Appendices 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for 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-119B Vol. 2 December 2004 
 

 

Appendices 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

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, Georgia 30309 

ABSTRACT

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 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 Resource Management Plan 

(NRMP). It discloses and explains the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts of the four alternatives developed during the revision of the 1994 Plan into a Forest 

Service Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), or Area Plan, for Land Between 

The Lakes (LBL). The four alternatives call for varying degrees of change, and are titled 

alternative W, X, Y, and Z. A “no action” alternative is included (Alternative W), which 

would continue the management in a manner consistent with TVA’s 1994 Plan. The 

alternatives provide different mixes of goods and services through various goals, objectives, 

land allocation prescriptions, and program standards. The Forest Service has chosen 

Alternative Y as the Selected Alternative, and developed this alternative into the Area Plan. 

For Information: 

William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

100 Van Morgan Drive 

Golden Pond, KY 42211 

www.lbl.org (click on planning) 

Email: FocusLBL@fs.fed.us 

The United States 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 Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

Appendix A ...........................................................................................................9 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................................................9 

A.1 Summary of Public Involvement.............................................................9 

Introduction ................................................................................................9 

Notice of Intent...........................................................................................9 

Initial Scoping Efforts .................................................................................9 

Issue Development (including content analysis) ......................................10 

Alternative Development ..........................................................................11 

Alternative Building Blocks.......................................................................12 

Alternatives and Building Blocks Not Carried Forward.............................16 

Draft Documents Comment Period ..........................................................18 

Objective ..................................................................................................18 

Draft Document Distribution .....................................................................19 

Draft Documents Information Presentations.............................................20 

Official Briefings....................................................................................20 

Scheduled Public Information Sessions ...............................................20 

Group Invitations ..................................................................................20 

User Group Meetings............................................................................20 

Media Coverage ...................................................................................22 

Additional Outreach Methods ...............................................................24 

Summary..................................................................................................25 

A.2 Response to Public Comments ............................................................26 

Introduction ..............................................................................................26 

Content Analysis Process ........................................................................26 

Appendix Overview ..................................................................................27 

General Overview of Public Comments ...................................................27 

Overview of Comments on specific Topics...............................................28 

Process, Planning, Policies and Laws ..................................................28 

Alternatives...........................................................................................28 

Natural Resource Management............................................................29 

Transportation ......................................................................................30 

Recreation and Environmental Education.............................................30 

Lands and Special Designations ..........................................................31 

Summary..................................................................................................31 

Appendix B .........................................................................................................33 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS.............................................33 

B.1A Introduction – The Analysis Process and Goals.................................33 

B.1B Framework of the Planning Process ...................................................34 

The 10-Step Planning Process.................................................................34 

B.2 Inventory Data and Information Collection.............................................37 

Database Development............................................................................37 

GIS Data Layers.......................................................................................37 

Methodology for Determining Land Cover and Producing Alternatives ....37 

B.3 Analysis of the Management Situation ..................................................38 
Land Between The Lakes Table of Contents 

B.4 Recreation and Environmental Education ............................................40 

B.5 Fire Management .................................................................................47 

Fire Regime I............................................................................................47 

B.6 Timber ..................................................................................................48 

Base Sale Schedule for Five Decades.....................................................48 

Departure from Non-declining Even Flow ................................................48 

Long Term Sustained Yield (LTSY)..........................................................49 

Suitability Analysis ...................................................................................49 

B.7 Benchmark Analysis.............................................................................56 

Minimum Level.........................................................................................56 

Maximum Resource Production ...............................................................57 

Maximum Present Net Value (with Assigned Values) ..............................57 

Current Level of Management..................................................................58 

B.8 Air Quality..............................................................................................59 

Area and Scope .......................................................................................59 

Rationale for two separate assessment areas .........................................60 

Structure of the Analysis ..........................................................................61 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................61 

Background and Statistics of the Analysis Area.......................................65 

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis ...................................................66 

Pollutants Considered ..............................................................................67 

Primary Pollutants Considered.................................................................68 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ................................................................................68 

Nitrogen Oxides .......................................................................................70 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) .......................................................................72 

State..................................................................................................75 

County...............................................................................................75 

Monitor..............................................................................................75 

Secondary Pollutants Considered............................................................76 

Acid deposition - sulfate and nitrate deposition........................................76 

Ozone ......................................................................................................82 

Potential Ozone Non-Attainment Areas ...................................................82 

Ozone Effects to Forest Vegetation .........................................................84 

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and Regional Haze..........................84 

Mercury Pollution .....................................................................................86 

Weather Trends, Predominant Wind Directions .......................................87 

Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives .......................................................88 

Management Constraints and Regulatory Mandates ...............................88 

References...............................................................................................89 

B.9 Economic and Local Government Impact Analyses ..............................92 

The Models ..............................................................................................92 

Dependency Analysis...............................................................................92 

Diversity Analysis .....................................................................................92 

Forest Contribution and Economic Impact Analysis .................................93 

Data Sources ...........................................................................................93 

Timber......................................................................................................93 
Land Between The Lakes Table of Contents 

Other Recreation and Wildlife/Fish...........................................................94 

Federal Expenditures & Employment.......................................................94 

Output Levels...........................................................................................95 

Present Net Value....................................................................................95 

Financial and Economic Efficiency Analysis.............................................95 

Conversion of Survey Results to Visits and Trips.....................................95 

B.10 Methods used to Compute Economic Impacts of LBL Rec/EE 

Alternatives..................................................................................................97 

B.11 Background Information for Determining Riparian Corridor Widths..110 

Introduction ............................................................................................110 

Definitions ..............................................................................................110 

Riparian Area Functions.........................................................................111 

Factors Considered in Sequence when Setting Widths .........................111 

Recommended Corridor Widths.............................................................112 

Ephemeral Streams ...............................................................................113 

Allowed Activities within Riparian Corridors ...........................................113 

Activities To be Avoided within Riparian Corridor Zones........................114 

Current Conditions of LBL Streams........................................................114 

References:............................................................................................116 

B.12 Sediment Yields and Cumulative Effects for Water Quality and 

Associated Beneficial Uses........................................................................118 

Introduction ............................................................................................118 

Cumulative Effects .................................................................................118 

Bounding the Effects Analysis................................................................119 

Modeling Sediment Yield....................................................................119 

Data Interpretation..............................................................................121 

Watershed Condition Rank (WCR).....................................................121 

Assumptions, Uncertainties and Limitations .......................................122 

Data Sources and Manipulation..........................................................125 

Summary................................................................................................128 

Road Construction Coefficient................................................................129 

Current Road Sediments ....................................................................130 

Sediment Delivery ..............................................................................130 

Coefficients.........................................................................................131 

Alternatives ............................................................................................133 

Tx Alternatives....................................................................................135 

B.13 Determining Sediment Coefficients for Roads, ATV Trails, and 

Firelines .....................................................................................................136 

Introduction ............................................................................................136 

Process ..................................................................................................136 

Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Limitations..........................................138 

Survey Results .......................................................................................138 

Fish Community/Sediment Profile..........................................................138 

Watershed Delineations Maps - Current Condition.............................140 

Alternative Z .......................................................................................141 

Alternatives W, X and Y......................................................................142 
Land Between The Lakes Table of Contents 

Watershed Identifiers..........................................................................143 

B.14 Demographic Changes and Economy Trends..................................144 

I. Demographic Changes.......................................................................144 

II. Economic Trends ..............................................................................149 

III. Summary of Demographic and Economic Changes..........................155 

Appendix C .......................................................................................................175 

INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL ROADLESS AREAS.....................................175 

Introduction................................................................................................175 

The Devils Backbone Central Area............................................................176 

Applying the Roadless Inventory Criteria (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 7, Sec. 7.11b)

...................................................................................................................177 

Findings and Recommendations ...............................................................181 

Appendix D .......................................................................................................183 

DRAFT PRESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................183 

1. Natural Resources Stewardship ...........................................................183 

1.A General Forested Areas..................................................................184 

1.B. Core Areas ......................................................................................188 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z with exceptions below................................188 

Exceptions under Alternative W..........................................................189 

Exceptions under Alternative X...........................................................189 

Exceptions under Alternative Y...........................................................189 

Exceptions under Alternative Z...........................................................189 

1.C Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration Area ...........................190 

1.D Managed Wetlands..........................................................................191 

1.E Wildlife Refuges and No Hunting Areas............................................192 

2. Administrative Areas.............................................................................194 

2.A Utility Corridors ...............................................................................194 

2.B Infrastructure, Administrative, Maintenance and Closed Facilities..195 

2.C Designated Communications/Electronics Sites ..............................196 

3. Recreation and Environmental Education Areas ..................................197 

3.A. Developed Recreation Areas.........................................................197 

3.A.1. Developed Recreation – Elk & Bison Prairie and South Bison 

Range .................................................................................................201 

3.B. Turkey Bay.....................................................................................202 

3.C Environmental Education Facilities.................................................205 

3.D. Nature Watch Demonstration Area................................................207 

3.E Environmental Education Area .......................................................210 

Appendix E .......................................................................................................213 

SPECIES VIABILITY.....................................................................................213 

Site Type Discussion .................................................................................213 

I. Definitions ...........................................................................................213 

II. DEIS Site Type Map vs. Revised DEIS (FEIS) Site Type Map...........214 

III. Assumptions and Considerations......................................................215 

Appendix F........................................................................................................233 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES .......................................................233 

Management Indicator Species Selection..................................................233 
Land Between The Lakes Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................233 

The Selection Process ...........................................................................234 

1. Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................................236 

2. Species with Special Habitat Needs ..............................................238 

3. Species That are Hunted, Trapped, and Fished............................240 

4. Non-game Species of Special Interest...........................................242 

5. Species That Indicate Effects to Major Biological Communities ....242 

Appendix G .......................................................................................................247 

Background Document..................................................................................247 

Planning Background Document ...............................................................247 

Addendum 1 ..............................................................................................263 

Addendum 2 ..............................................................................................265 

Addendum 3 ..............................................................................................267 

Addendum 4 ..............................................................................................268 

Appendix H .......................................................................................................271 

1994 Natural Resources Management Plan..................................................271 

Appendix I.........................................................................................................273 

MAPS ............................................................................................................273 

Alternative W – North.................................................................................273 

Alternative W – South ................................................................................273 

Alternative X – North..................................................................................273 

Alternative X – South.................................................................................273 

Alternative Y – North..................................................................................273 

Alternative Y – South.................................................................................273 

Alternative Z – North..................................................................................273 

Alternative Z – South .................................................................................273 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ..................................................273 

Watersheds................................................................................................273 

Cover Type – North ...................................................................................273 

Cover Type – South...................................................................................273 

Site Type – North.......................................................................................273 

Site Type – South ......................................................................................273 

Structure – North .......................................................................................273 

Structure – South.......................................................................................273 

Legal Roads – North..................................................................................273 

Legal Roads – South .................................................................................273 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 9 of 273 

Appendix A 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

A.1 Summary of Public Involvement 

Introduction 

From the onset of developing the planning timeline for this Area Plan revision, the LBL 

Leadership Team made the determination to encourage and include the public at every 

step of the way. Throughout the entire Area Plan process, every effort was made to 

promote and publicize ways in which the public could stay informed and provide their 

input. The Forest Service knows and understands that LBL holds a special place in the 

hearts of many visitors, local residents and former residents of these unique lands. The 

success of the implementation of this Final Plan will affect all these publics in different 

ways. As such, the public’s input is crucial in determining the final strategic course the 

management of LBL must take. 

The success of the public involvement objectives is evident in the integration of the best 

available science, combined with the meaningful opinions, ideas, and comments from the 

public. 

Notice of Intent 

On June 4, 2003, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for revision of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) 1994 Natural Resource 

Management Plan (NRMP) into an Area Plan for LBL was published in the Federal 

Register. The Forest Service also released a Planning Background Document (PBD) 

which described the existing conditions of LBL, and asked for public comment on the 

Forest Service’s assessments of the needs for change in the existing management 

direction. 

Initial Scoping Efforts 

Subsequent to the NOI, a series of five public scoping sessions were conducted in 

“gateway” communities surrounding LBL to solicit and review comments and concerns 

from the public. Special small group discussions were conducted at each session to 

develop better understanding of the participants’ comments and to allow for dialogue 

among the public. Written comments (mail and electronic submissions) and telephone 

input were received during the 45-day period ending July 21, 2003. 

Subsequent to this required scoping period, the LBL staff developed and conducted two 

focused small group discussion sessions to help shape the alternatives. Each session 

focused specifically on the positive aspects, values, and desire of the two issues which 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 10 of 273 

received the vast majority of comments during scoping - Recreation and Environmental 

Education, and Vegetation Management. 

Table A-1 outlines the dates, locations, participant numbers, and types of sessions 

conducted as part of formal and informal scoping. Copies of the public notices, which 

were distributed in support of the scoping process area, as well as summaries of all public 

scoping sessions are contained in the Project Record. 

Table A-1 - Public Involvement Sessions 

Date & Time Location Participants* Type of Session 

June 28, 2003 

1 to 5 p.m. 

Lakeland Jamboree 

Cadiz, Kentucky 

38 Open, small group 

and “drop-in” 

June 30, 2003 

6:30 to 9:30 p.m. 

Weaks Community Center 

Murray, Kentucky 

26 Open, small group 

and “drop-in” 

July 1, 2003 

6:30 to 9:30 p.m. 

USDA County Extension Offices 

Benton, Kentucky 

25 Open, small group 

and “drop-in” 

July 10, 2003 

6:30 to 9:30 p.m. 

Dover Elementary School 

Dover, Tennessee 

75 Open, small group 

and “drop-in” 

July 12, 2003 

1 to 5 p.m. 

Lee S. Jones Community Building 

Eddyville, Kentucky 

25 Open, small group 

and “drop-in” 

August 21, 2003 

7 to 9 p.m. 

Golden Pond Administrative 

Building (Forest Service offices) 

Golden Pond, Kentucky 

27 Appreciative Inquiry 

focus-group process 

August 23, 2003 

9-11 a.m. 

Brandon Spring Group Center 

Dover, Tennessee (FS facility) 

31 Appreciative Inquiry 

focus-group process 

* Some attendance numbers are approximations based upon written comments received and the 

numbers of participants in small groups. The numbers for the two Appreciative Inquiry sessions 

are exact counts. 

Issue Development (including content analysis) 

In developing the revised Area Plan, the Interdisciplinary Planning Team had to consider 

the ‘need for change’ to the 1994 Plan as outlined in the NOI. The Planning Team 

reviewed information and analysis relevant to the need for change from many different 

sources, including the original mission and purposes for LBL as outlined in the Protection 

Act: 

• Managing the resources for optimum yield of outdoor Rec/EE; 

• Demonstrating innovative programs and cost-effective management of LBL; 

• Stimulating development of surrounding region and extending the beneficial 

results. 

After review and analysis of input received during the scoping period, the issues 

identified in the NOI remained the primary issues. During scoping, several key projectlevel issues were identified through the comments received. While these issues are valid 

and important to both LBL and the surrounding communities, they will be better 

addressed within a project plan, and not an overarching Area Plan. Consideration will be 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 11 of 273 

given, however, to how the guidelines and direction established in the Area Plan will 

support, facilitate, or address these future project-level decisions. 

Responses related to the Planning Background Document validated that the three key 

issues listed below were, in fact, the most important ones to resolve at this time, and that 

there exists a lesser need to change others. They are supported by both the comments 

received during the scoping and previous management direction for LBL. These three 

issues are: 

1. Recreation and Environmental Education: How will LBL best manage 

resources for the optimum yield of outdoor Rec/EE? 

2. Vegetation Management: How will the vegetation on LBL be managed and 

what desired conditions would best provide the optimum sustainable yield of 

resource outcomes and contribute to regional economies? 

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? 

Alternative Development 

In contrast to the methods other Forest units have used in alternative development, the 

LBL Planning Team made the decision to develop individual management strategies to 

address each issue rather than developing management themes and then fitting potential 

management options for each issue within those themes. Each of the issues was analyzed 

as a single topic, rather than being analyzed together under predetermined themes. The 

end result gave the Planning Team a set of management ‘building blocks’ specific to each 

of the issues, which could then be used in constructing the alternatives. This approach 

focused the planning process on dealing strictly with the identified ‘need for change’ 

aspect issues. 

Three “building blocks” from each issue were then combined into alternatives and 

identified by themes. In some cases, the blocks did not fit with each other in terms of 

principle or direction, and could not be combined to form a reasonable alternative. 

Combinations that fell outside the law, were not in keeping with the purpose of LBL, or 

were not validated by the public, were dropped from further consideration. Other 

obvious combinations of blocks emerged, which helped the team develop the four 

alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. Any significant cumulative effects would be 

determined on the combination of blocks. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 12 of 273 

Alternative Building Blocks 

Based upon the final issues, public comments and concerns, and desired conditions, the 

following alternative “Building Blocks” have been developed to address the issues 

involved in revising the Area Plan for LBL: 

Issue #1 - Recreation and Environmental Education 

Rec/EE Building Block A: 

Dispersed Environmental Education Focus; Reduced Emphasis on Developed 

Recreation Amenities and Services 

The focus of this block is to create an environmental education (EE) platform that places 

emphasis on non-facility-based opportunities. This option also provides for a decrease in 

the levels and types of services and amenities offered or provided at developed 

recreational facilities. 

Non-facility-based opportunities would be the driving element of EE, supported by the 

established EE facilities. Environmental education facilities would be evaluated, and 

improved if necessary, to reflect advancements in educational and interpretive methods, 

and environmental sciences. No new highly-developed facilities would be added, and no 

net increase in operational EE facilities would occur in this option. As an example, if 

Youth Station were reopened, another EE facility would be closed. EE activities and 

efforts would focus on the goal of delivering appropriate and targeted EE messages and 

information to every LBL visitor. New EE sites, areas, trails, and programs would be 

developed based upon user demands and to raise environmental awareness 

Highly developed recreational areas and facilities such as Hillman Ferry, Piney and 

Wranglers campgrounds, and Turkey Bay Off-Highway Vehicle area, would be reduced 

in scope, in terms of the levels and types of the amenities offered. The extent of the 

services provided at all developed facilities would be scaled back as a means of creating a 

less developed recreational environment. Little change would be expected at lake access, 

day use, and other lesser-developed recreation areas. 

The overall fee structure for all recreation and EE facilities and opportunities would be 

focused on significant reductions based upon the extent and level of services or amenities 

provided at all facilities or areas. This amounts to a trade-off between a reduction in fees 

for a reduction in services and amenities, and a commensurate reduction in recreation 

opportunities. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 13 of 273 

Rec/EE Building Block B:

Increase in Facilities and Scope of Recreation and Environmental Education 

The focus of this block would be to provide increased Rec/EE opportunities and 

programs through development of new facilities and areas while remaining consistent 

with the requirements of the Protection Act. These opportunities would be similar to 

existing opportunities currently offered at LBL, such as developed campgrounds, lake 

access areas, trails, environmental education facilities, etc. Highly developed commercial 

facilities such as marinas, condominiums, golf courses, or similar sites that would be in 

direct competition with regional businesses and inconsistent with the mission of LBL, 

would not be considered. 

Current recreational facilities, including campgrounds, lake access areas and boat ramps, 

trails, and developed day-use areas, would be improved to provide more of the facilities 

and amenities that users of those areas have requested. Potential new recreational 

facilities and areas would be evaluated for development and expansion as future 

recreational demands indicate, although no new level 5 campgrounds or outposts would 

be considered.. 

The facilities for EE would be evaluated for expansion within their current areas. New 

areas would be identified for development or reopening based upon several factors, 

including: established objectives to provide environmental messages, information and 

education to visitors; new technologies in environmental sciences; advancements in 

educational delivery methods; and visitor demands. EE efforts would be expanded 

through development of sites, trails, areas, and programs to meet the growing demand for 

these types of experiences. 

Fee structure for expanded and new facilities or services would be evaluated in 

conjunction with operational costs. Preference would be given to reducing the EE fee 

structure, in combination with appropriate and acceptable increases in the “specialized 

use” recreation fee structure. Any fee re-structuring would keep services on LBL at a 

non-competitive level with surrounding communities, and considerate of disadvantaged 

or underprivileged sections of the public. 

Rec/EE Building Block C: 

Increase in Dispersed Environmental Education and Recreation Opportunities with 

Trade-offs 

This building block focuses on providing for an increase in dispersion of environmental 

education and recreational opportunities. Management direction under this block would 

support potential significant adjustments in the amenities and services now offered at 

existing developed facilities. This would also allow for possible realignment of existing 

developed areas to better meet public demand for dispersed opportunities, and to offset 

operational costs. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 14 of 273 

Non-facility-based EE activities and opportunities would be given an increased priority, 

compared to current levels, through an area-wide focus that is more obvious within 

prescriptions and the resulting management of those areas. Some prescriptions would 

have a primary emphasis to provide non-facility-based EE activities and incorporate the 

other resource management activities of the area as components of the program. An 

example might be nature-viewing or wildlife management areas that could use, as much 

as possible, existing programs (e.g. Nature Watch) that integrate recreation, education, 

and conservation components. 

Dispersed recreational opportunities would be expanded to provide more balance in 

overall recreational opportunities. Examples of this expansion could include, but not be 

limited to: swimming beaches, converting a lake access area emphasis from overnight 

camping to day-use recreation, and shoreline fishing areas. 

Highly developed recreation and EE facilities and areas would be evaluated for possible 

improvement, realignment, or reduction in order to meet optimum efficiency in the 

operation of facilities. Improvements made to existing developed facilities would be 

done within current facility boundaries. No net increase in the number of facilities would 

be permitted under this block. Examples of these improvements or realignments would 

be increasing the number of electric camping sites at campgrounds; redesigning EE 

exhibits or facilities to better support educational objectives. 

Fees across LBL for EE and recreation would also be evaluated for realignment or 

reduction in conjunction with the dispersed activities and the quality of the programs and 

exhibits. The quality and value of the programs and exhibits, effects on visitation, 

impacts on underprivileged or disadvantaged persons, and operational costs would be the 

determining factors in establishing a revised fee structure for all recreation and EE 

opportunities. 

Rec/EE Building Block D: 

No Change 

Under this block, the management practices and guidelines from the 1994 Plan and 

current policy would be continued. No new facilities would be added under this block, 

and no significant changes to existing services or amenities would be expected. This 

option would allow for the localized expansion of existing “specialized use” facilities or 

programs based upon visitor increases, user demands and resource capabilities, or to 

accommodate developments in recreational or EE opportunities on a regional or national 

level. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 15 of 273 

Issue #2 - Vegetation Management 

Vegetation Management Building Block A: 

Enhancing Ecological Diversity 

This building block would focus on actively managing our land and water resources to 

support and enhance wildlife and outdoor recreation opportunities across LBL. This will 

include looking at the composition, structure, spatial distribution, and physical 

characteristics of our forested and open land areas to meet our forest health and species 

viability needs. This may be accomplished by reallocating some open land acres to forest 

in selected areas and reclaiming or creating openings in other areas with no net loss of 

early successional habitat; changing the composition and abundance of open land types; 

and implementing prescribed fire on a larger landscape scale than has been done since 

adopting the 1994 Plan. Where conflicts occur that can not be mitigated the enhancement 

of forest health and species viability would remain the priority over other management 

elements. 

Ecological diversity may be enhanced through various methods of active management. 

The historical management of the land resources in LBL and proven techniques will be 

considered in determining the types of treatments. The treatment methods may include, 

but are not limited to: prescribed fire; selected minimal management; forest management 

to increase or decrease forested acres; some conversion of open lands to grasses; mowing 

and grain cropping; and other proven methods of treatments such as the use of herbicides. 

This block would consider that a percentage of open land acres would be gradually 

converted and restored to natural vegetation types that include native warm season 

grasses and forb species. Open lands could be cropped. The treatments determined to 

create and maintain these conditions would support and maintain forest health, species 

viability, water quality, and improved soil productivity and stabilization. 

This block would also consider how forest composition and structure would be 

maintained in oak-hickory forest types. The treatments that would be considered would 

provide for open forest canopy conditions and open lands maintained primarily in natural 

vegetation types for a variety of viewing opportunities. Viewing opportunities for some 

forms of wildlife would be limited due to their ability to hide in tall grasses. 

Vegetation Management Building Block B:

Passive Vegetation Management 

Under this block there would be a limited application of those activities and treatments 

determined necessary to maintain forest health and species viability, to control epidemic 

outbreaks, to provide visitor safety, and to maintain utility and vehicular access rights-ofway. The focus of this building block would be to allow a large percentage of the 

vegetation across LBL to develop unrestricted and unmanaged, as much as possible. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 16 of 273 

The passive management option would promote the reversion of open lands to forest and 

forest cover types aging to old growth beyond the lifespan of this Area Plan. 

Recreational and EE opportunities would be secondary to vegetation management to 

decrease the effects of human intervention and occupation in both developed and 

dispersed areas. 

Vegetation Management Building Block C:

No Change 

Under this block, the management practices and guidelines from the 1994 Plan would be 

continued as they were planned. No significant increase or decrease of timber 

management, or changes to open lands, wetland, and riparian areas would occur. 

Issue #3 - Special Designations 

Special Designations Building Block A: 

Recommendation for Wilderness and Roadless Areas within Core Areas 

The focus of this block is to recommend part of the southern portion of the LBL Core 

Area for Wilderness designation. Part of the evaluation leading to this Wilderness 

recommendation will examine possible road closures or rerouting to accommodate 

management of a roadless area. All other special designations would be managed under 

the current Area Plan guidance. 

Special Designations Building Block B: 

No Change to the 1994 Plan 

Current Core Areas and other special areas, such as Research Natural Areas, would 

maintain total acreages and current management activities. 

Alternatives and Building Blocks Not Carried Forward 

When you consider the total number of blocks developed, the Planning Team could have 

possibly developed a total of 24 different alternative combinations. The majority of the 

building block combinations, however, were quickly discounted based upon major 

inconsistencies or inadequacies produced by the combinations themselves. All 

combinations developed could readily be placed into one of four categories: 

(1) Reasonable, proper and appropriate combinations to consider in addressing the 

Issues; 

(2) Outside the scope of law applicable to the Area Plan revision (including the 

stated purpose of LBL); 

(3) No significant difference between “no change” alternative or another 

combination that better addressed the issues or need for change; 

(4) Combinations obviously impractical or unreasonable to implement or whose 

building blocks were in conflict with other blocks in the same combination. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 17 of 273 

The possible combinations in the latter 3 categories listed above were dropped from 

further consideration. These combinations are listed in Table A-2. 

Table A-2 - Possible building block combinations not carried forward as 

alternatives for consideration 

The letters under the “Possible Combination” column refer to the building block designation 

from the Alternatives Management Summary paper dated November 21, 2003. They are 

summarized in the second column, “Description of Blocks.” 

Possible 

Combination 

Description of Blocks Possible Conflicts Why Disregarded 

A-A-A Increase non-facility-based EE, 

Decrease Rec 

Improve Ecological Diversity 

Recommend Wilderness 

Wilderness designation 

requires passive 

vegetation management. 

Very little public 

comment toward reducing 

rec. 

Does not support Mission to 

optimize Recreation 

A-A-B Increase non-facility-based EE, 

Decrease Rec 

Improve Ecological Diversity 

No Wilderness recommendation 

No significant conflicts Does not support mission to 

optimize recreation 

A-B-B Increase non-facility-based EE, 

Decrease Rec 

Passive Vegetation Management 

No Wilderness recommendation 

No significant conflicts Does not support mission to 

optimize recreation 

A-C-A Increase non-facility-based EE, 

Decrease Rec 

No Change to Veg. 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts Does not support mission to 

optimize recreation 

A-C-B Increase non-facility-based EE, 

Decrease Rec 

No Change to Veg. 

No Wilderness recommendation 

No significant conflicts Does not support mission to 

optimize recreation 

B-A-A Increase facilities for Rec/EE 

Improve Ecological diversity 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts Similar to Alternative X, but 

with recommendation for 

Wilderness 

B-B-A Increase facilities for Rec/EE 

Passive Vegetation Management 

Recommend Wilderness 

Veg. management is 

integral to increased 

Rec/EE opportunities 

Not feasible to increase rec/EE 

opportunities and not have 

commensurate Veg. 

management 

B-B-B Increase facilities for Rec/EE 

Passive Vegetation Management 

Recommend Wilderness 

Veg. management is 

integral to increased 

Rec/EE opportunities 

Not feasible to increase rec/EE 

opportunities and not have 

commensurate Veg. 

management 

B-C-A Increase facilities for Rec/EE 

No Change to Veg. 

Recommend Wilderness 

Veg. management is 

integral to increased 

Rec/EE opportunities 

Not feasible to increase rec/EE 

opportunities and not have 

commensurate Veg. 

management 

B-C-B Increase facilities for Rec/EE 

No change to Veg. 

No Wilderness recommendation 

Veg. management is 

integral to increased 

Rec/EE opportunities 

Not feasible to increase rec/EE 

opportunities and not have 

commensurate Veg. 

management 

C-A-A Increase Dispersed Rec/EE 

Improve Ecological diversity 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts Similar to Alternative W, but 

with a recommendation for 

Wilderness 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 18 of 273 

Table A-2 (Continued)

Possible 

Combination 

Description of Block Possible Conflicts Why Disregarded 

C-B-A Increase Dispersed Rec/EE 

Passive Vegetation 

Management 

Recommend Wilderness 

Increase in Rec/EE would 

require more Veg. mgt 

than is outlined in Veg. 

block B 

Passive Veg. management 

does not support the mission 

of optimized Rec/EE 

C-B-B Increase Dispersed Rec/EE 

Passive Vegetation 

Management 

Recommend Wilderness 

Increase in Rec/EE would 

require more Veg. Mgt 

than is outlined in Veg. 

block B 

Passive Veg. Management 

does not support the mission 

of optimized Rec/EE 

C-C-A Increase Dispersed Rec/EE 

No Change to Veg. 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts No Change to Veg. would not 

facilitate optimized Rec/EE 

equal to description in Rec/EE 

Block C 

C-C-B Increase facilities for Rec/EE 

No change to Veg. 

No Wilderness 

recommendation 

No significant conflicts No Change to Veg. would not 

facilitate optimized Rec/EE 

equal to description in Rec/EE 

Block C 

D-A-A No Change to Rec/EE 

Improve Ecological diversity 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts No Change to Rec does not 

meet Need for Change, Public 

Comments received 

D-A-B No Change to Rec/EE 

Improve Ecological diversity 

No Wilderness 

recommendation 

No significant conflicts No Change to Rec does not 

meet Need for Change, Public 

Comments received 

D-B-A No Change to Rec/EE 

Passive Vegetation 

Management 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts No Change to Rec does not 

meet Need for Change, Public 

Comments received 

D-B-B No Change to Rec/EE 

Passive Vegetation 

Management 

No Wilderness 

recommendation 

No significant conflicts No Change to Rec does not 

meet Need for Change, Public 

Comments received 

D-C-A No Change to Rec/EE 

No Change to Veg. 

Recommend Wilderness 

No significant conflicts No Change to Rec does not 

meet Need for Change, Public 

Comments received 

Draft Documents Comment Period 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Land and Resources 

Management Plan were officially released to the public through a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2004. Beginning in mid-April, 

the US Forest Service held a series of Public Information (P-I) sessions in order to 

provide the public with the most accurate, up-to-date information about the Area Plan 

process, its progress, and the ways in which the public could remain involved and provide 

comments on the draft documents. The Forest Service also posted this information and 

presentation materials to their Internet website. 

Objective 

Throughout the comment period, and integral to the messages in the press releases and 

presentations, the LBL staff strived to provide complete, concise and clear information 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 19 of 273 

about the draft documents, the planning process, and the intent of the comment period, as 

well as explain how the public could best provide meaningful and useful comments on 

the draft documents. While the sessions were not designed to take comments on the spot, 

the LBL staff had comment forms available for anyone who desired to leave their 

comments or information with the staff at any of the in-person presentation opportunities. 

One of the first things that staff told participants at any presentation of the Draft Plan was 

the three-fold objective for the presentation: 

1. Answer general questions the public may have about the composition, design, and 

content of the draft documents; 

2. Provide guidance to the public as to where they could find information relevant to 

their particular areas of interest on LBL; 

3. Explain how to provide meaningful and useful comments on the draft documents 

to the Forest Service Planning Team. 

Another key point in each presentation was the explanation of the strategic focus of this 

new plan format. Unlike other large-scale management plans that the Forest Service or 

other agencies have produced, this format does not address specific decisions that should 

be made at the project or program level. In the presentation, this was likened to a 

seasonal game plan for a major sports team. That season-long plan does not tell the 

coach what play to call in a specific instance of a specific game, but gives overall 

direction against which specific play-by-play decisions can be gauged or determined. 

Draft Document Distribution 

In order to best disseminate the Draft Plan information and copies of the draft documents 

to the public, LBL management undertook an extensive campaign to ascertain how most 

people wanted to receive and review copies of the Draft Plan and DEIS. Prior to the 

printing and distribution of the documents, LBL sent out postcards and emails to 

members of the public on our Focus on the Future mailing list, asking them how they 

wanted to receive this information. We used the results to determine the number of 

printed copies and compact disk (CD) copies to prepare. Table A-3 details this effort. 

Table A-3 – Draft Document Distribution 

Postcards mailed announcing release of the Draft: 985 

Reminder emails sent announcing release of the Draft: 704 

Draft Document copies mailed:

 Executive Summary only (15-page document) 13 

 Complete document (DEIS, Area Plan, Executive Summary) 136 

 CD sets 259 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 20 of 273 

Draft Documents Information Presentations 

During the comment period, LBL staff had several opportunities to present information 

about the draft documents to the public. There were several format types involved in the 

various presentations, but the messages and presentation materials were consistent 

throughout each presentation. The various presentations were given in one of the 

following formats. 

Official Briefings 

As required by the Forest Service, LBL Leadership Team members presented a number 

of required and courtesy briefings to local and national elected officials, as well as to 

officials with various state and federal agencies with interest in LBL’s resources and 

management. The purpose of these briefings was to inform these agencies and officials 

of the contents and objectives of the draft documents, and to explain the Area Plan format 

and philosophy of this draft version. Additionally, LBL management asked that local 

officials would help in generating public interest and involvement in the draft comment 

period and the scheduled public information sessions. 

Scheduled Public Information Sessions 

The Forest Service planned, announced, and conducted four initial P-I sessions in the 

counties surrounding LBL. Each session was conducted using the same drop-in format, 

with a relatively small number of FS staff and resource specialists. All four sessions 

were held in the county high schools for easy access by the public. The setup at each 

session used three adjacent classrooms very close to a main entrance and parking at the 

schools. 

Group Invitations 

During the course of any year, LBL is approached by civic, private and members-only 

groups to give presentation on topics of interest to that particular group or audience. 

During the comment period, these opportunities were used to give presentations about the 

draft documents and the Area Plan process. 

User Group Meetings 

At different times during the year, some of the more-heavily visited recreation facilities 

conduct user group meetings to discuss policies, changes or needs, and overall visitor 

satisfaction with the facilities. During the comment period, these meetings were focused 

toward providing information and allowing for question-and-answer sessions on the draft 

documents as they pertained to these specific sites. Table A-4 outlines the various 

opportunities at which Area Plan presentation were made: 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 21 of 273 

Table A-4 – Draft Plan Presentations 

Date Location Forum Type Attend. Staff Presenter/Facilitator 

3/23/04 USDA Forest Service, LBL; LBLA 

Customer Service Orientation Briefing Approx 40 Barbara Wysock 

3/11/04 USDA Forest Service Washington Office Briefing 7 Bill Lisowsky 

3/8–3/11/04 Western KY/TN and Washington 

Congressional Offices Briefing Approx 20 Bill Lisowsky, Kathryn Harper, 

3/15/04 LBL Employees’ Briefing Briefing 30 Bill Lisowsky, 

Barbara Wysock 

3/25/04 Press Briefing, LBL Administrative Bldg. Briefing 3 media Bill Lisowsky, 

Kathryn Harper 

3/29/04 USDA Forest Service, LBL; LBLA 

Customer Service Orientation Briefing Approx 18 Barbara Wysock 

3/31/04 USDA Forest Service Regional Office Briefing 20 Bill Lisowsky 

4/02/04 LBL Advisory Board Briefing 16 

Barbara Wysock, 

Richard Lomax, 

Adam Morgan, 

Phil Sammon 

4/05/04 TN Wildlife Resources Agency Group 

Invitation 15 Bill Lisowsky 

4/09/04 Murray State University, Class Presentation Group 

Invitation 23 Barbara Wysock 

4/12/04 KY Federal Agency Tourism Council Briefing 10 Bill Lisowsky 

4/13/04 Lyon County (3 presentations) Public Info 

Session 43 Philip Sammon 

4/15/04 Trigg County (1 presentation) Public Info 

Session 9 Philip Sammon 

4/20/04 Marshall County (3 presentations) Public Info 

Session 34 Adam Morgan 

4/20/04 Leadership Murray Alumni Meeting. 

Murray, KY 

Group 

Invitation Approx 25 Richard Lomax 

4/22/04 Stewart County (1 presentation) Public Info 

Session 5 Philip Sammon 

4/24/04 KY Ornithological Society Briefing 45 Bill Lisowsky 

4/28/04 Jackson Purchase (TN) Historical Society Group 

Invitation Approx 50 Barbara Wysock 

5/06/04 Western KY Leadership Association 

Kentucky Dam Village State Park 

Group 

Invitation Approx 20 Barbara Wysock 

5/10/04 LBL Sportsmen’s Club Group 

Invitation Approx 50 Barbara Wysock 

5/11/04 Grand Rivers, KY Town Hall Meeting Group 

Invitation 65 Bill Lisowsky 

5/19/04 Clinton Rotary Club Group 

Invitation Approx 25 John Ruffli (Ex. Dir., LBL Association) 

5/20/04 Murray Rotary Club Group 

Invitation Approx 70 John Ruffli (Ex. Dir., LBL Association) 

5/22/04 Wranglers Campground User Group 

Meeting 105 Randall Mitchell 

5/22/04 Turkey Bay Off-Highway Vehicle Area User Group 

Meeting 14 Matt Edwards 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 22 of 273 

Date Location Forum Type Attend. Staff Presenter/Facilitator 

5/22/04 Piney Campground User Group 

Meeting 14 Kristy Barnes 

5/22/04 Hillman Ferry Campground User Group 

Meeting 7 Crystal Powell 

5/22/04 KY United Partnership for Environmental 

Education 

Group 

Invitation 50 Brian Beisel 

5/27/04 KY and TN State Officials Briefing 20 Bill Lisowsky 

6/11/04 League of Kentucky Sportsmen Group 

Invitation 145 Bill Lisowsky 

6/14/04 Cadiz-Trigg County Tourism Commission Group 

Invitation Approx 15 John Ruffli (Ex. Dir., LBL Association) 

6/23/04 TN Wildlife Resources Agency 

Commission, Nashville, TN Briefing Approx 25 Richard Lomax 

6/28/04 Kentucky Western Waterlands Tourism 

Board, Executive Board Meeting 

Group 

Invitation Approx 20 John Ruffli (Ex. Dir., LBL Association) 

6/30/04 TN Conservation League Briefing Approx 20 Bill Lisowsky

Total Number of Presentations: 38 Total 

Attendance

Approx 

1078 

Media Coverage 

Prior to the publication of the NOA in the Federal Register (March 26, 2004), LBL began 

a concerted public information campaign to promote and announce the dates, times, and 

objectives for the scheduled public information sessions in the gateway communities. 

The Communications Department distributed each of the Area Plan-related press releases 

to some 360 local and regional outlets, which include: newspapers, radio and television 

outlets, tourism commissions and bureaus, chambers of commerce, major hotels and 

resorts in the area, and local and regional association newsletters. 

The LBL staff was approached by several media outlets for interviews about the Draft 

documents, the proposed changes, and the ways in which the public could get involved 

and provide their comments on the draft documents. The resulting media coverage gave 

additional reach and exposure to thousands of readers and listeners in the regional area, 

as outlined in Table A-5. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 23 of 273 

Table A-5 – Media Coverage on the Draft Plan 

Date Publication Name Location Type Staff 

Interviewed 

03/30/04 WKDZ-FM (electronic) Cadiz, KY Live radio Brian Beisel 

04/07/04 Lyon County Herald 

Ledger 

Eddyville, KY News article 

(interview with 

former resident) 

None 

04/10/04 Louisville Courier-Journal 

(print) This article was run 

by the Associated Press 

wire service and picked up 

by several local media 

outlets closer to LBL. 

Louisville, KY News article 

(interview with 

overview of the 

proposed action) 

Bill Lisowsky, 

Barbara Wysock 

04/11/04 Lexington Herald (reprint 

of the AP article) 

Lexington, KY News article Bill Lisowsky, 

Barbara Wysock 

04/12/04 WPSD-TV website Paducah, KY Reprint of evening 

news segment (info 

on sessions, 

overview of 

proposed action) 

None 

04/13/04 Louisville Courier-Journal Louisville, KY Opinion-Editorial 

(staff editor) 

None 

04/13/04 The Paducah Sun Paducah, KY News article (info 

on session, 

overview of 

proposed action) 

None 

04/14/04 The Paducah Sun Paducah, KY News article (wrapup of 04/12/04 

session, with 

attendee 

comments) 

Bill Lisowsky 

04/17/04 Louisville Courier-Journal Louisville, KY Opinion-Editorial 

(article by David 

Nickell) 

None 

04/21/04 WKDZ-FM radio Cadiz, KY Taped interview, 

news story 

Phil Sammon 

04/23/04 Murray Ledger & Times Murray, KY News article (wrapup of previous 

session) 

Kathryn Harper, 

Barbara Wysock 

04/23/04 WPSD-TV Channel 6 Paducah, KY Potential for 

logging as a result 

of the Area Plan 

Judy Hallisey 

04/27/04 Stewart-Houston Times Dover, TN News article (wrapup of previous 

session, general 

plan info, and 

overview of 

proposed action) 

Barbara Wysock, 

Phil Sammon 

04/28/04 The Tribune-Courier Benton, KY News article 

(general info and 

overview of 

proposed action, 

alternatives) 

None 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 24 of 273 

Date Publication Name Location Type Staff 

Interviewed 

04/29/04 The Leaf-Chronicle 

(business section) 

Clarksville, TN News article 

(general info on 

proposed action 

and alternatives 

Brian Beisel, 

Barbara Wysock 

05/01-

05/21/04 

WKMS-FM Murray State 

Radio Station, 

Murray, KY 

Weekly news 

segments, one per 

week (potential for 

change under the 

new Area Plan, 

including logging, 

facilities upgrades 

or development; 

possible expansion 

of facilities) 

Judy Hallisey and 

others 

05/26/04 The Paducah Sun Paducah, KY News article 

(announcement for 

05/29 Brandon 

Spring session, 

recap of proposed 

action) 

None 

Additional Outreach Methods 

The LBL leadership made the early determination to explore and utilize every available 

means to provide and distribute information about the Draft Plan and the entire planning 

process to as many interested members of the public as possible. To support this 

determination, a segment of the LBL website, www.lbl.org, was devoted to the planning 

process. This site is used to post all pertinent information about the Area Plan and the 

process, including much of the background information, summaries, public scoping 

results, and the DEIS and draft Area Plan documents and maps. 

The LBL Leadership Team also decided to make as much use of staff interaction with 

visitors as possible at the major facilities and sites across LBL. The Planning Team and 

Communications Department developed several stand-alone handout pieces for visitors, 

which provided visitors with broader exposure of the Area Plan information to visitors. 

These products included: Draft EIS and Area Plan informational handout; take-home 

comment forms and address information sheet; frequently asked question sheets specific 

to various major facilities (Wranglers and other campgrounds, Turkey Bay Off-Highway 

Vehicle Area); signs posted at four of the major facilities listed in the table below; and 

Planning Team business cards listing team members’ emails and phone numbers for 

people to use for further information. 

Tables A-6 and A-7 outline the cumulative results of the employment of the website and 

the potential on-site visitor contacts. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 25 of 273 

Table A-6 - Major Facilities’ Visitation 

DATE 

RANGE SOURCE LOCATION TOTAL NUMBERS 

March 26 – 

June 30, 

2004 

Actual Visitor counts: Hillman Ferry Campground 71,384 

Piney Campground 62,869 

 Wranglers Campground 38,410 

North Welcome Station 15,048 

 South Welcome Station 15,988 

Golden Pond Visitor Center 46,418 

 Traffic counter Turkey Bay Off-Highway 

Vehicle Area 27,542 

TOTAL 277,659 

Table A-7 - LBL Planning Page Website Statistics* 

DATE 

RANGE SOURCE DEFINITION TOTAL NUMBERS 

March 1 – 

June 30, 

2004 

Number of Hits 

Someone viewing 

information on that page 

only, or downloading 

information from that page. 

117,569 

March 1 – 

June 30, 

2004 

Number of Visits 

Someone following links 

on the planning website to 

other sources of 

information. 

12,110 

* Web trends information, provided by the LBL website Internet Service Provider

Summary 

Overall, LBL staff is pleased with the depth and breadth of exposure, coverage, and 

reaction to our public information efforts in relation to the draft documents. Based upon 

the number of presentations and public involvement that was generated through the 

scheduled sessions, group invitations and considerable media coverage, we believe we 

have served the public interest in providing sufficient information about this draft Area 

Plan and the planning process. We further anticipate receiving a significant number of 

substantive and constructive comments on the Area Plan, the proposed action and our 

scientific and technical data to refine and develop the final Area Plan within the specified 

timeline we established at the outset of this process. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 26 of 273 

A.2 Response to Public Comments 

Introduction 

This appendix contains the summary of the public comments received during the formal 

comment period to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the draft Land 

and Resources Management Plan (LRMP), or Area Plan. This formal period was March 

26, 2004, to June 30, 2004. 

The Forest Service received 285 responses from across the country in the form of letters, 

emails, and faxes. It is important to note that the comments summarized here do not 

necessarily represent overall public sentiment. The public comment process is purely 

voluntarily, so respondents are self-selected. While responses submitted do portray a 

wide range of views, and the ensuing reports attempt to provide fair representation of the 

full spectrum of public opinion, this public involvement process used responses to inform 

the planning process, not to count as votes. The content analysis process did ensure that 

every comment was considered at some point throughout the decision process. 

Content Analysis Process 

Content analysis is a method of eliciting meanings, ideas, suggested actions, and other 

information from written responses. A proven method of content analysis has been 

developed by the Content Analysis Team (CAT), a specialized Forest Service unit, for 

analyzing public comment on proposed federal land and resource management projects 

and proposals. This systematic process is designed to: 

• Provide specific demographic information; 

• A mailing list of respondents; 

• Identify individual comments by topic in each response; 

• Evaluate similar comments from different responses; 

• Summarize like comments as specific concern statements. 

The process also provides a relational database capable of generating various types of 

reports, while linking the original comments to their original letters. 

Responses received were immediately processed and prepared for further content 

analysis. Core planning team members worked together to read each letter and identify 

all relevant comments brought forth in the process, not simply those representing the 

majority of respondents. Each response was reviewed for specific actions that the 

commenter wanted to see the Forest Service take in preparing for the final Area Plan, 

along with any supporting rationale statements about their recommended actions. Each 

of these action statements and supporting rationale statements were numerically coded in 

order to build the database of comments for analysis. Public concern statements were 

then developed from unique actions proposed, with like comments grouped under single 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 27 of 273 

action statements by the numerical codes. Appropriate Forest Service resource specialists 

were then given the task of analyzing and responding to those concerns and comments. 

Appendix Overview 

The appendix begins with a background of the Land and Resource Management Plan and 

provides a brief overview of public comment on the LBL LRMP. The CD included with 

the appendix to this FEIS contains the database used in the content analysis project. The 

database includes all coded comments (and identifies the author of each comment) and 

affiliated public concern statements, as well as the agency’s official response to each 

concern. Those interested may use the database to review the information as they see fit. 

The comments are divided by category as follows: 

• Process, Planning, Policies and Laws, includes comments on general planning 

considerations related to the Area Plan revision. Included in the planning section 

are topics such as the Forest Service’s authority over LBL, public involvement, 

agency organization and funding, and other concerns; 

• Alternatives includes comments regarding the alternatives detailed in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and suggestions that respondents offered 

for new alternatives; 

• Natural Resource Management includes comments concerning a wide range of 

environmental issues, such as air quality, water resources, forestry, wildlife, and 

vegetation management, as well as comments pertaining to the commercial use of 

LBL’s natural resources; 

• Transportation comments focus on transportation infrastructure within LBL, 

mainly on road and trail maintenance, construction and decommissioning; 

• Recreation covers a wide range of topics concerning the recreational issues and 

opportunities and environmental education within LBL; 

• Lands and Special Designations include comments relating to special designations 

in the National Recreation Area. 

As mentioned earlier, each formal public concern statement is based on one or more 

actual comments from respondents. These comments help to provide perspectives and 

rationales regarding the public’s concerns. 

General Overview of Public Comments 

Public comments received represent a wide range of viewpoints. Comments were often 

highly detailed and strongly supported, and include a broad array of perspectives and 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 28 of 273 

values. Respondents were generally concentrated in the region surrounding LBL, though 

some were received from throughout the country. A number of comments received came 

from former residents, or those sharing the views and opinions of former residents. 

These comments generally addressed a number of topics, focusing heavily on logging 

and commercialization-related management concerns at LBL. Many comments focus on 

various other resource management issues, including vegetation management, wildlife 

management and water quality. A large number of comments addressed recreation 

opportunities, particularly hunting and developed recreation. Finally, some respondents 

addressed special designations, particularly with respect to the Core Areas. 

Overview of Comments on specific Topics 

The following paragraphs contain summaries of public comments on specific topics 

regarding the draft Area Plan and DEIS. 

Process, Planning, Policies and Laws 

Comments concerning process, planning, policies and laws were quite varied. A number 

of respondents suggested the Forest Service wasn’t managing LBL as it was originally 

intended, and that this should be remedied through the planning process. Some 

respondents suggested the Forest Service better incorporate multi-use philosophies, and 

habitat and recreational needs of the region and nation, in its planning and management. 

It was also suggested that the Forest Service avoid using economic drivers in selecting a 

management plan. Additionally, some comments requested the Forest Service to do more 

socioeconomic and environmental analysis before implementing any management plan. 

In terms of working with the public, or with outside groups and agencies, comments 

received tended to suggest the Forest Service improve its outreach. Some suggested the 

public information sessions and other forms of outreach were poorly organized, 

confusing and inconvenient to some interested parties, while others suggested the Forest 

Service must better incorporate the views and comments of the public. A number of 

respondents suggested that more cooperation between the Forest Service and local 

communities, and state and federal agencies, was needed. 

Staff and budget issues also received mention. A number of respondents recommended 

that the Forest Service seek to use more volunteers to staff facilities within LBL. Others 

suggested the Forest Service improve its budget management. 

Alternatives 

Some respondents requested improvements on the DEIS, suggesting the DEIS was 

confusing and didn’t adequately demonstrate differences between the alternatives. A 

handful of comments recommended additions to the plan, particularly requesting 

additional standards and objectives concerning water quality. A number of respondents 

were dissatisfied with the Forest Service’s initial choice of two preferred alternatives for 

the Rec/EE issue, claiming this caused confusion for the public and didn’t allow for 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 29 of 273 

adequate public involvement because the Forest Service’s management intentions were 

too vague. 

Comments varied in support of proposed alternatives, with the majority of comments 

received requesting the Forest Service choose Alternative Y. Most comments suggested 

one alternative over others; other comments suggested combinations of Alternatives W & 

Z, X & Y, and Y & Z. All who supported one particular alternative or combination, 

supported their choice by suggesting the chosen alternative best provided for ecosystem 

management, recreation, and net public benefits to the surrounding communities. 

Additionally, Alternatives W and Z were promoted as being most representative of the 

original mission of LBL and most sensitive to former residents. Alternatives W and Y 

were supported by some respondents, and Alternative Z rejected by some because of the 

desire in either preference to avoid limitations in off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use in the 

Turkey Bay OHV area. 

Natural Resource Management 

Environmental and natural resource management received a large number of comments, 

ranging widely in sentiment. Many respondents advocated stringent environmental 

protection in LBL, and voiced a desire to keep LBL as natural as possible to preserve its 

beauty and uniqueness for generations to come. Some respondents also suggested the 

resources be managed in the context of the larger region, utilizing ecological science 

more rigorously in order to provide species and communities missing in the region. 

Following these more broad sentiments were opinions more limited in scope, covering a 

number of topics. 

A handful of comments proposed a more thorough cost-benefit analysis of proposed 

management actions. A number of respondents proposed further monitoring, inventories, 

and analyses on a number of elements, including plant and animal populations, 

management indicator species, open lands, and air and water quality. 

Many respondents requested better management of wildlife populations, particularly of 

white-tailed deer, especially with respect to improvement of hunting opportunities. 

Vegetation management received a broad range of comments, with some advocating 

more active management, including cutting, burning, and land cultivation. Still others 

promoted minimal, or passive, management, and a return to old growth forests. A 

handful of comments addressed cultivated lands in LBL, and were divided in their 

suggestions. Those suggesting LBL continue and/or increase the acreages of cultivated 

lands did so primarily to increase food for wildlife. Those suggesting LBL decrease or 

eliminate cultivated lands were concerned with forest fragmentation, and the desires of 

former residents. A number of comments concerning logging were received, proposing 

both more and less logging in LBL. 

Heritage resources management was a topic of some concern for a handful of 

respondents, with a unified desire for further analysis and better protection of the heritage 

resources within LBL. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 30 of 273 

A large number of respondents voiced concerns over commercialization within LBL. 

Almost all strongly opposing revenue-generating operations of any sort within the 

National Recreation Area, advocating removing those sites currently in operation at 

facilities on LBL. 

Transportation 

Transportation issues did not receive a great deal of attention from the public in the 

planning process. A number of those that did respond requested unimpeded access to all 

cemeteries within LBL. Another issue garnering great support was a proposal to increase 

and better maintain hiking and biking trails in LBL. Other topics received divided 

comments, with some voicing a desire to keep roads open and well-maintained, while 

others requested the Forest Service close some roads to decrease impacts to nature. 

Recreation and Environmental Education 

Recreation issues received a considerable number of comments, varying in scope and 

intent. Some addressed general management of recreation, suggesting LBL be managed 

for a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities, or that recreation opportunities be 

provided according to the demand. Other comments pertained to a specific form of 

recreation, and most forms of recreation available in LBL were addressed by at least one 

comment. 

Turkey Bay OHV Area received a large number of varied responses. Most respondents 

advocated the area remain open to OHV use, and that camping within the area be 

continued and/or improved. Those respondents who commented on Alternative Z, with 

respect to Turkey Bay, had widely varying comments, with some rejecting any limits on 

use and others supporting some restrictions, as needed, to ensure the continued use and 

sustainability of the area. 

A number of comments advocated upgrades in the major campground campsites, as well 

as others who requested less development in campgrounds, and more opportunities for 

primitive camping. Hunting was another popular topic for public comment, with most 

voicing support for continued and/or increased opportunities for hunters, though some 

proposed increases in non-hunting areas through LBL. Some respondents requested 

further dispersed recreation opportunities, such as wildlife viewing, and decreases in the 

levels of recreational development. 

The topic of fees garnered a number of comments, with respondents divided in opinion. 

Some opposed the collection of any fee for any activity, while others promoted the use of 

fees to increase revenue and support for services and Rec/EE opportunities, as means of 

offsetting operating costs. 

Environmental education received fewer comments, with little controversy among 

respondents. Many respondents promoted a stronger focus on environmental education 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 31 of 273 

within LBL, while others advocated specific programs and methods. Comments were 

somewhat divided with respect to facilities. Most respondents requested the re-opening 

of certain facilities (The Silo, Youth Station, Empire Farm), though at least one did 

suggest that closed facilities remain closed. A few comments concerning the proposed 

Nature Watch Demonstration Area were received, with all in support of at least one area 

being created. 

Lands and Special Designations 

The comments pertaining to special designations varied in their demands. A handful of 

comments from former residents requested that LBL lands be given back to them. Most 

other respondents suggested more lands be specially designated for some form of 

protection. Others advocated less (or none), and still others proposed that LBL maintain 

its current designations. A number of comments voiced strong opposition to any 

international management or oversight of any areas within LBL. 

Summary 

Overall, the respondents to the DEIS and draft Area Plan during this formal comment 

period, were direct in their opinions and assertions, and made specific and detailed 

recommendations for and against elements of the documents. Across the board, all 

comments were directed to specific proposals in the two documents, and gave the core 

Planning Team and the resource specialists solid direction in their comments, 

suggestions, and recommendations. The analysis of these comments, when viewed 

against the scientific and technical analyses of the DEIS, contributed significantly to the 

refinement of the Final EIS and Area Plan. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 32 of 273 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 33 of 273 

Appendix B 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS 

B.1A Introduction – The Analysis Process and Goals 

Appendix B presents a technical discussion of the analysis process, computer models 

used, and the reports compiled in this planning process. This appendix focuses on the 

quantitative methods used to perform the analysis of the alternative effects and 

documents how the analysis was done. 

The Forest’s major planning goal is to provide enough information to help decision 

makers and the public determine which combinations of goods, services, and land 

allocations will maximize net public benefits (NPB). The regulations (36 CFR 219) 

developed under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 1982) provide the 

analytical framework within which these decisions are made. 

The NFMA and its regulations also state that the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) must be 

applied in the analytical process. The NEPA regulations require that the environmental 

effects of a proposed action, and alternatives to that proposed action, must be disclosed in 

an environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Information presented in this chapter supplements the broader and less technical 

descriptions included in the body of the EIS. This discussion includes basic assumptions, 

modeling components and inputs, rules, methods, and constraints. Additional 

information and documents used in the analysis process are contained in the planning 

records. The planning record in its entirety is incorporated here by reference. 

The results from the modeling processes are estimates of what can be expected if 

alternatives are implemented, and facilitate the comparison of alternatives. Land and 

resource management planning requires that processes formally used to make individual 

resource decisions be combined into integrated management decisions. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 34 of 273 

B.1B Framework of the Planning Process 

The general planning process described in 36 CFR 219.12 guides the revision of a Forest 

Plan. This section describes 10- steps that lead from the completion of a Forest Plan to 

the completion of a revised Area Plan. LBL uses “Forest Plan” and “Area Plan” 

interchangeably. 

The 10-Step Planning Process 

The IDT used the 10–step process defined in the NFMA regulations. This appendix 

describes the analysis phase of this process that includes steps 3 and 6. Steps 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 

and 8 are described in Chapters 1 and 2 of this EIS. Plan implementation and monitoring, 

steps 9 and 10, are discussed in the Area Plan. A brief discussion of the 10-step process 

follows. 

Step 1, Identification of purpose and need: issues, concerns, and 

opportunities 

The IDT and the staff at LBL assessed the need for change in public issues, management 

concerns and resource use, and developmental opportunities since TVA’s 1994 Plan was 

developed. Appendix A of this EIS documents this step. 

Step 2, Planning criteria 

Criteria are designed to guide the collection and use of inventory data and information; 

the analysis of the management situation; and the design, formulation, and evaluation of 

alternatives. The NFMA regulations require that planning criteria be developed to guide 

each step in the planning process. Process criteria are standard rules and tests to guide 

and measure the effectiveness of the planning process. They apply to collection and use 

of inventory data and information; analysis of the management situation; and the design, 

formulation, and evaluation of alternatives. 

Planning criteria are based on: 

• Laws, executive orders, regulations and agency policy as set forth in the Forest 

Service Manual; 

• Goals and objectives in the RPA Program and regional guides; 

• Recommendations and assumptions developed from public issues, management 

concerns, and resource use and development opportunities; 

• The plans and programs of other federal agencies, state and local governments, 

and Indian tribes; 

• Ecological, technical, and economic factors;

• The resource integration and management requirements in 36 CFR 219.13 

through 219.27; 

• Alternatives that are technically, fiscally possible to implement; 

• Alternatives that meet management requirements or standards; 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 35 of 273 

• Various levels of multiple-use objectives and outputs achieved. 

This step establishes guidelines for accomplishing the next five steps. The work plan and 

other process records document this step. 

Step 3, Inventory data and information collection 

The kind of data and information needed is determined in Step 2 based on the issues, 

concerns, and opportunities identified, and the resulting assessment of the management 

situation and the need for change. Data collection is part of normal forest operations. 

Existing data is used whenever possible and supplemented with new data, when 

practicable, if new data will contribute to more responsive analysis. Data accuracy is 

continually evaluated. Much of this data and background documentation is part of the 

planning process records on file in the Area Supervisor’s office. 

Step 4, Analysis of the management situation 

This step consists of assessing the existing situation on the forest and determining 

opportunities for resolving issues and concerns. This information provides the basis for 

formulating an appropriate range of reasonable alternatives. 

This analysis brings existing information together, puts it into a total forest perspective, 

and examines the range of possible situations to resolve issues. It examines supply 

potentials and market assessments for goods and services, and determines suitability and 

feasibility for meeting needs. Other objectives of the analysis of the management 

situation are: 

• Assessing current direction, including a schedule of the goods and services that 

are most likely to be provided if current direction is continued; 

• Assessing the demand for goods and services from national forest lands; 

• Determining if there is a need to change current management direction. 

Step 5, Formulation of Alternatives 

A reasonable range of alternatives is formulated according to NEPA procedures. 

Alternatives are formulated to assist in identifying one that comes nearest to maximizing 

NPB. They provide for the resolution of significant issues and concerns identified in 

Step 1. The alternatives reflect a range of resource management programs. Each 

identified significant issue and management concern is addressed in different ways in the 

alternatives. The programs and land allocations in each alternative represent the most 

cost–efficient way of attaining the goals and objectives for that alternative. Both priced 

and non–priced goods and services (outputs) are considered in formulating each 

alternative. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 36 of 273 

Step 6, Estimated effects of Alternatives 

The physical, biological, economical, and social effects of implementing each alternative 

are considered in detail, responding to the issues and need for change. The effects of the 

alternatives are displayed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Step 7, Evaluation of Alternatives 

Significant physical, biological, economical, and social effects of implementing 

alternatives are used to evaluate each alternative and compare them with each other. 

Typically, each alternative can be judged on how it addresses the significant issues 

identified in Chapter 1 of the EIS. Chapter 2 of the EIS summarizes the comparisons of 

the alternatives with regard to the issues. 

Step 8, Preferred Alternative 

The Forest or Area Supervisor reviews the interdisciplinary team’s evaluation of each 

alternative and the public issues and concerns. The Area Supervisor then recommends a 

preferred alternative to the Regional Forester, who in turn either selects the 

recommendation, another alternative, or modifies the recommended alternative. That 

alternative is described as the preferred alternative in the FEIS and is displayed as the 

proposed revised Area Plan. 

Step 9, Plan approval and implementation 

After the interdisciplinary team has reviewed public comments and incorporated any 

necessary changes into the FEIS or proposed Area Plan, the Regional Forester reviews 

and approves the revised Areat Plan and final LRMP. A record of decision (ROD) 

documents this step. 

Step 10, Monitoring and evaluation 

The revised Area Plan establishes a system of measuring, on a sample basis, actual 

activities and their effects, and compares these results with projections contained in the 

revised Area Plan. Monitoring and evaluation comprise an essential feedback mechanism 

to ensure the revised Area Plan is dynamic and responsive to change. The revised Area 

Plan displays the monitoring and evaluation program. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 37 of 273 

B.2 Inventory Data and Information Collection 

Database Development 

The Issues in DEIS Chapter 2 were an important basis for determining what data needed 

to be updated or collected and which effects would be evaluated. Existing data and new 

information were used in revising the LRMP. 

Two key types of information were needed to facilitate the analysis and development of 

alternatives. The first consisted of information related to the classification of land into 

categories with unique properties. This classification was based on attributes significant 

to the planning issues. This type of information was tied directly to the map base. 

The second type of information is not directly tied to a map base, but has more to do with 

the estimation of how land will respond to certain management activities within a given 

alternative. This can be viewed as the goods and services discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 

3. This type of information came from many sources: regional procedural handbooks, 

professional research studies, master’s theses, etc. The most up-to-date and verifiable 

information was utilized. Data models used in this FEIS are described in Chapter 3 and 

Appendix B. 

GIS Data Layers 

A computerized geographic information system (GIS) is used at LBL. GIS links natural 

resource data with spatial (map) information. This linkage enabled valuable spatial 

analysis and rapid display of resource information for the IDT. Inventories were 

continually updated to reflect current conditions and verification of existing information 

was an ongoing effort. Many different physical, biological, or administrative layers, or 

resource-related information, are contained in the LBL GIS mapping system. 

Methodology for Determining Land Cover and Producing 

Alternatives 

Land Cover is derived from a combination of GIS layers including the TVA Forest Stand 

polygon coverage, the open lands coverage, and the KY Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 

Resources -GAP data. Decision rules were created by J. Donahue , E. Raikes, and T. 

Mersmann for assigning Cover Types based on the Ecological Framework for Species 

Viability. 

Numerous GIS layers were combined using UNION (copyrighted software) in ArcInfo 

Software to produce a single coverage for labeling polygons for the alternatives by using 

queries. The layers include Land Cover, Structure Type, Site Type, Facilities, Core Area, 

Wildlife Refuge, Roads, Road Buffers, Nature Watch Area, and Vegetation 

Demonstration Area. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 38 of 273 

B.3 Analysis of the Management Situation 

An initial step in the plan revision process was to analyze the current condition at LBL. 

The following is a brief summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS), 

an unpublished collection of technical reports describing the existing condition, existing 

management direction, existing management plans, summary of current outputs and 

activities, projected outputs and activities, expected future condition based on 

continuation of the current management, and known problems. The information is 

contained in the project record. 

The Planning Background Document in Appendix G, describes the summary of the 

management situation at LBL and the need for change during this plan revision. The 

table below lists products in LBL’s AMS record. 

LBL National Recreation Area 

Index of Analysis of Management Situation 

December 2003 

Description Product Comments 

Current Management 

Direction 

1994 LRMP, LBL Business Plan 

2004 

Describes current 

management and 

business plans 

Planning 

Background Document 

(PBD) 

LBL Planning Background 

Document, June 4, 2003 

Summarizes Need for 

Change for All 

Resource Areas 

Issues Paper Issues Paper Sept 12, 2003 

Ecological Classification Species Viability Assessment Summarized in EIS 

PETS, T&E, MIS 

Species 

Species Viability Assessment Summarized in EIS 

Fish and Wildlife Current 

Condition 

Species Viability Assessment Summarized in EIS 

Soils Current Condition Affected Environment Summarized in EIS 

Water Resources Sediment Yields Cumulative 

Effects for Water Quality Report, 

CATT Report, March 2002 

Summarized in EIS 

Air Resource Air Quality Report Appendix to EIS 

Forest Cover Structure Map, Site Type Map, 

TVA Plot Data, GAP Analysis, 

1994 Plan and EIS 

GIS Coverages and 

maps 

Open Land Cover Cover Map, GIS Layer, 1994 Plan 

and EIS 

GIS Coverages and 

maps 

Timber Current Condition Spreadsheet Model, LBL Timber 

Records 

Summarized in EIS 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 39 of 273 

Description Product Comments 

Land Allocation Current 

Condition 

Background Document; 

Alternative W Rx Map 

Recreation Current 

Condition 

ROS, PBD, Affected 

Environment 

Summarized in EIS 

Environmental Education 

Current Condition 

PBD, Affected Environment Summarized in EIS 

Visuals Resource 1994 Plan, LBL Sightseeing 

Master Plan, ROS 

Summarized in EIS 

Facilities Current 

Condition 

Facilities Plan Summarized in PBD 

Transportation System LBL Engineering Study for Roads 

and Bridges, June 2002 

Prepared for USFS by 

FHA 

Fire and Fuels Current 

Condition 

Current Management Situation, 

Nov. 25, 2003 

Fire Management Action 

Plan 

December 2003 Action Plan 

Heritage Resource 

Current Condition 

Heritage Resource Management 

Plan, March 2003 

Roads Analysis Roads Analysis Report, July 2003 

Legal Road Map Legal Road and Hunting Map, 

2003-2004 Season 

Timber Supply and 

Demand 

Spreadsheet Model, IMPLAN 

Model 

Summarized in EIS 

Recreation Supply and 

Demand 

IMPLAN Model, 1998 Visitor 

Survey 

Summarized in EIS, 

PBD 

Social Assessment LBL National Recreation Area 

Demographic Changes and 

Economy Trends, Dec 1, 2003 

Summarized in EIS, 

PBD 

Special Uses Special Use Permits, Dec 2003 Summarized in EIS 

Core Areas 1994 Plan, Core Areas Plan Core Areas Plan in 

Appendix to 1994 Plan 

EIS 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 40 of 273 

B.4 Recreation and Environmental Education 

Integral to LBL’s mission is to provide optimal Rec/EE in a sustainable environment. In 

order to make reasonable and equitable comparisons of the Alternatives, the IDT had to 

establish a baseline from which to make projections of the anticipated demand for future 

uses and visitation. Much of this data was compiled from national research and statistics 

on demand and future trends, and some was taken from state recreation plans. One main 

source of locally gathered information was the “1998 Visitor Profile Survey”. This 

research and statistical information is referenced in the text where appropriate. 

Other data was locally available in the form of LBL’s “Monthly Visitor Use Summary” 

reports. These reports provide cumulative data each month allowing accurate comparison 

of visitation numbers from previous months, quarters, and years. Information from these 

reports was extracted and placed in chart form for fiscal year comparison. The following 

tables and graphs are the result of that compilation of data from the past nine years. 
Land Between The Lakes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

VISITATION NUMBERS FY'95 TO FY'03 

(Number of Visits to LBL Facilities) 

FACILITIES FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03 

MAIN CAMPGROUNDS 

Hillman Ferry 136,918 145,539 152,617 169,994 178,356 165,452 170,999 166938 176,7Piney 118,522 127,217 140,857 148,726 162,324 159,042 136,248 150,895 141,0Energy Lake 17,926 19,220 15,820 18,093 17,879 19,343 19,133 15,495 15,7Wranglers 38,438 46,519 68,833 79,112 87,126 100,120 97,273 76,214 69,9

TOTAL 311,804 338,495 378,127 415,925 445,685 443,957 423,653 409,542 403,5

SPECIAL USE AREAS 

(Compiled from Traffic 

Counter data)

Turkey Bay OHV 52,941 52,345 44,857 45,626 54,191 64,019 89,339 87,456 76,2Elk & Bison Prairie 71,190 112,171 86,710 96,314 117,683 105,461 114,553 135,5

EE FACILITIES 

Brandon Spring 19,847 21,649 22,082 20,087 20,366 21,561 17,997 18,573 17,4Homeplace 60,439 55,895 53,410 51,868 53,131 42,723 44,454 48,564 45,2Nature Station 49,032 48,902 44,740 45,765 47,649 42,817 42,102 46,841 39,3Planetarium 26,593 28,379 27,233 25,386 29,734 26,904 23,335 26,843 20,8

TOTAL 155,911 154,825 147,465 143,106 150,880 134,005 127,888 140,821 122,9

Source: LBL Monthly Visitation Reports 
Land Between The Lakes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

SPECIAL USE AREAS VISITATION

(calculated from traffic counter data)

52,941 52,345

44,857 45,626

54,191

64,019

89,339 87,456

76,217

71,190

112,171

86,710

96,314

117,683

105,461

114,553

135,593

0

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000

FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03

FISCAL YEAR

NUMBER OF VISITS 

Source: LBL Monthly Visitation Reports 
Land Between The Lakes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

CAMPGROUND VISITATION TOTALS

311,804

338,495

378,127

415,925

445,685 443,957

423,653

409,5

0

50,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000

FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'0

Fiscal Year

TOTAL FACILITY VISITS

Source: LBL Monthly Visitation Reports 
Land Between The Lakes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

CAMPGROUND VISITATION

(by Campground)

136,918

145,539

152,617

169,994

178,356

165,452

170,999 166938

176

118,522

127,217

140,857

148,726

162,324 159,042

136,248

150,895

141

17,926 19,220 15,820 18,093 17,879 19,343 19,133 15,495 15,7

38,438

46,519

68,833

79,112

87,126

100,120 97,273

76,214

69,9

0

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000200,000

FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03

FISCAL YEAR

NUMBER OF VISITS 

Source: LBL Monthly Visitation Reports 
Land Between The Lakes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

EE FACILITIES VISITATION TOTALS

155,911 154,825

147,465

143,106

150,880

134,005

127,888

140,821

122,966

0

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03

FISCAL YEAR

TOTAL FACILITY VISITS

Source: LBL Monthly Visitation Reports 
Land Between The Lakes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

EE FACILITIES VISITATION

(by Facility)

19,847

21,649 22,082 20,087 20,366 21,561

17,997 18,573 17,463

60,439

55,895

53,410 51,868 53,131

42,723 44,454

48,564

45,294

49,032 48,902

44,740 45,765

47,649

42,102

46,841

39,384

26,593

28,379 27,233

25,386

29,734

26,904

23,335

26,843

20,825

42,817

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000

FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03

FISCAL YEAR

NUMBER OF VISITS 

Source: LBL Monthly Visitation Reports 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 47 of 273 

B.5 Fire Management 

The following is a discussion of an analysis used to provide the estimated acreage that 

would need burning, listed in section 3.3.2, to achieve ecosystem-based management 

goals for ecological communities where fire has played a major role in natural stand 

replacement or maintenance. This analysis is based solely on ecological criteria and does 

not take into account the average number of burning days per year, the existing work 

force, and budget constraints. 

The fire regime classification system is used to characterize the personality of a fire in a 

given vegetation type, including the frequency that the fire visits the landscape, the type 

of pattern created, and the ecological effects. The following natural fire regimes are 

arranged along a temporal gradient, from the most frequent to the least frequent fire 

return interval. 

The definitions below are from the General Technical Report, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station #87 (GTR-RMRS-87).

Fire Regime Frequency Effect to Dominant Vegetation 

Fire Regime I 0-35 years Low Severity 

Fire Regime II 0-35 years Stand Replacement 

Fire Regime III 35-100+ years Mixed Severity 

Fire Regime IV 35-100+ years Stand Replacement 

Fire Regime V 200+ years Stand Replacement 

Fire Regime I 

Fires in the understory fire regime generally do not kill the dominant vegetation or 

substantially change its structure. Approximately 80 percent or more of the above ground 

dominant vegetation survives fire (Brown, 2000). The understory fire regime occurs 

primarily in southern pine and oak-hickory forests, which supports oak-hickory forest 

types found at LBL. Fire is a natural maintenance disturbance for these types of stands, 

and is used to maintain and regenerate oak-hickory for timber stand improvement (TSI) 

and wildlife stand improvement (WSI) concerns. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 48 of 273 

B.6 Timber 

Base Sale Schedule for Five Decades 

All timber production from suitable lands on LBL result from activities intended to 

enhance habitats, promote healthy forest conditions, or for purposes of environmental 

education, according to LBL’s mission. Analysis of timber production for the five 

decade period covered in this analysis resulted from estimating the yields from treatments 

prescribed by wildlife biologists as those needed to produce the desired wildlife habitat 

conditions under each alternative. (See the document “Viability Evaluation – 021904,” 

available in the project records.) 

The following table summarizes the estimated timber outputs for the four alternatives. 

This level of output in the first decade equates to the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for 

the alternatives. 

Table 3.4.10B - Base Timber Sale Schedule 

mcf/Decade 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 

W 7,272 8,593 9,942 11,280 12,508

X 9,867 11,740 13,554 15,577 17,735

Y 9,867 11,740 13,554 15,577 17,735

Z 5,673 6,713 7,771 8,940 10,173

Note: 1 mcf (thousand cubic feet) = approximately 5 mbf (thousand board feet). 

Acres/Decades 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 

W 20,726 20,726 20,726 20,726 20,726 

X 22,184 23,175 23,175 23,675 25,000 

Y 22,184 23,175 23,175 23,675 25,000 

Z 12,334 12,751 12,751 13,001 13,676 

The above table discloses that Alternatives X and Y would place more timber in the local 

market than the other alternatives, followed by Alternatives W and Z. It is expected the 

products from these timber volumes would primarily be purchased by local timber 

operators. 

Departure from Non-declining Even Flow 

The regulations state that each unit should not schedule harvesting of more timber in one 

decade than can be sustained throughout each decade of the planning horizon, without 

good reason. The description of this constraint on management is “non-declining even 

flow.” 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 49 of 273 

Table 3.4.10B indicates that Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z do not propose to harvest more 

timber in the first decade than following decades. 

Long Term Sustained Yield (LTSY) 

Table 3.4.10C. - Long Term Sustained Yield 

 Alternative 

 W X Y Z 

LTSY (mcf/Year) 2,155 1873 1819 1936 

Note: 1 mcf (thousand cubic feet) = approximately 5 mbf (thousand board feet). 

The model that calculated the values for the base timber sale schedule also calculated the 

long term sustained yield. LTSY is an estimate of the highest wood product yield that 

could be produced on a sustained basis each year from those lands being managed for 

timber production in a manner consistent with the area’s multiple-use objectives. The 

purpose and result of this analysis is to disclose that none of the alternatives propose 

harvesting more timber than the land is capable of growing. 

Suitability Analysis 

Stage I Suitability Analysis 

Classification Acres

1. Total National Forest system land.............................................. 171,254

2. Non-forest land (includes water)................................................ 13,994

3. Forest land – Total................................................................ 157,259

4. Forest land – Withdrasn from timber production (e.g., wilderness) ....... 0

5. Forest land – Not capable of producing industrial wood .................... 0

6. Forest land – Irreversible damage likely to occur, not restockable ........ 0

7. Forest land – Inadequate information .......................................... 0

8. Tentatively suitable Forest Land ................................................ 157,259

Stage III Suitability Analysis 

Classification Alternative (Acres) 

 W X Y Z 

Tentatively Suitable Forest Land 157,259 157,259 157,259 157,259 

Forest land – Not Appropriate for timber production 

(eg. Forest Core areas, Developed Recreation areas, 

Environmental Education areas, Acres managed for 

open areas, etc.) 

42,559 54,069 58,319 52,169

Total Suitable Forest Land (General Forest and 

“Demo” areas) 114,700 103,190 98,940 105,090
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 50 of 273 

Note: The “Stage II” Suitability Analysis does not identify any lands as either suitable or 

unsuitable for timber production. According to 36 CFR 219.14(b), it is used to identify 

those management practices that are the most economically efficient for producing 

timber. However, since timber production is not an objective for LBL, this analysis did 

not need to be pursued. Silvicultural activities will still occur, but they are all designed to 

meet other resource objectives. As a result, these activities will generally cost more than 

the revenues they will take in (e.g. thinning out a stand to improve its wildlife habitat 

conditions), but the use of a commercial timber sale would still be the most economical 

and efficient method to create those habitat conditions. A comparison of the revenues 

received from the timber that is produced from these silvicultural activities, compared to 

the costs of managing the vegetation, can be found in the Present Net Value analysis in 

Chapter 3 of this FEIS. 

Timber output estimations for the Area Plan are based on forest information collected 

during the TVA tenure at the recreation area. TVA established 150 permanent plots 

throughout LBL, and remeasured them periodically. 

The growth potential for these plots was estimated and analyzed over a 50-year period by 

using the “Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS)”. This information was then averaged by 

species group and structure class to develop the timber yield tables that are utilized to 

calculate the output for the alternatives. 

Anticipated harvesting includes even- (EAM) and uneven-aged systems (UEAM). Refer 

to section 1.A in Appendix D of the FEIS for a thorough description of the included 

timber management treatments. Treatments include shelterwood harvests (SW), 

thinnings, and selection harvests. Yield tables were developed to represent the variety of 

timber management treatments proposed for the alternatives. 

The species viability evaluation established the area, scheduling, and timber management 

activities needed to meet the objectives of the alternatives. This evaluation provided the 

input for the timber yield calculations, and is contained in the Project record. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 51 of 273 

Summary of activities Alternative W:

Community Management Treatment ACRES/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

Dry Oak Stable UEAM 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660

Dry Oak 

Successional EAM Thin 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800

Dry Oak 

Successional EAM Regen 3108 3108 3108 3108 3108

Dry Oak 

Successional UEAM 0 0 0 0 0

Mesophytic UEAM 0 0 0 0 0

Mesophytic EAM Regen 424 424 424 424 424

Pine UEAM 84 84 84 84 84

Pine EAM Thin 0 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 450 450 450 450 450

 

TOTALS 20,726 20,726 20,726 20,726 20,726

Summary of Outputs for Alternative W: 

Community Management Treatment mcf/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 1,455 1,676 1,862 2,067 2,267

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

Dry Oak Stable UEAM 1,739 2,000 2,318 2,550 2,695

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 834 1,042 1,226 1,418 1,603

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 1,873 2,392 3,034 3,665 4,309

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 0 0 0 0 0

Mesophytic UEAM 0 0 0 0 0

Mesophytic EAM Regen 528 599 610 671 703

Pine UEAM 34 40 46 50 55

Pine EAM Thin 0 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 809 844 846 859 875

 

TOTALS 7,272 8,593 9,942 11,280 12,508
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 52 of 273 

Summary of Activities for Alternative X: 

Community Management Treatment ACRES/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 11,075 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 3,100 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 5,081 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 300 1,500 1,500 1,800 3,000

Mesophytic UEAM 200 325 325 525 650

Mesophytic EAM Regen 200 200 200 200 200

Pine EAM Thin 128 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

 

TOTALS 22,184 23,175 23,175 23,675 25,000

Summary of Outputs for Alternative X: 

Community Management Treatment mcf/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 4,973 5,645 6,324 7,062 7,768

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 1,672 2,050 2,378 2,712 3,020

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 1,505 1,861 2,189 2,531 2,863

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 1,265 1,616 2,050 2,476 2,912

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 36 210 245 340 660

Mesophytic UEAM 42 74 81 139 182

Mesophytic EAM Regen 249 283 288 317 332

Pine EAM Thin 124 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

 

TOTALS 9,867 11,740 13,554 15,577 17,735

Summary of Activities for Alternative Y: 

Community Management Treatment ACRES/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 11,075 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 3,100 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 5,081 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 300 1,500 1,500 1,800 3,000

Mesophytic UEAM 200 325 325 525 650

Mesophytic EAM Regen 200 200 200 200 200

Pine EAM Thin 128 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

 

TOTALS 22,184 23,175 23,175 23,675 25,000
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 53 of 273 

Summary of Outputs for Alternative Y: 

Community Management Treatment mcf/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 4,973 5,645 6,324 7,062 7,768

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 1,672 2,050 2,378 2,712 3,020

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 1,505 1,861 2,189 2,531 2,863

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 1,265 1,616 2,050 2,476 2,912

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 36 210 245 340 660

Mesophytic UEAM 42 74 81 139 182

Mesophytic EAM Regen 249 283 288 317 332

Pine EAM Thin 124 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

 

TOTALS 9,867 11,740 13,554 15,577 17,735

Summary of Activities for Alternative Z: 

Community Management Treatment ACRES/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 5,625 5,526 5,526 5,526 5,526

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 2,200 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 2,581 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 150 750 750 900 1,500

Mesophytic UEAM 100 175 175 275 350

Mesophytic EAM Regen 150 150 150 150 150

Pine EAM Thin 128 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

 

TOTALS 12,334 12,751 12,751 13,001 13,676

Summary of Outputs for Alternative Z: 

Community Management Treatment mcf/DECADE 

Type Type 1 2 3 4 5 

Dry Oak Stable EAM Thin 2533 2869 3215 3590 3950

Dry Oak Stable EAM Regen 1187 1478 1713 1953 2174

Dry Oak Successional EAM Thin 760 931 1094 1266 1431

Dry Oak Successional EAM Regen 844 1077 1367 1651 1941

Dry Oak Successional UEAM 18 105 122 170 330

Mesophytic UEAM 21 40 43 73 98

Mesophytic EAM Regen 187 212 216 238 249

Pine EAM Thin 124 0 0 0 0

Pine EAM Regen 0 0 0 0 0

 

TOTALS 5673 6713 7771 8940 10173
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 54 of 273 

MILL CAPACITY IN COUNTIES WITHIN 35 MILES OF LBL 

County Company Name Type 

Facility 

Capacity 

in 

MMBF/YR

KY Ballard None 

KY Caldwell Beshears Sawmill Commercial 5 

KY Calloway McKnight & Sons Sawmill Commercial 3 

KY Carlisle Dixie Lumber Mill Commercial 3 

KY Carlisle Owens Saw Mill, Inc Commercial 3 

KY Carlisle Wright's Sawmill Inc. Commercial 5 

KY Christian Christian Co. Log & Lumber Commercial 5 

KY Christian Stolzfus, Timothy Custom 0.1 

KY Crittenden D Y Pallet Commercial 0.5 

KY Crittenden Dycusburg Log and Lumber Commercial 3 

KY Crittenden Hunt Hardwood Lbr. Commercial 1 

KY Crittenden Turner & Conyer Lumber Co., 

Inc. 

Commercial 5 

KY Graves Gibson Sawmill Commercial 3 

KY Graves Glisson Lumber Co., Inc. Commercial 3 

KY Graves Glisson Sawmill Commercial 0.5 

KY Graves Goodman & Sons Lbr Co., Inc. Commercial 5 

KY Hopkins 85 Lumber Co. Commercial 3 

KY Hopkins A-R Lumber Co. Inc. Commercial 3 

KY Hopkins Caudill Milling Commercial 5 

KY Hopkins Grapevine Lumber Commercial 3 

KY Hopkins Vinise Menser Lumber Co. Commercial 0.1 

KY Hopkins Woodmizer Products Commercial 5 

KY Livingston Averitt Hardwood International Commercial 10 

KY Livingston Emmons Sawmill Commercial 0.5 

KY Lyon None 

KY Marshall Copeland Sawmill Commercial 1 

KY Marshall Holt Sawmill, Inc. Commercial 5 

KY Marshall Maple Springs Sawmill Commercial 3 

KY McCracken Gibbs Sawmill Commercial 0.1 

KY Todd J & D Lumber Company Commercial 7 

KY Todd Laster & Sons Commercial 3 

KY Todd Yoder Log & Lumber Commercial 3 

KY Trigg Averitt Hardwood International Commercial 10 

KY Trigg B & F Sawmill Commercial 3 

KY Trigg Calhoun Sawmill Commercial 1 

KY Trigg McCraw Lumber Commercial 3 

KY Trigg Newell Bailey Mills Commercial 5 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 55 of 273 

 

KY Trigg TW Lumber Company, LLC Commercial 0.5 

KY Union Sheril Lumber Co., Inc. Commercial 5 

KY Webster Blanford, C.L. Woodard Commercial 3 

KY Webster Western Bluegrass Lumber Commercial 1 

TN* Benton 4.9 

TN* Carroll 13.5 

TN* Dickson 17.8 

TN* Henry 29.5 

TN* Houston 19.9 

TN* Humphreys 35.3 

TN* Montgomery 15.2 

TN* Stewart 39.7 

TN* Weakley 36.9 

IL# Hardin 0 

IL# Massac 2.6 

IL# Pope 2.6 

 

 Total 346.2 

Kentucky data is extracted from the Kentucky Division of Forestry publication "Primary 

Wood Industries of Kentucky 2001". This report presents annual capacity for each mill. 

* Tennessee data is extracted from the USFS Southern Research Station Resource 

Bulletin SRS-52 "Forest Statistics for Tennessee, 1999,” by Callie Jo Schweitzer. This 

reports the annual production from each county. 

* Illinois data is extracted form a document located on the Internet at the address 

http://dnr.state.il.us/ conservation/forestry/2002/SAWMILL.htm. This reports the daily 

capacity for individual mills. The daily capacity is annualized by assuming there are 220 

production days in a calendar year. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 56 of 273 

B.7 Benchmark Analysis 

The forest planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.12(e)(1) describe benchmarks as a way to 

“define the range within which alternatives can be constructed.” These benchmark 

analyses include: 

• The minimum level of management needed to maintain and protect the unit as a 

part of the National Forest System; 

• The maximum production level of significant resources; 

• The resource uses that will maximize the present net value of those outputs that 

have an established market price or are assigned a monetary value; 

• The current level of goods and services provided by the unit. 

Minimum Level 

For this benchmark analysis, the management objectives for LBL would be to: 

• Protect the life, health, and safety of incidental users; 

• Conserve soil and water resources; 

• Prevent significant or permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; 

• Administer unavoidable non-Forest Service special uses, licenses, permits, 

contracts, and operating plans. 

Under this level of management: 

• Incidental outputs would occur, but there would be no management activities that 

would produce timber, maintain wildlife management areas, or maintain 

developed recreation areas; 

• Vegetation would follow natural succession; 

• The only facilities that would be maintained would be those needed to support 

basic ownership activities; 

• Dispersed recreation use that cannot be discouraged or controlled would occur. 

A minimum level of management for this benchmark analysis means that there would be 

no developed recreation or facility-based environmental education on LBL. Developed 

facilities would be closed and possibly obliterated. Roads would be maintained only at 

levels necessary for minimal travel and the majority would be decommissioned. Boat 

ramps, trailheads, picnic areas, and scenic drives would not be maintained. 

Minimum resource management would create a landscape of minimal habitat diversity. 

Open lands would revert to successional cover types, landscape character would be 

diminished and forested acres would naturally succeed toward climax cover types. 

Another effect of minimum level management is that we would not be able to meet the 

habitat needs of those species associated with specific habitat requirements. Refer to 

section 3.2 Biological Environment. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 57 of 273 

Maximum Resource Production 

For LBL, the two “significant resources” are recreation and wildlife. 

For the wildlife resources, an analysis was performed that determined the “optimum” 

vegetative conditions needed to support the wildlife populations found on LBL. The 

analysis then determined the management activities needed to achieve those “optimum” 

conditions. A description of the results of this analysis can be found at in section 3.2.4 

Environmental Effects. 

For the recreation/education resources, LBL has the following opportunities to increase 

the level of developed and dispersed visits to the area: 

• Upgrade and/or build new developed campgrounds; 

• Construct public beach areas; 

• Develop new trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV riding; 

• Expand size and programs of educational facilities; 

• Expand hunting program and opportunities. 

Maximum Present Net Value (with Assigned Values) 

The best way to view this benchmark is to consider it as being the mix of products that 

would provide the most benefits for the dollar of input. For this benchmark, since 

wildlife and recreation provide the vast majority of the benefits values that can be 

assigned to outputs from LBL (see the Present Net Value discussion in Chapter 3 of this 

FEIS), it can be assumed that those activities that would maximize the recreation and 

wildlife resources would also maximize the present net value for LBL. See the above 

discussion on “Maximum Resource Production” for a description of those activities. For 

the most part, both of these levels of activities could be produced at the same time. 

However, the following are situations where attempts to maximize both recreation and 

wildlife resources would come into conflict: 

• Expansion of recreation/ education facilities could hamper the ability to 

demonstrate ecosystem restorations such as the Oak-Grassland Demonstration 

Areas; 

• Further recreational enhancement of the shoreline would be popular with visitors 

but may be detrimental to shoreline dependant species such as bald eagles; 

• Development of more easily accessible recreational opportunities along the few 

perennial streams in LBL may cause harm to sensitive riparian areas; 

• Increased timber harvests to maximize net value could decrease opportunities for 

remote recreation and affect forested habitat. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 58 of 273 

Current Level of Management 

For this level of management, see Alternative W as described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this 

FEIS. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 59 of 273 

B.8 Air Quality 

Through a series of legislative and regulatory requirements, federal land management 

agencies have two distinct and unique responsibilities: to protect the air, land, and water 

resources under their respective authorities from degradation associated with the impacts 

of air pollution emitted outside the borders of Agency lands (Clean Air Act, 1990); and to 

protect those same resources from the impacts of air pollutants produced within those 

borders (Clean Air Act, 1990, Organic Act, 1977, Wilderness Act, 1997). The authority 

and responsibility to protect resources within National Forest lands are not limited to 

Class I Wilderness Areas. Federal land managers are also required to take the necessary 

steps to protect all federal lands from those impacts. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 

contains numerous sections dealing with these responsibilities, and Section 101(c) states 

the primary purpose of the Act: 

“A primary goal of this Act is to encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, 

State, and local governmental actions, consistent with the provisions of this Act, for 

pollution prevention.” (Clean Air Act, 1990) 

Further, the National Forest Management Act states that Land and Resource Management 

Plans are, in part, specifically based on: 

“...recognition that the National Forests are ecosystems, and their management 

for goods and services requires an awareness and consideration of the 

interrelationships among plants, animals, soil, water, air, and other environmental 

factors within such ecosystems” (National Forest Management Act, 1976). 

The LBL National Recreation Area (NRA) contains no Class I areas (wilderness 

or national parks) that are afforded special protection via the CAA. The closest 

Class I area to LBL is Mammoth Cave National Park in west/central Kentucky. 

The CAA requires Federal Land Managers to identify Air Quality Related Values 

(AQRV), or resources important to the areas that might be affected by air 

pollution. In this analysis the term AQRV will apply to any resources within the 

National Forest boundary that might be affected by air pollution. 

This analysis has three primary purposes: 

• Assess the existing state of air quality in and near LBL; 

• Estimate the future state (within the time horizon of the Area Plan) of air quality in 

and near LBL, and how emissions from activities on LBL might affect air quality; 

• Estimate existing and future air quality impacts to the natural resources (AQRVs) of 

LBL. 

Area and Scope 

Unlike the analysis area for the LBL Area Plan, which only assesses national 

forest lands, this analysis encompasses several much larger areas. Due to the 

regional nature of air quality issues, it is imperative that a much larger area than 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 60 of 273 

just NF lands be analyzed. Therefore, two specific geographic areas have been 

selected: 

• An area encompassing all lands within a 200 kilometer (124 mi.) radius of LBL; 

• An area encompassing all lands within a 50 kilometer (31 mi.) radius of LBL. 

Rationale for two separate assessment areas 

• 200 km. radius buffer – Due to the regional transport of air pollutants and the 

chemical reactions that occur in the atmosphere, conversion of “primary” pollutants 

(i.e. sulfur dioxide) into “secondary” pollutants (i.e. sulfates), a large analysis area is 

needed. This analysis area is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), which routinely analyzes air emissions over multi-State regions 

across the U.S.A. 

Broad-based emissions inventories, such as the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) (U.S. EPA, 2000), are most commonly summarized using pollutant specific 

emission totals per county. The analysis area was defined as those counties having a 

boundary within 200 kilometers of LBL (See Figure 1), and was prepared using data 

from EPA’s 1999 NEI (EPA, 2000), the most recent comprehensive inventory. 

• 50 km. radius buffer – this smaller geographic area focuses on air quality monitoring 

data. There are no State air quality monitors located on LBL, therefore to get an 

adequate sampling of air quality monitoring data near LBL, an analysis area must be 

established to obtain a reasonable sampling of air monitoring data. The area defined 

by the 50 km. radius from LBL was deemed adequate to take in a reasonable number 

of State air quality monitoring stations. (See Figure 2) 

The 200 km. analysis area lies within the borders of eight states: (1) Kentucky, (2) 

Tennessee, (3) Alabama, (4) Arkansas, (5) Illinois, (6) Indiana, (7) Mississippi, and (8) 

Missouri (See Figure 1). The area is comprised of 135 counties, 3 of which cover LBL. 

Air pollutant emissions within this area are considered to have the most profound effects 

on the AQRVs of LBL, while at the same time the analysis area encompasses all lands 

that may be affected by emissions from activities on LBL. 

The 50 km. assessment area lies within the borders of three states: (1) Kentucky, (2) 

Tennessee, and (3) Illinois (See Figure 2). The area is comprised of 24 counties. Since 

there is only one air quality monitoring station (non-State) located on the Forest, a larger 

region must be analyzed to obtain a reasonable amount of air quality data. Air 

monitoring equipment/data within this region are considered to be the most representative 

of LBL. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 61 of 273 

Figure 1: Analysis Area 200 kilometers (km.) from LBL’s boundary 

Structure of the Analysis 

This analysis compares numerical emission inventories, air quality monitoring 

data, meteorological data, and distances between sources and LBL to make 

informed decisions regarding the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS). 

Air quality on and near the Forest will be assessed in relationship to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and in terms of effects on AQRVs. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act established six criteria air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and lead. States measure 

these pollutants in selected areas to monitor their levels. The NAAQS are the 

concentration thresholds of these pollutants that indicate unsafe air quality 

conditions for human health and welfare. Those areas not meeting the NAAQS 

are designated as non-attainment, and area-specific management plans must be 

written by each State air regulatory agency having authority. These plans must be 

incorporated into the affected State Implementation Plan (SIP). The goal of the 

SIP is to bring the affected area(s) back into attainment with the standards. 

Currently there are no NAAQS non-attainment areas within 200 km of LBL. (See 

Figure 3). Although there are seven NAAQS “maintenance areas”. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 62 of 273 

“Maintenance areas” are geographic areas that had formerly been in a nonattainment status, but through State pollution control efforts have complied with 

the NAAQS. Maintenance areas meet the NAAQS, but pollutant specific “State 

Implementation Plans” remain in effect to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. 

NAAQS “Maintenance Area” 

Counties 

NAAQS Pollutant 

Benton Co., Tennessee Sulfur dioxide 

Humphreys Co., Tennessee Sulfur dioxide 

Colbert Co., Alabama Sulfur dioxide 

Lauderdale Co., Alabama Sulfur dioxide 

Muhlenberg Co., Kentucky Sulfur dioxide 

Fayette Co., Tennessee Lead 

Williamson Co., Tennessee Lead 

Figure 3: Existing NAAQS maintenance areas for SO2 & lead within 200 km. of 

LBL. 

Even though there are no non-attainment areas at this time, recent monitoring data for 

ozone (revised 8-hour NAAQS) and fine particulates (PM2.5; new NAAQS) indicates that 

numerous counties may become non-attainment by 2005 (based on observation of the 

data by the author of this document). Three consecutive years of monitoring data is 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 63 of 273 

needed to classify an area as non-attainment. State air regulatory agencies, in 

conjunction with the EPA, have the authority to classify an area as non-attainment. No 

State decisions regarding new ozone or fine particulate non-attainment designations have 

been made to date. Potential new non-attainment areas include (based on 1999 – 2001 

State monitoring data): 

County, State PM2.5 Ozone 

Christian Co., 

Kentucky 

 X 

Colbert Co., 

Alabama 

X 

Davidson Co., 

Tennessee 

X X 

Edmonson Co., 

Kentucky 

 X 

Livingston Co., 

Kentucky 

 X 

McCracken Co., 

Kentucky 

X 

McLean Co., 

Kentucky 

 X 

Posey Co., Indiana X 

Rutherford Co., 

Tennessee 

 X 

Simpson Co., 

Kentucky 

 X 

Sumner Co., 

Tennessee 

X X 

Warren Co., 

Kentucky 

X 

Williamson Co., 

Tennessee 

 X 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 64 of 273 

Figure 4: Possible New Non-Attainment Areas for Ozone & PM2.5 within 200 km of LBL 

(based on 1999 – 2001 monitoring data). 

For urban areas across the US that fail to meet the NAAQS, the EPA/States normally 

classify an entire “metropolitan statistical area” (MSA) as a non-attainment area. Such a 

classification is made if at least one air quality monitoring station, within a county that 

lies within an urban/metropolitan area, registers a specific exceedance for one, or more, 

of the NAAQS. For example, the entire Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV MSA 

area is classified as non-attainment for ozone, even though not all counties within the 

MSA exceed the NAAQS for ozone. MSA’s are presented here since most of the above 

counties that may go into a non-attainment status will be classified by MSA’s. Figure 5 

locates MSA’s within 200 km. of the NF. Therefore, the map of individual counties 

identified in Figure 4 above as being in a possible future non-attainment status, would be 

most likely designated by the States on an MSA basis. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 65 of 273 

Figure 5: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) within 200 km of LBL. 

It is important for LBL to track air quality within and near its boundary because the 

attainment status of specific areas can potentially affect forest management activities. 

While automobiles used by LBL personnel, smoke produced from campfires, and other 

non-regulated combustion sources within LBL may have an impact on the quality of air 

within the analysis area; smoke from managed wildland fire is assumed to be the only 

LBL management activity to produce significant amounts of emissions. It is probable 

that numerous counties and MSA’s will be classified as non-attainment for ozone (8-hour 

standard) and PM2.5 within the planning lifecycle of LBL’s Area Plan. 

Background and Statistics of the Analysis Area 

LBL lies near the industrial heart of the United States. It is within a day’s drive of a large 

percentage of the United State’s population, and is surrounded by a high concentration of 

coal-fired electrical power production facilities; leading sources of SO2 and NOx 

emissions in the country. This network of coal fired electrical power plants includes the 

generally defined “Ohio River Valley” and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA ) sources. 

Within the assessment area are many coal-fired power plants, most of which were built 

before 1980 and therefore are “grandfathered” (exempt from most modern pollution 

controls) by the Clean Air Act Amendments. Although with recent EPA regulations to 

control the regional transport of ozone and the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 66 of 273 

emissions, many “grandfathered” power plants are adopting modern nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) and SO2 controls. The 200 km analysis area contains many of the highest SO2 and 

NOx emitting point source facilities in the United States. All 10 SO2 and NOx sources 

are electric generation facilities. (See Tables 2 and 3 in the major air pollutants section). 

Table 1 shows the national ranking of States in the analysis area for the three pollutants 

of concern of this analysis (NOx, SO2, and PM2.5). It is apparent that there are significant 

emissions of the pollutants associated with acid deposition (CASTNet, 2001) and ozone 

in the states within the analysis area. 

Table 1: 1998 National Rankings of State- Level Emissions (thousand short tons), 

“National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends, 1900 – 1998”, EPA. 

State SO2

emitted 

Natl. 

Rank 

NOX

emitted 

Natl. 

Rank 

PM2.5 

Emitted* 

Natl. 

Rank 

AL 764 9 619 15 184 15 

AR 125 36 267 35 132 25 

IL 1,153 4 1076 4 261 6 

IN 1,164 3 848 7 154 20 

KY 753 10 682 14 103 35 

MO 482 15 546 16 252 8 

MS 305 21 353 28 130 26 

TN 789 7 761 10 130 28 

* - Does not include PM2.5 produced through chemical transformation in the atmosphere, 

“secondary PM2.5” is very significant to resource effects in the analysis area. 

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis 

• Gather 1999 industrial and mobile source emissions data, representing the most recent 

comprehensive National Emissions Inventory for counties within the analysis areas 

(50 and 200 km.), focusing on those counties and individual sources that may most 

profoundly affect the Forest (EPA, 2001). 

• Determine the location of a variety of monitoring sites in proximity to the Forest 

(EPA, 2001; IMPROVE, 2000; IMPROVE 2001; CASTnet, 2001; NADP, 2001; 

NOAA, 2001). 

• Gather monitored pollutant deposition rate and ambient pollutant concentration data 

for multiple years within the analysis area (IMPROVE, 2000; IMPROVE 2001; 

CASTnet, 2001; NADP, 2001). 

• Determine the location and extent of non-attainment areas within and adjacent to the 

analysis area (U.S. EPA, 1999). 

• Spatial analysis of the above data, determining its proximity and relationship to LBL. 

• Determine predominant wind patterns to predict the most likely paths of pollutant 

plumes entering and exiting LBL (NOAA, 2001). 

• Determine present and proposed air quality regulatory initiatives, which affect the 

status of air quality within the analysis area. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 67 of 273 

Pollutant specific, county emission totals were categorized above or below 250 tons/yr. 

the criteria of 250 tons/yr was chosen because it corresponds to that emission level for 

which any single source will be designated as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) source. Even though almost every county within the analysis area contains 

multiple sources, the Forest Service’s Air Program is geared to track the construction and 

modification of any new or modified air pollution source because of the potential for 

emissions to negatively affect the Air Quality Related Values of specific Class I 

Wildernesses. The 250 tons/year trigger value chosen for this analysis indicates that any 

emissions over that level may have a negative effect on the resources of LBL. Any single 

source over 50,000 tons/yr within the analysis area is considered to have a significant 

effect not only on LBL, but the entire analysis area and beyond. Few sources within the 

analysis area emit more than 50,000 tons/yr. However, if a non-urban county’s emissions 

exceed this value, it is reasonable to assume that the county contains one or more 

facilities emitting 10,000 tons/yr. 

Dry and wet deposition values for sulfate and nitrate deposition were reviewed from the 

CASTNet and NADP/NTN data, respectively, for those monitors within or closest to the 

analysis area. Deposition values indicate how emissions of primary pollutants are 

chemically transformed to secondary pollutants within the affected region. Deposition 

trends were reviewed to ascertain impacts to LBL. 

Ozone monitoring data from sites near LBL were used to estimate potential ozone nonattainment areas, and to assess potential impacts to vegetation on LBL. 

Predominant wind directions were determined from sources at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). While not precise, predominant wind direction 

data can give some indication of which sources within the analysis area may have the 

most significant effects on the Forest. 

Professional judgment of the authors was used to answer the following questions: 

• Are primary pollutant emission levels within and outside the analysis area 

resulting in changes in ambient air quality and secondary pollutant deposition 

within LBL, and how is this deposition affecting the resources of LBL? 

• How will future legislative and regulatory initiatives affect LBL management 

options? 

Pollutants Considered 

Due to the complicated nature of air pollutant formation and transport, it is often difficult 

to discuss air quality issues in a simple format. Exhaust from mobile sources such as 

automobiles, trucks, and aircraft; emissions from various point source industrial 

processes, dust from roads; and even biogenic emissions from natural processes such as 

wildfires and plant growth, contribute to the quality of air within any given region. 

While primary pollutant emissions can give an indication of the status of air quality, these 

primary pollutants undergo reactions in the atmosphere to produce secondary pollutants. 

Often the secondary pollutants have a greater impact on the AQRV’s of LBL than the 

primary pollutants. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 68 of 273 

In an attempt to present the information in a logical sequence the primary pollutants and 

their sources are discussed first in the Primary Pollutants section. Information on 

monitoring sites for PM2.5 is presented in this section as well. The secondary pollutants 

formed from these primary pollutants are mentioned in the primary pollutant discussion, 

but are not discussed in detail there. The Secondary Pollutant section contains a more 

detailed discussion of secondary pollutant formation and effects, as well as monitoring 

information. 

Regional climate change resulting from emissions of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases is not discussed in this analysis. It is recognized that resources within 

LBL could be susceptible to climate change. However, uncertainty concerning the nature 

of regional climatic changes and global aspects of the phenomenon place this issue 

outside the scope of this analysis. 

Primary Pollutants Considered 

Three primary pollutants were selected to incorporate into this report. They represent 

three of the six “Criteria Pollutants” recognized by the EPA (USEPA, 1995). 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

• Nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

• Particulate matter, 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5) 

These pollutants were selected for analysis because they are the precursors that 

form secondary pollutants suspected of having the most profound effects on the 

resources of LBL. These effects include visibility reductions and impacts to 

vegetation and aquatic ecosystems. Subsequent information presented on the 

primary pollutants includes the location and intensity of emissions relative to 

LBL, as well as probable future trends. 

Both stationary and mobile sources emit significant levels of the primary 

pollutants; with coal-fired power production ranking first for emissions of SO2 

and NOx, and mobile sources a close second in the production of NOx. 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

About 65 percent of sulfur dioxide released to the air (11.2 million tons in 2000), comes 

from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal (EPA, Trends Report 2001). Other 

sources of SO2 are industrial facilities that derive their products from raw materials like 

metallic ore, coal, and crude oil, or that burn coal or oil to produce process heat. 

Examples are petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, and metal processing 

facilities. Also, locomotives, large ships, and some non-road diesel equipment currently 

burn high sulfur fuel and release SO2 emissions to the air in large quantities. Secondary 

pollutants formed from SO2 emissions such as sulfates and sulfites, reduce visibility and 

contribute to acid deposition. Figure 6 shows county specific SO2 emissions from the 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 69 of 273 

EPA 1999 emission inventory, within the analysis area. Heavy concentrations of SO2

generally correspond to large “point sources”, such as coal-fired electric generation 

facilities. 

Figure 6: Total SO2 emissions for each county in tons per year. 

The ten point source facilities with the highest annual emission rates within the 200 km. 

analysis area are listed in Table 2. These sources are among the top twenty SO2 emitting 

pointsources in the country, all are electric service utilities. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 70 of 273 

Table 2: Ten Largest “point” sources of SO2 emissions in the 200 km analysis area (1999

data). 

Tons/Year of SO2 Source Name Location 

245,244 Illinois Power Co. – Baldwin Randolph Co., IL 

181,066 TVA Muhlenberg Co., KY 

158,901 PSI Energy - Gibson Gibson Co., IN 

150,222 TVA-Johnsonville Steam 

Plant 

Humphreys Co., TN 

119,656 Sigeco-Warrick Pwr., Alcoa 

Generating 

Warrick Co., IN 

84,841 TVA-Gallatin Steam Plant Sumner Co., TN 

69,632 TVA-Colbert Colbert Co., AL 

66,879 IN-MI Power, Rockport Spencer Co., IN 

50,199 Ipalco-Petersburg Pike Co., IN 

37,437 Western KY Energy Corp. Hancock Co., KY 

Nitrogen Oxides 

More than 95 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are in the form of nitric oxide. 

In the presence of volatile organic compounds and sunlight, nitrogen oxides are rapidly 

converted in the atmosphere to ozone. Available evidence suggests that nitrogen oxides 

are a controlling factor in the formation of ground-level ozone in rural areas of the 

Southern United States (Chameides and Cowling, 1995). When trapped in sufficient 

quantities, nitrogen dioxide can be seen as a brownish haze. Secondary pollutants formed 

from nitrogen oxides also reduce visibility and contribute to acid deposition. Figure 7 

shows county specific nitrogen oxide emissions for 1999 within the 200 km. analysis 

area. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 71 of 273 

Figure 7: County specific nitrogen oxide emissions in tons/year. 

Ten largest NOx point sources in the 200 km. analysis area are listed in Table 3. Many 

are among the top NOx emitting point sources in the nation, all are electric service 

utilities. 

Table 3: Ten largest “point sources” of NOx within the 200 km. analysis area. (1999 

data) 

Tons/year of NOx Source Name Location 

104,357 TVA Muhlenberg Co., KY 

82,671 TVA-Cumberland Steam Plant Stewart Co., TN 

55,027 IL Power Co. - Baldwin Randolph Co., IL 

52,222 Assoc. Electric Coop Incorp. New Madrid Co., MO 

49,450 PSI Energy - Gibson Gibson Co., IN 

37,960 IN – MI Power - Rockport Spencer Co., IN 

24,319 TVA-Envir. Affairs McCracken Co, KY 

20,461 TVA-Johnsonville Steam Plant Humphreys Co., TN 

20,201 Ipalco - Petersburg Pike Co., IN 

17,142 TVA-Colbert Colbert Co., AL 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 72 of 273 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid 

droplets found in the air. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or 

smoke. Others are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. 

PM2.5 describes the "fine " particles that are less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter. "Coarse " particles refers to particles greater than 2.5, but less than or equal to 

10 micrometers in diameter. PM10 refers to all particles less than or equal to 10 

micrometers in diameter. A particle 10 micrometers in diameter is about one-seventh the 

diameter of a human hair. Particulate matter can result from primary emissions, and 

secondary atmospheric formation. 

"Primary " particles, such as dust from roads or elemental carbon (soot) from wood 

combustion, are emitted directly into the atmosphere. "Secondary " particles are formed 

in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions. Examples include sulfate, formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants and industrial facilities; and nitrates, formed from 

NOx emissions from power plants, automobiles, and other types of combustion sources. 

The chemical composition of particles depends on location, time of year, and weather. 

Generally, fine particulate is composed mostly of secondary particles, and coarse 

particulate is composed largely of primary particles. This section will focus on primary 

particulate emissions; the formation of secondary particulates will be discussed under 

secondary pollutants.

Primary fine particles come from many different sources, including industrial and 

residential combustion and vehicle exhaust. Due to the wide range of fine particle 

sources, their compositions vary widely. Figure 8 shows total primary, solid PM2.5 

emissions from point and mobile combustion sources. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 73 of 273 

Figure 8: Primary, solid PM2.5 emissions from all sources. 

Soot particles from wildland fires are a small, but significant part of the total PM2.5 load. 

However, it is important to note that PM2.5 particles from wildland fires are not included 

in the values reported in Figure 8. Wildland fire PM2.5 production is categorized by the 

EPA as “area source” emissions, Figure 8 only captures “point sources” of emissions. 

Collectively, these fine particles can lead to deterioration of visibility across LBL and 

Class I areas, and are associated with significant respiratory and cardiovascular-related 

problems (U.S. EPA, 2001). When inhaled, particles can accumulate in the respiratory 

system and are associated with numerous adverse human health effects. Exposure to 

coarse particles is primarily associated with the aggravation of respiratory conditions, 

such as asthma. Fine particles are closely associated with increased hospital admissions 

and emergency room visits for heart and lung disease, increased respiratory disease, 

decreased lung function, and even premature death. Sensitive groups are at greater risk, 

and include the elderly, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma and 

children. Fine particles are the major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the 

United States. Airborne particles also can impact vegetation and ecosystems and can 

cause damage to paints and building materials. For this reason, fine particle levels are 

monitored, and NAAQS have been set for this pollutant. Figure 9 shows the PM2.5

monitors that are in counties that border, or are near, LBL. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 74 of 273 

Figure 9: State PM2.5 monitors in counties near LBL (50 km. analysis area) 

Both annual and 24-hour PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS have been established. For PM2.5, the 

annual arithmetic mean for all 24-hour sampling periods can be no more than 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), or the annual 24-hour sampling period maximum can 

be no more than 65 ug/m3

. The data in Table 4 shows whether the NAAQS were met by 

comparing the annual average and annual 24-hour maximum (1st highest) to the PM2.5

NAAQS for the monitoring sites in Figure 9. 

It is important to note that the monitoring data shown below not only reflects the total 

primary emissions of PM2.5 shown in Figure 8, but also includes secondary PM2.5, such as 

sulfates and nitrates. A majority of the PM2.5 observed through monitoring is the result of 

this gas to particle transformation in the atmosphere. (refer to PM2.5 and Visibility Impacts

under the Secondary Pollutant section in the following pages.) 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 75 of 273 

Table 4: Fine Particulate annual average and 24 hour max values for monitors 

within 50 km. of LBL. Values for sites in italics exceed the NAAQS (Annual = 15 

μg/m3

, 24 hr. = 65 μg/m3) 

State County Monitor

ID 

1999 2000 2001s 

 Annual 

Avg 

24 

Hr 

Ma

x 

Annual 

Avg 

24 

Hr 

Ma

x 

Annual 

Avg 

24 

Hr 

Ma

x 

KY Christian 21047000-

6881011 

15.34 35.0 17.03 40.4 14.51 33.4

KY McCracken 21145100-

4881011 

15.8 39.7 15.31 40.8 14.62 33.0

TN Montgomery 47125100-

9881011 

16.74 43.0 15.33 33.4 13.93 27.5

* Air quality sampling, analysis and reporting is the result of joint effort of State air 

regulatory agencies and the EPA. Data summaries obtained from EPA - 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html

Of the three closest PM2.5 monitors to LBL, all exceed the annual PM2.5 standard in 1999 

and 2000. Three full years of monitoring data are needed to classify a county as nonattainment (exceeding the standard). Once 2002 and 2003 data are available and a threeyear average is computed, all three of the above counties may become non-attainment for 

PM2.5. Once an area is designated non-attainment, an SIP is developed in an attempt to 

bring the area back into attainment. This usually involves placing controls on various 

PM2.5 sources to lessen/minimize their PM2.5 emissions. LBL will need to interact with 

the Kentucky and Tennessee air regulatory agencies to ensure that managed wildland fire 

emissions are considered in their respective SIP development. 

It is of particular importance for fire managers to mitigate managed wildland fire 

emissions, to the greatest extent practical, during those days characterized by existing or 

predicted high ambient particulate loads. Federal land managers utilizing managed 

wildland fire are most interested in the 24-hour NAAQS, due to the short-term nature of 

managed wildland fire. While managed wildland fire emissions rarely affect the PM10

NAAQS (150 ug/m3), it is more likely that fire emissions could affect the lower PM2.5 

NAAQS (65 ug/m3). The PM2.5 standard may require fire managers to be even more 

vigilant to protect the health and welfare of citizens on and off federal lands from the 

effects of PM emissions associated with wildland fire. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 76 of 273 

Secondary Pollutants Considered 

Three broad classes of secondary pollutants are analyzed: 

• Sulfate and nitrate deposition as they contribute to acid precipitation, 

• Ozone and its effects on vegetation, 

• Fine particulate (PM2.5) and its effect on visibility (regional haze). 

Primary pollutants emitted from stationary and mobile sources undergo transformations 

in the atmosphere and are converted to secondary air pollutants (CIRA 1999). Sulfates 

and nitrates are “the main contributors” to regional haze and acid rain, and can be 

transported hundreds of miles. However, based on numerous Agency sanctioned 

modeling studies, those pollution sources within 200 kilometers of any given area appear 

to have the most significant impact on that area’s resources. 

Acid deposition - sulfate and nitrate deposition 

The secondary pollutants sulfate and nitrate are of great importance due to their 

combined contribution to acid deposition and regional haze. Data illustrated below 

suggests that LBL is within an area of moderately high sulfate and nitrate deposition 

(both wet and dry) for the United States. Such deposition can have a detrimental effect 

on natural systems if those systems are not adequately buffered. On LBL, historic and 

current loading of sulfates, combined with soils and geology with adequate buffering 

capacity, has not caused headwater streams to acidify. 

Wet deposition values for sulfate and nitrate, from National Acid Deposition Program 

(NADP) monitoring stations for 2001 are shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. It is 

clear the Ohio River Valley is a region of high sulfate and nitrate deposition. This is not 

surprising since a large portion of electrical generation with coal takes place there. 

Prevailing southeast winds carry pollutants up from the Tennessee Valley while at the 

same time minimizing the intrusion of the more heavily polluted Ohio Valley region. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 77 of 273 

 

Figure 10: Estimated Sulfate ion Deposition Rates, 2001. Source: NADP. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 78 of 273 

Figure 11: Estimated Nitrate ion Deposition Rates, 2001. Source: NADP. 

Figure 12 shows the location of the two NADP monitoring sites closest to LBL; Mulberry 

Flat - Trigg County, KY (KY99) and Dixon Springs Agricultural Station – Pope County, 

IL (IL63). Associated data for those sites for 1999 – 2001 is shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 79 of 273 

Figure 12: NADP Sites near LBL. 

Table 5: Wet deposition values in kg/ha/year; 2000 data; source - National Acid 

Deposition Program (http://nadp.swc.uiuc.edu/)

Summary 

Period 

Trigg Co., KY 

NADP site KY99 

Pope Co., IL 

NADP site IL63 

NO3 SO4 NO3 SO4

Annual 11.75 14.75 12.75 17.17 

Winter 2.89 4.45 3.15 4.81 

Spring 3.84 4.33 4.20 5.04 

Summer 2.67 2.47 3.27 3.54 

Fall 2.45 3.42 1.93 3.49 

Table 6: Wet deposition values in kg/ha/year; 2001 data; source - National Acid 

Deposition Program (http://nadp.swc.uiuc.edu/)

Summary Trigg Co., KY Pope Co., IL 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 80 of 273 

Period NADP site KY99 NADP site IL63 

NO3 SO4 NO3 SO4

Annual 10.28 13.13 16.12 22.13 

Winter 1.90 2.95 2.31 3.76 

Spring 2.20 2.43 3.60 4.35 

Summer 3.68 3.46 6.49 7.64 

Fall 2.40 3.18 2.99 4.79 

Table 7: Wet deposition values in kg/ha/year; 2002 data; source - National Acid 

Deposition Program (http://nadp.swc.uiuc.edu/) 

Summary 

Period 

Trigg Co., KY 

NADP site KY99 

Pope Co., IL 

NADP site IL63 

NO3 SO4 NO3 SO4

Annual 11.57 14.73 16.36 22.68 

Winter 2.60 3.94 3.97 6.25 

Spring 4.56 6.20 7.55 10.35 

Summer 2.78 2.77 2.65 2.92 

Fall 2.10 3.04 2.33 4.24 

Review of the seasonal NO3 and SO4 deposition data indicates that the spring and 

summer seasons produce higher deposition across these sites. This same pattern is 

replicated at NADP sites across the central and southeastern U.S. 

NADP trend analysis for these two sites shows a general decrease in the levels of SO4 

SO4 deposition, especially over the last ten years (Figure 13). This decline in SO4

deposition at NADP sites is consistent with the decreases in utility SO4 emissions brought 

about by the “Acid Rain Program,” (Title IV) of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air 

Act. For all three years analyzed, the Pope County NADP site shows consistently higher 

deposition than for Trigg County for both pollutants. With implementation of new 

EPA/State regulations regarding NOx emissions (“NOx SIP Call”), it is expected that NOx

emissions and NO3 deposition will mirror the SO4 reductions beginning around 2007. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 81 of 273 

Figure 13: Deposition trends data for SO4 and NO3 at KY and IL NADP sites. 

( http://nadp.swc.uiuc.edu/ ) 

Similar trends are seen in total sulfur and nitrogen deposition (wet plus dry) at other 

NADP sites located within the 200 km. analysis area. Data has been collected at these 

sites for at least ten years, and it shows that sulfur deposition is decreasing slightly, and 

nitrogen is remaining fairly constant. 

Figure 14: Total sulfur and nitrogen deposition at Cadiz CASTNET site (Trigg Co., KY). 

From CASTNet website http://www.epa.gov/castnet/ 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 82 of 273 

CASTNet data from the Cadiz site in Trigg Co., KY mirrors trends seen at the nearby 

NADP site for both annual wet nitrate (NO3) and sulfate (SO4) deposition. The data 

presented here shows relatively flat wet nitrate deposition, it is expected that recent 

installations of NOx reduction hardware at many coal-fired utilities in the LBL region 

will lead to decreases in nitrate deposition, as well as lessened ozone concentrations. 

Ozone 

The production of ozone (O3) is highly dependent on the presence of NOx, and volatile 

organic compounds (in the right ratios), sunshine, and elevated temperatures. Therefore, 

high ozone levels will occur only during periods of warm weather and plentiful sunshine. 

For this reason, the ozone monitoring season is from April to October. 

The ozone molecule is composed of three oxygen molecules, and is less stable than 

diatomic oxygen (the oxygen we breath). This unstable molecule reacts with the tissues 

inside the leaf of a plant, and in the human lung and therefore can have a great impact on 

forest productivity and on human health. For the purposes of this report, potential for 

ozone non-attainment designations and impacts of ozone on plants will be considered. 

Potential Ozone Non-Attainment Areas 

Figure 16 shows the locations of ozone monitors near LBL. The statistics in Table 8 

represent the 4th highest of all the 8-hour running averages observed for these monitoring 

sites during each of the given years, followed by the three-year average. Values 

highlighted signify areas where the 3-year average exceeded 0.85 (8-hour NAAQS). 

These areas may be designated as non-attainment for ozone in the future. This is based 

strictly on observation of the data by the authors of this document. Official nonattainment designations will be made by the states and EPA. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 83 of 273 

Figure 16: Ozone monitors near LBL, as of 2002. 

Table 8: Fourth highest maximum 8-hour Ozone values and the three year averages for 

sites within 50 km. of LBL, Data for 2000 – 2002 

State County Monitor ID 2000 2001 2002 3-Year 

Average

KY Christian 21047000- 

6442011 

0.081 0.082 0.093 0.085 

KY Graves 21083000- 

3442011 

0.080 0.073 0.092 0.082 

KY Livingston 21139000- 

3442011 

0.078 0.084 0.090 0.084 

KY McCracken 21145102- 

4442011 

0.084 0.077 0.086 0.082 

• Units reported in parts per million (ppm). Values in italics 

• exceed the EPA standard of 0.085 ppm. Air quality sampling, analysis, and 

reporting is the result of joint effort of KY & TN air regulatory agencies and the 

EPA. Data summaries obtained from EPA - www.epa.gov/air/data/
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 84 of 273 

Ozone Effects to Forest Vegetation 

Although most ozone effects research has focused on agricultural crops because of the 

large economic losses that have been documented, considerable work has been done 

relating to ozone effects on forest tree species. Research has identified many native 

plants in natural ecosystems that are sensitive to ozone. Ozone effects on plants are most 

pronounced when soil moisture and nutrients are adequate and ozone concentrations are 

high. Under good soil moisture and nutrient conditions, the ozone will enter through 

openings into the leaf and damage the cells that produce the food for the plants. Once the 

ozone is absorbed into the leaf, some plants spend energy to produce bio-chemicals that 

can neutralize a toxic effect from the ozone. Other plants will suffer from a toxic effect, 

and growth loss and/or visible symptoms may occur. The presence of ozone in an area 

can be detected when consistent and known symptoms are observed on the upper-leaf 

surface of a sensitive plant species. 

The presence of ozone symptoms on the leafs of sensitive plants is not an accurate 

indicator of how much growth loss has occurred to a sensitive plant from ozone exposure. 

Therefore, some air resource specialists rely upon measurements taken with ozone 

monitoring equipment in order to predict if growth loss has occurred. Ozone monitors, 

such as those shown in Figure 16, provide hourly ozone concentrations from April 

through October. Researchers and technical specialists have examined ways to estimate 

growth loss to vegetation, with the use of exposure indices, based on those hourly values. 

Even though LBL was not within the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI) 

analysis area, SAMI ozone effects to vegetation results are generally applicable to LBL. 

SAMI addressed changes that would occur to forest stands under various ozone 

exposures. The major effect of different ozone exposures was a shift in competition 

between species within forest stands (SAMI, 2002). Total basal area in forests in the 

SAMI region is not likely to change even if ozone concentrations are reduced. Likewise, 

forest types are unlikely to shift in abundance, and tree mortality in direct response to 

ozone is not expected. Individual species did show a positive response to reductions in 

ozone. 

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and Regional Haze 

Secondary fine particles are formed when combustion gases are chemically transformed 

into particles. The bulk of regional fine particles within the analysis area are the result of 

these chemically transformed combustion gases, such as sulfates and nitrates; mainly 

sulfate particles (transformed sulfur dioxide) from coal-fired power plants. These 

chemically transformed fine particles are largely responsible for regional haze. 

During the last four decades, the Eastern United States has seen a significant, regional 

reduction in visibility, brought on by a corresponding increase in ambient levels of PM10

and PM2.5 (IMPROVE, 2001). This regional reduction in visibility is called regional haze. 

The Inter-agency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), a national 

network of particulate monitors established for the protection of Class I park and 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 85 of 273 

wilderness areas, has monitored the constituents of regional haze for more than two 

decades. EPA’s Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) performs a similar 

function. IMPROVE monitor locations: 

• One monitor located within 50 km. analysis area, “Cadiz site” in Trigg Co., KY; 

• One monitor located within 200 km. analysis area, Mammoth Cave National Park, 

Edmonson Co., KY. 

Together, results from these monitors suggest that regional haze, caused by elevated 

particulate loading, heavily impacts the analysis area. This is similar to observed 

deposition rates of sulfate and nitrate, and it is important to note that the pollutants 

associated with regional haze have also been associated with acid deposition and 

respiratory health issues. Thus, it can be concluded that high, primary SO2 and NOx

emissions can have a significant impact on the forest resources, as they are transformed 

into their secondary forms. 

Figure 17 below shows 3-year average deciview values for the United States. Deciview 

is a measure of visibility condition. Lower deciview values correspond to clearer air, and 

vice versa. The deciview values for the analysis area correspond to an average visual 

range between 30 and 40 kilometers (from data collected 1995-1998). Natural visibility 

in the East is estimated to be between 90 and 130 kilometers. 

Figure 17: Average Deciview values using IMPROVE and CASTNET Network data 

The Cadiz IMPROVE aerosol monitor was installed in 2001, due to delays in reporting 

the data, a full year’s worth of data is not available at this time. The Mammoth Cave 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 86 of 273 

National Park IMPROVE aerosol monitor has been in operation since 1995, the two trend 

lines (Figures 18 and 19) plot visibility (expressed as inverse mega-meters [Mm-1] or 

“beta extinction”) over a six year period. The first graph plots the “best 20 percent days” 

visibility, whereas the second graph plots the “worst 20 percent ” visibility days. EPA’s 

Regional Haze Regulation strives to improve visibility on the “worst 20 percent days” 

while not allowing any degradation of the “best 20 percent days”. Note regarding 

Figures 18 and 19 - “Mm-1” (inverse mega-meters) on the vertical axis is a measure of 

visibility, lower values indicate better visibility. 

Mercury Pollution 

Another important pollutant that is not part of the NAAQS is mercury. Adverse impacts 

to human health are the main concern with mercury pollution. The primary source of 

mercury pollution is from coal-fired electric generation facilities. Mercury is a natural 

component of coal, the combustion process releases mercury to the atmosphere, from 

there is deposited across the landscape primarily through precipitation. The “mercury 

deposition network “ (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/) was established under the umbrella 

of the National Acid Deposition Program to monitor this pollutant. Two forms of 

mercury are monitored by the national network: total mercury and methylmercury. The 

two closest MDN monitors to LBL are located in southern Indiana (beyond the 200 km. 

analysis area), the first full year of operation was 2001 (no data is available for 2002). 

Annual, total mercury wet deposition monitored for both sites was 11.9 and 12.6 μg/m3. 

Figure 18 - Five-year visibility trend of best 20% days. Source – Regional Haze 

– VIEWS website, http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/

Figure 19 - Five-year visibility trend of worst 20% days. Source – Regional 

Haze – VIEWS website, http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 87 of 273 

To put those values into perspective, for 2001 the lowest monitored annual wet 

deposition was at a coastal California site (2.7 μg/m3) and the highest recorded value was 

at a coastal, south Florida site (21.1 μg/m3

). The closest MDN to LBL with some history 

of total wet mercury deposition is a north, central Illinois site (beyond the 200 km. 

analysis area), values for that site are: 

• 1999 – 9.0 μg/m3

• 2000 – 9.6 μg/m3

• 2001 – 9.0 μg/m3

From this very limited data set, no discussion of trends is warranted. 

The main human health concern with mercury results from the consumption of fish with 

elevated mercury levels. State public health agencies rank fish from certain lakes and 

rivers as unfit for human consumption. All of the States within 200 km. of LBL have 

water-body specific advisories or State-wide advisories. KY, MO, and IN have Statewide mercury advisories. From an ecosystem perspective, fisheries health is a concern. 

Presently mercury is an uncontrolled pollutant from coal-fired power generation. At this 

time the EPA is drafting regulations to control mercury emissions from power generation. 

Weather Trends, Predominant Wind Directions 

The effects of air pollutants on an area are not only related to levels of primary pollutant 

emissions within the area, but are also related to predominate weather patterns in the 

region. Weather conditions such as temperature, humidity precipitation, and air mass 

pressure can dictate the formation of secondary pollutants (such as ozone), the pollutant’s 

effects, and pollutant dissipation and dispersion from an area. Primary pollutants emitted 

in one area can travel to another via moving air masses, and the effects of the pollutants 

can be observed in an area far from the actual emission source. Similarly, pollutants 

emitted in an area can become trapped under an inversion layer or a stable high-pressure 

air mass, causing a build up of pollutants that are unable to dissipate, causing serious 

health risk in the region. For this reason, it is important not only to consider pollutant 

emissions when conducting an analysis of air quality in a given area, but also to consider 

predominant weather patterns. It must be stressed however, that pollutants can be 

transported from any direction. Therefore, the heaviest deposition or most serious ozone 

concentration episodes may occur at any time from any direction. 

Table 9 lists the available, predominant wind directions for the Trigg County 

meteorological site. Prevailing annual winds are out of the south-southeast to southeast 

quadrant. Therefore, even though major pollution sources in the Ohio Valley are 

relatively close to LBL, prevailing winds move most of the pollution away from LBL. 

Table 9: Predominant wind direction based on wind rose data for Trigg County, KY. 

Data obtained from US Forest Service Ventilation Climate Information System website 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/vent/index.html) (Forest Service obtains data from 

NOAA.) 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 88 of 273 

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual 

SSE 

& 

SSW 

SE 

& 

NE 

SE SSE SE SSE SSE 

& 

NNE

NE 

& 

SE 

SE 

& 

NE 

SE SE SE SSE & 

SE 

Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives 

Acid Rain: EPA's Acid Rain Program, established under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air 

Act Amendments, calls for major reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), the pollutants that cause acid rain. In an innovative, but arguably 

flawed approach to environmental protection, the program uses market incentives to 

achieve a nationwide limit on SO2 emissions more cost effectively than traditional 

regulatory methods. The Acid Rain Program requires a two-phased tightening of 

restrictions on fossil fuel-fired power plants, resulting in a permanent cap on SO2 of 8.95 

million tons nationwide, half the amount emitted in 1980. Phase I of the SO2 program ran 

from 1995 through 1999 and affected roughly 440 of the larger, higher emitting utility 

units, primarily in the Eastern United States. Phase II began in 2000 and extends to all 

Acid Rain sources throughout the country (over 2,000 units nationwide). 

NOx emission reductions are also phased, with Phase I beginning in 1996, and Phase II in 

2000. Rather than setting an absolute limit on emissions, EPA controls how much NOx is 

emitted for each unit of fuel consumed (lb. of NOx/Btu of heat input), NOx emissions are 

not capped. Beginning in 2000, Phase II of the Acid Rain Program will achieve NOx

emission reductions of over 2 million tons annually (U.S. EPA, 2001-b). 

Between 1990 and 2001, total utility nitrogen oxide emissions (Phase I and II sources) 

were reduced an average of 23 percent nationally, following implementation of Phase I 

of the Acid Rain Program. However, electric utilities contribute only about one-third of 

total NOx emissions. Since total NOx emissions from other sources have risen or 

remained relatively constant (motor vehicles and other industrial sources also contribute 

significantly), the reductions achieved under the Acid Rain Program have not resulted in 

a significant change in total NOx emissions.

Management Constraints and Regulatory Mandates 

The USDA Forest Service is mandated, as are other federal land management agencies, 

to follow the directives of the CAA and National Environmental Policy Act in mitigating 

the effects of Agency activities on the health and welfare of surrounding communities, as 

well as to Agency resources. Those areas not meeting NAAQS are designated as nonattainment, and area specific management plans must be written by each air agency 

having authority. These plans must be incorporated into the affected state’s SIP. The 

goal of the SIP is to bring the affected areas back into attainment with the standards. If 

any part of a Forest is within a non-attainment area, that Forest must conduct a 

conformity analysis to determine if significant air polluting activities conform to the SIP. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 89 of 273 

Wildland fire is the primary activity on LBL that will produce large amounts of air 

pollution. The smoke associated with wildland fire produces particulate matter and lesser 

amounts of other pollutants, including NOx. Nitrogen oxide emissions are generally 

small and are unlikely to affect ozone attainment. However, particulate emissions are 

much greater and will be of concern to state air regulators because of the possibility of 

affecting the PM2.5 attainment status of LBL or adjacent areas. No part of LBL is 

presently within a non-attainment area. 

It will be important for LBL to work with the Kentucky and Tennessee air regulatory 

agencies, and the VISTAS regional air quality planning organization, to improve air 

quality and minimize negative effects to forest resources, while striving to continue to use 

managed wildland fire as a tool for forest management. If the States of Kentucky or 

Tennessee designate any counties as non-attainment for ozone or PM2.5, then the States 

may take more interest in emissions from managed wildland fire within the time span of 

the Area Plan. Managed wildland fires can produce significant quantities of PM2.5, but 

unlike stationary sources of PM2.5 , managed wildland fires are spatially spread out over a 

large geographic area and their timing and duration is relatively short. 

References 

AirData, 2001. Compilation of air quality related statistics. Research Triangle Park, 

NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/net.html 

Bulger A., J. Cosby, R. Webb. 1998. Acid Rain: Current and Projected Status of 

Coldwater Fish Communities in the Southeastern US in the Context of Continued Acid 

Deposition. A Coldwater Conservation Fund Report. 

CASTNet, 2001. Clean Air Status and Trends Network 1999 Annual Report, Research 

Triangle Park. NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. http://www.epa.gov/castnet/reports.html 

Chameides, W.L.; Cowling, Ellis B.1995. The State of the Southern Oxidant Study 

(SOS): Policy-relevant findings in ozone pollution research 1988-1994. Southern 

Oxidant Study. Raleigh, NC: College of Forest Resources, North Carolina State 

University. 136p. 

CIRA, 1999. Introduction to Visibility. Ft. Collins, Colorado: Cooperative Institute for 

Research in the Atmosphere. 79p. 

Clean Air Act, 1990. 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q 

FLAG, 2000. Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup, Phase I 

Report. U.S. Forest Service-Air Quality Program, National Park Service-Air Resources 

Division, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Air Quality Branch. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 90 of 273 

Hogsett, W. E.; Plocher M; Wildman V.; Tingey, D. T. and Benett, J. P. 1985. Growth 

response of two varieties of slash pine seedlings to chronic ozone exposures. Can. J. 

Botany 63:2369-2376. 

IMPROVE, 2000. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and 

its Constituents in the United States, Report III. ISSN: 0730-5352-47. Ft. Collins, 

Colorado: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere. 

IMPROVE, 2001. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments website. 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Lefohn, A. S.;Runeckles, V. C. 1987. Establishing a standard to protect vegetation - 

ozone exposure/dose considerations. Atmos. Environ. 21:561-568. 

Lefohn, A. S., 1998. The identification of ozone exposures that result in vegetation 

visible injury and growth loss for specific species in the Southern Appalachian Mountain 

region. Report on file at: Southern Appalachian Mountain Intitiative, 59 Woodfin Place, 

Asheville, NC 28801. 

Malm, William C. et. al., 2000. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability 

of Haze and its Constituents in the United States: Report III, Cooperative Institute for 

Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Ft. Collins, CO 

Mussleman, R. C.; Oshima, R. J. and Gallavan, R. E. 1983. Significance of pollutant 

concentration distribution in the response of 'red kidney' beans to ozone. J. Am. Soc. 

Hort. Sci. 108:347-351. 

 

Mussleman, R. C.; Huerta, A. J.; McCool, P. M.; and Oshima, R. J. 1986. Response of 

beans to simulated ambient and uniform ozone distribution with equal peak 

concentrations. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111:470-473. 

 

National Forest Management Act. 1976. 36 C.F.R. 219.1(b)(3). 

NADP, 2001. National Acid Deposition Program. Data Access. 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/nadpdata/ 

NOAA, 2001. Climatic Wind Data for the United States through 1996. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, NC. 

Accessed via http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html. 

Organic Act, 1977. 16 U.S.C. Sections 551, 1601(a), 1602(5)(C), and 1609(a), 

Gleason, J.; Menegay, A.; Birdsong, J. 2000. Power Than Pollutes. 

Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative. 2002. Final Report. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 91 of 273 

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment, Report 2 of 5. 

General Technical Report SRS-32. Asheville, NC: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Southern Research Station. 57p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1995. National air pollutant emission 

trends, 1900-1994. EPA-454/R-95-011. Research Triangle Park. NC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 64p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Supplement B: Stationary and Area 

Sources. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC; National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends, 1900 – 1998; 

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/trends98/trends98.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1999. National air pollutant emission 

trends, 1999. EPA-454/R-01-004. Research Triangle Park. NC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2000a. Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume II: Mobile Sources. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2000b. Analyses of 1999 PM data 

for the PM NAAQS Review. Office of Air Quality Plannning and Standards. Accessed 

via: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/pm25/analyses.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2001. AirData website 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/net.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2001-b. U.S. EPA Title IV Electric 

Utility Sources, taken from EPA’s TTN website, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/. 

 Wilderness Act, 1997. 36 C.F.R. 293.2 

Webb, J.R., F. Deviney, J. Galloway, C. Rhinehart, P. Thompson and S. Wilson. 1994. 

The Acid-Base Status of Native Brook Trout Streams in the Mountains of Virginia: A 

Regional Assessment Based on the Virginia Trout Stream Sensitivity Study. Department 

of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 92 of 273 

B.9 Economic and Local Government Impact Analyses

The purpose of this portion of Appendix B is to provide interested readers with additional 

details regarding the social and economic analyses. This section does not provide 

sufficient information to replicate the analysis. For that level of detail, the companion 

specialist reports contained in the Project Record should be consulted. 

The Models 

Economic effects to local counties were estimated using an economic input-output model 

developed with IMPLAN Professional 2.0 (IMPLAN). IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for 

Planning) is a software package for personal computers that uses the latest national inputoutput tables from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The software was originally 

developed by the Forest Service and is now maintained by the Minnesota IMPLAN 

Group, Inc (MIG). Data used for the impact analysis was from secondary data for those 

counties considered to be in the forests impact areas. 

Input-output analysis gives estimates of employment and income for an increase in final 

demand on certain sectors of the economy. For Forest Service timber, for example, we 

have looked at the sawmill and pulpwood industries where our timber goes as the first 

processing step in manufacturing. Impacts include all those industries initially impacted 

as well as those industries linked with supplying inputs to production, and workers in 

those industries who spend wages in their households (known as direct, indirect and 

induced effects, respectively). The impact assumes a new demand is made on the 

economy and estimates what this new increase in final demand will mean in employment 

and income to that economy. Input-output modeling (an efficiency analysis which tells 

how income and jobs are distributed throughout an economy for a given economic 

impact) has nothing to do with cost benfit, an equity analysis which estimates how 

efficient monies are spent on investment activities. 

Dependency Analysis 

The IMPLAN model was used to assess the economic dependencies of the planning area. 

Economic dependency is a way of assessing the strength of regional or local economies. 

Regional economies generally depend on their exports to sustain most local income and 

employment. Based on this data, it is reasonable to estimate economic dependency by 

examining an area’s export base. The export base analysis done for this FEIS measured 

the total contribution of one sector, or industry to the economy. Industries can import 

and export similar commodities. Those industries having more exports than imports are 

considered “basic”, and thereby allow “new” money to enter the economy. Basic 

industries allow an economy to grow. 

Diversity Analysis 

Using IMPLAN employment and income reports, forest planners illustrated the relative 

importance of major sectors and industries, such as wood products, and tourism. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 93 of 273 

Employment, industrial output, and total income to workers and proprietors were 

contrasted to the total for the entire forest economy to gauge the percentage relationship 

between the two. The Shannon-Weaver Entrophy Indexes were also used to show 

relative diversity of counties and states. 

Forest Contribution and Economic Impact Analysis 

An impact analysis describes what happens when a change in final sales (e.g. exports and 

residents) occurs for goods and services in the model’s region. Changes in final sales are 

the result of multiplying production data (e.g., recreation visitor trips) times sales. 

Economic impacts were estimated for 2000 using the expenditure data for recreation, 

wildlife and hunting from the U.S. Forest Service’s National Visitor Use and Monitoring 

(NVUM) data, and the Fish & Wildlife Service’s wildife use data, respectively, and 

stumpage estimates for timber. NVUM data was used by Daniel J. Stynes and Eric 

White, Michigan State University, July 2002, to estimate spending profiles of recreation 

users. The USDA Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute, Ft. Collins, CO, 

estimated spending profiles from the 1996 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services wildlife data. 

Impacts to local economies are measured in two ways: employment and total income. 

Employment is expressed in jobs. A job can be seasonal or year-round, full-time, or parttime. The income measure used was the total income expressed in 2000 dollars. Total 

income includes both employee compensation (pay plus benefits) and proprietors income 

(e.g. self-employed). 

Data Sources 

The planning area IMPLAN models were used to determine total consequences of dollar, 

employment, and income changes in selected sectors. Because input-output models are 

linear, multipliers or response coefficients need only be calculated once per model and 

then applied to the direct change in final demand. A Forest Service developed 

spreadsheet known as “FEAST” (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet 

Tool) was used to apply the IMPLAN impact results (response coefficients) to each 

alternative, expressed in units of output. FEAST transforms the dollar impact for a given 

industry from IMPLAN to the resource output units, obtained from SPECTRUM or other 

outputs estimated by forest planners. The multiplication of resource outputs and the 

IMPLAN response coefficients within FEAST yields a specific employment and dollar 

output for each resource or activity. Specifications for developing IMPLAN response 

coefficients and levels of dollar activity are stated below. 

Timber 

Sales data was determined by using timber values multiplied by estimated production 

levels for each alternative. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 94 of 273 

Other Recreation and Wildlife/Fish 

Expenditure Data—Recreation, wildlife, and hunting trips were derived from the 

1998 LBL Visitor Profile Survey and the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

(NVUM). The resulting calculations yielded trips for resident and non-resident day, On 

National Forest Overnight Use, and Off National Forest Overnight Use. These use 

metrics were entered into FEAST to link with IMPLAN impact response coefficients to 

yield an impact for recreation and wildlife resources. Further explanation on how input 

data was calculated, can be found in “Conversion of Survey Results to Visits and Trips” 

(this appendix). 

Some analysts may not include resident participation in local economy impacts because 

there may be substitute opportunities for local residents to spend their discretionary 

dollar. The Forest Service decided to include resident expenditures in the local economy, 

with the condition that these expenditures were “associated” with the impacts, and not 

“responsible” for causing the impacts. The statement is made that impacts are 

“associated” with recreation and wildlife resource impacts rather than “caused” by these 

impacts, because local recreation users have many choices in an impact area for 

recreation. If some people choose not to recreate on national forest land, they may 

recreate in another manner, such as go to sporting events or a movie. The dollars would 

still be spent in the local economy causing a similar impact, but the provider of recreation 

would be a different party. Local residents are defined as recreation users within 50 

miles of the forest or area boundary. 

Federal Expenditures & Employment 

Expenditure Data –A forest budget was estimated for each alternative and was used for 

forest expenditures, some of which had local economic effects. Total forest obligations 

by Budget Object Code (BOC) for FY 2000 were obtained from the National 

Finance Center and used to identify total forest expenditures. The proportion of funds 

spent by program varied by alternative according to the theme for that alternative. Forest 

Service employment was estimated by the forest staff based on examination of historical 

Forest Service obligations. 

Use of the Model – To obtain an estimate of total impacts from Forest Service spending, 

salary and non-salary portions of the impact were handled separately. Non-salary 

expenditures were determined by using the BOC information noted above. 

This profile was run through the model for non-salary expenditures per one million 

dollars, and the results multiplied by total forest non-salary expenditures. FEAST was 

again used to make the calculations. Local sales to the federal government are treated in 

the same manner as exports. 

Salary impacts result from forest employees spending a portion of their salaries locally. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 95 of 273 

Output Levels 

Output levels for each item listed above can be viewed in various forest FEAST 

spreadsheet files contained in the project records. These amounts are also located in the 

corresponding resource sections of the FEIS. 

Present Net Value 

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (36 

CFR 219.1) state that forest plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield 

of goods and services from the NFS in a way that maximizes long-term net public 

benefits in an environmentally sound manner.” Net public benefits is defined as the 

overall value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all associated 

inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. 

Present net value (PNV) is one of the criteria used to determine net public benefits (NPB) 

in the alternatives. It is the difference between the discounted value of all outputs which 

were assigned a price in the revision, and all Forest Service management and investment 

costs over the analysis period. The PNV converts all costs and benefits over the 50-year 

planning period to a common point in time. The results of the PNV analysis can be found 

in the FEIS Section 3.4.7.

Other benefits of public land management cannot be measured using dollar values. These 

non-priced benefits are another criteria used to determine NPB. 

Financial and Economic Efficiency Analysis 

Financial efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested in each alternative 

produce revenues to the agency. Economic efficiency is defined as how well the dollars 

invested in each alternative produce benefits to society. Present net value 

(PNV) is used as an indicator of financial and economic efficiency. 

A Microsoft Office Excel electronic spreadsheet was used to calculate PNV for each 

alternative over a 50-year period. A four percent real discount rate, prescribed by Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.17, was used. Decadal and 50-year cumulative present 

values for program benefits and costs, as well as present net values, are the products of 

this spreadsheet. For each decade, an average annual resource value was estimated, 

multiplied by 10 years, and discounted from the mid-point of each decade. 

The financial values for timber came from an average of 2000 stumpage prices provided 

by LBL, and prices for recreation and wildlife from RPA updated to 2000 dollars and 

transformed to NVUM unit measurements. All values are in 2000 constant dollars. 

Conversion of Survey Results to Visits and Trips 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 96 of 273 

The methods used to compute the visitation and trip estimates inserted into IMPLAN for 

LBL Rec/EE alternatives were derived utilizing several steps. A step by step guide of 

how visitation numbers were derived for use in the IMPLAN model can be found below 

under the title Methods used to Compute Economic Impact of LBL Rec/EE Alternatives. 

Within each step listed, there may be certain assumptions that were made based upon 

professional knowledge and judgment of the IDT. Professional judgment includes 

knowledge of current trends related to Rec/EE, personal experiences on LBL, and visitor 

data received by LBL. 

Furthermore, unquestionable calculation of economic impacts to local communities is not 

possible. Likewise, it is unrealistic to assume that a 100 percent positive prediction of 

how each alternative may affect visitation to LBL can be derived. However, through 

professional judgment and experience in predicting visitation changes by alternative and 

the use models to predict each alternative’s impact to the economy, a practical conclusion 

can be drawn. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 97 of 273 

B.10 Methods used to Compute Economic Impacts of LBL 

Rec/EE Alternatives 

This is an explanation of the method used to help determine how changes in 

recreation/environmental education opportunities on LBL may affect changes in 

visitation and possibly the economy of the surrounding area. 

Note: Within each step, there may be certain assumptions that must be made based upon 

the personal experiences and professional knowledge and judgment of the preparer(s). 

Step 1 - Estimate the percentage of participation in each type of recreational activity. 

Normally NVUM data from each forest is used for this. The best data on LBL was 

determined to be from the 1998 Visitor Use Survey. 

However, trends data and all spreadsheets from the Regional Office (RO) were based on 

Resource Protection Act (RPA) recreational categories. 

In order to use the spreadsheets, survey data was converted to RPA categories. The 

document 98 Survey Conversion to RPA Categories shows this conversion. 

Step 2 - Insert participation percentages for each activity into a spreadsheet produced by 

planners at the RO. The document is titled Visitor Participation by Activity. 

Step 3 - Insert numbers of visits derived from the Visitor Participation by Activity

spreadsheet into ‘1998’ column in spreadsheet titled Expected Activity Trends by 

Decade.

Step 4 - Convert visits to trips using a spreadsheet designed from protocol as outlined in 

the word document; Converting National Forest Visits to Trips. 

Note: The percentages for each category in Step 2 of this process are derived from

Spending Profiles of NF Visitors 2000-2001Combined, Daniel J Stynes and Eric 

White, July 2002. The formulas and steps outlined in the word document are completed 

by the spreadsheet titled Visitation and Trips Estimates. 

Step 5 - Put the numbers derived from this spreadsheet into the Alt. W column of the 

word document table titled Resource Outputs by Alternative. The estimates for each 

alternative were produced during meetings held with Customer Services Staff: Brian 

Beisel, Gary Hawkins, Emily Loomis and Richard Lomax. Projected changes (as seen in 

columns Alt X, Alt Y and Alt Z) were determined by discussion of the estimated 

positive and negative impacts to the recreational opportunity that would be perceived by 

users of LBL’s resources. Future estimated trends for different types of Rec. and EE 

activities were also taken into account. Wildlife-related activities were reviewed in a 

similar manner. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 98 of 273 

Percentages of estimated increase or decrease in visitation derived from discussions are 

the best professional judgment of those involved based upon personal experiences and 

available research. 

Step 6 – Input the figures derived from the anticipated change in visitation into the 

Resource Outputs by Alternative Table and sent to Regional economist for further 

computations utilizing the FEAST and IMPLAN economic analysis tools. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 99 of 273 

Step 1 

98 Survey Conversion to RPA Categories 

 

RPA Category 98 Survey Heading % Participation 

 

RPA Camping, Picnicking, Swimming 

Developed Camping Developed Campground 24.1 

 Lake Access 10.9 

Primitive Camping Backcountry 11.7 

Picnicking Picnicking 21.8 

Swimming Swimming 15.4 

Backpacking, Camp in Unroaded Areas Backpacking 3.1 

Total for Group 87

 

RPA Mechanical Travel & Viewing Scenery 

Viewing Scenery Driving (Scenic) 53 

Off-Highway Vehicles Drving (OHV) 9.2 

Driving For Pleasure 

Other Motorized Travel 

Bicycling Bicycling (all) 15.2 

Total for Group 77.4

 

RPA Hiking, Horseback Riding, Water Travel 

Hiking/ Walking Hiking 28.6 

Horseback Riding Horseback Riding 7.1 

Motorized Water Travel Motor Boat/ Jet Skiing 19 

Non- Motorized Water Travel Canoeing/ Kayaking 7.6 

 Sailing 3.3 

Total for Group 65.6

 

RPA Winter Sports 

Cross Country Skiing 0 

Snowmobile Travel 0 

Downhill Skiing 0 

Total for Group 0

 

RPA Resorts 

Resorts, Cabins 0 

Total for Group 0

 

RPA Fish and Wildlife 

Hunting Hunting 12.8 

 Scouting Site 9.7 

Viewing Wildlife, Birds, Fish Wildlife Viewing 35 

 Outdoor Photo/ Painting 10.6 

Fishing Fishing 52.5 

Total for Group 120.6
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 100 of 273 

 

Wilderness 0 

Total for Group 0

Other 

Visiting Historical Sites Historical Program 23 

 Historical Site 6.6 

Visiting Nature Centers Wildlife Program 9 

General Relaxing 

Gathering Berries, Natural Products Resource Foraging 7.2 

Nature Study 0 

Total for Group 45.8

 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 101 of 273 

Step 2 

1998 Survey Activites Converted to RPA Catagories

2

% Participation Weighted % by Thousands of Visits

RPA Camping, Picnicking, Swimming For Forest # Visits Normalized % by Activity

Developed Camping 35 70 0.088 176.59

Primitive Camping 11.7 23.4 0.030 59.03

Picnicking 21.8 43.6 0.055 109.99

Swimming 15.4 30.8 0.039 77.70

Backpacking, Camping in Unroaded Areas 3.1 6.2 0.008 15.64

Total for group 87 174 0.219 438.95

RPA Mechnical Travel& Viewing Scenery

Viewing Scenery 53 106 0.134 267.41

Off-Highway Vehicles 9.2 18.4 0.023 46.42

Driving For Pleasure 0 0 0.000 0.00

Other Motorized Travel 0 0 0.000 0.00

Bicycling 15.2 30.4 0.038 76.69

Total for group 77.4 154.8 0.195 390.51

RPA Hiking, Horseback Riding, Water Travel

Hiking/Walking 28.6 57.2 0.072 144.30

Horseback Riding 7.1 14.2 0.018 35.82

Motorized Water Travel 19 38 0.048 95.86

Non-Motorized Water Travel 10.9 21.8 0.027 54.99

Total for group 65.6 131.2 0.165 330.98

RPA Winter Sports

Cross Crountry Skiing 0 0 0.000 0.00

Snomobile travel 0 0 0.000 0.00

Downhill Skiing 0 0 0.000 0.00

Total for group 0 0 0.000 0.00

RPA Resorts

Resorts, Cabins Total for group 0 0 0.000 0.00

RPA Fish & Wildlife

Hunting 22.5 45 0.057 113.52

Viewing Wildlife, Birds, Fish 45.6 91.2 0.115 230.07

Fishing 52.5 105 0.132 264.88

Total for group 120.6 241.2 0.304 608.48

Wilderness (Do not include - already separated in NVUM data) 0 0 0.000 0.00

Other

Visiting Historical Sites 29.6 59.2 0.075 149.34

Visiting Nature Centers, VIS 9 18 0.023 45.41

General Relaxing 0 0 0.000 0.00

Gathering Mushrooms, Berries, Natural Products 7.2 14.4 0.018 36.33

Nature Study 0 0 0.000 0.00

Total for group 45.8 91.6 0.116 231.08

Total 792.8 1.00 2000.00

LBL Visitor Participation by Activity

Estimated Annual Visits in Millions
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 102 of 273 

Step 3 

1998 2005 2010 2010 2015 2020 2020 2025 2030 2030 2035 2040 2040 2045 2050 2050

RPA Camping, Picnicking, Swimming M Visits M Visits Factor M Visits M Visits Factor M Visits M Visits Factor M Visits M Visits Factor M Visits M Visits Factor M Visits

Developed Camping 176.59 200.43 1.27 224.27 253.41 1.60 282.54 316.10 1.98 349.65 390.26 2.44 430.88 481.21 3.01 531.54

Primitive Camping 59.03 58.44 0.98 57.85 58.44 1.00 59.03 59.03 1.00 59.03 60.51 1.05 61.98 58.14 0.92 54.31

Picnicking 109.99 116.04 1.11 122.09 128.69 1.23 135.29 142.99 1.37 150.69 159.49 1.53 168.28 178.18 1.71 188.08

Swimming 77.70 80.03 1.06 82.36 85.08 1.13 87.80 90.52 1.20 93.24 96.74 1.29 100.23 104.90 1.41 109.56

Backpacking, Camp in Unroaded Areas 15.64 17.44 1.23 19.24 21.90 1.57 24.55 27.60 1.96 30.65 31.59 2.08 32.53 37.46 2.71 42.38

Total for Group 438.95 472.38 505.81 547.51 589.22 636.24 683.26 738.58 793.91 859.89 925.87

RPA Mechnical Travel& Viewing Scenery

Viewing Scenery 267.41 287.47 1.15 307.52 328.91 1.31 350.31 373.04 1.48 395.77 419.83 1.66 443.90 470.64 1.86 497.38

Off-Highway Vehicles 46.42 47.58 1.05 48.74 49.90 1.10 51.06 52.45 1.16 53.85 55.47 1.23 57.10 59.65 1.34 62.20

Driving For Pleasure 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.00

Other Motorized Travel 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.00

Bicycling 76.69 81.29 1.12 85.89 91.26 1.26 96.63 102.76 1.42 108.90 116.19 1.61 123.47 131.91 1.83 140.34

Total for Group 390.52 416.34 442.16 470.08 498.00 528.26 558.51 591.49 624.47 662.20 699.93

RPA Hiking, Horseback Riding, Water Travel

Hiking/Walking 144.30 158.01 1.19 171.72 185.43 1.38 199.13 214.29 1.59 229.44 243.15 1.78 256.85 268.40 1.94 279.94

Horseback Riding 35.82 37.43 1.09 39.04 40.83 1.19 42.63 44.06 1.27 45.49 46.03 1.30 46.57 46.75 1.31 46.92

Motorized Water Travel 95.86 96.34 1.01 96.82 97.78 1.03 98.74 100.17 1.06 101.61 104.01 1.11 106.40 109.28 1.17 112.16

Non-Motorized Water Travel 54.99 55.26 1.01 55.54 56.09 1.03 56.64 57.46 1.06 58.29 59.94 1.12 61.59 64.06 1.21 66.54

Total for Group 330.97 347.04 363.12 380.13 397.14 415.98 434.83 453.12 471.41 488.49 505.56

RPA Winter Sports

Cross Crountry Skiing 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00

Snomobile Travel 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.90 0.00

Downhill Skiing 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 2.71 0.00

Total for Group 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RPA Resorts

Resorts, Cabins 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 1.98 0.00 0.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 3.01 0.00

Total for Group 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RPA Fish & Wildlife

Hunting 113.52 111.82 0.97 110.11 107.84 0.93 105.57 103.30 0.89 101.03 97.63 0.83 94.22 90.25 0.76 86.28

Viewing Wildlife, Birds, Fish 230.07 254.23 1.21 278.38 307.14 1.46 335.90 363.51 1.70 391.12 412.98 1.89 434.83 449.79 2.02 464.74

Fishing 264.88 276.80 1.09 288.72 299.31 1.17 309.91 319.18 1.24 328.45 331.10 1.26 333.75 333.75 1.26 333.75

Total for Group 608.47 642.84 677.22 714.30 751.39 785.99 820.60 841.70 862.80 873.78 884.77

Wilderness

Wilderness 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.00

Total for Group 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other

Visiting Historical Sites 149.34 165.77 1.22 182.19 200.86 1.47 219.53 241.93 1.77 264.33 291.21 2.13 318.09 349.46 2.55 380.82

Visiting Nature Centers, VIS 45.41 50.41 1.22 55.40 61.08 1.47 66.75 73.56 1.77 80.38 88.55 2.13 96.72 106.26 2.55 115.80

General Relaxing 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.00

Gathering Berries, Natural Products 36.33 38.33 1.11 40.33 42.51 1.23 44.69 47.23 1.37 49.77 52.68 1.53 55.58 58.85 1.71 62.12

Nature Study 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 1.46 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.00

Total for Group 231.08 254.50 277.92 304.44 330.97 362.72 394.48 432.44 470.40 514.57 558.74

Total 1999.99 2133.11 2266.22 2416.46 2566.71 2729.19 2891.68 3057.34 3223.00 3398.93 3574.86

Notes:

For Resorts and Cabins - Used the Developed Camping Factors

For Wilderness - Used the Backpacking Factors

For Viewing Scenery, Driving for Pleasure, Other Motorized Travel - Used the Sightseeing Factors

For Non-Motorized Water - Used the Rafting/Floating Factors instead of Canoeing (Assumed more users are rafters/floaters)

For Vising Nature Centers - Used the Visiting Historical Sites Factors

Expected Activity Trends By Decade

RPA Catagories Thousands of Visits

1998 Survey Activities converted to RPA Catagories

Step 4 

Converting National Forest Visits (from NVUM) To Trips 

For Estimating Expenditures in the Communities 

Step 1.

Take the total national forest visits estimates from NVUM (including Wilderness) but 

subtract the estimated number of visits associated with wildlife and fish (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing). (The wildlife and fish visits use different expenditure calculations, see 

Steps 4-6 on what to do with these visits.) 

Note: Only the first decade estimates are needed for this analysis. 

Step 2.

Apply the following percentages to the number of visits in Step 1. This will then provide 

estimates of visits in the following categories: 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day Trips) = 15 percent 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents Staying Overnight on the NF) = 12 percent 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying Overnight off the NF) = 19 percent 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 103 of 273 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day Trips) = 41 percent 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying Overnight on the NF) = 5 percent 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying Overnight off the NF) = 8 percent 

Step 3.

Convert the number of “Visits” in each of the above categories to “Trips”. A “Trip” (for 

purposes of this analysis) consists of a typical travel party in a vehicle. The following is 

the average number of people per vehicle for each of the above categories. (To make the 

conversion, take the number of visits in the above categories, divided by the number of 

people per vehicle, to get total “Trips” in each category.) 

NL-Day = 2.4 

NL-OVN-NF = 2.6 

NL-OVN = 2.8 

L-Day = 2.2 

L-OVN-NF = 2.6 

L-OVN = 2.6 

Source: Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, Years 2000 and 2001 Combined, 

Daniel J. Stynes and Eric White, July 2000. 

Step 4.

A similar process needs to be applied to the Wildlife and Fish Visits. Here will need the 

National Forest Visits for Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Viewing. 

Step 5.

For Wildlife and Fish Visits, only need to determine “Local Residents” vs. “Non-Local 

Residents” for Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Viewing. 

Using the percentages from Step 2 above, use the following percentages to determine the 

resident vs. non-resident breakdown: 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day Trips) = 15 percent 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents Staying Overnight on the NF) = 12 percent 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying Overnight off the NF) = 19 percent 

Total for Non-Local Residents = 46 percent 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day Trips) = 41 percent 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying Overnight on the NF) = 5 percent 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying Overnight off the NF) = 8 percent 

Total for Local Residents = 54 percent 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 104 of 273 

Step 6.

As in Step 3, will need to convert the number of “Visits” in each of the above categories 

to “Trips”. (To make the conversion, take the number of visits in the above categories, 

divided by the number of people per vehicle, to get total “Trips” in each category.) 

Again using the information from Step 3, a weighted average for residents vs. nonresidents is calculated below and can be used for this conversion. 

 People/Vehicle Percent of Total Weight Weighted Factor 

NL–Day 2.4 15% (.326) .782 

NL-OVN_NF 2.6 12% (.261) .679 

NL-OVN 2.8 19% (.413) 1.156

Total for Non-Local Residents 46% (1.000) 2.617 or 2.6

L-Day 2.2 41% (.759) 1.670 

L-OVN-NF 2.6 5% (.093) .242 

L-OVN 2.6 8% (.148) .385

Total for Local Residents 54% (1.000) 2.297 or 2.3

Visitation and Trips Estimates 

 

Alternative F (Current) 

Step 1: Take the total number of National Forest visit estimates from Visitor Survey 

(including Wilderness), but subtract the estimated number of visits associated with wildlife 

and fish (hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing). 

 (The wildlife and fish visits use different expenditure calculations; see Step 4 on what to do with 

these visits). Note that only the first decade estimates are needed for this analysis-- 

Total NF visits 

Wildlife, hunting, 

fish visits NF visits 

2133.11 643 1490.27 

 

Step 2: Apply the following percentages to the number of Visits in Step 1. 

 

Categories 

Percentage 

per category 

Visits per 

Category 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day 

Trips) 0.15 224 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 0.12 179 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest 0.19 283 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day Trips 0.41 611 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight on the Forest) 0.05 75 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest) 0.08 119 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 105 of 273 

 

 

 

Step 3: Convert visits to trips by dividing visits by the average number of people per 

vehicle for each category. 

Categories 

NF Visits per 

Category 

Average 

number of 

People per 

vehicle 

Trips per 

category 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day 

Trips) 224 2.4 93 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 179 2.6 69 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest 283 2.8 101 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 611 2.2 278 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight on the Forest) 75 2.6 29 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest) 119 2.6 46 

 

TOTAL TRIPS 615 

 

Step 4: Repeat the above processes (determine visits by category and then 

convert to trips) individually for Hunting visits, Fishing visits and Wildlife 

Viewing visits . Then combine Local and non-local trips into separate 

categories. 

 

Hunting Visits 112 

Wildlife Viewing Visits 254 

Fishing Visits 276 

 

Hunting 

Categories 

Percentage 

per category 

Hunting 

visits per 

Category 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day 

Trips) 0.15 17 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 0.12 13 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest 0.19 21 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 0.41 46 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight on the Forest) 0.05 6 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest) 0.08 9 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 106 of 273 

 

 

 

Categories 

Hunting visits per 

category 

Average 

number of 

People per 

vehicle 

Hunting 

Trips per 

category 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day 

Trips) 17 2.4 7 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 13 2.6 5 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest 21 2.8 8 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 46 2.2 21 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight on the Forest) 6 2.6 2 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest) 9 2.6 3 

 

Total Non Local Hunting Trips 20 

Total Local Hunting Trips 26 

 

 

Wildlife Viewing 

Categories 

Percentage 

per category 

WL visits 

per 

Category 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day 

Trips) 0.15 38 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 0.12 30 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest 0.19 48 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 0.41 104 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight on the Forest) 0.05 13 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest) 0.08 20 

 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 107 of 273 

 

 

Categories 

Wildlife visits per 

category 

Average 

number of 

People per 

vehicle 

WL Trips per 

category 

NL-Day (Non-Local Residents on Day 

Trips) 38 2.4 16 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 30 2.6 12 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest 48 2.8 17 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 104 2.2 47 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight on the Forest) 13 2.6 5 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight off the Forest) 20 2.6 8 

 

Total Non Local WL trips 45 

Total Local WL Trips 60 

 

 

Fishing 

Categories 

Percentage 

per category 

Fishing 

visits per 

Category 

NL-Day (non-local residents on day trips) 0.15 41 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 0.12 33 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight Off the Forest 0.19 52 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 0.41 113 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight On the Forest) 0.05 14 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight Off the Forest) 0.08 22 

 

 

 

 

 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 108 of 273 

Categories 

Fishing visits per 

category 

Average 

number of 

People per 

vehicle 

Fishing 

Trips per 

category 

NL-Day (non-local residents on day trips) 41 2.4 17 

NL-OVN-NF (Non-Local Residents 

Staying Overnight on NF) 33 2.6 13 

NL-OVN (Non-Local Residents Staying 

Overnight Off the Forest 52 2.8 19 

L-Day (Local Residents on Day trips 113 2.2 51 

L-OVN-NF (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight On the Forest) 14 2.6 5 

L-OVN (Local Residents Staying 

Overnight Off the Forest) 22 2.6 8 

 

Total Non Local Fishing trips 49 

Total Local Fishing Trips 65 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 109 of 273 

Steps 5 & 6 

Needed Data from LBL to Calculate Economic Impacts: 

Resource Outputs by Alternative for the first 10 years of your Plan: 

Resource Unit of 

Measure 

Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

 

Recreation * 

 Res-Day Visits 611,000 NC +10% -5% 

 Non-Res-Day Visits 224,000 NC +5% -5% 

Res-OVN Visits 119,000 NC NC NC 

NR-OVN Visits 283,000 -5% +3% -2% 

 Res-OVN-NF Visits 75,000 +5% NC -5% 

 NR OVN-NF Visits 179,000 +10% +3% -3% 

Wildlife & 

Fish*: 

 

 Res- Hunting Visits 61,000 +5% +5% -10% 

 NR-Hunting Visits 51,000 +5% +5% -10% 

 Res-Fish Visits 149,000 +3% +3% NC 

 NR-Fish Visits 126,000 +3% +3% NC 

 Res-Wildlife 

View 

Visits 137,000 +10% +15% -5% 

 NR-Wildlife 

View 

Visits 116,000 +10% +15% -5% 

Range: NA NA NA NA 

 Cattle Head 

Months 

 

 Sheep Head 

Months 

 

Minerals: NA NA NA NA 

 Coal Metric 

Tons 

 

 Nat. 

Gas/Petrol. 

Cubic 

Meters 

 

 Crushed 

Stone 

Metric 

Tons 

 

* Recreation & Wildlife Use estimates in Visits are calculated from NVUM Protocol 

enclosed 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 110 of 273 

B.11 Background Information for Determining Riparian Corridor 

Widths

Proposal for design criteria to establish riparian corridor widths, measured from each side 

of stream bank: 

Introduction 

Riparian Corridor will be used by LBL and its Land and Resource Management Plan to 

meet our desire to maintain and protect water quality, fluvial processes and riparian 

functions along perennial and intermittent streams and to maintain infiltration and 

sediment filtering along ephemeral streams. Riparian corridors are not prescription 

management areas of themselves, but rather area-wide design criteria to guide 

management activities within riparian areas. Riparian corridors include true riparian 

areas and stream management zones, and may occur across several of the LRMP’s 

prescription management areas. One of the functions of the riparian corridor is to buffer 

the stream from the impact of human land use activities, through use of best management 

practices while allowing management activities that benefit riparian functioning. Certain 

riparian area functions are given a higher priority than others, i.e. water quality and 

aquatic habitat which are state beneficial uses. Others of slightly less concern are 

floodwater storage, terrestrial wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetic values. 

Definitions 

“Riparian areas are three dimensional ecotones of interaction that include terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems that extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward 

across the floodplain, up the near slopes that drain to the water, laterally into the 

terrestrial ecosystem, and along the water course at a variable width.” (Source: Riparian 

Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States; Verry, Hornbeck, 

Dolloff; 2000; p. 29.) The Forest Service defines riparian areas as geographically 

delineated areas with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are comprised of 

the aquatic and riparian ecosystems (FSM 2526). 

States of Kentucky and Tennessee Best Management Practices, along with TVA’s 1994 

Plan, address Stream Management Zones, as designated areas for protection of water 

quality along perennial and intermittent streams. 

Riparian Corridor Management Prescription Areas used in Southern Appalachian Plans, 

are designed to include riparian areas and stream management zones and are specified to 

maintain riparian functions along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. 

Perennial Streams are any watercourse that generally flows most of the year, in a welldefined channel that is below the water table. Droughts and other precipitation patterns 

may influence the actual duration of flow. Perennial streams contain fish or aquatic 

insects that have larvae with multiple year life cycles. Water dependent vegetation is 

typically associated with perennial streams. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 111 of 273 

Intermittent Streams flow in response to a seasonally-fluctuating water table in a well 

defined channel. The channel will exhibit signs of annual scour, sediment transport and 

other stream characteristics, absent perennial flows. Intermittent streams typically flow 

during times of elevated water table levels and may be dry during significant periods of 

the year, depending on precipitation cycles. Field identification of intermittent streams 

must consider geology, land use patterns, and precipitation cycles. Intermittent streams 

do not maintain fish populations year-round or aquatic insects that have larvae with 

multiple year life cycles. 

Ephemeral Streams are typically defined by flows that occur for short periods of time in 

direct response to storm precipitation or snowmelt runoff. Ephemeral stream bottoms are 

always above the water table and do not contain fish or aquatic insects that have larvae 

with multiple year life cycles. Ephemeral streams may or may not have a defined 

channel. Ephemeral streams may serve as a conduit for much of the sediment that enters 

the stream system network. Large woody debris associated with ephemeral streams may 

also contribute significantly to the stability of the stream system. 

Riparian Area Functions 

 

• Filter sediment and pollutants from runoff 

• Interchange of surface and ground waters. 

• Reduce impacts of floods 

• Stabilize streambanks 

• Provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial life 

• Provide logs and other woody debris that serve as aquatic habitat, stabilize 

channels and dissipate stream energy 

• Shade water to maintain healthy temperatures for aquatic life 

• Provide leaves and other detritus that serve as energy sources for the stream 

• Improve the appearance of the stream. 

Factors Considered in Sequence when Setting Widths 

• Floodplain and floodprone widths 

• Critical species habitat 

• Groundwater and flood hydrology 

• Catchment size 

• Slope of banks and areas contributing flow to the stream segment 

• Vegetation, including litter and other surface cover characteristics 

• Rainfall 

• Soil infiltration rate 

• Soil moisture content 

• Land use 

• Impervious surfaces 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 112 of 273 

Recommended Corridor Widths 

A search of literature and research offered a range of corridor widths needed for various 

values and functions. Protection of water quality and effective filtering of sediment 

ranged from 25 to 300 feet, (Wenger, 1999; NCASI, 1992; TN Division of Forestry, 

2003). Widths of 100 feet were found to be effective in limiting transport of chemicals 

such as phosphorus and nitrate and in providing for shade and large woody debris 

(Wenger, 1999). Small streams required less of a buffer width than larger streams 

(NCASI, 1992). However, Castille, 2000, found that most contributions of filter strips in 

protecting riparian functions are realized within the first 50 feet. 

Vegetative filter strips utilizing grasses along agriculture fields and urban areas were 

found to be effective at reducing sediment and nutrient transport. Widths of 20 feet on 

slopes less than 20 percent were recommended (Franti, 1997). Tall erect perennial 

grasses that form sod are most effective, especially when mowed to 6” height for trapping 

sediments (MI DEQ, 1997, Leeds et al, 1994). However, when flow is concentrated in 

small channels (typical of hilly terrain and along plow lines) effectiveness of strips is 

drastically reduced (Cho, 2003). Over long term, filter strips may accumulate sediment 

and nutrients and also lose effectiveness (Cho, 2003, Mendez-Delgdo, et al, 1999), so 

maintenance is required (minor grading, mowing, re-seeding). Streamside strips of trees 

and shrubs below grass strips increase effectiveness and protect water quality (Cho, MI 

DEQ, 1997). 

Other studies offered protective widths to maintain habitat for small mammals and 

amphibians ranging in width from 10 to 300 feet (Verry et al, 2000). 

 

We have selected widths that provide the necessary protection for the highest priority 

riparian functions and values (water quality and aquatic habitat) as recommended for 

perennial and intermittent streams. Other riparian functions should be considered during 

project planning on site specific basis, and widths increased if need is determined. 

Perennial streams: 100 feet, measured from bankfull stage of the channel stream banks 

along forested streams. If agricultural activities are adjacent to the riparian corridor, 

grassy vegetative filter strips should be considered as an additional BMP. 

Intermittent streams: 50-75 feet, measured from bankfull stage of the channel stream 

banks. 50 feet will be adequate if 20 feet of maintained, grassy vegetative filter strip is 

incorporated below management activities with the remaining 30 feet in shrubs and trees. 

Default width will be 75 feet. 

These riparian corridors do not apply to constructed ponds developed for recreation uses 

or to man-made ditches. Filtering zones on ponds and ditches, if needed to protect 

aquatic species will be determined at the project level. However, a 20 foot vegetation 

filter strip is recommended around wildlife waterholes.
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 113 of 273 

Ephemeral Streams

Ephemeral streams: 25 foot vegetative filter strip maintained, as measured from the 

center of swale or evidence of water flow. 

Ephemeral streams do not have true riparian areas and will not be considered as having 

riparian corridors. However, these streams are hydrologically connected to downstream 

perennial and intermittent streams. The primary purpose of protecting areas along 

ephemeral streams is to maintain the ability of the land to filter sediment from upslope 

disturbances, while achieving the goals of the encompassing management prescription 

area. In addition, the emphasis along ephemeral streams is to maintain infiltration and 

sediment control by keeping vehicles away from stream banks, reducing soil compaction, 

and maintaining large woody debris for downstream channel stability. 

Allowed Activities within Riparian Corridors 

Existing wildlife openings are allowed within the riparian corridors. However, wildlife 

openings identified as causing environmental degradation through concentrated runoff, 

soil erosion, or sediment transport will be mitigated or closed and restored. New wildlife 

openings within the riparian corridor zones are permitted only where needed to provide 

habitat for riparian associated wildlife species. When determined to be necessary for 

wildlife habitat, temporary openings must not be more than 300 feet in length along any 

one side of the stream or 60 feet along opposite sides. 

Use of mechanical no-till cultivation methods is recommended for restoration and 

renovation of wildlife openings. Native or non-invasive plants are to be used within the 

riparian corridors as vegetative filter strips whenever possible. 

New non-motorized trail construction may be allowed to improve existing trail 

configuration and improve access to streams and lakes. 

Proposed or new facilities must be developed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 

(floodplains) and 11990 (wetlands) and follow recommended riparian corridor widths. 

Existing campsites and facilities will be maintained to limit effects to water quality, 

streambanks, and shorelines. Where possible, an uninterrupted vegetative strip along 

banks and shorelines will be maintained. Mowing and maintenance of the vegetative 

strip will continue. If sites are determined to be causing resource degradation by 

concentrated runoff, or sediment or pollutant transport, sites will be closed and 

rehabilitated. 

Existing corral and tethering sites will be maintained to limit impacts to water quality and 

riparian areas. If determined to be causing environmental degradation through 

concentrated runoff, soil erosion, sediment or pollutant transport, sites must be closed and 

rehabilitated. New corral and tethering sites should be located outside of riparian 

corridors. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 114 of 273 

Tree removals are allowed if it enhances the recovery of the diversity of the vegetation, 

rehabilitates human caused disturbances, or provides for visitor safety. 

Directional felling and end-lining of logs should be utilized to avoid displacing soil. 

Stream habitat improvement work is allowed. In-stream use of heavy equipment should 

be minimized. Low pounds-per-square-inch equipment, with long boom arms, will be 

favored for in-stream work. 

Activities To be Avoided within Riparian Corridor Zones 

(Not inclusive) 

Removal of riparian vegetation during bank stabilization projects should be avoided. 

Minimize use of riprap and favor natural sources of bank stabilization (willow plantings, 

rootwads, etc.). 

Activities that channelize streams should be minimized and avoided where possible. 

Where channelization has occurred from past activities or facilities, relocation of such 

activities or facilities and restoration of natural channel profiles should be pursued. 

Use of ground based logging methods is not allowed except at designated crossings. 

Log landings are not allowed. 

Slash piling or burning is not allowed. 

Construction of firelines with heavy equipment should be avoided, especially when 

planning for prescribed fire activities. During wildfire suppression, a Resource Advisor, 

appointed by the Area Supervisor to the Incident Command Fire Team, should be 

consulted during fireline construction. 

Clearcutting of timber is not allowed. 

Current Conditions of LBL Streams 

Flow of water is intermittent in most of the stream channels. Drainage catchments are 

too small to retain enough water to maintain year-round flow. Many springs and seeps 

are present in LBL, and most appear to be seasonal. However, springs and seeps in every 

valley offer a clue to the extensive groundwater network that must exist. Eleven streams 

are classified perennial. Headwaters are ephemeral. 

Erosion by running water has etched LBL’s landscape and created dissections of today’s 

streams. The retreat of discontinuous gullies (headcuts) is the most active and most 

obvious erosional process within LBL (Chester and Fralish, 2002). The sequence of 

headcuts up the channels may be analogous to the scour and riffle sequence of larger 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 115 of 273 

stream channels and a natural process. Sediment is transported down valley in this 

manner of scour and fill. Based upon observation and professional judgment, LBL’s 

hydrologist believes active erosion against stream valley slopes and across the mouths of 

tributaries is causing deepening of the tributary channels. Changing base elevation from 

pool levels of the lakes exacerbates the process. Coarse gravels entrained during runoff 

events are spread farther out into the bays at times of low water than would be true if 

normal pool were maintained. 

Channels generally are stable laterally. This is due to heavily forested watersheds that 

store and release runoff and traditional lower stream segments are inundated by the lakes. 

Lateral migration of the lower segments of streams is a natural process and current 

migrating channels are within historic levels. Many channels are not stable in their 

vertical profile and continue to downcut and deepen their gullies; this adds to normal 

bedload quantities. This bedload, along with debris, is often dropped in lower gradient 

sections of the stream and may cause the stream to migrate laterally. This generally 

occurs when high water levels in the large lakes back up into the bays and further into the 

stream channel. Large woody debris embedded in the channel is one natural process the 

stream has to stabilize itself, dissipate flow energy, and to add habitat for aquatic life. 

There appears to be less large wood within LBL streams than would normally be 

expected. This may be exacerbating the eroding of channels and increasing bedload 

movement. 

Road running prisms, ditches and crossings encroaching on stream channels or laying 

within floodplains and wetlands, can intensify runoff events and increase sediment input 

to the streams. Many roads are located along stream channels or within their valleys to 

take advantage of gentle slopes and easier construction. Culverts, installed at many of the 

stream crossings were never designed to pass more than a 25-year interval event. 

Streams entrain and transport enormous amounts of cherty fragments, adding to flow 

volumes that these culverts were never designed to accomodate. Washout and breaching 

of culverts are common after major runoff events. Other culvert installations have 

channelized flows and increased velocities resulting in scour below the outlet. This 

exacerbates downcutting of the stream channel. (LBL Roads Analysis, 2003). 

Information on watershed condition from the LBL Roads Analysis, ranking from the 

Watershed Assessment modeling, and stream condition from the CATT survey, indicate 

the following 6th level HUC watersheds as high priority for improvement work: 

Turkey Bay/Turner Hollow watershed 

Crooked Creek watershed 

Lick Creek watershed 

Focus will be to improve watershed condition class from Class II to Class I over the next 

10 year period in these watersheds. Improvement work should include rehabilitation of 

trails, relocation of roads and trails out of riparian corridors where feasible, replacing 

culverts, providing alternative water crossings, adding large wood to channels, 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 116 of 273 

decommissioning of road segments identified in the Roads Analysis, and improving 

vegetation along streambanks. 

Other channels and watersheds will receive improvement work as site specific analysis 

indicate during proposed project assessment. 

References: 

Castelle, Dr. Andrew J., and A.W. Johnson, 2000, Riparian Vegetation Effectiveness, 

Technical Bulletin No. 799, National Council For Air and Stream Improvement, February 

2000. 

Chester, Edward and James S. Fralish, editors, 2002, Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky 

and Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship, The Center 

for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. 

Cho, Jae-Pil and T.A. Dillaha, 2003, Vegetative Filter Strips and Buffer Zones, Virginia 

Tech University Lecture Nonpoint Source Pollution Course BSE 4324, November 6, 

2003, http://jpcho.cafe24.com/Courses/NPS/Lecture22_Vegetative percent 20Filter 

percent 20Strips percent 20and percent Buffer percent 20Zones.doc., accessed 8/3/2004. 

Franti, Thomas G, 1997, Vegetative Filter Strips for Agriculture, NF97-352, University 

of Nebraska, http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/water/nf352.htm, accessed 8/3/2004. 

Leeds Rob, Larry C. Brown, Marc R. Sulc and Larry VanLieshout, AEX-467-94, 

Vegetative Filter Strips: Application, Installation and Maintenance, Ohio State 

University, http://ohioline.osu.edu/aer-fact/0467.html , accessed 8/3/2004. 

Mendez-Delgdo, A., T.A. Dillaha and S. Mostaghimi. 1999. Sediment and Nitrogen 

Transport in Grass Filter Strips. J. or American Water Resources Association 35(4):867-

875. 

Michigan Division of Environmental Quality, 1997, Buffer/Filter Strips, 

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-bfs.pdf, accessed 8/4/2004. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 1992, The Effectiveness of Buffer 

Strips For Ameliorating Offsite Transport of Sediment, Nutrients, and Pesticides From 

Silvicultural Operations, Technical Bulletin No. 631, June 1992. 

State of Tennessee, Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry, 2003, Guide to 

Forestry, Best Management Practices in Tennessee. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes NRA, 

2003, Roads Analysis. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 117 of 273 

Verry, E.S., J.W. Hornbeck, C.A. Dolloff, 2000, Riparian Management in Forests of the 

Continental Eastern United States, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, London, New York, 

and Washington D.C. 

Wenger, Seth; 1999, A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, 

Extent, and Vegetation; Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 

March 5, 1999 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 118 of 273 

B.12 Sediment Yields and Cumulative Effects for Water Quality 

and Associated Beneficial Uses. 

J. Alan Clingenpeel, Ouachita National Forest, P. O. Box 1270, Hot Springs AR 71902, 

Phone (501) 321-5246, aclingenpeel@fs.fed.us

February 10, 2004 

Introduction 

LBL is in the process of revising their Land and Resource Management Plan. In order to 

comply with planning requirements (36 CFR.219.23) for effects analysis on aquatic 

resources item (d) of the aquatic resources section requires that forest planning provide 

for an evaluation of existing or potential watershed conditions that will influence soil 

productivity, water yield, water pollution, or hazardous events. 

In earlier planning efforts forests were directed to calculate sediment and water yield 

increases over time. This served as a surrogate of existing condition and provided a 

quantification of potential effects of alternatives. However, watershed condition was 

described in general physical terms, not in terms of health or vulnerability to management 

actions. With the current level of planning, available data layers and GIS information 

there is an opportunity to specifically evaluate watershed condition and estimate the 

effects of management activities based on a number of watershed parameters. Sediment 

yield or an index of disturbance would still be used but the result would be directly 

related to overall watershed condition or health rather than just erosion potential. The 

following is a description of the process used to address Section (d) of the aquatic 

resources under 36 CFR, 219.23 planning rule (1982) and the associated cumulative 

effects for water quality and associated beneficial uses. 

The purpose of this process is to estimate sediment yields and analyze the cumulative 

effects of proposed management actions on water quality. The process provides an 

objective process to systematically evaluate water quality conditions for watersheds 

covered in whole or part by the Area Plan. The process also provides results that can aid 

in aquatic viability analysis at the community scale. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis of cumulative impacts is a requirement of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). A cumulative impact analysis should consider incremental impacts 

of actions when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

analysis includes all actions regardless of who undertakes the actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over time. 

“A cumulative effect is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 119 of 273 

other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Sediment is an appropriate measure to determine the effects of management activities on 

water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands (Coats and Miller, 

1981). Sediment increases can adversely affect fish productivity and diversity (Alexander 

and Hansen, 1986), degrade drinking water and affect recreational values. There may be 

other cumulative impacts such as increases in water yield as a result of harvesting 

methods. However, water yield models do not characterize the impacts of all 

management activities such as road construction and the increase in water yield is 

generally less than the natural variability. Changes in water nutrients or nutrient fluxes 

within streams as a result of management activities are minor and not an appropriate 

consideration of cumulative effects at the Area Plan level. This model uses predicted 

sediment yields as the surrogate for determining cumulative impacts for water quality. 

Changes in land use and disturbance are modeled with respect to estimated increases in 

sediment and predicted impacts are summarized by alternative. The significance of 

predicted impacts are related to criteria designed to determine levels of watershed health 

(WCR) as described in a following section of this paper. 

Bounding the Effects Analysis 

A valid cumulative effects analysis must be bounded in space and time. For the purposes 

of this exercise in forest planning, watersheds are the appropriate spatial bounds for 

cumulative effects. The implementation period for a forest plan is 5 to 15 years, however 

the appropriate time period captured for the sediment model is for 5 decades (50 years). 

Modeling Sediment Yield 

A detailed description of data sources and steps can be found in Data Sources and 

Manipulation. Following is a summary of the process: 

• Using the National Land use Classification Data (NLCD), Digital Elevation 

Models (DEM), and Ecoregions data layers, a determination of combinations of 

land use, slope class, and physiographic zone were made for 30-meter grids. 

These values were tabulated for each watershed including non-Forest Service 

lands. Results were used to identify estimated erosion values for entire 

watersheds. 

• Tiger Census Roads data, Forest Service ATV trails, and Ecoregions were used to 

determine road surface type, physiographic zone and length. This information 

was used to estimate sediment values for each watershed. 

• Using a combination of Early Forest Succession values (from Forest Service 

prescriptions), slope class, and physiographic zones, these values were tabulated 

for each watershed and alternative. 

• Forest Service personnel provided values for the following categories; 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 120 of 273 

o The number of acres of prescribed fire planned by alternative and period 

(By alternative and physiographic zone) (this information was taken from 

the Alternatives discussion), 

o Miles of dozer fireline per acre burned (a coefficient from the Daniel 

Boone NF was used of 1.636 miles of dozer line per 1000 acres burned), 

o Miles of temporary and permanent road constructed per acre regenerated 

(a coefficient from the Cherokee NF was used of 4 miles of temporary 

road per 1000 acres treated, no other road construction was considered), 

o The rotation period on other forested lands (A hundred year rotation with 

one thinning and one clearcut was assumed for private land), and 

o Other changes in land use activities or disturbances that individual forests 

felt were important such as opportunities to reduce ATV use and cropland 

were included in the model). 

• Coefficients for erosion were taken from the average and high erosion rates found 

in Dissmeyer and Stump (1978) for the appropriate physiographic zone. 

Recovery rates were determined from studies on the Ouachita National Forest. 

These recovery rates were determined through field observations, and provide a 

realistic recovery value for the Southeast, and are appropriate for this level of 

analysis. It should be recognized that the high erosion rates would yield 

overestimations for most Forest Service activities and should be viewed as a 

worst-case scenario. The high rates were used to account for steep slopes and 

management practices on other lands that may not have the same standards as 

Forest Service lands. 

• Erosion values (from land use) were multiplied by a sediment delivery coefficient 

based on watershed size determined from Roehl (1962). Sediment values from 

roads are part of the WEPP calculation. WEPP only assumes that sediment values 

are delivered to the nearest channel. This model sums the total number of 

sediment tons from roads and calculates sediment from erosion delivered to the 

mouth of the watershed. 

• Road (by surface type), fireline, and ATV sediment values were determined from 

field surveys using the WEPP model to determine sediment values. These values 

were converted to coefficients by physiographic zone (Process to be described by 

later in this paper) and multiplied by the number of miles of road (by surface 

type), fireline or ATV trail. 

• All values were summarized in a spreadsheet by watershed for the baseline 

sediment yield and current sediment yield (Forest Service and private). 

• The values from SPECTRUM (Total number of acres per planning period by 

physiographic zone, early succession class and slope class) are placed in the 

sediment spreadsheet for each alternative and period. 

• In addition, the spreadsheet summarizes predicted management activities by 

watershed, alternative, and planning period. 

This allows for a discussion of past, present and future activities for public and private 

lands by watershed for a time period of 50 years. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 121 of 273 

Data Interpretation 

The summary worksheet of the sediment model calculates the baseline, current, and 

predicted sediment values for each watershed by alternative and period. To determine the 

potential cumulative effects of water quality and associated beneficial uses these 

sediment values are expressed as a percent increase over the baseline. The baseline 

assumes an undisturbed forest floor with no roads. It should be recognized that using 

such a baseline will result in high percentage increases since baseline values can indicate 

little to no erosion or sediment. The percentage values are only used as a mathematical 

index and should not be viewed as an indication of effects or impairment. This becomes 

clearer when the interpretation of this information is captured in a process call the 

Watershed Condition Rank (WCR) as described below 

Watershed Condition Rank (WCR) 

Watershed Condition Rank (WCR) is a measure that characterizes the condition of 

watersheds with respect to current and future sediment load increases. 

In order to establish WCRs, the current sediment average annual yield is determined and 

expressed as a percent above the baseline conditions. This provides a relative measure to 

determine changes within watersheds. The next step in this process is determined by 

using the relative abundance of locally adapted species with respect to predicted sediment 

increases to create a species-sediment load relationship or index (SSI). This score is 

modified by a weighted average where the watershed occurs in more than one 

physiographic zone. Watershed condition is generalized into three categories of 

excellent, average and below average. The SSI, however, does not necessarily translate 

into an excellent or poor watershed but broadly categorizes the watersheds based on the 

sediment prediction/aquatic viability relationship. The SSI is a relatively large-scale 

coarse filter developed to evaluate alternatives in Forest Plans and to establish priority 

work at the planning scale. Therefore, further detailed analyses of the watershed will be 

conducted at the project level. 

From the WCR a series of determinations can be made that determine or assign additional 

Forest Objectives. The following section details the outcome of the WCR with respect to 

adverse effects on aquatic biota as they are related to forest management: 

• Where a watershed SSI is excellent, the probability (or potential) is low for 

adverse effects to aquatic species. If the results of forest alternatives remain 

within this range there should be no adverse effect on water quality with 

respect to beneficial uses (fish communities). Forest Service objectives would 

be to maintain or improve aquatic health through the implementation of 

riparian prescriptions; 

• Where a watershed SSI is average, the potential to adversely affect beneficial 

uses is moderate. Additional forest analysis should be considered. Examples 

would be conducting watershed assessments during project planning to 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 122 of 273 

identify the source of the problem, and monitoring prior to project 

implementation to determine actual health of the biota; 

• Where a watershed with a SSI is below average, the potential to adversely 

affect beneficial uses is high. In addition to points listed above, management 

objectives at the project level would seek to maintain or restore watershed 

health and aquatic systems where the Forest Service can make meaningful 

contributions to watershed health. 

 

The results of the WCR and other information can also be used to develop partnerships 

with other landholders or managers to improve overall watershed condition and improve 

aquatic health. This is one advantage of analyzing entire watersheds. Not only can 

Forest Service activities and contributing effects be isolated but other watershed effects 

can be identified as well. 

Assumptions, Uncertainties and Limitations 

Many assumptions are made throughout the sediment model and the WCR. Every effort 

has been made to describe those assumptions and minimize misrepresentation. With that 

in mind the application of the sediment model and associated WCR should not be taken 

as absolutes but as a method that can describe the effects from the range of alternatives 

and suggest where a greater risk with respect to water quality and aquatic biota exists. 

This process is developed for the Area Plan level. Project level planning would require 

more site specific information and identification of sediment sources. 

Watershed condition is an accumulation of disturbance across the entire watershed and is 

expressed at the outfall of that watershed. Subwatersheds within a watershed will have a 

range of watershed conditions. The conditions of subwatersheds and the determination of 

effects will usually occur at the project level. 

Following is an example of spreadsheet data and the WCR based on the current condition 

and the potential effects of each alternative for the first 10-year period. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 123 of 273 

Cumulative effects analysis for water quality and associated beneficial uses for period 1 

Watershed 

number 

Current 

Condition 

(expressed 

as percent 

increase) 

Current health 

(excludes fire 

and forest 

management 

activities)1

Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z 

 . . Percent increase above baseline . . . Watershed Health for Period 1 . 

 

1 207 E 218 224 225 194 E E E E 

2 192 E 202 207 208 189 E E E E 

3 113 E 124 129 129 122 E E E E 

4 149 E 161 166 167 159 E E E E 

5 293 E 305 312 313 240 E E E E 

6 241 E 251 256 256 196 E E E E 

7 376 E 388 395 395 330 E E E E 

8 698 A 713 722 722 685 A A A A 

9 214 E 229 238 239 187 E E E E 

10 324 E 341 351 352 261 E E E E 

11 292 E 308 317 317 257 E E E E 

12 301 E 312 321 320 259 E E E E 

13 189 E 202 210 211 182 E E E E 

14 213 E 226 234 235 201 E E E E 

15 420 E 432 440 440 322 E E E E 

16 193 E 193 193 193 154 E E E E 

17 210 E 212 214 214 177 E E E E 

18 275 E 287 276 276 223 E E E E 

19 1,088 A 1,098 1,090 1,090 1,019 A A A A 

20 110 E 110 110 110 110 E E E E 

21 236 E 247 254 254 196 E E E E 

22 176 E 176 177 177 177 E E E E 

23 333 E 344 347 347 270 E E E E 

24 304 E 308 309 309 232 E E E E 

25 200 E 207 202 202 161 E E E E 

26 1,138 A 1,144 1,139 1,139 149 A A A E 

27 2,613 BA 2,613 2,613 2,613 108 BA BA BA E 

28 174 E 183 175 176 175 E E E E 

29 175 E 182 176 176 176 E E E E 

30 322 E 334 324 324 228 E E E E 

31 239 E 249 241 241 194 E E E E 

32 502 E 503 503 503 502 E E E E 

33 330 E 344 333 333 248 E E E E 

34 221 E 228 222 222 168 E E E E 

35 136 E 141 137 137 121 E E E E 

36 205 E 218 207 207 163 E E E E 

37 139 E 150 141 141 123 E E E E 

38 157 E 165 160 160 131 E E E E 

39 273 E 287 276 276 193 E E E E 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 124 of 273 

Watershed 

number 

Current 

Condition 

(expressed 

as percent 

increase) 

Current health 

(excludes fire 

and forest 

management 

activities)1

Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z 

 . . Percent increase above baseline . . . Watershed Health for Period 1 . 

 

40 173 E 178 173 173 148 E E E E 

41 218 E 221 219 219 219 E E E E 

42 252 E 261 254 254 183 E E E E 

43 84 E 84 84 84 84 E E E E 

44 169 E 175 169 169 143 E E E E 

45 354 E 366 355 355 309 E E E E 

46 85 E 86 86 86 86 E E E E 

47 187 E 195 188 188 166 E E E E 

48 117 E 123 118 118 104 E E E E 

49 146 E 152 148 148 136 E E E E 

50 212 E 224 214 214 160 E E E E 

51 142 E 152 144 144 129 E E E E 

52 149 E 155 151 151 127 E E E E 

53 513 E 517 516 516 497 E E E E 

54 362 E 366 363 363 308 E E E E 

55 832 A 837 837 837 837 A A A A 

56 383 E 388 388 388 388 E E E E 

57 135 E 139 136 136 111 E E E E 

58 153 E 161 155 155 147 E E E E 

59 850 A 854 851 851 851 A A A A 

60 871 A 872 871 871 73 A A A E 

61 68 E 68 68 68 68 E E E E 

62 100 E 101 101 100 100 E E E E 

63 235 E 241 236 236 192 E E E E 

64 395 E 402 396 396 354 E E E E 

65 138 E 144 139 139 134 E E E E 

66 147 E 154 149 149 115 E E E E 

67 54 E 59 55 55 55 E E E E 

68 275 E 284 276 276 245 E E E E 

69 211 E 213 212 212 211 E E E E 

70 69 E 72 69 69 68 E E E E 

71 57 E 57 57 57 57 E E E E 

72 823 A 826 823 823 820 A A A A 

73 100 E 104 101 101 99 E E E E 

74 72 E 75 73 73 69 E E E E 

75 89 E 89 89 89 89 E E E E 

76 491 E 495 492 492 443 E E E E 

77 101 E 106 102 102 83 E E E E 

78 145 E 149 146 146 145 E E E E 

79 216 E 217 217 217 215 E E E E 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 125 of 273 

Watershed 

number 

Current 

Condition 

(expressed 

as percent 

increase) 

Current health 

(excludes fire 

and forest 

management 

activities)1

Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z 

 . . Percent increase above baseline . . . Watershed Health for Period 1 . 

 

80 132 E 132 132 132 132 E E E E 1

 E=Excellent, A=Average, BA=Below Average; 

Data Sources and Manipulation 

Data calculations and summary were derived from numerous sources. The following 

discussion identifies ArcView data layers, the source of those data layers and how they 

were manipulated or queried. The first step in any data manipulation is to place the data 

in a common projection. The projection chosen was UTM zone 16, NAD 27, meters. 

Layers requested from the Forests include: 

Watersheds Data were place in a common projection. Shared 

watersheds were assigned a common number when 

there were number conflicts. 

ATV trails Trails that were not utilized by ATVs, bikes, or 

horses were deleted. The remaining trials were 

intersected by watershed and eco-regions data 

layers. Miles were calculated and summed by 

watershed, and eco-regions. 

Alternatives The prescriptions from each alternative were 

matched with the Forest Type. This shapefiles were 

then converted to a 30-meter grid using the Forest 

Type. NonForest Service ownerships were deleted. 

From the Tiger Census (1995) and Forest Roads Data: 

Roads Based on the CFCC data attribute road segments 

were assigned a road surface value of paved 

highway, paved local, gravel or native. Forest roads 

were identified by maintenance level. These data 

were then intersected by watershed and eco-region. 

Miles were calculated and summed by watershed, 

and eco-region. 

Land use and land cover factors were from: 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 126 of 273 

NLCD (EPA R4) and Jefferson. NF This information is in a 30-meter grid. The data 

were reclassified using the following classification. 

 

Value MRLC classification Reclass Mix 

11 Open Water 1 Water 

13 Perennial Ice/Snow 1 Water 

21 Low Intensity Residential 2 Residential 

22 High Intensity Residential 2 Residential 

23 Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 2 Residential 

31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 3 Quarry 

32 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits 3 Quarry 

33 Transitional 4 Forest 

41 Deciduous Forest 4 Forest 

42 Evergreen Forest 4 Forest 

43 Mixed Forest 4 Forest 

51 Shrubland 5 Pasture 

61 Orchards/Vineyards/Other 6 Cultivated 

71 Grasslands/Herbaceous 5 Pasture 

81 Pasture/Hay 5 Pasture 

82 Row Crops 6 Cultivated

83 Small Grains 6 Cultivated

84 Fallow 6 Cultivated 

86 Urban/Recreational Grasses 5 Pasture 

91 Woody Wetlands 4 Forest 

92 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 9 Wetlands 

 

Digital Elevation Models provided: 

Slope Using Spatial Analysis Model Builder, discrete 

slope classes were identified based on percent slope. 

These values were then reclassified for individual 

forest assumptions. Lesser slopes were assigned a 

value of 0 and greater slopes were assigned a value 

of 1000. The slope break was determined at 25 

percent . 

From the EPA Basins data: 

Ecoregions This shapefile was adjusted to match Dissmeyer and 

Stump physiographic zones (Alabama was further 

modified to match recent Omernik classification). 

Physiographic zones were assigned a value of 100 – 

500 (in increments of 100) and converted to a grid 

(30 meters). LBL was completely within the 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 127 of 273 

Highland Rim and Pennyroyal (Dissmeyer and 

Stump 1978). 

From these data sets the following queries were made for the sediment model: 

Rd Inputs (Roads) – this is the sum the miles of roads (by surface type) and ATV 

trails for each watershed and eco-region. 

Lu Inputs (Land use) – this is the total number of grids summarized by ecoregion/land use/slope for each watershed. 

Lu PVT Inputs (Private Land use) – this is the total number of grids from 

nonforest service lands (private) summarized by eco-region/slope/slope for each 

watershed. 

Tx Alt (W-Z) – this is the combination of eco-region/forest succession/slope for 

each watershed. This number is duplicated by the number of silviculture treatment 

options (usually 4). In addition treatments not found in the spectrum model are 

included such as prescribed fire, ATV use and conversion of croplands on 

national forest lands and silviculture activiteies on private lands. 

With the completion of these data queries they are ready to place in the sediment model. 

This next section breaks the individual worksheets down and demonstrates their 

relationship. 

Road Inputs 

This is summarized data directly from ArcView – units are miles 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

Row 1 Ecoregion Road surface or Trail blank watershed # watershed # 

Row 2 example miles miles 

Row 3 BR gravel 46.6827 42.5454 

LU Inputs 

This is the tabulated data from the slope/eco-region/slope combinations. Row 2 – the total 

number of acres for each watershed) is calculated for each watershed 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 Ecoregion Land use Slope blank watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Concant 306010201 306010207 

Row 2 acres 1089.512391 210.8303218 

Row 3 BR cultivated <25 4097700 815400 

Row 4 BR cultivated >25 311400 37800 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 128 of 273 

LU PVT Inputs 

This is the tabulated data from the slope/eco-region/slope combinations. This data only 

includes values from private or nonforest service land. 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 Ecoregion Land use Slope blank watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Concant 306010201 306010207 

Row 2 

Row 3 BR cultivated <25 3647700 744300 

Row 4 BR cultivated >25 219600 31500 

Summary 

This is the summary table for the entire spreadsheet. Rows 4-7 identifies the baseline 

undisturbed annual sediment yields. Row 6 Column C (C6) is the sum of erosion from 

worksheet (LU natl coef C200) times the sediment delivery coefficient (sed del C7) 

expressed as total tons per year. 

Rows 10-14 expresses the current condition in the same manner. The current condition 

separates forest service and private and includes roads. The values (average tons of 

sediment per year) are a representation of past and present effects for each watershed. 

Row 16 is the percent increase of sediment of the current condition above the modeled 

baseline condition. 

Rows 20-24 describe the effect of roads, forest service and private management activities 

in sediment. This is a prediction of future activities expressed in total tons. 

Row 26 is the percent increase of sediment of the current condition and predicted future 

effects above the modeled baseline condition. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 129 of 273 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 blank watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 306010201 306010207 

Row 2 

Row 3 

Row 4 Baseline 

Row 5 Road sediment - - 

Row 6 Land Sediment 1,493.99 1,292.55 

Row 7 Total 1,493.99 1,292.55 

Row 8 

Row 9 

Row 10 Current 

Row 11 Road sediment 6,321.54 4,316.30 

Row 12 Land Sediment FS 1,883.51 1,319.43 

Row 13 Land Sediment PVT 4,168.71 1,376.74 

Row 14 Total 12,373.76 7,012.48 

Row 15 

Row 16 Percent increase over Baseline 828.23 542.53 

Row 17 

Row 18 Period 1 

Row 19 

Row 20 Alternative A 

Row 21 Road sediment 20.93 20.22 

Row 22 Land Sediment FS 7.14 7.86 

Row 23 Land Sediment PVT 433.68 267.59 

Row 24 Total 461.75 295.67 

Row 25 

Row 26 Percent increase over Baseline 859.14 565.41 

In the example above you have one alternative for one period. The remainder of the table 

has values for all alternatives for five 10-year periods for each watershed. 

Road Construction Coefficient 

This worksheet calculates the additional sediment from roads and fireline construction for 

each watershed, alternative and period combination. 

Column B is the construction coefficient. It is assumed that construction values for roads 

are twice that of the constructed annual yield. Firelines are expressed as the measured 

value for one year. 

Row 2 represents the Blue Ridge permanent (graveled) roads to be constructed for period 

1. Most forests elected not to identify permanent road construction with silviculture 

activities. Temporary roads (native) are calculated in row 7 for period 1. Cell C7 (and 

subsequent cells) calculates the total number of acres treated with management 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 130 of 273 

treatments and applies a temporary road coefficient from the forests. All values are in 

tons of sediment. 

Row 32 calculates the effect of firelines. This value is derived from the number of miles 

of fireline constructed based on acres burned. 

Row 1021 sums the total number of tons of sediment from construction for Alternative A 

period 1 for each watershed. The remainder of the table summarizes the effects of roads 

and firelines for the remaining watersheds, alternatives and periods. These numbers are 

linked to the Summary worksheet. 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 Ecoregion roadtype or fireline sediment coefficient watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Alt A Const values 306010201 306010207

Row 2 BR gravel 46.72 0 - 

Row 3 p2 46.72 0 - 

Row 4 p3 46.72 0 - 

Row 5 p4 46.72 0 - 

Row 6 p5 46.72 0 - 

Row 7 BR native 38.04 0.005144022 0.00 

Row 8 p2 38.04 0.005144022 0.00 

Row 9 p3 38.04 0.005144022 0.00 

Row 10 p4 38.04 0.005144022 0.00 

Row 11 p5 38.04 0.005144022 0.00 

 

Row 32 Fireline br 47.64 20.92426002 20.20850626

Row 33 p2 47.64 20.92426002 20.20850626

Row 34 p3 47.64 20.92426002 20.20850626

 

Row 1018 Period 1 

Row 1019 

Row 1020 Alternative A 

Row 1021 Road sediment 20.93454806 20.21844239

Current Road Sediments 

This worksheet calculates the current road sediment. The miles of road are multiplied by 

the road values in column B. Values are expressed in tons. Row 33 sums the total and is 

linked to the Summary worksheet (Row 11). 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 Ecoregion roadtype or trail sediment coefficient watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 type Const values 306010201 306010207

Row 2 BR gravel 23.36 1090.507872 993.860544

Row 3 BR native 19.02 581.043882 164.0475

Sediment Delivery 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 131 of 273 

Roehl’s sediment delivery for land treatments is calculated based on his equation in 

Figure 4 of his paper. Row 7 is the value expressed as a decimal. This value is used in the 

summary worksheet. 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 blank watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Concant 306010201 306010207

Row 2 acres 178540.8129 121279.9202

Row 3 

Row 4 sq mi 278.9700202 189.4998753

Row 5 log and coeff 0.747099864 0.803953825

Row 6 

Row 7 sed delivery 0.055859863 0.063672782

Coefficients 

This worksheet uses values from Dissmeyer and Stump for each eco-region (Blue ridge is 

shown). Values in yellow from Column C are taken from Dissmeyer and Stump. Column 

B converts these values to pounds per acre. Values not in yellow are interpreted. 

 Col A Col B Col C 

 Ecoregion roadtype or trail sediment coefficient watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Coefficients 

130 Blue Ridge 

Mountains 130 t/a/y 

Row 2 

Row 3 CC 7360 3.68

Row 4 Shelter wood 4974.545455 

Row 5 Med Thinning 2123.636364 

Row 6 SingleTree 2327.272727 

Row 7 p burn 581.8181818 

Row 8 CC steep 28600 14.3

Row 9 Seedtree steep 19330.43478 

Row 10 Shelterwood steep 8252.173913 

Row 11 Med Thinning steep 9043.478261 

Row 12 SingleTree steep 2260.869565 

 

Row 20 site prep burn 7200 3.6

Row 21 Natural<12 100 0.05

Row 22 Natural>12 660 0.33

Row 23 strip mine 216000 108

Row 24 fs nonforest< 100 0.05

Row 25 pasture< 5240 2.62

Row 26 fs nonforest> 3696 0.33

Row 27 pasture> 13266 20.6

Row 28 cultivated 47600 

Row 29 urban 57120 

Row 30 water 0 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 132 of 273 

This table also includes coefficients for each eco-region, forest succession, slope and 

silvicultural prescription. Values for other activities not covered in spectrum are also 

included. See rows 103 – 110. These values are repeated for each period. Values from 

these columns are linked to the alternative tables. 

 Col O Col P 

 example 

Row 1 Period 1 

Row 2 acres 

Row 3 Br 1 <25 ba 0 8174.545455

Row 4 Br 1 <25 ba 20 5671.462451

Row 5 Br 1 <25 ba 40 2679.048951

Row 6 Br 1 <25 ba 60 2935.944056

Row 7 Br 2 <25 ba 0 8174.545455

Row 8 Br 2 <25 ba 20 5671.462451

Row 9 Br 2 <25 ba 40 2679.048951

Row 10 Br 2 <25 ba 60 2935.944056

Row 11 Br 3 <25 ba 0 8174.545455

Row 12 Br 3 <25 ba 20 5671.462451

 

Row 103 Rv prescribed fire 276.6798419

Row 104 Rv site prep 320

Row 105 BR pvt forest < 25 8174.545455

Row 106 BR pvt forest > 25 31765.21739

Row 107 BR pvt site prep 7200

Row 108 BR pvt site prep 7200

Row 109 BR pvt urban < 25 57120

Row 110 BR pvt urban > 25 57120

This worksheet also includes the coefficients for all land uses for current and undisturbed 

conditions. These values are linked as coefficients to the LU natl, current pvt, and current 

coef worksheets. 

 Col Z Col AA Col AB 

 example 

Row 1 Composite current natural 

Row 2 

Row 3 Br cultivated < 25 47600 100

Row 4 Br cultivated > 25 47600 660

Row 5 Br forest < 25 100 100

Row 6 Br forest > 25 660 660

Row 7 Br mines < 25 216000 100

Row 8 Br mines > 25 216000 660

Row 9 Br pasture < 25 500 100

Row 10 Br pasture > 25 13266 660

Row 11 Br urban < 25 57120 100

Row 12 Br urban > 25 57120 660

Row 13 Br water < 25 0 0

Row 14 Br water > 25 0 0

Row 15 Br wetland < 25 0 0
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 133 of 273 

Row 16 Br wetland > 25 0 0

Row 17 PD cultivated < 25 47600 20

The following example is similar to the LU natl coef, current pvt, and current coef 

worksheets. Values in C3 and subsequent cells are converted to acres and multiplied to 

the erosion coefficient in column B. The natural condition uses column AB as a 

coefficient. The current condition worksheets use values from column AA. These values 

are totaled in Row 200 and linked to the summary worksheet. 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 erosion coefficient watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Fshuc5text 306010201 306010207

Row 2 Acres 178540.8129 121279.9202

Row 3 Br cultivated < 25 100 101256.3771 20148.97379

Row 4 Br cultivated > 25 660 50786.08891 6164.785359

 

Row 200 total 53490690.56 40599755.19

Alternatives 

These worksheets (for each Alternative) are the links to the spectrum models. Values for 

the spectrum models are placed in Column B. The value from spectrum should be the 

total number of acres treated for each period by eco-region forest succession, slope class, 

and silvicultural treatment. Column A is linked to the general coefficients values. Values 

for C3 (and subsequent cells) include taking the values from the associated Tx Alt 

worksheet as a proportion of the total number of acres. That proportion (for each 

watershed is then multiplied by column B divided by 10 and multiplied by the 

corresponding coefficient in coef general worksheet column P for the pounds of erosion 

associated with each watershed, eco-region, forest succession class, slope and silviculture 

treatment. 

Row 103 is an example of non-spectrum values. B103 is the number of acres that will be 

treated for the entire period. A percent or proportion of each watershed is then allocated 

and multiplied against the corresponding coefficient. 

Row 104 is the total number of regeneration acres that are treated with a site preparation 

that could create erosion. 

Rows 105 – 109 represent the predicted future activities of non-forest service or private 

land. The number of acres harvested for private land was based on a rotation age and 

assumed a clearcut or a percent increase in urbanization. 

Row 1001 and 1002 represent the total number of pounds created from forest service and 

non-forest service lands 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 Spectrum Value watershed # watershed # 

 example 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 134 of 273 

Row 1 Period 1 tot ac by decade 306010201 306010207

Row 2 acres 178540.8129 121279.9202

Row 3 Br 1 <25 ba 0 1 26.01021391 46.20137257

Row 4 Br 1 <25 ba 20 1 18.04576809 32.05430212

Row 5 Br 1 <25 ba 40 1 8.524343854 15.14160505

Row 6 Br 1 <25 ba 60 1 9.341746689 16.59353978

Row 7 Br 2 <25 ba 0 1 20.81447585 47.09453448

Row 8 Br 2 <25 ba 20 1 14.44098866 32.67397379

Row 9 Br 2 <25 ba 40 1 6.821541332 15.43432157

Row 10 Br 2 <25 ba 60 1 7.475661734 16.914325

Row 11 Br 3 <25 ba 0 1 175.9027904 74.60534877

 

Row 103 Rv prescribed fire 17400 0 0

Row 104 Rv site prep 0 0

Row 105 BR pvt forest < 25 5188596.559 2636738.947

Row 106 BR pvt forest > 25 10081634.56 5725924.784

Row 107 BR pvt site prep 00

Row 108 BR pvt site prep 0 0

Row 109 BR pvt urban < 25 116259.6265 33663.46264

 

Row 1001 Period 1 fs 255831.3787 247099.3445

Row 1002 Period 1 pvt 15527496.19 8405219.429
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 135 of 273 

Tx Alternatives 

This is the grid data from spatial analysis for each alternative. Column B is the sum of the 

watersheds converted to acres. Cell C3 (and subsequent cells) is the number of meters 

(grids) including private. Row 301 – 305 is used to set up a proportional relationship for 

road construction values. 

 Col A Col B Col C Col D----- 

 watershed # watershed # 

 example 

Row 1 Composite Value 306010201 306010207

Row 2 

Row 3 Br 1 < 25 5169.123343 7534800 13383900

Row 4 Br 1 < 25 5169.123343 7534800 13383900

 

Row 103 Rv prescribed fire 0 

Row 104 Rv site prep 0 

Row 105 BR forest <25 256864500 130533300

Row 106 BR forest >25 128439000 72947700

Row 107 Br PVT site prep 

Row 108 Br PVT site prep 

Row 109 BR urban <25 4118400 1192500

Row 110 BR urban >25 499500 31500

 

Row 301 huc 306010201 306010207

Row 302 br acres 632890.3555 68466.92125 66124.88116

Row 303 pd acres 125454.2655 0 0

Row 304 rv acres 70178.47197 0 0

Row 305 total 

Row 306 828523.093 68466.92125 66124.88116
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 136 of 273 

B.13 Determining Sediment Coefficients for Roads, ATV Trails, 

and Firelines

February, 2004 

Introduction 

In December 2003, sediment coefficients for roads, ATV trails, and firelines were 

determined for the LBL Area Plan revision. The sediment coefficients were developed 

for use in a cumulative effects model for water quality. The coefficients express, in tons 

of sediment per mile of road/ATV trail/fireline, the average annual yield of sediment 

entering a stream from a road, ATV trail, or fireline for each eco-region. 

The Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model for roads was used to develop 

the coefficients. This model was developed by the Rocky Mountain Research Station and 

San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Documentation of the WEPP:Road 

model is on the internet website http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. 

Process 

The forest identified roads that were representative of the roads on their respective units. 

Roads selected contained at least one stream crossing. 

An on-site survey was conducted to determine inputs for the WEPP:Road model. The 

road was divided into segments based on water diversions. Functioning waterbars, broadbased dips, wing ditches, and culverts were considered to be water diversions. If no water 

diversion was present and the water had created its own diversion, this also marked a 

segment break. Additionally, a crest in the road, where water ran off in two different 

directions, was considered a segment break. 

Horizontal distances for road segment lengths, road widths, road fillslope lengths, and 

buffer lengths were paced off or visually estimated for each road segment. Some buffer 

lengths over 300 feet long were estimated from topographic maps. 

Road gradients, fillslope gradients, and buffer gradients were measured with a clinometer 

or were visually estimated for each road segment to determine an average slope gradient. 

In areas where roads or trails occurred in the buffer below the road segment being 

inventoried, the buffer length and slope were calculated as if the road or trail in the buffer 

did not exist. 

The buffer began at the end of the water diversion device or at the bottom of the fillslope, 

whichever was applicable. If there was scour or a sediment trail at the end of a diversion, 

then the buffer began where the scour or sediment trail ended. The buffer ended at the 

nearest channel. If a channel alternated between being scoured and unscoured, then it was 

considered to be a scoured channel. 

Other on-site data collected included the road design and status of road ditch vegetation. 

These parameters were visually determined. All roads were calculated as rutted. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 137 of 273 

Measurements were then input into the WEPP: Road model on the interactive internet 

site http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. Thirty years of simulation were used. This 

was based on the WEPP documentation that states "[f]or climates with more than 500 

mm of precipitation; 30 years of simulation is generally adequate to obtain an estimate of 

erosion" (Elliot et. al, 1999). 

The climate station used was the weather station closest to the site location. For ecoregions which were subdivided and where the data used in the model was collected from 

another subdivision, a climate location central to the Forest Service watersheds in the 

subdivided eco-region was used. It was assumed that the weather stations used were 

representative of each eco-region's or subdivided eco-region's climate. 

Soil textures were either determined from consultation with the Forest Soil Scientist or 

were determined on-site. The predominant soil texture was used for the entire 

road/trail/fireline segment surveyed. The rock content of a soil was not taken into 

consideration as the soil texture choices available in WEPP:Road did not include any 

appreciable rock content. There were three segments on one ATV trail section that were 

predominately bedrock. These three segments were calculated as a gravel surface instead 

of native to account for the bedrock. 

For each eco-region or eco-region subdivision, a sediment yield per mile of road was 

determined. Adding the amount of sediment from each road segment and then dividing 

by the total length of the road segments calculated this yield. This sediment yield, 

described in tons per mile, was used as the sediment coefficient in the cumulative effects 

model. 

Sediment yields were determined separately for native, graveled, and paved roads. The 

same data was used to determine sediment yields for each road surface. It was assumed 

that road templates were representative of all five road surface types. The same 

procedure used for roads was repeated with firelines and ATV trails. Firelines and ATV 

trails were considered to be rutted and outsloped. 

The sediment coefficients for each eco-region or eco-region subdivision are shown in the 

attached data summary. This summary also shows weather stations soil textures, National 

Forests and Ranger Districts, lengths of road, ATV trails, and firelines surveyed. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 138 of 273 

Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Limitations 

Many of the assumptions used in determining the sediment coefficients have already been 

presented in the previous section under "Process." Other assumptions are listed further in 

this section. The sediment coefficients should not be considered as absolute values. 

Some assumptions were made due to limitations of the WEPP:Road model. These 

assumptions are: 

• Any road/trail/fireline gradient over 40 percent would yield the same results as a 

40 percent gradient. WEPP:Road does not accept road gradients over 40 percent; 

• Any road/trail/fireline gradient of less than one percent would yield the same 

results as a 0.3 percent gradient. WEPP:Road does not accept road gradients of 

less than 0.3 percent; 

• The absence of fillslopes would yield the same results as fillslopes with a 0.3 

percent gradient and a one-foot length. WEPP:Road does not accept fillslope 

measurements with less than a 0.3 percent gradient and one foot length; 

• Any buffer length greater than 1000 feet would yield the same results as a 1000-

foot buffer. WEPP:Road does not accept buffer lengths greater than 1000 feet. 

Survey Results 

Ownership 

and 

maintenance 

level 

Miles 

surveyed

Sediment 

Coefficient used 

in model 

Road Erosion Road Sediment 

 

High Traffic 

Volume 

Low Traffic 

Volume 

High Traffic 

Volume 

Low Traffic 

Volume 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tons per year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

LBL 1 0.28 21.84 115.65 40.45 68.37 21.84 

LBL 2 0.24 6.11 34.94 23.03 8.29 6.11 

LBL 3 36.34 89.64 48.40 69.63 36.34 

LBL 4 0.30 36.34 89.64 48.40 69.63 36.34 

LBL 5 0.73 13.10 45.38 20.09 29.93 13.10 

LBL ATV 0.21 52.72 74.67 72.12 52.72 48.12 

LBL horse 0.28 21.84 115.65 40.45 68.37 21.84 

pvt gravel 36.34 89.64 48.40 69.63 36.34 

pvt native 21.84 115.65 40.45 68.37 21.84 

pvt paved 13.10 45.38 20.09 29.93 13.10 

Fish Community/Sediment Profile 

The original intent was to reproduce the study efforts previously undertaken for the 

Southern Appalachian Forest Plans. However, available data was limited to a single 

sample year collected by the Center of Aquatic Technology Transfer (CATT). They were 

limited to only having upper stream reaches to sample. Because of the lack of endemics, 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 139 of 273

the sediment increases were correlated to feeding, specialists, tolerance, and fecundity 

groups. The most meaningful of these was the relationship of benthic insectivores (fish 

that feed on insects on the stream bottom). While trends within this data were not strong, 

the information is instructive to potential breaks in watershed health. A Principle 

Components Analysis (PCA) had similar results. The following graph shows the 

relationship of benthic insectivores to sediment increases. 

Relative abundance for benthic insectivores

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Sediment Increase expressed as a percent

Percent of sample population comprised of benthic insectivores

From the trendline the number of benthic insectivores has declined when sediment 

increases exceed 600. For purposes of interpretation, sediment values less than 600 

supports the relative abundance of benthic insectivores and values greater than 600 show 

a decline in the relative abundance of benthic insectivores. For the purposes of forest 

planning, values less than 600 are noted as excellent; values between 600 and 1200 are 

noted as average; and values greater than 1200 are below average with respect to 

watershed health. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 140 of 273 

Watershed Delineations Maps - Current Condition 

19

55

8

#

72

# 59

26 #

#

27 #

60

Cumulative Effects Analysis

for Water Quality

Current Condition

Current condition

Excellent

Average

Below Average

Note: Watershed Number 55 extends beyond the southern boundary of LBL and is 

primarily private land. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 141 of 273 

Alternative Z 

55

19

8

#

59

#

72

Cumulative Effects Analysis

for Water Quality

Alternative Z

Alternative Z

Excellent

Average

Below Average

Note: Watershed Number 55 extends beyond the southern boundary of LBL and is 

primarily private land. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 142 of 273 

Alternatives W, X and Y 

#

59

#

72

#

26 #

27 #

60

8

19

55

Cumulative Effects Analysis

for Water Quality

Alternatives W, X and Y

Alternatives W, X and Y

Excellent

Average

Below Average

Note: Watershed Number 55 extends beyond the southern boundary of LBL and is 

primarily private land. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 143 of 273 

Watershed Identifiers 

#

71

#

52

#

49

#

48

#

46

#

43

#

70

#

66

#

28

#

25

#

22

#

69

#

20

#

80

#

41

#

64 #

34 #

35

#

37 #

38

#

31

#

32

#

75

#

29

#

26

#

27

#

24

#

65

#

21

#

74

#

2 #

3

1 #

#

63

#

58

#

72

#

#

6 #

78 7

#

73

#

74

#

57

#

18

#

61 #

16

#

17

#

15

#

# 13 12

#

67

#

69

56 55

79

40 54

51 39

50

36

47

45 44

76

33

30

68

23

19

14

62 11

10 9

8

5

4

#

77

#

53

Cumulative Effects Analysis

for Water Quality

Watershed Identifier

Note: Watershed Number 55 extends beyond the southern boundary of LBL and is 

primarily private land. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 144 of 273 

B.14 Demographic Changes and Economy Trends 

I. Demographic Changes 

Past population growth and various racial and ethnic components of the population within 

the counties which comprise a national recreation area or a national forest are 

characteristics used to determine how dynamic and subject to change an area may be in 

the future. A static area generally implies fewer possible issues and conflicts for land 

managers to consider. Conversely, a dynamic growing population or changes in 

population characteristics may produce many conflicting issues for consideration. 

Certain areas of a national recreation area or national forest system and surrounding lands 

may be very attractive for second homes or retirement home residences. This attraction 

to urban dwellers in the communities surrounding the federal lands may produce issues 

which conflict with traditional residents of the area. 

The geographic area used in this analysis includes three counties with some national 

recreation area lands within their boundaries, and four other bordering counties that 

influence the local economy. The three counties that have LBL National Recreation Area 

lands within their boundaries are Lyon and Trigg counties in Kentucky and Stewart 

County in Tennessee. The additional Analysis Area counties are Calloway, Livingston 

and Marshall in Kentucky and Henry County in Tennessee. References to the NRA 

Analysis Area relate to the seven-county area. Any reference in the report to only the 

three counties with LBL National Recreation Area lands will be specifically identified. 

LBL was managed as a recreation area by the Tennessee Valley Authority prior to its 

transfer in 1999 to the Secretary of Agriculture to be managed as a unit of the National 

Forest System. The area is currently under multiple use management by the U. S. Forest 

Service as a national recreation area. 

Demographic changes for the Analysis Area are generally compared with the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky which has more counties than Tennessee in which the 

national recreation area lies. Further, five of the seven study area counties are Kentucky 

counties. References in this report to “the state” will refer to the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky unless otherwise specified. Information for both states, however, will be 

provided for reference and information in the appendix tables 

The population in the NRA Analysis Area counties was 118,082 in 1980 and increased 

by 2.8 percent from 1980 to 1990. The NRA Analysis Area increased another 13.9 

percent in the 1990 to 2000 decade for a total population of 138,268 in 2000. Tables 1-5 

at the end of this report show population characteristics and rates of change for each 

county within the NRA Analysis Area. The Commonwealth of Kentucky increased less 

than 1 percent in the first decade and 9.7 percent in the later decade--a much slower 

growth rate than the Analysis Area. Table A below illustrates minority representation for 

the seven county Analysis Area for 1990 and 2000 and total population change in the 

1980s and 1990s. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 145 of 273 

The NRA Analysis Area exhibited some population growth in the decade of the 1980s 

and this growth trend grew stronger in the 1990s. The three counties with LBL National 

Recreation Area lands were the fastest growing counties in the study area with rates 

above the Analysis Area average of 14 percent in the 1990s. Both Lyon and Trigg 

counties in Kentucky grew about 21 percent in the 1990s. Stewart County in Tennessee 

grew at an even faster rate of 30.5 percent during this period. 

Table A 

MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND 

PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE 

 Percent Minority Percent Population Change 

 1990 2000 1980-90 1990-00 

NRA Analysis Area 5.1 6.9 2.8 13.9

Kentucky 7.9 9.9 0.7 9.7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

Minorities made up approximately five percent of the population within the National 

Recreation Analysis Area and about eight percent at the state level in 1990. The minority 

portion of the population increased slightly in these areas to approximately seven percent 

in the Analysis Area and 10 percent at the state level by 2000. Opportunities for area 

visits by minorities have been substantive throughout the Analysis Area, but have not 

changed much through time. 

Table B 

POPULATION DENSITY 

 1980 1990 2000 

 Population Density Population Density Population Density 

 Persons/Sq. Mile Persons/Sq. Mile Persons/Sq. Mile 

NRA Analysis Area 44.6 45.7 52.4

Kentucky 92.1 92.8 101.7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

Population density in the Commonwealth of Kentucky was 93 persons per square mile in 

1990. This was about twice the number of persons per square mile in the national 

recreation area counties, which had a population density of 46. A decade earlier the same 

general relationship existed with densities of 92 and 45 for the state and national 

recreation area, respectively. Between 1990 and 2000, state population density increased 

about 10 percent to 102. The NRA Analysis Area density increase in this period was 15 

percent to 52 persons per square mile, but remained at about half the population density 

of the state as a whole. The lower density in the NRA Analysis Area is due to the 

absence of large metropolitan areas in the Analysis Area. This divergence can be 

expected to continue in the near future. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 146 of 273 

Table C 

RURAL REPRESENTATION 

1990 2000 

 % Rural % Rural 

NRA Analysis Area 75.0 75.1 

Kentucky 48.2 44.3 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

The low population density for the NRA Analysis Area is consistent with the rural 

representation of the population in the Analysis Area counties relative to the state. The 

population in the NRA Analysis Area was classified as 100 percent rural in four counties 

and 75 percent rural, overall, in 1990. Only three counties were 100 percent rural in 

2000, but the study area remained about 75 percent rural. This is in contrast to the 

relatively lower rural percentage of approximately 48 percent for the state in 1990 and 44 

percent in 2000. 

All three counties with LBL National Recreation Area lands reflected 100 percent rural 

population in 1990 and only one county had a small contingent of urban population in 

2000 (see Table 6 of the Appendix). Trigg County, Kentucky, is the county with some 

urban population in 2000, but this county was still 79 percent rural. 

Table D 

PER CAPITA INCOME 

 1990 2000 Real Avg. Annual 

 Per Capita Per Capita % Change ’90-‘00 

 Income Income Per Capita Income 

NRA Analysis Area $10,356 $16,725 2.7 

Kentucky $11,153 $18,093 2.7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

Per capita income is a relative measure of the wealth of an area. It constitutes the 

personal income from all sources divided by the population of the area. These nominal 

data can be adjusted to remove inflation and provide an indication of real change over 

time. 

Per capita income in the NRA Analysis Area in 1990 averaged $10,356 compared to 

$11,153 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The gains in the 1990s were sharply 

upward for the state and Analysis Area with similar rates of approximately 60 percent 

nominal and a 30 percent real (adjusted for inflation) gain over the 10-year period. The 

NRA Analysis Area and state grew at an annual real rate of 2.7 percent per year. The 

seven individual counties had positive per capita growth rates ranging from 2.1 to 3.2 

percent (Table 7 of the Appendix). In 2000, per capita income was $16,726 in the NRA 

Analysis Area compared to $18,093 for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 147 of 273 

Another source of income is government transfer payments, which include a wide range 

of government payments to individuals and families. Some of these are workers 

compensation, unemployment, retirement and disability, income maintenance for low 

income families, food stamps, and other family assistance. These payments would be 

expected to compensate counties with low per capita income more than counties with 

above average per capita income. This holds true in the Analysis Area in the year 2000. 

The average per capita government transfer payment was $4,134 for the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky and $4,533 in the NRA Analysis Area. The increasing importance of this 

source of income in the NRA Analysis Area is emphasized by the 71 percent nominal 

increase in these payments from 1900 to 2000, compared to the 61 percent nominal 

increase in per capita income (See Table 11 for additional county information). 

The percent of the workforce out of work is another indicator of relative economic 

prosperity. Unemployment rates change dramatically over time, depending in large part 

on the national and regional economy. Some areas, however, have protracted 

unemployment problems because of the education level of the workforce and labor skills 

and mobility. 

In 1995, the NRA Analysis Area had an unemployment rate of 7.0 percent, considerably 

higher than the state rate of 5.4 percent. The unemployment rate for the NRA Analysis 

Area in 2000 declined to 5.2 percent, but was still one percentage point above the 

statewide rate. Stewart County, Tennessee, had 15.5 percent unemployment in 1995, 

almost three times the rate for Kentucky or Tennessee. In 2000, this county’s 

unemployment declined to 6.9 percent but remained the highest study area county, and 

well above the Analysis Area average. Unemployment rates for the Analysis Area by 

county and both states can be found in Table 16, at the end this appendix, for 1995 thru 

2000. 

Table E 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 

 1995 Unemployment 2000 Unemployment 

 % Rate % Rate 

NRA Analysis Area 7.0 5.2 

Kentucky 5.4 4.1 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Employment opportunities directly affect unemployment, especially in the short run. 

There were 59,111 persons employed in the NRA Analysis Area in 1995, and the number 

of employed persons increased to 62,136 in 2000. The growth in employment was 

considerably faster in the first three years of this period than for the last three. 

Employment by NRA Analysis Area counties can be found in this appendix, Table 12. 

The percent of people living in poverty is another population characteristic which 

provides an indicator of relative economic prosperity of an area. A substantial number of 

persons in the Analysis Area are classified as living in poverty. This statistic was 15.4 

percent in 1980 and 13.0 percent in 2000. The data for Kentucky was slightly higher, at 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 148 of 273 

17.6 percent in 1980 and 15.8 percent in 2000. Information for individual NRA Analysis 

Area counties is presented in this appendix, Table 8, and presents a wide range between 

counties from 13-19 percent in 1980. Calloway was the only county that had a poverty 

level greater than 13 percent in 2000. This county’s poverty of 16.6 percent was above 

the state level of 15.8 percent. 

Table F 

POVERTY RATE 

 Percent of People of All Ages in Poverty 

 1980 1990 2000 

NRA Analysis Area 15.4 16.5 13.0 

Kentucky 17.6 19.0 15.8 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

The percentage of households headed by a female can be a factor that contributes to 

relative poverty and relates to social disunity for an area. Generally, the greater this 

percentage is, the higher the number of households that may be on some form of 

government assistance. 

Table G 

PERCENT OF FEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS W/CHILDREN 

 Percent 

 1990 2000 

NRA Analysis Area 4.1 5.2

Kentucky 6.3 7.0 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

The percentage of households that had a female as the head of household, and also with 

children in the household, was lower in the Analysis Area than at the state level in 2000. 

This data set has trended upward over the last decade, but the analysis area appears to 

have fewer households of this type than the state in both time periods--1990 and 2000. 

An area with a large number of people per household can be indicative of a condition of 

poverty. The number of persons per household in 2000 was similar between the NRA 

Analysis Area and the state. The general trend for household size has been for a slight 

decline and the Analysis Area appears to be very comparable to the state with regard to 

this household characteristic. Both areas had slight downward trends in household size 

between 1990 and 2000. 

Table H 

HOUSEHOLD DENSITY 

 Persons per Household 

 1990 2000 

NRA Analysis Area 2.6 2.5 

Kentucky 2.7 2.5 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 149 of 273 

The number of housing units increased in the Analysis Area and the state during the 

decade of the 1990s. Housing units increased by 20 percent in the Analysis Area and 16 

percent at the state level. This rate of growth exceeded the rate of growth of population 

and implies that household size should have declined during the last decade at both the 

Analysis Area and state level. This trend is reflected in the table above, although the 

decline is not as great as might have been expected. 

Table I 

HOUSING UNITS 

 Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units 

 Percent Change 

 1990 2000 1990-00 

NRA Analysis Area 56,849 69,218 20.0

Kentucky 1,506,845 1,750,927 16.2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

Housing values are determined principally by the extent of demand. The greater the 

demand, the higher prices are bid up. Population and job increases play a factor in the 

extent of demand for housing. Another factor is land and building cost. Land cost in the 

more rural setting would generally be less than in a more urban area. Median housing 

values for the Analysis Area and the state are contrasted in the table below. The rural 

nature of the Analysis Area is reflected in these values. The median value of housing in 

the Analysis Area was $43,900 in 1990 and increased to $75,957 in 2000. Comparable 

values for Kentucky were $50,100 and $86,700. Information by individual NRA 

Analysis Area counties is shown at the end of this appendix, Table 10. 

Table J 

HOUSING VALUE 

 Housing Units Housing Units 

 Median Value Median Value 

1990 2000 

NRA Analysis Area $43,900 $75,957 

Kentucky $50,100 $86,700 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

II. Economic Trends 

Analyzing the major sectors of an economy allows insight into how diverse the economy 

is and what industries may be driving its growth. Table 13 of this appendix shows the 

industries in the entire economy broken out by major Standard Industrial Code (SIC) and 

by important industry sub-sectors for wood products. Table 13 shows the nine major one 

digit SIC’s in bold print. The major sectors and sub-sectors of interest, plus all other 

sectors with 10 percent or more of industry output or employment, are shown in Table K. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 150 of 273 

Table K 

ECONOMIC DIVERSITY 

 Industry Output Employment 

 Sector % of Total % of Total 

 1990 2000 

% of Total % of Total 

 1990 2000 

Agriculture 7.8 2.6 7.5 8.0 

Manufacturing 44.4 41.2 19.7 18.3 

 Wood Products 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.0

 Furniture & Fixtures 0.4 1.1 0.6 0.6

Wholesale & Retail Trade. 7.7 8.9 19.4 20.8 

Services 8.1 9.0 15.2 17.3 

Government 9.0 12.9 19.3 17.3 

 Total Economy* $4,659.3 $7,073.1 56,030 71,945

* Dollars in millions and number of employees 

Source: IMPLAN Data, 1990 and 2000 

Manufacturing is the dominate sector in the local economy. Manufacturing declined in 

importance between 1990 and 2000, both with regard to industrial output and 

employment. This sector represented 41.2 percent of industry output and 18.3 percent of 

employment in 2000. The small decline in the Manufacturing sector resulted in some 

gain in industry output or employment for all other major sectors except Minerals, 

thereby suggesting the economy is slightly more diverse in year 2000. 

Natural resources and economic characteristics are influential in an area’s economy. 

Diversity in an economy is desirable because it tends to support stability and helps to 

minimize normal economic business cycles that occur over time. Smaller areas like this 

study area are generally more limited in natural resources and other economic 

characteristics and cannot obtain the diversity of large area economies. As a comparison 

to the NRA Analysis Area, the United States economy as a whole had a concentration in 

manufacturing of only 20 percent in 1990, and has declined to about 13 percent in 2000. 

In the Manufacturing sector, “wood products” represented 1.5 percent of the local 

economy’s total output in 1990 and 2000. Employment in this sub-sector was 1.2 percent 

in 1990 and declined to 1.0 percent in 2000. Another wood related Manufacturing 

sub-sector, “furniture and fixtures”, increased from 0.4 to 1.1 percent of industry output 

in 2000. 

Other major sector changes in industry output included the Transportation & Public 

Utilities sector which increased from 4.7 percent of industry output in 1990 to 6.5 percent 

in 2000; Wholesale and Retail Trade sector which increased from 7.7 percent of output in 

1990 to 8.9 percent in 2000 and represented 21 percent of employment in 2000; and 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate which increased from 7.0 percent to 8.5 percent. The 

Services sector increased from 8.1 percent to 9.0 percent and the Government sector 

increased from 9.0 to 12.9 percent in 2000. Both the Services and Government sectors 

represented about 17 percent of employment in 2000. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 151 of 273 

Agriculture, construction, and minerals were three major sectors that reflected no change 

or slight declines between 1990 and 2000. Considering all of these changes, the local 

economy is becoming more diverse, but remains heavily reliant on the Manufacturing 

sector for a major part of the economic activity. An economy with large shares of 

manufacturing is more susceptible to national recessions. 

Table L 

ECONOMY DYNAMICS 

 Employment Industrial Output 

 Avg. Annual % Change Avg. Annual % Change 

 1900-2000 1990-2000 

NRA Analysis Area 2.5 4.3 

Source: IMPLAN 1990 and 2000 Data 

The average annual growth in industrial output in the Analysis Area was 4.3 percent 

during the decade of the 1990s. Change in employment was much less than for output 

(2.5 percent). If technology does not change, then employment would have to increase as 

fast as output increases. In the NRA Analysis Area, the faster growth rate for output 

compared to employment suggests that the area has probably made some labor saving 

capital equipment investments. Such investments provide productivity gains which result 

in higher levels of output growth relative to employment growth. 

Tourism can be defined as any non-business-related travel of 100 miles or more from 

home. Tourism is not an individual sector or sub-sector in the economy analysis, but 

interacts with a wide array of sub-sectors including transportation, lodging, food and 

beverage, entertainment, etc. For this reason, it cannot be easily identified in an 

economy’s analysis. Recreation would be a subset of a tourism estimate; therefore, its 

share of the economy would be less than the tourism numbers. Federal Wildlands 

Recreation is even a further subset of total tourism. Recreation in a local rural area is a 

major part of the tourism estimate and presents our best estimate of the importance of 

Federal Wildlands Recreation available. 

An estimate of the contribution Federal Wildlands Recreation made to the total economy 

for 2000 was based upon labor income estimates. Using this approach, employee 

compensation and proprietor’s income associated with Federal Wildlands Recreation was 

estimated to have accounted for 2.6 percent of total labor income in the Analysis Area in 

2000. 

Another way to indicate diversity of an economy is with the Shannon-Weaver Entropy 

Indices of diversity. This process allows a relative measure of how diverse an area is 

with a single numerical index. The entropy method measures diversity of a region 

against a uniform distribution of employment where the norm is equi-proportional 

employment in all industries. All indices range between 0 (no diversity) and 1.0 (perfect 

diversity). These two extremes would occur when there is only one industry in the 

economy (no diversity) and when all industries contribute equally to the region’s 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 152 of 273 

employment (perfect diversity). In most cases, diversity would be registered somewhere 

between these two extremes. Another factor affecting the magnitude of the index is the 

number of industries in a local economy: the more industries, the larger the index. 

The Shannon-Weaver Entropy index is presented for all national recreation area counties 

in this appendix, Table 17. The indices contrast the change in diversity from 1977 to 

1993 at the four digit SIC level, or at the industry level. Indices for Kentucky, 

Tennessee, and the United States are presented as comparison guides. In the table below, 

the three LBL boundary counties are presented as an example of the comparisons that can 

be made. 

In 1977, Stewart County, Tennessee, was the least diversified and Lyon County, 

Kentucky, was the most diversified within the three-county LBL boundary area. Stewart 

was 65 percent less diverse than the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Lyon County was 

only 25 percent less diversified than the state in 1977 [1-(.47891/.63724)]. 

Table M 

SHANNON-WEAVER ENTROPY INDICES 

NRA Boundary Counties 1977 Four Digit SIC 1993 Four Digit SIC 

Lyon (Kentucky) 0.47891 0.54106 

Trigg (Kentucky) 0.46494 0.60243 

Stewart (Tennessee) 0.22446 0.55681 

NRA Boundary Area 

 (Weighted average) 0.36904 0.57186 

Tennessee 0.66887 0.74161 

Kentucky 0.63724 0.72715 

United States 0.66483 0.73973 

Source: USDA Forest Service, IMI 

Between 1977 and 1993, all three counties became much more diversified. Stewart 

County was the least diversified in 1977, but Lyon was the least diversified in 1993 by a 

small margin. It was 25.6 percent less diversified than Kentucky in 1993. Stewart 

County improved its diversity standing by 59.7 percent between 1977 and 1993. Lyon 

County showed the least improvement in diversity between 1977 and 1993, increasing 

only 11.5 percent. Similar comparisons can be made with the other four counties in the 

NRA Analysis Area (See Appendix Table 17). 

Looking at the seven-county NRA Analysis Aea on a weighted average aggregate 

employment basis, the LBL NRA Analysis Area economy was about 39 percent less 

diversified than the Kentucky State economy in 1977 and about 21 percent less 

diversified in 1993. Henry County, Tennessee, was the more diversified county in 1993, 

being 12 percent more diversified than the seven-county Analysis Area average and only 

eight percent less diversified than the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

In summary, based on the Shannon-Weaver Entropy indices, the Analysis Area economy 

is less diverse than the regional Kentucky economy, but these rural counties and the 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 153 of 273 

national recreation area as a whole, have become more diversified over the 16 year period 

analyzed. The NRA Analysis Area has increased its diversity by about 31 percent 

compared to a 14 percent increase by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

Table N 

EXPORTING INDUSTRIES 

 Net Exporting Industries as 

Commodity Net Exports* a Percent of Total 

 (Exports Less Imports) Positive Exporting Industries 

 1990 2000 1990 2000 

Agriculture $239.9 $21.4 32.5 3.0 

SELECTED MFG. 

 Wood Products $ 7.2 $26.3 1.0 3.7 

 Furniture and Fixtures $ 8.1 $19.6 1.1 2.8 

Manufacturing $364.3 $401.2 49.4 57.0 

Trans. & Public Utilities $48.0 $235.7 6.5 33.5 

EXPORTS 

 Total Net Trade ($64.2) ($931.0) 

 Total Positive Trade Ind. $737.4 $704.3 

*Million Dollars 

Source: IMPLAN 1990 and 2000 data 

The level of net exports for sectors in the IMPLAN analysis is presented in this appendix, 

Table 14. In this table, all nine one-digit SIC sectors are presented, as well as several 

sub-sectors of interest. The chart above compares a summary of selected sectors in the 

Analysis Area. 

The LBL NRA Analysis Area economy, overall, was a net importing economy in 1990 

(negative $64.2 million) and grew as an importing economy by 2000 (negative $931.0 

million). Agriculture was a positive trade sector, exporting more goods and services than 

it imported in 1990 and 2000. The magnitude of these net exports for Agriculture 

declined, however, during the decade of the 1990s from $239.9 million to $21.4 million. 

The “wood products” sub-sector was a net exporter in 1990 ($7.2 million) and increased 

its net exports ($26.3 million) in 2000. The “furniture & fixtures” sub-sector followed 

the same pattern ($8.1 million in 1990 and $19.6 million in 2000). The sub-sector ”pulp 

& paper” was a net importer in 1990 and became a larger net importer in 2000. Total 

Manufacturing and Transportation & Public Utilities were net exporters in both periods, 

and increased net exports between 1990 and 2000. 

The net exporting sectors and sub-sectors that have positive values (export more goods 

and services than are imported) are examined in more detail. Sub-sector detail is 

maintained to provide information at this level. The sum of all sectors or sub-sectors, 

when sub-sector detail is provided, with a positive net export value is computed 

(“EXPORTS-Total Positive Trade Ind.” in this appendix, Table 14) and provides the 

basis for determining a commodity’s share of total net exports. This computation is only 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 154 of 273 

valid for sectors or sub-sectors which are net exporters (positive values). This appendix, 

Table 14 provides the results of this analysis. Agriculture and Manufacturing sub sectors 

“wood 

products” and “furniture & fixtures” made up 32.5, 1.0 and 1.1, respectively, of the total 

positive net exporting industries in 1990. The age declined to 3.0 for Agriculture, but 

increased to 3.7 for the “wood products” and 2.8 for the “furniture & fixtures” subsectors in 2000. 

Manufacturing in 1990 had net exports of $364.2 million and this was 49.4 of the $737.4 

million for all net exporting industries in the Analysis Area. The Transportation & Public 

Utilities sector represented 6.5 percent of the positive net exports in 1990. This increased 

to a level of $235.7 million and 33.5 percent of positive net exports in 2000. The 

Construction and Government sectors had positive net exports in 1990, but this turned 

negative in 2000. The Wholesale & Retail Trade, the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, 

and the Services sectors had large net imports contributing to a drain of money from the 

local economy. 

The Analysis Area economy was a net importer in 1990 in the amount of a negative 

$64.2 million and increased in net imports in 2000 to a negative $931.0 million. 

Manufacturing dominated the positive trade industries. “Wood products” and “furniture 

& fixtures” were important sub-sectors of Manufacturing with regards to positive trade. 

Twenty-five of the monies received from natural resource consumption (25 percent 

Funds), such as timber harvesting, mining and recreation, on national forest lands are 

paid to the counties with these lands. If these payments by the Forest Service do not 

amount to at least $1.75 per acre, then Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are used to 

address the shortfall. The PILT payment is administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

In the transfer of management of LBL from the Tennessee Valley Authority to the 

USDA Forest Service the Twenty-Five fund payments were not instituted. PILT was 

maintained, however, and TVA was instructed to continue making payments to states and 

local governments as though the transfer had not been made. 

Only counties with federal lands receive PILT payments. The three LBL boundary 

counties receive the bulk of these payments. Livingston County has some federal lands 

unrelated to the national recreation area, and receives PILT payments. The level of 

payments and trends over time are important to the individual counties involved. Trends 

in these payments are important because declines or even slow growth can put additional 

pressure on the area tax base. Table 15 of this appendix provides information on PILT 

revenues by county. Aggregate amounts of PILT for 1991 and 2001. and change from 

1991-2001, is presented in the table below. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 155 of 273 

Table O 

 PILT FUNDS 

 %Change 

 1991 2001 1991-2001* 

NRA Analysis Area 

 PILT $55,642 $286,199 320.3% 

*Real (inflation adjusted dollars) 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Interior 

In 1991 PILT payments amounted to $55.6 thousand and increased to $286.2 thousand 

for the NRA Analysis Area in 2001. The trend in payments reflect very little change in 

nominal terms between 1991 and 1999 and was actually a decline in real (adjusted for 

inflation) terms. In year 2000 as the impact of the land management transfer from TVA 

to USDA was implemented, a major increase was realized. Based on 2001 payments, it 

appears that payments will probably stabilize at the new payment level. The increase in 

payments between 1991 and 2001 amounted to a 414 percent nominal increase and a 320 

percent real increase. As mentioned above, however, this increase was essentially a one 

time increase over a 1-2 year period and did not reflect a gradual 10-year trend. 

III. Summary of Demographic and Economic Changes 

Population and economic dynamics depict a rural setting and are changing at a moderate 

rate within the LBL NRA Analysis Area. Population growth was only three percent in 

the 1980s and increased to a growth rate of nearly 14 percent in the 1990s. The NRA 

Analysis Area population grew faster than the Commonwealth of Kentucky in both the 

1980s and the 1990s. 

The minority population in the NRA Analysis Area has remained below ten percent for 

the last two decades and was below the state level during this period. In the year 2000 

minorities made up seven percent of the NRA Analysis Area population and ten percent 

of the state’s population. This was a slight gain from 1990 for both areas indicating 

slight net migration to the NRA Analysis Area and state as a whole. The percent of 

minority population is below the national average of 13 percent for both the NRA 

Analysis Area and state. The use of the NRA Analysis Area by minorities may be below 

national averages but should increase over time if the net migration trend continues. 

A major difference exists between the NRA Analysis Area and the state with regards to 

its rural character of the population. In 2000 the NRA Analysis Area was much more 

rural, 100 percent rural in three counties and over 75 percent rural in the Analysis Area. 

Further, the NRA Analysis Area maintained its rural character during the 1990s while the 

state as a whole realized about a ten percent decline. 

The NRA Analysis Area’s economic health, as measured by per capita income, grew at a 

robust rate during the 1990s (2.7 percent per year) and was equal to the state rate during 

this period. Even though per capita income kept up with state growth during the 1990s it 

was below the state level in 1990 and remained about $1,350 below state per capita 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 156 of 273 

income in 2000. Unemployment followed a similar pattern. It was seven percent in 1995 

which was higher than the state rate of 5.4 percent. It declined to five percent in 2000 but 

remained higher than the state as a whole. 

With a steady income growth rate and a downward trend in the unemployment, the area 

economy appears strong and stable. People with increasing incomes and adequate 

employment are likely to have the time and resources to pursue recreational activities. 

national recreation areas can be a prime outlet for many types of recreational activities. 

The NRA Analysis Area poverty rate improved over the last two decades and remains 

below the level of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It was about 2 percentage points 

below the state in 1980 and increased to almost 3 percentage points below in 2000. 

Female household heads with children and persons per household are two household 

characteristics that can detract from economic growth in some areas. These data in the 

Analysis Area are better than for the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a whole and should 

not be a deterrent to economic growth. 

The NRA Analysis Area’s economy was very dependent on manufacturing in 1990. This 

sector continued its dominance in 2000, with 57.0 percent of its net exports coming from 

the Manufacturing sector in that year. As measured by total output in 2000, 

Manufacturing was about 41 percent of the economy but substantially less if measured by 

employment—only 18 percent. Transportation & Public Utilities; Wholesale & Retail 

Trade; Finance, Insurance & Real Estate; Services; and Government all gained in shares 

of total industry output during the decade of the 1990s. “Wood products” maintained its 

1.5 percent relative share of economic activity and “furniture and fixtures” gained in 

importance, from 0.4 percent to 1.1 percent. The “paper & pulp products” sub-sector was 

not present in the 1990 economy and was of no significance in 2000. The three subsectors that make up the wood products manufacturing component of the total NRA 

Analysis Area economy was about 2.6 percent of total industry output in 2000. 

In general, economies that export more than they import are able to grow faster than 

those that are net importers. The NRA Analysis Area was a net importer ($64.2 million) 

in 1990 and the level of net imports increased ($931.0 million) in 2000. The three wood 

product sub-sectors were examined in more detail with regards to net exports. “Wood 

products” and “furniture and fixtures” were net exporters in 1990 and increased their net 

export level to $26.4 million and $19.6 million, respectively, in 2000. “Paper & pulp 

products” was a net importer in 1990 and 2000. 

A different indicator of economic diversity is the Shannon-Weaver Entropy indices. The 

index value ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 with 1.0 reflecting complete diversity. The NRA 

Analysis Area had a Shannon-Weaver Entropy index value of .60061 in 1993. The state 

of Kentucky value for this period was 0.72715. 

The forest area economy and demography reflect a strong rural base. The economy 

appears healthy, but very dependent on manufacturing and not positioned for rapid 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 157 of 273 

growth. Population, housing, employment, and income continue to increase which will 

generate some additional pressure for leisure time activities. The demand for such 

activities will not be as prevalent as would be expected in a more urban setting. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 158 of 273 

TABLE 1: COUNTY AND STATE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 

POPULATION BY RACE, 1980 

 

1980 

Persons White Black Other 

Race 

% 

Minority 

 

State of Kentucky 3,660,777 3,379,006 259,477 22,294 7.7% 

State of Tennessee 4,591,120 3,835,452 725,942 29,726 16.5% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

 

Calloway 30,031 28,964 871 196 3.6% 

Livingston 9,219 9,183 16 20 0.4% 

Lyon 6,490 6,141 319 30 5.4% 

Marshall 25,637 25,576 6 55 0.2% 

Trigg 9,384 8,191 1,175 18 12.7% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

 

Henry 28,656 25,425 3,148 83 11.3% 

Stewart 8,665 8,501 133 31 1.9% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Total 118,082 111,981 5,668 433 5.2% 

 Average 16,869 15,997 810 62 5.2% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 159 of 273 

TABLE 2: COUNTY AND STATE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 

 POPULATION BY RACE, 1990 

 

 1990 

 Persons White Black Other 

Race 

% 

Minority 

 

State of Kentucky 3,685,296 3,392,615 262,057 30,624 7.9% 

State of Tennessee 4,877,185 4,048,317 777,041 51,827 17.0% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

 

Calloway 30,735 29,523 999 213 3.9% 

Livingston 9,062 8,990 3 69 0.8% 

Lyon 6,624 6,153 433 38 7.1% 

Marshall 27,205 27,112 6 87 0.3% 

Trigg 10,361 9,113 1,230 18 12.0% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

 

Henry 27,888 24,942 2,831 115 10.6% 

Stewart 9,479 9,279 102 98 2.1% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 

 Total 121,354 115,112 5,604 638 5.1% 

 Average 17,336 16,445 801 91 5.1% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 160 of 273 

TABLE 3: COUNTY AND STATE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 

POPULATION BY RACE, 2000 

 

 2000 

 Persons White Black Other 

Race 

% 

Minority 

 

State of Kentucky 4,041,769 3,640,889 295,994 104,886 9.9% 

State of Tennessee 5,689,283 4,563,310 932,809 193,164 19.8% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

 

Calloway 34,177 31,950 1,218 1,009 6.5% 

Livingston 9,804 9,656 14 134 1.5% 

Lyon 8,080 7,422 543 115 8.1% 

Marshall 30,125 29,694 37 394 1.4% 

Trigg 12,597 11,128 1,233 236 11.7% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

 

Henry 31,115 27,757 2,787 571 10.8% 

Stewart 12,370 11,785 159 426 4.7% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Total 138,268 129,392 5,991 2,885 6.4% 

 Average 46,089 43,131 1,997 962 6.4% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 161 of 273 

TABLE 4: COUNTY AND STATE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICs: 

PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE: 1980 - 2000 

 % Change 1980-1990 % Change 1990-2000 

 Total Minority Total Minority 

 Population Population Population Population 

State of Kentucky 0.7% 3.9% 9.7% 37.0% 

State of Tennessee 6.2% 9.7% 16.7% 35.8% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

 

Calloway 2.3% 13.6% 11.2% 83.8% 

Livingston 1.7% 100.0% 8.2% 105.6% 

Lyon 2.1% 35.0% 22.0% 39.7% 

Marshall 6.1% 52.5% 10.7% 363.4% 

Trigg 10.4% 4.6% 21.6% 17.7% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

Henry 2.7% 8.8% 11.6% 14.0% 

Stewart 9.4% 22.0% 30.5% 192.5% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Average 2.8% 2.3% 13.9% 42.9% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 162 of 273 

TABLE 5: COUNTY AND STATE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 

POPULATION DENSITY AND DENSITY CHANGE 1980, 1990 AND 2000 

 

Area Population Density 

 

Change in Population 

 (Sq. 

Miles) 

(persons/ Sq. Mile) Density (%) 

1980 1990 2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 

 

State of Kentucky 39,728 91.2 92.8 101.7 1.8% 9.6% 

State of Tennessee 41,217 111.4 118.3 138.0 6.2% 16.7% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

Calloway 386 77.8 79.6 88.5 2.3% 11.2% 

Livingston 316 29.2 28.6 31.0 -2.1% 8.4% 

Lyon 216 30.1 28.6 37.5 -5.0% 31.1% 

Marshall 305 84.2 89.3 98.9 6.1% 10.8% 

Trigg 443 21.2 23.4 28.4 10.4% 21.4% 

 

Tennessee counties 

Henry 562 51.0 49.7 55.4 -2.5% 11.5% 

Stewart 458 18.9 20.7 27.0 9.5% 30.4% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Total 2,686 44.6 45.7 52.4 2.4% 14.6% 

 Average 384 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

N/A = Not applicable or not 

available 

Source: U.S. Bureau of 

Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 163 of 273 

TABLE 6: COUNTY AND STATE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 

URBAN AND RURAL DISTRIBUTION AND PERCENT RURAL 1990 AND 2000 

 1990 2000 

 URBAN RURAL %RURAL URBAN RURAL %RURAL

 

State of Kentucky 1,910,028 1,775,268 48.2% 2,251,967 1,789,802 44.3% 

State of Tennessee 2968743 1908442 39.1% 3618968 2070315 36.4% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

Calloway 14439 16,296 53.0% 16,253 17,924 52.4% 

Livingston 0 9,062 100.0% 0 9,804 100.0% 

Lyon 0 6,624 100.0% 0 8,080 100.0% 

Marshall 6419 20,786 76.4% 4,196 25,929 86.1% 

Trigg 0 10,361 100.0% 2,653 9,944 78.9% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

Henry 9440 18,448 66.2% 10,209 20,908 67.2% 

Stewart 0 9,479 100.0% 0 12,370 100.0% 

 

NRA Counties 

 Total 30,298 91,056 75.0% 33,311 104,959 75.9% 

 Average 4,328 13,008 75.0% 4,759 14,994 75.9% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 164 of 273 

TABLE 7: COUNTY & STATE INCOME IN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA COUNTIES 

 1990 2000 Real Average Annual 

income 

 Per 

Capita 

Median Per 

Capita 

Median 

% Change 1990-2000 

 Income income Income income Per Capita 

Income 

Median 

income 

 

State of Kentucky 11,153 27,028 18,093 40,939 2.7% 2.0% 

Sate of Tennessee 12,255 29,546 19,393 43,517 2.5% 1.7% 

 

Kentucky 

Counties 

 

 

Calloway 10,434 25,012 16,586 39,914 2.5% 2.5% 

Livingston 10,123 25,507 17,072 39,486 3.1% 2.2% 

Lyon 10,081 24,940 16,016 39,940 2.5% 2.6% 

Marshall 11,374 27,131 18,059 43,870 2.5% 2.7% 

Trigg 10,124 24,885 17,184 40,886 3.2% 2.8% 

 

Tennessee 

Counties 

 

 

Henry 10,423 22,753 15,855 35,836 2.1% 2.4% 

Stewart 9,935 24,497 16,302 38,655 2.8% 2.4% 

 

NRA Counties 

 Average 10,356 24,961 16,725 39,798 2.7% 2.5% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of 

Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 165 of 273 

TABLE 8: PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS IN POVERTY, 1980, 1990 AND 2000

 

 PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS 

 1980 1990 2000 

State of Kentucky 17.6% 19.0% 15.8% 

State of Tennessee 16.5% 15.7% 13.5% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

 

Calloway 15.3% 17.7% 16.6% 

Livingston 14.7% 15.5% 10.3% 

Lyon 13.5% 14.3% 12.7% 

Marshall 13.5% 14.3% 12.7% 

Trigg 17.3% 18.0% 12.3% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

 

Henry 15.0% 18.9% 14.3% 

Stewart 18.6% 16.6% 12.4% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Average 15.4% 16.5% 13.0% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of 

Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 166 of 273 

TABLE 9: HOUSEHOLD DATA,1990 and 2000 

 

 Persons per % Female Head of House- 

 Household hold with Children Present 

 1990 2000 1990 2000 

 

State of Kentucky 2.7 2.5 6.3% 7.0% 

State of Tennessee 2.6 2.5 6.7% 7.4% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

Calloway 2.6 2.3 4.5% 5.0% 

Livingston 2.5 2.4 3.1% 4.0% 

Lyon 2.9 2.3 3.3% 4.8% 

Marshall 2.5 2.4 3.4% 4.7% 

Trigg 2.5 2.4 4.2% 5.1% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

Henry 2.4 2.4 5.3% 6.4% 

Stewart 2.6 2.5 2.5% 4.9% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Average 2.6 2.5 4.1% 5.2% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of 

Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 167 of 273 

TABLE 10: HOUSING DATA, 1990 AND 2000 

Total Housing Units Housing 

Units 

% change Median Value 

1990 2000 1990-2000 1990 2000 

State of 

Kentucky 

1,506,845 1,750,927 16.2% 50,100 86,700

Sate of 

Tennessee 

2,026,067 2,439,443 20.4% 58,000 93,000

 

Kentucky 

Counties 

 

Calloway 13,242 16,069 21.3% 50,000 83,100

Livingston 4,177 4,772 14.2% 36,400 58,200

Lyon 3,460 4,189 21.1% 43,400 80,700

Marshall 12,528 14,730 17.6% 47,600 82,800

Trigg 5,284 6,698 26.8% 44,200 74,300

 

Tenessee 

Counties 

 

 

Henry 13,774 15,783 14.6% 41,800 75,800

Stewart 4,384 5,977 36.3% 43,900 76,800

 

NRA Analysis 

Area 

 

 Total 56849 68218 20.0% N/A N/A 

 Average 8,121 9,745 20.0% 43,900 75,957

N/A Not applicable or not available 

Source: U.S. 

Bureau of Census 

 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 168 of 273 

TABLE 11: PERSONAL INCOME AND TRANSFER PAYMENTS, 1990 AND 2000 

Per Capita Personal Income Per Capita Government 

Transfer Payments 

%Change %Change 

1990 2000 1990-00 1990 2000 1990-

00 

 

Kentucky 11,153 18,093 62.2% $2,394 $4,134 73% 

Tennessee 12,255 19,393 58.2% $2,339 $4,089 75% 

 

Kentucky 

Counties 

 

 

Calloway 10,434 16,566 58.8% $2,462 $3,918 59% 

Livingston 10,123 17,072 68.6% $2,640 $4,779 81% 

Lyon 10,081 16,016 58.9% $2,602 $4,576 76% 

Marshall 11,374 18,089 59.0% $2,686 $4,494 67% 

Trigg 10,124 17,184 69.7% $2,602 $4,223 62% 

 

Tennessee 

Counties 

 

 

Henry 10,423 15,855 52.1% $2,918 $5,126 76% 

Stewart 9,935 16,302 64.1% $2,647 $4,618 74% 

 

NRA Analysis 

Area 

 

 Average 10,356 16,726 61.5% $2,651 $4,533 71% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 169 of 273 

TABLE 12: COUNTY AND STATE EMPLOYMENT,1995-2001 

 Annual Estimate of Employed Persons % Change 

 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1995-

1998 

1998-

2001 

 

Kentucky# 1,761 1,760 1,813 1,841 1,879 1,900 1,860 4.5% 1.0% 

Tennessee# 2,561 2,603 2,565 2,644 2,702 2,688 2,692 3.2% 1.8% 

 

KY 

Counties 

 

Calloway 16,004 16,274 16,773 16,901 17,155 17,152 16,808 5.6% 5.4% 

Livingston 4,462 4,426 4,556 4,596 4,704 4,703 4,609 3.0% 6.3% 

Lyon 2,962 3,057 3,122 3,135 3,214 3,214 3,149 5.8% 0.4% 

Marshall 12,984 13,291 13,535 13,682 13,976 13,974 13,694 5.4% 5.2% 

Trigg 5,513 5,580 5,588 5,544 5,787 5,902 5,931 0.6% 7.0% 

 

TN Counties 

Henry 13,854 14,043 13,414 13,566 13,849 13,811 13,415 -2.1% -1.4% 

Stewart 3,332 3,222 2,933 2,903 3,160 3,380 3,497 -12.9% 20.5% 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Total 59,111 59,893 59,921 60,327 61,845 62,136 61,103 2.1% 1.3% 

 Average 8,444 8,556 8,560 8,618 8,835 8,877 8,729 2.1% 1.3% 

# - numbers are in1000s 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

TABLE 13: DIVERSITY OF THE LBL NRA ECONOMY BY SECTOR 1990 AND 2000 

Industry 

Output 

Industry 

Output Employment Employment Total Incom

Amt % Amt % Qty % Qty % Amt 

Industry 1990‡ 2000‡ 1990 2000 1990‡ 

Agriculture $362.1 7.8% $185.3 2.6% 4201 7.5% 5728 8.0% $52.7 5Minerals $104.8 2.2% $108.6 1.5% 623 1.1% 658 0.9% $29.7 2Construction $419.7 9.0% $631.5 8.9% 4730 8.4% 6193 8.6% $54.4 5Wood products $69.6 1.5% $103.2 1.5% 669 1.2% 735 1.0% $7.7 0Pulp & Paper $0.0 0.0% $1.2 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.0% $0.0 0Furniture & Fixtures 

$16.6 0.4% $74.8 1.1% 342 0.6% 433 0.6% ($1.2) -0

Total Wood Based 

$86.2 1.9% $179.2 2.5% 1011 1.8% 1172 1.6% $6.5 0

Other Manufacturing $1984.4 42.6% $2735.1 38.7% 10014 17.9% 12026 16.7% $300.4 29Manufacturing $2070.6 44.4% $2914.3 41.2% 11025 19.7% 13198 18.3% $306.9 29Transportation & Public Utilities 219.8 4.7% $458.9 6.5% 2122 3.8% 3196 4.4% $50.1 4Wholesale & Retail Trade $357.9 7.7% $629.5 8.9% 10894 19.4% 14947 20.8% $59.9 5Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 

$325.6 7.0% $603.9 8.5% 2588 4.6% 2859 4.0% $140.9 13

Services $376.1 8.1% $634.9 9.0% 8542 15.2% 12427 17.3% $92.7 9Government $417.7 9.0% $910.6 12.9% 10826 19.3% 12458 17.3% $243.7 2Other Misc. $5.0 0.1% ($4.4) -0.1% 479 0.9% 281 0.4% $2.6 0

Totals $4659.3 100.0% $7073.1 100.0% 56030 100.0% 71945 100.0% $1033.6 100

Bold Type = 9-one digit SIC industries ‡ Dollars in Millians Source: 1990 and 2000 IMPLAN Data 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 171 of 273 

TABLE 14: NET EXPORTS, 1990 AND 2000 

Net exports Net exporting Industries as a 

Percentage 

 INDUSTRY Exports minus 

Imports 

 of Total Positive Exporting 

Industries 

1990 2000 1990 2000 

Agriculture $239.6 $21.4 32.5% 3.0% 

Minerals ($143.7) ($61.7) 0.0% 0.0% 

Construction $50.4 ($81.2) 6.8% 0.0% 

 

 Wood products $7.2 $26.4 1.0% 3.7% 

 Furniture & Fixtures $8.1 $19.6 1.1% 2.8% 

 Pulp & Paper ($22.6) ($43.3) 0.0% 0.0% 

 Total Wood Based ($7.3) $2.7 0.0% 0.4% 

 Other Manufacturing $371.5 $398.5 50.4% 56.6% 

Total Manufacturing $364.3 $401.2 49.4% 57.0% 

 

Transportation & Public 

Utilities 

$48.0 $235.7 6.5% 33.5% 

Wholesale & Retail Trade ($87.2) ($325.5) 0.0% 0.0% 

Finance, Insurance, Real 

Estate 

($210.4) ($359.3) 0.0% 0.0% 

Services ($316.9) ($697.8) 0.0% 0.0% 

Government $12.6 ($8.6) 1.7% 0.0% 

Other Misc. ($20.9) ($55.2) 0.0% 0.0% 

 

 TOTAL NET TRADE 

(EXPORTS) 

($64.2) ($931.0) 100.0% 100.0% 

TOTAL POSITIVE TRADE 

INDUSTRIES 

737.4 704.3 

Bold type = 9-one digit SIC industries 

* Dollars in Millions 

Source: 1990 and 2000 IMPLAN Data 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 172 of 273 

TABLE 15: PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 1991-2001: 

PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES FOR SELECTED YEARS AND CHANGE 

Payments % change 1991-2001

1991 1994 1998 2001 Nominal Real 

 

Kentucky 595,037 519,892 727,353 1,447,043 143% 99% 

Tennessee 464,627 409,439 699,638 1,281,451 176% 125% 

 

Kentucky 

Counties 

Calloway 

Livingston 2,626 2,519 2,470 4,006 53% 25% 

Lyon 19,574 18,780 19,552 79,321 305% 231% 

Marshall 

Trigg 20,750 19,908 20,728 100,178 383% 295% 

Tennessee 

Counties 

Henry 

Stewart 12,692 12,063 12,560 102,694 709% 561% 

NRA Analysis 

Area 

 

 Total 55,642 53,270 55,310 286,199 414% 320% 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management 

 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 173 of 273 

TABLE 16: COUNTY AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT, 1995 – 2000 

 Unemployment Rate 

 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 

State of Kentucky 5.4% 5.6% 5.4% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 

State of Tennessee 5.2% 5.2% 5.4% 4.2% 4.0% 3.9% 

 

Kentucky Counties 

 

Calloway 4.0% 4.8% 5.2% 5.2% 4.3% 3.2% 

Livingston 6.5% 5.9% 6.9% 5.9% 5.3% 6.5% 

Lyon 6.8% 7.6% 8.1% 5.7% 4.9% 4.9% 

Marshall 5.5% 6.1% 7.0% 6.3% 5.6% 5.6% 

Trigg 4.7% 4.6% 5.0% 3.9% 3.0% 3.8% 

 

Tennessee Counties 

 

Henry 5.7% 6.3% 7.4% 6.9% 6.5% 5.4% 

Stewart 15.5% 14.9% 14.2% 10.1% 8.1% 6.9% 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Average 7.0% 7.2% 7.7% 6.3% 5.4% 5.2% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix B 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 174 of 273 

TABLE 17: SHANON-WEAVER ENTROPHY INDICIES 

Four Digit SIC Level 

1977 1985 1993 

 

Kentucky Counties 

Calloway 0.52651 0.53725 0.58422 

Livingston 0.47807 0.54569 0.57707 

Lyon 0.47891 0.46334 0.54106 

Marshall 0.45761 0.53970 0.62030 

Trigg 0.46494 0.52776 0.60243 

 

Tenessee Counties 

Henry 0.57457 0.59851 0.67156 

Stewart 0.22446 0.45477 0.55681 

 

NRA Analysis Area 

 Weighted Average 0.45756 0.52977 0.60061 

 

State of Kentucky 0.63724 0.69111 0.72715 

State of Tennessee 0.66887 0.72030 0.74161 

United States 0.66483 0.72039 0.73973 

Source: USDA Forest Service, 

IMI 

I
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 175 of 273 

Appendix C 

INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL ROADLESS AREAS 

Introduction 

This appendix presents a detailed description of the process used by the Forest Service on 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area to assess tracts of land to be added to 

a roadless inventory and then possible further recommendation, in the Land and Resource 

Management Plan as Wilderness. Federal regulations require that any inventoried 

roadless areas be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential Wilderness 

areas during the forest planning process (36 CFR 219.17). Once any areas are identified 

and added to the inventory, they are evaluated for their suitability or non-suitability for 

designation as wilderness, and a recommendation is made as part of the Area Plan 

decision. 

National Forest System lands in the eastern United States have been acquired over time 

from private ownership. Criteria for inventorying roadless areas in the east recognize that 

much, if not all of the land, shows some signs of human activity and modification even 

though they have shown high recuperative capabilities. Roadless areas east of the 100th

meridian qualify for inventory as roadless and hence, potential wilderness, if the area 

meets all of the eight criteria for roadless areas in the east. (The 100th meridian runs 

through the center of North Dakota – south through west-central Texas.) 

In 2003, an assessment of potential roadless areas was completed on LBL (Shaffer, 

2003). An initial screen analyzed twelve potential areas by measuring the mileage of 

existing roads in the area. To meet the roadless inventory criteria, an area can contain no 

more than 0.5 miles of improved road for each 1,000 acres (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 7.11b). 

Five of the areas studied, totalling approximately 11,490 acres, met this initial criteria. 

They were named in the report as follows: 

Study Area Name Acreage 

Pond Hollow 2 2400 

Pond Hollow 3 1178 

Pond Hollow 4 640 

Devil’s Backbone Central 7872 

Devil’s Backbone East 551 

The Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (7.11b) requires that a roadless area be “conducive 

to the perpetuation of wilderness values.” Further guidance from the Southern Region 

office in 1995 states that; “In an attempt to quantify this criteria, use of the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and the semi-primitive class of lands is recommended. It 

further states that it is desirable that the opportunity in the proposed area be conducive to 

the semi-primitive non-motorized or semi-primitive motorized ROS classification. Four 

of the five areas were then removed from further consideration because of their inability 

to offer this type of experience. Pond Hollow 2, 3 and 4 along with Devil’s Backbone 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 176 of 273 

East all are within the Roaded Natural or Remote Roaded Natural ROS classifications in 

LBL’s inventory. The Devil’s Backbone Central area, however, does offer a SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) recreation opportunity. 

Devils Backbone Central then became the only area to be further examined to see if it 

met the remaining roadless inventory criteria. 

The Devils Backbone Central Area 

Description 

Location and Vicinity - The Devil’s Backbone Central area is located in the Southern 

portion of LBL in Stewart County, Tennessee. It is bordered by TN State Highway 79 

and Forest Service Road 236 on the south, Fort Henry Road on the west, Tennessee 

Ridge Trail on the eas,t and Telegraph Trail to the north. (See map at end of section) 

Boundaries – The first proposed area of Devil’s Backbone Central was 7,872 acres and 

was bordered by Forest Service Road 236 and TN State Highway 79 on the south, Fort 

Henry Road on the north and west, and the Trace and LBL’s boundary with private land 

to the east. This area included 11 cemeteries within the boundary. Section 528 of the 

LBL Protection Act discusses cemeteries and declares: “The Secretary shall maintain an 

inventory of and ensure access to cemeteries within the recreation area for purposes of 

burial, visitation, and maintenance.” Furthermore, it has traditionally been LBL’s policy 

to provide access to cemeteries at the level that existed when the federal government 

acquired the land by eminent domain in the mid 1960s. Due to this issue, designating the 

whole 7,872 acres would create situations in conflict with each other. 

To avoid the situation described above, the Devil’s Backbone Central area was reduced to 

5,344 acres. This new area is bordered as stated above in the ‘Location and Vicinity 

section’. Two cemeteries, Stone and Creek Side, still remain just within the modified 

boundaries of the area. This new area would exclude the other eight cemeteries, along 

with the improved roads to the cemeteries and still present a distinct mapable boundary. 

Vegetation - The area contains mostly oak and coniferous forest ranging from young to 

mid-aged to mature closed forest. The area also contains a stand of shortleaf pine trees, 

which has been designated as a State Natural Area in Tennessee due to the rarity of this 

plant community type in the region. The shortleaf pine species is shade intolerant; thus, 

will require some opening of the forest canopy in the future to perpetuate this community 

type. 

Access Roads and Trails - This area is easily accessible by cemetery roads and 

connecting trails (refer to LBL Hike and Bike Trail Map). 

Current Uses - As indicated on the LBL’s Hike and Bike Trail Map, this area contains 

the Fort Henry Trails system. These trails are designated for hiking only and currently 

have no shared usage. The trails are rated easy to moderate with a 250’+ change in 

elevation. Trails in the area are made up of 18 miles of footpaths, old logging roads, and 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 177 of 273 

gravel roads. These trails offer many historical features and are recognized as National 

Recreation Trails. 

Historical Uses - Settlers of European ancestry came to the area shortly after the 

American Revolution in about 1790. LBL area was continually inhabited until 1965 

when the federal government acquired the land. Many small communities existed on the 

land base. The Fort Henry area, including parts of the adjacent Devil’s Backbone area, 

made up one of these communities. 

Of more historical significance is the fact that Ft. Henry and nearby Ft. Donelson were 

sites of an important Civil War battle. The area known as Devil’s Backbone is located 

between these sites and two of the current trails within the area (Telegraph and Artillery) 

were roads taken by General Ulysses S. Grant’s troops to move from Fort Henry to Fort 

Donelson. These roads and others were also used by residents for access to homes and 

farms in the area up until the land was purchased by the government in the 1960s. 

Applying the Roadless Inventory Criteria (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 7, 

Sec. 7.11b) 

Criteria #1 - Effects of Human Activity: If an area’s ecological processes and/or natural 

appearance have been altered by past or present human activity, is the land regaining a 

natural, untrammeled appearance? Untrammeled is defined as an area where human 

influence does not impede the free play of natural forces or interfere with natural 

processes in the ecosystem (FSH 2320.5). 

In general the land is recovering from most of the impacts caused by the day to 

day activities of the past. Old home foundations are not readily visible in most of 

the area. Pastures and fields are overgrown and outbuildings virtually 

indistinguishable. Few signs of past logging operations exist since none have 

taken place in the area for at least 10 years. 

The one major sign of human activity that remains throughout the area is the 

prevalence of old roads. Within the Ft. Henry trail system, the Artillery, 

Telegraph, and Shortleaf Pine Trails are significantly entrenched from previous 

residential, agricultural, and industrial use. These trails can be classified as 

decommissioned roadbeds or unclassified roads. Unclassified roads are defined 

as roads on Forest Service lands that are not managed as part of the road system. 

This includes abandoned roads, unauthorized OHV tracks, and abandoned travel 

ways. These roads were actively used until approximately 1965 by residents of 

the area. From 1965 to 1994, TVA used them for administrative access roads 

even though they were officially designated as trails. In addition, Telegraph and 

Artillery trails are of historical significance as Civil War access roads. Telegraph 

is 8.352 miles long and Artillery is 3.6670 miles long. These trails received large 

volumes of illegal use by 4x4’s and OHV’s prior to being gated off in 2003. 

According to law enforcement officials and trail managers, illegal OHV use is 

somewhat problematic in the eastern portion of the area. Enforcement is difficult 

due to the ability of riders to access the area from private land on the boundary. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 178 of 273 

Enforcement personnel, conversely, have limited access from Forest Service land 

and limited resources and time in which to patrol the area. 

In summary, the extensive network of trails and old roads and their current 

condition indicate that at this time the area does not appear to be regaining a 

natural untrammeled appearance. 

Criteria #2 - Forces of Nature: Are improvements in the area being affected by the 

forces of nature rather than humans, and are they disappearing or muted? A permanent 

improvement is defined as a structural or non-structural improvement that is to remain at 

a particular location for more than one field season. Permanent improvements include 

such items as trails, toilets, buildings, cabins, fences, tent frames, fire grills, and 

instrumentation stations (FSH 2320.5). 

As previously mentioned, home sites and old farms in the area are not readily 

visible and are generally being taken over by the forces of nature. However, one 

feature of past uses is present to varying degrees in scattered locations. The 

occurrence of barbwire fencing in the area is problematic in certain places. 

Oxidation is taking some affect on the wire, but it remains a trip and injury hazard 

in places even after thirty years. 

The trail system within the area consists of approximately 29.3 miles of trails 

made up of ten individual trails varying in length from one to four miles. These 

trails are maintained three times a year with tractor mounted brush mowers, 

ATV’s, self-propelled mowers, chainsaws, and other mechanized tools. Three of 

these trails are approximately 10ft. wide and are significantly entrenched. 

Criteria #3 - Ownership Patterns: 

The entire area is National Forest System land with no existing private ownership. 

Criteria #4 - Perpetuation of Wilderness Values: Is the location of the area conducive 

to the perpetuation of wilderness values, considering the relationship of the area to 

sources of noise, air, and water pollution, as well as unsightly conditions that would have 

an effect on the wilderness experience? 

Noise: This area is influenced by sounds from surrounding areas such as: barges 

and leisure craft on Kentucky Lake, military aircraft, traffic on Fort Henry Road 

and TN State Highway 79, and two logging yards. 

Two sound evaluations were conducted on December 12, 2003, and July 24, 

2004, by staff at LBL. The objective of the analysis was to determine the impact 

of noise sources on the study area in as much as they limit the opportunity for 

feelings of solitude and freedom from disturbance. Staff used a mechanical sound 

measuring device to establish baseline and peak noise levels. These were not true 

scientific studies done over a period of time but do give some indication of noise 

levels in the area for a short period of time. The basic conclusion of these 

observations was that the area has little impact from high decibel noise 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 179 of 273 

disturbance on a consistent basis. It should be noted that the equipment used in 

the December and July observations is normally used to measure peak decibel 

levels which usually occur in industrial settings. These observations were also 

taken over a very limited time period, only about two to three hours in duration 

and on only two days out of the year. 

Personal observations by managers of the trails and other staff members who have 

spent extensive amounts of time in the area indicate that there is a persistent low 

level of background noise that can be disturbing to someone seeking a true 

wilderness experience. It is not unusual to hear sounds of outboard motors, semitrucks, and other machinery even in the center of the landscape. 

Furthermore, there are several factors that influence noise levels in the area with 

known frequency. 

Tennessee State Highway 79 is a major east-west corridor across the southern end 

of LBL. This highway connects Interstate 24 and the community of Clarksville 

with the recreational opportunities of western TN and KY. According to the 

Tennessee Department of Transportation web site, an average of 4,240 vehicles 

travel this section of highway on a daily basis. Traffic in all the surrounding 

increases with the coming of the peak recreation seasons of Spring, Summer and 

Fall. A traffic counter on Fort Henry Road indicates that approximately 59,235 

automobiles passed through this area in 2003. The sheer volume of traffic, 

including diesel-powered vehicles, RV’s, and smaller automobiles, would merit 

concern in areas close to boundaries. 

A further reason for concern, and the most intrusive, is that Fort Campbell 

military base has an air flight path directly over this area. According to the 

Campbell Army Airfield, it is estimated that 150 aircraft fly over the exact area 

being evaluated per month at an altitude of 500 feet above ground level or higher. 

Flight maps show that this area is directly impacted by Fort Campbell’s aviation 

training. Fort Campbell’s 400 helicopters conduct aviation training in a local 

flying area that is approximately a 100-mile radius from the airfield. Also, annual 

traffic volume (arrivals, departures, overflight aircraft) within the airspace 

delegated to Ft. Campbell for air traffic control, 35 miles radius, surface to 10,000 

mean sea level, averages 600,000 plus operations each year. (Hallock, 2004) 

Wilderness areas throughout the United States have airplanes flying over them. 

The reason for the Ft. Campbell aircraft to be of concern is their frequency and 

the altitude at which they fly. The Forest Service discourages flights of less than 

2,000 ft. over wilderness areas. Due to the proximity of LBL to training areas on 

Ft. Campbell and the required approach corridor to the airstrip at the base, a 2,000 

ft. minimum flight path is not feasible. 

A study that has focused on all types of aircraft over-flights has found that 

helicopters and military aircraft are significantly more annoying to recreationists 

than high altitude jets and small private aircraft. Respondents in this study had 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 180 of 273 

strong negative attitudes toward hearing and witnessing aircraft in wilderness 

areas. (Mace, Bell, Loomis, 1999). 

Approximately 3.5 miles from the center of the area are two logging yards. One 

is owned by Mead/Westvaco, a paper mill, and the other by Averitt Hardwood 

International, a lumber company. When in full operation, sounds of heavy 

equipment from these sites may travel close to the center of the area. 

Wilderness Experience: A study was conducted investigating wilderness hikers’ 

experiences of solitude to understand what factors contribute to the wilderness 

experience. The results of this study showed that the two most reported factors 

contributing to a feeling of wilderness were “natural setting features” such as 

trees, scenery, rocks, water and wildlife, and minimal encounters with other users. 

Those who did not feel they had experienced wilderness reported that wide trails, 

proximity to a busy road, and the presence of other groups were the most 

important factors contributing to their feelings. (Hall, 2001) 

When asked to define wilderness the majority of the people surveyed answered 

the lack of “human influence” and “natural setting features” were important. 

When asked to describe solitude, it was defined as experiencing quiet or natural 

sounds and being away from sounds of civilization. Those who did not experience 

solitude generally said it was because they had too many encounters with other 

users. (Hall, 2001) 

One factor contributing to a feeling of wilderness is the need to use outdoor skills 

to survive. Also, the sense that if one is not knowledgeable in the outdoors, being 

lost is a definite possibility. Likewise, a lack of no encounters with other 

recreationists in the area adds to ones sense of solitude. 

In the Devil’s Backbone area, the level and reoccurrence of entrenchment of the 

trails may detract from the feeling of naturalness. Observing and hearing planes 

overhead while being in the area, may have negative impacts when seeking a 

sense of solitude. The sense of adventure, so important in a wilderness 

experience, is diminished because it is known that it is difficult to get lost due to 

the density of trails and size of the area. This area also has a lack of 

distinguishing natural features which may not present an advanced level of 

challenge. 

Unsightly Conditions: Walking throughout the Devils Backbone area, visitors 

may find old remnants of wire fencing from old homesteads. Old roadbeds that 

have been decommissioned that are in the process of natural regeneration still 

have noticeable entrenchment from the high levels of previous and current 

(unauthorized) use. They may feel at certain points and times a sense of 

wilderness; but more frequently, there may be a feeling of not experiencing 

wilderness. 

Criteria #5 - Improved Roads: Does the area contain no more than one-half mile of 

improved road for each 1,000 acres? If so, is the road under Forest Service jurisdiction? 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 181 of 273 

 

The initial screen for roadless characteristics consideration conducted in October 

of 2002, found that the 7,872 acre Devil’s Backbone Central area had less than 

one-half mile of improved roads per 1,000 acres. (Shaffer, 2002) Recent 

information gathered as part of the roads layer of the Forest Service’s 

infrastructure database (INFRA), upholds most of those findings. 

The more recent data, however, does support the decision to reduce the size of the 

evaluated area to 5,344 acres. Information discovered during on the ground road 

measurements indicates the requirement for LBL to provide access to cemeteries, 

especially Brokaw and Wofford, which were deep within the originally proposed 

boundary. 

Within the 5,344 acre area being evaluated, there are four legally-accessible 

roads. All these roads are of native surface and not currently maintained along 

their entire length. Road 405 is maintained to a distance of .427 miles, Road 404 

a distance of .431 miles, and Stones Cemetery Road a distance of .249 miles. 

Road 402 is maintained for approximately .521 miles and continues on a route 

from Road 230 through the center of the Devil’s Backbone area to Road 236 in an 

unimproved status. These totals add up to approximately .305 miles of improved 

roads per 1,000 acres in the Devil’s Backbone area. 

Criteria #6 - Non-Native Vegetation: Is more than 15 percent of the area in non-native 

vegetation? 

Simply put, no. Even though the area contains remnants of old farms and homes, 

these places have been taken over by native or naturalized species. There were 

some row cropped fields within the original boundary recommendation but since 

they have been excluded from the newly proposed area, they are of no concern. 

Criteria #7 - Timber Regeneration: Has more than 20 percent of the area been 

regenerated within the past 10 years? If more has been regenerated, could a boundary 

change exclude the regeneration area? 

No active timber harvest has taken place in the area for more than 10 years. The 

area is currently encircled by a land area that has been set aside as a Core Area. 

These areas receive very minimal land management. 

Criteria #8 - Private Lands/Dwellings: Are there private dwellings on private lands 

inside the proposed roadless area? 

There is no private land within this area. 

Findings and Recommendations 

In order to be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendations, an area must first meet 

the roadless inventory requirements set forth in chapter 7.11b, FSH 1909.12. If these 

requirements are met, an area would then be evaluated for its ability to meet the tests of 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix C 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 182 of 273 

capability, availability, and need. Based on the impacts of activity occurring on the land 

and the inability of the area to perpetuate the values of wilderness, it has been determined 

that the Devil’s Backbone Central area does not meet criteria to be identified as an 

“inventoried roadless area.” 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 183 of 273 

Appendix D 

DRAFT PRESCRIPTIONS 

1. Natural Resources Stewardship 

The management direction and emphasis placed in a given area or on a given land use or 

allocation, in forest planning, is referred to as a prescription. In order to fairly and 

accurately assess the potential effects and outcomes of a given alternative on the land, 

forest planners and resource specialists develop a set of Prescriptions that apply to either 

the general forest overall, or to specific areas or designations of land allocations. From 

these baseline conditions they determine the potential effects future management 

activities would most likely have on those given land allocations or prescriptions. 

In order to represent a complete picture of the information used to arrive at the Selected 

Alternative, the following are the prescriptions used by the Forest Service to analyze and 

evaluate the four alternatives. This information is necessary in order to understand the 

basis from which decisions and assessments were made. 

Below is a table with the land allocations and approximate acres for each alternative. 

Following the table are descriptions of the prescriptions. 

Acreage Disclaimer: Prescription allocations were mapped for each alternative using 

GIS applications and existing coverages. Acreage discrepancies reflect a margin of error 

created by the digital representation of conceptually based alternatives. These acres have 

been rounded to give approximated acres for each prescription area. See appendix for a 

description of the prescription coverages. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 184 of 273 

Table D1 –Summary of Acres By Alternative And Prescription – Draft 

* Acreages for Roads and Road Right of Ways are included to account for land area associated with roads 

** EE Facilities contain acreage of the Environmental Education Area (Prescription 3.E) in Alternative W 

*** Acreages are rounded to the nearest 10’s, therefore total acreage is different across alternatives 

1.A General Forested Areas 

Emphasis: 

General Forest Areas provide for a wide range of uses and conditions. Primary emphasis 

is to provide dispersed recreation and environmental education opportunities, a diversity 

of habitats, vigorous forests that are resistant to insects and disease, and functioning 

watersheds. 

Awareness of resource management and protection is encouraged through environmental 

education within these areas. Resource management planning considers both the needs 

of the resource and that for dispersed recreation and environmental education activities 

and opportunities. 

Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

1. Natural Resources 

 Stewardship 

 

 

1.A General Forest 120800 108660 104240 110140

Forested (114700) (103190) (98940) (105090) 

Open Lands (6100) (5470) (5300) (5050) 

1.B Core Areas 35180 40780 41800 45560

1.C Oak-Grassland Demonstration Areas 0 8630 8630 0

1.D Managed Wetlands 160 160 160 160

1.EWildlife Refuges and No Hunting Areas 30 30 30 30

 

2. Administrative Areas 

 

2.A Utility Corridors 760 760 760 760

2.B Infrastructure – Administration, 

Maintenance, Closed facilities* 4560 4550 4550 4550

2.C Designated 

Communication/Electronics Site

9 9 9 9

 

3. Recreation and 

Environmental Education

 

 

3.A Developed Recreation Areas 3810 4000 3780 3220

3.B Turkey Bay 2160 2160 2160 1700

3.C Environmental Education Facilities 3800** 1530 1270 1200

3.D Nature Watch Demonstration Area 0 0 3890 3920

 

Total Acres*** 171270 171270 171280 171250
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 185 of 273 

A diversity of wildlife habitats and native communities are provided, contributing 

importantly to the area-wide goal of providing for viability of native and desired 

nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife. Habitat diversity may be accomplished through 

favorable natural causes or through active management. Active vegetation management 

occurs using a wide range of tools and methods, most commonly including vegetation 

thinning, prescribed fire, commercial timber harvest, pesticide (herbicide) treatments, and 

open lands maintenance. Forest regeneration is typically accomplished through partial 

cutting methods, especially modified shelterwood and group and single-tree selection 

methods. Use of these methods results in a diversity of structural conditions for tree ages 

and sizes primarily distributed within two-aged or uneven-aged forests. Prescribed fire is 

used across large areas of the landscape, but in ways that result in variable effects to 

vegetation, contributing to overall habitat diversity. 

Open lands are maintained using a variety of tools and methods, including prescribed 

fire, mechanical treatments, and herbicide treatments. Open lands management will 

provide a sufficient distribution of native vegetation, grain, and green forage for wildlife 

habitat diversity; while enhancing visual variety. It will test and demonstrate sustainable 

open land management through native warm season grass restoration, maintenance of 

open lands, and agricultural practices and techniques. A portion of the open lands may 

be maintained in traditional row-crop cultivation and hay fields through a cooperative 

farming program to help maintain open lands at a minimal cost. 

Desired Condition:

Forests within this area are predominately mature oak-hickory forests, however mesophytic 

and riparian forest and planted pine are not uncommon. These large forests provide diverse 

habitats with abundant wildlife. Rare and special habitats are in good ecological condition 

supporting rare species. Older trees are abundant and widely distributed, providing snags, 

den trees, and downed wood for wildlife such as squirrels and owls. In many places, 

spacing between trees is wide enough to allow light at various levels of the canopy and 

forest floor, promoting vigorous crowns with reduced susceptibility to insect and 

diseases, and stimulating ground vegetation including oak regeneration. A variety of 

forest age classes and structures is present on the landscape, with naturally appearing 

transitions between vegetation cover types. Patches of young trees and dense areas of 

regenerating forest provide habitat for early-successional species such as yellow-breasted 

chats, and food and cover for species such as white-tailed deer and wild turkey. Although 

disturbance to forest vegetation is evident, such disturbances resemble natural patterns 

because mature trees are usually present on most acres and edges are feathered and follow 

natural contours. Tree cutting operations are occasionally encountered with logging 

equipment present. Stumps and reclaimed skid trails are visible in past tree cutting areas. 

Evidence of fire is present in many areas in the form of blackened lower trunks. Occasional 

freshly-burned areas, with blackened ground and scorched vegetation, are encountered, but 

these conditions are short-lived as green-up occurs quickly and results in lush understories 

of grasses and wildflowers. Open lands, which include cultivated fields, wildlife plantings, 

maintained grasslands, and hayfields, are dispersed across the landscape. Ponds and 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 186 of 273 

waterholes are generally present in association with open land types. Wet depressions are 

scattered across the landscape. 

The forest areas are actively managed providing a variety of motorized and non-motorized 

recreational opportunities. The area has a well-developed transportation system including 

roads and trails, which are removed when no longer needed. Commonly-occurring sounds 

from people and motorized activities, such as “watchable” wildlife viewing and driving for 

pleasure, are prevalent. Scenic vistas are dispersed across the landscape. Signs provide 

users with information and educational messages. 

Watersheds are properly functioning by catching, storing, and slowly releasing 

precipitation. Stream channels have stable, well-vegetated banks and increased amounts 

of large woody debris budgeting sediment transport and flows. Road and trail crossings, 

fewer in number than once existed, are located at stable sites and allow for adequate 

passage of peak flows and migration of aquatic life. 

On xeric and dry sites (upland sites) oak-hickory forests are the predominant forest type. 

Major oak species on these sites include scarlet, chestnut, black, and black-jack oaks. Major 

oak forest community types are represented by mature open forest and mature woodland 

conditions, primarily maintained by fire. In treated areas, some levels of overstory are 

usually present, as are sustainable levels of oak regeneration in the understory. Most 

shade-tolerant species on these sites are sparse, as a result of open conditions and 

periodic fire. Sensitive vegetation and soils are minimally impacted from prescribed 

fires. Old growth conditions are most frequently in the form of oak woodland, but also 

include other mature oak forest conditions. Native grasses and herbaceous species are 

present in the understory of mature open forests and woodlands. Animal species that may 

be observed include squirrels, bats, bobcats, fence lizards, prairie warblers, Northern 

bobwhite quail, and great-crested flycatchers. Ephemeral headwaters are well-vegetated 

with few defined channels. Old gullies are healed and channels are not expanding. 

Oak species are also dominant on dry-mesic (transitional) sites. A mixture of upland 

oaks and more mesic northern red and white oaks, and yellow poplar are not uncommon. 

Forests on these sites are a little more multi-storied in structure than on xeric and dry 

sites. There is advanced oak regeneration in the understory and occasional regenerating 

forest patches are present. 

Mesophytic and riparian forests are most common on mesic and alluvial sites. Species 

associated with these sites include a mixture of trees such as yellow poplar, northern red 

and white oaks, maples, American beech, black walnut, sycamore, and hackberry. Some 

examples of wildlife and understory vegetation that may be observed include the 

Louisiana waterthrush, wood thrush, Acadian flycatcher, Dutchman’s breeches, trout 

lilies, trilliums, and Virginia bluebells. Multi-storied canopies with canopy gaps are 

common compared to two-storied or two-age (structure). There is less evidence of fire 

and timber harvest. Intermittent stream channels run cool and clear water for long 

periods after storm events and snowmelt. Seeps are located within stream valleys and 

feed stream flows. Streambanks are stable with little bank cutting and vegetated with 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 187 of 273 

plants adapted to moist sites and large trees with stabilizing root masses. Stream channel 

substrates are dominated by gravel and cobble. Large wood within the channels is 

prevalent and helps to stabilize banks and stream bottoms. 

Planted pine forest types occur on all site types and include loblolly, Virginia, shortleaf, 

and white pines. These forests generally have a more closed canopy with variable 

understory densities, providing hiding and thermal cover. Foliage and structural form of 

pine species provides visual contrast with adjacent hardwood forest types. Some 

canopies may be more open when managed in association with adjacent mature open 

forest and woodland cover types 

In open lands visitors may observe a diversity of wildlife such as white-tailed deer, bobcat, 

and coyote; many migrant and resident bird species such as red-tailed hawk, bald eagle, 

Eastern bluebird, Northern bobwhite, and neotropical songbirds. Open lands consist of 

traditional row-crops, hay fields, wildlife plantings, old fields, and ecological restoration 

areas. The ecological restoration areas have a dominance of native short warm-season 

grasses, such as little bluestem and broomsedge; native tall warm season grasses, such as 

big bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass; or, a mosaic of short and tall grasses with a 

native forb and legume composition. Visitors may observe portions of the traditional 

row-crops remaining in fields after harvest for wildlife. Access to these areas consists of 

public roads, administrative roads, hiking trails, horse trails, and bike trails. Visitors 

enjoy a diverse pastoral landscape, set against the backdrop of naturally-appearing 

forested landscapes. These openings vary in size and shape generally resulting from 

traditional cultural land use patterns; some exhibiting geometric straight-edged shapes, 

and others following natural landforms and watercourses. 

Riparian areas and corridors are dominated by native vegetation that includes forest, 

grassland, and canebrakes. Mesophytic forests are also common as well as the presence 

of some oak forest. These forests are inclusive of species such as sycamores, Northern 

red oak, canebrakes, and native warm-season grasses. Limited evidence of timber harvest 

may be present from the creation of canopy gaps and occasional forest regeneration 

patches. There are low densities of roads and trails, and low levels of exposed soil. 

Stream channels are well-developed and stable, passing both intermittent and perennial 

flows. Springs and seeps feed cool clear water to these systems. Substrates within 

intermittent channels and upper perennial channels are gravel and cobble. Transport of 

sediment load is regulated by copious amounts of large wood in the system. Gravel bars 

are stable along outside meander bends. The channels migrate laterally only after large 

storm events. Banks are vegetated by native vegetation with stabilizing root masses, 

including river canebrake, bottom hardwoods, and other large riparian forest types. Most 

roads and trails are located 100 feet beyond the edge of the channels. Beavers are active 

in lower reaches and floodplains, providing regulated flows, large wood, and elevated 

water tables. Wetlands are increasing and expanding. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 188 of 273 

1.B. Core Areas 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z with exceptions below 

Emphasis 

The Core Areas consist of a network of various sized tracts of land designed to facilitate 

greater understanding of forest environments through collaborative research, administrative 

studies, and other working relationships. These areas serve as controls in comparative 

management and, in most cases, have little to no management disturbance. Core areas 

provide remote, semi-primitive recreational opportunities that have minimal impacts to 

ecological systems. They serve as large, medium, and small patches of future old growth 

and they include two state natural areas (SNA) including a native shortleaf pine 

restoration area.. The two SNAs, Devils Backbone and Bear Creek, are managed in 

cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 

These areas provide good to optimal habitat for mid- to late-seral eastern deciduous 

hardwood forest associates. Management activities are limited to include only those 

needed to deal with forest health emergencies, wildfire, restoration and maintenance of 

native communities, and recovery of T&E species. Vegetation management may be 

necessary to prevent a widespread outbreak of insect of disease. In particular, active 

management, including prescribed fire and timber harvest, will be needed to restore and 

maintain native shortleaf pine forests in the Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area. 

Desired Condition: 

Core areas appear as having a naturally-evolving structural condition on the landscape 

due to low intensity management within forested areas. Forests are primarily older with 

areas of continuous canopy and occasional gaps as a result of storms, insect or disease 

outbreak, fire, and reverting fields. A mix of species, including more shade-tolerant 

species than general forest, occurs in forest cover types across all site types. Forest cover 

types vary in canopy and understory structure and include many canopy gaps, snags, 

downed wood, and den trees. 

Low impact environmental education and recreation activities are enjoyed by visitors. 

Visitors to these areas enjoy remote dispersed recreation opportunities such as scenic 

driving, bird-watching, wildlife viewing, nature photography, horseback riding, hunting, 

fishing, hiking, and reminiscing. Visitors enjoy a natural setting; however, they are not 

isolated from sights and sounds of other human activity. 

Within the Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area, native shortleaf pine occurs primarily 

on xeric and dry sites with some evidence of fire and timber harvest. Open forest and 

woodland conditions exhibit grassy understories and shortleaf pine regeneration. Stands 

have well developed crowns with abundant cone production and some mixture of oak. 

Occasional areas of two-aged regenerating forest patches are present. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 189 of 273 

Exceptions under Alternative W 

Desired Condition: 

Under this alternative the Deferred Area designation described in the 1994 NRMP would 

no longer exist. Deferred Areas would be incorporated into General Forest Areas, and 

will be omitted from consideration into the General Forest Core Areas. The Core Areas 

(approx. 35,200 acres) will be less than TVA’s target of 42,500-acres. 

The shortleaf pine community in the Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area would be 

managed in cooperation with the state of Tennessee. 

Exceptions under Alternative X 

Desired Condition: 

Under Alternative X, approximately 5600 acres described as Deferred Area designation 

in the 1994 NRMP would become General Forest Core Acres. These acres were selected 

primarily from deferred acres located outside of developed facility boundaries to support 

the emphasis on developed facilities. The total Core Area acres under Alternative X 

would be approximately 40,800 acres, within 4 percent of the 42,500 acres goal set in the 

1994 plan. The remaining 4800 acres of deferred areas would be incorporated into 

General Forest Areas or Developed Recreation Areas. 

The shortleaf pine community would be managed for additional pine woodlands within 

and beyond the boundaries of the Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area. 

Exceptions under Alternative Y 

Desired Condition: 

Under Alternative Y, approximately 6600 acres described as Deferred Area designation 

in the 1994 NRMP would become General Forest Core Acres. These acres were selected 

primarily from deferred acres located within developed facility boundaries to support the 

emphasis on dispersed recreation opportunities. However, no Core Areas were selected 

within the boundaries of Hillman Ferry or Rushing Creek Campgrounds, Turkey Bay 

OHV Area or the Homeplace-A Living History Farm. The total Core Area acres under 

Alternative Y would be approximately 41,800 acres, within 2 percent of the 42,500 acres 

goal set in the 1994 plan. The remaining 3800 acres of deferred areas would be 

incorporated into General Forest Areas or Developed Recreation facilities. 

The shortleaf pine community would be managed for additional pine woodlands within 

and beyond the boundaries of the Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area. 

Exceptions under Alternative Z 

Desired Condition: 

Under Alternative Z, all areas identified as deferred areas, approximately 10,400 acres, in 

the 1994 NRMP would become General Forest Core acres. The total Core Area acreage 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 190 of 273 

under Alternative Z would be approximately 45,600 acres, approximately 7 percent 

greater than the 42,500 acres goal set in the 1994 plan. 

The shortleaf pine community would be managed for additional pine woodlands within 

and beyond the boundaries of the Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area. 

1.C Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration Area 

Alternatives X and Y Only 

Emphasis: 

Focus of these areas is to restore upland vegetation to conditions approximating those 

found at the time of European settlement. Based on historical accounts and ecological 

research, it is believed upland oak forests in this region were more open and interspersed 

with grasslands than they are today. Open conditions were created and maintained in 

large part through the use of fire by American Indians. Emphasis is to approximate these 

conditions across the landscape within these Demonstration Areas through the use of tree 

thinning and prescribed fire. 

These open conditions are expected to benefit many species of wildlife, including some 

that are rare or declining. They are also expected to provide a beautiful and diverse 

setting for dispersed recreation, wildlife viewing, natural history study, environmental 

education activities and hunting. Although these conditions may be found in relatively 

small patches elsewhere on LBL, these Demonstration Areas seek to create such 

conditions over a large contiguous landscape in order to demonstrate the feasibility of 

ecological restoration at this scale and the benefits it can provide to native wildlife and 

public recreational use. In order to gauge effectiveness of this restoration at meeting 

ecological objectives and public desires, an emphasis on monitoring and research is part 

of the vision for these areas. These areas have been selected adjacent to Forest Core 

areas that can serve as unmanaged controls in monitoring and research studies. 

Additional emphasis on enhancing opportunity for wildlife viewing, EE activities, and 

natural history study will be made at the Demonstration Area adjacent to The Homeplace. 

These open areas will provide substantial opportunities for dispersed recreation and nonfacility-based EE. A significant role will be played by the EE program during the 

development of the Oak-Grassland areas. Providing experiences in which visitors may 

observe and learn how application of various management practices may improve and 

sustain upland vegetation is an important aspect of these areas. As these areas evolve, the 

opportunities for dispersed recreation and education will continue to expand, providing a 

wide variety of experiences for visitors. 

Desired Condition: 

On upper slopes and ridges across the area, grasslands (less than 10 percent canopy 

closure) and open oak woodlands (10-60 percent canopy closure) are interspersed in 

variable mixtures. In general, tree density increases as one moves down slope, but 

densities are variable and transitions gradual. Understories are dominated by native 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 191 of 273 

grasses and wildflowers. Most mid and lower slopes support open oak forests (60-80 

percent canopy closure), with understories containing oak regeneration in sufficient 

numbers to provide for sustaining oak on these sites over time. Mesophytic and riparian 

forests occur on some lower slopes, where, because of topography and moisture, 

understory fires burn at low intensities or not at all. In addition to the grasslands found 

predominately on upper slopes and ridges, other open lands, such as hayfields and 

croplands, may also be present. These are maintained by a variety of methods, with 

emphasis on restoring native grasses where compatible with other objectives. 

The productive grassy understories, created by opening canopies and using periodic fire, 

provide abundant herbage, seeds, and insects to support a diverse and abundant 

assemblage of wildlife. Rare species that are adapted to open forests and grasslands, but 

have declined due to disappearance of these habitats, are present in viable numbers. 

These include Henslow’s sparrow, barn owl, whip-poor-will, southern prairie aster, 

barbed rattlesnake-root, buffalo clover, and prairie parsley. Small mammals, such as 

field mice, voles, and rabbits are abundant, supporting increased populations of predators, 

such as hawks, foxes, and bobcats. Diversity of native wildflowers is high, supporting a 

diversity of pollinators, such as bees and butterflies. Deer and turkey use open forests 

and grasslands for feeding, and northern bobwhite populations are significantly enhanced. 

In the long term, the setting for dispersed recreation and EE, wildlife viewing, nature 

study, and hunting is enhanced by diverse and abundant wildlife, abundant understory 

grasses and wildflowers, an historic natural context, and open forests that provide great 

depth of view. Some evidence of fire is present in the form of blackened lower trunks. 

Occasionally, fresh burns will be evident, with blackened ground and scorched leaves, 

but these conditions are short-lived due to quick re-growth of fire-adapted vegetation. In 

the short term, green-up may be slower until fire-adapted plant assemblages become well 

established. Evidence of tree thinning may be seen in the form of stumps and downed 

branches and trunks. Especially in the Demonstration Area adjacent to the The 

Homeplace, aids to wildlife viewing are present, such as signs, trails, or observation 

platforms or blinds. 

The EE program should enjoy the most wide-spread application in these areas as they are 

actively managed and developed. As restoration activities progress the public will be 

encouraged to learn about them, their effects on native plants and animals, and their 

historical context. 

1.D Managed Wetlands 

Alternatives W, X, Y, And Z 

Emphasis:

LBL contains natural wetlands which are protected by plan direction and standards, and 

artificially created wetlands referred to as “managed wetlands.” Managed wetlands are 

seasonally flooded to produce desired wetland habitat for a variety of wildlife. Existing 

managed wetlands on LBL are in the Cumberland River watershed at Long Creek in 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 192 of 273 

Kentucky, and at Prior Creek in Tennessee. These managed wetlands provide resting and 

feeding habitat for shorebirds and migrating waterfowl, and also provide habitat for 

amphibians, crustaceans, and insects. 

Moist-soil management techniques are used in managed wetlands. These techniques 

involve seasonal water level manipulation to stimulate production of moist-soil plants and 

aquatic invertebrates. Using moist-soil techniques, impounded water is drained from 

flooded soils during the growing season to encourage native moist-soil plant growth. 

Gradual reflooding to a preferred depth of one foot or less in the fall and winter inundates 

the plants. This technique provides natural foods for shorebirds, waterfowl and other 

wildlife through winter and early spring. Periodic maintenance of the wetlands levees and 

water control structures will occur. 

Desired Condition:

The desired future condition is to have multiple shallow-water managed wetlands on LBL to 

provide beneficial habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, amphibians, crustaceans, and insects. 

These wetlands will provide numerous opportunities to support the Rec/EE goals of LBL. 

Access to these areas will help provide sites that can be used to educate the public about the 

value of wetlands in ecosystems and the need to maintain and restore wetlands in the United 

States and throughout the world. Access will also provide multiple recreational 

opportunities for hiking and wildlife viewing of many species of shorebirds, waterfowl, 

amphibians, and other wetlands-associated wildlife. 

Additional wetlands could be created as time and funds become available. The need for 

additional managed wetlands would largely be driven by EE objectives and habitat needs. 

1.E Wildlife Refuges and No Hunting Areas 

Alternatives W, X, Y, And Z 

Emphasis: 

Wildlife refuges initially were designated to provide resting and feeding areas for migratory 

waterfowl. As bald eagle populations began to recover and their presence on LBL 

increased, the purpose of refuges was expanded to provide undisturbed sanctuaries for 

eagles as well as other wildlife such as shorebirds, and their designation was changed from 

waterfowl refuge to wildlife refuge. 

Additional areas within LBL are designated as No Hunting areas. Most of these areas 

provide safety zones around recreation and educational facilities. 

Desired Conditions: 

Wildlife Refuges provide sanctuaries undisturbed by human entry for shorebirds, wintering 

waterfowl, eagles, and other wildlife. Refuges contain above average numbers of wildlife 

compared to surrounding non-refuge areas during refuge periods. Refuges provide abundant 

and unique wildlife viewing and environmental education opportunities during the refuge 

periods, and are very popular for migratory bird viewing, especially bald eagles, shorebirds, 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 193 of 273 

and waterfowl. Wildlife observation takes place from the perimeter of refuges or in 

specially designated areas within refuges (e.g. an observational blind where human presence 

is not visible to wildlife). 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 194 of 273 

2. Administrative Areas 

2.A Utility Corridors 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z with exceptions noted below 

Emphasis: 

Existing linear authorizations for electronic transmission lines and a pipeline for natural 

gas would continue within these designated corridors. Utility corridors that were 

authorized by prior agreement under the Tennessee Valley Authority will remain. Local 

distribution lines that are covered under the LBL Protection Act or an agreement with the 

utilities on the maintenance of their right-of-way (ROW) would be continued. These uses 

serve a public benefit like high voltage electric transmission lines and buried pipelines for 

natural gas. 

Desired Condition: 

Where possible, existing corridors would be expanded to add new transmission lines as 

needed, rather than creating additional areas. Where appropriate for other needs, burial 

of utilities will be encouraged. Compatible multiple uses and Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOU) are encouraged including collocation of communication and 

electronic towers on existing electric transmission towers and vegetation/wildlife habitat 

management areas. Coordination with utility companies will help in the development of 

appropriate management strategies for each right-of-way. 

Utility corridors, electric transmission lines, and gas pipelines provide additional Rec/EE 

opportunities. Because of their wide clearings and easy access along many roads and 

trails, they are prime areas for viewing wildlife species that favor grass, shrubs, old fields, 

and forest edges. Wildlife species that rely upon habitats consisting of the grass/forb, 

shrub/seedling/sapling, pine woodland, and habitat generalist associations are most likely 

to be found on these corridors. Trees and shrubs typically do not exceed 20 feet in height 

and make up about one-third of the corridor’s vegetation. The remaining two-thirds is a 

mixture of grass and forb species. The landscape character could range from natural 

appearing to pastoral/cultural. These lands are unsuitable for timber production. 

Recreation use is generally hunting related, although existing trail systems often cross 

these corridors and can contribute to the natural experience. Dispersed recreation 

opportunities could take advantage of the wide openings and easy access for new trails, 

trail extensions or for loop trails adjacent to demonstration areas. EE efforts could 

provide educational and information benefits to those dispersed recreationists who use 

these areas. 

Exceptions under Alternative Z 

Emphasis: 

Existing linear authorizations for electronic transmission lines and pipeline for natural 

gas would be reduced or eliminated within local distribution corridors. Corridors that 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 195 of 273 

serve the public outside the boundaries of LBL would be continued or relocated. Utility 

corridors that were authorized by prior agreement under Tennessee Valley Authority 

would remain. Local distribution lines that are covered under the LBL Protection Act or 

an agreement with the utilities on the maintenance of their right of way would continue 

only if required. The uses that serve a public benefit like high voltage electric 

transmission lines and buried pipelines for natural gas would continue only where 

necessary. 

Desired Condition: 

Where practical, existing corridors would be removed or buried. Compatible multiple 

uses and MOUs would be encouraged to include collocation of communication and 

electronic towers on existing electric transmission towers and vegetation/wildlife habitat 

management areas. Coordination with utility companies would develop appropriate 

management strategy for each right-of-way. 

2.B Infrastructure, Administrative, Maintenance and Closed 

Facilities 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z 

Emphasis: 

The emphsis in this allocation is to provide sites and facilities that are located and 

managed in a manner to best serve and support recreation, environmental education, and 

environmental stewardship programs. They will be maintained to provide for staff and 

visitor safety, meet or exceed applicable codes, and to protect capital investment. Areas 

served and supported include offices, campgrounds, interpretive sites, wildlife viewing 

areas, work centers, visitor centers, welcome centers, and intern quarters. 

Desired Condition: 

LBL will provide administrative sites and facilities to efficiently, effectively, and safely 

serve the public and accommodate the work force. Forest Service maintenance facilities 

provide garage, shop spaces, storage and laydown area, as well as office space for the 

maintenance contractor serving LBL. Sites are readily accessed by road. The facilities 

should have barrier-free access. 

Common architectural elements will be incorporated in a way that enhances the Forest 

Service image envisioned for LBL whenever facilities are built or renovated. 

Standardized mechanical, electrical, and structural materials and products will be used to 

improve safety and energy efficiency, increase reliability, and reduce maintenance costs. 

The landscape character could range from natural appearing to urban. Vegetation 

management techniques can include mechanical treatment or prescribed fire. 

Forest Service offices and/or visitor centers provide educational and interpretive 

opportunities such as exhibits and displays, books, videos, and brochures. Where feasible 

and appropriate, short hiking trails are provided in conjunction with visitor centers. 

Hunting and fishing are generally not allowed within administrative sites. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 196 of 273 

Several administrative and other sites at LBL were closed in approximately 1993 prior to 

the transfer of LBL to the Forest Service. Since the transfer, these facilities have been 

maintained in a manner to slow degradation of buildings, utilities, and roads until a 

decision can be made during implementation of this Area Plan regarding their use, reuse 

or disposal. With an emphasis in this Area Plan toward the increase of dispersed 

recreation and non-facility-based EE opportunities, the Forest Service will evaluate the 

historical and practical uses or benefits of any closed building or facility for its future 

potential. Minimum facilities require less active maintenance, thereby reducing the cost 

of maintenancae and upkeep. Future decisions about these facilities will be determined at 

the project-level using all legally required processes. 

2.C Designated Communications/Electronics Sites 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z 

Emphasis:

Communications across LBL are vital to maintain visitor safety and security, and to 

facilitate the maintenance and upkeep of the facilities and resources. Communication 

sites provide both a public and Forest Service benefit. Types of communication sites 

include self-supporting and guide-wired towers with related facilities and structures. The 

functions of the communications sites are primarily categorized into two areas. The first 

are public elements which include cell-phone, radio communications, and other 

electronics networks. The second function is in support of LBL’s communications and 

computer network. These designated areas are managed to minimize adverse impacts on 

other resources. 

Desired Condition:

Existing special-use authorizations and forest requirements for communications and 

electronics will continue within these designated areas. Each site is developed and 

utilized to its greatest existing potential or expanded rather than creating additional areas. 

All user and forest equipment will be compatible to forest surroundings and other users’ 

equipment and frequencies. New equipment should be as inconspicuous to the 

surrounding terrain as possible. Special-use permits will be issued for commercial 

entities. 

The landscape character could range from natural appearing to urban. Scenery 

management techniques are used to mitigate adverse impacts. Existing and proposed 

towers will be utilized to accommodate as many users as possible within technical 

constraints to reduce tower clutter. These areas are managed to retain low-growing 

vegetation, which conforms to the safe-operating requirements of the utility and which 

reduces surface water runoff and erosion. Prescribed fire may be used for vegetation 

management. Recreation is not emphasized or encouraged at these sites. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 197 of 273 

3. Recreation and Environmental Education Areas 

3.A. Developed Recreation Areas 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z with exceptions noted below 

Emphasis: 

A developed recreation area is managed to provide the public with a variety of 

recreational opportunities in visually-appealing and environmentally healthy settings. 

Large family campgrounds, picnic sites, boat ramps, lake-access campgrounds, 

swimming beaches, primitive backcountry areas, and trails for hikers, horseback riders, 

and bicycle riders are all examples of the diverse opportunities and facilities found in 

developed recreation areas. Facilities are provided to enhance the quality of the 

recreational experience and/or to mitigate damage to the affected ecosystems. 

Campgrounds of various development levels are maintained to accommodate the varying 

interests of the camping public (Development Levels are explained below). Visitors feel 

comfortable bringing their entire family to participate in recreational activities. These 

areas also serve as a “gateway” to the wide diversity of recreational opportunities on the 

remainder of LBL. 

Developed recreation facilities or areas are managed for one of the following four 

development levels as defined by Recreation Opportunities Spectrum (ROS) experiences. 

Development Level 5 – Highly developed sites provide experiences in a developed forest 

setting. Numerous facilities of mostly non-native materials and very refined design can 

be expected. Convenience facilities are prevalent, including showers, flush toilets, paved 

roads, entrance stations, area attendants, equestrian facilities, playgrounds, information 

boards, beaches, boat ramps, outposts, concessionaires, and recreation vehicle hookups. 

Paved, striped roads access facilities. These sites provide organized environmental 

education opportunities such as programs and individual interaction with staff. The 

experience best representing this level is Urban to Rural. Hillman Ferry and Wranglers 

campgrounds are examples of this development level. Use on these trails includes all 

non-motorized and non-equestrian opportunities with the exception of Wranglers Trail 

System (where use is appropriate.). 

Development Level 4 – Heavily developed sites provide experiences expected in a rural 

forest setting. Access is by double-lane gravel or paved roads. Some complex facilities 

with non-native and very refined design can be expected. Convenience facilities may be 

present including showers, flush toilets, vault toilets, paved roads, area attendants, 

information boards, beaches, boat ramps, and, potable water. Moderate to heavy site 

improvements occurs. Some on-site environmental education opportunities occur. The 

experience best representing this level is Rural. Energy Lake and Cravens Bay 

Campgrounds are examples of this development level. 

Development Level 3 – Moderately developed recreation areas providing experiences 

expected in a more rustic setting. Some privacy is expected. Gravel roads capable of 

accommodating conventional motorized vehicles as well as smaller trailers provide 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 198 of 273 

access. Facilities are developed for protection of the site as well as for user convenience. 

These may include vault toilets or chemical toilets, graveled site pads, picnic tables, grills 

or fire rings, fishing piers, information boards, boat ramps, and potable water. Only offsite or information signing provide environmental education opportunities. The 

experiences best representing this level are Road Modified or Roaded Natural. 

Birmingham Ferry, Smith Bay, Gatlin Point, Jones Creek, Nickell Branch, Twin Lakes, 

Moss Creek Day Use, Energy Dam Day Use, Cedar Pond Picnic Area, Colson Overlook 

Picnic, and South Trailhead fall within this development level. 

Development Level 2 – Minimally developed recreation sites offer an opportunity for 

solitude, tranquility, and closeness to nature. These sites offer visitors a higher degree of 

self-reliance, challenge, and risk. There is normally a low concentration of users in this 

area. Vegetative alterations, such as mowing and hazard tree removal, are primarily for 

public safety. These sites are widely dispersed and blend with the natural vegetation. 

Minimal site modification is required for the limited facilities, as well as for safety and 

resource protection. Such items as boat ramps, vault toilets, and information boards are 

present. The experience best representing this level are Roaded Natural or Semiprimitive Motorized. Demumbers Bay, Kuttawa Landing, Eddyville Ferry, Pisgah Point, 

Shaw Branch, Honker Dam, Duncan Bay, and Colson Hollow Group Camp are examples 

of this development level.

Desired Conditions: 

Visitors to LBL’s developed recreation areas will be presented with diverse opportunities 

to enjoy the natural resources and landscapes across LBL. Choices for their recreation 

activities will include such activities as: shoreline fishing; day hiking; swimming; 

mountain biking; driving for pleasure; wildlife viewing and hunting. Visitors will be able 

to choose from a wide variety of recreation opportunities in high-quality, well-maintained 

settings. Boat ramps, trailheads, and smaller dispersed campgrounds are examples of 

developed sites that serve as hub zones for dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Improvements are considered in developed sites based on needs for resource protection, 

actual and projected use, and visitor satisfaction. The land within the boundary of the 

recreation area will be managed for “watchable” wildlife species. Environmental 

education messages and information will be provided through interpretive signage and 

displays within developed recreation areas. These messages will provide education and 

information relevant to recreational users on topics such as littering, wastewater and 

runoff, soil compaction, and wildlife habitat needs. 

Vegetation, wildlife, and pest management will be conducted in support of the function 

of each facility. All wildfires will be extinguished at these sites. However, use of 

prescribed fire is appropriate for reduction of hazardous fuels and vegetation 

management. All management activities are conducted in a manner which promotes 

sensitivity to the experience of visitors to each site. 

Exceptions under Alternative X 

Desired Conditions: 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 199 of 273 

The focus of this alternative is an increase and/or improvement of staffed facilities 

designed to enhance visitor experience in targeted recreational and educational activities. 

Constructed facilities will almost always be visually subordinate to the land. There will 

be a variety of recreation facilities provided dependent on the development scale 

appropriate to the ROS class and consistent with the design narrative in developed 

recreation sites. Facilities outside the developed recreation sites will be provided to 

protect resources. Facilities that provide for user convenience, as well as protect 

resources, will be constructed or maintained in the developed recreation areas. 

An increase in services and amenities for user convenience is appropriate for developed 

recreation areas. Trails can be expanded within facilities boundaries. There could be 

increased opportunities with partners such as concessionaires, entertainment, and special 

events. Access to facilities will be maintained or improved. Additional or upgraded 

waste and water treatment facilities are appropriate for developed recreation areas. 

Staffing may be provided at facilities within development levels 2 and 3. There will be 

an opportunity to upgrade and maintain archery and/or shooting range opportunities as 

appropriate to developed recreation areas. 

Outdoor skills are generally of low importance, except where knowledge of specialized 

activities (i.e., boating or horseback riding) is critical. Motorized access and their support 

facilities (i.e., roads, parking lots, or water access) will be provided, but some 

experiences (i.e., walking and viewing nature) will be non-motorized. New recreation 

trends will be monitored for feasibility and appropriateness on national forest lands. 

The emphasis with this alternative will be toward moving recreation areas to higher 

development level. A priority will be to consider the following improvements: 

1. Upgrade selected boat ramps with improved parking and lake access 

capabilities or decommission low use boat ramps; 

2. Develop public swimming areas on both lakes by upgrading selected 

backcountry camping areas with beaches and picnic areas. These areas will 

be made day use only; 

3. Create loop trails to enhance hike/bike opportunities; to make trail 

connections to gateway communities, and to add additional interpretative 

trails with environmental education emphasis; 

4. Upgrade or create a nearby campground to provide an OHV camping loop 

complete with area for riders to unload and work on ATVs; 

5. Upgrade selected campgrounds with additional or new utility hookups.

Exceptions under Alternative Y 

Desired Conditions:

The focus of this alternative is an increase in dispersed recreation opportunities across 

LBL in a manner that protects the surrounding water, soil, vegetation, and wildlife. 

These opportunities include such activities as shoreline fishing, day hiking, swimming, 

mountain biking, driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and hunting. Visitors will be able 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 200 of 273 

to choose from a wide variety of recreation opportunities in high-quality, well-maintained 

settings. In developed recreation sites, the emphasis will be on those sites that serve as 

hub zones for dispersed recreation opportunities. Boat ramps, trailheads, and smaller 

dispersed campgrounds are examples of a hub zone developed recreation area. Other 

facilities, such as the Development Area 5 campgrounds, would be maintained under 

existing management guidelines. The level of camper amenities will remain stable at 

developed sites. Development Level 5 campgrounds will be the only recreation facilities 

providing outpost type amenities. Wranglers campground will remain the only recreation 

site providing food service in its outpost. 

Improvements can be considered in these developed sites based on needs for resource 

protection, actual and projected use, and visitor satisfaction. 

The emphasis with this alternative will be maintaining developed recreation areas. A 

priority will be to consider the following improvements: 

1. Upgrade, relocate, or consolidate selected boat ramps with improved parking and 

lake access capabilities. 

2. Develop public swimming areas on both lakes by upgrading selected backcountry 

camping areas with beaches and picnic areas. These areas will be made day-use 

only. 

3. Create loop trails to enhance hike/bike opportunities; to make trail connections to 

gateway communities, and to add additional interpretative trails with 

environmental education emphasis. 

4. Upgrade selected campgrounds with improved or additional utility hookups. 

As these changes are made, some of these facilities will move to a higher development 

level. However, no additional recreation sites will be upgraded to Development Level 5 

status. Following site evaluation, many sites could drop in level of development or be 

decommissioned and no longer be classified as developed recreation sites. No significant 

change in the ROS classification of the site is expected to occur with these improvements 

or changes. 

Exceptions under Alternative Z 

Desired Conditions:

Visitors to LBL will observe a less noticeable active management and development by 

the Forest Service. Developed recreation sites will have fewer amenities, less staffing, 

and reduced rentals and sales. Current concessionaires and conveniences will be 

evaluated and possibly scaled back or eliminated. All non-specialized fees will be 

evaluated with a proposed trend of reduction or elimination. Consumptive uses such as 

electrical/sewer hookups should require fees but because fees encourage a “customer 

attitude” alternatives should be provided where users could use work on volunteer 

projects as a payment method within the facilitates. Developed recreation sites such as 

trailheads, picnic areas, and boat ramps will serve as hubs for dispersed recreation 

experiences, and these areas will be maintained or enhanced. LBL will have a more 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 201 of 273 

rustic, less developed appearance, and the focus of the recreation experience will be on 

self-discovery and outdoors skills, giving participants experiences of solitude, serenity, 

adventure, self reliance, and an appreciation of the unique history and culture of the area. 

Facilities such as toilets or litter collection points will be maintained in the developed 

recreation areas in order to provide a safe and sanitary environment. Motorized access 

and their support facilities (i.e., roads, parking lots, or water access) will be maintained to 

provide access to non-motorized experiences (i.e., walking and nature viewing). 

3.A.1. Developed Recreation – Elk & Bison Prairie and South Bison Range 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z 

The Elk & Bison Prairie (EBP) and South Bison Range (SBR) are two recreation/education 

facilities managed to provide nature viewing and environmental education opportunities. 

The EBP, located in the center of LBL, is a 700-acre restoration of the “barrens” of 

Kentucky containing bison, elk and other native wildlife. A three-and-one-half mile 

scenic drive, with self-guided tours and interpretive stops, winds through the area. The 

SBR, located in the Tennessee portion of LBL, contains 180 acres of cool-season pasture 

and a herd of American bison. The South Bison Range features wildlife viewing pull-offs 

along the Trace, an interpretive kiosk, and a hiking trail that circles the entire range. 

Emphasis:

The emphases of the EBP and SBR include nature viewing, environmental education, and 

restoration of native habitats and wildlife. The EBP features self-guided entry and drivethrough tours, with a volunteer staff (called “The Bugle Corps”) that provides 

interpretation and security during peak visitation periods. Staff-led tours and educational 

programs are scheduled periodically at the EBP. The SBR provides self-guided wildlife 

viewing and interpretation. 

Desired Conditions:

The EBP seeks to restore the natural habitat and wildlife that sustained native peoples in 

the region long before the first European settlers came to Kentucky. With its unique mix 

of cultural and natural history and its design for year-round self-guided drive-through 

tours, the EBP provides an exciting outdoor experience that appeals to a broad range of 

local, regional, and national visitors. Further, the EBP can serve as a magnet to bring 

additional visitors to LBL and to increase the length of stays for those visitors, resulting 

in additional benefits for LBL and the region. Historic native habitats will be restored 

through active habitat management, including use of fire and grazing. The elk herd will 

continue to serve as a catalyst and source of elk for reintroductions of free-ranging herds 

in the eastern United States. 

The SBR is home to the largest publicly-owned herd of bison east of the Mississippi 

River and continues to be an extremely popular visitor attraction for the Tennessee 

portion of LBL. From massive historic herds to near extinction, the south bison herd 

exemplifies how conservation efforts can lead to eventual recovery of a species. Pastures 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 202 of 273 

will be maintained through conventional pasture management practices, and future efforts 

will focus on a gradual shift toward native species of grasses and forbs. 

3.B. Turkey Bay 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z, with Exceptions Noted Below 

Emphasis:

Turkey Bay’s emphasis is to provide for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreational 

opportunities on a system of designated trails within a well-defined area. A gatehouse, 

well house, bulletin boards, trailheads, and sanitary facilities are provided to enhance the 

quality of the recreation experience. Area attendants are on-site to promote safe and 

responsible riding and to provide other appropriate customer services for users during 

their visit. Area boundaries, route information, and regulations are adequately 

communicated to make the visitor’s experience safer and more enjoyable. Areas within 

Turkey Bay that have been denuded of vegetation and topsoil, as a result of OHV 

impacts, are a high priority for restoration and reclamation. 

Although Turkey Bay provides primarily for motorized recreational opportunities, other 

day-use recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, berry picking, wildlife 

viewing, and cemetery visits occur within the boundary. Turkey Bay is the only off-road 

motorized recreation opportunity at LBL; motorized vehicles are prohibited off roads 

outside the Turkey Bay Area except under special permit. 

Desired Conditions:

The Turkey Bay OHV Area is managed in a sustainable manner to provide for a variety 

of motorized recreational opportunities. Designated routes will be identified and 

managed; cross-country travel will be eliminated. The area will be managed for the longterm sustainability of natural and cultural resources and to meet all applicable standards 

for resource management. 

Designated trails are established with input from the public. Trail difficulty levels vary 

within the area. User groups assist in the various aspects of constructing and maintaining 

trails as well as rehabilitating damaged areas. They also help provide safety training to 

users and promote responsible rider behavior. 

Environmental education messages are communicated to foster current and future 

generations of riders who display safe and environmentally sustainable riding habits. 

Messages promote responsible rider behavior in order to develop habits that are 

appropriate both at Turkey Bay and other OHV riding locations on public lands. 

Programs such as “Respect the Resources” are used to assist in the delivery of 

educational messages. 

Opportunities to provide camping facilities for OHV users will be considered in a 

separate analysis. Any further development of camping opportunities within Turkey Bay, 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 203 of 273 

or at other locations in LBL, will be limited by the ability of the Forest Service to sustain 

the natural and cultural resources, as well as allot adequate funding to support the 

development. 

Vegetation management may be conducted within 200 feet of trail corridor only as a 

means of enhancing the trail user experience or mitigating damage caused by insects, 

disease, or natural disaster. Timber harvesting practices are modified to recognize the 

recreational and aesthetic values of these suitable lands. Prescribed fire may be 

implemented for wildlife habitat management, fuel reduction, and scenery management. 

This area will be managed and monitored to absorb moderate to high levels of use while 

protecting natural and cultural resources. The landscape character is natural appearing 

with variations created by recreational facilities and uses. Recreationists enjoy traveling 

routes through a variety of landscapes. Along many of the routes, the views are restricted 

to the immediate foreground by vegetation and natural landforms, but occasional 

openings reveal middle ground or distant background and lakeside vistas. Constructed 

routes blend well with the natural environment. Visitors may see evidence of resource 

management activities. However, treatments blend with the natural landscape, and 

vegetation diversity is enhanced over time. 

Funding emphasis is aimed at resource protection such as rehabilitation and restoration 

measures. Maintenance is performed to protect designated routes and minimize effects to 

soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife resources. The entire Turkey Bay area or portions 

thereof may be closed during periods of inclement weather or for rehabilitation work in 

order to protect natural and cultural resources. 

Exceptions under Alternative W 

A slight increase in support facilities within the Turkey Bay OHV Area, including paved 

parking lots, designated campsites, and restroom facilities may be added over time. 

Exceptions under Alternative X 

Alternative X proposes that Turkey Bay OHV area be re-allocated to a day-use facility. 

Camping in the area would be prohibited. The alternative would allow for the 

improvement of an existing campground to accommodate displaced overnight users or 

the development of a new campground outside the boundary of Turkey Bay OHV Area. 

Slight increase in support facilities within the boundary may occur, including improved 

parking lots and restroom facilities. 

Exceptions under Alternative Y 

Alternative Y would propose an increase in the development level of the Turkey Bay 

OHV Area. Recommended improvements could only be made after project level 

planning and budgetary guidelines prove further development appropriate. This 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 204 of 273 

alternative allows for the development of a campground within the existing boundaries of 

the OHV area based on the project level analysis. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 205 of 273 

Exceptions under Alternative Z 

Alternative Z proposes to manage Turkey Bay OHV as a riding area with designated 

trails for smaller motorized vehicles. Trails, facilities, and policies are focused on use 

by ATV’s and motorcycles rather than large off-road vehicles. Camping opportunities 

would continue to be managed as a Development Level 2 class. Some minor facility 

improvements are acceptable based on budget and sustainability. 

3.C Environmental Education Facilities 

Alternatives W, X, Y and Z with Exceptions Noted Below 

Emphasis: 

The primary focus for the EE facilities is the delivery of environmental programs and 

activities to the general visiting public as well as formal education groups (i.e., school 

groups) through a variety of personal and non-personal methods. The facilities and sites 

are managed to not only facilitate this delivery but are also an important delivery tool. 

Through a diversity of interpretive, educational, and recreational opportunities, visitors 

learn about LBL’s natural and cultural resources, management of those resources, and 

their stewardship roles and responsibilities. The EE facilities include Woodlands Nature 

Station, Golden Pond Planetarium and Observatory, The Homeplace – A Living History 

Farm; and Brandon Spring Group Center. 

Desired Condition: 

Visitors to the EE facilities will find: accessible, barrier-free infrastructure, exhibits, and 

programs; well-maintained facilities and sites; and, delivery of high-quality interpretive 

and educational programs, activities, and exhibits. 

Interpretive and educational programs, activities, and facilities will be designed to 

provide opportunities at many levels of the educational process. Visitors should have the 

opportunity to: 

• Understand and learn more about the ecological, cultural, economic, scenic, 

scientific, educational, and recreational values of LBL; 

• Directly experience LBL’s natural and cultural resources through hands-on 

activities, programs, or recreational activities occurring at the facilities or in other 

LBL locations (i.e., campgrounds, trails, wildlife refuges, wetlands, historic sites, 

etc.). Outreach opportunities with the surrounding communities and school 

districts are also explored. 

• Be inspired to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding through personal 

stewardship actions (responsible behavior, volunteering, public involvement, 

donations, etc.). 

Formal education groups (i.e., school groups) will find programs and activities that 

connect to classroom educational objectives. Emphasis is placed on active, experiential 

learning. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 206 of 273 

Opportunities for enhancing existing facilities will be evaluated and will include direction 

and priorities for improvements such as: wildlife exhibit upgrades and additions at 

Woodlands Nature Station; new interpretive center exhibit at The Homeplace; habitat 

study sites at Brandon Spring; and additional ways for utilizing the Golden Pond 

Planetarium and Observatory. Facilities are staffed at appropriate levels to insure a high 

quality, comprehensive education program. Interpretive exhibits and displays meet or 

exceed industry standards and supplement as well as complement each facility’s purpose. 

Facility sites are appropriate for most dispersed (non-motorized, non-mechanized) 

recreation activities, such as hiking, canoeing, nature photography, bird-watching, etc., 

However, open camping is not appropriate for these areas. 

Vegetation and wildlife management activities will be in support of the function and 

purpose of each facility and its program. All wildfires will be extinguished at these sites. 

Access to cemeteries will be maintained. Few roads and trails will be created or 

improved to support the facilities and EE program. Utility corridors will only exist for 

serving the facilities. 

Collection permits and permits for military operations/maneuvers are not appropriate for 

this designated area. Other special uses will be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

within policies and guidelines established for evaluation. 

Maintenance buildings and other outbuildings necessary to support the EE facilities will 

be as visually unobtrusive as possible. Administrative facilities will not be co-located 

with EE facilities. 

Exceptions under Alternative X 

Desired Conditions: 

In addition to the above, the need for developing new facilities will be evaluated for 

addressing other educational opportunities. Any new facility must have demonstrated 

need and the ability to sustain that need over an extended period. This may include, but 

is not limited to: 

• An EE facility in the Fort Henry area. Public interest in Civil War history 

remains high and recreation demand related to viewing historical and heritage 

sites has increased. The purpose of this facility would be to interpret the 

significance of the Fort Henry site and connect it to the chain of events that 

occurred in this area during the Civil War. The existing trail system could be 

better utilized for facilitating Rec/EE of the natural and cultural resources of this 

area. Interpretive signs or other non-personal methods could be included. The 

facility would also tie directly to The Homeplace, the historical time it portrays, 

and its educational programs as well as to Fort Donelson National Battlefield. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 207 of 273 

• Overnight camp in the EE Area. Local interest remains high for an overnight 

camp opportunity, for school children, that provides a less developed or more 

primitive experience than Brandon Spring Group Center currently offers. 

Partnerships with local school districts are a requirement for the development of 

this opportunity. The camp would operate solely for the benefit of local school 

children during the fall and spring months and have minimal infrastructure (i.e., 

tent platforms instead of dormitories) and staffing (i.e., a caretaker). 

Adequate staffing and maintenance levels are primary considerations for the 

sustainability of these new facilities. 

Exceptions under Alternative Z 

Desired Conditions: 

In addition to the above, all of LBL is viewed as an Environmental Education Area. The 

primary delivery system for EE would be non-facility-based. Visitors would find more 

EE and recreational learning opportunities throughout LBL than currently exist. These 

opportunities may or may not be supported or found within existing recreation and EE 

facilities. Examples may include, but are not limited to: scenic vistas and drives; 

interpretive trails; interpretive wayside exhibits and signs; and infrastructure to support 

nature viewing. 

Increased emphasis would be placed on historical interpretation with a particular focus on 

more recent human history and the establishment of LBL as a National Recreation Area. 

School groups would find more outdoor classroom opportunities and nature study sites. 

An EE message or theme is identified and communicated for every recreation activity, 

resource management activity, heritage resource, and special area. Conservation and 

education messages throughout LBL will highlight positive, personal actions that benefit 

natural and cultural resources and motivate LBL visitors to develop ethical behaviors 

associated with their activities. 

3.D. Nature Watch Demonstration Area 

Alternatives Y and Z only 

Emphasis:

The primary purpose for this area is to offer nature-viewing opportunities and activities to 

LBL visitors. In addition to the EE facilities, a Nature Watch Demonstration Area 

provides an additional delivery tool for EE. This area may be managed intensely in order 

to provide nature-viewing opportunities, such as watching wildlife and viewing 

wildflowers, using a variety of vegetation, transportation, aquatic, landscape, and view 

shed improvements. Nature viewing, natural history interpretation, and environmental 

education activities are emphasized. Existing facilities are well maintained and updated 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 208 of 273 

as needed. A variety of scenery, with an emphasis on natural features and characteristics 

would be appropriate. 

Desired Conditions:

Visitors to the Nature Watch Demonstration Area depart with a memorable, enjoyable, 

and educational experience. Well-designed accessible features that permit visitors a 

closer, more intimate experience with the natural world facilitate this experience. 

Examples of such features include improved roads; road pullouts; interpretive panels, 

signs, and brochures; viewing blinds and platforms; and interpretive trails. 

Viewing opportunities are designed primarily for two types of visitors: 

• Those who enjoy seeing wildlife and scenic vistas and are “curious,” but have 

limited experience with nature viewing. Lack of knowledge about where, when, 

and how are barriers to participation. 

• Those who have more nature-viewing experience and seek out opportunities as 

part of their recreational choices. These visitors may be described as “aspiring” 

viewers. They are also eager to learn more about what they are seeing and begin 

discovering how ecological systems function. 

For both types, viewing success is important to engage the visitor and then inspire the 

visitor so that additional knowledge and understanding leads to personal actions that 

result in stewardship of our natural resources. To facilitate viewing success, emphasis is 

placed on managing resources for more viewable wildlife species such as waterfowl, 

turkey, bald eagles and other raptors, hummingbirds, herons and other wading birds, 

butterflies, turtles, beavers, squirrels, raccoons, and deer, as well as for fall colors, 

wildflowers and other native plants; and for circumstances that allow wildlife species to 

become more tolerant to human presence and provide closer viewing opportunities for 

visitors. 

Woodlands Nature Station plays an important role as a “hub” or center for natureviewing and other recreational activities in the northern Nature Watch Demonstration 

Area. It serves as the primary information source for the season’s nature viewing; 

provides staff-led programs and activities in the area; and facilitates opportunities for 

school groups and other organized groups. 

New developed recreation sites would not be appropriate within this area. This area 

would be suitable for minimal recreation activities that complement the Nature Watch 

objectives; however, open camping is not appropriate. 

Visitors to the southern Nature Watch Demonstration Area will find nature viewing 

opportunities that are accessed primarily by trails. Viewing blinds or platforms, 

interpretive displays, and self-guided interpretive trails may be appropriate tools to 

facilitate viewing opportunities. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 209 of 273 

An integral part of the education process and purpose of the Nature Watch Demonstration 

Area is demonstrating examples showcasing active as well as minimal management 

activities. Examples of active management activities would include stream rehabilitation, 

prescribed fire, and vegetation management including logging, open lands management, 

and vegetation type conversion. Determination for handling wildfires is decided on a 

case-by-case basis in this designated area. 

Interpretation and education about threatened and endangered species and their habitats 

and rare plant and animal communities will be included within the education program 

goals and objectives. Management activities within the Nature Watch Demonstration 

Area related to these species and habitats of special concern must meet conservation and 

protection objectives as defined in other parts of this plan. 

Various activities in general forest and open fields areas are interpreted and highlighted 

to increase knowledge of natural resource management. An integral part of these 

demonstrations is education about the “whole” comparisons, benefits and trade-offs, and 

successes and failures. 

Collection permits and permits for military operations/maneuvers are not appropriate for 

this designated area. Other special uses will be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

within policies and guidelines established for evaluation. 

Utility corridors existing in this area will be evaluated for demonstration opportunities, 

such as choosing native vegetation for view shed enhancement or managing as long strips 

of barrens or prairies. 

Heritage resources within the area would be managed as part of the educational emphasis. 

Research that would further the enhancement of nature viewing and environmental 

education would be appropriate. Core Area designation is compatible within this area 

with exceptions of existing facilities, intensely managed areas supporting the facilities, 

and current access. Other compatible designations include wildlife refuges and study 

areas. 

Exceptions under Alternative Y 

Desired Conditions:

Under alternative Y the current Environmental Education Area (EEA) is expanded to 

include an area of approximately 1200 acres bordered by Energy Lake Road to the west 

and Energy Lake Dam and the Lake Barkley Shoreline to the south. This Northern 

Nature Watch Area is further divided into an eastern and a western section. 

• The eastern section will take advantage of existing infrastructure, habitat 

diversity, and proximity to Lake Barkley to provide viewing opportunities 

mostly from roads. Visitors will find the former Empire Farm and Youth 

Station areas utilized for providing scenic lake vistas, one-way drives, and 

access to viewing blinds and platforms, interpretive displays, or short 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 210 of 273 

trails. Buildings and other structures associated with these former 

environmental education sites may be incorporated into the area’s 

opportunities and settings, while others have been removed from the 

setting. In later stages of the planning cycle, the former Youth Station site 

may be determined as an appropriate area for providing a rustic camping 

and learning experience for families with young children, youth groups, or 

novice campers. Hunting pressure in this section would be greatly 

reduced to facilitate these types of experiences. 

• The western section will provide nature-viewing experiences that require 

higher levels of viewing skills and increased time investments. Hiking 

trails and old roads provide access into this section. Visitors find much 

less infrastructure and “guided” viewing opportunities, but are rewarded 

with more personal and self-directed viewing experiences. While hunting 

pressure is also reduced in this area to facilitate nature viewing, wildlife 

management objectives may allow for additional hunting opportunities in 

this section including additional youth hunting, quota bow hunting, or 

opportunities for physically challenged hunters. 

Exceptions under Alternative Z 

Desired Conditions:

Under Alternative Z the current EEA is expanded with a boundary along Silver Trail 

Road to the south, Road 310 to the west, Road 131 to the north and Road 312 to the east. 

This expansion is of about 1350 acres. There would be no differences in the management 

of any sections of the Nature Watch Areas under alternative Z. 

3.E Environmental Education Area 

Alternative W Only 

Emphasis: 

The primary focus for this area is to provide environmental education and recreation 

opportunities for LBL visitors. This area may be intensely managed in order to provide a 

variety of opportunities. 

Desired Condition: 

Visitors to the Environmental Education (EE) Area depart with a memorable, enjoyable, 

and educational experience. The Woodlands Nature Station serves as a hub of activity 

and information to orient visitors to the educational and recreational opportunities within 

the EE Area as well as the rest of LBL. Hiking trails, wildlife and nature viewing 

opportunities, canoeing, fishing, and picnicking are examples of appropriate recreational 

activities available in this area. Formal education groups (e.g., school groups) will find 

nature observation and nature study opportunities. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 211 of 273 

Reduced hunting pressure is a consideration for this type of high use area. The effects on 

recreational and educational opportunities and meeting wildlife management objectives 

within the area will dictate decisions related to hunting. 

Examples of management activities appropriate in this area would include stream 

rehabilitation, prescribed fire, vegetation management including timber removal, open 

lands management, and vegetation type conversion. 

Interpretation and education about threatened and endangered species and their habitats 

and rare plant and animal communities will be included within the education program 

goals and objectives. Management activities within the EE Area related to these species 

and habitats of special concern must meet conservation and protection objectives as 

defined in other parts of this plan. 

Determination for handling wildfires is decided on a case-by-case basis in this designated 

area. 

Collection permits and permits for military operations/maneuvers are not appropriate for 

this designated area. Other special uses will be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

within policies and guidelines established for evaluation. 

No overnight camping is allowed in the Environmental Education Area. This restriction 

may be evaluated for modification during the life of this plan. 

Utility corridors existing in this area will be evaluated for demonstration opportunities, 

such as choosing native vegetation for view shed enhancement or managing as long strips 

of grasslands, barrens or prairies. 

Access to cemeteries will be maintained. Roads and trails will only be created or 

improved to support the recreation and EE programs. 

Heritage resources within the area would be managed as part of the educational emphasis. 

Research that would further the enhancement of nature viewing and environmental 

education would be appropriate. Core Area designation is compatible with this 

designation with exceptions of existing facilities, intensely managed areas supporting the 

facilities, and current access. Other compatible designations include wildlife refuges and 

ecological areas. New developed recreation sites would not be appropriate. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix D 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 212 of 273 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 213 of 273 

Appendix E 

SPECIES VIABILITY 

Site Type Discussion 

I. Definitions 

DEM: Digital Elevation Map. Elements pertinent to our soils mapping needs (site type 

map) included the use of elevation, aspect, and slope. 

Soils Map Coverage: Soil Survey Reports for Trigg and Lyon counties in Kentucky and 

Stewart County in Tennessee were used as our base for attaining soils map coverage. 

The soil survey maps represented in these counties have been merged into Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) coverage. 

Site Type Map: The site type map for LBL is the result of overlaying or clipping the 

soils map to the DEM then querying the merged attribute tables for specific information. 

The information queried included the elevation, aspect, and slope associated with every 

soil type within LBL. Five site types were identified for habitat management and 

assigned to 118 soil types using these three elements and other criteria as described below 

under item II (Table E1). The aspects identified and used in this process are as follows: 

(F = Flat, NW-SE = Northwest to Southeast to represent the generally north facing 

slopes, and SE-NW = Southeast to Northwest to represent the generally south facing 

slopes). Essentially the site types were defined by the elements and criteria they 

represent. The site type map is a visual compilation of this information. 

 = 

 

 + 

 

Site Type: Site types in LBL are based primarily on soil moisture conditions and 

elevation. Each site type is defined below. 

DEM

SITE TYPE INFORMATION & MAP 

SOILS
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 214 of 273 

Xeric – Representative of extremely dry soil conditions. Soils for this site type are 

located at an elevation >460 ft. and have mostly flat and SE-NW aspects on 0-12 

percent and some 12-60 percent slopes. Soils associated with this site type may be 

characterized by one or more of the following elements: fragipan; gravely or cherty 

surface; thin soil surface cover; extremely acidic soil and low fertility; droughty soil 

conditions most of the year; and associated vegetation and growth is representative of 

relatively poor soil conditions. 

Dry – Representative of soils with conditions which are very limited or devoid of 

moisture. Soils for this site type are located at an elevation >460 ft. and are primarily 

representative of all the aspects on 0 to 60 percent slopes. Soils associated with this 

site type are characterized by one or more of the following elements: acidic to 

moderately acidic soil and low to moderate fertility; and vegetation and growth 

representative of relatively poor to moderate soil conditions. 

Dry-Mesic – Representative of a vegetation transition zone on the landscape in which 

both dry and mesic soil conditions occur. Soils for this site type are located at an 

elevation <460 ft. (Close et. al. 2002) and are primarily representative of all the 

aspects that range in 0 to 50 percent slopes. Soils associated with this site type are 

those that support vegetation that occurs on dry and mesic site types. 

Mesic – Representative of moist soil conditions. Soils associated with this site type 

are stream terraces (derived from alluvium and colluvium), coves, and foot-slopes 

located at elevations > and < 460 ft. and are representative of all aspects on 0-6 

percent slopes. 

Alluvial – Pertains to and generally representative of the bank of a river, lake, or 

other body of water, wetness for a period of time. Soils associated with this site type 

are those created from or in alluvium that includes floodplains, wetlands, river 

bottoms, some streams, and depressions. These soils are represented at elevations > 

and < 460 ft. for all aspects on 0-3 percent slopes. 

II. DEIS Site Type Map vs. Revised DEIS (FEIS) Site Type Map 

The DEIS site type map was based on elevations > and < 460 ft.; aspect (F, NW-SE, 

and SE-NW); slope > and < 10 percent ; information about soil types; and vegetation 

associated with the soils. 

Errors associated with this site type map: 

• The change in elevation was placed between the dry-mesic and mesic site 

types. 

• The > and < 10 percent slope did not function adequately to focus primarily 

on xeric site types >460 ft. 

• Polygons with insufficient data “slivers” were created when the DEM and 

soils coverage’s were clipped together. The total acres were insignificant. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 215 of 273 

• The mesic site type was assigned to the Nolin soil type (approx. 3,000 acres in 

KY).

• The revised site type map is based on the same elevations and aspects as in the 

original site type map. The change in elevation was placed between the dry 

and dry-mesic site types. The percent slope of > and < 10 percent was not 

used to model the site type. Instead, the overall percent slope associated with 

each soil type was factored into assigning the site types to soil types. Site 

types were re-assigned to soil types based on a more in depth look at soil 

profiles, their vegetation association, and geological location. The alluvial 

site type was assigned to the Nolin soil type. The slivers were voided in the 

merged attribute tables.

III. Assumptions and Considerations 

The assignment of the site types to the soil types is currently our best approximation 

of site condition types in LBL. Ground checking is expected to reveal errors in our 

estimations for all the site types. It is very likely that in the field a xeric site type soil 

should have been classified as a dry site type soil and vice verse. This is expected 

mostly between the xeric and dry site types and mesic and riparian site types. Only a 

certain amount of information could be extrapolated from the soil survey reports to be 

used in making the site type assignments. The elevation change was very useful in 

helping to assign site types where the soil survey reports lacked enough information 

to clearly assign dry and dry-mesic site types. 

Soil survey reports are currently our best approximation of what soil types occur on 

the landscape. The Stewart County Soil Survey Report was published in 1953 and 

LBL is in the process of having soils in that county re-mapped. As new information 

becomes available from these surveys and other field checks, it can be incorporated 

into updating our site type files at the project level. The soil survey reports for Lyon 

and Trigg counties were published in 1981. 

MARC – Mid America Remote Sensing Center, Murray State University was 

responsible for putting all of the soil survey information for LBL into GIS. After the 

soil type information was put into GIS, the soils in Kentucky did not edge match with 

those in Tennessee, therefore there is some disparity in site types properly merging 

along the state line. The disparity is relevant to how soils were mapped by the two 

states and how dated the information is for Tennessee. 

References: 

Close, D.C, J. Fralish, and S.B. Franklin, 2002. The Climate, Soil, and Vegetation of 

Land Between The Lakes. Pages 53-68 in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. 

Land Between The Lakes , Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee 

Valley Authority Stewardship. The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State 

University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 216 of 273 

Franklin, S.B., J. Fralish, and D.D. Close, 2002; History Classification, and Effects 

of Disturbance on Forest Communities in Land Between The Lakes; Pages 285-321 

in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. Land Between The Lakes , Kentucky and 

Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; The Center 

for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA. 

Fralish, J. Personal communication, 2003; Land Between The Lakes National 

Recreation Area, Golden Pond, Kentucky . 

United States Department of Agriculture, 1981; Soil Survey of Lyon and Trigg 

Counties, Kentucky. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 

United States Department of Agriculture, 1953; Soil Survey of Stewart County, 

Tennessee, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Table E1. Site Types for Kentucky and Tennessee soil types in LBL based on soil characteristics, elevation, aspect, and 

Site Types with Aspects (Flat, NW-SE, and SE-NW) and Elevations 

Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic 

Soil Type and Percent Slope F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,< F,NW,SE,>,< B: Baxter Cherty SiL, 12-25% NW> NW<; SE< BaE: Baxter-Hammack Cmplx, 20-30% F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< BaF: Baxter-Hammack Cmplx, 30-60% NW>; SE> F< Bf: Baxter SiL, >25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bg: Baxter SiCL, >25% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Bh: Bodine Cherty SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bk: Bodine Cherty SiL, 5-12% NW> NW<; SE< Bl: Bodine Cherty SiL, 25-50% NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bm: Bodine Cherty SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bn: Bodine Cherty SiL, 5-12% F> SE>; NW> F<; NW<; SE< Bo: Bodine Cherty SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Bp: Bodine Cherty SiL, 25-50% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Br: Brandon SiL, >20% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< BrC: Brandon SiL, 6-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< BrD: Brandon SiL, 12-20% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bs: Brandon SiL, 5-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< BsC3: Brandon SiCL, 6-12% NW< BsD3: Brandon SiCL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bt: Brandon SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Bu: Brandon SiL, 5-12% F> SE>; NW> F<; NW<; SE< Bv: Briensburg SiL, Depressions F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< BxE: Brandon-Saffell Complex, 20-50% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Ca: Cherty Colluvium (Greendale) F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Cb: Bewleyville SiL, 5-12% NW> NW< Cp: Clifty Gravelly SiL, 0-2% F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< Da: Dickson SiL, 5-12% F> NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Dc: Dickson SiL, 5-12% F> NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Dd: Dickson SiL, 2-5% NW> F<; NW< 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Table E1 (continued) Site Types for Kentucky and Tennessee soil types in LBL based on soil characteristics, elevation, as

Site Types with Aspects (Flat, NW-SE, and SE-NW) and Elevation

Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic 

Soil Type and Percent Slope F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,< F,NW,SE,>,< 

De: Dickson SiCL, 5-12% F> NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Eb: Egam SiCL, 0-3% Ec: Ennis Cherty Loam, <3% Ed: Ennis Fine Sandy Loam, Btmlnds Ee: Ennis SiL, <3% FrD: Fredonia Rock Outcrop Cmplx, 12-20% NW> NW< Ga: Greendale Cherty SiL, 2-5% F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< Gb: Greendale-Lobelville Cherty SiL, nrly level F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< Gc: Greendale SiL, 2-5% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< Gd: Guin Gravelly Loam, 2-10% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Ge: Guin Gravelly Loam, 35-45% F>; SE> NW> F<; NW<; SE< HcD: Hagerstown-Fredonia SiL, 12-20% NW> NW< Hd: Hamblen Fine Sandy Loam He: Humphreys Cherty SiL, 2-5% F<; NW><; SE>< Hf: Humphreys SiL, 2-5% All aspects > & < Hg: Humphreys Very Fine Sandy Loam, 2-5% All aspects > & < Hh: Huntington SiL, nearly level Hm: Unknown and about 5 total acres NW< HmB: Hammack SiL, 2-6% F<; NW<; SE< HxC: Hammack-Baxter Complex, 6-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< HxC3: Hammack-Baxter Complex, 6-12% NW<; SE< HxD: Hammack-Baxter Complex, 12-20% F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Table E1 (continued) Site Types for Kentucky and Tennessee soil types in LBL based on soil characteristics, elevation, as

Site Types with Aspects (Flat, NW-SE, and SE-NW) and Elevations 

Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic 

Soil Type and Percent Slope F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,< F,NW,SE,>,< 

HxD3: Hammack-Baxter Complex, 12-20% F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< F< La: Lawrence SiL, 0-2% F>; NW> NW<; SE< F< Lb: Lax SiL, 5-12% F>; SE> NW> F<; NW<; SE< LbB: Lax SiL, 2-6% F>; NW>; SE> NW< LbC: Lax SiL, 6-12% F>; SE> NW> F<; NW<; SE< Lc: Lax SiL, 2-5% F>; NW>; SE> SE< LcC3: Lax SiCL, 6-12% F>; SE> NW> F<; NW<; SE< Ld: Lax SiL, 5-12% F>; SE> NW> F<; NW<; SE< Le: Lax SiCL, 5-12% F>; SE> NW> NW< LeC: Lexington SiL, 6-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< LeC3: Lexington SiL, 6-12% NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Lf: Lee, Bottomlands FLfD: Lexington Complex, 12-20% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Lg: Linside SiL, <3% FLh: Linside SiCL, Bottomlands FLk: Lobelville SiL, 0-2% FLn: Linside SiL F M: Mines; pits; dumps F>; NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Ma: Melvin SiL FMb: Mountview SiL, 12-25% NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Mc: Mountview SiL, 5-12% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Me: Melvin SiL FMf: Mountview SiL, 5-12% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Mh: Mountview SiL, 12-25% NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Mk: Mountview SiCL, 5-12% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Na:Nixa Cherty SiL, 12-25% F>; NW> F<; NW<; SE< Nb: Nixa Cherty SiL, 5-12% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Table E1 (continued) Site Types for Kentucky and Tennessee soil types in LBL based on soil characteristics, elevation, as

Site Types with Aspects (Flat, NW-SE, and SE-NW) and Elevations 

Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic 

Soil Type and Percent Slope F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,< F,NW,SE,>,< 

Nc: Nixa Cherty SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Nd:Nixa Cherty SiL, 5-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Ne: Newark SiL FNf:Nixa Cherty SiCL, 5-12% NW>; SE> SE< NhB: Nicholson SiL, 2-6% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< NhC: Nicholson SiL, 6-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< NlC3: Nicholson SiCL, 6-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< No: Nolin SiL FOO: Where Bear Ck. WL Refuge was atchd. FOtB: Otwell SiL, 2-6% All aspects > & < Pa: Paden SiL, 5-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Pb:Paden SiL, 2-5% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Pc:Paden SiL, 5-12% NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Pd: Paden SiL, 2-5% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Pe: Paden SiCL, 5-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Pg: Pits and gravel NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Ph: Pickwick SiL NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< Pk:Pickwick SiL, <5% F<; NW<; SE< Pl: Providence SiL, <5-12% F>; SE> NW> Pm:Providence SiCL, 5-12% F>; SE> NW> Ra: Robertsville Loam, <3% F<; NW<; SE< Rb:Robertsville SiL, <3% F<; NW<; SE< Rc:Rough gullied land, >12-25% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Rd: Rough gullied land, 2-12% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Re: Rough gullied land, > & < 12-25% F>; SE> NW> NW<; SE< Rf: Rough stoney land (outcrops), >25 & 5-12% NW>; SE> NW<; SE< Rl: Ruston Fine SL, 12-25 & 25-40% NW>; SE> 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 

Table E1 (continued) Site Types for Kentucky and Tennessee soil types in LBL based on soil characteristics, elevation, as

Site Types with Aspects (Flat, NW-SE, and SE-NW) and Elevations 

Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic 

Soil Type and Percent Slope F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,> F,NW,SE,< F,NW,SE,>,< 

Ro: Robertsville SiL NW< Sa: Sango SiL, 0-3% F>; NW> Sc: Sequatchie Fine SL, <5% NW< Sd: Staser Fine SL, bottomlands FSgC: Saffell SiL, 6-12% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< SgF: Saffell SiL, 20-60% F>; SE> NW> F<; NW<; SE< Ta: Taft Loam

F<; NW>,<; SE>,< 

Tb: Taft SiL F<; NW<; SE< TN_Me: Mountview SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< TN_Ne: Nixa Cherty SiL, 12-25% F>; NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< TN_Pg: Pickwick SiL, 12-25% NW>; SE> F<; NW<; SE< (W): Water FWa: Wolftever SiL,<3-5%

F<; NW>,<; SE>,< 

Wb: Wolftever SiCL, 5-12% F<; NW< Note: Bold standard type for soils acronym represents those soils occurring in Kentucky and those in italics represent soil

 Tennessee. The aspects are abbreviated under each site type and start with the first acronym for the aspect going  F; NW-SE = NW; and SE-NW = SE). The elevations for each aspect greater than or less than 460 feet are abbrevia The site types were defined based on the analysis of soil characteristics, elevation, aspect, and slope. The elevatio aspects for some of the soil types in the analysis were not represented in the link between the soils and DEM. This  occur on the ground based on the information about the soil types and their likely aspect and elevation. The definit each site type is based on the data above and the likelihood of the soils occurring at elevations and on aspects not  this table. An example of this would be TN Pg: Pickwick SiL, 12-25 percent slope, the F> is currently not represen type, however this is the most likely site type that that aspect and elevation would be shown if found to occur on LB
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 222 of 273 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 223 of 273 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 224 of 273 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 225 of 273 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 226 of 273 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 227 of 273 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 228 of 273 

Table E2. - Comparison of current conditions with a landscape composition deemed optimal for sustaining 

a diversity of plant and animal communities and viability of associated species. 

Current Optimal 

Cover Type/Condition 

Acres % 

 

Acres % 

Acreage 

Difference 

Current 

% of 

Optimal 

Oak Forest on Xeric 

and Dry Sites 73,327 0.4 74,506 43.5% (1,179) 98.4%

Mature Closed 43,618 25.5% 2,334 1.4% 41,284 1868.8%

Mature Open 10,059 5.9% 25,537 14.9% (15,477) 39.4%

Mature Woodland 0 0.0% 30,420 17.8% (30,420) 0.0%

Mature With Gaps 55 0.0% 796 0.5% (741) 6.9%

Mid-aged 7,678 4.5% 7,710 4.5% (32) 99.6%

Young 10,721 6.3% 5,140 3.0% 5,581 208.6%

Regenerating 1,196 0.7% 2,570 1.5% (1,374) 46.5%

Oak Forest on DryMesic, Mesic, and 

Alluvial Sites 67,471 39.4% 62,423 36.5% 5,047 108.1%

Mature Closed 40,878 23.9% 6,658 3.9% 34,219 613.9%

Mature Open 5,787 3.4% 32,582 19.0% (26,795) 17.8%

Mature Woodland 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100%

Mature With Gaps 65 0.0% 3,018 1.8% (2,954) 2.1%

Mid-aged 6,076 3.5% 10,082 5.9% (4,007) 60.3%

Young 13,417 7.8% 6,722 3.9% 6,695 199.6%

Regenerating 1,249 0.7% 3,361 2.0% (2,112) 37.2%

Mesophytic Forest 6,580 3.8% 17,069 10.0% (10,489) 38.6%

Mature Closed 3,781 2.2% 2,793 1.6% 988 135.4%

Mature Open 306 0.2% 0 0.0% 306 >100%

Mature Woodland 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100%

Mature With Gaps 0 0.0% 13,656 8.0% (13,656) 0.0%

Mid-aged 458 0.3% 310 0.2% 147 147.5%

Young 1,971 1.2% 207 0.1% 1,764 952.6%

Regenerating 65 0.0% 103 0.1% (39) 62.7%

Riparian Forest 5,515 3.2% 5,132 3.0% 383 107.5%

Mature Closed 1,913 1.1% 1,437 0.8% 476 133.1%

Mature Open 97 0.1% 0 0.0% 97 >100%

Mature Woodland 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100%

Mature With Gaps 0 0.0% 3,079 1.8% (3,079) 0.0%

Mid-aged 604 0.4% 308 0.2% 296 196.2%

Young 2,875 1.7% 205 0.1% 2,670 1400.6%

Regenerating 26 0.0% 103 0.1% (77) 24.9%

Shortleaf Pine Forest 130 0.1% 1,637 1.0% (1,507) 7.9%

Mature Closed 128 0.1% 0 0.0% 128 100%

Mature Open 2 0.0% 906 0.5% (905) 0.2%

Mature Woodland 0 0.0% 368 0.2% (368) 0.0%

Mature With Gaps 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100%

Mid-aged 0 0.0% 181 0.1% (181) 0.1%

Young 0 0.0% 121 0.1% (121) 0.0%

Regenerating 0 0.0% 60 0.0% (60) 0.0%

Planted Pine Forest 4,236 2.5% 0 0.0% 4,236 >100%
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Page 229 of 273 

Table E2. - (Continued) Comparison of current conditions with a landscape composition deemed optimal 

for sustaining a diversity of plant and animal communities and viability of associated species.

Current Optimal 

Cover 

Type/Condition Acres % 

 

Acres % 

Acreage 

Difference 

Current 

% of 

Optimal 

Grasslands 6,522 

 3.8% 8,563 5.0% (2,040) 76.2%

Xeric 264 0.2% 168 0.1% 96 157.3%

Dry 2,312 1.4% 3,840 2.2% (1,527) 60.2%

Dry-Mesic 2,205 1.3% 3,464 2.0% (1,260) 63.6%

Mesic 576 0.3% 449 0.3% 126 128.1%

Alluvial 1,165 0.7% 641 0.4% 524 181.7%

Cultivated 4,124 2.4% 0 0.0% 4,124 >100%

Water 952 0.6% 1,924 1.1% (973) 49.5%

Administrative 2,396 1.4% 0 0.0% 2,396 >100%

Total 171,254 100.0% 171,254 100.0% 

By looking at the Acreage Difference column, one can see at a glance which habitat 

conditions are in relatively short supply. Red numbers in parentheses indicate deficit 

habitat conditions. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 230 of 273 

Table E3. - Habitat Associations by Species of Viability Concern. Bolded = Federally listed; 

Italics = Regional Forester’s Sensitive; and * = Bird of Conservation Concern. 

Scientific Name Common Name Taxa Habitat Associations1

Aesculus pavia Red buckeye Plant 9 

Agalinis obtusifolia Ten-lobe false foxglove Plant 3 

Apios priceana Price’s potato bean Plant 2 and 6 

Aristida ramosissima Branched three-awn grass Plant 4 

Armoracia lacustris Lakecress Plant 23 and 24 

Asclepias purpurascens Purple Milkweed Plant 4 

Aster concolor Eastern silvery aster Plant 4 

Aster drummondii var. 

texanus 

Texas aster Plant 2 

Aster (Eurybia) 

hemisphericus 

Southern prairie aster Plant 3 

Aureolaria patula Spreading yellow false foxglove Plant 3 and 6 

Baptisia bracteata var. 

leucophaea 

Cream wild indigo Plant 3 and 4 

Carex comosa Bristly sedge Plant 24 

Carex lacustris Lake-bank sedge Plant 23 and 24 

Carex reniformis Reniform sedge Plant 12; 21; and 24 

Castanea dentate American chestnut Plant 1 

Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane Plant 6; 7; and 9 

Dalea candida White prairie clover Plant 4 

Echinacea pallida Pale-purple coneflower Plant 6 

Eleocharis intermedia Matted spike-rush Plant 23 and 24 

Glandularia canadensis Rose mock vervain Plant 4; 6; and 7 

Gymnopogon 

ambiguous 

Bearded Skeletongrass Plant 6 

Halesia tetraptera Mountain silver-bell Plant 9 

Hedeoma hispida Rough pennyroyal Plant 6 and 7 

Heteranthera dubia Grassleaf mud-plantain Plant 19; 23; and 24 

Heteranthera limosa Blue mud-plantain Plant 19; 23; and 24 

Hieracium longipilum Hairy hawkweed Plant 4 

Hottonia inflate Featherfoil Plant 23 and 24 

Iris brevicaulis Lamance iris Plant 12 and 24 

Juglans cinerea Butternut Plant 9 

Lesquerella lescurii Lescur’s bladder-pod Plant 21 

Lilium michiganense Michigan lily Plant 11 

Lilium superbum Turk’s cap lily Plant 11 

Liparis loeselli Fen orchis Plant 9; 20; and 24 

Lysimachia fraseri Fraser’s yellow loosestrife Plant 2;13; and 21 

Malus angustifolia Southern crabapple Plant 2 

Matelea carolinensis Carolina anglepod Plant 3 

Muhlenbergia glabrifloris Hair grass Plant 4 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix E 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 231 of 273 

Table E3. - (Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name Taxa Habitat Associations1

Najas gracillima Thread-like naiad Plant 19; 23; and 24 

Nemophila aphylla Baby blue eyes Plant 9 

Oldenlandia uniflora Clustered bluets Plant 23 and 24 

Paspalum boscianum Bull-grass Plant 21 

Phacelia ranunculacea Ocean-blue phacelia Plant 10 

Philadelphus inodorus Mock orange Plant 6 and 7 

Phlox pilosa ssp. 

Ozarkana 

Ozark downy phlox Plant 3 and 4 

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie parsley Plant 4 

Populus grandidentata Big-tooth aspen Plant 3 and 11 

Prenanthes barbata Barbed rattlesnake- root Plant 3 and 4 

Prenanthes crepidinea Nodding rattlesnake-root Plant 7 and 11 

Ptilimnium capillaceum Mock Bishop’s weed Plant 23 and 24 

Ptilimnium nuttallii Nuttall’s Mock (Bishop’s weed) Plant 23 

Pycnanthemum 

albescens 

Whiteleaf mountainmint Plant 3 

Ranunculus flabellaris Yellow watercrowfoot Plant 24 

Sagittaria brevirostra Short-beaked arrowhead Plant 23 and 24 

Sagittaria graminea Grassleaf arrowhead Plant 23 

Sagittaria platyphylla Delta or Ovate-leaved arrowhead Plant 24 

Salvia azurea var 

grandiflora 

Blue sage Plant 4 

Scleria ciliata var. ciliate Fringed nutrush Plant 3 

Silphium pinnatifidum Prairie-dock Plant 4 

Solidago buckleyi Buckley’s goldenrod Plant 3 

Stellaria longifolia Longleaf stitchwort Plant 13 and 21 

Synosma (Hasteola) 

sauveolens 

Sweet-scented or Indian plantain Plant 13 and 23 

Trepocarpus aethusae Trepocarpus Plant 13 

Trifolium reflexum Buffalo clover Plant 3 and 4 

Ulmus serotina September elm Plant 7 and 9 

Zanthoxylum 

americanum 

American prickly ash Plant 1 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle Bird 17; 22; and 26 

Sterna antillarum 

athalassos 

Interior least tern Bird 22 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk Bird 2; 5; and 8 

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow* Bird 21 

Caprimulgus vociferous Whip-poor-will* Bird 5; 8; 11; and 13 

Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite quail Bird 4 

Dendroica cerulean Cerulean warbler* Bird 8; 11; and 13 

Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler* Bird 4 and 14 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 232 of 273 

Table E3. - (Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name Taxa Habitat Associations1

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron Bird 19; 24; 25; and 26 

Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating warbler* Bird 8 and 10 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood thrush* Bird 8; 10; and 11 

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s warbler* Bird 8; 13; and 15 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

Red-headed woodpecker* Bird 2 and 17 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron Bird 13; 22; 24; and 25 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey Bird 17; 22; and 26 

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana waterthrush* Bird 8; 12; and 25 

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren* Bird 2; 14; and 17 

Tyto alba Barn owl Bird 4; 16; and 21 

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler* Bird 14 

Myotis grisescens Gray bat Mammal 13; 22; and 24 

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Mammal 2; 13; 16; 17; and 24 

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis bat Mammal 13; 16; 22; and 24 

Plecotus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Mammal 2; 13; and 16 

Nycticeius humeralis Evening bat Mammal 2; 3; 13; and 17 

Microsorex hoyi Pigmy shrew Mammal 9 and 21 

Hyla gratiosa Barking treefrog Herp 13; 21; and 24 

Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined skink Herp 4 and 18 

Eumeces anthracinus Coal skink Herp 9 and 18 

Lampropeltis triangulum 

elapsoides 

Scarlet kingsnake Herp 1 and 18 

Macrochelys temminckii Alligator snapping turtle Herp 26 

Pituophis melanoleucus 

melanoleucus 

Northern pine snake Herp 3; 4; 5; and 14 

Thamnophis sauritus 

sauritus 

Eastern ribbon snake Herp 12 and 21 

Sistrurus miliarius 

streckeri 

Western pigmy rattlesnake Herp 13; 21; 22; and 24 

Erimystax insignis Blotched chub Fish 25 

Forbesichthys agassizi Spring cavefish Fish 20 

Noturus exilis Slender madtom Fish 25 

1

Habitat Associations: The habitat associations for each species in Table E3 are numbered below and correspond to the number in this 

column. 

 (1) Upland Forest Associates (14) Regenerating Forest Associates 

 (2) Forest Opening Associates (15) Canebrake Associates 

 (3) Xeric and Dry Open Forest Associates (16) Den Tree Associates 

 (4) Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland Associates (17) Snag Associates 

 (5) Pine Forest Associates (18) Downed Wood Associates 

 (6) Calcareous Cliffs and Talus Associates (19) Mudflat Associates 

 (7) Limestone Soil Associates (20) Springs and Seeps Associates 

 (8) Interior Forest Associates (21) Wet Grassland Associates 

 (9) Mesic Forest Associates (22) Lakeshores Associates 

(10) Mesic Closed Canopy Forest Associates (23) Rocky Shores and Bars Associates 

(11) Mesic Forest Opening Associates (24) Ponds and Marshes Associates 

(12) Riparian Forest Associates (25) Streams Associates 

(13) Riparian Forest Opening Associates (26) Lakes (Water) Associates 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 233 of 273 

Appendix F 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 

Management Indicator Species Selection 

Process Record 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

 Plan Revision 

Introduction 

National Forest Management Act regulations, adopted in 1982, require selection of 

management indicator species (MIS) during development of forest plans (36 CFR 

219.19(a)). Reasons for their selection must be stated. This document describes the 

process and rationale used to select MIS for the revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are to be selected “because their population 

changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219 

(a)(1)). They are to be used during planning to help compare effects of alternatives (36 

CFR 219.19(a) (2)), and as a focus for monitoring (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). Where 

appropriate, MIS shall represent the following groups of species (36 CFR 219 (a)(1)): 

1. Threatened and endangered species on State and Federal lists, 

2. Species with special habitat needs, 

3. Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped, 

4. Non-game species of special interest, and 

5. Species selected to indicate effects on other species of selected major biological 

communities. 

Since adoption of these regulations, the management indicator species concept has been 

reviewed and critiqued by the scientific community (Caro and O’Doherty, 1999, 

Simberloff, 1998; Noss 1990; Landres et. al. 1988; and Weaver, 1995). These reviews 

identify proper uses and limitations of the indicator species concept. They generally 

caution against overreaching in use of indicator species, especially when making 

inferences about ecological conditions or status of other species within a community. 

Caution is needed because many different factors may affect populations of each species 

within a community, and each species’ ecological niche within a community is unique. 

To reflect this current scientific understanding while meeting the letter and spirit of 

regulations, we have made great effort to clearly define the legitimate uses and 

limitations of each selected MIS. The MIS process is but one tool used to develop 

management strategies and monitoring programs designed to meet NFMA requirements 

related to diversity of plant and animal communities. Other elements used for 

comprehensive planning for plant and animal diversity include: objectives and standards 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 234 of 273 

for maintenance and restoration of desired ecological conditions based on knowledge of 

overall ecosystem structure and function; biological evaluations and assessments at both 

the forest plan and site-specific project levels; and evaluation of risk to species of 

viability concern at the forest plan level. Other elements important to monitoring effects 

of plan implementation on plant and animal diversity include, where appropriate, 

monitoring of key ecological conditions, levels of management activities important to 

restoration and maintenance of community diversity, species assemblages (birds, bats, 

fish, etc.), harvest levels of game and other demand species, and populations and/or 

habitats of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

The Selection Process 

Consideration of MIS for the revised Area Plan started with the current list of MIS (Table 

F1) and the most recent results of population monitoring and evaluation. The Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) 1994 Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) FEIS 

assessed the impacts for six “Evaluation Species” similar to Forest Service MIS using a 

Habitat Suitability Index simulation model. A system for evaluating management 

alternatives (SEMA) was developed for evaluating resource management alternatives in 

LBL for short-term (10 years) and long-term (100 years) effects. Through SEMA 

projections were made for forest and open lands habitat types (habitat units). The habitat 

units were used to indicate the trend of change in average quality and quantity of wildlife 

habitat. Although not necessarily specific to habitat units, inventories and monitoring 

relevant to the Evaluation Species of LBL include annual breeding bird surveys, annual 

mast crop surveys of oak species for the gray squirrel and Eastern wild turkey, and annual 

hunter harvest records for the Eastern wild turkey. The breeding bird surveys have been 

conducted in LBL for the past 11 years and trend information is currently in the process 

of being analyzed. Information from the mast crop surveys is incorporated into the 

number of permits granted in LBL for the Eastern wild turkey and white-tailed deer quota 

hunts. 

We also reviewed region-wide lists of MIS and coordinated with the Regional Biologist 

to identify opportunities for use of common MIS for common purposes. Additional 

species were considered under each of the five categories of potential MIS identified at 

36 CFR 219.19(a)(1). All species considered were assessed using the following criteria 

to determine their appropriateness as MIS: 

1. Changes in the species’ population should primarily reflect the effects of national 

forest management activities, and 

2. Population trends of the species must be capable of being effectively and 

efficiently monitored and evaluated. 

 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 235 of 273 

Table F1. Management Indicator (Evaluation) Species selected for use in the current forest (TVA NRMP) 

and primary reason(s) for their original selection, . 

Common Name Scientific Name Primary reason(s) for original selection 

Eastern Meadowlark Sternella magna Open lands 

Northern Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus Openland/Young Growth 

Brown Trasher Toxostoma rufum Openland/Young Growth 

Eastern Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Openland/Mature Forest 

Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Mature Forest 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Mature Forest/Old-age Forest 

Before examining appropriateness of individual species as MIS, some general 

observations about the appropriateness of some species groups can be made. 

Migratory Birds - Many migratory bird species have served as MIS during the first 

round of forest plans. They have been retained and even highlighted as MIS in some 

recent plan revisions and amendments in the Southern Region. Their emphasis in MIS 

selection results from characteristics that make them desirable MIS: (1) Many are very 

specific in their habitat relationships, being tied very closely to specific vegetation 

composition or structure, (2) many are common and widespread in suitable habitats 

facilitating monitoring of population responses, (3) they are monitored relatively 

effectively using standardized protocols that are currently in use on all national forests, 

and (4) relatively good information is available on regional and range-wide population 

trends, which can be used to put national forest data into context. Yet one can reasonably 

argue that they are not appropriate MIS because their migratory habits result in them 

spending a significant portion of their lives off of national forest land where they may be 

subject to many other factors that may affect their population trends. Consideration of 

migratory birds for MIS selection must include a balanced view of these positive and 

negative characteristics. Where other species are available and more appropriate for 

meeting the identified purpose, they should be selected over migratory birds. Where 

migratory birds are the best species available, they may be selected if limitations to, and 

strategies for, population monitoring and evaluation are clearly considered. 

In general, some opportunity exists to isolate national forest effects from other effects by 

comparing national forest trends with those occurring at broader scales. Stable or 

increasing trends observed on national forests while broader trends are decreasing would 

indicate positive effects of national forest management, and vice versa. Similar trends 

documented at national forest and broader scales, regardless of their direction, would 

suggest broader scale factors are prevalent. Additional limitations on monitoring bird 

trends have been previously documented (Gaines and Morris, 1996; Linder and Buehler, 

2002). At current levels of funding, it is not feasible to monitor enough bird points to 

document trends at an individual national forest scale with high levels of statistical 

precision. Current strategies are designed to document trends across national forests at 

eco-regional scales. While not ideal, this approach will still allow assessment of national 

forest management effects, especially where such management is similar across forests 

within an eco-region, as is the case in the Southern Appalachians and Piedmont. In 

addition, other methods of analyzing data, such as looking at habitat associations, and 

frequency of occurrence within indicated habitats, can shed light on a species’ response 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 236 of 273 

to management actions on a more local scale. We believe this meets the intent of 

regulations that MIS be used to indicate the effects of management on wildlife resources. 

Herps - Most amphibians and reptiles do not meet the criteria of appropriate MIS 

because they often require a sampling effort beyond our current capability. Amphibians 

can be particularly difficult to monitor due to the high sampling variability (Hyde and 

Simons, 2001). Our inability to count them with precision makes inferences on 

relationships between population trends and habitat changes unreliable and difficult. The 

Forest Service is working closely with cooperators to improve, develop, and standardize 

survey protocols for both amphibians and reptiles so that effective monitoring programs 

can be established and expanded. However, at this point, inherent limitations to 

monitoring this group make them generally ineffective as MIS.

Plants - Plants can serve as effective indicators of specific habitats and conditions. Many 

are well-documented for their responsiveness to forest management activities, both 

positive and negative. Species that are fire-dependent, or highly associated with specific 

successional stages, can be particularly effective as MIS. Plants are often capable of 

being effectively monitored due to their immobility. The monitoring precision necessary 

varies with purpose of the MIS selection, but in many cases high precision is not needed 

to show population response to management activities. However, often, monitoring of 

overall plant community composition provides better information on management effects 

than does focus on one or a few species. 

 

Terrestrial Invertebrates - Terrestrial invertebrates are generally deemed inappropriate 

as MIS because monitoring protocols are not well developed for most species, and little is 

known of their habitat relationships. Their populations also tend to fluctuate widely due 

to unknown factors. 

The remainder of this appendix documents consideration of the appropriateness of 

species as MIS by category as listed at 36 CFR 219 (a)(1). 

1. Threatened and Endangered Species 

Species within this category are identified as threatened or endangered on state or federal 

lists. They are selected to focus attention on species with viability concerns whose 

population levels are directly tied to effects of national forest management. These 

species already receive attention during planning and monitoring by virtue of their status 

under the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service sensitive species policy, and NFMA 

viability regulations. Therefore, designation of species from this category for coverage 

by MIS requirements is in many ways redundant. Our consideration of MIS status for 

species within this category was focused on identifying those species whose population 

trends and continued existence are especially dependent on national forest management 

activities. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 237 of 273 

Price’s Potato Bean (Apios priceana): Selected 

1. Easy to monitor and there is a need to monitor this species anyway. 

2. Populations will be effected by our management especially based on LRMP 

Program Emphasis goals and objectives to improve habitat conditions for an 

increase in populations and potentially establish new occurrences thru 

propagation efforts. 

3. Helps in the recovery of the species and is a T&E. 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Not selected

1. Populations of this species are effected by other things than our management but 

we will continue to monitor nesting (the flight surveys and nest success) and 

protect the species anyway. 

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum): Not selected

1. This species has a very irregular occurrence in the LBL area and primary breeding 

habitat is outside our control. 

Gray bat (Myotis grisescens): Not selected

1. There are no roosting caves on LBL, and individuals are wide ranging and 

populations are affected by more things than our management. 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis): Not selected

1. This species has not been documented from LBL and the same reason as above 

for gray bat. 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFS): 

Global Rank - Estimate of element abundance on a global scale: G1 = Extremely rare; G2 = Rare; 

G3 = Uncommon; G4 = Common; G5 = Very Common; Subspecies and variety abundances are 

coded with a ‘T’ suffix; the ‘G? portion of the rank refers to the entire species.

Table F2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive species for management considerations in LBL NRA 

RFS Group Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank 

Mammal Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat G3G4 

Mammal Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis G3G4 

Vascular 

Plant Aureolaria patula Spreading yellow false foxglove G2G3 

Vascular 

Plant Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane G3 

Vascular 

Plant Hasteola suaveolens False Indian-plantain G3 

Vascular 

Plant Juglans cinerea Butternut G3G4 

Vascular 

Plant Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's yellow loosestrife G2 

Vascular 

Plant Phacelia ranunculacea Oceanblue phacelia G3G4 

Vascular 

Plant Prenanthes barbata Bearded Rattlesnake G2 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 238 of 273 

Sensitive Mammal Species – 

• The two mammal RFS species were not selected because they are wide ranging and 

their population changes will not clearly reflect the management effects in LBL. 

Sensitive Plant Species - 

• The seven plant RFS species were not selected because knowledge of their ecology is 

not well documented for LBL to be able to identify them as an MIS. However we 

will continue to monitor their population status on LBL. 

2. Species with Special Habitat Needs 

Species under this group are closely dependent on special habitat elements that may be 

affected by national forest management. They are considered for selection because they 

may help us document the effects of management on these special habitat elements. 

Snags in Forested Situations 

To help indicate the effects of management on the availability of Forests with a desired 

abundance of Snags, the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is selected as an 

MIS. This species requires large snags for nesting and feeding. The occurrence of this 

species may be correlated with forested habitats containing abundant large dead trees and 

fallen logs (Hamel, 1992), which also are used by other woodpeckers, owls, and 

numerous other birds, mammals, and amphibians. 

Pileated woodpeckers were probably common in Tennessee prior to the nineteenthcentury agricultural clearing and timber harvesting. Their numbers decreased as the area 

of mature and old growth forests, most of the virgin forest had been cut, and many 

second-growth woodlands had not matured enough to provide suitable habitat. By the 

early twentieth century, many ornithologists became concerned about decreasing Pileated 

woodpecker numbers fearing they would be unable to adapt to second-growth forests. 

This species has survived and adapted to second-growth forests (Nicholson, 1997). 

The use of the pileated woodpecker as an indicator is limited by its wide-ranging habits, 

which causes it to be documented in forest types that are not particularly suitable. It also 

occurs at relatively low densities, reducing the number of data points available for trend 

estimates. Local analysis would therefore be limited; analysis in regional trends across 

national forests would provide more analytical power. Population monitoring would be 

combined with information on forest age-class distribution and snag densities to provide 

a full picture of management effects on this species and other snag-dependent wildlife. 

Snags in Open Forest Situations 

To help indicate the effects of management on Snags in Open Forest Situations, the 

Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) is selected as an MIS. This species prefers open country 

with scattered trees; orchards, groves, farmyards, road-sides, open residential areas, and 

open woods. They require cavities for nesting in open or semi-open country, usually with 

a few scattered trees. The most common cavity sites are bird boxes in the open as well 

as knotholes and old woodpecker holes. The Eastern bluebird uses exposed perches for 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 239 of 273 

sitting in wait of a prey item and they forage over short grass or bare ground, rarely are 

insects and other vertebrate taken from trees or shrubs (Hamel, 1992). 

Prior to the arrival of European settlers in Tennessee, the forests were dotted with 

openings due to fires, wind, and insect damage, beaver ponds, Indian villages, and 

prairies. Early naturalists of the 1700s commented on the abundance of bluebirds, both in 

rural and urban areas, throughout the eastern United States. Bluebird numbers increased 

where management practices created favorable habitat that included open areas, short 

vegetation, and many nest sites that were produced by woodpeckers in dead trees 

(Nicholson, 1997). 

Eastern bluebirds likely used prairies of western Kentucky as well as open woodlands 

throughout the state. By the early 1800s people were already erecting nest boxes in areas 

of settlement (Palmer-Ball Jr., 1996). 

In LBL Eastern bluebird boxes are monitored for reproduction success which is in 

addition to data obtained from breeding bird census points. 

Hard Mast Dependents 

The gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), although most closely associated with Hard 

Mast capability, is an ineffective indicator (MIS) of the quality or abundance of these 

habitats. This ineffectiveness is because its populations fluctuate greatly even in good 

habitats in response to annual variability in mast production, which is primarily due to 

weather. Other species such as deer and turkey benefit from hard mast production, but 

their population trends also reflect a variety of other factors, including hunting harvest. 

The acres of mature oak forest are a more useful and direct indicator of trends in hard 

mast production capability, and therefore will be used to indicate effects to mast 

dependent species instead of an MIS. 

Mature Forest Interior Dependent 

To help indicate the effects of management for species dependent on the availability of 

suitable Mature Forest Interior habitat, the wood thrush (Seiurus aurocapillus) is 

selected as an MIS. Concern over forest interior habitats is primarily focused on effects 

to migratory birds. Several bird species are associated with forest interior habitat 

however the wood thrush is deemed the most appropriate of these as an MIS. The wood 

thrush is strongly associated with mature forest interior habitats with fairly open understory and closed canopy (Hamel 1992, Crawford et al. 1981), and it is also common 

enough to be feasibly monitored for trends. The wood thrush tolerates moderate 

disturbance and fragmentation, even though it is most common in areas of extensive 

forest. Due to this adaptability, the species is often found in semi-open habitats as long 

as forested tracts are not reduced to narrow strips or small, isolated woodlots (PalmerBall Jr. 1996). Breeding bird survey points would be considered for monitoring this 

species. Other elements, such as landscape analysis of forest fragmentation using remote 

sensing data, could supplement information received from monitoring this species. . 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 240 of 273 

Regenerating Forest for all Forest Types 

To help indicate the effects of management on species dependent upon Regenerating 

Forest for all Forest Types, the yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) is selected as an 

MIS. The yellow-breasted chat is primarily associated with over-grown fields, 

hedgerows, thickets, and woodland margins; generally in dry situations, particularly in 

briar thickets (Hamel 1992). 

In Tennessee at the time of European settlement, chats were probably restricted to the 

brushy areas associated with cedar glades and barrens, widespread natural forest 

disturbances such as fires, and brushy areas resulting form American Indian activities. 

With widespread forest clearing accompanying European settlement, their numbers 

greatly increased. In recent decades, chat numbers have declined with the decreased area 

of early successional forest and agricultural trends toward larger fields and improved 

pastures (Nicholson 1997). 

In Kentucky the chat is more widespread and numerous as a result of human alteration of 

the landscape. This species has been considered abundant in the barrens in the early 

1800s and it is likely that other naturally open situations supported small numbers of 

birds across much of the state. Though the human alteration of the landscape resulted in 

the loss of native prairies, the widespread clearing and dissection of forested habitats for 

agricultural use and settlement have created a large amount of suitable nesting habitat, 

especially where cleared areas have reverted to early successional vegetation (PalmerBall Jr. 1996). 

Breeding bird survey points would be considered for monitoring this species. 

 

Rare Communities - By definition, rare communities are small and discrete habitats that 

are uncommon on the landscape. Because of their rarity and importance to providing for 

a diversity of plant and animal communities, each occurrence will be monitored directly. 

Monitoring will focus on the maintenance of desired conditions including presence of 

associated species. Because monitoring will be done directly, no MIS are selected for 

these communities. 

Canebrakes – Swainson’s warbler would not be considered because LBL is on the 

edge of its range. We will monitor the progress in restoring the desired conditions of 

canebrakes for size and density. 

Calcareous Cliffs and Talus; Springs and Seeps; Rocky Shores and Bars; 

Lakeshores and Mudflats; Virginia Pine; and Mountain Laurel – These rare 

community types will not be influenced significantly by management programs. 

3. Species That are Hunted, Trapped, and Fished 

Species considered under this category include deer, turkey, quail, fish, and other 

harvestable species that are in high public demand for consumptive uses. Demand MIS 

are used to help assess effects of management on meeting this demand on national 

forests. Drawing inference about the effect of national forest management on these 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 241 of 273 

species is difficult, because, in large part, their populations are regulated through harvest 

regulations by the state fish and wildlife agencies. Nevertheless, species in this group 

may be appropriate as MIS where the role of harvest regulation and demand can be 

evaluated along with habitat trends. This situation will normally occur where state fish 

and wildlife agencies collaborate in monitoring efforts. 

Furbearers - Common species of furbearers found on national forests are fox, bobcat, 

raccoon, mink, otter, and beaver. As a group, these species were judged not appropriate 

for selection as MIS for several reasons. Consumptive demand for furbearers on the 

national forest is not large. These species are typically habitat generalists, making 

evaluation of relationships to habitat changes difficult. In addition, they generally are 

wary, often occur at low densities, therefore, are not feasible to monitor with precision. 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) – This species is selected because 

monitoring data can be attained through annual deer harvest records and browse surveys 

for cultivated fields plus through some spotlight surveys. The white-tail deer uses a 

variety of habitats ranging from closed canopy forest to cropland. Key habitats that this 

species is associated include early successional forest and rich forest under-stories. Hard 

mast production is also of importance to this species. The white-tail deer is of particular 

interest to both hunters and wildlife watchers. 

Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) – This species is selected because 

monitoring data can be attained through annual collection of harvest and brood survey 

data. The Eastern wild turkey is most common in extensive bottomland forests, where 

understory is moderate; also in extensive upland hardwood or mixed forests, less so in 

pine forests; not numerous in open woods, wood margins, and woodland openings, 

though they do forage in these areas (Hamel, 1992). 

Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) – This species is selected as a 

Demand MIS and it can be monitored using breeding bird survey points and other bird 

point counts in addition to monitoring the amount of habitat that is maintained, enhanced, 

and/or restored. The Northern bobwhite is also a Bird of Conservation Concern and an 

MIS for Grassland habitat. Favored habitat for the Northern bobwhite is brushy areas; 

abandoned fields; and they are numerous in hedgerows, thickets where tall herbs, shrubs 

and saplings are present; woodland margins and open woods (usually pines) (Hamel, 

1992). 

This species populates farmlands, particularly where grain crops such as soybeans, corn, 

and wheat are grown. However in contrast, large scale “clean” agricultural management 

practices and conversion of the forested landscape to fescue hayfields are factors believed 

to be contributing to declines in the available food and cover for the bobwhite. Fescue 

fields yield little food and suitable nesting habitat for this species. In Tennessee, this 

species reaches highest abundance where croplands, wooded fencerows, and idle lands 

dominated by broom sedge are interspersed in a mosaic fashion. This habitat is most 

common in West Tennessee and Middle Tennessee (Nicholson, 1997). 

 

All other currently identified demand species for the plan revision are not good indicators 

and they include: bald eagle, gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, raccoon and fallow deer. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 242 of 273 

Demand Fish Species: We would not choose any fish species because their 

populations primarily reflect stocking programs and not the effects of habitat 

management in LBL.

4. Non-game Species of Special Interest 

Species considered under this category are those for which there exists special public 

interest for non-consumptive reasons. They may be selected for the purpose of focusing 

assessment on such species when management is expected to have a major influence on 

their populations. Public interest in non-game species is typically generalized, rather than 

focused on one or a few species (e.g., interest in wildflowers, birds, and other wildlife for 

viewing or nature study). Interest in any one species is not sufficient to drive MIS 

selection, beyond those species already selected under other categories. Those species 

cover the special interests that are to be considered under this category. 

The Eastern bluebird which is also an MIS for snags in open forest situations is selected 

as an MIS in this category. The bluebird box monitoring program supports the nature 

study and viewing interests. 

5. Species That Indicate Effects to Major Biological Communities 

Species considered under this category are those whose populations respond to 

management-induced changes in key ecological conditions within a community. These 

ecological conditions should be important to other members of the community as well. 

Selection of MIS under this category is to help focus attention on maintenance and 

restoration of desired conditions within major biological communities. 

Oak Forest

Oak Woodlands 

The prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) is selected as an MIS to help indicate the 

effects of management on other species within Oak Woodlands. This species is primarily 

associated with abandoned fields with scattered saplings, scrubby thickets, cut-over or 

burned-over woods, woodland margins, and other sapling-shrub growth, generally in 

poor and dry soil (Hamel, 1992). Breeding bird survey point counts would be considered 

in monitoring the effects of management on this species habitat. 

Mature Open Oak Forest 

The great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) is selected as an MIS to help indicate 

the effects of management on other species within Mature Open Oak Forest. This 

species prefers medium growth to somewhat open woods and forest. They occur in 

hardwoods, mixed woods, or pines; there isn’t a clear preference. They are also found in 

wooded residential areas, but are generally scarce in dense forests. The Great-crested 

flycatcher is a cavity nester within these habitat cover type conditions (Hamel 1992). 

Breeding bird survey point counts would be considered in monitoring the effects of 

management on this species habitat. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 243 of 273 

In Successional Oak Forests the focus would be on oak regeneration as a variable but not 

for use as selection for an MIS. 

Mesophytic Forest and Riparian Forests with Canopy Gaps 

The wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) is selected as an MIS to help indicate the 

effects of management on other species within Mesophytic and Riparian Forests with 

Canopy Gaps. This species favors deciduous or mixed forests with a fairly welldeveloped deciduous understory, especially where moist. Bottomland and other rich 

hardwood forest are prime habitats. The wood thrush also frequents pine forests with a 

deciduous under-story and in well-wooded residential areas (Hamel, 1992). The different 

forest types that this species occupies have a well-shaded under-story, small trees with 

low, exposed branches and fairly open forest floor with decaying leaf litter. Wood 

thrushes are represented across most of Tennessee (Nicholson, 1997). 

The wood thrush is also selected as an MIS to represent species dependent upon a mature 

forest interior. Breeding bird survey point counts would be considered in monitoring the 

effects of management on this species habitat. 

Mature Riparian Forest 

The acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) is selected as an MIS to help indicate the 

effects of management on other species within Mature Riparian Forest. This species is 

deemed the most appropriate to indicate management-induced changes to mature forests 

on alluvial sites (riparian areas). It is highly associated with mature deciduous forests 

along streams and bottomland hardwoods, which it uses for feeding and reproduction 

(Hamel 1992). It is also effectively monitored using proven, consistent protocols. It is 

relatively common in these habitats, providing enough data for evaluation. We want to 

make sure that we are not doing too much vegetation management within these forest 

types that would negatively affect the species populations. Breeding bird survey point 

counts would be considered in monitoring the effects of management on this species 

habitat. 

 

Native Short-leaf Pine

Presence of shortleaf pine associates can not be relied upon because LBL is on the edge 

of their ranges, so the presence of short-leaf pine regeneration is the best indicator of 

effective management. 

 

Grassland

The Eastern meadowlark (Sternella magna) is selected as an MIS to help indicate the 

effects of management on other species within Grassland habitat. Breeding bird survey 

point counts would be considered in monitoring the effects of management on this 

species habitat. The meadowlark prefers short to medium-height grasses, fields, pastures, 

and other grassy places in a wide variety of situations. The meadowlark favors somewhat 

taller grasses (up to two feet high) for nesting rather than for foraging (Hamel, 1992). 

This species is not particularly sensitive to the density of grass cover and in this respect is 

more flexible in its habitat requirements than some other grassland species such as the 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 244 of 273 

Grasshopper sparrow. The meadowlark was probably fairly common on the prairies of 

pre-historic north-central and north-west Tennessee. Scattered populations probably 

occurred elsewhere on savannahs maintained through regular burning by American 

Indians or from natural causes. This species has been recognized as present in 

considerable numbers in open woodlands with grassy under-story (Nicholson, 1997). 

In Kentucky, as a result of human alteration of the landscape, the meadowlark appears to 

have increased. This species is noted for its occurrence in barrens during the 1800s, and 

they may have occurred throughout the native grasslands of central and western 

Kentucky. Although the original prairies and savannas have been replaced by settlement 

and row-crop fields, many areas have been converted to hay fields and pastures that 

simulate naturally-occurring grasslands. Also, areas of forest converted to agricultural 

use and settlement have resulted in the creation of an abundance of suitable nesting 

habitat in areas where formerly the species was excluded (Palmer-Ball Jr., 1996). 

The Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is selected as an MIS to help 

indicate the effects of management on other species within Grassland habitat. In 

comparison to the Eastern meadowlark, this species prefers abandoned fields, margins of 

fields, thickets with tall herbs, or shrubs and saplings. In Tennessee when the landscape 

was largely mature deciduous forest land, bobwhites likely populated such habitats as 

remnant prairies and patches of forest land recently ravaged by fires and/or severe 

windstorms. American Indians frequently burned forests and fields to improve habitat 

for wild grazing mammals; those fires benefited bobwhites as well (Nicholson, 1997). 

Palmer-Ball Jr. (1996) further notes that before habitats were altered, bobwhites were 

probably restricted to the native prairies and other naturally open and semi-open 

situations with brushy cover. Breeding bird survey point counts would be considered in 

monitoring the effects of management on this species habitat. 

In summary, 12 species have been selected as management indicator species for the 

revised forest plan (Table F3). They will be used to assess effects of alternatives and to 

help monitor effects of implementing the selected alternative. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 245 of 273 

Table F3 - Management Indicator Species selected for use in the revised forest plan and primary reason(s) 

for their selection, Land Between The Lakes. 

Common Name Scientific Name Primary reason(s) for selection 

Price’s potato bean Apios priceana T&E Recovery 

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Snags in Forested Situations 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Snags in Open Forested Situations and Non-game 

Demand Species 

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Mature Riparian Forest 

Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus Demand Game 

Eastern wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Demand Game 

Northern bobwhite 

quail 

Colinus virginianus Demand Game and Grassland 

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor Oak Woodlands 

Great-crested 

flycatcher 

Myiarchus crinitus Mature Open Oak Forest 

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina Mesophytic and Riparian Forests with Canopy Gaps 

and Mature Forest Interior 

Eastern meadowlark Sternella magna Grassland 

Yellowbreasted chat Icteria virens All Forest Type Regeneration 

Literature Cited 

Caro, T.M. and G. O’Doherty, 1999. “On the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation 

Biology.” Conservation Biology 13(4): pp 805-814. 

Crawford, H.S., R.G. Hooper, and R.W. Titterington, 1981. Songbird population 

response to silvicultural practices in central Appalachian hardwoods. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 45 (3): pp 680-692. 

Gaines, G.D. and E. Morris, 1996. The Southern National Forest’s Migratory and 

Resident Landbird Conservation Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Region. Atlanta, GA. p 124. 

Hamel. P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature 

Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. p 437. 

 

Hyde, E.J. and T.R. Simons, 2001. Sampling Plethodontid Salamanders: Sources of 

Variability. J. Wildl. Manage. 65(4): pp 624-632. 

Landres, P.B., Verner, J., and J.W. Thomas, 1988. “Ecological Uses of Vertebrate 

Indicator Species: A Critique.” Conservation Biology 2(4): pp 316-328. 

Linder, E.T. and D.A. Buehler, 2002. Analysis of U.S. Forest Service Region 8 Bird 

Point-Count Monitoring Database - Implications for Designing and Implementing 

Avian Monitoring. In Press. Proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in 

Flight Conference, Asilomar, CA, March 2002. 

Nicholson, C.P., 1997. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Tennessee. The University of 

Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN, USA. p 426. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix F 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 246 of 273 

Noss, R.F., 1990. Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach.” 

 Conservation Biology 4: pp 355-364. 

Palmer-Ball Jr., B.L., 1996. The Kentucky Breeding Bird Atlas. The University Press of 

Kentucky, Lexington, KY. p 372. 

Simberloff, D.A., 1998. “Flagships, Umbrellas, and Keystones: Is Single Species 

Management Passe in the Landscape Era?” Biological Conservation 83(3): pp 

247-257. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Natural Resources Management Plan, Land Between The Lakes National 

Recreation Area, Golden Pond, KY. 

Weaver, J.C., 1995. “Indicator Species and Scale of Observation.” 

Conservation Biology 9(4): pp 939-942. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 247 of 273 

Appendix G 

Background Document 

LBL National Recreation Area 

Planning Background Document 

June 4, 2003

Introduction

LBL National Recreation Area (LBL) was transferred from the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) to the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) on 

October 1, 1999, under the provisions of the LBL Protection Act of 1998. The Act calls 

for the Forest Service to develop a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) that 

complies with the basic laws applicable to all National Forests and will guide 

management direction for the next ten to fifteen years. The plan will describe the public’s 

expectations for desired conditions at LBL and the strategies for achievement of the 

desired conditions; LBL has named this planning process “Focus on the Future”. The 

plan will not resolve issues in detail, but it will provide a general framework by which 

future decisions will be made. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires LBL to assess the existing 

conditions and describe potential changes to the existing plan. The most recent strategic 

management plan is TVA’s 1994 LBL Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP). 

Since Congress granted LBL authority to use the NRMP, as appropriate, and since much 

of this plan is still valid, LBL has opted to use the NRMP as the “plan of record” from 

which we will base analysis for potential improvement. The Forest and Management 

Area Assessments section of this background document cites the primary changes that 

should be addressed in the LRMP. 

This DOES NOT mean that most of the decisions have been made. This Planning 

Background Document is a good way to document some of the things we need in the 

process and share LBL’s assessment of existing conditions. The Notice of Intent (NOI), 

published in the Federal Register, is a requirement of NEPA, however. It begins to focus 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 248 of 273 

the critical issues to be decided by the plan and identifies existing management direction. 

Given it is less than 10 years old, some parts of the NRMP are still working well. Using 

the viable parts of the NRMP will streamline the process. The public is encouraged to 

provide comments about any conclusions or assumptions described within this document. 

Within the Protection Act, Congress designated LBL as an area of demonstration and 

innovation and to share the results with other agencies. The Forest Service has struggled 

to balance the time and expense required to develop complex and detailed LRMPs with 

the need to implement decisions and actively manage National Forests while still keeping 

the public actively engaged in the planning process. LBL will use its demonstration role 

to innovatively produce a good plan, completing the process in less than two years (a 

reduction of nearly 60 percent of the national average). The LBL Advisory Board, 

created by the Protection Act and charged with advising the Secretary of Agriculture on 

ways to promote and improve public involvement in the planning process, is supportive 

of this initiative. 

We will focus on the decisions legally required to be addressed by the plan, and analyze 

only the issues that need to be decided in order for LBL to operate those programs once 

the Record of Decision is signed. Public involvement is needed to help LBL prioritize 

the mix of goods and services to be provided in the face of potential budget reductions. 

Background on LBL Protection Act

Beyond transferring management responsibility for LBL, the Protection Act defines the 

LBL mission “to protect and manage the resources of LBL for optimum yield of outdoor 

Rec/EE for the American people. In so doing, to utilize the demonstration assignment to 

authorize, cooperate in, test, and demonstrate innovative programs and cost-effective 

management; to help stimulate the development of the surrounding region; and to extend 

the beneficial results as widely as possible.” This mission must be supported by the 

LRMP. 

Cemeteries, Fees and Mineral Rights

The LBL Protection Act provides clear and legally binding management direction for 

cemeteries, fees, and mineral rights. The Forest Service shall maintain an inventory and 

ensure access to cemeteries within LBL. The Act precludes mining and mineral leasing. 

However, the Forest Service may use mineral materials for the development and 

maintenance of the Recreation Area. The Act allows a reasonable admission fee for 

specific facilities and programs, but precludes a general entrance fee. Since the 

Protection Act defines management direction in these areas, the LRMP will not address 

them. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 249 of 273 

Requirements of National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

The LRMP will be analogous to a county or municipal zoning plan. The following six 

decisions are made in an LRMP, as required by the planning regulations (1982 36 CFR 

219): 

• Area-wide multiple-use goals and objectives. Goals: A condition to be achieved. 

Objectives: Concise, time-specific statements of measurable results that respond 

to the goals. 

• Area-wide management requirements. These are limitations on management 

activities, or advisable courses of action that apply across the entire area.

• Management area direction applying to future activities in each management 

area. This is the desired condition specified for certain portions of the Area, and 

the standards to help achieve that condition.

• Lands suited and not suited for resource use and production. 

• Monitoring and evaluation requirements to gauge how well the plan is being 

implemented.

• Special Designations and Recommendations to Congress, if any such as 

Wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Much of the new NFMA-compliant LRMP will contain the same direction as the NRMP 

with updates to supporting data, presented in a different format. This strategic document 

will not resolve all issues in detail, but will provide guidance for future resolution. 

Concerns raised by the public that are not addressed in the LRMP can be addressed by 

LBL management in the future. In some cases changes will be the subject of Plan 

amendment or revision. 

Need for Public Participation 

Everyone is directly or indirectly affected by the LRMP, and your opinion or idea is 

important. Informed decisions are based on careful consideration of diverse perspectives. 

The LRMP will reflect the public’s interests and values, using the best available science 

to support LBL’s mission. This process is not based on a voting or petition system. The 

quality of input carries more weight than quantity. Your input is critical in shaping an 

appropriate and balanced future for LBL. Even if you like things as they are, the only 

way to ensure the decision includes your views is to become actively involved. You can 

help develop a balanced plan that will guide the management of LBL’s environmental, 

recreational, cultural, and natural resources for the next 10 to 15 years. A variety of 

public scoping opportunities have been scheduled at convenient times to help everyone 

participate. Through research and public collaboration, and by integrating science into 

decision-making, we can develop a plan to ensure sustainable management of LBL. 

LBL is a regional economic centerpiece, a national destination, and a national 

Demonstration Project site. Viewing LBL within this context is important when 

developing desired conditions. Facilities and services provided on LBL should 

complement and not compete with local interests. You can help balance these benefits 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 250 of 273 

LBL is uniquely poised to provide and, given the importance of LBL to the region, help 

shape the future of western KY and TN. 

To learn more about how to participate or to get your name on the mailing list for future 

information, contact us by e-mail at FocusLBL@fs.fed.us, by telephone at 270-924-2161, 

or by writing to Area Planner, LBL National Recreation Area, 100 Van Morgan Drive, 

Golden Pond, KY 42211.

Expected Process and Timeline 

Planning Background Document

Here, we make an assessment of the current conditions at LBL compared to the desired 

conditions as described by the NRMP. This assessment identifies opportunities for 

improvements based on new information, including Forest Service directives and public 

input to date. This report will be available for the public soon after the Federal Register 

publication of the NOI announcing LBL’s intent to prepare a draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) to support the planning process. 

Notice of Intent (NOI)

The NOI is an official announcement in the Federal Register informing the public of 

LBL’s intention to prepare an environmental impact statement (DEIS) in conjunction 

with the development of a LRMP. The NOI invites comment on the scope of the 

decision to be included in the DEIS and announces public participation opportunities. 

Initial Public Input - Scoping

After an official NOI announcement, LBL will begin meetings to solicit input from the 

public on the future direction of LBL and this Planning Background Document. The 

information collected at these meetings and any written comments received to date will 

be summarized, posted on the website, and used to refine the issues described below. 

This collection and analysis of public input is defined as “scoping”. The Forest Service 

will conduct further resource data analysis during this “scoping” stage. 

Draft and Final Area Plan

The Forest Service will work closely with the public to develop alternatives for revising 

the NRMP based on the information received and results of analysis. All alternatives 

must comply with direction of the Protection Act. The environmental effects of each 

alternative will be described in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that will 

be open to public comment for 90 days (a specific requirement of NFMA). Workshops 

will likely be conducted to help explain what is being proposed. The preferred 

alternative is called the Draft Area Plan (DAP), which is further described below. The 

DAP and the DEIS are expected to be published in early 2004. Public comments on the 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 251 of 273 

DAP and DEIS will be analyzed and used by the Forest Service to make any needed 

changes. The Area Plan and Final EIS are expected to be complete in late 2004. 

Interdisciplinary Planning Team

LBL identified an interdisciplinary Planning Team to lead development of the Area Plan. 

The Regional Forester and the LBL Area Supervisor make official decisions for the 

planning process. 

Plan Implementation

The goals, objectives and standards contained in the Area Plan will guide later sitespecific project decisions. Monitoring and evaluation of the area will also be compliant 

with the plan. 

Mockup of New Plan / What’s Included 

Philosophy: The LRMP makes few specific decisions other than those legally required. 

Instead, it creates a framework of desired conditions and spatially describes how areas of 

LBL are to be managed. Direction is stated in descriptive terms that help the public 

understand what can be expected and will help guide decision-makers at the project level. 

The LRMP clarifies priorities, articulates standards by which actions can be conducted, 

and describes what one might expect to find in the future. 

Layout: The LRMP will be divided into major sections to make it easy to use and 

understand. It will begin with an introductory summary and will help clarify the major 

emphases of LBL and its overall goals and objectives. The next section lists overall 

“operational standards” that are conditions all future actions must observe. Standards are 

further defined as courses of action or levels of attainment required to achieve the goals 

and objectives and are usually developed when laws or policies do not exist, when 

implementation benefits from further clarification or when unacceptable impacts are 

expected if a standard were not in place. 

On a landscape basis, the overall area of LBL is allocated into 10,000- to 20,000-acre 

blocks called management areas (MA). MAs are established to more clearly describe 

desired conditions and to prioritize strategies and direction for each part of LBL. We 

expect between 10 and 20 MAs covering LBL, spatially separated by other areas of 

differing emphases. For example, an area might be designated as “Environmental 

Education Area” or “Primitive Backcountry, Non-motorized Area.” Maps and descriptive 

text will be provided for each individual MA. Desired outcomes and conditions are 

described in relative terms to those currently existing in that geographic area. Examples 

that might be used to communicate what will happen in the future are: “this activity is 

expected to increase (decrease) slightly,” “this will remain approximately the same” or 

“these opportunities will be the primary emphasis in this area”. Specific decisions will 

not appear within the MA write-ups, except when needed to describe prohibited practices 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 252 of 273 

or uses. There are often MA-specific standards provided that more clearly describe how 

activities are to be conducted in the Management Area. 

The LRMP concludes with a description of how the Area will be monitored, including 

measurement procedures and performance indicators, to help the Forest Service and the 

public evaluate its implementation and effectiveness. Appendices include a glossary and 

rough estimates of expected outcomes over short- and longer-term time periods. 

Direction, Current Status and Need for Change

Forest and Management Area Assessments 

Below is a discussion of the current management direction for LBL based on the NRMP, 

and describing any perceived shortfalls or opportunities for improvement. 

Recreation

The 1994 NRMP has eight chapters that address program objectives and guidelines for 

the management of natural resources. It appears, on the surface, this plan overlooked the 

primary purpose of LBL since there was not a chapter specifically devoted to recreation 

or environmental education. In reality, these are integrated into all eight chapters of the 

NRMP. 

LBL’s recreation program currently provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities. 

Camping, hiking, biking, boating, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, 

horse back riding, off-highway vehicle riding, picnicking, canoeing, and nature 

photography comprise most of the recreational activities available at LBL. There is no 

question whether the public desires these activities in the future. The current level of 

documented visitation in each of these activities shows public demand justifies providing 

the opportunity. National recreational trends of user groups and the settings to provide 

quality recreation opportunities can be found in the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) study. The volume and location of each activity and the long-term 

sustainability are the issues related to recreation at LBL. A mix of active and passive, 

motorized and non-motorized, developed and backcountry activities are currently 

permitted in LBL. The distribution and balance of elements of the recreation program, 

and the question of whether to increase or decrease specific recreational opportunities, 

will be reviewed through public input and review of current information. This analysis 

will examine current and anticipated user demands and needed changes. 

No significant changes in the direction of recreation mixes and uses are expected in the 

LRMP, unless public input during scoping indicates otherwise. Unlike the 1994 NRMP, 

the LRMP will explicitly address recreation as required by NFMA and the LBL 

Protection Act. 

Scenery 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 253 of 273 

Visual management has been important since the initial designation of LBL. The high 

quality scenery that now exists is because of active management since 1963. Chapter 5 

of the NRMP addresses the visual resource. All management practices have consistent 

visual management objectives applied to activities across LBL. 

Information in the NRMP related to visual management activities can be used to evaluate 

alternatives in the area planning process. The visual quality zones along roads, trails, and 

shoreline and around facilities designated in the NRMP can be used in the visual resource 

inventory. Using the buffer guidelines of the NRMP, 49 percent of the land area is in a 

visual quality enhancement zone with 51 percent remaining as general forest areas 

(including thirteen scenic drives that will add to the inventory data). 

No significant scenery management changes are expected in the LRMP. The visual 

resource will be inventoried and evaluated as required by the planning regulations. 

Environmental Education

Environmental Education (EE) is part of LBL’s mission and thus incorporated into all 

aspects of the NRMP. While EE is incorporated into all activities in LBL, most of the EE 

program delivery to the public is facility-based. These facilities include Woodlands 

Nature Station, The Homeplace Living History Farm, Elk & Bison Prairie, Golden Pond 

Planetarium, and Brandon Spring Resident Center. The Forest Service has established a 

goal to provide an EE message to every visitor, each time they come to LBL, whether 

visiting a facility or not. 

The articulation of a more integrated environmental education strategy to accomplish this 

objective must be added to the new plan. The LBL Protection Act, not the planning 

regulations, mandates this requirement. 

Vegetation Management

Forest Lands: The NRMP for the forest management program (Chapter 3) directs a 

mature, productive Oak-hickory forest with a range of size and age classes to meet 

wildlife habitat needs, enhance visual quality of the landscape, promote use of 

environmentally responsible management practices, demonstrate sustainable forest 

management compatible with other uses and to research methods and techniques in 

ecosystem management. This direction remains sound in 2003. 

Approximately 89 percent of the land base is forest cover, comprised primarily of the 

oak-hickory type with the remainder in maple-beech, pine, bottomland hardwoods and 

reverted old fields. The Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI), surveyed in 1996, 

demonstrates a 30-year trend towards more big trees with a major shift from small sawtimber to trees over 16 inches in diameter within the past decade. Because LBL is only 

cutting a small percentage of its net annual growth, the forest will continue to grow older 

and larger. The CFI 30-year trend indicates an increase of maple, beech and poplar trees 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 254 of 273 

and a decrease in oak trees. CFI further predicts a rapid growth in maples, beech and 

poplar, based on cubic foot volumes, however this vegetation won’t comprise a major 

cover type for many years. 

Since the transfer of LBL to the Forest Service, timber harvesting has been further 

reduced due to orientation of the new staff and higher priority transitional issues. 

This data indicates a need for change to maintain and regenerate the oak-hickory forest 

types if wildlife habitat needs are to be met. Based on public opinion, forest management 

for the promotion of wildlife habitat, forest health and landscape diversity is of higher 

concern than set levels of timber sales. 

Old growth: Old growth is referred to as deferred forest management in the NRMP. The 

plan deferred 9,060 acres from forest management until interdisciplinary review 

processes selected 4,830 acres of this total to be included in the designation as core areas. 

These core areas would be minimally disturbed areas. The remaining 4,230 acres would 

then be available for management, based on site capabilities and conditions. To date, 

these areas have not been selected. There is no clear definition of old growth but LBL 

currently relies on the Forest Service Region 8 (R8) Guidelines for Old Growth. R8 

guidelines need to be followed for old growth designation and delineation. Core areas 

are the most likely acres of LBL that would be selected for old growth in the LRMP. 

Direction for the remaining deferred areas needs to be clarified. 

Open Lands: NRMP direction provides for early plant succession to meet wildlife 

habitat needs, for visual quality, for supplemental wildlife food and cover and to 

demonstrate ecological restoration. Open lands total 7 percent of the total land base, 

excluding core areas. Objectives would be met by managing five categories of open 

lands including cooperative farming, woods openings, wildlife plantings, other 

(reverting) open lands and miscellaneous lands. (See Appendix A) 

-- Co-op farmlands: 3,400 acres of prime farmland for production of row crops and 500 

acres for grass/legume hay crops. 20 percent of grain crops are left in place for wildlife 

use. 

-- Woods openings: 350 acres out of 1,050 are managed annually (a 3 year cycle) that 

allows plant succession to advance only to the grass/legume or forb stage. Hay may be 

harvested. 

-- Wildlife food plantings: 600 acres annually. Variable means to control vegetation 

competition are not always successful and reduce this acreage. Over 90 acres are annually 

recovered through ecological restoration sites that are managed for native grasses and 

forbs. 

-- Other open lands: 900 acres per year (over a 4 year cycle) to prevent reversion to forest 

lands, are accomplished by disking, burning, chemicals or mowing. 

-- Miscellaneous: 2,650 acres (including right-of-ways, waterfowl plantings, bison range, 

scenic vistas, and utility corridors) experience varied treatments. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 255 of 273 

Open land acreages have decreased from 7 percent to approximately 5 percent due to 

reduced active management and forest encroachment. More acres per year of maintained 

openings would prevent further reversion. Other concerns are determination of 

cumulative effects from use of herbicides, possible restrictions of certain chemicals, 

access to fields and storage of crop (hay). There is increased interest in habitat 

partnerships to create more restoration acres. Recent developments in bio-intensive 

Integrated Pest Management surface the need for further research sites. These, and 

related issues need to be addressed in the LRMP. 

The vegetation issue to be addressed in the LRMP is whether to change the land 

management direction from the direction set in 1994, including total acreages and 

appropriate mix of management practices of the forest and open lands. LBL expects to 

continue most of the open land management direction of the 1994 NRMP. 

Fire Management: Wildfires are suppressed as necessary to protect visitors, facilities, 

and adjacent landowners. Fires are suppressed in core areas at the discretion of the Area 

Supervisor and may be allowed to burn under certain weather conditions, following a 

forest fire plan. 

The states of KY and TN Divisions of Forestry provide fire suppression and 

reconnaissance service through Memorandums of Agreement. LBL has trained personnel 

in wildfire methods who supplement any suppression efforts. Fire use areas need to be 

determined and delineated. 

Prescribed burning may be used as necessary to regenerate oak and pine stands, manage 

wildlife habitat, maintain fire dependent plant communities (warm season and tall grass 

prairie grasses), reduce leaf litter in recreation areas, and to reduce undesirable vegetation 

in open lands. 

Prescribed burning is allowed for seedbed preparation within the 400 acres/year of timber 

stand improvement areas, 90 acres of ecological restoration open lands, and 900 acres of 

maintained open lands. The 2,650 acres of miscellaneous open lands have variable 

treatments allowed but burning is specified only for clearing of viewing areas. Prescribed 

burning is listed in the NRMP as a practice allowed for forest management under passive 

management of the pine ecological study areas. Currently 800-1200 acres annually are 

treated by prescribed fire, primarily in open lands and around facilities. Allowing fire to 

run under the forest canopy is not a current use although it is a preferred treatment for 

oak-hickory regeneration and fuel reduction. Clearer direction for the use and volume of 

prescribed fire is needed. 

Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Resources

Habitat management direction for wildlife in LBL provides for diverse habitat and overall 

biological diversity with many successional stages of vegetation. Mature oak-hickory 

cover is favored for productive mast crops. LBL’s forest cover type primarily supports 

upland plant and animal species. There is little wetland or bottomland habitat after the 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 256 of 273 

impoundments of Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. Developed man-made wetlands – 

Bear Creek, Long Creek, and Prior Creek – are managed using moist soil techniques. 

There are an estimated 1,300 plant species scattered across LBL’s landscape. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): NFMA regulations require selection of MIS and 

linking MIS to habitat objectives. There is a need to incorporate monitoring of these 

species habitat into the LRMP monitoring chapter. 

Proposed, Endangered and Threatened Species (PETS) LBL’s NRMP maintains a list of 

species titled “Federal and State Listed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species of 

LBL” to guide management decisions. This list is similar to the Proposed, Endangered 

and Threatened Species (PETS) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) lists required 

by NFMA. (See Appendix B) This list includes state listed species along with federal 

listed species. The Endangered Species Act and Forest Service call for development of a 

PETS list. The PETS list needs to be addressed in the monitoring chapter of the LRMP. 

A biological assessment (BA) is required to be completed for each federally listed species 

under formal consultation with the USFWS. 

Sensitive Species: State sensitive species listed in the NRMP will be compared to the R8 

RF’s Sensitive Species list. A separate biological evaluation (BE) with consultation with 

USFWS needs to be completed on these species. The LRMP should address the need for 

an RF sensitive species list. 

Migratory Birds: Pursuant to Executive Order 13186, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

migratory bird species have only cursory mention in the NRMP under discussion of longterm population trend monitoring and breeding bird counts. The Cerulean warbler, a C2 

species, is identified as a Neotropical migratory bird. Conservation measures for the 

identified migratory bird species, and other relevant birds of conservation concern, 

should be incorporated into the LRMP. 

Required MIS, PETS, sensitive species, and migratory birds lists must be reviewed and 

updated in the LRMP. BA’s and BE’s will be completed for federal and regional listed 

species. Directions for management of habitat to protect these species will also be 

addressed. 

Air, Soil, and Water Resources

Air: The air resource is not addressed under the current NRMP. TVA continues to 

monitor air quality over LBL, in conformance with clean air regulations of their power 

generation. There is significant data from the monitoring stations in place at LBL. 

Prescribed burning on LBL is coordinated through the appropriate state agency for smoke 

management and air quality control. 

Soil: The soil resource is not addressed under the current NRMP. Site suitability for 

management activities should guide any decisions. The LRMP needs to incorporate R8 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 257 of 273 

Soil Quality Standards, as appropriate to LBL, for measures of quality, disturbance, and 

establishment of monitoring protocols for long-term productivity. 

Water: Objectives of the water resource program at LBL are to protect and maintain 

aquatic and wetland ecosystems, provide diverse aquatic and wetland habitat and provide 

information about water quality values to the public. LBL does not have jurisdiction over 

the two large lakes. TVA and the Corps of Engineers share regulation jurisdiction of 

Kentucky Lake. The Corps of Engineers has regulatory, navigational and management 

jurisdiction over Lake Barkley. All water resources that LBL manages are classified as 

warm water fisheries. (See Appendix A) 

Water quality is managed through implementation of stream management zones (SMZ) 

of varying widths, dependent on side slope. Perennial and intermittent streams generally 

have SMZ of 100-200 feet where management activities are restricted primarily for 

protection of bat habitat. Co-op farmlands, because of their generally flat (<5 percent ) 

slope, have a minimum 10-foot buffer. Recent regional water quality assessments have 

not shown problems in LBL. 

The LRMP should define, delineate and adopt management guidelines for riparian areas. 

Regional Soil and Water Conservation Practices may be adopted as best management 

practices to mitigate effects to the soil and water resources and to assure water resources 

meet the intent of the Clean Water Act. 

Heritage Resources

A Heritage Resource Management Plan (HRMP) was finalized in March 2003 and has 

current information to be incorporated into the planning record. Strategies are needed in 

the new plan to guide future decision-making, comply with heritage management 

regulations, and ensure sensitivity to these important resources. 

Infrastructure Analysis

With development beginning in 1964, most of LBL’s current infrastructure was built 

during the late 60s and 70s, and some facilities are at the end of their design life. Several 

facilities have been closed due to low use and high maintenance costs: part of Rushing 

Creek, Youth Station, Empire Farm, and Silo Overlook. 

Recent efforts have been to standardize utilities, upgrade the electrical service, improve 

reliability and influence the built environment. This is being accomplished by reducing 

deferred maintenance backlogs, focusing on restoration activities at heavily visited sites, 

primarily for safety and operational efficiencies. The natural features are the focus on 

LBL and the buildings should blend in with landform and setting. 

The transportation system on LBL is a mix of roads that were in place at the time of 

designation and new routes that access facilities built since that time. (See Appendix C) 

The Protection Act designates the maintenance of the Area Highways to the states of TN 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 258 of 273 

and KY. This equates to 43.1 miles in TN and 75.6 miles in KY. The Federal Highway 

Administration did a study on these roads and estimates 39 million dollars are needed for 

maintenance over the next 10 years. Roads are essential for LBL to meet its mission and 

for the public to enjoy LBL. 

LBL expects to continue the current direction regarding infrastructure management, 

unless public scoping results in the need for a different direction. Any direction 

regarding facilities management at LBL must be consistent with the environmental 

education, recreation, wildlife diversity, and economic sustainability mission of the LBL 

Protection Act. The infrastructure decisions will not be specific in the LRMP, except as 

infrastructure needs relate to the allocation and strategic direction of management areas. 

Social and Economic Assessment

LBL maintains a database that allows tracking of the market segment (families with 

children, mature adults, young adults and groups) of the two million annual visitors, 

where they live and when they visit. Based on this data, we know the following about 

LBL visitors: 

Families with Children: 36 percent visits peak Jun-Aug 

Mature Adults: 41 percent visits peak May-Oct 

Young Adults: 22 percent visits peak Apr-May 

Groups: 0.9 percent visits peak Apr-May & Sep-Nov 

LBL visitors come from three major areas: 67 percent local visitors from the counties 

surrounding LBL, 21 percent regional visitors from adjoining states, and 12 percent 

national visitors from the rest of the nation. 

There are vast amounts of data available. Appendix D reflects the pertinent data to be 

considered when making plans for LBL programs and the use of LBL. Reasonable 

conclusions can be drawn from this data, such as: 

 A relatively equal balance of recreational opportunities should be made available 

for males and females and for each market segment (age group) 

 More than 70 percent of LBL visitors make less than $50,000 per household, 

making free or extremely affordable recreation alternatives essential. 

Suitable Uses and Land Allocation 

Timber 

In the NRMP, all of the 151,550 forested acres of LBL have been designated for potential 

forest management activities and delineated into 65 work areas. These work areas are 

collated into 7 work area sets, to correspond to a 7-year cycle of forest management 

activities. Available forest acreage for timber harvest approximates 2,880 acres/year. 

Additionally, 400 acres of timber stand improvement activities on mesic forest areas are 

currently allowable to reduce undesirable tree species. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 259 of 273 

The forestlands are divided into suitable categories for even-aged, uneven-aged, and 

passive management. (See Appendix A) This equates to a 150-year rotation for 

hardwoods and a 60-year rotation for pine. This allocation includes 29,960 acres of lowintensity uneven-aged management where timber harvest would occur only to maintain or 

restore unique ecological communities. Suggestions have been made to designate LBL 

as unsuitable for timber production. This does NOT mean that timber sales do not 

occur—it simply clarifies that timber removals are only accomplished to enhance habitat, 

improve forest health or visual objectives. Public comments indicate general satisfaction 

with the forestland management and allocation of the NRMP and there appears no need 

for change at this time. 

Open lands

Refer to “Open lands” on pages 7 and 8 of this report. Public comments indicate general 

satisfaction with the distribution of open lands management of the NRMP and there 

appears no need for change at this time. 

Rangelands

Rangeland is not designated under the NRMP. Two fenced pasture areas are designated 

for bison and managed under miscellaneous open lands. Open lands in general are not 

well suited for grazing permits because of their scattered locations and small size. While 

the fields around Empire Farm may be suitable as pastures, public comments indicate 

general satisfaction with the absence of grazing permits at LBL and there appears no need 

to address this issue in the LRMP. 

Wilderness 

LBL has no congressionally designated Wilderness. NFMA requires LBL to conduct an 

analysis of areas that might be suitable for Wilderness designation when areas may 

contain wilderness characteristics. The history of land use on the area that became LBL 

was resource based and intensive. Farming, logging, iron industry, community 

development and transportation systems have all impacted the area. Many building 

foundations are left where structures once stood. A few isolated buildings can still be 

found and are evidence of the area’s history. Many cemeteries are spread across LBL, as 

it was tradition to be buried on the family homestead. Access to these areas, specifically 

provided in the Protection Act, combined with other transportation needs of visitors and 

the managing agency will tend to make acreages of non-motorized lands isolated and 

relatively small. 

Solitude can generally be found in the 42,500 acres (25 percent of LBL) of the land 

designated in the core areas. LBL needs to evaluate whether any land could be 

designated as Wilderness per the forest planning regulations. It is expected motorized 

access needs for research within core areas would be in conflict with Wilderness 

designation. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 260 of 273 

No roadless or Wilderness designations are expected in LBL after evaluation during the 

planning process, however as noted below, core area designations are expected to remain 

unchanged. 

Core Areas 

The entire LBL and 17 surrounding counties were designated as an International 

Biosphere Reserve (IBR) in 1991, as part of the Man and the Biosphere Reserve program 

of the United Nation Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park and Mammoth Cave National Park also hold this 

designation. (See Appendix A) 

It is important to remember that Core Area does not mean roadless area. Most Core 

Areas have some roads permissible for research activities. It is expected that the 42,500 

acres of Core Areas will be retained and no changes are needed in management of the 

Core Areas. 

Desired Conditions and Standards 

Desired conditions and standards in the existing NRMP are in many ways still applicable. 

The primary area of change will be to include those program elements that have been 

described in the sections above as either missing or needing significant change. For 

example, if a particular activity were to be de-emphasized, those areas within LBL that 

previously prioritized this program or activity would be revised to reflect a reduced level 

of emphasis. If the NRMP did not list strategic direction for a specific program, this must 

be written and included to make desired outcomes more obvious. The second warranted 

change will be dictated by the conversion from program write-ups and work areas to 

newly described management areas. Each management area will have specific standards 

and desired conditions that will apply only to the actual land area delineations that are 

ultimately selected. This will result in revision of sections of the 1994 NRMP such that 

direction will apply to the new management areas. Much of the existing text and direction 

may be usable by cross-walking between the NRMP work areas and the new Plan 

management areas, however those elements described in the individual resource sections 

may have to be moved one by one to the MA write-ups that are applicable. 

Monitoring Plan 

The existing NRMP has good monitoring elements, however, they are distributed 

throughout the plan within each resource section and in some areas there are none listed. 

Within the new plan, these will be consolidated into a separate section that will appear 

near the back of the plan and should be easier to reference and implement. The existing 

monitoring elements must each be reviewed in concert with proposed program area 

emphases to test for relevance. Others must be revised to describe programmatic 

activities that will effectively measure when key work activities are achieving desired 

goals and objectives. This section of the plan must also be expanded to include pertinent 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 261 of 273 

items that are needed to determine the effectiveness of any new plan components, 

including some estimate of expected outputs. 

The overall monitoring plan will be “reality checked” to ensure that it describes both 

minimum legally required activities as well as additional monitoring that is desired. The 

monitoring plan must be both reasonable and practicable under expected budgets and 

available personnel. The level and intensity of monitoring and analysis will vary during 

the life of the plan, depending on Forest Service priorities. This section of the plan will 

be written to communicate to the public what can be expected. 

The LRMP monitoring section will be expanded to include ways to measure the 

effectiveness of programming in LBL and progress toward desired conditions. 

Need for Change and Summary

LBL will use the 1994 NRMP as the basis for the LRMP we will develop under the forest 

planning regulations. Only necessary changes will will be made; Rec/EE will be added 

to the plan. Below are the statements from the previous discussion summarizing the 

direction the development of the LRMP is expected to take. These statements are based 

on public input to date, resource evaluation, project reviews, and staff feedback. 

The parts of the NRMP not expected to change include: 

• No significant scenery management changes are expected in the LRMP. The 

visual resource will be inventoried and evaluated as required by the planning 

regulations. 

• The vegetation issue to be addressed in the LRMP is whether to change the land 

management direction from the direction set in 1994, including total open land 

acreage and appropriate mix of management practices of the forest and open 

lands. LBL does not anticipate changing the open land management direction of 

the 1994 LRMP. 

• LBL expects to continue the current direction regarding infrastructure 

management, unless public scoping results in the need for a different direction. 

Any direction regarding facilities management at LBL must be consistent with the 

environmental education, recreation, wildlife diversity, and economic 

sustainability mission of the LBL Protection Act. The infrastructure decisions 

will not be specific in the LRMP, except as infrastructure needs relate to the 

strategic direction of land management areas. 

• No roadless or Wilderness designations are expected in LBL after evaluation 

during the planning process. 

Some areas need updating or clarification in the new plan. Management direction to be 

added to the LRMP, as compared to the NRMP, includes the following. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 262 of 273 

• No significant changes in the allocations and mix of recreation uses are expected 

in the LRMP, unless public input during scoping indicates otherwise. Unlike the 

1994 NRMP, the LRMP will explicitly address recreation as required by NFMA 

and the LBL Protection Act. 

• The articulation of a more integrated environmental education strategy to 

accomplish this objective must be added to the new plan. The LBL Protection 

Act, not the planning regulations, mandates this requirement. 

• Guidance is needed in the new plan to guide management decisions under 

changing budgets during the next 10 to15 years. 

• Our review indicates a need for change to maintain and regenerate the Oakhickory forest types if wildlife habitat needs are to be met. Based on public 

opinion, forest management for the promotion of wildlife habitat, forest health 

and landscape diversity is of higher concern than set levels of timber sales. 

• Clear direction for the use and amount of prescribed fire is needed. 

• Required MIS, PETS, sensitive species, and migratory birds lists must be 

reviewed and updated in the LRMP. BA’s and BE’s will be completed for federal 

and regional listed species. Directions for management of habitat to protect these 

species will also be addressed. 

• The LRMP should define, delineate and adopt management guidelines for riparian 

areas. Regional Soil and Water Conservation Practices may be adopted as best 

management practices to mitigate effects to the soil and water resources and to 

assure water resources meet the intent of the Clean Water Act. 

• Strategies are needed in the new plan to guide future decision-making, comply 

with heritage management regulations, and ensure sensitivity to these important 

resources. 

• The LRMP monitoring section will be expanded to include ways to measure the 

effectiveness of programming in LBL and progress toward desired conditions, 

and discuss potential outputs at varying budget levels. 

The public needs to provide comment of agreement or disagreement with the approach 

this document describes. LBL will be conducting public meetings and taking comment 

on the NOI to refine and focus the desired conditions to be addressed in the development 

of the plan and DEIS. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 263 of 273 

LBL National Recreation Area 

Planning Background Document 

Addendum 1

Quick Facts

Forest and Management Area

The total land area of LBL encompasses 170,310 Acres (2/3 KY & 1/3 TN). 

Land Areas Percentage Acres

Forested 89% 151,550 

Forest Mature to Over Mature 76 percent 

 maple/beech 5 percent , oak-hickory 80 percent , 

 pine 4 percent 

Core Areas 25% 42,500 

 Number

 Large blocks >5000 acres 3 24,320 

 Medium >2,500 acres 4 11,640 

 Stands <300 acres 130 6,540 

Open lands 5-6% 12,050 (8,490 acres actively 

managed each year)

Coop Farmland 31% 3,900 

 Woods Opening 9% 1,050 (350 acres managed 

annually) 

 Wildlife Food Plantings 5% 600 

 Maintained Open Lands 33% 3,600 

 Miscellaneous Lands 22% 2,650 

Infrastructure 4% 7,000

There are 12,500 acres of Wildlife Refuges within the forested and open lands areas 

listed above.
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 264 of 273 

 Acres

Timber 

Designated for Forest Management 151,550 (65 work areas) 

Available forest acreage timber harvest 2,880 per year 

Timber stand improvement activities 400 (mesic forest areas to reduce undesirable tree 

species)

Even-aged Management 

 (primarily shelterwood and seed tree cuts) 

 Hardwoods 52,980 

 Pines 3,250 

Uneven-aged Management 

 (guided by tree diameter to maintain a 

 number of stems/acre) 

 Hardwoods 51,460 

 Pines 1,360 

Passive Management 

Core Areas 42,500 

 Ecology Study Areas (34) 

 Designated Natural Areas (3) 

Prescribed Fire 

1,390 acres allowed, currently 800-1200 burned annually 

Wildlife Composition 

 355 Terrestrial 

 230 Birds (41 Neotropical Migratory Birds) 

 53 Mammals 

 28 Amphibians 

 41 Reptiles 

 76 Fish (21 additional species in interior lakes) 

Natural Resource Composition 

 1310 Plant Species; 229 are Woody Species 

 82 Stream Basins (mostly intermittent) 

 11 Perennial Streams 

 131 Natural Spring 

 75 Ponds 

 300 Wildlife Watering Holes 

 5 Interior Lakes 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 265 of 273 

LBL National Recreation Area 

Planning Background Document 

Addendum 2

Quick Facts

Threatened and Endangered Species

Threatened Plant 

Latin Name Common Name

Apios priceana Price’s potato bean 

Proposed C1 Plant 

Latin Name Common Name 

Aureolaria patula False foxglove

Proposed C2 Plant 

Latin Name Common Name 

Armoracia aquatica Lake cress 

Cimicifuga rubifolia Black cohash 

Juglans cinera Butternut 

Lysimachia fraseri Fraser’s loosestrife 

Prenanthes barbata White lettuce 

C1 On US Fish & Wildlife Service status review list; existing biological information 

is sufficient to warrant listing. 

C2 On US Fish & Wildlife Service status review list; biological information is still 

being collected. 

Endangered Animal 

Latin Name Common Name 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon 

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat 

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat 

Sterna antillarum Least tern 

Threatened Animal 

Latin Name Common Name

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 266 of 273 

Proposed C2Animal 

Latin Name Common Name

Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender 

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler 

DLanius ludonvicianus Loggerhead shrike 

Macroclemys temmincki Alligator snapping turtle 

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis 

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Copperbelly water snake 

Pituophis melanoleucus Pine snake 

Plecotus rafinesquii Rafinewque’s big-eared bat 

C1 On US Fish & Wildlife Service status review list; existing biological information 

is sufficient to warrant listing. 

C2 On US Fish & Wildlife Service status review list; biological information is still 

being collected. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 267 of 273 

LBL National Recreation Area 

Planning Background Document 

Addendum 3

Quick Facts

Infrastructure

Main Facilities 

Name Type Capacity 

Brandon Springs EE Group 128 Beds 

Piney Campground Campground 380 Sites 

Hillman Ferry Campground Campground 369 Sites 

Energy Lake Campground Campground 48 Sites 

Wranglers Campground Horse Campground 175 Sites 

Turkey Bay OHV Area OHV/Camping 

Lake Access Areas Primitive Camping (22 areas) 

Woodlands Nature Station Nature Center 

The Homeplace Living History Farm 

Elk & Bison Prairie Wildlife Viewing 

Golden Pond Planetarium Planetarium 

Golden Pond Visitor Center Visitor Information 

North Welcome Visitor Information 

South Welcome Visitor Information

Other Summaries Number

Sewage Treatment Plants 4 

Water Systems 22 

Boat Ramps 22 

Camping Cabins 9 Piney, 12 Wranglers 

Shoreline 300 miles 

Picnic Areas 10 

Pavilions 7 

Cemeteries 228-248 

Iron Furnace Ruins 6 

Trails 200 miles hiking, 99 miles horseback, 45 miles mnt. bike, & 2,500 acre OHV

Roads 162.69 Level 5 

110.16 Level 4 

93.02 Level 3 

291.77 Level 2 

72.08 Level 1 

 

Road Service Levels 

 Level 5 – Highly developed paved road 

 Level 4 – Low developed paved road 

 Level 3 – Highly maintained gravel road 

 Level 2 – Tertiary road 

 Level 1 – Minimum maintenance (sometimes impassable)
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 268 of 273 

LBL National Recreation Area 

Planning Background Document 

Addendum 4

Demographics

 Data taken from the 2000 Census LOCAL REGIONAL NATIONAL 

Total Population 138,268 47,852,581 281,421,906 

 Males 49% 49% 49% 

 Females 51% 51% 51% 

 Youth (up to 19 yrs) 24% 28% 29% 

 Young Adults (20-34 yrs) 20% 21% 21% 

 Adults (35-54 yrs) 28% 29% 29% 

 Mature Adults (over 55 yrs) 28% 22% 21% 

Median Age 40 36 35 

 White 93% 79% 68% 

 Black 4% 12% 11% 

 Hispanic 1% 5% 11% 

 American Indian 0% 0% 3% 

 Asian 1% 2% 3% 

 All other 0% 2% 5% 

 Families 69% 68% 68% 

 Living Alone 31% 32% 32% 

Less than 9th grade education 11% 7% 8% 

9th – 12th grade with no diploma 17% 13% 12% 

High School Graduate 31% 33% 29% 

Some College 21% 20% 21% 

Associate’s Degree 4% 6% 6% 

Bachelor’s Degree 9% 14% 16% 

Graduate / Professional Degree 7% 8% 9% 

 Persons with disabilities 22% 18% 18% 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 269 of 273 

 Data taken from the 2000 Census LOCAL REGIONAL NATIONAL 

Unemployment 3.4% 3.5% 3.7% 

 Business / Professionals 25% 31% 34% 

 Service Occupations 15% 14% 15% 

 Sales 23% 26% 27% 

 Farming 1% 1% 1% 

 Construction 13% 9% 9% 

 Production 23% 18% 15% 

Household income: less than $10K 15% 10% 10% 

 $10K – $15K 10% 6% 6% 

 $15K – $25K 15% 13% 13% 

 $25K – $35K 14% 13% 13% 

 $35K – $50K 15% 17% 17% 

 $50K – $75K 19% 20% 19% 

 $75K – $100K 7% 10% 10% 

 $100K – $150K 4% 7% 8% 

 $150K – $200K 1% 2% 2% 

 Over $200K 1% 2% 2% 

 Average Household Income $36,953 $39,624 $41,994 

 Families below poverty line 9% 9% 9% 

 Individuals below poverty 

line 

13% 13% 12% 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix G 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 270 of 273 

This page intentionally left blank.
Land Between The Lakes Appendix H 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 271 of 273 

Appendix H 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

on the 

1994 Natural Resources Management Plan 

for LBL 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

October 1994 

Volume I 

1994 Natural Resources Management Plan 

for LBL 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

October 1994 

Volume II 

The 1994 NRMP was used extensively throughout the preparation of the revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan by the Forest Service. Interested individuals can view 

the summary of the NRMP online on the LBL Planning website listed here: 

http://www.lbl.org/ADMIN/LBL1994PlanSummary.html

You may also obtain a printed copy by contacting the Forest Service Administrative 

Office at 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix H 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 272 of 273 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Land Between The Lakes Appendix I 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 273 of 273 

Appendix I 

MAPS 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Map Name 

Alternative W – North 

Alternative W – South 

Alternative X – North 

Alternative X – South 

Alternative Y – North 

Alternative Y – South 

Alternative Z – North 

Alternative Z – South 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

Watersheds 

Cover Type – North 

Cover Type – South 

Site Type – North 

Site Type – South 

Structure – North 

Structure – South 

Legal Roads – North 

Legal Roads – South