RECORD OF DECISION

FOR 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-119D December 2004 
Record of Decision for 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: 

 Willliam 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. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 1 of 23

Record of Decision 

For the Land and Resource Management Plan 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

I. Introduction 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for approving the 

Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP, or Area Plan) for the Land Between The 

Lakes (LBL) National Recreation Area (NRA). A previous management plan for LBL 

was developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and approved in 1994. This 

Area Plan satisfies the provisions of the Land Between the Lakes Protection Act of 1998, 

which transferred the management of LBL from TVA to the Forest Service. 

The Land Between the Lakes Protection Act directs the Forest Service to develop a land 

and resource management plan for LBL after it assumed management responsibility for 

the 170,000-acre area. According the Act (sec. 511(b)(2)), “The emphases in the 

management of the Recreation Area shall be – (a) to provide public recreational 

opportunities; (b) to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat; and (c) to provide for 

diversity of native and desirable non-native plants, animals, opportunities for hunting and 

fishing, and environmental education.” During the transition period, the Forest Service 

was to manage and maintain LBL under the appropriate direction of TVA’s 1994 Natural 

Resources Management Plan (NRMP, or TVA’s 1994 Plan). Much of TVA’s 1994 Plan 

remained valid and has been incorporated into the Area Plan. 

The Land Between The Lakes is located in Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, 

with approximately 60% of the lands lying in Kentucky. It is comprised of lands that are 

part of Lyon and Trigg counties in Kentucky, and Stewart County in Tennessee. It is 

bounded on the east by Lake Barkley, the impoundment of the Cumberland River; and on 

the west by Kentucky Lake, the impoundment of the Tennessee River. The Area’s 

northern boundary is an adjoining canal between the two lakes. The southern boundary 

runs roughly along US Highway 79 in Tennessee. 

The area was known as the land “between the rivers” before being designated a national 

recreation area in 1963, and has a rich cultural history. It has been home to American 

Indians and for a time, the center of a once-thriving iron industry. Over the past two 

hundred years, a good portion of the land has been either intensively logged or cleared 

and privately farmed. It had some areas of open ‘barrens’ or grasslands, which existed 

prior to European settlement. The land was home to small towns, farmers and businesses 

and was the site of the earliest battles fought during the Civil War for control of the vital 

waterways running deep into Tennessee and Alabama. It has also been aggressively 

restored over time, and has gained a regional reputation for its abundance of wildlife and 

diversity of forest. Since establishment as an NRA, LBL has become one of the most 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 2 of 23

intensive and diverse federal recreation areas in the country and the center of a $600 

million tourism industry. 

This Area Plan is part of the long-range resource-planning framework established by the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (RPA); the 

Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); and the 2003 revision of the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Strategic Plan. The 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires all units in the National 

Forest System (NFS) to develop Plans that direct resource management activities on the 

unit. This was further stipulated in the LBL Protection Act as well. These plans are 

designed to provide management direction on a 10- to 15-year cycle or as there is an 

identified need to change the plan. 

II. My Decision 

I have selected Alternative Y from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for 

the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Land Between The Lakes National 

Recreation Area. I have decided that this alternative does the best job of incorporating 

the results of scientific analysis, and it responds to the concerns and desires expressed by 

the American people, meeting all legal mandates and national policy, and meeting the 

legislated mission of LBL. It has been only slightly changed from the preferred 

alternative of the draft EIS issued in March 2004. By selecting this alternative, I am also 

approving the Area Plan that describes in detail the strategic vision, goals, objectives, 

standards, and suitable land uses and allocations for LBL. 

My decision strikes a balance among the myriad demands expressed by the wide variety 

of people affected by the management of LBL. It addresses people’s needs and desires 

for this National Recreation Area. Although this decision is mine, it has been made using 

the information and help of many others. Hundreds of comments were received during 

the development of this Area Plan, beginning in June 2003. These comments helped 

guide the LRMP planning team as they developed the final Area Plan. While the planning 

effort for LBL was completed on an expedited timeline, I assure you that this decision 

was not made in haste, but based upon the analysis and information cited herein. 

This decision applies only to LBL lands and does not apply to any other federal, state, or 

private lands, although the effects to these lands and the effects of my decision on lands 

surrounding the forests have been considered. 

A. Components of the Decision 

The FEIS and the LRMP were developed according to the NFMA, its implementing 

regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219 (dated September 30, 1982 as 

amended), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. The FEIS discloses the 

environmental consequences of the alternative management strategies and how they 

respond to issues and concerns. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 3 of 23

The Area Plan provides direction to assure coordination of multiple-uses (recreation and 

environmental education opportunities, forest health and management, air, soil and water 

quality, watershed, and wildlife) and sustained yield of products and services [16 USC 

1604(e)]. It fulfills legislative requirements and addresses local, regional, and national 

issues. The FEIS discloses the environmental consequences of the alternative 

management strategies and how they respond to the issues. I have studied and considered 

the FEIS in order to make the following decisions: 

1. Approval of the management direction and associated long-range goals and 

objectives for the next 10-15 years in order to provide for multiple use and 

sustained yield of the services and opportunities people demand from LBL, 

specifically outdoor recreation and environmental education, forest and open 

lands health and regeneration, air, water and soil quality, wildlife habitat, and 

resource sustainability. The Area Plan establishes this direction in Part 1. [36 

CFR 219.11(b)] 

2. Approval of the management prescription areas, which reflect specific land 

use, biological, physical, watershed, and social differences; and management 

prescriptions, which reflect a diversity of desired conditions and provide the 

specific information used to develop projects to implement the Area Plan. The 

Area Plan establishes management areas and describes twelve management 

prescriptions in Part 1 and displays them on the Area Plan prescription allocation 

map in Appendix VI. [36 CFR 219.11(c)] 

3. Approval of the Area Plan standards, which serve as design criteria and 

sideboards for achieving the goals, objectives, and desired conditions and provide 

meaningful direction when implementing projects. The Area Plan contains 

standards that apply across LBL as well as those that apply to specific areas. [36 

CFR 219.13 to 219.27] 

4. Designation of lands suitable for different types of uses, including lands which 

are suitable for timber production; and identification of the maximum timber 

harvesting levels, or Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ), consistent with ensuring a 

sustainable forest resource. The suitability of different lands for different uses on 

LBL is described by management prescriptions in Part 1 of the Area Plan. The 

ASQ is found in the Prospectus in Part 2 of the Area Plan. The Area Plan projects 

an ASQ of 9,860 thousand cubic feet for the next decade. [36 CFR 219.14 and 36 

CFR 219.16] 

5. Approval of monitoring and evaluation requirements needed to ensure that the 

plan direction is carried out, determine how well outputs and effects were 

predicted and help the NRA identify necessary future plan changes. These 

requirements are contained in Parts 1 and 2 and the Appendix of the Area Plan. 

[36 CFR 219.11(d)] 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 4 of 23

B. Rationale for the Decision 

1. Introduction 

The Area Plan is responsive to the Forest Service’s National Strategic Plan. The optimal 

implementation rate for the LRMP could require higher funding levels in some areas than 

those currently allocated; however, I believe the management direction changes 

envisioned in the LRMP can be implemented under current and even slightly lower 

budget levels. Progress toward desired conditions may be affected if significant budget 

shifts occur in the future. 

This Plan meets our legal obligations to the people and environment that surrounds them. 

I want to make it clear that the Forest Service understands its special role in managing 

LBL as a unique regional feature, as well as a national treasure. We are respectful and 

appreciative of the former residents that were forced to move from the area so that LBL 

could be created to demonstrate how an area “of limited resources” could become a 

national model of multiple use management and an economic stimulus to this region of 

the country. The Selected Alternative maximizes the net public benefit for future 

generations to use and enjoy in terms of sustainable recreation and environmental 

education. These benefits are achieved through proven conservation measures that 

protect, maintain, improve, and restore the health of the forests and open lands; reduce 

risk from wildfire, insects, disease and other threats; provide wildlife habitat and 

sustainability; protect and restore unique vegetation and terrain; and provide diversity of 

recreational and environmental education opportunities that are the cornerstone of LBL’s 

legislated mission. 

Through a variety of means and throughout the country, Americans have told the Forest 

Service that they desire the millions of acres of national forests, grasslands, and 

recreational areas to continue to be managed with a multiple-use philosophy. The 

Selected Alternative continues to provide a wide variety of uses and opportunities at 

LBL. I believe the LRMP is within the physical and biological capability of the land and 

that this alternative can be implemented without reducing that capability. 

The following discussions summarize many important factors that I considered. They 

explain why I believe Alternative Y, as described in the FEIS, will maximize net public 

benefits when compared to the other alternatives. 

The response of each alternative to the three issues was a major consideration in the 

decision to select Alternative Y. The reasons for choosing the selected alternative are 

discussed below, by issue. Chapter 3 of the FEIS describes in detail the effects of 

expected management actions on the various forest resources. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 5 of 23

2. Responding to the Issues 

Issue #1: Recreation and Environmental Education

The focus of this issue ties directly to the heart and mission of LBL’s existence, 

providing an optimum yield of recreation and environmental education while sustaining 

the natural resources. From the very beginning of federal ownership of lands between the 

rivers, both of these opportunities were determining factors in designating these public 

lands. As a national recreation area, LBL must balance the demands and needs of the 

approximately 2 million annual visitors with the environmental and ecological diversity 

needs of the wildlife and vegetation which draws so many of these visitors. 

Much of the land that comprises LBL was transferred to federal ownership under 

Executive Order by then-President John F. Kennedy in 1963. In this Order, he directed 

that these lands be set aside as a demonstration area to show that sustainable, quality 

recreation and environmental education opportunities could co-exist with sound 

conservation and restoration practices. While some may argue over what is a proper use 

of public lands, no one can argue with the success, attraction and popularity of LBL and 

its impact on Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee from a recreational and 

educational standpoint. Many of the surrounding communities are economically 

dependent on tourism in general and visitation at LBL specifically. 

Key elements of this issue revolve around how to best manage and maintain the balance, 

distribution, volume, and appropriateness of the opportunities on LBL. Within these 

elements are further considerations for both motorized and non-motorized recreation, 

developed facilities, and dispersed opportunities for recreation and environmental 

education, and how to maintain visitor amenities or services without entering into 

competition with the surrounding communities. All of these facets were explored in 

reaching the decision on this issue. 

Each alternative was evaluated as to the effect it would have on three important factors: 

whether or not it would support the mission of LBL to provide sustainable recreation and 

environmental education opportunities; how these opportunities would impact the 

environment and resource sustainability; and whether or not the results of implementing 

the alternative would support the anticipated future demand for these types of 

opportunities both within LBL and in the surrounding communities. 

National recreation user studies show that the types of activities experiencing the most 

growth in terms of numbers of participants in the past ten years are the most popular 

types of opportunities visitors seek on LBL. These include: bird and nature watching; 

backpacking or hiking; backcountry camping; horseback riding; mountain and tour 

biking; visiting nature centers and historical interpretive facilities; camping that offers 

varying levels of user services (electric, water and sewer hook-ups as well as primitive 

sites); and fishing and hunting opportunities. During the planning process, public 

comments and subsequent analyses indicated a need for change to accommodate these 

desires. Therefore, maintaining (Alternative W) or even reducing slightly (Alternative Z) 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 6 of 23

the current mix and distribution of opportunities at LBL as they are would fall short of 

anticipated future demands. This would actually diminish the impact that LBL has on the 

surrounding communities in terms of revenue potential and economic growth stimulation. 

Alternatives Y and Z include Nature Watch Demonstration areas. The Nature Watch 

areas would provide two visible, measurable, and distinct areas in support of recreation 

and environmental education opportunities. The public has made clear its desire that 

LBL improve delivery of its legislated environmental education mission by creating areas 

that the public can observe and understand as the management techniques unfold, and 

monitor changes directly by comparison, as well as on the same site over time. Neither 

Alternative W nor Alternative X included provision of these demonstration areas. 

The mission of LBL is clear and direct in relation to recreation and environmental 

education. We found through scoping that comments overwhelmingly called for the 

Forest Service to provide for diverse recreation and environmental educational 

opportunities while adhering closely to the mission of LBL. Reducing the availability of 

these amenities and opportunities to a significant degree would, therefore, be inconsistent 

with the mission of LBL. Of all the alternatives, Y provides the best approach by 

identifying that there is ample opportunity to consider consolidation of some facilities 

without impacting visitation, while also providing for a better future balance of 

developed and dispersed activities. This also fits with the legislated stipulation that LBL 

strive to be a “model of efficiency” as well. By comparison, Alternatives W and Z would 

not support this desired condition for LBL’s future, and would be less consistent with the 

stated mission of the Area to be both a recreation and environmental education 

destination and an economic stimulator of the surrounding region. 

Alternative X supports the legislated mission by identifying the potential for more 

developed opportunities; however, this also creates expectations of higher funding levels 

in order to build and maintain these sites, which does not seem likely. It also does not 

respond well to the priority of the more dispersed, affordable and less formal recreational 

and environmental education activities that the public clearly desires. Furthermore, the 

analyses in support of Alternative X did not identify an obvious need for more developed 

facilities at this time. 

Issue #2: Vegetation Management

Land Between The Lakes has approximately 157,000 acres of forested lands, or about 

92% of the total acreage. The forest composition is predominantly oak-hickory. Other 

species found throughout LBL include beech, maple, poplar, box elder, elm, sycamore, 

birch and others. Most of the remaining acreage is in open lands, which are divided 

among grassy fields, wildlife-favoring croplands, and other dispersed forest openings. 

The landscape is mostly sloping, hilly terrain, with numerous perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral streams. 

Under this issue, there are a number of concerns that have been raised as priorities by 

those involved in the planning process. Major concerns include: restoring fire to sustain 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 7 of 23

and restore fire-dependent communities, including open oak woodland on drier sites and 

oak forests on moister sites; restoring complex canopy structures in mature forests on 

moister sites, restoring old growth forests; maintaining open lands for habitat diversity; 

restoring native vegetation and function to riparian corridors, and controlling invasive 

non-native species. 

The historical use of the forests on LBL, dating back to the pre-Civil War era, has left the 

forests without any significant acreage of old growth. Through management 

prescriptions within the Area Plan, the Forest Service has identified a strategy for 

restoring old growth over time. In the short term management efforts can create the 

canopy diversity typically found in old growth forests, to support wildlife associated with 

these conditions. 

Impoundments of the two lakes around LBL have inundated the former bottomlands, 

wetlands, and open fields that once dotted the landscape. Current open lands were 

created in the most fertile flat lands remaining, some of which are within riparian 

corridors. 

The presence of non-native invasive plants is a major concern to the Forest Service. 

Some of these non-native species have been identified in several areas of LBL. Left 

unchecked or uncontrolled they could easily dominate and overgrow native and desirable 

non-native species that support a wide ecologically diverse flora. This ecological 

diversity supports the desired recreational and environmental education opportunities as 

well as the wide range and spectrum of wildlife found across LBL. 

In consideration of the nature and mission of LBL as a recreational and environmental 

demonstration area, the alternative that best addresses the issue of vegetation 

management and ecological diversity is Alternative Y. This alternative focuses on the 

current and potential uses of the forests and open lands in relation to the legislated 

mission of LBL. Alternative Y is innovative in several areas that support the national 

initiative for Healthy Forests and provides substantial benefits for recreation and 

environmental education opportunities, such as hiking, wildlife viewing, and 

interpretation. These measures, including restoring some traditional disturbance, also 

move the forests toward a more diversified composition in terms of forest types and 

structure, wildlife habitat diversity, and support for species viability. 

Among the most innovative elements of this alternative are the Nature Watch and the 

Oak-Grassland Demonstration Areas. These areas also fulfill and support the 

demonstration function of LBL as a source of innovative management styles and 

approaches that can be used on other national public and private lands. Each of these 

prescriptions provides visible, measurable, and distinct outcomes that address important 

parts of this issue. 

The Oak-Grassland Demonstration areas are designed to return some portions of LBL to 

historical conditions pre-dating European settlement of the area. From historical 

evidence and documentation, we know that much of the area was comprised of oak 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 8 of 23

woodlands: mature trees in low densities with grassland understory across rolling hilltops 

and upper slopes. Management tools necessary to develop these areas would be 

monitored and are expected to evolve over time. Oak-Grassland Demonstration areas also 

support the public’s demand for LBL to improve delivery of its legislated environmental 

education mission by creating areas that the public can observe and understand the 

management techniques as they unfold, and monitor changes directly by comparison, as 

well as on the same site over time. Neither Alternative W nor Alternative Z included 

provision of these demonstration areas. 

The absence of active management for the vegetation on LBL, as analyzed under 

Alternative Z, could actually produce some results detrimental to the mission of LBL. 

The reduced diversity of habitats over time could greatly affect early-successional species 

including some neotropical migratory birds, as well as other desirable plant and animal 

species. The potential for forests to become more susceptible to insect, disease, and 

wildfire would increase. The resulting secondary impacts to tourism and visitation across 

LBL could result in impacts to the region as a tourist-based economy. 

Vegetation management at LBL must support recreational, environmental education and 

overall multiple use objectives. Alternative Y strikes the best balance, and provides the 

most benefit for forest health, species viability, and the legislated mission of LBL. 

Issue #3: Special Designations

The significance of Special Designations as an issue in this Area Plan stems from land 

allocation decisions carried over from the 1994 Plan and the legal requirements of 

NFMA. Under the 1994 Plan, TVA designated approximately 35,000 acres as Core 

Areas, to be managed under specific guidelines of the international biosphere program. 

These Core Areas are lands that are primarily affected by natural processes, have limited 

motorized access, and provide for more rustic experiences. Non-motorized activities and 

experiences are favored in these areas. Research opportunities are highlighted as ongoing 

comparisons with active management. The 1994 Plan identified but deferred the 

designation of an additional 7,000 acres for future consideration as Core Areas, 

anticipating an eventual total of 42,000 acres. These additions were to be found from 

within blocks of land totaling approximately 10,400 acres called “deferred areas.” These 

blocks were identified but never designated when the Forest Service assumed 

management of LBL in 1999. The determination left to be made in this Area Plan is 

which identified areas of deferred acres should be designated as Core Areas, and which 

should be allocated to other prescriptions. 

In choosing Alternative Y, I have decided that the total amount of Core Area will remain 

at approximately 42,000 acres, the same as planned under the 1994 Plan. The areas listed 

in TVA’s 1994 Plan as “deferred” have been primarily changed to two allocations: Core 

Area lands or placed within a specific recreation and environmental education 

prescription. Alternative Y selects the additional Core Area acreage primarily from 

recreational areas that are currently managed with minimal disturbances. Historically, 

the management of the deferred areas has been kept to a minimum in order to support and 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 9 of 23

enhance the recreational and environmental education mission of LBL. Designating a 

portion of these deferred areas as Core Areas will result in little visible change to visitors 

and users. 

By contrast, selecting the additional Core Area acreage from within general forest areas 

to Core Areas instead, as analyzed in Alternative X, would result in several small new 

blocks of Core Area surrounded by general forest areas with substantially different 

management prescriptions or treatments. Under Alternative Z, all of the deferred acreage 

(10,400 acres) would be converted to Core Area, about eight percent more than 

anticipated by the 1994 Plan. 

This issue also encompasses the legally required evaluation of inventoried roadless areas 

that may exist within LBL for their potential as Wilderness. The Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 4.19c and Chapter 7.2) identifies the factors to use in 

evaluating potential wilderness areas. The Regional Forester also issued guidance in 

1995, 1997, and 2002 to provide regional consistency on interpreting this direction. The 

three steps to determining what lands to recommend for wilderness designation include: 

(1) Identifying and inventorying all roadless, undeveloped areas that satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act, 

including finding areas “of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition.” and that provide “outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;” 

(2) Evaluating these areas to determine their “suitability” for wilderness 

recommendations, meeting tests of capability, availability, and need; and 

(3) During the development of the forest plan alternatives, analyzing the effects of 

recommending or not recommending the roadless areas for wilderness. 

Following the steps outlined above, one area of LBL was analyzed in detail to determine 

if it met the roadless area inventory criteria. The area, known as the Devil’s Backbone, 

consists of approximately 5,340 acres and surrounds a smaller 160 acre Tennessee State 

Natural Area that contains regionally rare, native Short-leaf pine trees. After careful 

analysis of the data, the area was found to not meet the roadless inventory criteria. As a 

result, there are no inventoried roadless areas on LBL. 

Alternative Y, therefore, best addresses the two primary concerns of this issue. This 

alternative designates some 7,000 acres of deferred areas as Core Areas, bringing the 

total acreage to approximately 42,000. The criteria used to select the specific parcels to 

be included considered the desire of the public for more dispersed and less facility based 

recreational and environmental educational opportunities. 

Since there are no areas that meet the roadless area inventory criteria on LBL, Alternative 

Y best provides for this element of the issue by allocating the Devil’s Backbone area to a 

prescription that will favor non-motorized uses and less active management. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 10 of 23

3. Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the “environmentally preferable” 

alternative as: the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as 

expressed in NEPA Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative 

which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Alternative Z has a number of environmentally sensitive aspects. It would: provide the 

most passive approach to vegetation management and reduce the impact of recreational 

use across LBL by decreasing developed recreational opportunities. Consequently, of all 

the alternatives considered in detail, it would have the fewest adverse human-induced 

effects on the biological and physical environment in the short term. However, it would 

also have the least amount of beneficial human-induced effects. Even though Alternative 

Z is physically and biologically preferable for the environment in the short-term, I believe 

this lack of active management would create significant long-term risk of insect and 

disease threats, and a loss of biological diversity over time. Alternative Y provides for a 

better balance of resource uses and maximizes the net public benefit while protecting the 

environment. It also more appropriately and directly supports the recreation and 

environmental education mission for LBL. It provides for thinnings to increase growth 

and vigor, and prescribed fire to maintain and restore fire-dependent and fire-associated 

vegetation and habitats. This alternative incorporates appropriate environmental 

safeguards to minimize potential adverse effects to the biological and physical 

environment. In the long term, the Selected Alternative provides more options and more 

positive benefits than Alternative Z. 

4. Alternative with Highest Present Net Value 

The purposes and principles of National Forest System Land and Resource Management 

Planning are spelled out in the first paragraph of NFMA: “...The resulting plans shall 

provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National 

Forest System in a way that maximizes long term net public benefits in an 

environmentally sound manner.” [36 CFR §219.1(a)] Net public benefits can be defined 

as the overall value to the Nation of all outputs (benefits) and positive effects, less all 

associated inputs (costs) and negative effects, whether they can be quantitatively valued 

or not. 

A component of determining net public benefits is the Present Net Value (PNV), which is 

used to measure the economic efficiency of each alternative. A comparison of the 

alternatives’ PNVs is shown in Table 3-4.7H of the FEIS. As shown in the table, 

Alternative Y has the highest PNV of all the alternatives. Alternative X is only slightly 

lower. PNV includes market and those non-market values which can be assigned a price, 

either based on money the Forest Service actually receives for market goods like timber, 

or on estimated values from Forest Service research for intangible, non-market amenities 

like wildlife and recreation. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 11 of 23

The Land Between The Lakes also provides areas of incredible beauty and solitude, clean 

water, abundant wildlife, and outstanding recreation opportunities -- all of which satisfy 

our spiritual needs. Since PNV does not include these important non-priced benefits, it 

was not the only criterion I used in my decision. Jobs contributed, labor income, 

qualitative factors for use, and passive use values were also considered in Section 3.4.7 of 

the FEIS. 

I chose Alternative Y because it not only provide for today’s consumption and enjoyment, 

but for that of future generations as well. 

5. Public Benefits 

Traditionally in the Forest Service, local people working together with the local agency 

personnel determined values and benefits. Today when we ask folks what is important to 

them in working toward a desired condition for LBL, we hear from people all over the 

Nation and sometimes the world. Our supply and demand analyses still consider a market 

area that doesn’t extend too far from the national forest boundary where the majority of 

the impacts exist, but that does not mean we do not recognize that we have people from all 

over the world hiking and biking the trails, visiting our campsites, and frequenting the 

local communities that surround LBL. Citizens from all different points of view want us 

to quantify these effects. They believe that this will prove how important their favorite 

resource is, and thereby prove that their position is the right one. Due to the sheer 

abundance and variety of opinion in the United States, we in the Forest Service often find 

ourselves in the midst of controversy. With the passage of new laws and changing values, 

natural resource issues on public lands are growing more complex as demands for all 

these resources increase. 

Our growing population, particularly in the Southeast United States, demands more. 

People want more “wild places” and healthy forests for recreation. We demand more 

lumber; desire more recreational vehicle hookups; use more oil and gas; seek more old 

growth forests; construct more electric transmission lines; require more clean water; and 

seek more trails of all kinds. We also need more beautiful places to escape the rush of the 

world. We have done our best to provide a balanced plan that will provide in a 

sustainable way, more of those things that LBL is uniquely able to supply in Western 

Kentucky and Middle Tennessee. 

Based on the preceding discussions it is clear that Alternative Y does not have the least 

impact on the environment nor does it generate as many market valued commodities as 

other alternatives considered in the FEIS. However, I believe the alternative achieves a 

balance between the economic benefits and environmental issues and concerns voiced by 

the American people. I believe it will increase public benefits by moving LBL toward 

improved forest health through its emphasis on ecological diversity and through its special 

attention to providing a diverse range of recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. It also provides for a growth in visitation and the greatest economic 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 12 of 23

stimulation to the surrounding communities within the sustainability of LBL’s natural 

resources. 

I am also confident that the management proposed in the Area Plan is within the physical 

and biological capability of the land and can be accomplished without reducing that 

capability. 

C. Changes Between Draft and Final 

More than 280 written comments were received, including email, on the DEIS and Draft 

Area Plan for the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area. In addition, a 

scientific review was conducted during the comment period. More than 20 well 

respected scientific professionals from regional, local and state agencies, and educational 

institutions participated. Many of these comments and contacts offered recommendations 

or requests for changes or improvements in the environmental analysis; identified 

changes or improvements to the alternatives; or suggested modifications to the goals, 

objectives, or standards. Comments received also identified the need for several minor 

improvements to the presentation of materials, such as extraneous information and the 

organization of the various elements of the Area Plan and EIS. As a result, editorial, 

missing information, duplication, and other inconsistencies were corrected in the final 

documents. Specific changes to Alternative Y and the environmental analysis beyond 

these types of corrections are highlighted in this section. 

General Changes

In several areas of the FEIS, such as sections pertaining to management indicator species, 

viability analysis, and the socioeconomic analysis, additional information was added to 

clarify the analysis process used and the information used in comparing alternatives. 

Several sections identified in the draft as partially complete have been finished. 

Management Area Prescriptions and Allocations

Several management area prescription names were modified based on public comments 

about need for more clarity. About 1,200 acres of land identified in the draft as General 

Forest was added to the Nature Watch prescription under Alternative Y to reflect 

increased opportunities for viewing, utilizing existing infrastructure, incorporating 

additional habitat types, and addressing concerns about hunting animals that may become 

tolerant of human presence. 

Goals and Objectives

Feedback from the public was used to refine the goals and objectives, primarily by 

splitting out some key activities to provide clearer average annual objectives. Several 

objectives were added, primarily in Goal 5, to clarify desired conditions and expected 

levels of management activity, and the relationship of habitat conditions to objectives. 

Standards

Feedback from the public and scientific community was used to refine the standards in 

the document and to clarify the sideboards by which activities may occur. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 13 of 23

Old Growth

Old growth terminology and the use of old-growth guidance are clarified in the FEIS and 

the Area Plan. 

Turkey Bay OHV Area

The policy change to convert the area from cross-country riding to designated trails only 

that was made in June 2004 has been incorporated into all alternatives. No land 

allocations or other resource programs were significantly affected by this policy change. 

III. Public Involvement 

One of the first commitments made in the beginning of this process was to develop and 

maintain a high level of public interest and involvement. The LBL staff employed 

innovative methods and avenues to relay information throughout the planning process. 

The LBL Advisory Board, which was formed to provide advice to the Forest Service on 

the public participation process, began to develop ideas and suggestions nearly two years 

before the planning process actually began. During this same time, the Forest Service 

began publication of a planning newsletter and solicited names for the Area Plan mailing 

list. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) “to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an 

Area Plan for LBL” appeared in the Federal Register on June 4, 2003. At this same time, 

the Forest Service released for comment the LBL Planning Background Document (PBD) 

that assessed and made recommendations on the “need for change” to the 1994 LBL 

Natural Resources Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Subsequent scoping sessions, which involved small group discussions and innovative, 

forward-looking, “appreciative inquiry” group exercises, helped the staff begin to 

develop a picture of the public’s concerns and desires for the future of LBL and validated 

the findings of the PBD. 

During the scoping period, the Forest Service continued to provide updates by mail, 

created and maintained a planning website with the latest news releases and public 

documents, and regularly added new contact names to the mailing list. Additional 

electronic messages and postcards were sent out just prior to release of the drafts to 

ensure that everyone was aware of the upcoming comment period and to offer the most 

convenient ways for the public to get the information, understand the process, and be 

involved. 

On March 15, 2003, the Draft Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement were 

posted on the planning website to provide two additional weeks of public review as the 

actual public notice did not appear until March 26 when it appeared in the Federal 

Register and was published in the Paducah Sun, the newspaper of record. The Forest 

Service actively encouraged the public to participate in the comment process, which ran 

until June 30, 2004. Public Information sessions were conducted in communities on the 

four counties adjacent to LBL, with the main objectives of providing information and 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 14 of 23

guidance about the structure of the Draft documents, answering general questions, and 

emphasizing how the public could contribute their written comments to the Final Plan 

preparations. 

During this time four additional information sessions were conducted in conjunction with 

LBL User Group meetings at three of the larger campgrounds and the Turkey Bay OffHighway Vehicle Area. These sessions had similar objectives as the other sessions, with 

the added focus of dealing with questions and concerns that focused on those facilities 

and the potential impacts the Area Plan could have on those areas. The staff also 

continued to make presentations and hand out information about the planning process at 

various civic and other local group meetings. Comment cards, notices, and newsletters 

were posted prominently at all of the major facilities during the comment period. 

Through content analysis, the Planning Team and LBL staffs were able to identify, 

quantify, validate, and respond to the comments assertions made throughout the process. 

I am thoroughly aware of all the information we gathered from the public, and I used it to 

help me in my choice of Alternative Y as the new Area Plan for LBL. 

IV. Alternatives 

A. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study 

Based upon public input, there were only three significant issues for this Area Plan from 

which four alternatives were fully developed. These alternatives provided a sufficient 

range of choices to evaluate the need for change. The process used to develop the four 

that were carried forward employed an innovative “building-block” approach. 

In this approach, several narratives were developed as possible ways to address the three 

specific issues identified as needing changes from the 1994 Plan. Using public comments 

and staff analyses, a total of 12 separate blocks were drafted and then joined together in 

various combinations to form possible alternatives. During the process of combining 

these building blocks, those combinations that did not meet legal requirements, did not 

support the mission of LBL, or were outside the scope of the Forest Service to act upon, 

were eliminated from further consideration. A complete listing of those combinations 

which were not carried forward is contained in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. The four 

alternatives developed and analyzed in the FEIS are briefly discussed below. 

B. Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The key parts of each of the alternatives respond specifically to one of the three issues. 

This is due largely to the building block concept used to formulate the alternatives and in 

combination forms an overall emphasis or focus. The environmental effects for each 

alternative are discussed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 15 of 23

Alternative W

This alternative is required under NEPA and provides for no significant change from the 

current management of Recreation and Environmental Education facilities, areas, or 

opportunities. Similarly, it makes no significant change in the vegetation management of 

the forest or open lands across LBL. Current management options for all facilities, areas, 

and treatments remains the same. Individual project or program decisions would be 

guided by the parameters established in the 1994 Plan, as amended by the analysis under 

NFMA for this Area Plan. 

Desired Condition: LBL would be managed to maintain approximately 89% oak-hickory 

forest cover. Prescriptions used in land allocations mirror those of the existing plan very 

closely. Core Areas remain at about 35,000 acres. Timber removals would be used to 

enhance habitat, improve forest health, or maintain scenic drives and the acreages of 

allowable timber harvest will remain about the same as shown in the 1994 Plan. Open 

lands management would appear unchanged except for areas of successional growth, and 

continuing efforts of warm season grass restoration. Environmental education 

opportunities would be primarily available at staffed, developed facilities, with some selfguided experiences. Campers might see minor improvements to highly developed 

campgrounds. Roads and trails would be maintained. 

Alternative X

This alternative would give priority in management decisions toward highly developed 

facilities with very little increase in dispersed opportunities for both recreation and 

environmental education. Land allocations favor those prescriptions that support 

developed recreation opportunities. 

Under this alternative, management guidance would provide for some new or improved 

developed recreation facilities, the possibility of reopening closed facilities, expansion of 

environmental education facilities and areas, and a slight increase in the number and 

types of trails and other dispersed recreation and environmental education opportunities. 

Existing developed facilities would be evaluated for improvements to provide a wider 

range of opportunities for environmental education and recreation at LBL. Dispersed 

opportunities in recreation and environmental education would focus on extending the 

offerings of the highly developed facilities. 

Vegetation management would provide a wider range of forest types and compositions 

across LBL to support a variety of wildlife, ecological and recreational objectives and 

requirements. The acreages of allowable timber harvest would be kept at about the same 

levels as allowed in the 1994 Plan. Open lands and forested areas would be evaluated for 

realignment or redistribution of acreages based upon scientific analysis, to sustain overall 

forest health, support species viability, and provide wildlife habitats as necessary. 

Management direction for vegetation would be expanded to allow for a wider range of 

proven management techniques to be applied to the vegetation across LBL. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 16 of 23

Concurrent with the implementation of these developments would be an evaluation of the 

fee structure for both recreation and environmental education. The quality and value of 

facilities and programs would be a significant determining factor in developing an 

equitable but sustainable fee structure. This would also factor in visitation, 

disadvantaged and underprivileged populations, and public demand for these experiences. 

Any increase in recreation and environmental education opportunities would require 

commensurate savings, efficiencies, or alternative procedures to stay within planned 

operating budgets. 

Desired Condition: The focus would be on providing more facility-based experiences 

and amenities through staffed facilities designed to enhance visitor experiences in 

targeted recreational and educational activities. Visitation would be expected to increase, 

and uses would be intensified, but natural resources in heavy use areas would be 

hardened to withstand projected impacts. The forest would be managed to a healthy 

condition with reduced risk and damage from insects and diseases, invasive species, and 

wildfire. Vegetation management to achieve a healthy, primarily oak-hickory forest type 

and woodlands might be visible to visitors at LBL. Scenic views and vistas would be 

maintained and enhanced. Some fields might be managed for conversion to native warm 

and cool season grasses and herbs. Prescribed fire would be utilized on a larger 

landscape scale than has been used recently, to create suitable critical habitat for species 

of viability concern and associated communities. 

Alternative Y

The focus of this alternative is to establish a more dispersed pattern of opportunities for 

recreation and environmental education. Land allocations favor those prescriptions that 

support dispersed opportunities. Under this alternative, the current array of 

environmental education facilities and highly developed recreation areas would be 

complemented by more forest-wide, lesser-developed, dispersed opportunities in both 

programs. Existing areas and facilities would be evaluated and identified for needed 

improvements, as well as the potential for realignment into other levels of recreational 

development and types of environmental education opportunities. The major facilities 

would remain open, but no new high-level facilities would be developed or reopened. 

Within this alternative, total recreation and environmental education opportunities would 

not be decreased, and the mix of each would actually be enhanced through dispersion. 

Dispersed recreation opportunities would support and extend the reach and effectiveness 

of the environmental education programs and facilities by exposing more visitors to 

educational information and environmental awareness messages and themes. 

Environmental education components would be incorporated into natural resource 

management activities occurring across LBL. 

Vegetation management under this alternative would provide for advancing the 

ecological diversity of LBL through a wide range of proven and appropriate management 

methods. While some of these methods were already stipulated under the 1994 Plan, 

several are not. In order to sustain the overall health of the forest, and for both wildlife 

habitat and an enriched recreation or environmental education opportunity, a broader 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 17 of 23

range of acceptable vegetation management options would be necessary. The acreages of 

allowable timber harvest would be kept at about the same levels as described in the 1994 

Plan. Some management areas within LBL would be changed in order to sustain or 

create early successional growth, promote better open lands management and 

distribution, improve species viability and game species management, implement and 

promote reversion of some maintained open lands into young forest growth, and convert 

some cultivated lands to warm season grasses. 

This alternative would include a concerted effort to reduce or realign the fee structure for 

recreation and environmental education to provide for an appropriate balance of 

opportunities and fiscal viability. Efforts to reduce fees would be tied to reductions in 

what the programs or facilities offer. Emphasis would be placed upon the quality and 

value of the programs and services offered, instead of simply reducing fees. 

Desired Condition: Management activities would focus on providing more successful 

nature viewing opportunities for novice observers and opportunities for visitors to 

participate in a wider range of self-guided recreation and education activities. Areas may 

be redesigned or consolidated to allow for greater diversity of targeted activities, and 

more miles of loop trails might be created. Remote recreational opportunities would be 

provided in the Core Areas. Visitation is expected to slightly increase, and recreational 

use would be dispersed. Natural resources in heavy use areas would be hardened to 

withstand projected impacts and policies limit use well below sustainable levels. The 

forest would be managed to maintain a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage 

from insects and diseases, invasive species, and fires. Vegetation management to achieve 

a healthy, primarily oak-hickory forest type and woodlands might be visible to visitors at 

LBL. Scenic views and vistas would be maintained and enhanced. Some fields might be 

managed for conversion to native warm season grasses and forb species. Prescribed fire 

would be used on a larger landscape scale than has been used recently, to create suitable 

critical habitat for species of viability concern and associated communities. 

Alternative Z

This alternative reflects the philosophy that, over time, less-managed, undeveloped and 

primitive areas would become very rare, and hence, more socially significant, particularly 

in this part of the country. In time, more and more people would be drawn to visit this 

“green” oasis. A local citizen’s group provided many key parts of this alternative. Land 

allocations favor those prescriptions that support dispersed opportunities and less active 

management. 

The focus would be to decrease the highly developed recreation opportunities across 

LBL, as well as decrease active forest and vegetation management practices. Staff-led, 

facility-based environmental education activities would likewise be de-emphasized. No 

new developed areas would be permitted under this alternative, and few, if any, facilities 

or areas would be reopened. Existing facilities, services and amenities would be 

evaluated for potential decommissioning. Services such as rentals and outposts might be 

scaled back at developed campgrounds. This option would place forest-wide emphasis 

on non-facility based environmental education opportunities and activities supported by 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 18 of 23

the existing facilities and programs. An increase in the number of acres allocated to semiprimitive, non-motorized experiences is envisioned. 

Vegetation management would be limited to those activities necessary to maintain road 

and utility rights-of-way, for the safety of visitors and staff, and for maintenance and 

access of developed facilities, roads, and trails. The forested and open lands of LBL 

would be allowed to develop, through natural progression, through the various growth 

stages with almost no management methods applied to these areas. Management 

activities that would be allowed would be restricted to maintenance of existing recreation, 

environmental education, and administrative areas that remain open. 

Fees would be reduced or eliminated under this alternative commensurate with the 

decrease in both developed recreation and environmental education opportunities and 

facilities. The feasibility of reducing or eliminating fees and resulting operational 

changes would be dictated by the ability of the Forest Service to maintain and operate 

these facilities to provide a valued experience in a safe, sustainable manner. 

Desired Condition: Management activities would be focused on providing more 

successful nature-viewing opportunities for novice observers with a focus on 

environmental education based much more on personal discovery and less on facilitybased guided interpretation. Visitors to LBL would observe less noticeable active 

management by the Forest Service. More remote recreational opportunities would be the 

primary form of recreation, with fewer highly developed opportunities available. Quality 

“wilderness-type” experiences such as solitude and primitiveness would be provided. 

Many of the existing open lands would revert to forest, primarily in areas that are 

contiguous with large forest blocks. Forest cover types would continue to age toward old 

growth condition. Vegetative management and timber removal would be minimal and 

limited to needed activities for significant forest health and scenery management 

objectives. Other than critical habitats needed for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or 

Sensitive (PETS) species, wildlife habitat and associated communities would begin to 

adjust to that which is favored by the resulting ecosystems. Prescribed fire would be used 

to create conditions that mimic natural processes primarily in open lands and recreation 

areas but very little in forested landscapes. 

V. Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities 

I have considered the statutes governing management of LBL, and I believe that this 

decision represents the best possible approach to both harmonizing and reconciling the 

current statutory duties of the Forest Service. 

Land Between the Lakes Protection Act of 1998 

The LBL Protection Act (sec. 521) requires preparation of a land and resource 

management plan for the Recreation Area in conformity with the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 and other applicable law. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 19 of 23

Clean Air Standards 

As discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Physical Resources, Air Resources, all lands 

managed by LBL are currently in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. Compliance with air quality statutes is directed by law and in the LRMP, 

Parts 2 and 3. 

Clean Water Act 

The LRMP contains direction to ensure all projects comply with the requirements of the 

Clean Water Act. A watershed evaluation was completed to assess conditions and 

estimate the effects of management activities at LBL. The results of this assessment led 

to direction that is found in the LRMP, Parts 2 and 3. Analysis of sediment yields and 

cumulative effects for water quality and associated beneficial uses are discussed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Physical Environment, Water Resources. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, LRMPs are not undertakings under the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the Act is not required at the 

LRMP level though contact with SHPO was made. As discussed in the Social/Economic 

Environment, Cultural Resource section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS, activities in the LRMP 

will be in compliance with the Act. Conformance with the Act and other direction is 

provided in Parts 2 and 3 of the LRMP. Additional direction is provided in FSM 2360. 

Endangered Species Act 

This decision is made with the benefit of extensive consultation with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service on the LRMP and FEIS. The USFWS was a partner in completing 

species viability assessments and helping develop wildlife habitat objectives. They were 

provided advanced copies of the LRMP, FEIS, and the Biological Assessment (BA). 

Their recommendations were included in the final plan. The BA assessed effects to 

federally designated Proposed, Threatened or Endangered Species that occur or could 

occur at LBL. The USFWS concurred with the Forest Service's determination of effects 

in the BA that implementation of Alternative Y for the Area Plan is “not likely to 

adversely affect” federally-listed endangered or threatened species or their habitats. 

Further coordination with USFWS will be part of site-specific evaluations for projectlevel decisions. 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

There are no acres within the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area where 

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule applies. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 20 of 23

Other Forest Service Decisions with Management Direction 

There are no other area-wide Forest Service Records of Decision for LBL that have any 

impact on this Area Plan. 

VI. Implementation 

The direction in this Area Plan will become effective 30 days after the publication of the 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal 

Register. 

1. Consistency 

Under NFMA, “permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy” of 

National Forest System lands are required to be “consistent” with the current Land and 

Resource Management Plan [16 U.S.C. 1604(i)]. In the Area Plan context, NFMA 

specifically qualifies the requirement in three ways: 1) these documents must be revised 

only “when necessary”, 2) these documents must be revised “as soon as practicable”, and 3) 

any revisions are “subject to valid existing rights.” 

In developing this LRMP, implementing pre-existing decisions and the associated effects of 

that implementation were considered part of the baseline against which the alternatives were 

evaluated. Because these earlier decisions were considered in our effects analysis, their 

implementation is not in conflict with the LRMP. 

Exercising my discretion under NFMA, I have determined that it is not “necessary” to apply 

the Area Plan’s standards retroactively, and I find that NFMA does not require revision of 

pre-existing use and occupancy authorizations. As soon as practicable after approval of the 

LRMP, the Area Supervisor shall ensure that, subject to valid existing rights, all outstanding 

and future permits, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other instruments for occupancy 

and use of affected lands are consistent with the LRMP. On a case-by-case basis, the Area 

Supervisor shall exercise his/her sound discretion in determining when such consistency is 

practicable. 

“Use and occupancy” agreements include contracts for timber harvesting. Most timber sale 

decisions are implemented through a three-year contract. While a timber sale contract is a 

valid existing right, the terms of the contract allow modification. Therefore, modification 

of a timber contract under its terms would not violate the “valid existing right” provision. 

Nevertheless, I have decided not to modify any existing timber contracts solely due to the 

LRMP. As stated earlier, these contracts were considered part of the baseline against which 

the alternatives evaluated. The decision will be left to the Area Supervisor to determine 

whether to modify any decisions authorizing timber sales not currently under contract. 

Other classes of “use and occupancy” agreements will be reviewed to determine whether 

or when the Area Supervisor should exercise discretion to bring them into compliance with 

the LRMP. 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 21 of 23

2. Site-Specific Analysis 

The Area Supervisor will accomplish many management activities to implement the LRMP. 

These activities are site-specific and may require analysis and disclosure of effects under 

NEPA prior to project implementation. 

Forest plans are permissive in that they allow, but do not mandate, the occurrence of certain 

activities. Site-specific analysis of proposed activities will determine what can be 

accomplished. The outputs specified in the LRMP are estimates and projections based on 

available information, inventory data, and assumptions. 

All activities, many of which are interdependent, may be affected by annual budgets. 

However, the goals, objectives, standards, management prescriptions, and monitoring 

questions described in the LRMP may not change unless the LRMP is amended. 

3. Amendment and Revision 

The LRMP will be amended or revised to adjust to changing circumstances. For example, 

the management goals, objectives, and standards stated for the Land Between The Lakes 

National Recreation Area in the Area Plan may, in the near future, be in need of updating or 

amending as a result of later assessments or analyses. The amendment process gives us the 

flexibility to adapt the decisions made today to the realities of tomorrow. We will provide 

opportunities for the public to be involved in future changes to the LRMP. 

The LRMP is a dynamic instrument that can be changed with appropriate public 

involvement and analysis. Through the life of the LRMP, amendments may be needed to 

incorporate new information, new policy and direction, or changing values and resource 

conditions. Amendments will keep the LRMP current, relevant, and responsive to agency 

and public concerns. The LRMP also can be amended for specific projects if during project 

design it is determined that the best method of meeting goals and objectives conflicts with 

existing plan direction. 

Amendments may be significant or non-significant. The Area Supervisor may implement 

non-significant amendments to the LRMP after appropriate public involvement and 

environmental analysis. The Regional Forester approves significant amendments. 

4. Monitoring and Evaluation 

The monitoring and evaluation program is the quality-control system for a LRMP. This 

program is described in Part 2, “Monitoring and Evaluation,” of the LRMP and in the 

Appendix. Monitoring and evaluation is emphasized in this Area Plan, and will provide us 

with information on the progress that we are making toward the area-wide goals and 

objectives. This information will be evaluated and used to update inventory data, to 

improve current and future mitigation measures, and to assess the need for amending or 

revising the LRMP. Evaluation of monitoring results is directly linked to the decision 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

Record of Decision Page 22 of 23

maker’s ability to respond to changing conditions, emerging trends, public concerns, and 

new information and technology. No single monitoring item or parameter automatically 

triggers a change in LRMP direction. An interdisciplinary approach is used to evaluate 

information and decide what changes are needed. 

Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to LRMP goals, desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, and specific regulatory requirements. Not every goal, 

objective, and standard can be monitored. Relevancy to issues, compliance with legal and 

agency policy, scientific credibility, administrative feasibility, long- and short-term budget 

considerations, and impact on workforce all influence monitoring priorities. 

Each monitoring question has one or more identified monitoring measures to aid in 

answering the question. These items are used develop specific details, priorities, and 

budgeting that will be needed to answer the monitoring questions. The measures, methods 

of collection, and frequency are not part of my decision, and changes to these items will not 

require an amendment to the Area Plan. 

Public participation is vital as we monitor our progress. We will work with partners and 

cooperators in developing and carrying out monitoring activities. Activities, findings, and 

results will be evaluated, and reports will be available for the public at least annually. The 

public may review the results and recommend changes based on monitoring findings. 

VII. Appeal Information 

This decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 217. A written appeal 

of this decision must be filed in duplicate within 90 days of the date of the published legal 

notice. Appeals must be filed with: 

USDA Forest Service 

Attn: NFS-EMC Staff (Barbara Timberlake) 

Stop Code 1104 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-1104 

Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CRF 217.9 and include at a minimum: 

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 

part 217; 

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; 

• Identification of the decision to which the appeal is being made; 

• Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and 

subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer; 

• Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which appeal is made; 

• The reasons for appeal, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy and, if 

applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy; 

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 

Requests to stay implementation of the LRMP will not be granted [36 CFR 217.10(a)]. 

Final decisions on proposed projects will be made on a site-specific basis using 
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area

appropriate analysis and documentation and in compliance with NEP A. Project decisions

may be subject to appeal at that time.

For questions concerning the appeal process, contact:

USDA Forest Service

Attention: Ecosystem Management Staff (Steve Segovia, 202"205-1066)

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, D.C. 20090-6090

For questions concerning the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area LRMP,

contact:

William P. Lisowsky

Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area

100 Van Morgan Drive

Golden Pond, KY 42211

Reviewers are encouraged to contact he Area Supervisor before submitting appeals to

determine if misunderstandings or concerns can be clarified or resolved.

VIII. Approval

I am pleased to announce my decision and bring this phase of forest planning to

completion. This Area Plan has been built upon a strong foundation of citizen

collaboration and the best available science.

As we move forward we will carefully monitor our activities, the condition of the land,

the goods and services produced, and the effectiveness of the resource protection

measures included in this Area Plan. I anticipate implementation of the Area Plan will be

conducted in the same spirit of partnership that has characterized this process. Working

meet the challenges, realize the opportunities, and achieve the goals and

of the Land Between The Lakes Land and Resource Management Plan.

iioBEiT~~

Regional Forester

Southern Region

USDA Forest Service

~~-- 

-

j)BS

Date

Record of Decision