SUMMARY

OF THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

AND THE

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Region 

Management Bulletin R8-MB-119C December 2004 
Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and the Land and Resource Management Plan 

for Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area

Trigg and Lyon Counties in Kentucky 

Stewart County, Tennessee 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Robert Jacobs, Regional Forester 

Region 8, Southern Region 

1720 Peachtree Road, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

ABSTRACT

This Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP), prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, is required in conjunction with the revision of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) 

1994 Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP). The FEIS discloses and explains the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the four alternatives developed during the 

revision of the 1994 TVA NRMP into a Forest Service LRMP, or Area Plan. The Area Plan 

satisfies a requirement of the LBL Protection Act of 1998 for the Forest Service to develop a Forest 

Service management plan to guide future management decisions for LBL’s resources. Information 

contained in this Summary is abbreviated from the complete FEIS and Area Plan, which are 

available by writing to the Area Supervisor’s office at the address below. 

Comments and Questions about the FEIS or Area Plan 

Mail comments to: 

 William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor 

USDA Forest Service 

 Land Between The Lakes NRA 

 100 Van Morgan Drive 

 Golden Pond, KY 42211 

Or visit our Planning website: 

 http://www.lbl.org/LRMPPlanning.html 

 email: FocusLBL@fs.fed.us 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 

(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

1

I. Introduction 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area (LBL) was transferred from the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to the United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service on October 1, 1999, under the provisions of the LBL Protection Act of 1998 (The 

Act). The Protection Act calls for the Forest Service to revise the TVA’s Natural 

Resources Management Plan (NRMP) into a Forest Service Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) that complies with the basic laws applicable to all National 

Forests. This LRMP will guide management direction for the next 10 to 15 years. The 

Plan describes expectations for desired conditions at LBL and the strategies for 

achievement of the desired conditions. The Plan does not resolve issues in detail but will 

provide a general framework by which future decisions will be made. 

II. Document Structure 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) - This FEIS discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from each of the 

alternatives analyzed in detail in preparation of the Area Plan. The FEIS is arranged into 

five chapters, with appendices, as follows: 

• Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes background 

information on the legislative actions that brought LBL under Forest Service 

management; the purpose and need for this action and the proposal for 

achieving that need; and how the public was informed and their input solicited 

in this process; 

• Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides 

a detailed breakdown of the agency’s proposed action, as well as alternative 

methods for achieving the stated purpose. This chapter also provides a 

summary table showing how alternatives compare to public comments and the 

issues; 

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This 

chapter details the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action, 

as well as the effects of the other alternatives. This analysis is organized by 

environmental component and its relation to supporting the overall mission; 

• Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination: This chapter details the List of 

Preparers and the various agencies who were contacted on the development of 

this document; 

• Chapter 5 – Glossary, Acronyms and References: This chapter contains 

supporting information to provide clarity and definition to the contents of the 

other chapters; 

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information, maps, charts, 

or diagrams which support the analyses in this FEIS; 

• Index: This section contains a listing of the more common words and phrases 

that program managers, Forest Service employees, and the public may use to 

find specific information within the FEIS. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

2

Area Plan – While all of the alternatives are analyzed for effects and impacts in the 

FEIS, the Selected Alternative is more fully developed, explored, and detailed in the Area 

Plan. This will establish and guide future project-level decisions through the life of this 

Area Plan, and as such, it has to be a flexible document that provides sound, general 

strategies that will accommodate future changes in the landscape, public desires, and 

changes in technology or science that may affect LBL. The Area Plan has four parts: 

The Preface contains an overview of LBL’s Niche, a brief historical review and other 

important background information, and the basis for the Area Plan; 

Part One outlines the current conditions across LBL as the basis for describing the desired 

conditions for LBL’s future. The Vision in this Part describes what visitors to LBL will 

see, or could see, over the life of the Area Plan. Included in this Part are the land 

allocations and uses for the different land areas (forest, open lands, recreation and 

environmental education areas, etc.) of LBL. Finally, this Part contains the Area-Wide 

goals for LBL and encompasses the objectives and monitoring questions by which 

progress toward the goals will be gauged; 

Part Two describes the suitable uses for the land areas and describes the program 

strategies for supporting the Area-Wide goals and objectives in Part One. This part 

includes a Prospectus of recent performance trends and projected future outcomes that 

follow the objectives outlined in Part One. It further outlines the performance risks, and 

monitoring and evaluation requirements of this Area Plan; 

Part Three contains the Design Criteria. These criteria includes the Area Plan standards 

required by NFMA, as well as an index of other sources of guidance that will be used at 

the project level in implementing the Area Plan. 

III. The Planning Process 

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) began the planning process by identifying and validating 

the need for change to the 1994 Plan and establishing the primary issues to be addressed in 

answering those needs. Following the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, the Forest Service had a Notice of Intent (NOI) published June 4, 2003, announcing 

the start of the plan revision process. The Forest Service then held public scoping sessions 

to develop four alternatives to be evaluated and analyzed in the FEIS. The IDT developed 

a series of building blocks in their approach to forming the four alternatives in an effort to 

be comprehensive in their approach to the three significant issues, which are further 

explained in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Following the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft 

LRMP, the Forest Service received and analyzed public comments on the draft documents 

in helping to arrive at the Selected Alternative. Public input was used to improve the 

effects analysis for each alternative. The selected alternative was then developed into the 

Area Plan, which the FEIS supports. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

3

IV. Public Involvement in the Process 

The LBL Protection Act called for establishment of the LBL Advisory Board to advise 

LBL management on the means of promoting public participation for the planning process. 

The Board provided valuable recommendations that have been utilized throughout the 

planning process. 

The Forest Service followed the guidance of NFMA and NEPA for all public involvement 

during the Area Plan development. The Forest Service used many forms of 

communication and a wide variety of opportunities to engage the public and solicit public 

input during the planning process. 

The Draft EIS and Draft Area Plan were released to the public on March 26, 2004, which 

marked the beginning of the public comment period. The official public comment period 

ran through June 30, 2004. Early in this period the Forest Service held four open house 

public information sessions in gateway communities to provide the public with general 

guidance and information about the Draft documents. The Forest Service distributed more 

than 400 complete Draft document sets or its individual components (Summary, Draft EIS 

and Draft Plan) to a variety of public locations (libraries, county executive officers, state 

and national Congressional offices, etc.), as well as to groups and individuals. Complete 

details of the public involvement are found in Appendix A1 of the FEIS. 

The Forest Service received 286 responses to the Draft documents from across the country 

in the form of letters, emails, and faxes. The public comments represent a wide range of 

viewpoints about the complete spectrum of LBL and the four alternatives evaluated in the 

Draft EIS. Each response was reviewed for specific actions that the commenter wanted to 

see the Forest Service take in preparing the Area Plan, along with any supporting rationale 

statements about their recommended actions. 

The comments received and their analysis proved an invaluable resource to the planning 

process in helping to maintain a focus on the important and relevant aspects of the 

direction for this Area Plan and the FEIS. The decisions documented in the Record of 

Decision considered these comments. The comments and our responses to them are 

discussed in Appendix A2 of the FEIS. 

V. The Issues 

Issues identified in the NOI and a related Planning Background Document (PBD) , which 

was released in conjunction with the NOI, were validated during the 45-day scoping period 

through general public comments received. The public also tacitly supported the 

conclusions of the PBD. They felt that much of what is currently happening at LBL is 

working well and does not need to change. All other comments received were either 

relevant to one of the issues, or outside the scope of the Area Plan. Based upon the 

existing conditions of LBL, the management direction given through the 1994 Plan, and 

analysis and review of the scientific data and public comments, the following significant 

planning issues were established: 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

4

Planning Issue 1 – Recreation and Environmental Education: How should the Forest 

Service best manage resources for the optimum yield of outdoor recreation and 

environmental education (Rec/EE)? 

Planning Issue 2 – Vegetation Management: How will vegetation be managed and what 

desired conditions would contribute best to the optimum yield of outdoor recreation, 

environmental education, and stimulation of regional economies? 

Planning Issue 3 – Special Designations: Should areas with special management 

designation continue to be managed under these designations or be changed? Should 

additional areas be designated for special management? 

VI. The Alternatives 

The IDT carefully evaluated various combinations of the building blocks (described in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS) developed to address the Issues in developing potential 

management avenues. Several combinations of blocks were disregarded based upon the 

contradictions inherent between two or more of the blocks. The combinations of blocks 

that did have similarities, and did fit together in principle, were then identified by common 

approaches or themes within the blocks. 

As part of the public comment process, an invitation was made to the public to submit an 

Alternative Management theme. Concurrent with the planning team’s development 

process, a citizen’s group representing the interests and concerns of some of the former 

residents and others who advocate “no development,” provided input, comment, and 

potential management direction they would prefer. Their proposal contains some elements 

of TVA’s 1994 Plan content, as well as their long-standing position of less active 

management and no fee-based activities, which they feel needs to be considered for the 

future of LBL. 

NFMA regulations and 36 CFR 219.12(f)(6) require Forest Plans to incorporate the 

Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA) Program objectives in at least one alternative. 

The last RPA Program was developed in 1995. The Forest Service Strategic Plan provides 

broad overarching national guidance for forest planning and national objectives for the 

Agency as required by the Government Performance and Results Act. All of the 

alternatives in this EIS incorporate these broad strategic objectives. 

The results of analysis of all the alternatives are detailed in Chapter Three of the FEIS. A 

summary description of each alternative is listed here: 

Alternative W - No change would be made from the direction in TVA’s 1994 Plan. 

Current operational and policy decisions would remain in place. The standards, actions, 

and activities addressed and specified in the 1994 Plan would be implemented. Visitors 

would notice little or no change. 

Alternative X - Management direction would be toward highly developed facilities 

with small increases in dispersed opportunities for both Rec/EE. Vegetation Management 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

5

efforts focused on advancing ecological diversity, sustaining the health and viability of the 

forest and wildlife, and providing vibrant and desirable areas for Rec/EE. 

Alternative Y – The Selected Alternative - More dispersed opportunities are 

included within the current mix of Rec/EE. The current principle of facility-based EE, and 

some of the recreation opportunities centered on developed areas would be complemented 

by more forest-wide, dispersed opportunities. Existing areas would be evaluated and 

identified for needed improvements and the potential for realignment into other types of 

Rec/EE opportunities. No current facilities would be closed, and no new high-level 

facilities would be developed. Vegetation Management efforts focused on advancing 

ecological diversity, sustaining the health and viability of the forest and wildlife, and 

providing vibrant and desirable areas for Rec/EE. 

Alternative Z – There would be a decrease in the developed Rec/EE opportunities 

and a decrease in active forest and vegetation management practices. No new developed 

areas would be permitted and few, if any, facilities or areas would be reopened. Existing 

facilities, services and amenities would be evaluated for potential decommissioning. 

Forest-wide emphasis would be placed on the non-facility-based EE opportunities and 

activities, supported by the existing facilities and programs. 

Table 1, at the end of this Summary, highlights these alternatives and how they relate to 

the public comments received. 

VII. The Selected Alternative 

Based upon the subsequent assessments and analysis of the effects on the environment and 

resources, and on public comments, the Forest Service chooses Alternative Y with slight 

modifications as the Selected Alternative. 

Alternative Y best meets the needs of the public and the environment as it relates to the 

issues of Recreation and Environmental Education, Vegetation Management, and Special 

Designations. This choice provides a balanced mix of goods and services that provide 

important net benefits to the visiting public as well as the local and regional communities 

that surround LBL. The Area Plan details the Vision, Strategy, and Design Criteria to be 

implemented through future management actions and projects. 

VIII. Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives 

The alternatives were examined and delineated by the amount of change they contained 

relative to the current situation. This helped determine which management practices could 

best guide LBL toward the desired conditions of each alternative. This comparison of the 

alternatives is outlined in Table 2 at the end of the Summary. It also points out the 

comparative differences and benefits in relation to how each alternative addresses the Need 

for Change, the Issues, and land allocations. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

6

IX. Changes Between the Draft and Final 

Concerns

At the outset of this planning process, the Forest Service stressed that this Area Plan would 

look and be different to the public. Moving away from the traditional, lengthy, and 

difficult-to-comprehend plans, this Area Plan was kept to a minimum-legal, strategic 

viewpoint in order to make it both timely to develop, and more practical as a management 

tool for the Forest Service program managers and future personnel at LBL. At the strategic 

level, the Area Plan describes desired conditions for LBL and the strategies that will be 

used to move toward those conditions. It also sets limits or boundaries on specific 

management actions in all program areas and land allocations. This concept is different 

than some plans the public has seen, and caused some confusion in the release of the draft. 

The Area Plan does not contain site-specific decisions. The public cannot pick up this 

Area Plan and see specific trails the Forest Service will rehabilitate or improve. Nor does 

it spell out which campsites or areas will be upgraded or enlarged. It also does not say 

how many acres of forest lands will be treated with pesticides or herbicides. 

The fact that the Forest Service was proposing two alternatives for the Recreation and 

Environmental Education issue was of concern to many people. Comments on this ranged 

from concerns that the Forest Service was trying to hide something from the public, to 

others who thought the government wanted to set its own agenda and was trying to 

convolute the comment process. 

What the Forest Service was looking for, and got through public comments, was for the 

public to help the Forest Service determine the best course of action to take on the issues 

based upon their visions for LBL’s future. This information was brought out through the 

comments received, and ultimately led to the decision to go forward with Alternative Y for 

the Recreation and Environmental Education issue. 

Modifications

Between the release of the draft documents and the publication of the Area Plan and FEIS, 

several elements or items underwent refinements based upon various factors. Key 

clarifications include: 

• Renamed the Nature View Demonstration Areas to Nature Watch Demonstration 

Areas; 

• Shifted the boundaries for the northern Nature Watch Demonstration Area as 

previously published in the Draft EIS and Draft Plan. The area’s acreage increased 

by approximately 1200 acres; 

• Renamed the Biosphere Reserve Core Areas to Core Areas. Key aspects of this 

management area remained unchanged; 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

7

• Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS and Plan, and prior to the finalization of 

the documents, the Forest Service made a management change for the Turkey Bay 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area. The area was converted from open riding to 

designated trails. This policy decision was made separately from this planning 

process and applied equally to all alternatives. 

None of these changes was determined to be significant enough to warrant any revision of 

the four alternatives, or further public involvement. 

X. The Area Plan: Vision and Desired Conditions of The Land 

Between The Lakes 

As regional and local populations grow and urban areas expand, the need for more 

recreational and environmental education experiences and opportunities will increase. The 

responsibility for meeting this increasing demand will fall to those areas and entities 

capable of providing outdoor recreational opportunities while sustaining natural 

environments. LBL will continue to serve its current role of providing this service to the 

public. 

LBL will continue to be a destination point for visitors throughout the region and nation, 

thereby contributing to the local and regional economy. Maintaining and developing 

partnerships will be important to keeping LBL positioned as a premiere recreation and 

environmental education destination. 

LBL will play a pivotal role in supplying and supporting the recreational and 

environmental education experiences people seek. Forest management will transition from 

the basic reforestation and erosion control work of the last 40 years to managing for 

diverse, resilient, biological communities. Habitats will be provided for native and desired 

non-native plants, fish, and wildlife. All vegetation management activities will be 

designed to sustain or improve wildlife habitats, forest health, recreation opportunities, or 

environmental education experiences. The public will continue to play an important role in 

project-level actions and decisions. 

The Forest Service will maintain current management direction for the majority of 

recreational and educational facilities and developed sites. Developed facilities will 

continue to provide the degree of services and programs visitors have come to expect from 

a well managed site. However, management will also promote and increase support for 

dispersed day-use and extended-stay activities in anticipation of increased demand in 

dispersed recreational and educational activities and experiences. Dispersed activities and 

opportunities will become an extension of the developed recreation and environmental 

education facilities and sites that currently exist. 

Program and project efforts will be directed toward improving and developing self-guided 

trail systems for nature viewing, hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Scenic lake vistas 

will be opened up, and the road system will support scenic driving, access to cemeteries, 

and access to dispersed recreational opportunities. Visitors will see some shift in types of 

use or management emphasis at some lake access areas, where shore fishing and 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

8

swimming opportunities may replace some of the lesser-used boat ramps and campsites. 

Hunting and fishing will continue to be important dispersed recreation opportunities at 

LBL. Damage to natural resources caused by unmanaged recreation activities will be 

reduced, while managed recreational opportunities will continue to be provided. There 

will be more opportunities for accessing dispersed recreation and semi-primitive 

experiences. These semi-primitive experiences will be emphasized in land areas with 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, 

Semi-Primitive Motorized, and the sub-classification of Remote Roaded Natural. (See 

ROS map and classification information in the Appendix.) 

Environmental Education will emphasize more non-facility-based messages, programs, 

and projects. The current EE facilities will remain hubs for expansion of the reach and 

effect of the EE programs and projects. Environmental education messages, information, 

and principles will be incorporated into all projects on LBL through diverse cooperative, 

interdisciplinary efforts designed to potentially reach every visitor to LBL. Environmental 

education programs will be integrated with recreation activities and will provide messages 

and information to recreational visitors that make them more aware of the importance of 

sustaining their environmental surroundings while participating in their desired activity. 

Through these targeted messages and programs, visitors’ understanding about the 

environment, and the cultural resources and heritage of Between the Rivers will be 

increased. Visitors will develop personal commitment to actively minimize their impact 

on the environment at LBL and elsewhere. 

A significant addition to the environmental education and recreation programs will be the 

creation of two Nature Watch Demonstration Areas. These two areas, one in Kentucky 

and one in Tennessee, will provide nature viewing opportunities, natural history 

interpretation, and environmental education. Vegetation in these areas will be managed for 

aesthetics and more viewable wildlife, as well as for showcasing a variety of vegetation 

management activities. The Nature Station will serve as a hub for the Nature Watch Area 

in Kentucky, while the South Welcome Station will serve as a launching point for the 

Nature Watch Area in Tennessee. Initial development will be focused in Kentucky around 

the former Environmental Education Area, because much of the infrastructure there needs 

only minimal improvements. Self-guided loop trails, road pull-offs, viewing blinds, and 

environmental education messages in these areas will engage the visitor with the natural 

environment. 

Creation and development of two Oak-Grassland Demonstration Areas will establish open 

woodland conditions with rich and diverse understories of grasses and wildflowers, 

sustained by periodic prescribed fire. These demonstration areas will showcase ecological 

restoration and the benefits it provides to native wildlife and public recreational use. 

Restoration within these areas will re-create conditions similar to those which occurred in 

the region prior to European settlement and which are preferred habitat for many rare and 

declining species. Environmental education will be an integral component of activities in 

the Oak-Grassland Demonstration Areas. Visitors will be able to watch and learn about 

the application of various vegetation management practices used to restore native 

ecological communities. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

9

Visitors to LBL will see active management of forests and other vegetation designed to 

support ecological needs for forest health and wildlife habitat, in addition to supporting 

recreational and environmental education goals. Much of the vegetation management 

program will be aimed at restoring ecological conditions to those best suited for sustaining 

native wildlife species. Vegetation management will target restoration and maintenance of 

oak woodlands and open oak forests, native shortleaf pine forest, canebrakes, and diverse 

structures characteristic of old-growth forests. Restoration of riparian area functioning and 

improvements of priority watersheds will be another focus of the resource improvements. 

Vegetation management activities will incorporate environmental education messages, 

themes, and information in programs and projects as much as practical. 

Active management techniques will include the increased use of prescribed fire, which is 

documented to sustain native ecological communities and improve habitat for many 

wildlife species. Prescribed fire will be used to maintain open lands, and to stimulate 

understory growth in open forests and woodlands. Some tree cutting and thinning will be 

used to open dense forests, providing for growth of wildflowers and wildlife food plants; to 

diversify forest structure for songbirds and other wildlife; and to stimulate establishment 

and development of young trees that will increase the diversity of tree ages, making forests 

less susceptible to forest health threats. Tree cutting will often be accomplished through 

timber harvest, an economically efficient method that also provides economic benefits to 

local businesses. 

Visitors also will see more large trees, and many areas that are undisturbed. Large trees 

will develop over time across LBL as old trees are retained in both actively managed and 

minimally managed areas. Old-growth forests, now currently rare or missing from LBL, 

will develop over time and become much more common. Forest Core Areas will typically 

receive minimal active management. These areas will provide large blocks of undisturbed 

forest for old-growth development, habitat for mature forest wildlife, opportunities for 

semi-primitive recreational experiences, and settings for environmental education. Two 

Tennessee State Natural Areas, located within Core Areas, will be managed in cooperation 

with the State of Tennessee. Core Areas may also serve as gauges or benchmarks in the 

monitoring and evaluation of ongoing ecosystem management practices at LBL and in the 

region. In addition to Core Areas, smaller patches within the general forest will also be 

managed for development of old growth forest characteristics. 

Sustainable open land management will be demonstrated through ecological restoration of 

native grasslands, maintenance of hayfields and rights-of-way, and continued practice of 

agriculture. Open lands management is directed at providing habitat for wildlife, 

especially those species in demand for hunting and viewing. Open lands located on sites 

incompatible with sustaining other resources (such as in riparian corridors) will be allowed 

to revert to forest, or will be maintained in native grassland or canebrake. 

The built environment, comprised of infrastructure, buildings, facilities, and sites, will 

blend into the landscape as much as possible. These areas will support recreational, 

educational, administrative, and environmental objectives. Infrastructure maintenance 

activities will be performed in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible while 

promoting the protection of natural and cultural resources. Reduction of backlog 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

10

maintenance will continue to be a priority. The dark night sky resource will be protected 

by installation of appropriate lighting structures. Empire Farm and the Youth Station will 

be decommissioned. The future of other facilities will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis, as needed. 

Roads will continue to be integral to many activities at LBL but will be kept to the 

minimum number needed to meet the needs of multiple use management. The road system 

and its road segment maintenance levels will continue to be evaluated and modified, as 

appropriate. Evaluations will result in reconstruction or decommissioning of roads, when 

necessary, to improve watershed condition, facility and activity access, and wildlife 

habitat. 

In its demonstration role, LBL will develop and test the programs, methods, and systems 

by which recreation, environmental education, and vegetation are managed, with the 

intention of promoting those elements that would provide benefits to other public and 

private land managers and units. Through the Demonstration Project role, the Forest 

Service will continually seek to sharpen its management policies and techniques with an 

eye toward exporting these innovative and beneficial approaches to others locally, 

regionally, and nationally. The programs and methods used at LBL will be in a constant 

state of evaluation for improvement and refinement, assuring that LBL will maintain a 

cutting-edge management focus in all disciplines. 

Responsible fiscal management of operations and maintenance costs will optimize the 

recreation and environmental education mission of LBL. Fees will continue to be 

collected for appropriate activities and events in order to assist in recovering some 

operational costs. Management will create more opportunities for low-income visitors to 

be able to enjoy the fee-based activities mainly in the form of free or discount weekends. 

As stated in The Protection Act, there will not be a general fee for access to LBL. 

XI. Area-Wide Goals 

The foundation of this Area Plan lies in the Area-Wide Goals and Objectives. The goals 

are concise statements that begin to focus the picture of how LBL will look in the future. 

These goal statements are the basis from which the objectives are formed, which in turn 

drive the focus of the Program Strategies and the Prospectus listed in Part 2 of the Plan. 

To achieve the Desired Conditions and Vision of this Plan, the following Area-Wide Goals 

have been identified: 

Goal 1: Prioritize projects to provide the greatest recreation, environmental education, and 

resource stewardship benefits. 

Goal 2: Emphasize partnerships and cooperation with citizen groups, community 

businesses, private corporations, tourism organizations, and government agencies. 

Goal 3: Utilize a variety of methods and opportunities to provide an environmental 

education message to every visitor. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

11

Goal 4: Manage natural and physical resources, and authorized Forest Service activities to 

reduce erosion or deterioration of riparian areas and watershed conditions. 

Goal 5: Use a collaborative approach to maintain and restore 1) a diversity of plant and 

animal communities that support viability of associated plants, fish, and wildlife, and 2) 

sustainable levels of habitat and wildlife populations to support public demand for 

wildlife-related recreation. 

Goal 6: Demonstrate and widely export innovative, efficient, and effective management 

techniques that can benefit others. 

Goal 7: Enhance dispersed recreational and environmental education opportunities 

throughout LBL. 

Goal 8: The LBL Land and Resource Management Plan will remain effective and usable 

and lead to accomplishments that support National Strategic Goals. 

XII. Objectives 

Objectives are concise statements of measurable, desired results; support the goals and 

desired conditions that have been identified by the Area Plan; and display realistic and 

expected levels of outcomes that the Area Plan is capable of producing in the next decade. 

The objectives for the Area-Wide goals are listed in Part 1 of the Area Plan. Each of the 

objective statements forms the time-specific or measurable, planned results that respond to 

the Area-Wide goals. These goals, objectives and desired conditions are further supported 

by the information presented in the Prospectus of the Plan. 

To measure and evaluate progress, several key monitoring questions are identified that will 

serve as indicators or benchmarks for evaluating effectiveness of performance and change. 

Implementation of projects and activities that are guided by the Area-Wide goals and 

follow the program strategies should lead LBL toward the Vision and Desired Conditions 

outlined in Part X. 

XIII. Program Strategies 

Just as the foundation of the Area Plan lies in the Area-Wide goals, the program strategies 

are the mechanisms that help lead individual resource management programs toward those 

goals and objectives. The operation and coordination of the various programs within LBL 

are key in the Forest Service’s success in progressing toward the desired conditions 

discussed in Part 1 of the Area Plan. The Area Plan supports both the Forest Service 

National Strategies and the mission as stated in the Protection Act; and the strategies of 

each program area support achieving the Plan’s goals and objectives. 

These strategies will guide LBL’s program and project managers, and the Area Supervisor, 

in determining which approaches support achieving the objectives of the Area-Wide goals. 

They give more tangible guidance at a lower level of decision making in order to foster an 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

12

integrated effort among the various programs. These listed strategies also give the public a 

tangible list of management priorities they can expect to see through the implementation of 

the Area Plan, the individual programs’ management, and future projects at LBL. The 

detailed listing of the program strategies is in Part 2 of the Area Plan. 

The program areas that support the operations and functions of LBL are: 

Environmental Education 

Recreation Management 

Wildlife Management 

Forest Management 

Fire Management 

Open Land Management 

Scenic Management 

Soil, Water, and Air 

Pest and Non-Native 

 Invasive Management 

Demonstration/Innovations 

Heritage Resources 

Infrastructure 

Law Enforcement and 

 Investigations 

Business Management 

Communications 

XIV. Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring, and the evaluation of those results, will determine whether the Area Plan is 

sufficient to guide management of LBL or whether modification is needed, and will 

examine how well the Area Plan is working toward the desired conditions of LBL. 

Monitoring is an important link between the goals of the Area Plan and annual 

accomplishments. Key monitoring questions for each objective are listed in Part 1 of the 

Area Plan and discussed in Part 2. Details of the Monitoring Plan are listed in the 

Appendix. 

Because this Area Plan also supports the Forest Service National Strategic Goals, the 

monitoring program will also show the Area Plan’s progress and achievements in 

supporting these national goals. This monitoring program, therefore, will include a 

comparison of this Area Plan’s goals, annual LBL program accomplishments, and current 

or future national goals as part of the monitoring process, and be reported annually to the 

Forest Service Region 8 staff. 

An important concept that is being incorporated into this plan is the continuing use of some 

of the evaluation factors used in the FEIS analyses. This approach sets those factors as 

benchmarks, from which original assumptions can be tested and their progress measured. 

Much of the data gathering and evaluation of the Area Plan’s implementation will be part 

of each LBL program specialist’s responsibility; however, the public will also be involved 

to capture the perceptions of how successfully the area has achieved plan goals and 

objectives. 

XV. Final EIS and Area Plan Documents 

If you would like to read the full versions of the documents reviewed in this Summary, you 

can find them at a number of locations. They are available for downloading off the 

Internet from LBL’s Planning website, at http://www.lbl.org/LRMPPlanning.html. They 

are also available at most local libraries in the communities surrounding LBL. You can 

also contact the Area Planner at the address or phone number listed on the inside cover, or 

electronically at FocusLBL@fs.fed.us. 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

13

Table 1 - Alternative Comparisons in Relation to Public Comments 

Comment/Concern 

Alt W 

No Change 

Alt X Alt Y 

Selected 

Alternative 

Alt Z 

Recreation, Environmental 

Education: 

New Facilities No Yes No No 

Improve or Upgrade 

Facilities 

Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 

only 

Reopen facilities Little potential 

exists 

Potential exists, 

but improbable 

No Study; with 

trade-offs 

possible but 

improbable 

Realign or change 

designations, opportunities 

No Yes Yes Yes 

Close facilities No No No, but the 

designations of 

some may 

change 

Potential exists 

New trails Maintenance 

only 

Yes Yes Yes 

Wilderness recommended No No No Yes, if evaluation 

supported 

recommendation 

Outpost and similar 

amenities 

Yes Yes Yes Reduced 

Hunting, fishing 

opportunities 

No change Potential for 

increase 

Potential for 

Increase 

No significant 

change 

Cultural, heritage sites noted 

in 2003 Heritage Resource 

Mgt Plan (HRMP) 

(cemeteries, etc.) 

No change No change No change No change 

Fees 

No change Evaluate for 

appropriate 

decrease or 

increase 

Evaluate, lower 

if possible 

Reduced 

significantly 

Private development 

(marinas, golf courses, home 

sites, etc.) 

No No No No 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

14

Table 1 - Alternative Comparisons in Relation to Public Comments (continued) 

Comment/Concern 

Alt W 

No Change 

Alt X Alt Y 

Selected 

Alternative

Alt Z 

Quality, Value of Rec-EE 

programs, services 

No change Significant 

increase, tied to 

fees and costs 

Moderate 

increase, tied to 

fees, costs 

Increase 

volunteer efforts, 

contributions 

Wildlife Viewing No change No change Develop Nature 

Watch North 

and South areas 

Develop Nature 

Watch North 

and South areas 

Elk and Bison Areas No Change No Change No Change No Change 

Vegetation Management 

Timber Harvest No change from 

94 plan 

Similar to 94 

Plan levels 

Similar to 94 

Plan levels 

Less than 94 

Plan 

 Expected Timber Harvest 

Acres (per year) 2100 2200 2200 1200 

Open Lands Reversion No Some; potential 

redistribution 

Some; potential 

redistribution 

Some interior 

reverts naturally 

Old Growth Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Oak-Grassland Demo Area None designated North and South 

Areas 

North and South 

Areas 

None designated 

Prescribed Fire, 

Herbicide/Pesticide Practices 

Per the 94 Plan 

only 

Yes, to support 

ecological 

diversity, wildlife 

habitats, and 

Rec/EE areas 

Yes, to support 

ecological 

diversity, wildlife 

habitats, and 

Rec/EE areas 

Yes, Less than X 

or Y 
Area Plan Summary – Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

15

Table 2 - Alternatives Comparison by Issues and Prescriptions 

NOTE: Blank spaces in the Table indicate no change from current management direction 

Summary of Alt by Element Alt. W 

No Change

Alt. X Alt Y 

Selected 

Alternative 

Alt Z 

ISSUES 

Recreation/Environmental 

Education 

 More upgrades & 

facility focus 

More dispersed 

focus 

Fewer amenities 

and fees 

Vegetation Management 

 Improved 

ecological 

diversity 

Improved 

ecological 

diversity 

Less intensive 

management 

Special Designations 

 Deferred area 

conversions 

Deferred area 

conversions 

Recommend 

Wilderness if 

criteria met; Def. 

area conversions 

PRESCRIPTIONS

 Natural Resource Stewardship 

General Vegetation 

(forests/open lands) 

 Reallocate, 

restore, redefine 

Reallocate, 

restore, redefine 

Some 

reallocation 

Core Areas 

Approx 35,000 

acres Large and 

medium blocks 

same as 94 Plan 

Approx 41,000 

acres from 

deferred general 

forest 

Approx 42,000 

acres from 

deferred gen. 

forest & Dev. 

areas 

Approx 46,000 

acres. Designate 

all deferred 

acreage 

 Oak-Grassland Demo Area N. & S. Areas N. & S. Areas 

Wetlands Management 

Wildlife Refuges 

Administrative Areas 

Utility Corridors 

Admin, Maintenance, Closed 

Facilities 

 Consolidate Consolidate Consolidate 

Communication Sites 

Roads Improve/upgrade Improve/upgrade, 

fewer miles 

Recreation/Environmental 

Education

Developed Recreation 

 Upgrade/add 

facilities or 

amenities 

Upgrade/improve 

some sites, 

realign some 

developed sites 

Decrease 

amenities 

Elk/Bison Prairie/South Bison 

Range 

 

Turkey Bay OHV 

 Sustainable Dayuse; upgrade 

camping outside 

Sustainable, 

camping within 

 Sustainable; 

camping as is 

EE Facilities 

 Upgrade, expand: 

e.g. culture trails 

Improvements 

possible 

Nature Watch Demo Area 

 Convert from 

EEA, add acres; 

S. No Hunt Area 

Convert from 

EEA, add acres; 

S. No Hunt Area 

Non-Facilities-Based EE Increase Increase 

EE Area (EEA) No EEA 

boundaries 

Expand to Nature 

Watch 

Expand to Nature 

Watch