
The remainder of public comments
identified environmental issues such as
water quality and litter, including
recommendations to change the
allocation of TVA land to more
protective management zones.
Comments from Federal and State
agencies were largely informational and
included reminders of existing
agreements. The Tennessee Historical
Commission (THC) found that the
current programmatic agreement
between TVA and THC satisfied TVA’s
responsibilities under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) expressed that its primary
concern was the uncertainty of whether
allocated lands could be reallocated by
TVA to management zones with a
greater potential for adverse impacts
during site-specific reviews or public
requests to the TVA Board. The
Department of the Interior
recommended that it be contacted
during future site-specific reviews to
evaluate the potential for future
proposed projects to impact endangered
and threatened species.
TVA reviewed and prepared
responses to all of these comments. In
some cases, the FEIS was revised to
reflect the information or issues
presented. After considering all of the
comments, the FEIS was completed and
distributed to commenting agencies and
the public. In the FEIS, TVA identified
Alternative C as the Preferred
Alternative. The NOA of the FEIS was
published in the Federal Register on
September 3, 2010, when the FEIS was
distributed.
Alternatives Considered
TVA considered three alternatives for
managing 102 parcels of public land,
comprising approximately 3,191 acres,
under its management around the
reservoirs. Under all alternatives, TVA
would continue to conduct an
environmental review to address siteand project-specific issues prior to the
approval of any proposed development
or activity on a land parcel. Future
activities and land uses would be
guided by the TVA Land Policy. About
87 percent of the reservoir lands (2,783
acres) had previous commitments
specified in land use agreements (e.g.,
license, easement, contract) or existing
plans. No changes to these committed
lands are proposed under any
alternative. TVA land use allocations
are not intended to supersede deeded
landrights or land ownership.
No Action (Alternative A): TVA
would not implement a new plan and
would continue using the existing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:42 Dec 10, 2010
Jkt 223001
Forecast System developed in 1965 for
Douglas Reservoir. Nolichucky
Reservoir would remain unplanned. The
reservoir lands would be managed
according to TVA policies and existing
land use agreements. Reservoir lands
would not be allocated according to
TVA’s current land use planning zones
and, as a result, would not be in
complete alignment with current TVA
policies.
Proposed Land Use (Alternative B)
and Modified Land Use (Alternative C):
Under both Action Alternatives, TVA
would implement an updated reservoir
land management plan using its current
land use planning zones. TVA-managed
lands would be allocated to one of these
zones according to current land use,
existing data, and newly collected data.
Under Alternative C, allocations would
be based upon public comments and
other information obtained during the
scoping process, in addition to
information considered under
Alternative B.
Under Alternatives B and C, because
of the large amount of committed land
and common projected future land use,
the proportion of lands allocated to each
zone is similar. About half of the land
would be allocated to Natural Resource
Conservation (Zone 4) or Sensitive
Resource Management (Zone 3). About
one-third would be allocated to Project
Operations (Zone 2), and the remainder
would be allocated to Developed
Recreation (Zone 6), Shoreline Access
(Zone 7), or Industrial (Zone 5) uses.
Compared to Alternative B, zone
allocations under Alternative C differ on
16 of the 102 parcels. These 16 parcels
total about 149 acres. Alternative C
includes slightly less land in Zone 6 and
slightly more land in Zones 3 and 4.
Under Alternative C, parcels on Douglas
and Nolichucky reservoirs that contain
rare plants and plant communities,
cultural resources, and high-quality
wetlands would be allocated to Zone 3,
which allows the least opportunity for
development and is, therefore, the most
protective of sensitive resources. Those
parcels would be allocated to Zone 4 or
Zone 6 under Alternative B. Therefore,
under the assumption that development
would be more likely to occur in Zone
6 than in Zones 3 and 4, Alternative C
would result in slightly fewer
opportunities for development than
Alternative B.
In the FEIS, TVA considered the
environmental consequences of the
alternatives on a wide variety of
environmental resources. No significant
direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts
are expected to occur to any resource
under any of the alternatives. Under any
alternative, potential impacts to
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sensitive resources, such as federally
listed as endangered and federally listed
as threatened species, cultural
resources, and wetlands would be
identified during project-specific
evaluations.
Comments on the FEIS
TVA received comments on the FEIS
from the USEPA; in addition, several
individuals asked for minor clarification
of the FEIS content but offered no
comments. USEPA expressed preference
for Alternative C, as it allocates more
land to the most protective zones of
management and agreed with TVA that
Alternative C was the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative. USEPA said that
although it respects TVA’s wishes to
remain flexible in its land allocations, it
believes that the plan would be more
meaningful if it was more than guidance
and was principally not changed during
its term. USEPA’s primary concern
continues to be the uncertainty that
lands could be reallocated to zones with
less environmental protection after sitespecific reviews or public requests.
USEPA recommended that the TVA
Board not grant reallocations of lands to
less protective management zones after
the issuance of a ROD and said it would
not concur with reallocation to
management zones with increased
potential for development impacts, but
would agree with reallocations to
management zones of greater protection.
In response to USEPA’s comments,
with the approval of Alternative C by
the TVA Board, all future uses of TVA
lands on Douglas and Nolichucky
reservoirs must be consistent with the
allocations in the plan. TVA would
consider the reallocation of a land
parcel’s management zone designation
only under certain limited
circumstances outlined in the TVA
Land Policy. TVA may consider
changing a land management zone
designation outside of the normal
planning process only for the purposes
of providing water access for industrial
or commercial recreation operations on
privately owned back-lying land or
implementing TVA’s Shoreline
Management Policy, such as to
recognize previously established deeded
landrights. In such circumstances,
however, such a change in allocation of
management zones would be subject to
approval by the TVA Board or its
designee, pending the completion of an
appropriate environmental review. TVA
would involve the public appropriately
during any environmental review for a
parcel reallocation.
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Notices
Decision
On November 4, 2010, the TVA Board
approved the plan as described in
Preferred Alternative C of the FEIS. TVA
believes that implementation of
Alternative C provides suitable
opportunities for developed recreation,
conservation of natural resources, and
management of sensitive resources. This
decision incorporates mitigation
measures that would further minimize
the potential for adverse impacts to the
environment. These measures are listed
below.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The Environmentally Preferred
Alternative is Alternative C, under
which approximately half of reservoir
lands are allocated to Natural Resource
Conservation (Zone 4) and Sensitive
Resource Management (Zone 3) uses.
All parcels with identified sensitive
resources are allocated to Zone 3, which
allows the least opportunity for land
disturbance and is, therefore, the most
protective land use zone.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Mitigation Measures
TVA is adopting the following
measures to minimize environmental
impacts:
• TVA has executed a programmatic
agreement (PA) with the Tennessee
State Historic Preservation Officer for
reservoir land management plans
(RLMPs) for the identification,
evaluation, and treatment of all cultural
resources adversely affected by future
proposed uses of TVA lands planned in
RLMPs. All activities will be conducted
in accordance with the stipulations
defined in this PA.
• As necessary, based on the findings
of any site-specific environmental
review, TVA may require the
implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures, including best
management practices as defined in
TVA’s ‘‘General and Standard
Conditions/Best Management Practices,’’
as a condition of approval for use of
TVA land.
• Landscaping activities on
developed properties will not include
the use of plants listed as Rank 1
(Severe Threat), Rank 2 (Significant
Threat), or Rank 3 (Lesser Threat) on the
Tennessee Exotic Plant Pest Council List
of Invasive Exotic Pest Plants in
Tennessee.
• Revegetation and erosion-control
work will utilize seed mixes comprised
of native species or noninvasive
nonnative species.
With the implementation of the above
measures, TVA has determined that
adverse environmental impacts of future
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:42 Dec 10, 2010
Jkt 223001
land development proposals on the
TVA-managed reservoir lands would be
substantially reduced. Before taking
actions that could result in adverse
environmental effects or before
authorizing such actions to occur on
properties it controls, TVA would
perform a site-specific environmental
review to determine the need for other
necessary mitigation measures or
precautions. These protective measures
represent all of the practicable measures
to avoid or minimize environmental
harm associated with the alternative
adopted by the TVA Board.
Dated: December 6, 2010.
Anda A. Ray,
Senior Vice President, Environment and
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010–31171 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Noise Exposure Map Notice;
Manchester-Boston Regional Airport,
Manchester, NH
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure
maps for Manchester-Boston Regional
Airport, as submitted by the City of
Manchester, New Hampshire, under the
provisions of Title I of the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–193) and 14 CFR part 150,
are in compliance with applicable
requirements.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
of the FAA’s determination on the noise
exposure maps is December 3, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
J. Lesperance or Richard Doucette,
Federal Aviation Administration, New
England Region, Airports Division, 12
New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted
for Manchester-Boston Regional Airport
are in compliance with applicable
requirements of Part 150, effective
December 3, 2010.
Under Section 103 of Title I of the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘the Act’’), an airport operator may
submit to the FAA noise exposure maps
that meet applicable regulations and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77693
that depict non-compatible land uses as
of the date of submission of such maps,
a description of projected aircraft
operations, and the ways in which such
operations will affect such maps. The
Act requires such maps to be developed
in consultation with interested and
affected parties in the local community,
government agencies, and persons using
the airport.
An airport operator who has
submitted such noise exposure maps
that are found by FAA to be in
compliance with the requirements of
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part
150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of
the Act, may submit a noise
compatibility program for FAA approval
that sets forth the measures the operator
has taken, or proposes, for the
introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of
the noise exposure map and related
descriptions submitted by the City of
Manchester, New Hampshire. The
specific maps under consideration were
Figure 4.2–1, and Figure 4.3–1 in the
submission. The FAA has determined
that these maps for Manchester-Boston
Regional Airport are in compliance with
applicable requirements. This
determination is effective on December
3, 2010.
FAA’s determination on an airport
operator’s noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were
developed in accordance with the
procedures contained in Appendix A of
FAR Part 150. Such determination does
not constitute approval of the
applicant’s data, information or plans,
or a commitment to approve a noise
compatibility program or to fund the
implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the
precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours
depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under Section 103 of the Act,
it should be noted that the FAA is not
involved in any way in determining the
relative locations of specific properties
with regard to the depicted noise
contours, or in interpreting the noise
exposure maps to resolve questions
concerning, for example, which
properties should be covered by the
provisions of Section 107 of the Act.
These functions are inseparable from
the ultimate land use control and
planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities
are not changed in any way under Part
150 or through FAA’s review of a noise
exposure map. Therefore, the
responsibility for the detailed
overlaying of noise exposure contours
onto the map depicting properties on
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77691-77693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31171]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Douglas and Nolichucky Tributary Reservoirs Land Management Plan,
in Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, Jefferson, and Sevier Counties, TN
AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 1500 to 1508) and TVA's
procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). TVA has prepared the Douglas and Nolichucky Tributary
Reservoirs Land Management Plan for the 3,191 acres of TVA-managed
public land on these reservoirs in northeastern Tennessee. On November
4, 2010, the TVA Board of Directors (TVA Board) approved the plan,
implementing the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C, Modified Land
Use Alternative) identified in the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS). Under the plan adopted by the TVA Board, TVA-managed public
land on Douglas and Nolichucky tributary reservoirs has been allocated
into broad use categories or ``zones,'' including Project Operations
(Zone 2), Sensitive Resource Management (Zone 3), Natural Resource
Conservation (Zone 4), Industrial (Zone 5), Developed Recreation (Zone
6), and Shoreline Access (Zone 7). Allocations were made in a manner
consistent with TVA's 2006 Land Policy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Henry, NEPA Specialist,
Environmental Permits and Compliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400
West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499;
telephone (865) 632-4045 or e-mail abhenry@tva.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA manages public lands to protect the
integrated operation of TVA reservoir and power systems, to provide for
appropriate public use and enjoyment of the reservoir system, and to
provide for continuing economic growth in the Tennessee Valley.
Douglas and Nolichucky tributary reservoirs are located in
northeastern Tennessee. The reservoirs are along the Nolichucky and
French Broad rivers, which flow west from North Carolina to the
Tennessee River. Existing uses around the reservoirs on public and
private land include TVA project operations, developed and dispersed
recreation, private residences, and undeveloped areas. A total of 597
miles of shoreline surrounds these reservoirs, but the portion of
shoreline owned and managed by TVA differs greatly between them, with
19 of 36 miles of Nolichucky Reservoir shoreline being managed by TVA
while only 69 of the 561 miles of Douglas Reservoir shoreline are
managed by TVA.
TVA originally acquired nearly 3,760 acres of land on the two
reservoirs. About 15 percent of that land has been transferred to State
and other Federal agencies for public recreation or natural resource
conservation use. TVA presently manages approximately 3,191 acres along
these reservoirs. Reservoir properties on Douglas Reservoir previously
were planned in 1965 utilizing a Forecast System. Nolichucky Reservoir
has never been planned.
The plan is designed to guide future decision-making and the
management of these reservoir properties in a manner consistent with
the 2006 TVA Land Policy and other relevant TVA policies.
Public Involvement
TVA published a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register on May 30, 2008. Between May 30
and July 15, 2008, TVA sought input from individuals, various State and
Federal agencies, elected officials, and local organizations. Thirty
participants attended a public scoping meeting held on June 12, 2008,
in Morristown, Tennessee. TVA received over 100 scoping comments, the
majority of which concerned management of natural and recreation
resources, reservoir water levels, and land ownership issues on the
Nolichucky Reservoir. TVA used these comments to develop three
alternatives for assessment in the EIS: Alternative A--No Action
Alternative; Alternative B--Proposed Land Use Alternative; and
Alternative C--Modified Land Use Alternative.
The notice of availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS (DEIS) was
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010. TVA accepted
comments on the DEIS until April 26, 2010. Approximately 40 people
attended a public meeting on April 6, 2010, in Newport, Tennessee. TVA
received a total of 38 comments from individuals; interested
organizations; and Federal, State, and local government agencies.
The majority of the public responses focused on land use allocation
for specific parcels of TVA-managed land, in particular on the
Nolichucky Reservoir. There were also comments about the NEPA process
and alternative selection, stewardship of public lands, recreation on
public lands including the safety of hunters and adjacent
[[Page 77692]]
landowners, land use, and ownership. The remainder of public comments
identified environmental issues such as water quality and litter,
including recommendations to change the allocation of TVA land to more
protective management zones.
Comments from Federal and State agencies were largely informational
and included reminders of existing agreements. The Tennessee Historical
Commission (THC) found that the current programmatic agreement between
TVA and THC satisfied TVA's responsibilities under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) expressed that its primary concern was the uncertainty
of whether allocated lands could be reallocated by TVA to management
zones with a greater potential for adverse impacts during site-specific
reviews or public requests to the TVA Board. The Department of the
Interior recommended that it be contacted during future site-specific
reviews to evaluate the potential for future proposed projects to
impact endangered and threatened species.
TVA reviewed and prepared responses to all of these comments. In
some cases, the FEIS was revised to reflect the information or issues
presented. After considering all of the comments, the FEIS was
completed and distributed to commenting agencies and the public. In the
FEIS, TVA identified Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative. The
NOA of the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on September 3,
2010, when the FEIS was distributed.
Alternatives Considered
TVA considered three alternatives for managing 102 parcels of
public land, comprising approximately 3,191 acres, under its management
around the reservoirs. Under all alternatives, TVA would continue to
conduct an environmental review to address site- and project-specific
issues prior to the approval of any proposed development or activity on
a land parcel. Future activities and land uses would be guided by the
TVA Land Policy. About 87 percent of the reservoir lands (2,783 acres)
had previous commitments specified in land use agreements (e.g.,
license, easement, contract) or existing plans. No changes to these
committed lands are proposed under any alternative. TVA land use
allocations are not intended to supersede deeded landrights or land
ownership.
No Action (Alternative A): TVA would not implement a new plan and
would continue using the existing Forecast System developed in 1965 for
Douglas Reservoir. Nolichucky Reservoir would remain unplanned. The
reservoir lands would be managed according to TVA policies and existing
land use agreements. Reservoir lands would not be allocated according
to TVA's current land use planning zones and, as a result, would not be
in complete alignment with current TVA policies.
Proposed Land Use (Alternative B) and Modified Land Use
(Alternative C): Under both Action Alternatives, TVA would implement an
updated reservoir land management plan using its current land use
planning zones. TVA-managed lands would be allocated to one of these
zones according to current land use, existing data, and newly collected
data. Under Alternative C, allocations would be based upon public
comments and other information obtained during the scoping process, in
addition to information considered under Alternative B.
Under Alternatives B and C, because of the large amount of
committed land and common projected future land use, the proportion of
lands allocated to each zone is similar. About half of the land would
be allocated to Natural Resource Conservation (Zone 4) or Sensitive
Resource Management (Zone 3). About one-third would be allocated to
Project Operations (Zone 2), and the remainder would be allocated to
Developed Recreation (Zone 6), Shoreline Access (Zone 7), or Industrial
(Zone 5) uses. Compared to Alternative B, zone allocations under
Alternative C differ on 16 of the 102 parcels. These 16 parcels total
about 149 acres. Alternative C includes slightly less land in Zone 6
and slightly more land in Zones 3 and 4. Under Alternative C, parcels
on Douglas and Nolichucky reservoirs that contain rare plants and plant
communities, cultural resources, and high-quality wetlands would be
allocated to Zone 3, which allows the least opportunity for development
and is, therefore, the most protective of sensitive resources. Those
parcels would be allocated to Zone 4 or Zone 6 under Alternative B.
Therefore, under the assumption that development would be more likely
to occur in Zone 6 than in Zones 3 and 4, Alternative C would result in
slightly fewer opportunities for development than Alternative B.
In the FEIS, TVA considered the environmental consequences of the
alternatives on a wide variety of environmental resources. No
significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected to
occur to any resource under any of the alternatives. Under any
alternative, potential impacts to sensitive resources, such as
federally listed as endangered and federally listed as threatened
species, cultural resources, and wetlands would be identified during
project-specific evaluations.
Comments on the FEIS
TVA received comments on the FEIS from the USEPA; in addition,
several individuals asked for minor clarification of the FEIS content
but offered no comments. USEPA expressed preference for Alternative C,
as it allocates more land to the most protective zones of management
and agreed with TVA that Alternative C was the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative. USEPA said that although it respects TVA's
wishes to remain flexible in its land allocations, it believes that the
plan would be more meaningful if it was more than guidance and was
principally not changed during its term. USEPA's primary concern
continues to be the uncertainty that lands could be reallocated to
zones with less environmental protection after site-specific reviews or
public requests. USEPA recommended that the TVA Board not grant
reallocations of lands to less protective management zones after the
issuance of a ROD and said it would not concur with reallocation to
management zones with increased potential for development impacts, but
would agree with reallocations to management zones of greater
protection.
In response to USEPA's comments, with the approval of Alternative C
by the TVA Board, all future uses of TVA lands on Douglas and
Nolichucky reservoirs must be consistent with the allocations in the
plan. TVA would consider the reallocation of a land parcel's management
zone designation only under certain limited circumstances outlined in
the TVA Land Policy. TVA may consider changing a land management zone
designation outside of the normal planning process only for the
purposes of providing water access for industrial or commercial
recreation operations on privately owned back-lying land or
implementing TVA's Shoreline Management Policy, such as to recognize
previously established deeded landrights. In such circumstances,
however, such a change in allocation of management zones would be
subject to approval by the TVA Board or its designee, pending the
completion of an appropriate environmental review. TVA would involve
the public appropriately during any environmental review for a parcel
reallocation.
[[Page 77693]]
Decision
On November 4, 2010, the TVA Board approved the plan as described
in Preferred Alternative C of the FEIS. TVA believes that
implementation of Alternative C provides suitable opportunities for
developed recreation, conservation of natural resources, and management
of sensitive resources. This decision incorporates mitigation measures
that would further minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the
environment. These measures are listed below.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative is Alternative C, under
which approximately half of reservoir lands are allocated to Natural
Resource Conservation (Zone 4) and Sensitive Resource Management (Zone
3) uses. All parcels with identified sensitive resources are allocated
to Zone 3, which allows the least opportunity for land disturbance and
is, therefore, the most protective land use zone.
Mitigation Measures
TVA is adopting the following measures to minimize environmental
impacts:
TVA has executed a programmatic agreement (PA) with the
Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer for reservoir land
management plans (RLMPs) for the identification, evaluation, and
treatment of all cultural resources adversely affected by future
proposed uses of TVA lands planned in RLMPs. All activities will be
conducted in accordance with the stipulations defined in this PA.
As necessary, based on the findings of any site-specific
environmental review, TVA may require the implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures, including best management practices as defined in
TVA's ``General and Standard Conditions/Best Management Practices,'' as
a condition of approval for use of TVA land.
Landscaping activities on developed properties will not
include the use of plants listed as Rank 1 (Severe Threat), Rank 2
(Significant Threat), or Rank 3 (Lesser Threat) on the Tennessee Exotic
Plant Pest Council List of Invasive Exotic Pest Plants in Tennessee.
Revegetation and erosion-control work will utilize seed
mixes comprised of native species or noninvasive nonnative species.
With the implementation of the above measures, TVA has determined
that adverse environmental impacts of future land development proposals
on the TVA-managed reservoir lands would be substantially reduced.
Before taking actions that could result in adverse environmental
effects or before authorizing such actions to occur on properties it
controls, TVA would perform a site-specific environmental review to
determine the need for other necessary mitigation measures or
precautions. These protective measures represent all of the practicable
measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm associated with the
alternative adopted by the TVA Board.
Dated: December 6, 2010.
Anda A. Ray,
Senior Vice President, Environment and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-31171 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P