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. 1 December 2004 
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.
Executive Summary 

I - Document Structure 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), prepared by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, is required in conjunction with the 

revision of Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) 1994 Natural Resources Management 

Plan (NRMP). The 1994 Plan served as the Plan of Record covering the operation of 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area (LBL) in the interim from when the 

Forest Service (FS) first took over management of LBL until the development of a Forest 

Service Land and Resource Management Plan. This FEIS discloses and explains the 

direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action and the alternatives developed in revising the 1994 Plan into a Forest 

Service Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to comply with the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended in 1982). This document is 

arranged into five chapters, with appendices and index, as follows: 

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

information on the legislative actions that brought LBL under Forest Service 

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

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

in this process; 

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

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

alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. This chapter also 

provides a summary table showing how alternatives compare to public 

comments and the issues; 

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This 

chapter details the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action, 

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

environmental component and its relation to supporting the overall mission; 

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

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

this document; 

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

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

other chapters; 

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

or diagrams which support the analyses in this FEIS; 

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

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

information within the FEIS. 
Additional documentation, including more in-depth background information and detailed 

explanation of various research and analyses of the planning process to support this FEIS, 

are in the Project Record Files. These files are located at the Forest Service’s Golden 

Pond Administrative Building at the address listed in the cover to this FEIS. 

II - Background 

LBL was transferred from TVA to the Forest Service on October 1, 1999, under the 

provisions of the LBL Protection Act of 1998. The Protection Act calls for the Forest 

Service to develop an LRMP that complies with the basic laws applicable to all National 

Forests and will guide management direction for the next 10 to 15 years. The Area Plan 

describes the public’s expectations for desired conditions at LBL and the strategies for 

achieving them. The Area Plan will not resolve issues in detail, but will provide a 

general framework by which future decisions will be made. 

Beyond transferring management responsibility for LBL, the Protection Act also clearly 

defines LBL’s mission, which is “to protect and manage the resources of the Land 

Between The Lakes for optimum yield of outdoor recreation and environmental 

education 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 Area 

Plan. 

III - The Planning Process 

As fully described in Chapter Two of the FEIS, the Forest Service took a unique 

approach in reviewing and analyzing the public comments, existing conditions 

information, and the potential for future possibilities at LBL. Unlike some planning 

process techniques, the Planning Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) started by developing 

small building blocks of potential answers to the needs for change outlined in the NOI, 

and validated through the public’s comments. 

Using these building blocks, the IDT began to develop cohesive, plausible alternatives to 

address the three issues. After substantial and balanced evaluations on the potential 

benefits and effects of the alternatives, one alternative was chosen as the Selected 

Alternative. This Selected Alternative was then developed in detail, into the Area Plan, 

which this FEIS supports. 

The analyses of all the alternatives are detailed in Chapter Three. A summary description 

of each alternative is listed below. 

Alternative W – No change would be made from the direction in the 1994 NRMP. 

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

and activities addressed and specified in the NRMP would be implemented. Visitors 

would notice little or no change. 
Alternative X - Management direction toward highly developed facilities with 

small increases in dispersed opportunities for both Recreation/Environmental Education 

(Rec/EE). Vegetation management efforts focused on advancing ecological diversity, 

sustaining the health and viability of the forest and wildlife, and providing vibrant and 

desirable areas for Rec/EE. 

Alternative Y - More dispersed opportunities within the current mix of Rec/EE. 

The current principle of facility-based EE, and some of the recreation opportunities 

centered on developed areas, would be complemented by more forest-wide, dispersed 

opportunities. Existing areas would be evaluated and identified for needed improvements 

and the potential for realignment into other types of Rec/EE opportunities. No facilities 

would be developed or reopened. Vegetation management efforts focused on advancing 

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

providing vibrant and desirable areas for Rec/EE. 

Alternative Z - Decrease the developed Rec/EE opportunities and decrease active 

forest and vegetation management practices. No new developed areas would be 

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

services, and amenities would be evaluated for potential decommissioning. Forest-wide 

emphasis would be placed on the non-facility-based EE opportunities and activities, 

supported by the existing facilities and programs. 

IV - Public Involvement 

In accordance with the stipulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

the Forest Service applied numerous and effective methods in both the public scoping 

period at the beginning of this Area Plan process, and in the formal draft comment period 

following the release of the Draft EIS and Area Plan in March 2004. 

During scoping, the Forest Service made efforts to hold public forums in the major 

gateway communities around LBL. The purpose of these was to offer several different 

formats wherein the public could provide the Forest Service with their concerns, 

questions, and recommendations for the types and levels of change they would like to see 

at LBL. In addition to these public forums, two special focus group sessions were 

conducted to specifically address concerns surrounding two of the three issues – Rec/EE 

and vegetation management. 

At these sessions, a methodology called Appreciative Inquiry (AI) was employed to 

develop a positive-focused direction for the sessions based on the concerns and important 

aspects of LBL’s management from the public’s standpoint. The comments and 

information gained through these public forums were added to the information gained 

through the other public forums to help in the development of the four alternatives, 

Alternative W, X, Y, and Z. 

Following the release of the draft documents in late March 2004, the Forest Service 

began to receive comments specific to the alternatives and the Draft Area Plan. Through 
the end of June 2004, the Forest Service received close to 300 comments, which were all 

catalogued, analyzed, and addressed during the draft revision process. All of the public 

comments received were considered by Forest Service resource specialists or IDT 

members. The complete set of comments and the responses to them are contained in 

Appendix A of this FEIS. 

V – From Draft to Final 

Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than some plans the public has seen, and has caused some confusion in its initial release. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ranged from some feeling the Forest Service was trying to hide something from the 

public, to others who felt the government wanted to set its own agenda and was trying to 

confuse the public in order to convolute the comment process. 

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

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

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

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

for the Recreation and Environmental Education issue. 

Modifications

Between the release of the Draft documents and the publication of the Area Plan and 

FEIS, several elements or items underwent refinements based upon various factors. 

Key clarifications include: 

• Renamed the Nature View Demonstration Areas to Nature Watch Demonstration 

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

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

by approximately 1200 acres. 

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

management area remained unchanged. 

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

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

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

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

process and applied equally to all alternatives. 

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

of the four alternatives, or further public involvement. 

VI - Summary Conclusion 

The Forest Service followed the established legislative guidance in preparing, 

developing, and producing this FEIS and the Area Plan it accompanies. Every effort has 

been taken to insure that the information contained in these two documents is fair and 

accurate, and is based on the best science available, sound land management practices, 

and the desires and comments received through public involvement. Please direct any 

questions or comments you may have about the FEIS or Area Plan to the Area 

Supervisor, whose address is listed inside the cover of this document. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................13 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................13 

1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................13 

1.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................................13 

1.3 Decision Framework .............................................................................13 

1.4 Public Involvement................................................................................14 

1.5 The Issues ............................................................................................16 

1.6 Planning Process Records................................................................18 

Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................20 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION............................20 

2.0 Introduction...........................................................................................20 

2.1 Alternative Building Blocks....................................................................20 

2.2 The Alternatives....................................................................................25 

2.2.1 Alternative W – No Change to Current Policy and the 1994 Plan ..27 

2.2.2 Alternative X...................................................................................27 

2.2.3 Alternative Y...................................................................................28 

2.2.4 Alternative Z ...................................................................................30 

2.3 Alternatives and Building Blocks Not Carried Forward .........................33 

Public Input Considerations......................................................................33 

Internal Proposals Addressing Public Input..............................................34 

Alternative Directions Eliminated From Detailed Study............................35 

2.4 The Selected Alternative.......................................................................36 

2.5 Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives..............................................36 

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................39 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..39 

3.0 Introduction...........................................................................................39 

3.1 Physical Environment ...........................................................................39 

3.1.1 Air Resources.................................................................................39 

3.1.2 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................46 

3.1.3 Watershed......................................................................................62 

3.2 Biological Environment .........................................................................83 

3.2.1 Introduction and Analysis Methods ................................................83 

3.2.2 Historical Perspective.....................................................................87 

3.2.3 Major Forest Communities .............................................................89 

Site Types.............................................................................................89 

Major Cover Types ...............................................................................91 

Structure Types ....................................................................................94 

3.2.4 Environmental Effects ....................................................................98 

Mix of Cover Types...............................................................................98 

Oak Forests........................................................................................102 

Mesophytic Forests ............................................................................114 

Riparian Forests .................................................................................118 
Shortleaf Pine Forest..........................................................................125 

Planted Pine Forests ..........................................................................131 

Old Growth .........................................................................................131 

3.2.5 Major Open Land Communities....................................................140 

Grassland Cover Community Types...................................................140 

Cultivated Cover Community Types ...................................................143 

Environmental Effects.........................................................................143 

Management Indicator Species ..........................................................149 

3.2.6 Rare Communities........................................................................150 

Calcareous Cliffs and Talus................................................................150 

Canebrakes ........................................................................................151 

Springs and Seeps .............................................................................152 

Rocky Shores and Bars......................................................................153 

Lakeshores and Mudflats....................................................................153 

Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana)...........................................................154 

Mountain-Laurel (Kalmia latifolia) .......................................................154 

3.2.7 Special Habitat Components........................................................155 

Snags, Den Trees, and Downed Wood ..............................................155 

Snags in Forested Situations..............................................................157 

Snags in Open Forest Situations........................................................158 

Regenerating Forest Habitat...............................................................159 

Forest Interior Bird Habitat..................................................................161 

Environmental Effects.........................................................................163 

Management Indicator Species ..........................................................164 

3.2.8 Species of Viability Concern.........................................................166 

Viability Evaluation .............................................................................166 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...............................................167 

Birds of Conservation Concern...........................................................167 

Threatened and Endangered..............................................................187 

3.2.9 Demand Species..........................................................................187 

White-tailed Deer................................................................................189 

Eastern Wild Turkey ...........................................................................191 

Gray Squirrel ......................................................................................192 

Northern Bobwhite..............................................................................192 

Fallow Deer ........................................................................................195 

3.2.10 Forest Health..............................................................................196 

3.2.11 Non-Native Invasive Species .....................................................200 

3.3 Resource Management.......................................................................205 

3.3.1 Core Areas...................................................................................205 

3.3.2 Fire Management: Prescribed and Wildland Fire .........................209 

Affected Environment .........................................................................209 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects...............................................213 

Effects on Vegetation......................................................................214 

Effects on Wildlife ...........................................................................214 

Effects on Aesthetics.......................................................................215 

Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................216 
3.3.3 Roads Management.....................................................................221 

Affected Environment .........................................................................221 

Engineering (Roads)...........................................................................221 

*Includes 119 miles of roads maintained by KY and TN Highway 

departments........................................................................................222 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects...............................................222 

Soil and Water....................................................................................222 

Cemetery Access ...............................................................................223 

Recreation ..........................................................................................223 

3.3.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................223 

3.4 Socio-Economic Environment and Effects..........................................225 

3.4.1 Recreation and Environmental Education ....................................225 

Market Area........................................................................................225 

Demand and Trends...........................................................................227 

Recreation and Environmental Education Supply...............................231 

Settings...............................................................................................231 

Facilities..............................................................................................232 

3.4.2 Recreation....................................................................................233 

Affected Environment .........................................................................233 

Developed Recreation.....................................................................233 

Dispersed Recreation......................................................................235 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects..............................................237 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ......................................................237 

Developed Recreation ........................................................................238 

Dispersed Recreation .........................................................................239 

Non-Motorized Trails ..........................................................................241 

Motorized Trails ..................................................................................241 

3.4.3 Environmental Education .............................................................242 

Affected Environment .........................................................................242 

Facility-Based Environmental Education.........................................243 

Non-Facility Based Environmental Education .................................245 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects...............................................247 

Facility-Based Environmental Education.........................................247 

Non-Facility-Based Environmental Education.................................249 

3.4.4 Wilderness and Roadless.............................................................255 

Wilderness..........................................................................................255 

Roadless.............................................................................................255 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule ..................................................257 

Alternatives.........................................................................................257 

3.4.5 Scenery........................................................................................258 

3.4.6 Cultural Resources.......................................................................262 

3.4.7 Population and Economy .............................................................266 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Economic Effects ....................268 

Employment........................................................................................269 

Labor Income......................................................................................270 

Revenues and Payments....................................................................272 
Land Between The Lakes Current Role..............................................273 

Present Net Value of the Alternatives.................................................274 

Use and Passive-Use Values .............................................................276 

Use Values......................................................................................276 

Passive-Use Values........................................................................278 

Use-Value Anaysis .............................................................................280 

Passive-Value Analysis...................................................................281 

3.4.8 Tourism ........................................................................................283 

3.4.9 Social Importance of Public Lands ...............................................284 

3.4.10 Forest Products..........................................................................284 

3.4.11 Special Uses ..............................................................................288 

3.4.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................289 

3.4.13 Incomplete or Unavailable Information.......................................291 

Chapter 4 ..........................................................................................................292 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.....................................................292 

4.1 List of Preparers and Contributing Sources ........................................292 

4.2 Distribution List ...................................................................................295 

Individuals ..............................................................................................295 

Associations, Businesses, Federal Agencies, State, City, and County 

Agencies and Organizations ..................................................................295 

Chapter 5 ..........................................................................................................298 

GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS AND LIST OF REFERENCES ...........................298 

5.1 Glossary..............................................................................................298 

5.2 Acronyms............................................................................................315 

5.3 List of References...............................................................................318 

5.4 Index...................................................................................................327 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 13 of 329 

Chapter 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1 Introduction 

Following the direction given in the LBL Protection Act of 1998, the Forest Service 

developed an LRMP, or Area Plan, in compliance with the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended in 1982). This FEIS discloses and explains the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the implementation of the Selected 

Alternative and the other developed alternatives. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

The Forest Service proposed to revise the existing 1994 Plan into an LRMP in 

compliance with NFMA. The proposed revision updates the NRMP to comply with 

NFMA, and establishes the strategic framework to guide and direct all future projectlevel decisions, actions, and concerns. 

This FEIS describes the analysis of several alternatives considered during revision of the 

NRMP, and discloses the environmental effects of these alternatives. The FEIS is guided 

by the implementing regulations of NEPA found in the Council of Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations, Title 40, Code of Federal Register (CFR) 1500. The companion 

document to this FEIS is the LRMP, or Area Plan, a detailed presentation of the Selected 

Alternative. 

1.3 Decision Framework 

Within the context of the Purpose and Need for this action, the deciding official reviews 

the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences as they 

relate to the stated mission of LBL. In accordance with 36 CFR 219 dated 1982, the 

deciding official must make the following decisions: 

• Area-wide multiple-use goals and objectives. Goals describe a condition to be 

achieved sometime in the future. Objectives are concise, time-specific 

statements of measurable, planned results that respond to the goals. 

• Area-wide management requirements. These are standards and design criteria 

for management activities or advisable strategies that apply across the entire 

area. 

• Area-wide direction applying future activities in each allocated area. This is 

the desired condition specified for certain portions of LBL, and the standards 

to help achieve that condition. 

• Lands suited and not suited for natural resource management.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 14 of 329 

• Monitoring and evaluation requirements to gauge how well the Area Plan is 

being implemented. 

• Recommendations to Congress, such as Wilderness designations, if any. 

1.4 Public Involvement 

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

Impact Statement (EIS) for revision of the 1994 Plan and establish an Area Plan for LBL 

was published in the Federal Register. At the same time, the Forest Service released a 

Planning Background Document (PBD) as a preliminary planning information document, 

outlining existing conditions of LBL, and highlighting need for change elements within 

the 1994 Plan to be addressed in the revised LRMP. 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 communities. 

Initial Scoping: 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 a 45-day period ending July 21, 2003. During this same 

scoping period, LBL also asked for public comment on the Forest Service’s assessments 

of the needs for change in the existing management direction. 

Focus Group Involvement: 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 received the vast majority of comments in scoping - Rec/EE and 

Vegetation Management. 

Table 1.4A 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 15 of 329 

Table 1.4A – 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 (Forest Service 

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. 

Draft Comment Period: Following the initial scoping period, the Planning 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) combined public comment with existing conditions and the 

need for change as outlined in the Planning Background Document. The alternatives 

developed, and the methodology employed in their development, are discussed later in 

this chapter. The Draft EIS and Draft Area Plan were released to the public on March 26, 

2004, which marked the beginning of the formal comment period. The official draft 

comment period ran through June 30, 2004. 

The Forest Service distributed more than 400 copies of the draft documents or their 

components to numerous public locations (libraries, county executive offices, state and 

national congressional offices, etc.), as well as to private groups and individuals. 

Complete details of the entire public involvement process are listed in Appendix A. 

Early in this period, the IDT and Leadership Team (LT) scheduled, announced, and 

conducted four open house public information sessions in gateway communities to 

provide the public with general guidance and information about the draft documents. 

The table below outlines the locations, dates and attendance of these four sessions: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 16 of 329 

Table 1.4B - Draft Comment Period Public Information Sessions 

Date Location Attendance Presentations 

April 13, 2004 Lyon County HS, Eddyville, KY 43 3 

April 15, 2004 Trigg County HS, Cadiz, KY 9 1 

April 20, 2004 Marshall County HS, Benton, KY 34 3 

April 22, 2004 Stewart County HS, Dover, TN 5 1 

Content Analysis: In addition to further scientific review, analysis and evaluations, the 

IDT and the Forest Service undertook extensive analysis of the public comments received 

during the formal draft comment period. The Forest Service received 286 responses to 

the draft documents from across the country in the form of letters, emails, and faxes. The 

public comments received represent a wide range of viewpoints about the complete 

spectrum of LBL and the four alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. Each response was 

reviewed for specific actions that the commenter wanted to see the Forest Service take in 

preparing the Final Plan, along with any supporting rationale statements about their 

recommended actions. 

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

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

direction for this Area Plan and the FEIS. The comments and responses are discussed in 

Appendix A. 

1.5 The Issues 

The issues taken into consideration for this revision are the result of preparing the PBD 

and NOI, and through scoping. Initial issue items detailed in the NOI and PBD were 

validated during the 45-day scoping period, and through general public comments 

received in relation to the NOI. All comments received were designated as either 

relevant to one of the issues, or outside the scope of the Area Plan. The public also 

tacitly supported the conclusions of the PBD. 

Based upon the existing conditions of LBL, the management direction given through the 

1994 Plan, and analysis and review of the scientific data and public comments, the 

following issues and relevant items were established. 

Planning Issue 1 – Recreation and Environmental Education: How will LBL best 

manage resources for the optimum yield of outdoor recreation and environmental 

education? 

• The main recreational issues at LBL are related to the volume, location, and 

long-term sustainability of each type of activity. A mix of active and passive, 

motorized and non-motorized, and developed and backcountry activities are 

currently permitted at LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 17 of 329 

• The distribution and balance of elements within the recreation program, and 

the question of whether to increase or decrease specific opportunities, will be 

reviewed through public input and study of current scientific documentation. 

This assessment will examine current and anticipated user demands and help 

identify areas of potential change or improvement. 

• A secondary part of this element is one of appropriateness in relation to the 

mission of LBL. In particular, this encompasses the relation of the mission to 

fees, profit, and competition with area businesses. Former residents have 

specifically commented on this facet of LBL’s management. 

• How to integrate environmental messages into every program at LBL, 

including recreation, forestry, and fish and wildlife management. 

• Determine if there is a need for more or fewer developed environmental 

educational facilities (buildings, exhibits, and interactive trails). 

• Identify and establish the appropriate perspective and direction for formal and 

non-formal environmental education efforts: 

o Formal efforts are centered around groups, educators, and classroom 

programs that foster a classic and academic value toward conservation; 

o Non-formal efforts are geared toward families and individuals in 

dispersed ‘natural’ learning settings that foster a personal conservation 

ethic. 

• Identify cultural and/or natural education goals to meet public demand. 

Planning Issue 2 – Vegetation Management: How will the vegetation on LBL be 

managed and what desired conditions would contribute best to the optimum yield of 

outdoor recreation, environmental education, and stimulation of regional economies? 

A primary component of a healthy ecosystem, and in turn, the health and viability 

of wildlife habitats, the level of enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation, and the 

quality of environmental education programs, is the health and management of the 

forests. Of equal significance, but much smaller in total area, is the management and 

overall health of the open lands, riparian and wetland areas. 

For vegetation management, there are several relevant health indicators and 

management considerations that the Area Plan will take into account. These include, but 

are not limited to: oak decline; forest species composition and viability; old growth; open 

lands management and distribution; prescribed fire and silvicultural treatment methods. 

• LBL is primarily composed of oak species (80 percent of the total forested 

acreage). As the overstory of these oak stands continues to age, there will be 

an increased risk of incidence of oak decline: 

o Oak decline, as a condition or state of a forest, results from inadequate 

management measures of both existing oak stands and new growth; 

o Oak decline not only occurs from aging, but also as a result of 

environmental stresses such as drought, insect defoliation, site 

limitations, or a combination of these effects. 

• Trend data from the past 30 years from LBL’s Continuous Forest Inventory 

(CFI) indicates a shift in species composition over all of LBL. According to 

CFI, more maple and poplar, and less species of the red oak group could be 

the future composition of the mesophytic forest areas within LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 18 of 329 

• Open land comprises about 6 percent of the total land base. Managing the 

five categories of open lands (cooperative farming, woods openings, wildlife 

plantings, other (reverting) open lands, and miscellaneous lands) will be 

integral in sustaining multiple-use recreation and in supporting environmental 

education programs and potential. 

• Prescribed burning may be used as a necessary method to regenerate oak and 

pine stands, manage for herbaceous understory and wildlife habitat, maintain 

and restore fire dependent plant communities, reduce leaf litter in recreation 

areas, and reduce undesirable vegetation in open lands. 

• Old growth - While there is no clear definition of old growth in the 1994 Plan, 

LBL currently employs the Forest Service Region 8 (R8) Guidelines for Old 

Growth. These guidelines need to be followed for old growth designation and 

delineation. The Core Areas are the most likely acres within LBL that would 

be selected for old growth. 

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

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

additional areas be designated for special management? 

It is a NFMA requirement that LBL conduct an inventory of areas suitable for special 

designations and consider making recommendations in the Plan for Wilderness or 

Roadless designation. LBL currently maintains approximately 42,500 acres designated 

as Core Areas. These areas generally include Research Natural Areas and Ecological 

Study Areas located in various points across LBL. 

1.6 Planning Process Records 

Additional documentation, including more in-depth background information and detailed 

explanation of various research and analyses of the planning process to support this FEIS, 

are in the Project Record files. These files are located at the Forest Service’s Golden 

Pond Administrative Building at the address below: 

Area Supervisor’s Office 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

100 Van Morgan Drive 

Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211 

270-924-2000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 19 of 329 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 20 of 329 

Chapter 2 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2.0 Introduction 

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

IDT developed individual management strategies to address each of the three issues 

established through scoping and initial analysis. 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 individual alternatives. This 

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

change’ aspect of the 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 not carried forward for detailed analysis. Other 

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

alternatives discussed in this chapter. Significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

were determined for each of the four alternatives. 

2.1 Alternative Building Blocks 

The building blocks that were developed for this process are listed below by the issue to 

which they pertain: 

Issue #1 – Recreation and Environmental Education (EE) 

Rec/EE Building Block A: Non-Facility-Based 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 highly 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. The non-facility-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 21 of 329 

based EE activities and efforts would focus on the goal of delivering appropriate and 

targeted EE messages and information to every LBL visitor. New non-facility-based 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 dispersed 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. 

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 recreation and 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 private 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 five 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. Non-facility-based 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 22 of 329 

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 Non-Facility-Based Environmental Education and Dispersed Recreation 

Opportunities with Trade-offs

This building block focuses on providing for an increase in non-facility-based EE and 

dispersed recreation 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. 

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 and areas would be expanded to provide more 

balance in overall recreational opportunities. Examples of dispersed 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 or 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 23 of 329 

Rec/EE Building Block D:

No Change

Under this block, the management practices and guidelines from TVA’s 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 Rec/EE opportunities on a regional or national level. 

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. The enhancement of forest health and species viability 

would remain the priority over other management elements where conflicts occur that 

cannot be mitigated. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 24 of 329 

Vegetation Management Building Block B:

Minimal 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 maintain utility and vehicular access right-ofways. 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. 

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 environmental education 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 TVA’s 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 study if an area meets roadless criteria. 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 25 of 329 

2.2 The Alternatives 

Using the elements described in the building blocks, the IDT carefully evaluated various 

combinations in developing potential management avenues. Several combinations of 

blocks were disregarded based upon the contradictions inherent between two or more of 

the blocks. The combinations of blocks that did have similarities, and did fit together in 

principle, were then identified by common approaches or themes within the blocks. 

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

Alternative Management theme. Concurrent with the Planning Team’s development 

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

residents and other “no development” advocates, provided input, comment, and potential 

management direction they would prefer. Their proposal contains some elements of the 

previous Area Plan content, as well as their long-standing position of less active 

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

future of LBL. 

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

incorporate the Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA) Program objectives. The last 

RPA Program was developed in 1995. Currently the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 

Revision) provides broad overarching national guidance for forest planning and national 

objectives for the Agency as required by the Government Performance and Results Act. 

All of the alternatives in this FEIS incorporate these broad strategic objectives. 

Based upon the Need for Change, the comments and issues raised and validated through 

scoping, the Team has developed four Alternatives. A simple comparison of the 

Alternatives is displayed in Table 2.2.A. Table 2.2.B follows the narrative descriptions 

of the Alternatives, and shows the relation of the Alternatives to the range of public 

comments we considered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 26 of 329 

Table 2.2A – Alternative Management Development Matrix 

Alternatives 

Building 

Blocks

Alternative 

W 

“No Change 

to the 1994 

NRMP” 

Alternative 

X 

Alternative 

Y 

Alternative 

Z 

Rec/EE A 

Increase non-FacilityBased EE, Reduce 

Recreation Amenities 

and Services 

 

XX 

Rec/EE B 

Increase facilities for 

Rec/EE; develop a 

supporting fee 

structure 

 

XX 

 

Rec/EE C 

Increase in Dispersed 

Recreation and NonFacility-Based EE 

opportunities; match 

fees to value 

 

XX 

Rec/EE D 

No Change XX 

 

Veg Mgt A 

Improve Ecological 

Diversity 

 

XX XX 

Veg Mgt B 

Less Active 

Management 

 

XX 

Veg Mgt C 

No Change XX 

 

Spec Des A 

Recommendation for 

Wilderness, if 

requirements met 

 

XX 

Spec Des B 

No Change XX XX XX 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 27 of 329 

2.2.1 Alternative W – No Change to Current Policy and the 1994 Plan 

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

current management of Rec/EE facilities, areas, or opportunities. Similarly, it has no 

significant change in the vegetation management of the forest or open lands across LBL. 

Current management options for all facilities, areas, and treatments remains the same. 

Individual project or program decisions would be guided by the parameters established in 

TVA’s 1994 Plan, as amended by the analysis under NFMA for this revised Area Plan. 

Desired Condition: LBL would be managed for approximately 89% oak-hickory forest 

cover. Timber removals may be used to enhance habitat, improve forest health, or 

maintain scenic drives. Although timber removal levels will remain at the levels in the 

1994 Plan, visitors may perceive timber levels to increase in this alternative since the 

Forest Service has not removed timber since the transition from TVA. Open lands 

management would appear unchanged except for areas of successional growth and 

continuing efforts of warm season grass restoration. Environmental education 

opportunities would be available at staff-based developed facilities, with some selfguided experiences. Campers may see improvements to highly developed campgrounds. 

Roads and trails would be maintained. 

2.2.2 Alternative X 

This Alternative would give management direction toward highly developed facilities 

with small increases in dispersed recreation and non-facility-based environmental 

education. Vegetation management efforts would be driven toward the goal of advancing 

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

providing vibrant and desirable areas for Rec/EE. 

Under this Alternative, management guidance would provide for new or improved 

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

environmental education facilities and areas, and an increase in the number and types of 

trails and other dispersed recreation opportunities and non-facility-based EE experiences. 

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

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

Alternative would allow for evaluations and modifications to recreation and EE facilities 

and areas to accommodate future advancements in both disciplines, as well as potential 

demand. 

Vegetation management would take an active posture in providing a wider range of forest 

types and compositions across LBL to support a variety of wildlife, ecological and 

recreational objectives, and requirements. Timber removal would be kept at about the 

same levels as allowed in TVA’s 1994 Plan. Open lands and forested areas would be 

evaluated for realignment or redistribution of acreages based upon scientific analysis, to 

sustain overall forest health, support species viability, and provide wildlife habitats as 

necessary. Management direction for vegetation would be expanded to allow for a wider 

range of proven management techniques to be applied to the vegetation across LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 28 of 329 

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

fee structure for both recreation and EE. The quality and value of facilities and programs 

would be a significant determining factor in developing an equitable but sustainable fee 

structure. This would also factor in visitation, disadvantaged and underprivileged 

populations, and public demand for these experiences. Any increase in recreation and EE 

opportunities would require commensurate savings, efficiencies, or alternative procedures 

to stay within planned operating budgets. 

Desired Condition: There will be an increase and upgrading of staffed facilities designed 

to enhance visitor experiences in targeted recreational and educational activities. The 

focus will be on providing more facility-based experiences and amenities. Visitation is 

expected to increase, and uses will be intensified. 

Natural resources in heavy use areas are hardened to withstand projected impacts. 

Opportunities in dispersed recreation and non-facility-based EE will focus on extending 

the offerings of the highly developed facilities. Remote recreational opportunities will be 

provided in the Core Areas. 

Vegetation management to achieve a healthy, primarily oak-hickory forest type and open 

grasslands might be visible to visitors at LBL. The forest would be managed to maintain 

a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from insects and diseases, invasive 

species, and fires. Scenic views and vistas are maintained and enhanced. Fields may be 

managed for conversion to native warm and cool season grasses and forbs. Prescribed 

fire may be utilized on a larger landscape scale than has been used recently. Projects that 

create suitable critical habitat for species of viability concern and associated communities 

are favored. 

Land allocations will favor those prescriptions that support developed recreation 

opportunities. 

2.2.3 Alternative Y 

The focus of this Alternative is to establish a more dispersed level of opportunities within 

the current mix of recreation and EE. Under this Alternative, the current principle of 

facility-based EE, and some of the recreation opportunities centered on highly-developed 

areas, would be complemented by more forest-wide, lesser-developed, dispersed 

opportunities in both disciplines. Existing areas would be evaluated and identified for 

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

recreational development and types of EE opportunities. No current facilities would be 

closed, and no new high-level facilities would be developed or reopened. 

Within this Alternative, total recreation and EE opportunities would not be decreased in 

any way, and the mix of each would actually be enhanced through dispersion. Dispersed 

recreation opportunities would support and extend the reach and effectiveness of the EE 

programs and facilities by exposing more visitors to EE information and awareness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 29 of 329 

messages and themes. Within this Alternative, management direction would allow for 

realignment of some areas to different recreation opportunities. 

Vegetation management under this Alternative would provide for improvements to the 

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

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

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

habitat and an enriched recreation or EE opportunity, a broader range of acceptable 

vegetation management options would be necessary. Timber removal would be kept at 

about the same levels as allowed in TVA’s 1994 Plan. These practices and methods 

would provide the means to realign some acreages within LBL in order to: sustain or 

create early successional growth; promote better open lands management and 

distribution; to improve species viability and game species management; and to 

implement and promote reversion of some maintained open lands into young forest 

growth and conversion of some cropped lands to warm season grasses. 

This Alternative would direct a concerted effort to align the fee structure for recreation 

and EE to provide for an appropriate balance of opportunities and fiscal viability. Every 

effort would be examined to reduce fees where appropriate that could be sustained 

through reductions in what the programs or facilities offer. Emphasis would be placed 

upon the quality and value of the programs and services over simply reducing fees. 

Desired Condition: Opportunities for visitors to participate in a wider range of selfguided recreation and education activities would be developed. Areas may be redesigned 

or consolidated to allow for greater diversity of targeted activities. Management 

activities will focus on providing more successful nature viewing opportunities for novice 

observers. More miles of loop trails might be created. Environmental education 

components will be incorporated into natural resource management activities occurring 

across LBL. Remote recreational opportunities will be provided in the Core Areas. 

Visitation is expected to slightly increase, and recreational use will be dispersed. Natural 

resources in heavy use areas are hardened to withstand projected impacts and policies 

limit use well below sustainable levels. 

Vegetation management to achieve a healthy, primarily oak-hickory forest type and open 

grasslands might be visible to visitors at LBL. The forest would be managed to maintain 

a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from insects and diseases, invasive 

species, and fires. Scenic views and vistas are maintained and enhanced. Fields may be 

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

may be utilized on a larger landscape scale than has been used recently. Projects that 

create suitable critical habitat for species of viability concern and associated communities 

are favored. 

Land allocations will favor those prescriptions that support dispersed opportunities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 30 of 329 

2.2.4 Alternative Z 

This Alternative presents the philosophy that, over time, undeveloped and primitive areas 

will become very rare, and hence, more socially significant, particularly in this part of the 

country. In time, more and more people will be drawn to visit this “green” oasis. A local 

citizen’s group provided many key parts of this alternative. 

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

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

facility-based EE activities would likewise be de-emphasized. No new developed areas 

would be permitted under this Alternative, and few, if any, facilities or areas would be 

reopened. There is interest in trying to reopen several sites, but appropriate and offsetting 

trade-offs would be required in order to operate LBL within fiscal constraints. Existing 

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

This option would place forest-wide emphasis on non-facility-based EE opportunities and 

activities supported by the existing facilities and programs. 

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

and utility right-of-ways, for the safety of visitors and staff, and for maintenance and 

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

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

stages with almost no management methods applied to these areas. A portion of the Core 

Area in the southernmost part of LBL would be recommended for designation as 

Wilderness and Roadless, if qualified, which would provide a more remote recreational 

and environmental education opportunity for visitors. Management activities that would 

be allowed would be restricted to maintenance of existing recreation, EE, and 

administrative areas that remain open. 

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

decrease in both developed recreation and EE opportunities and facilities. The feasibility 

of reducing or eliminating fees and resulting operational changes would be dictated by 

the ability of the Forest Service to maintain and operate these facilities to provide a 

valued experience in a safe, sustainable manner. 

Desired Condition: Visitors to LBL will observe less noticeable active management by 

the Forest Service. Visitor environmental education would be focused much more on 

personal discovery and less on facility based, guided interpretation. Areas of LBL are 

focused on viewing nature and natural conditions. Additional limited hunting areas may 

be established to allow for improved wildlife viewing and hiking opportunities and to 

avoid user conflicts. Management activities will be focused on providing more 

successful nature viewing opportunities for novice observers. More remote recreational 

opportunities would be the primary form of recreation, with fewer highly developed 

opportunities available. Services such as rentals and outposts might be scaled back at 

developed campgrounds. Quality “wilderness-type” experiences such as solitude and 

primitiveness would be provided. Many of the existing open lands would revert to forest, 

primarily in areas that are contiguous with large forest blocks. Forest cover types are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 31 of 329 

typically aging to old growth beyond the lifespan of this Area Plan. Vegetative 

management and timber removal would be minimal and limited to needed activities for 

significant forest health and scenery management objectives. Other than critical habitats 

needed for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) species, wildlife 

habitat and associated communities will begin to adjust to that which is favored by the 

resulting ecosystems. Prescribed fire will be used to mimic natural processes primarily in 

open lands and recreation areas but very little in forested landscapes. Land allocations 

will favor those prescriptions that support dispersed opportunities and less active 

management. An increase in the number of acres allocated to semi-primitive, nonmotorized experiences is envisioned. 

Table 2.2B – Alternative Comparisons in relation to public comments 

Comment/Concern 

Alt W 

No Change 

Alt X Alt Y 

Selected 

Alternative 

Alt Z 

Recreation, Environmental 

Education: 

 - New Facilities No Yes No No 

 - Improve or Upgrade Facilities Yes Yes Yes Maintenance 

only 

 - Reopen facilities Little Potential 

exists 

Potential exists, 

but improbable 

No Study; with 

trade-offs 

possible but 

improbable 

 - Realign or change 

designations, opportunities 

No Yes Yes Yes 

 - Close facilities No No No, but the 

designations of 

some may 

change 

Potential exists 

 - New trails Maintenance 

only 

Yes Yes Yes 

 - Wilderness recommended 

No No No Yes, if evaluation 

supported 

recommendation 

 - Outpost and similar amenities Yes Yes Yes Reduced 

 - Hunting, fishing opportunities No change Potential for 

increase 

Potential for 

Increase 

No significant 

change 

 - Cultural, heritage sites noted 

in 2003 Heritage Resource Mgt 

Plan (HRMP) (cemeteries, etc.) 

No change No change No change No change 

 - Fees 

No change Evaluate for 

appropriate 

decrease or 

increase 

Evaluate, lower 

if possible 

Reduced 

significantly 

 - Private development (marinas, 

golf courses, home sites, etc.) 

No No No No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 32 of 329 

Table 2.2B (Continued)

Comment/Concern 

Alt W 

No Change 

Alt X Alt Y 

Selected 

Alternative

Alt Z 

 - Quality, Value of Rec-EE 

programs, services 

No change Significant 

increase, tied to 

fees and costs 

Moderate 

Increase, tied to 

fees, costs 

Increase 

volunteer efforts, 

contributions 

 - Wildlife Viewing No change No change Develop Nature 

Watch North 

and South areas 

Develop Nature 

Watch North 

and South Areas 

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

Vegetation Management 

 - Timber harvest No change from 

94 plan 

Similar to 94 

Plan levels 

Similar to 94 

Plan levels 

Less than 94 

Plan 

 Expected Timber Harvest 

Acres per year 2100 2200 2200 1200 

 - Open Lands Reversion No Some; potential 

redistribution 

Some; potential 

redistribution 

Some Interior 

reverts naturally 

- Old Growth Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

Yes, Forest 

Service inventory 

needed 

 - Oak-Grassland Demo Area None designated North and South 

Areas 

North and South 

Areas 

None designated 

 - Prescribed fire, 

herbicide/pesticide practices 

Per the 94 Plan 

only 

Yes, to support 

ecological 

diversity, wildlife 

habitats, and 

Rec/EE areas 

Yes, to support 

ecological 

diversity, wildlife 

habitats, and 

Rec/EE areas 

Yes, Less than X 

or Y 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 33 of 329 

2.3 Alternatives and Building Blocks Not Carried Forward 

When you consider the total number of blocks developed, the 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 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. 

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

further consideration. The complete listing of building block combinations that were not 

considered is displayed in a table of Appendix A. 

Public Input Considerations 

Some comments submitted by the public in relation to the issues were not developed or 

carried into the building block phase. These comments, regardless of number or merit, 

were not carried forward for the same reasons as stated above, including that they 

addressed an issue at a project or program level rather than the strategic planning level. 

Other comments received were not explored further in the building block phase because 

they did not support the mission of LBL, or because they would not be feasible or 

reasonable to implement at the Plan level for environmental, fiscal, logistical, health or 

safety purposes. Several comments considered, but not developed into an alternative, 

were in conflict with regional or national wildlife conservation strategies already 

underway. 

The range of comments that fell into these categories generally included suggestions, 

concerns, or recommendations as follows: 

• Decreasing and removing a majority of the infrastructure for recreation or 

administration; 

• Eliminating all forms of vegetation management, specifically timber cuts of any kind; 

• Eliminating all fees for all facilities, programs and events, including all types of userdefined services such as the outposts, gift shops, access fees, ice machines, permits, 

and rentals of any kind at the campgrounds; 

• Allowing OHV and horseback riding all across LBL; 

• Eliminating all forms of hunting; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 34 of 329 

• Allowing large-scale development for major businesses such as marinas, home sites, 

golf courses, etc; 

• Reintroducing other endangered or extirpated wildlife formerly native to the area (red 

wolf, in particular); 

• Allowing the elk and bison to roam freely across LBL. 

Internal Proposals Addressing Public Input 

Some consideration and discussion was given to proposed management direction for the 

issues that did not become part of the blocks or the Alternatives in the final phase of 

development. 

In particular, one approach to vegetation management was discussed at length and 

examined in relation to how it addressed the issues and public comments. In this block, 

the management practices would have guided the makeup of vegetation toward 

conditions that existed on LBL prior to the 1700s. Public comments along these lines 

tended to place more emphasis on a hands-off, unmanaged approach to the vegetation 

practices to foster natural growth, regeneration, and reversion across LBL. The block, as 

it was written and proposed prior to being removed from consideration, read as follows: 

Vegetation Management Building Block D:

Gradual Conversion and Restoration Management

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

gradually converted and restored to natural vegetation types that include native 

warm season grasses and forb species. This would mean a gradual elimination of 

crop and hay fields and many of the current wildlife plantings. 

Forest composition and structure would be maintained in oak-hickory forest types 

to represent forest conditions prior to European settlement as much as possible. 

Prior to European settlement the American Indians burned fields and forests for a 

variety of reasons, used wood for fuel, and as a result the forests were converted 

to open woodland and grasslands. 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. 

Forest management activities may be more extensive than proposed under Block 

A. 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. 

Treatments used would include but would not be restricted to prescribed burning, 

forest management, mowing, herbicide use, and open land grain cropping. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 35 of 329 

This block would have involved the use of management practices and tools with 

substantial impact to accomplish the following: 

• Provide conditions that promote natural reversion of open lands to early successional 

forests; 

• Incorporate practices such as understory prescribed fire to regenerate fire-dependent 

native plants and undergrowth, and use age-specific timber harvesting to create more 

open forests with older-age coverstory to promote wildlife habitat (both practices 

were used by American Indians prior to European settlement of the area); 

• Reduce the acreage of croplands currently managed to provide for more natural 

reversion of open lands to native warm-season grasses and wildflowers; 

• Actively apply timber harvests to cultivate more old growth oak-hickory areas. 

After detailed and lengthy discussion and consideration of the effects and impacts on 

Rec/EE, this building block was dropped from consideration. However, some portions of 

the management practices from this block were incorporated into Vegetation 

Management building block A and considered in developing the alternatives. 

Alternative Directions Eliminated From Detailed Study 

Among the proposed Alternatives of the FEIS there are several building block elements 

that offer significantly different or opposite direction for the issues. There are some other 

significantly different or opposite management directions that were not included in the 

Alternatives or the building blocks. Many of these elements or management options were 

not voiced through public comments, however the few that were are not being considered 

in detail because they would eliminate or substantially degrade the multiple use benefits 

for which LBL was established. Some of these options not carried forward include: 

• Decreasing Environmental Education; 

• Decreasing dispersed Recreation opportunities or areas; 

• Eliminating any areas with Special designations; 

• Closing Turkey Bay Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) area; 

• Restricting or eliminating equestrian activities from Wranglers Campground. 

As it is written, TVA’s 1994 Plan is not an Alternative that can be carried forward for 

consideration. The format, requirements, and legislative requirements for the Forest 

Service are different than those for TVA when TVA’s 1994 Plan was approved. The 

current management of LBL uses the 1994 Plan as its basis, along with practices and 

objectives set forth in the LBL Protection Act of 1998. Alternative W, the No Action 

Alternative, captures the combination of these two directives in a single document. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 36 of 329 

2.4 The Selected Alternative 

Based upon the subsequent assessments, analysis, and comparisons of the effects on the 

environment and resources, the Forest Service chooses Alternative Y with slight 

modifications as the Selected Alternative. 

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

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

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

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

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

implemented through future management and projects through this Alternative. 

2.5 Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives 

During the course of evaluating and developing the alternatives and effects analysis, the 

alternatives were closely examined and delineated by the amount of change they each 

contained relative to the current management scenario, or No Change (Alternative W). 

This refined analysis helped to focus the Forest Service resource specialists in 

determining the extent to which the management practices or activities could be applied 

to guide the resources of LBL toward the desired conditions of each Alternative. 

The results of this intensive analysis and comparison of the Alternatives is outlined in 

Table 2.5A. It helps to highlight the significant differences in the actual management 

practices and desired outcomes, as well as the shifts in the principles by which future 

practices would be applied. The significance of the principle also constitutes a significant 

change from the No Action Alternative, even if the actual management practices do not 

appear significantly different. Descriptions of the prescriptions in Table 2.5A can be 

found in Appendix D. 

These shifts in principle are found primarily in the Vegetation Management areas for the 

general forests and in the land allocation areas. The practices and principles highlighted 

in Table 2.5B reflect these significant changes between the Alternatives and the No 

Action Alternative (W). It also helps to point out the comparative differences and 

benefits that each has to offer in relation to addressing the need for change and issues. 

In forest plans, the land allocations are described using prescriptions. The prescriptions 

and acres for LBL under each alternative are listed in Table 2.5B and described in detail in 

Appendix D. The prescription areas are also mapped for each Alternative in Appendix I. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 37 of 329 

Table 2.5A - Alternatives Comparison By Issues, Allocations and Prescriptions

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

Summary of Alt by Element Alt. W 

No Change

Alt. X Alt Y 

Selected 

Alternative 

Alt Z 

ISSUES 

 Recreation/Environmental 

Education 

 More upgrades & 

facility focus 

More dispersed 

focus 

Fewer amenities 

and fees 

 Vegetation Management 

 Improved 

Ecological 

Diversity 

Improved 

Ecological 

Diversity 

Less Intensive 

Management 

 Special Designations 

 Deferred area 

conversions 

Deferred area 

conversions 

Recommend 

Wilderness if 

criteria met; Def. 

area conversions 

PRESCRIPTIONS

 Natural Resource Stewardship 

 General Vegetation 

(forests/open lands) 

 Reallocate, 

restore, redefine 

Reallocate, 

restore, redefine 

Some 

reallocation 

 Core areas 

Approx 35,000 

acres Large and 

medium blocks 

same as 94 Plan 

Approx 41,000 

acres from 

deferred General 

Forest 

Approx 42,000 

acres from 

deferred Gen. 

Forest & Dev. 

areas 

Approx 46,000 

acres Designate 

all deferred 

acreage 

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

 Wetlands Management 

 Wildlife Refuges 

 Administrative Areas 

 Utility Corridors 

 Admin, Maintenance, Closed 

Facilities 

 Consolidate Consolidate Consolidate 

 Communication Sites 

 Roads Improve/upgrade Improve/upgrade, 

fewer miles 

 Recreation/Environmental 

Education

 Developed Recreation 

 Upgrade/add 

facilities or 

amenities 

Upgrade/improve 

some sites, 

realign some 

Developed sites 

Decrease 

amenities 

 Elk/Bison Prairie/South Bison 

Range 

 

 Turkey Bay OHV 

 Sustainable Dayuse; upgrade 

camping outside 

Sustainable, 

camping within 

 Sustainable; 

camping as is 

 EE facilities 

 Upgrade, expand: 

e.g. culture trails 

Improvements 

possible 

 Nature Watch Demo Area 

 Convert from 

EEA, add acres; 

S. No Hunt Area 

Convert from 

EEA, add acres; 

S. No Hunt Area 

 Non-Facilities-Based EE Increase Increase 

 EE Area (EEA) No EEA 

boundaries 

Expand to Nature 

Watch 

Expand to Nature 

Watch 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 38 of 329 

Table 2.5B –Summary of Acres By Alternative And Prescription – Draft 

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. 

* 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 

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
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 39 of 329 

Chapter 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.0 Introduction 

The purpose of Chapter Three is to present the wide range of resource characteristics, 

elements, and components that comprise LBL, which would be affected by the 

implementation of the different Alternatives. It explains the conditions of the 

environment, the resources and the features of LBL as they are now, and depicts some of 

the historic effects that have developed them to this point. It further draws upon 

scientific analysis, computer and mathematical modeling, and comparisons to other 

forests, areas, or habitats, to present the possible resulting environmental consequences of 

each of the Alternatives. 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic resource elements 

based upon the best information currently available for analysis. Each part of this chapter 

addresses the elements, features or factors relative to the issues, the need for change, and 

its potential to impact other elements within LBL as well as the surrounding area. The 

information is presented in quantitative as well as qualitative information and data, 

depending upon the availability and accepted accuracy of the information. Detailed 

discussion and explanation of these Analyses tools is listed in Appendix B. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

The Physical Environment described in this section refers to the air, soils and water 

resources. These resources are affected in different ways by the management actions, 

recreation activities, and land allocations and designations proposed in each Alternative. 

3.1.1 Air Resources 

Affected Environment – Air Quality 

In addition to protecting the air, land, and water resources under their jurisdiction from 

the impacts of air pollution produced outside of federal lands (Clean Air Act, 1990), 

statutes and regulations also require federal land managers to protect air, land, and water 

from the effects of air pollutants originating from within federal lands (Clean Air Act, 

1990; Organic Act, 1977; Wilderness Act, 1997). Activities within LBL such as 

prescribed fire, road construction/maintenance, recreational use, and timber management 

all have an impact on the air quality of National Forest System land. The Forest Service 

must minimize the impact of management activities on natural resources, including the 

Forest’s contribution to general air pollution. To fulfill this responsibility, LBL must 

understand the impacts of pollution originating on National Forest System land as well as 

the impacts of pollution from sources outside LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 40 of 329 

LBL is located in an area of increasing population growth and the associated demand for 

electricity and transportation (SAMI, 2002). Lying near the industrial heart of the United 

States, the region within which LBL is located sees a high concentration of coal-fired 

electrical generating facilities, the leading sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxide (NOx) emissions. This network of coal-fired electrical power plants includes the 

generally defined Ohio River valley as well as TVA sources. In Kentucky alone there are 

18 operating coal-fired power plants (EPA, 1999), with several more recently permitted 

by the state. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s coal-fired electric generating plant in 

Muhlenberg County, KY (northeast of LBL), located within 150 miles of LBL, is one of 

the largest point sources of NOx and SO2 emissions in the nation. Many large NOx and 

SO2 emitting point sources in the nation are also located within 150 miles of LBL; all are 

electric generating plants. In addition, large highways in the vicinity of LBL add 

additional NOx and volatile organic compounds to the atmosphere. 

Nitrogen oxides are an important contributor to the formation of ground-level ozone on 

hot sunny days. Ozone affects the human respiratory system as well as vegetation. From 

2000 through 2002, ozone concentrations at one out of four state monitors located near 

LBL exceeded the new 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

(reference Table 3.1.1A). The 8-hour NAAQS is exceeded if the 3-year average of the 

4th highest 8-hour concentrations exceeds 0.085 parts per million (ppm). 

Table 3.1.1A 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 red 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/

The two largest sources of nitrogen oxides affecting LBL originate from electric 

generating plants (especially during hot summer days when electricity is needed to cool 

homes and businesses) and from highway vehicles. As current air laws, rules, and 

regulations are fully implemented, nitrogen oxide emissions are predicted to decrease 

over the Area Plan period. These reductions should lower the highest concentrations of 

ozone, resulting in lessened effects from ozone on vegetation growth in the coming years. 

Further reductions in nitrogen oxide are also anticipated as state and local air pollution 

control agencies seek ways to attain the new ozone standard in urban areas near LBL. 

Continued reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions will benefit the health of LBL visitors 

as well as vegetation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 41 of 329 

Sulfur dioxide and NOx emissions are transformed in the atmosphere into sulfates and 

nitrates (from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides), which contribute to acid deposition 

and regional haze. Approximately 80 percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions affecting 

LBL are released from coal-fired power plants. Power plants within 100 kilometers of 

LBL most likely influence the acidity and sulfate concentration of rainfall on LBL. 

Monitoring data for western Kentucky suggests that LBL lies in an area of moderately 

high sulfate and nitrate deposition for the United States. This level of deposition can be 

detrimental to aquatic and soil resources in ecosystems not adequately buffered. Most of 

LBL’s soils and geology have sufficient buffering capacity, and acidification is not 

evident. Aquatic ecosystems on LBL show no signs of acidification from atmospheric 

deposition, again due to adequate buffering. The same pollutants that cause acid 

deposition also affect visibility. 

Regional haze and reduced visibility is caused primarily by sulfates emitted by coal-fired 

power plants. The estimated natural background visibility for the eastern United States is 

93+/-28 miles (NAPAP, 1991). However, there has been a significant reduction in how 

far an observer can see into the distance as well as the clarity of that view. Visibility 

monitoring data from Mammoth Cave National Park provides the best estimate of haze 

conditions on LBL. The clearest days have the lowest fine particle mass (4.23 

micrograms per cubic meter [ug/m3]), and estimated visibility is 57 miles (using the 

annual average relative humidity of 84 percent). On the highest mass (20.67 ug/m3) days 

visibility is reduced significantly to 14 miles. These days are most likely to occur from 

May through September (IMPROVE, 2002), a time of high visitation by the public. 

Secondary fine particles, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), 

are primarily responsible for visibility impairment, with sulfates the most significant of 

these fine particles. On low mass days sulfates comprise 48 percent of the total mass, 

while on the highest mass days, sulfates comprise 70 percent of the total (IMPROVE, 

2002). Sulfur dioxide is expected to decrease in the vicinity of LBL within the Area Plan 

period as nearby electric utilities, especially the Tennessee Valley Authority, continue to 

install best available control technologies. 

The fine particles that cause visibility impairment also can be unhealthy for people, high 

concentrations aggravate 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 and symptoms, decreased lung function, and 

even premature death (EPA, 1997). Vulnerable groups at greater risk include the elderly, 

individuals with cardiopulmonary diseases such as asthma, and children. This makes 

monitoring of fine particle levels important. 

Monitoring results for fine particulates include both fine primary particulate (emitted 

directly from a source) and secondary particulate (resulting from the transformation of 

gases in the atmosphere). The US Environmental Protection Agency has established 

NAAQS for fine particles (PM2.5) based on three-year averages of the monitoring data. 

The PM2.5 annual average standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). Table 

3.1.1B lists results from monitors near LBL from 1999 through 2001. Results indicate 

that the annual average PM2.5 standard may have been exceeded at the Christian, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 42 of 329 

McCracken, and Montgomery County monitors. The PM2.5 short-term (24-hour) 

standard is 65 ug/m3 based on a 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile values. 

(Note that the short-term concentrations are maximum values, not the 98th percentile). 

The 24-hour average NAAQS does not appear likely to be exceeded when the data from 

the closest monitoring sites to LBL are averaged for three years. 

Table 3.1.1B Fine Particulate annual average and 24 hour max values for monitors 

within 50 km. of LBL. Values for sites in red exceed the NAAQS 

State County Monitor 

ID 1999 2000 2001s 

 Annual 

Avg 

24 Hr 

Max 

Annual 

Avg 

24 Hr 

Max 

Annual 

Avg 

24 Hr 

Max

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 are 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

Based on the 1999-2001 ozone and fine particulate state monitoring data, the ClarksvilleHopkinsville metropolitan statistical area (Christian and Montgomery County monitors) 

could be designated non-attainment for ozone. It is expected that no counties within the 

immediate vicinity of LBL will be designated non-attainment for fine particulates, 

although the Owensboro metropolitan area (Daviess County, lying northeast of LBL) 

could be designated as non-attainment. Ultimately, the states and EPA will make nonattainment determinations for fine particles and ozone based on monitoring data that 

incorporates 2002 and 2003. Minimizing prescribed fire emissions to the greatest extent 

practical during days characterized by existing or predicted high ambient air pollution, 

therefore, becomes important for prescribed fire managers. The PM2.5 standard may 

require even more vigilance in smoke management to protect citizens on and off National 

Forest System lands from the effects of particulate emissions associated with prescribed 

fire. 

Once an area is cited for non-attainment, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is developed 

in an attempt to bring the area back into attainment. This usually involves placing 

controls on various sources that contribute to the pollutant of concern. Current emission 

inventories do not accurately reflect emissions from prescribed burning. Since 70 percent 

of particulate emissions from prescribed fires are fine particles, nitrogen oxides and 

volatile organic compounds are also released, therefore, state air regulators may be 

concerned. LBL will need to interact closely with the KY and TN air regulatory agencies 

and the VISTAS Regional Haze Planning Organization to ensure that LBL prescribed fire 

emissions (and perhaps other management activities) are accurately considered in SIP’s 

for visibility, and perhaps for ozone and fine particulates as well. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 43 of 329 

Environmental Effects of Prescribed Fire 

As an ecological process, prescribed fire is essential in creating and maintaining 

functional ecosystems and achieving other land use objectives. However, emissions from 

prescribed fire, as well as from wildland fire, affect air quality. In 1997, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted more stringent air quality standards for 

ozone and PM2.5 to protect human health (EPA, 1997). One challenge in using prescribed 

fire is balancing the public interest objectives of protecting human health and welfare 

(from air pollution) with sustaining ecological integrity. Recognizing this, the EPA 

developed an interim air quality policy for wildland and prescribed fires that allows fire 

to function, as nearly as possible, in its natural role of maintaining healthy ecosystems, 

but still protects public health and welfare by mitigating the impacts of emissions on air 

quality and visibility (EPA, 1998). 

To minimize the negative effects of smoke and associated pollutants on visibility and 

human health, smoke management plans are a required part of every prescribed fire. The 

smoke management plan identifies smoke dispersion characteristics that must be met in 

the weather forecast for the day of the burn. These characteristics include: depth of the 

atmosphere available for smoke mixing (dispersion), transport wind speed and direction, 

and probability of air mass stagnation during the day. LBL also identifies smoke 

sensitive targets (including non-attainment areas) within the probable smoke impact area 

and coordinates with them to avoid or mitigate problems. Actual weather conditions and 

smoke behavior are monitored to make sure they meet the plan. By planning and 

executing prescribed fires on days that maximize smoke dispersion and avoiding smoke 

sensitive areas, the negative effects of smoke can be minimized. 

Several Area Plan alternatives propose substantial increases in the use of prescribed fire 

over current levels. At the same time, some counties within or near LBL proclamation 

boundary could exceed the NAAQS for ozone and be found in non-attainment. Nonattainment for the fine particulate standard is not expected to be an issue within or near 

LBL within the Area Plan period. The primary prescribed fire pollutant of concern to 

state air regulators, and the Forest Service, are fine particulates (PM2.5). By mass, the 

largest NAAQS pollutant emitted from prescribed fires are fine particulates (PM2.5), NOx 

emissions (a primary component of ozone production) are a relatively minor component 

of prescribed fire smoke. Information sharing and other cooperation between the Forest 

Service, state air regulatory agencies (Tennessee and Kentucky), and others will be 

essential to incorporate Forest Service emissions into the inventories needed to develop 

future attainment plans. LBL will also be expected to follow “conformity” (applicable to 

non-attainment areas) rules and report any prescribed fire emissions for activities planned 

in non-attainment areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 44 of 329 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Emissions from both prescribed and wildland fires are generated by incomplete 

combustion and include particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, and hydrocarbons (Hardy, et al. 2001). The single-most important emission is 

fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which limits visibility 

and aggravates respiratory conditions in susceptible individuals. Fine particulates (PM2.5) 

make up more than 70 percent of the mass of particulate matter produced by fire, 

therefore, PM2.5 emissions were used to compare the direct effects of alternatives on air 

quality. Emission estimates are calculated for the maximum acres planned for treatment 

using estimates of fuel type, amount of fuel consumed, and emission rates for the types of 

burns planned. The results are presented in Table 3.1.1.C below. Actual acres burned in 

any given year, as well as resulting PM2.5 emissions, will depend on weather conditions 

and other factors that must be considered prior to initiating a prescribed fire. 

Emissions from prescribed fire are only one of many sources of PM2.5 pollution. Other 

sources of fine particulates include power plants, industries, and vehicles. For the effects 

analysis, forest-wide PM2.5 emissions are estimated for each alternative and compared to 

current “primary” PM2.5 emissions (not included are “secondary” PM2.5 emissions 

produced as a result of atmospheric chemistry – much harder to quantify) from other 

sources. The analysis area is comprised of counties containing National Forest System 

lands. This analysis assumed that no other regular prescribed fire program is conducted 

on private lands within the three counties of LBL. 

In order to compare prescribed fire emissions to total emissions in the analysis area, the 

most recent EPA emissions inventory (1999) was used. It estimates primary PM2.5

emissions at 2,227 tons per year (EPA 1999). It is important to remember that fine 

particulates can be emitted directly into the atmosphere or they can be created from 

gaseous pollutants that are chemically transformed into particulates (secondary 

pollutants). Only those particulates emitted directly into the atmosphere (primary 

pollutants) are tracked in emission inventories; secondary particulates are not included. 

Because a large amount of PM2.5 is secondary pollution, the contribution of prescribed 

fire emissions to total PM2.5 would be significantly less than what is shown in this 

analysis. 

Predicted changes in emissions are based on a regional assessment and are not 

representative of any one particular location on LBL. The estimated emissions, shown in 

Table 3.1.1C, would not be evenly distributed across LBL because treatment areas will 

vary annually. Site-specific analyses of smoke dispersion and downwind fine particulate 

impacts occur when sites are selected for treatment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 45 of 329 

Table 3.1.1C Estimated particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions, in tons, resulting from 

prescribed fires on LBL. 

Forested 

Acreage 

Prairie 

Acreage 

Forest 

Emissions 

Prairie 

Emissions 

Total 

Emissions 

Background 10

PM2.5 Emissions* 

NA NA NA NA 2,227 

Alternative W 0 910 0 13 13 

Alternatives X/Y 9,658 1,230 1,226 18 1,244 

Alternative Z 4,346 1,183 551 17 568 

* - From EPA’s “National Emissions Inventory” (1999); compilation of “area” and “point” emissions for 

analysis area counties (Lyon, KY, Trigg, KY, and Stewart, TN). http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports

Emissions estimation tool - “First Order Fire Effects Model” (FOFEM), version 5.0. FOFEM is a product 

of the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Laboratory ( http://fire.org ) 

Alternative W 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative W represents a continuation of the current prescribed fire program of LBL. 

Currently LBL practices prescribed fire treatments in campgrounds, prairies, and open 

field areas. Prescribed fire would be practiced on a maximum of 910 acres in these areas 

annually, producing approximately 13 tons of PM2.5 per year. The effects analysis that 

follows compares emissions from alternatives to the average emissions from actual 

prescribed fire programs over the past 10 years (approximately 900 acres per year). 

Cumulative Effects 

Emissions from Alternative W represent approximately 0.6 percent of primary PM2.5

emissions in the analysis area. 

Alternatives X and Y 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Since the number of acres proposed for treatment in Alternatives X and Y are the same, 

emissions would be the same. These alternatives propose prescribed fire on 10,835 acres 

annually (forest lands = 9,658 acres; prairies = 1,230 acres), producing approximately 

1,244 tons per year of fine particulates. Alternatives X and Y would incrementally 

increase the acres treated over the planning period from approximately 900 acres today to 

10,835 acres. Prescribed fire programs in Alternatives X and Y would produce the 

highest levels of PM2.5 of all alternatives. Acres treated under Alternatives X and Y 

would significantly increase fine particulate emissions when compared to Alternative W. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 46 of 329 

Cumulative Effects 

Emissions from Alternative X and Y would increase primary PM2.5 emissions in the 

analysis area approximately 55 percent on an annual basis. Emissions from Alternative X 

and Y represent approximately 56 percent of primary PM2.5 emissions in the analysis 

area. 

Alternative Z 

Direct Effects 

Alternative Z represents about half the prescribed fire program as Alternatives X or Y, 

consequently emissions would be approximately half of Alternative X or Y as well. 

Alternative Z would incrementally increase the acres treated over the planning period 

from approximately 900 acres today to 5,529 acres (forest lands = 4,346 acres; prairies = 

1,183 acres). The estimated acreage of prairies to receive prescribed fire treatments is 

comparable in Alternatives W, X, and Y. Alternative Z fine particulate emissions are 

significantly greater than Alternative W but approximately one half of those of 

Alternatives X and Y. 

Cumulative Effects 

Emissions from Alternative Z represent approximately 26 percent of primary PM2.5

emissions in the analysis area. 

3.1.2 Geology and Soils 

Geology 

LBL lies along the eastern edge of the ancient Mississippian Embayment, within the Ohio 

River basin of the central United States. Its current physiography results from 

impoundments of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, the dominating physical 

elements of LBL. The rivers form topographic trenches roughly parallel to each other 

along the length of LBL. Topography is greatly dissected by numerous tributaries of 

each river that head against each other so as to form a narrow drainage divide. The 

divide between the rivers is somewhat closer to the Tennessee than to the Cumberland, 

and the elevation of the divide is relatively even. Original maximum relief before the 

lakes were formed was just under 100 yards. The present lake elevation reduces this 

relief somewhat. Tributaries and their dissections are so close together that most of the 

area occur on sloping hillsides. They have steep gradients in the headwaters but their 

lower courses have low gradients with broader valley floors. Confluences of the 

tributaries with the major rivers are nearly at right angles, exhibiting a landscape 

controlled by geologic structures such as faults and bedrock strike. LBL’s mature 

topographic features are displayed in its narrow ridge crests, steep slopes of low relief, 

sediment-filled valleys and channels, and narrow bottomlands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 47 of 329 

Bedrock is predominantly cherty limestone of the Mississippian System and part of the 

stable North American continental plate or craton. LBL owes its homogeneity of bedrock 

and topography to the fact that the rivers parallel the strike of the bedrock throughout the 

entire length of LBL. Limestone is a soluble rock while chert is resistant both to solution 

and abrasion. Some lithologic units contain thin shale layers and disseminated clay and 

silt, which together with the chert form the residual weathered product. Weathering of 

pure limestone would form no soil. Surface exposures of bedrock are uncommon in 

LBL, occurring primarily along lakeshores. 

Chert is an abundant constituent of the limestone bedrock. Rock fragments of chert are a 

major residual product of weathering of the soluble limestone. Angular chert fragments 

of all sizes are present in the soil profile and loose on many hillslopes. Chert reaches 

waterways by mass wasting or direct scouring of stream channels. 

Glaciers did not reach the Tennessee or Cumberland valleys so there are no glacial 

deposits in LBL. Indirect effects of glaciation just to the north of the LBL region are 

evident by: deepening of the valleys; ponding and aggradation of the valleys; and 

deposition of windblown silty and sandy loess mantling uplands. Caves and caverns are 

unknown and sinkholes are uncommon within LBL compared to the Pennyrile region just 

to the east. This may be indicative of much less water circulating underground than 

places east. Another postulation is there may have been insufficient geologic uplift to 

expose caverns above the deeper water-filled cavities. 

LBL is situated just east of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, the region affected by the 

Reelfoot Rift System. This was the location of high intensity earthquakes in 1811 and 

1812. LBL is outside the zones of major activity though it would be within the area of 

potential damage. This region is the junction of several major structural elements of eastcentral United States. The triple junction of the rift controls the location of the lower 

Tennessee River. 

Soils 

Affected Environment 

Soil is the part of the earth’s surface composed of organic matter, minerals, and living 

organisms, and is capable of supporting a wide variety of biological, chemical and 

physical processes, and the cycling of nutrients and water. Soil is the result of 

weathering of parent rock material over extended periods of time influenced by climate 

and living matter, conditioned by relief, and effected by both natural events and the 

cultural alterations or uses of human beings. A soil’s physical materials consist of sand, 

silt, clay, and organic matter. Other particle sizes such as gravel, cobbles and boulders 

may be included with the soil mixture as a result of past geologic, geomorphic, and 

hydrologic movements. These materials can be found in various combinations, depths of 

internal soil features, and development type from residual materials, erosion, or 

deposition, to form a soil series. Geology, climate, moisture, wind, and hydrologic 

regimes can have an influence on soil development. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 48 of 329 

The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly Soil Conservation 

Service (SCS), last completed county soil surveys for Kentucky’s Trigg and Lyon 

Counties in 1981 and Tennessee’s Stewart County in 1953. The following soils 

information was taken from USDA Soil Conservation Service (1981) for Kentucky soils 

and USDA Soil Conservation Service (1953) for Tennessee soils in LBL. The 

information contained in the 1953 Soil Survey of Stewart County, Tennessee will be used 

during this planning process; however, an updated soil survey for the Stewart County 

portion of LBL is scheduled to begin fiscal year 2003. This updated version will be used 

during the plan implementation stage. 

According to current GIS data, the Lyon and Trigg County portion of LBL consists of 

approximately 17 soil series and 33 soil mapping units. The Stewart County portion of 

LBL consists of approximately 35 soil series and 83 soil mapping units. Each map unit 

on a soils map is a unique natural landscape. Typically, a soil map unit consists of one or 

more major soils and some minor soils. Soil series consists of soils that have similar 

horizons in their profile. The horizons are similar in color, texture, structure, reaction, 

consistence, mineral and chemical composition, and arrangement in the profile. Refer to 

Appendix E for a list of the soil mapping units of LBL. 

Generally, most of LBL soils are derived from limestone or gravelly coastal plain 

residuum, or from Pleistocene loess in combination with one of these substrates. Many 

of the soils derived from underlying parent material are typically low in nutrients. Due to 

the dissected nature of the topography, erosion over a long period of time had a major 

impact on the processes of soil formation on the ridge tops and upland slopes. The most 

common upland soils are of six types: Baxter, Bodine, Brandon, Hammack, Lax, and 

Saffell. In LBL, soils are so closely interspersed that they are most often mapped as soil 

complexes or combinations. Upland soils are mostly forested. About half the 12,550 

acres maintained as open lands occurs in valley bottoms in long, narrow fields. 

Bottomland soils at LBL typically have high site indexes and are generally one of five 

types: Clifty, Ennis, Humphreys, Lindside, and Nolin. 

The following is a list of the soil types of the upland areas of LBL. 

Baxter-Hammack Soil Complexes: These soils are deep, steep to sloping, and well 

drained, with Baxter dominant on steep side slopes and Hammack on narrow ridge tops 

and moderate side slopes. Baxter-Hammack is commonly located on slopes from 20 to 

30 percent where it is moderately subject to erosion but can occur on slopes of up to 60 

percent creating a severe erosion hazard. Baxter soils have a brown cherty silt loam 

surface layer and moderately permeable subsoil that is predominantly clayey and cherty. 

Hammack soils are formed in loess and do not have gravels. Hammack soils have a 

brown silt loam surface layer. The moderately permeable subsoil is loamy in the upper 

part and dominantly clayey and cherty in the lower part. As a soil complex, they are 

fairly productive for forest species (site index for oak in approximately 80). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 49 of 329 

Bodine soils: Bodine soils are classified only in Tennessee but occur under other 

classifications in Kentucky. Bodine soils occur on upper ridge slopes at the heads of 

small drains and on broader ridge ends with slopes of 12 to 25 percent. They are derived 

from cherty limestone or limestone residuum with rapid internal and surface drainage. 

They are often severely eroded, low in organic matter content, strongly to extremely acid 

in reaction, and have a site index for oak of 50 or less. Bodine soils are frequently 

associated with Baxter soils. 

Brandon Silt Loams: These soils occur on slopes of six to 20 percent, and are deep and 

well-drained. Brandon soils are low in organic matter, strongly to very strongly acid in 

reaction, and moderately subject to erosion. Brandon soils have a brown silt loam surface 

layer and loamy, moderately permeable subsoil underlain by gravelly, loamy, and 

moderately rapidly permeable to rapidly permeable material. These soils can occur on 

north and south slopes. Site index for oak on Brandon silt loams ranges from 60 to 66. 

Brandon soils, like Hammack soils, are formed in loess and do not have gravels. 

Lax Soils: Lax soils are deep, moderately well drained, and found on ridge tops and 

upper slopes of two to 12 percent. Lax soils have a brown silt loam surface layer except 

in severely eroded areas where it is silty clay loam. The upper part of the subsoil is 

loamy and moderately permeable. Because of their formation in loess and gravelly 

coastal plain material, these soils have a fragipan which retards internal drainage. Lax 

soils have a slight erosion hazard rating and a site index of about 70 for oak. 

Saffell Soils: These soils are associated with slopes of 20 to 50 percent. Saffell soils 

have a dark grayish brown and yellowish brown gravelly silt loam surface layer and a 

reddish brown, loamy, gravelly to very gravelly, moderately permeable subsoil. They are 

low in organic matter and strongly acid in reaction with a site index for oak of 50 or less. 

Saffell soils tend to be very gravelly with rounded chert fragments throughout all 

horizons. 

About half the 10,650 acres maintained as open lands occurs in valley bottoms in long, 

narrow fields. Bottomland soils at LBL typically have high site indexes and are generally 

one of five types: Clifty, Ennis, Humphreys, Lindside, and Nolin. 

Clifty Gravelly Silt Loams: These soils are deep, well drained, and nearly level. They 

are most often found near heads of branch bottoms and creeks. Typically, the surface 

layer is brown gravelly silt loam about six inches thick. The subsoil, extending to a depth 

of 34 inches, is brown gravelly silt loam. Permeability is moderately rapid with crop 

yields occasionally reduced by drought. Clifty soils are also occasionally subject to 

flooding. High gravel content makes tillage somewhat difficult. Clifty soils are medium 

to strongly acidic in reaction, moderate in organic matter content, and medium in natural 

fertility. Although some of these soils are cultivated in LBL, much remains in forest. 

Erosion hazard for Clifty soils is slight. 

Ennis Cherty and Ennis Fine Sandy Loams: Ennis cherty loams (on three percent 

slopes) are well-drained cherty soils occurring on small areas generally in long, narrow 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 50 of 329 

bottoms underlain by cherty limestone. Ennis fine sandy loams (slopes up to three 

percent) occur in small-to medium-sized creek bottoms. A tendency to “dry out” low 

nutrient content, and high acidity dictate special methods for satisfactory crop yields. 

Humphreys Very Fine Sandy Loams: These soils (on slopes of two to five percent) 

occupy low terraces in nearly all northern creek valleys and are well drained at the 

surface and internally. 

Lindside Silt Loams: These soils are deep, moderately well drained, and nearly level. 

They are high in natural fertility, moderate in organic matter content, and range from 

medium acid to mildly alkaline in reaction. Typically, the surface is brown silt loam 

seven inches thick and subsoil to a depth of 18 inches is brown silt loam. Lindside soils 

are subject to periodic flooding, though rarely during the growing season, and are well 

suited to cultivation and woodland uses. Their erosion hazard rating is slight. 

Nolin Silt Loams: Nolin silt loams occur on floodplains and in depressions on uplands, 

primarily near larger streams. They are deep, well drained, and nearly level. Typically, 

the surface layer is brown silt loam about 10 inches thick. They are mildly alkaline to 

medium acid in reaction, moderately permeable, high in natural fertility, and moderate in 

organic matter content. Nolin soils are subject to late winter and spring flooding, which 

rarely affect crop yields. Erosion hazard for Nolin soils is slight. Most Nolin soils in 

LBL are cultivated. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Soil Productivity 

Soil productivity is defined as the capacity of soil, in its normal environment, to support 

plant growth. Soil productivity is reflected in the growth of forest vegetation or the 

volume of organic matter produced on site. In forest management, soil productivity is 

most often measured in volume of trees produced; however, other methods of 

determining productivity exist including forest community assessments. 

In forest planning there are various laws, executive orders, regulations, and policy set 

forth in the Forest Service Manual that address productivity. Section 6 (3)(E)(i) of the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 “insures that timber will be harvested 

from National Forest System lands only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions 

will not be irreversibly damaged.” Accordingly, section 36 CFR 219.14 (a)(2) of the 

National Forest Management Regulations limits timber production on National Forest 

System lands where conditions may contribute to irreversible damage to soil productivity 

or watershed conditions. Section 36 CFR 219.27 (a) (1) and (b)(5) addresses the 

conservation of the soil and water resources and not allowing significant impairment to 

land or site productivity when managing National Forest System lands. 

On most forests, soil productivity is one of the primary concerns. Conditions that can 

influence soil productivity include soil type, aspect, erosion potential, nutrient 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 51 of 329 

composition, and past land use. Soil productivity can be reduced by overgrazing, severe 

wild land forest fires, mining activity and other natural and anthropogenic activities. 

Highly erodible soils characterized by having little to no organic or mineral surface 

horizon, deficient of nutrients, limited vegetation cover, and commonly located on slopes 

greater than 10 percent are generally found on unproductive sites. Intense forest 

management activities and other land use on highly erodible soils can contribute to soil 

erosion and sedimentation which decreases soil productivity and water quality. 

Effects to Soil Productivity from Forest Service actions 

Direct Effects

• Compaction 

• Land Use Change 

• Soil Displacement (Topsoil Removal) 

• Soil Improvement 

Indirect Effects

• Erosion/Soil Movement 

• Vegetation Removal/Nutrient Cycling 

• Prescribed Fire Use 

Soil Compaction 

Soil compaction is the increase in soil density resulting from loads applied to the soil 

surface. During the compaction process, soil volume is decreased primarily through the 

elimination of macro-pores (pores > 0.002 inches in diameter). Soil compaction is one of 

several types of closely related physical soil disturbances that can occur during timber 

harvesting and forest management activities. Other types of soil physical disturbance 

include puddling, rutting, and scarification. These disturbances often occur 

simultaneously and are almost exclusively caused by: 

• Heavy equipment trafficking during felling, forwarding, skidding and site 

preparation operations; 

• The dragging action of logs as they are moved from the stump to the landing; 

• Slash disposal and the creation of planting or seeding sites during site preparation. 

• Recreational uses such as OHV and equestrian trails. 

Land Use Change 

If a soil on LBL has the ability to produce biomass, it then has productivity. If this same 

soil, for example, is converted to a parking lot, building site, paved road, or into some 

other use that prevents it from producing biomass, then it has lost some or all of its 

productivity for some time, probably a long time (> 100 years). Land use change is 

considered a long-term impact to soil productivity. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 52 of 329 

Soil Displacement (Topsoil Removal) 

Soil displacement is the horizontal and vertical movement of surface soil from its original 

position on the landscape. The surface horizon or topsoil can be moved from one place 

to another through mechanical means (e.g., skidding of logs, blade construction of skid 

roads, landings, temporary and system roads, OHVs, etc.). Since the surface horizon 

makes up the organic and mineral soil layers, soil displacement contributes to a loss in 

soil productivity which affects the growth of plants. Soil displacement associated with 

soil compaction may alter soil texture, and physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics, which can lead to accelerated erosion, surface run off, and stream 

sedimentation. 

Commonly, soils displacement occurs as a result of heavy equipment on saturated soils in 

lowland areas and on upland soils containing steep slopes. Heavy equipment on saturated 

soils can cause soil puddling. Puddled soils create a poor medium for plant growth 

because aeration is restricted, pore structure is reduced, and the retention of water is 

increased. Droughty conditions may cause puddled soils to crack on the surface which 

reduces root penetration and impacts plant growth and establishment. 

Soil Improvement 

Maintaining soil productivity is important to assure adequate forage and timber. 

Bottomland areas, especially wetland and riparian areas, with high flood potential are 

susceptible to soil compaction and rutting. Soil compaction and rutting directly impacts 

soil productivity because it reduces aeration, significantly decreasing plant root 

respiration and the capacity to supply the plant adequate moisture and nutrients. An 

inventory of watershed improvement needs for those areas needing rehabilitation, 

stabilization, and full restoration will need to be updated in the Watershed Improvement 

Needs Inventory (WIN) database and/or National Resource Inventory System (NRIS). 

This inventory of low productivity (nutrient deficient) and eroding lands includes areas 

such as gullies, quarries (borrow pits), galls, barren areas of soil, and other similar areas 

void of vegetation (such as trails and roads that have been closed and are no longer on the 

system).

Continuous monitoring of these areas for quality control will give the effectiveness of 

treatments and practices used and will aid in future project implementation plans. Areas 

needing soil and water improvements that are found through project reconnaissance and 

land exchange or acquisitions will be assessed and updated in the WIN and/or NRIS 

databases as needed. The purpose of soil and water improvements is to address existing 

problems that are not a direct result of past or ongoing forest management activities. 

Each state’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) are established as practical guidelines to 

be used to reduce the environmental impact of forest management activities. The Region 

8 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Guide (SWCP) includes all the measures that 

are needed to address the direction to protect soil and water resources. The use of this 

guide will help to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts of management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 53 of 329 

activities on soil and water resources and beneficial water uses. Also, this guide will be 

used to mitigate effects to the soil and water resources and to assure that water resources 

meet the intent of the Clean Water Act. This guide is in compliance with a variety of 

legal and environmental direction including the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone 

Management Act, Floodplain, Wetland, and other Executive Orders, State BMPs, State 

Forest Practices and Water Quality Regulations, Forest Plans, R8 Vegetation 

Management Plans, and US Forest Service Directives, Manuals and Handbooks. 

Erosion (Soil Movement) 

Soil erosion is another type of physical soil impact that can occur as a result of soil 

disturbance during timber harvesting, site preparation, and other forest management 

activities. Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are detached and transported 

by water, wind or gravity to some down-slope or downstream point. Erosion is a natural 

process. Soil erosion can be accelerated as a result of impacts by humans. Soil erosion is 

a major concern on most forests but with the use and careful design of BMPs and R8 

SWCP Guide, erosion and sedimentation will be reduced significantly. 

LBL has a moderately dissected topography with narrow ridge crests, steep slopes, and 

narrow bottomlands. This landscape has been formed by erosion caused by surface water 

run off. The density of steep valleys is due to the proximity of the Tennessee and 

Cumberland River valleys and the relatively moderate topographic relief between the river 

channels and LBL’s uplands. In addition to the processes associated with surface water, 

climate and weathering, mass wasting, and groundwater have helped shape the land. 

Vegetation Removal (Nutrient Cycling) 

When vegetation is removed from a site, a portion of the potential organic matter and its 

available nutrients to the soil is removed with it. The resulting condition of a reduced 

canopy (shade) can have an effect on soil temperature, soil moisture, and nutrient cycling. 

This situation will normally occur with a timber harvest. The bole of the tree is removed 

from the site and the forest canopy opens up to allow more sunlight and moisture to reach 

the soil surface. Other parts of the tree will remain on site to recycle into the soil system 

over time. Loss of trees will reduce evapotranspiration and increase soil moisture. Loss of 

canopy will increase soil moisture and temperature in the topsoil. These conditions will 

increase soil organic matter decomposition and increase available nutrients on the treated 

area. Much of this increase in plant available nutrients will be taken up by the stump 

sprouting of hardwood trees and the root systems of the remaining vegetation on the treated 

area. Some nutrients may be leached from the site and reach local streams. The leaching 

effect is short-term and literature has shown that removal of the tree main stem alone will 

not reduce long-term soil productivity. These short-term losses are made up by leaf fall, 

atmospheric additions, and weathering of parent material. Any increased leaching of 

nutrients from the soil would be very short term (< five years). 

The resource management areas at LBL that could have an effect on the soil resource are 

Forest Management, Open Land Management, Recreation Management, Roads and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 54 of 329 

Trails, and Fire Management. Management activities within these areas may affect soil 

productivity through a variety of processes including: soil compaction; land use change; 

displacement; soil improvement; erosion (soil movement); and vegetation removal 

(nutrient cycling). These processes are capable of altering the physical, chemical, and 

biological functions of the soil. 

Forest Management 

Forest management activities that affect soil and water are timber harvesting, site 

preparation, timber stand improvement projects, skid trail construction, and felling, 

yarding, skidding, loading, and transporting logs. Most of these effects are temporary, 

lasting only a few years. Loss of the protective soil cover (litter) from ground 

disturbance can increase erosion and sedimentation while decreasing soil productivity. 

Various aspects of forest management can influence soil, water, and riparian conditions 

as summarized in various sections of the R8 Vegetation Management Plan. Activities 

under this section include many actions that are needed to maintain, manage, or 

manipulate vegetation densities and types to improve forest health and wildlife habitats.

Effects of Forest Management by Alternative 

Within the General Forest Prescription, timber removal will only occur for forest health 

reasons, wildlife habitat improvement needs, ecological restoration purposes, and to 

enhance visual quality. Some scheduled silvicultural treatments and/or prescribed fire 

would be used as a tool to reach the desired condition of this prescription. Alternatives X 

and Y emphasize two Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration Areas in which thinning 

and prescribed fire would be used to reach the desired condition of these areas. The 

location of these demonstration areas on the landscape would be on upper slopes and 

ridges where the soils are generally erodible and infertile. 

 

There has been no timber harvesting since the management transition from TVA to the 

Forest Service in 1999. Although no logging has occurred to date by the Forest Service, 

Alternative W does allow for timber harvesting. Areas needing soil and water 

improvements as a result of past timber harvesting activities will be assessed and 

inventoried at the project level for implementation. The impact on soil productivity 

across LBL is small in Alternative W. Alternatives X and Y would have more impact on 

soil productivity than Alternatives W and Z since thinning and prescribed fire will be 

used to reach the desired condition for the Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration 

Area. Adhering to regional guidance such as the R8 SWCP Guide and utilizing 

Kentucky and Tennessee State BMPs in an effective and timely matter will minimize 

impacts on soil productivity and water quality over the short and long term. 

Open Land Management 

Five categories of open lands including cooperative farming, woods openings, wildlife 

food plantings, other (reverting) open lands and miscellaneous lands are being managed 

at LBL. Currently there is a total of 10,650 acres of open lands on LBL. Table 3.2.5A 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 55 of 329 

under the Biological Elements section includes acres of grassland cover/structure type 

and non-grassland cover/structure type located on the major site types in LBL. There are 

6,522 acres of the grassland cover/structure type and 4,124 acres of non-grassland 

cover/structure type. 

These areas are being managed for a variety of reasons requiring specific management 

practices for each area. Management practices applied to each category of open lands are 

capable of affecting soil productivity through soil compaction, erosion and sedimentation, 

displacement, fertilization and fire. 

 

A variety of treatments are used to manipulate vegetation to meet specific wildlife and 

biotic viability, habitat, public hunting, or observation activities. Maintenance activities 

regularly include mowing and infrequent burning when contained within prescribed fire 

treatments or low frequency disking. 

Most of these areas include some form of road or trail access and are located on relatively 

flat lands under eight percent slope where erosion is relatively low. Constructing sites 

from forest areas may include activities such as clear cutting, stumping roots, piling 

debris, smoothing, disking, fertilizing, seeding with desired and/or native species, and 

mulching. 

Problem access roads or routes would be upgraded as needed to limit erosion and 

sediment effects. Maintained open lands are assumed not to be disked frequently enough 

to be classified as cropland or wildlife plantings, but are best classified as grasslands. 

Hayfields are open lands dominated by grasses and herbs that are annually mowed for 

hay under a cooperative hay farming program. Old fields are open lands dominated by 

grasses and herbs, but which do not meet the definition of native grasslands and are not 

regularly hayed. They may be maintained by mowing on a relatively long cycle (> two 

years) or be succeeding to forest and would include shrub growth species. Road right-ofways (ROW) are open land areas maintained annually by mowing along major roads 

while utility ROWs are open land areas maintained for clearance under and over powerlines and gas-lines. 

 

Effects by Alternative for Open Lands 

Wildlife plantings are open land areas maintained and planted solely for the benefit of 

wildlife. These are generally smaller than cropland patches and are maintained by Forest 

Service or state agency staff. These areas are planted typically in corn or a mixture of 

milo/iron-clay cowpeas/Korean lespedeza or other desirable forb/legume species. 

Plantings result in wildlife foods available through summer, fall, and winter. Regular 

treatment with fertilizer, or selection of nitrogen-fixing plants in the seed mixture, helps 

to maintain productivity. Increased use of native plants is encouraged and may result in 

less intense maintenance and maintenance of soil cover and roots. Once developed, 

native grasses are more resilient, require less maintenance, and can withstand more or are 

not as susceptible to disturbance (such as fire, drought, insect, disease or poor sites) than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 56 of 329 

most non-native species. Native grasses also have dense root networks that help to 

increase soil development, organic content, and productivity. 

 

The woods openings are managed to provide green forage for wildlife habitat diversity 

and distribution. Most tracts are currently located where no cooperative farming occurs 

or in highly visible areas. They are located in interior forested areas, adjacent to 

roadsides, and in other areas not suitable for cooperative farming. These openings are 

disked and seeded in early fall to a combination of winter wheat, cool season grasses, and 

legumes. The areas can be mowed during the following years to maintain the 

grass/legume forage. The areas planted are rotated for management about every three 

years to the point that succession advances to the grass/legume or forb stage. 

Under Alternatives X and Y there would not be a net increase in open lands but only 

reallocations and/or restorations. Currently, in Alternative W, there are 1,557 acres of 

wildlife plantings/woods openings. The current acres under Alternative W would reduce 

since Alternatives X, Y, and Z would implement much larger riparian corridors while 

focusing more on native grass restoration. According to Table 2.5 (Alternatives 

Comparison Matrix by Issue), 700 acres of interior open lands would revert to general 

forested acres under Alternative Z. Areas converted to woodland and savanna 

management may include some short-term increase in base-flow, erosion and sediment, 

and long-term site productivity. Areas burned with moderate intensity will affect soil 

productivity if on steep slopes. Areas burned with severe intensity will influence soil 

productivity on all but relatively flat slopes. There is currently a total of 1,811 acres of 

cultivated cover types located on riparian site types. These acres located in close 

proximity to streams would be reallocated throughout alternatives. A further discussion 

on effects can be found under the Watershed section of this FEIS. 

 

Erosion reduction measures include using contour, no- or low-till, and leave-strip 

treatments. Fertilization, seeding, mulching, and other erosion control measures are 

necessary in order to maintain soil cover and nutrients and to limit erosion and sediment, 

especially on sites with slopes over three percent slope that are repeatedly treated. 

Adhering to the requirements of forest standards and guidelines and the application of 

Kentucky and Tennessee BMPs and/or R8 SWCP Guide will minimize the impacts on 

soil productivity and reduce soil erosion with effective and timely implementation. 

Recreation Management 

LBL, unlike other forests in Region 8, is a National Recreation Area. The primary 

purpose for the establishment of LBL is for Rec/EE use and development. Therefore, 

there are various activities associated with recreation management at LBL that have an 

effect on the soil and water resources and soil productivity. Such recreational activities 

include horseback riding, hiking and biking trails, camping, site conversions (facility 

development), and off-highway vehicle riding. These recreational activities are capable 

of altering soil productivity through soil compaction, erosion, and displacement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 57 of 329 

Developed and concentrated use sites expose and compact soils, alter surface and 

subsurface water flow patterns, and can alter stream channels during and following 

construction. These activities can increase erosion, sedimentation, and run off. 

Occasionally OHVs, horses, and other users do not stay on designated trails. Usercreated trails cause increases in soil exposure, compaction, displacement, erosion, 

sedimentation, and productivity loss. Reclamation of these impacts is costly and detracts 

from other management activities. 

Riparian and stream areas are often a desired focal point of many recreational activities. 

People love the sights, sounds, life, and movement associated with streams and riparian 

habitats. However, riparian areas and streams are often very sensitive, from a physical 

and biological standpoint, to many activities that people enjoy. Activities involving 

concentrated people or animal uses, motorized & non-motorized activities, generally 

create problems in riparian areas because compaction or entrenchment causes adverse 

effects due to limited drainage and excessive water retention. Damage to tree roots from 

compaction can reduce health and increase mortality. Indirect influences in some areas 

include increased erosion, sediment, and stream temperature. Some of these effects can 

be minimized or mitigated. 

Effects by Alternatives for Recreation 

Comparisons across Alternatives for developed and dispersed recreational experiences 

and opportunities are discussed in detail in 3.4.2 Recreation. The total estimated number 

of campgrounds by development level for Alternative W is 29 (2320 acres). Table 

3.4.2G shows a relative decrease in the estimated number of campgrounds by alternatives 

throughout LBL. This total makes up only 1.35 percent of LBL’s total land base. The 

campground boundaries include some undeveloped forested acres with minimal to no 

recreational use. Impacts on soil productivity would actually decrease throughout 

alternatives for developed recreation due to a decrease in development levels of 

campgrounds. Alternative X would upgrade existing recreational uses and create more 

opportunities on existing developed recreation areas. 

Alternative Y would allow for more dispersed opportunity focus across LBL. Overall, 

the impacts to soil productivity would be minimal considering seasonal campground 

closures due to weather; by continuing to maintain trails and other areas for control of 

erosion; and by applying mitigation measures when and where appropriate. 

In Alternative Y there is a possibility of a new campground being built or campsites 

being designated within the Turkey Bay OHV Area. This activity would have a relative 

impact on soil productivity for the area dependent upon the development level of the 

improvements made. Building a campground or designating campsites in Turkey Bay 

would have a long-term effect on soil productivity with the creation of more facilities and 

paved parking. However, this impact would be contained within the camping area and 

would allow for rehabilitation of areas currently used for open camping. Therefore, there 

would be less area of negative impact to soil productivity than currently exists. Shortterm mitigations and improvements will provide protection to the soil resource and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 58 of 329 

continued maintenance, and rehabilitation of the area would provide for protection of 

long-term soil productivity. 

During the LBL plan implementation stage, the trails system within the Turkey Bay OHV 

Area will be moving towards a designated trail system. Extensive project level planning 

and implementation for a designated trail system will be the focus for this area 

throughout the next 10 to 15 years. Designating trails will cause the closure and 

rehabilitation of some existing user-made trails and various sections of trails that are not 

located on desired areas of the landscape. Designating trail routes within Turkey Bay 

will also reduce stream sedimentation and erosion on steep slopes and allow for 

improvements and proper design of trails at creek crossings. Trail protection or 

prevention of trail degradation and off-site damages can be accomplished to a large 

extent by careful selection of trail location, design, graveling, and maintenance. Trail 

rehabilitation, maintenance, and improvements may require the use of heavy equipment 

which poses a short term impact on soil productivity. Soil productivity can be enhanced 

through mitigating these areas in a timely manner and through the proper use of BMPs. 

Roads and Trails 

According to 36 CFR 212.1, a road is a motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide, 

unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or 

temporary. 

Classified roads are wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System 

lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including state 

roads, county roads, privately-owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other road 

authorized by the Forest Service. Characteristics of classified roads vary with the amount 

and frequency of traffic. They are specifically designed and located to meet long-term 

needs, with culverts sized to limit flood risk, and with adequate drainage and erosion 

control to limit sedimentation. They are maintained regularly with the frequency 

appropriate for their design, uses, and conditions. 

Unclassified roads found on National Forest System lands are not part of the forest 

transportation system. These include unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways, and offroad vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; in addition, 

those roads that were once under permit or other authorization. 

Temporary roads are authorized by contract, lease, other written authorization, or 

emergency operation; not intended to be part of the forest transportation system; and not 

necessary for long-term resource management. Characteristics of temporary roads 

include: low standard surface; minimum width; generally for single-use access to an area; 

and are sufficiently blocked to prevent continued use by vehicular traffic or provide 

permanent road access. The road will be stabilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation, 

and restored to near original condition after use by seeding within three years. 

Temporary roads are to be maintained during use (by contractor, permittee, etc.), and 

typically are not designed to classified standards, so culverts, surfacing and other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 59 of 329 

structures are inadequate for extended uses. When the need for the road is complete, the 

temporary road is to be closed to all use. The roadbed should then be obliterated or 

otherwise put in a hydrologically stable condition to prevent erosion and sedimentation 

and restored to near original condition after use by seeding within three years. 

Roads and trails expose and compact soils, alter surface and subsurface water flow 

patterns, and can alter stream channels during and following construction. Roads and 

trails directly and indirectly affect water by increasing sedimentation and concentrating 

run off. Direct effects to soil and hydrology are excavating and compacting soils, filling, 

placing culverts, and using equipment in streams, riparian, and other sensitive areas. 

Stream alterations include channel confinements such as culverts with a localized loss of 

flood-prone areas and inputs from road surface drainage that include added storm water, 

sediment, and road traffic pollutants. Open roads contribute higher erosion and 

sedimentation rates due to ongoing maintenance activities such as surface scraping and 

shaping, ditch pulling or scraping, and normal wear and tear on the road surface from use. 

Road surfaces may also contain low levels of vehicle petroleum product pollutants that 

can be flushed into the aquatic systems during storm events. 

Activities associated with closing roads and trails stabilize the road surface when 

properly drained and vegetated. Some level road and utility corridors are lightly disked 

to break the surface, then reseeded and mulched to provide linear wildlife strips. Some 

road closures may inadvertently leave culverts or other road structures. These can 

become problems unless they were sized and maintained for permanent use. Roads and 

trails often create problems when located in riparian areas because they are difficult to 

drain, cause excessive compaction or displacement of soils, alter normal surface and 

subsurface flows, and increase pollution to streams.

Effects by Alternatives for Roads and Trails 

Currently there are approximately 736 miles (approximately 3,554 acres) of roads 

according to LBL’s GIS databases, including approximately 349 miles of Maintenance 

Level (ML) 3, 4, 5 roads that are suitable for low clearance vehicles (passenger cars). 

Maintenance Level 2 roads are suitable for high clearance vehicles and are frequently 

closed for public use. These roads are single-purpose, low-volume roads normally 

single-lane and un-surfaced. Maintenance Level 1 roads are currently impassable or are 

blocked to all traffic. The road density at LBL is approximately three miles of road per 

square mile (LBL Roads Analysis Report, 2003). 

LBL has approximately 94, 825 acres of erodible soils, or roughly half of the total land 

base. Roads intersect these soil types across 4,295 acres. Areas of concern are located 

on the Baxter-Hammock Complex, Brandon Silt Loam, Bodine Cherty Silt Loam, Nixa 

Cherty Silt Loam, and Paden Silt Loam soil units. Slope doesn’t appear to be much of a 

factor as these soil units are generally moderate in slope (6-30 percent). Mitigations to 

reduce erosion and sedimentation are critical on these soil types and may include such 

practices as mulching, use of geo-technical materials, seeding, directing drainage flows 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 60 of 329 

onto vegetated filter strips, catch basins, and routine maintenance (LBL Roads Analysis 

Report, 2003). 

The cumulative effect of management activities involves the additive magnitude, 

intensity, and timing of human and natural impacts. Each watershed represents a unique 

history of disturbances as well as a unique sensitivity based upon the natural processes 

that control and form each landscape (geology, climate, etc.). Because of the nature of 

road effects on natural processes such as hydrology and sedimentation, they can account 

for a large proportion of the potential cumulative effects within watersheds. Ultimately, 

cumulative watershed effects are displayed in the channel’s dynamic equilibrium (LBL 

Roads Analysis Report, 2003). 

With increased recreational opportunities and EE facilities (beaches, boat docks/ramps, 

trailheads) the potential for increases or upgrades in permanent roads and trails exist 

under Alternatives X and Y. With an increase or upgrade in road density for Alternative 

X and Y, there would be some long term effects on soil productivity. With additional 

improvements and maintenance in the short term, there would be minimum long term 

effects overall. 

Motorized trails would stay confined to the Turkey Bay OHV Area only. Since 

motorized use is confined to the approximately 2200-acre Turkey Bay OHV area 

(approximately one percent of the spatial area of LBL), effects on soil productivity would 

be insignificant across LBL. Furthermore, designated trail routes and the continuation of 

trail rehabilitation, closures, and maintenance within the Turkey Bay OHV Area under 

Alternative Y, would reduce impacts to the soil and water resources. 

Fire Management 

Historically, wildland fire has been a natural component to the landscape and can occur 

under a variety of conditions. Under some conditions, wildland fire is beneficial by 

removing fuel buildup, promoting a mosaic of wildlife habitat, and rejuvenating some 

areas for rapid re-growth. Wild land fire can also produce undesired effects to adjacent 

landowners and the environment (e.g., suppression activities can have direct and indirect 

soil and water effects primarily from the location and construction of fire lines and 

firebreaks). Fire lines have many of the effects of skid roads and mitigation measures to 

limit their effects are similar. Fire lines expose mineral soil and when designed with 

drainage features such as rolling dips, flow is removed and dispersed into the forest, 

limiting the effects from erosion and sedimentation. There is often little or no time to 

plan the best route for constructing fire lines, so mitigation following suppression 

activities is also important. 

Under extreme circumstances that produce a severe burn, all or almost all of the litter, 

duff, and humus on the forest floor would be consumed, vegetation killed, and mineral 

soils exposed. Burns of this intensity are unusual occurrences and seldom found across 

large areas. In localized instances, the mineral soil may degrade by particle fusion or 

develop a non-wettable soil layer that can restrict water infiltration until it breaks down. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 61 of 329 

Severe burning can affect soil biota, structure, organic matter, and fertility, potentially 

triggering accelerated erosion cycling of soil nutrients. Suspended solids, sediments, ash, 

and nutrients in stream flow might temporarily increase to unacceptable levels in nearby 

streams during storm run off events. 

Prescribed Fire Effects 

Prescribed fire is designed to burn with less intensity and less direct and indirect effects 

to soil and water by removing much of the vegetative cover and litter, while protecting 

the duff and humus layers of the soil. Under most prescribed fire plans, only a small 

portion of the soil may be exposed, which may cause concentrated surface flow, erosion, 

and sedimentation. Prescribed burning goals include measures to maintain soil 

productivity and erosion control to protect the duff and humus layers on the soil surface. 

Further measures to provide erosion control include fertilization, seeding, and mulching 

as needed. Low intensity burns typically do not reduce soil productivity or substantially 

increase stream sedimentation. However, effects can increase substantially as the burn 

intensity increases, but these depend also on the soils, slope, topography, rainfall, and 

cover factors. Fire lines often produce more effects than the fire. Properly designed fire 

lines effectively limit the effects to soil and water resources. These can be designed for 

reuse in areas of frequent burning cycles. Location, water, and erosion control are key 

components in limiting short-and long-term effects to soils and water resources. Rescraping the surface lightly when the area is to be re-burned will reduce effects. Quality 

fire lines also allow access during burning and erosion control activities for cost, safety, 

and environmentally-effective treatments. With prescribed fire activities, fire lines can 

be placed more carefully on the landscape, prior to or during construction activities, than 

those constructed for wild land fire suppression. 

Prescribed fire impacts soils in two ways. The fire itself burns up portions of the soil’s 

organic layer, an important part of soil productivity. Hotter fires with large fuel loads 

will burn up more of the organic matter than cooler fires. A few soils in the forest, with 

thin organic layers, can lose their entire organic layer when a fire burns hot. Typically, 

these would be shallow, rocky soils, at or near ridge tops on steep slopes. In most cases 

the effects of fire on the soil are short-termed. Soil organic layers are replenished by leaf 

fall. Existing vegetation takes advantage of a temporary increase in onsite available 

nutrients produced by the fire burning organic biomass, which adds new organic material 

on site. 

Associated with prescribed fire is the construction of bladed fire lines to control the 

burned area boundary. This is considered topsoil removal and is a long-term impact to 

soil productivity. Not all fire lines are bladed. Non-bladed fire lines are considered 

short-term impacts to soils. 

All alternatives allow for the use of prescribed fire. However, Alternatives X and Y 

would have the most significant use especially in the Oak-Grassland Demonstration 

Areas where prescribe burning in conjunction with timber harvesting will be used as a 

tool to reach the desired condition. Prescribed burning will also be used across 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 62 of 329 

alternatives in open land areas for native vegetation restoration and for the eradication of 

non desirable plant species. 

3.1.3 Watershed 

Affected Environment 

The water resources at LBL consist of wetlands, streams, springs, interior lakes, ponds, 

wildlife watering holes, and groundwater. Kentucky Lake to the west, an impoundment 

of the Tennessee River, and Lake Barkley to the east, an impoundment of the 

Cumberland River, are not considered part of LBL. The lakes provide a number of 

recreational opportunities to LBL visitors. Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley are 

included in the resource description because surface water run off from LBL ultimately 

drains into them. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, has jurisdiction over the 

management and operation of all lands and water comprising the Lake Barkley project. 

This includes regulatory and navigational responsibilities. The Corps also has regulatory 

and navigational jurisdiction on Kentucky Lake and the Tennessee River. However, 

TVA has regulatory jurisdiction on waters within the Tennessee River watershed, and 

operates Kentucky Lake. 

LBL is roughly divided into two equal portions separated by the Tennessee/Cumberland 

drainage divide, which runs roughly north/south down the longitudinal center of the 

peninsula. Generally, LBL drains from east to west for the Tennessee River drainage 

portion, and from west to east for the Cumberland River drainage portion. LBL’s 

approximately 79 watersheds are relatively small and range from about 600 to 4,000 

acres in size. The small sizes are the result of the relatively short distance from the 

drainage divide to either of the two impounded rivers. As a result of these drainage 

features, the majority of LBL's streams have seasonal flows. 

Water Resources 

Streams 

The National Wetlands Inventory Mapping System (NWIMS) subdivides the three types 

of LBL streams (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) as follows: 

• Perennial Streams are any watercourse that generally flows most of the year, in a 

well-defined 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 63 of 329 

Bear Creek and Lost Creek, located on the south end of LBL, are perennial 

streams and the only streams with portions of their watersheds extending outside 

LBL's boundary. The largest perennial stream watersheds are Crooked Creek and 

Bear Creek. Lost Creek, Brandon Spring Branch, Barrett Creek, South Panther 

Creek, Byrd Creek, South Crockett Creek, Prior Creek, Long Creek (Barnes 

Hollow), and Fulton Creek are streams having perennial sections in their lower 

reaches. 

• 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 around 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 run off. 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. The NWIMS does not classify any 

ephemeral streams on LBL as wetland areas. 

The biological characteristics of LBL streams have received little study. However, in 

July 2001, the U.S. Forest Service Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer (CATT) 

performed surveys on 11 streams flowing into Lake Barkley and Kentucky Lake. The 

CATT team inventoried stream habitat, fish, macro-invertebrates, sediment, and water 

chemistry to provide LBL managers with baseline data needed to develop resource 

management plans. The streams that were surveyed include Curry Hollow, Barnes 

Hollow, Crooked Creek, Pryor Creek, Crockett Creek, Barret Creek, Brandon Spring 

Branch, and Bear Creek. These eight perennial streams are part of the Cumberland River 

Drainage. The remaining three perennial streams on LBL are part of the Tennessee River 

Drainage and include Byrd Creek, Panther Creek, and Lost Creek. The data from the 

CATT report was used in development of the cumulative effects model to set the 

threshold for watershed condition ranking. Refer to Appendix B.12 (Sediment Yields 

and Cumulative Effects for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Uses). 

Ponds and Wildlife Watering Holes 

Ponds at LBL range from one-quarter to three acres in size. Of LBL's approximately 300 

ponds, most were constructed by former landowners. The biological characteristics of 

LBL’s ponds have received little study. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 64 of 329 

Since 1966, approximately 500 wildlife watering holes have been constructed. Generally 

about one-tenth acre in size, watering holes are spaced throughout LBL at approximately 

half-mile intervals to provide well-dispersed water supplies for wildlife. 

Walter (1988) studied the characteristics of wildlife watering holes and their use by 

wildlife in Hunt Area 5 (Tennessee drainage) and Hunt Area 10 (Cumberland drainage). 

He found 24 percent of the watering holes in the Tennessee drainage were dry, whereas 

57 percent were dry in the Cumberland drainage. (It should be noted that this study 

followed four to five years of below average rainfall for the region.) Although 60 percent 

of the studied ponds were free of aquatic vegetation, cattails and pondweed were the 

dominant vegetation types in those ponds that contained aquatic vegetation. Wildlife 

using the ponds most were deer, turkey, and raccoon. Use was also recorded for bobcat, 

coyote, mink, squirrel, and shorebirds. Boehler (1989) studied wildlife watering holes in 

Hunt Area 3 (Tennessee drainage) and Hunt Area 7 (Cumberland drainage) and found 

results similar to Walter (1988) in terms of pond characteristics and wildlife usage (TVA, 

1994). 

Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley 

Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley (218,000 acres combined) are the last downstream 

impoundments on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, respectively. The two lakes are 

connected near their dams at LBL's north end by Barkley Canal, a 1.75-mile navigation 

canal. The canal helps maintain annual water level fluctuation regimes for both lakes that 

are nearly identical. Summer pool elevation is 359 feet above sea level for only a twomonth period, May and June. The lakes are held at winter pool elevation (354 feet) for a 

four-month period, December through March. During April, the lakes are filled from 

winter pool to summer pool. From July through November the lakes are drawn down 

slowly in stages to reach winter pool by December 1. 

The five-foot fluctuation zone for Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley represents a 

significant ecological zone. Fluctuation zone areas are most extensive in the backs of 

embayments where creeks carry and deposit sediments. Many of these areas are mudflat 

wetland habitats. Chester (1992c) describes these "seasonal dewatered flats" as having 

diverse plant community associations, finding 65 species of vascular plants on 30 such 

areas of Lake Barkley. Of these, 52 species were native and 13 were introduced species. 

Sixty-eight percent were annual plants. These fluctuation zone plants provide waterfowl 

and shorebird food during early spring and summer (TVA, 1994). 

Lakeshore makes up 96 percent of LBL's boundary (about 300 miles of lakeshore edge 

compared to 12 miles of private property edge). Fifty-eight of the largest LBL 

embayments receive run off from 82 streams. The volume of surface water run off from 

LBL is small relative to total volume of run off entering Kentucky and Barkley Lakes 

from other drainage areas. LBL's 79 watersheds average only about 2,000 acres each in 

size. 

Interior Lakes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 65 of 329 

LBL has five constructed interior lakes totaling approximately 887 acres. Energy Lake 

(approximately 330 acres), Bards Lake (approximately 250 acres), and Honker Lake (200 

acres) are sub-impoundments (impounded embayments) of Lake Barkley. Low-level 

dams were constructed across embayments in conjunction with the impounding of Lake 

Barkley in the mid-1960s to create smaller lakes to provide stable water levels for waterbased recreation at three LBL facilities: Energy Lake Campground; Brandon Spring 

Group Center; and the Youth Station Resident Center (now closed). These lakes become 

connected to Lake Barkley during flood stage about once every three years. 

Hematite Lake (90 acres) was constructed in the early 1940s. Duncan Lake (12 acres) 

was impounded in 1980 and is used for limited-access recreational fishing associated 

with special groups. These lakes are managed primarily to enhance habitat for waterfowl 

and shorebirds, and provide fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities. Non-motorized 

boats and boats powered by electric motors are permitted on Hematite Lake. No boats 

are currently allowed on Duncan Lake. 

Water Quality 

In order to better characterize the waters of the state and better coordinate resources 

toward addressing problems, the Kentucky Division of Water (DOW) and Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control 

adopted a Watershed Management Framework in 1997. The purpose of this management 

framework is to use programs, people, information, and funds as efficiently as possible to 

protect, maintain, and restore water and land resources. 

To fulfill requirements of Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control (or Clean Water) Act of 1972, the Kentucky Division of Water and the 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (DOWPC) prepares a report 

every two years for submittal to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Section 305(b) of the Act requires states to assess and report current water quality 

conditions. Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the States of Kentucky 

and Tennessee have developed a list of water bodies presently not supporting designated 

uses as required by 40 CFR 130.7(b)(4) and needing total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

development. (KY 303(d) NREPC, 2003 and TN 303(d) DWPC, 2002) 

According to the 1998 303(d) Report, Honker Lake is in partial support of aquatic life 

designated use because of nutrient deficiencies. However, the latest assessment 

information shows that the lake now fully supports the aquatic life use (KY NREPC, 

2002). The lake is currently delisted in the 2002 303(d) Report as a second Priority 

Listing. 

Stream segments identified as nonsupportive of one or more designated uses are 

classified as firstPriority in the 303(d) Report. Stream segments identified as being in 

partial support of one or more designated uses (but not nonsupport of any use) are 

classified as second Priority in this report. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 66 of 329 

According to the 2002 305(b) Report, Turkey Creek and Crooked Creek are fully 

supporting designated uses for warm water aquatic habitat (WAH). Energy Lake and 

Honker Lake are fully supporting designated uses for WAH, primary contact recreation 

(PCR), and secondary contact recreation (SCR). However, according to this report 

Hematite Lake (not supporting) is listed as an impaired designated use for WAH. 

The Mid-America Remote Sensing Center (MARC) recently conducted research of the 

Turkey Bay OHV Area to determine impacts resulting from recreational activities. The 

tasks addressed in this research were threefold: 

• To evaluate turbidity in Kentucky Lake, Turkey Bay in particular, using data 

collected by the Kentucky Lake Monitoring Program (KLMP) of Murray State 

University’s Center for Reservoir Research; 

• To map turbidity with Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) data, 

and; 

• To map randomly selected areas of disturbance in the OHV area using highresolution, color aerial photography. 

Assessment of water clarity and turbidity within Turkey Bay was compared to three other 

bays monitored by KLMP (Vickers Bay, Ginger Bay and Highland Light). Data suggest 

that water clarity, as assessed by turbidity and Secchi depth, are not measurably different 

in Turkey Bay as compared to the other sites within Kentucky Lake Reservoir. Analysis 

of Landsat ETM+ data showed that Turkey Bay did have a higher-than-average mean 

turbidity for five dates in 2000 and 2001 when compared to the three embayments on the 

east side of the reservoir. However, this higher-than-average turbidity was generally 

consistent with the relationship between east embayment mean turbidities and mean 

depth, (i.e., the shallower the embayment, the higher the turbidity) (Kipphut, et al, April 

2004). 

Sedimentation 

Non-point source pollution is a major concern related to natural resource management 

throughout the United States. Undisturbed forest lands typically show minimal erosion, 

less than 0.13 ton/acre (0.30 ton/hectare), due to the increased cover and surface 

roughness found in these areas. However, disturbances caused by forest management 

practices can result in accelerated erosion losses and stream sedimentation. Forest 

management activities were identified by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 as source 

activities for non-point source pollution. Soil erosion and sedimentation resulting from 

forest operations remain a concern in forest management. Activities with the potential to 

cause detrimental impacts on water quality due to soil erosion and sediment delivery to 

stream systems include road activities, harvesting, site preparation, fertilization and fire 

management (Grace III, 2002). 

Research conducted in various geographical areas clearly shows roads as a major 

contributor to erosion and stream sedimentation on forested lands. Concentrated flow, 

reduced infiltration, increased slopes, removal of surface cover and interception of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 67 of 329 

subsurface flow are a few factors that can contribute to the increased erosion potential of 

forest roads. Each of these factors can contribute to increasing run off energy to detach 

and transport sediment by increasing the volume and/or the velocity of storm run off. 

Soil eroded from the forest road prism can be delivered directly to forest stream systems 

causing adverse impacts on water quality (Grace III, 2002). State BMPs and/or the R8 

SWCPG should be used for mitigating effects to the soil and water resources and to 

assure that water resources meet the intent of the CWA. 

Road networks in LBL are the most significant source of LBL management-accelerated 

delivery of sediment to streams, Kentucky Lake, and Lake Barkley. Roads can contribute 

to sedimentation through surface erosion, unstable cut and fill slopes, drainage structure 

fills, and non-vegetated drainage ditches and shoulders (LBL Roads Analysis Report, 2003). 

Although road networks in LBL are the most significant source of sediment delivery to 

streams, timber harvesting, open lands management, and recreational activities have 

contributed to stream sedimentation as well. 

Groundwater 

Surfacing groundwater creates many spring up-wellings at LBL. In 1969, LBL springs 

were surveyed and categorized as being "free-flowing" (perennial), "trickle-flowing" 

(perennial), "seep" (intermittent), or "seasonal" (intermittent). Free-flowing springs flow 

continuously throughout the year. Trickle-flowing springs flow throughout the year, but 

with a low water volume. Seep springs flow with enough frequency to maintain small 

standing pools which seldom dry up, and seasonal springs are dry part of the year. The 

survey identified 131 springs, of which 19 were free-flowing, 29 were trickle-flowing, 34 

were seep, and 49 were seasonal springs. These springs are protected by LBL 

management. While they are limited in area, they are rich in species biodiversity (TVA, 

1994). 

In 1988, Dr. Steven W. Hamilton of Austin Peay State University initiated a quarterly 

spring survey of eight of LBL's largest springs to characterize these environments. In 

1989, two additional springs were added to the survey. Samples of aquatic invertebrates 

are taken in addition to measurements of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, width, 

depth, and flow rate. Measurements are made in, around, and 30 feet below each spring 

source. Publications are in progress; however, preliminary results indicate stream waters 

are of high quality for the parameters tested (TVA, 1994). 

LBL's largest free-flowing spring is Lost Creek Spring located in the Tennessee portion. 

Lingle-Gillis and Hamilton (1990) describe it as a temperate, calcareous spring with an 

average temperature of 58° F and discharge volume of 14,100 cubic feet per hour at the 

source. The researchers found 90 species of aquatic invertebrates in the spring, most 

represented by species of insects, snails, and crayfish. LBL's second largest spring, Prior 

Creek Spring, had a discharge of 1,940 cubic feet per hour (14 percent of Lost Creek 

Spring's flow) and approximately 50 percent fewer species of invertebrates than those 

found in Lost Creek Spring (TVA, 1994). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 68 of 329 

Water Quantity 

Harris (1988) described the climate for the region as "temperate continental." Summers 

are hot and humid, evaporation is high, and soils are dry. Mean annual temperature for 

the region is 58° F. Mean temperatures during the winter and summer seasons are 38°

and 76° F, respectively. July is the hottest month with an average daily high temperature 

of 90° F, and January is coldest with an average daily low temperature of 25° F. 

Temperature extremes range from -10° F to 102° F (TVA, 1994). 

Annual precipitation averages 46 inches, with 22 inches accumulating during the 

five-month growing season from early April to early September. There is no distinct 

rainy season. Most winter season precipitation is in the form of rain. Although total 

rainfall in the summer season is about the same as in the winter, the effects of 

evapotranspiration and evaporation during the summer cause most LBL streams and 

springs to cease flowing. There are 45 to 50 rainfall events per year, and high intensity 

rains of four to six inches are common. These storms fill waterways rapidly, scouring 

substrates as the water recedes very quickly. 

Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Use 

LBL contains facilities with drinking and wastewater systems in its three counties 

(Stewart County, TN, Trigg County, KY, and Lyon County, KY). The Stewart County 

portion of LBL has nine operational facilities with drinking water systems and two waste 

water systems. On the Kentucky side, Trigg County has eight operational facilities with 

drinking water systems and Lyon County has six. There is one Kentucky wastewater 

system located within LBL in Lyon County. 

Tables 3.1.3A and 3.1.3B list all the facilities on LBL with drinking and wastewater 

systems by county. A public water system identification number is attached to each 

facility and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System number is attached to 

each wastewater system with sizes of each in million gallons per day (MGD). Gallons 

used are totals derived for each system from October 2002 through September 2003 

(annual readings). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 69 of 329 

Table 3.1.3A Tennessee Water Systems 

Stewart County: PWSID Gallons 

Boswell Landing (closed) 0004185 

Brandon Spring (2 wells) 0004186 

(B well pending waiver) 

2,865,230 

The Homeplace 0004193 533,100 

Piney Campground B 0004187 744,730 

Piney Campground CD 0004188 1,541,400 

Piney Campground E 0004184 1,106,790 

Rushing Creek 0004190 221,870 

South Welcome Station 0004195 102,920 

South Maintenance Shop 0004194 127,390 

Tennessee Wastewater Systems 

Stewart County: NPDES Size Gallons 

Brandon Spring package 

plant 

TN0020273 0.018 MGD 1,446,196 

Piney C D E sand filter TN 0020249 0.045 MGD 2,241,235 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 70 of 329 

Table 3.1.3B Kentucky Water Systems 

Trigg County: PWSID Gallons 

Administrative Building 1112221 420,130 

Energy Lake Campground 1112365 578,190 

Duncan Bay 1112306 47,890 

Fenton Lake Access 1112486 66,450 

Golden Pond Visitor Center 1112871 1,209,860 

Maintenance Complex 1112364 228,150 

Off-Highway Vehicle Area 1113460 116,900 

Wranglers 1112837 6,242,400 

Lyon County: PWSID Gallons 

Birmingham Ferry 1112214 78,130 

Cravens Bay (The well is nonoperational, a well house is being 

built)- Back in service 

1112212 75,500 

Hillman Ferry A & B wells 1112211 A- 1,486,400 

B- 1,980,320 

Nickell Branch (closed) 1112532 

North Welcome Station 1112210 208,530 

Woodlands (Nature Station) 1112213 245,880 

Kentucky Wastewater Systems 

Lyon County: NPDES Size Gallons 

Hillman Ferry package 

plant 

KY0020192 0.050 MGD 3,884,295 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 71 of 329 

Non-Consumptive Water Uses 

Non-consumptive water uses are those that do not consume or remove water from a water 

body. These include instream flows for streams and water levels in lakes and reservoirs. 

Instream flows are necessary to fulfill the purposes for which national forests were 

created and to meet the intent of applicable laws and regulations. These purposes include 

favorable conditions of water flow, fish and wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics. Instream 

flows are also needed in adequate quantities to support the beneficial uses designated by 

the State. Commonly-listed beneficial uses (known as designated uses in some states) for 

non-consumptive purposes include recreation, fish and wildlife, and aquatic life. 

Management of LBL requires instream flows that provide sufficient water flow to 

maintain the capacity of the channels to transport water and sediment. Favorable 

conditions include the volume and timing of flows required for adequate sediment 

transport, maintenance of stream bank stability, and proper management of riparian 

vegetation. 

Riparian Areas and Corridors 

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. 

Riparian corridors are management prescription areas used in other R8 forests’ Plans. 

These prescriptions are designed to include riparian areas and stream management zones, 

and are specified to maintain riparian functions along perennial and intermittent streams. 

Ephemeral streams do not support the aquatic life and other riparian area characteristics, 

and have been taken out of the definition of riparian areas. The states of Kentucky and 

Tennessee BMPs, along with TVA’s 1994 Plan, address streamside management zones as 

designated areas for protection of water quality along perennial and intermittent streams. 

In all alternatives, riparian corridors of native vegetation will now be maintained along 

each side of perennial and intermittent stream courses in order to maintain fluvial and 

riparian functions. Corridors along perennial streams are defined as 100 feet measured 

from bankfull stage. Corridors along intermittent streams are defined as 50 to 75 feet 

measured from bankfull stage at a minimum. When a 50 foot corridor is used, a 

minimum of 20 feet adjacent to management activities is a maintained native grass 

vegetative filter strip. The remaining corridor is shrubs and trees. Without a native grass 

vegetative filter strip, the minimum corridor along intermittent streams is defined as 75 

feet of natural vegetation. A site specific field review may result in a change of these 

fixed widths. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 72 of 329 

Current Conditions of LBL Streams 

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 obvious 

erosional process within LBL. The sequence of headcuts up the channels may be 

analogous to the scour and riffle sequence of larger stream channels and a natural 

process. Sediment is transported downstream in this manner of scour and fill. 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 run off events are spread 

farther out into the bays at times of low water than would be true if normal levels were 

maintained. 

LBL streams transport great quantities of gravel, which are often carried onto valley 

floors during heavy rainfall followed by high run off. This is a natural condition which is 

unavoidable due to the gravelly nature of the soil and topography. Gravel often piles up 

against obstructions such as logs, culverts, and bridges. Stream beds are scoured and 

gravel bars shifted, resulting in streams with very unstable ecosystem conditions (TVA’s 

1994 Plan). Pebble counts were performed at a total of 33 sites in the 11 perennial 

streams during the CATT team survey. Stream substrates were found to be generally 

rocky in the upper to middle reaches of their water courses and sandy to muddy near their 

mouths. 

Channels generally are stable laterally. This is due to heavily forested watersheds that 

store and release run off, while 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. Channels are not generally 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. Large 

woody debris embedded in the channel is one natural process that stabilizes the stream, 

dissipates flow energy, and adds habitat for aquatic life. There appears to be less large 

wood within LBL streams than would normally be expected. This may increase the 

downcutting of channels and increasing bedload movement. 

These localized stream channels that the watershed modeling did not portray will be 

identified at the project level and mitigated based on Regional SWCP guidance, state 

BMP utilization and other appropriate direction. Also, within the next 10 to 15 years 

improvements will be made to priority sixth Level hydrologic unit code (HUC) 

watersheds by one condition class based on results from the Area-wide Roads Analysis 

and Watershed Assessment modeling. 

Given that dewatering seemed to have detrimental effects on community diversity, the 

CATT survey indicated any activity that removes water from LBL’s streams should be 

limited, especially during low flow periods. High levels of substrate embeddedness were 

found in some streams. Water chemistry results from the CATT survey were generally 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 73 of 329 

acceptable, but the survey recommends repeated sampling to verify results at sites with 

low pH (less than 6.5). In addition, sites with relatively high conductivity levels could 

indicate areas with increased levels of pollutants. The CATT report concluded these 

areas should be sampled again to verify readings or be monitored in the future. (CATT, 

2002). 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Activities affecting water quality on LBL includes roads and trails, open lands 

management, fire management, and vegetation management activities. These resource 

management activities can affect water quality through sedimentation, erosion, and 

surface run off. 

LBL's greatest potential for impacts to water quality are likely from soil loss and 

sedimentation to streams, which receive run off primarily from LBL’s maintenance level 

2 and 4 roads, and land management practices. Sedimentation could also impact ponds, 

wildlife watering holes, and springs (LBL Roads Analysis Report, 2003). 

Roads and Trails 

Roads and trails directly and indirectly affect water by increasing sedimentation and 

concentrating run off. Roads and trails expose and compact soils, alter surface and 

subsurface water flow, and can alter stream channels during construction. When left 

open they will contribute to higher erosion and sedimentation rates than closed roads and 

trails. 

Road networks in LBL are the most significant source of management-accelerated 

delivery of sediment to streams, Kentucky Lake, and Lake Barkley. In addition to 

acceleration of sedimentation, there are numerous direct and indirect impacts to aquatic 

systems associated with road construction and management. While some of these 

impacts have positive benefits such as accessibility to recreation facilities, open lands, the 

general forest, or the protection of watersheds from catastrophic wildfire, roads have 

unavoidable effects on streams, wetlands, and riparian areas no matter how well they are 

located, designed, and maintained (LBL Roads Analysis, 2003). 

Many roads are located along stream channels or within their valleys because of gentle 

slopes and easier construction. About 268 miles of roads encroach upon the stream 

network. Most locations are distributed evenly along headwaters and main channels of 

watersheds across LBL. However, high miles of road encroachment are noted along 

headwaters of Crooked Creek and Lick Creek. Two major roads, The Trace and US 

Highway 68, encroach upon numerous streams along their routes (LBL Roads Analysis, 

2003). 

 

Road crossings and running prisms within floodplains, wetlands or encroaching on 

stream channels can intensify run off events and increase sediment input to the streams. 

Many roads are located along stream channels or within their valleys to take advantage of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 74 of 329 

gentle slopes and easier construction. Culverts were installed at many of the stream 

crossings and 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 run off 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). 

There are approximately 509 locations where Level 3, 4, and 5 roads cross streams within 

LBL. A large number of crossings occur in Barrett, Bear, Crooked, Lick, Lost, Furnace, 

Turkey, Panther, and Pryor Creek watersheds. Most roads discussed in the LBL Roads 

Analysis have paved or aggregate surfacing and are maintained. Nearly all roads have 

existed for more than 10 years and many for more than 30 years. Proper maintenance 

reduces the production of sediment and the risk of it being transported to the streams. 

Paved surfaces (Level 5) produce the least amount of sediment. Aggregate surfaced 

roads (Level 4) have reduced levels of sediment relative to native surface roadways. 

However, limestone aggregate used on most of LBL’s roads breaks down into fine 

particles over time with heavy use and can contribute to available sediment load. Proper 

grading techniques, drainage of the road prism, and replacement of surfacing reduces the 

amount of sediment to streams. Native surface roads contribute the most sediment since 

they are vulnerable to rutting. There are seasonal closures on some roads for wildlife 

habitat protection that has beneficial indirect effects to the soil and water resources (LBL 

Roads Analysis, 2003). 

According to the LBL Roads Analysis, there are locations where increased risks to 

aquatic and wetland resources are sufficient to warrant modification to road 

administration or infrastructure. Two sixth level watersheds (Crooked and Lick) have 

increased risk due to sediment and cumulative watershed effects on ecosystem processes 

and/or habitat. Five wetlands (Davenport Bay, Willow, Honker, Crooked, and Devil’s 

Elbow) have increased (high) risk due to roads directly crossing wetlands, impacting the 

hydrology and ecosystem processes and/or habitat. Four wetlands (Turkey, Barnett, Lost, 

and Laura Furnace) have increased (moderate) risk due to roads being within 100 feet of 

a wetland and potentially impacting the hydrology and ecosystem processes and/or 

habitat. 

Some recommendations for improving the roads system can include changes in road 

maintenance objective (RMO) levels, reconstruction, and decommissioning. A reduction 

of an RMO from a Level 2 to a Level 1 may need to be considered to place a particular 

road in such a condition that it can be self-maintaining. Work required may include 

reshaping to an out-sloped configuration, removing culverts and fills, or replacing 

culverts with rock-armored dips or rock fills. Reconstruction or relocation of roads to an 

out-sloped or crowned template where road surface drainage is dispersed over the full 

length of the road prism not only reduces maintenance needs, but also typically 

minimizes the adverse impacts often associated with the concentration of surface run off. 

Utilizing designs that lay gently on the land and avoid steep slopes, erosive soils, and 

hydrologic connectivity will also minimize road impacts. The identification of unneeded 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 75 of 329 

roads and of feasible maintenance levels would best be accomplished on a road-by-road 

basis at the project or watershed scale of analysis. All considerations and/or 

recommendations discussed will require site specific and detailed analysis on a road-byroad basis. 

Vegetation Management 

Vegetation management activities that affect soil and water include timber harvesting, 

site preparation, timber stand improvement projects, and skid trail construction. Loss of 

the protective soil cover (litter) from ground disturbance can increase erosion and 

sedimentation while decreasing soil productivity. Water yield also increases because of 

reduced transpiration and raindrop interception. 

Fire Management 

Prescribed fire effects water quality in various ways, depending on fire intensity, type and 

amount of vegetation present, ambient temperature, terrain (slope, aspect. etc.), and other 

factors (Stanturf et. al., 2002). The main effect of prescribed burning on the water 

resource is the potential for increased runoff of rainfall. When surface runoff increases 

after burning, it may carry suspended soil particles, dissolved inorganic nutrients, and 

other materials into adjacent streams and lakes reducing water quality. However, most 

studies in the South indicate that effects of prescribed fire on water quality are minor and 

of short duration when compared to forest treatments and practices (Stanturf et. al.,

2002). 

Even the most intense prescribed fires, in some instances, disturb the root mat very little 

and very seldom consume all fuel available. Therefore, root mat, residual fuels 

(unburned leaf and limb material), and incompletely consumed large fuels (such as larger 

limbs and logs) form debris dams that inhibit sediment transport (Dissmeyer and Foster, 

1980). 

Cumulative Watershed Effects 

In order to comply with planning requirements (36 CFR.219.23) (1982) for effects 

analysis on aquatic resources, Section (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.

With this current level of planning, available data layers, and GIS information were used, 

following a similar exercise for the Southern Appalachian Forest Plans, to specifically 

evaluate watershed condition and estimate the effects of management activities based on 

a number of watershed parameters. The results of sediment yield and an index of 

disturbance were directly related to overall watershed condition or health. 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 76 of 329 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis of cumulative impacts is a requirement of 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 

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. The model used predicted 

sediment yields as the surrogate for determining cumulative impacts for water quality. 

Changes in land use and disturbance were modeled with respect to estimated increases in 

sediment, and predicted impacts were summarized by alternative. The significance of 

predicted impacts was then related to criteria designed to determine levels of watershed 

health. 

Bounding the Effects Analysis 

A valid cumulative effects analysis must be bounded in space and time. For the purposes 

of this analysis, watersheds are the appropriate spatial bounds for cumulative effects. 

The implementation period for a forest plan is five to 15 years, however the appropriate 

time period captured for the sediment model is for five decades (50 years). This allows 

for a discussion of past, present, and future activities for public and private lands by 

watershed over a 50 year period. 

Modeling Sediment Yield 

A summary of the data sources, steps used and determination of sediment coefficients can 

be found in Appendices B.12 and B13 of this document. The same appendices also 

include the Fish Community/Sediment Profile relationships that were used to determine 

thresholds for watershed health. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 77 of 329 

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 impairments. 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 is a measure that characterizes the conditions 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 assign further analysis at 

project level. 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. The threshold for this condition was determined to be below a 600 

percent sediment increase over natural baseline. Refer to Appendix B.12 

(Sediment Yields and Cumulative Effects for Water Quality and Associated 

Beneficial Uses) for more information on fish community and sediment profile; 

• Where a watershed SSI is average, the potential to adversely affect beneficial 

uses is moderate. Additional analysis and assessment should be considered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 78 of 329 

Examples would be conducting watershed assessments during project planning to 

identify the source of the problem, and monitoring prior to project implementation 

to determine the actual health of the biota. The threshold for this condition was 

determined to be between 600-1200 percent sediment increase over natural 

baseline; 

• Where a watershed with an 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. This threshold for this condition was determined at over 1200 

percent sediment increase over baseline. 

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 forest plan level. It should be noted that studies 

completed by MacDonald (1999), calculated confidence intervals of +/- 200 percent 

when modeling sediment due to the stochastic nature of sediment movement through a 

stream system. 

Most watershed models were developed for fifth level Hydrologic Unit Code watersheds, 

large watersheds encompassing 40,000 to 150,000 acres. In LBL’s case, because of 

truncated drainages, the size of modeled watersheds was at the seventh level HUC, 

averaging 2,000 to 3,000 acres. At this scale, high erosion rates may overestimate 

erosion from typical Forest Service activities. Therefore, the results should be viewed as 

“worst case scenario.” Thresholds were determined for WCR using site-specific stream 

and aquatic species field data and would be calibrated for small watersheds. The field 

data was collected only on perennial streams. 

Watershed condition is an accumulation of disturbance across the entire watershed and is 

expressed at the outfall of that watershed. 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, which, are also mapped in Appendix B.13. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 79 of 329 

Table 3.1.3C 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 80 of 329 

Table 3.1.3C (Continued) Cumulative effects analysis for water quality and 

associated beneficial uses for period 1

38 157 E 165 160 160 131 E E E E 

39 273 E 287 276 276 193 E E E E 

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 

80 132 E 132 132 132 132 E E E E 1

 E=Excellent, A=Average, BA=Below Average; 

These results are visually displayed in maps in the Appendix B.13 of this document. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 81 of 329 

Discussion of Results 

Of the 80 watersheds modeled across LBL, 72 are in excellent watershed condition and 

remain so through the first decade’s proposed management activities. Seven watersheds 

are average in WCR and one is below average WCR. It should be noted that mitigations 

are not modeled, and recovery from past activities is not recognized. This is left for 

project-level analysis when site specific data is available. 

Watersheds rated average include several small basins surrounding main facilities of 

LBL: Hillman-Ferry Campground, Pisgah Point, Elk-Bison Prairie, Energy Lake 

Campground, and Day Use Areas. Road and trail densities in these areas are the driving 

force of high erosional rates. Because no change is forecast in these popular use sites, the 

WCR remains the same for all alternatives. 

WCR’s of average indicate more site specific analysis is needed for any change in 

management or activity level within these watersheds. Project level analysis should 

identify sediment sources and recommend improvement of practices and rehabilitation 

needs. Crooked Creek which drains Elk Bison Prairie into Energy Lake should be 

monitored for support of aquatic biota during project level analysis. Streams draining the 

other areas have ephemeral and intermittent flows and support limited aquatic biota. 

Turkey Bay is monitored by Hancock Biological Station under administration of Murray 

State University for sediment and aquatic biota. Data collected to date has shown no 

difference in biota levels than other embayments along LBL’s shore of Kentucky Lake 

(personal communication, Steven White, Thomas Kind, Murray State University). . 

Watershed Number 55 on the southern end of LBL is primarily under private ownership. 

This watershed is rated average in the WCR, as a result of road density and agricultural 

practices. Any activities within LBL would not influence the WCR of Watershed 

Number 55. Two other small drainages rated average. These watersheds drain the north 

fork of Turkey Creek and the interfluvial catchment to Turkey Bay. Facilities in these 

areas include portions of Turkey Bay OHV Area and Golden Pond administrative sites. 

Only one watershed (Turner Hollow) rated below average. Turkey Bay OHV area 

overlies 98 percent of this small basin. Conditions under Alternatives W, X, and Y 

remain the same as current (below average) for the first decade and through all periods 

modeled. Limiting use at Turkey Bay OHV to designated trails while eliminating cross 

country use improve conditions throughout all alternatives. Designating trails will cause 

the closure and rehabilitation of some existing user made trails and various sections of 

trails that are not located on desired areas of the landscape. Further, designating trail 

routes within Turkey Bay will also reduce stream sedimentation and erosion on steep 

slopes and allows for improvements and proper design of trails at creek crossings. 

Although water bodies of LBL have not been listed by Kentucky and Tennessee Division 

of Water (DOW) as impaired, local assessments of the Turkey Bay OHV area have 

concluded that additional improvements are needed for resource protection. Since 

Turkey Creek (Turner Hollow) has been identified in the Area Plan as one of three 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 82 of 329 

priority watersheds to be improved, an assessment of this area will be conducted at the 

project level. During project planning, site specific data should be collected and analyzed 

to seek methods to improve watershed health and determine support level of aquatic biota 

(if any) within the perennial and intermittent streams. Rehabilitation activities to date 

and other mitigations need to be considered at project level analysis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 83 of 329 

3.2 Biological Environment 

3.2.1 Introduction and Analysis Methods 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which initiated the requirement to 

prepare land and resource management plans, states that such plans must “provide for 

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the 

specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives...” Implementing 

regulations require that habitat be managed to support viable populations of native and 

desirable non-native vertebrates within the planning area (36 CFR 219.19). USDA 

Regulation 9500-004, expanded the NFMA viability regulation by requiring that habitats 

on national forests be managed to support viable populations of native and desired nonnative “plants, fish, and wildlife.” 

To meet these requirements, a comprehensive approach was developed to identify and 

consider key ecological components on LBL (Figure 3.2.1A). Terrestrial ecological 

conditions were defined and mapped in terms of five ecological Site Types, nine major 

community Cover Types, and seven vegetation Structure Types. In addition, seven rare 

communities, 101 species of viability concern, and 26 species groups based on habitat 

associations were also identified. All of these ecological components are described in 

detail in the following sections. Aquatic ecological conditions were defined and analyzed 

in relation to 80 watersheds as described in Section 3.1.3. 

A framework for assessing status of ecological components was developed by modifying 

an approach used by The Nature Conservancy for conservation planning. From the lists 

of ecological components identified for LBL, a subset were selected as “Conservation 

Targets,” or those elements deemed important for planning to address in order to provide 

for diversity of plant and animal communities. Conservation Targets included all major 

community cover types, all rare communities, all habitat association groups, and selected 

species with needs deemed not sufficiently covered by provisions for communities and 

habitat association groups. For each Conservation Target, “Key Factors,” were 

identified. Key Factors are those factors most critical for limiting ecological function and 

viability of associated species. Measurable “Indicators” were then identified for each 

Key Factor. “Threshold” levels were set for each indicator to represent poor, fair, good, 

and very good conditions. 

To provide a benchmark for helping set thresholds for some indicators, an optimal mix of 

ecological conditions was defined by agency biologists in terms of the Site Types, Cover 

Types, and Structure Types. These conditions then became the benchmark by which the 

thresholds for the indicator species were established, and are identified throughout this 

section as the optimal condition. 

Optimal in this context refers to the mix of ecological conditions that agency biologists, 

in consultation with local experts from universities and partner agencies and 

organizations, believe best reflects the natural diversity of native plant and animal 

communities and best supports the viability of associated species. It is designed to serve 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 84 of 329 

as a benchmark for developing and assessing alternatives. It is not intended to be, nor 

should it be viewed as, an overall desired condition for LBL, because it does not 

incorporate all of the multiple-use and logistical issues that must be considered as part of 

the planning process. This optimal mix of conditions was compared to current conditions 

(Appendix E, Table E.2) to identify which conditions are in relatively short supply and 

could be the target of management objectives. Thresholds are set and effects of 

alternatives are analyzed in terms of how well future conditions approach these optimal 

benchmarks. 

Setting this “optimal” benchmark is necessary to answer the question “How much is 

enough?” relative to each different ecological condition. This question is one of the most 

critical and difficult ones to be answered during conservation planning. Setting 

ecological benchmarks may be done using a variety of methods; including use of 

historical reference conditions (Groves, 2003). Agency biologists defined optimal 

conditions in this case by relying primarily on general knowledge of conditions from the 

historical reference period of 1400 to 1780 (Chester and Fralish, 2002), which represents 

conditions just prior to major ecological changes brought by European settlement of the 

region. The assumption is that these reference conditions represent those to which native 

species are best adapted, and therefore would best provide for their viability. Because 

information on these reference conditions is spotty and not well documented, expert 

judgment is needed and precision is not high. Some benchmark levels have been 

modified from those in the Draft EIS based on review and input sought from scientists 

familiar with the ecology of the region. 

Unless compelling evidence or rationale was available, Thresholds for Indicators were 

defined mechanically based on a percentage of optimal benchmark level (Table 3.2.1A). 

Higher percentages of the optimal benchmark were used to set thresholds for indicators 

that would be rare even under optimal conditions; lower percentages were used for 

indicators that would be common under optimal conditions. This approach is based on 

the assumption that, in general, more common conditions are less likely to be critically 

limiting to viability of associated species than would rarer conditions. 

Indicators and thresholds have not been developed for all conservation targets. Some 

conservation targets and key factors are better addressed through plan standards that 

clearly indicate acceptable conditions or practices. 

Expected acreage of selected ecological conditions were calculated for each alternative at 

10- and 50-year time periods. These acreages were calculated by applying management 

activities to current acreage in ways that moved mixes of conditions toward the “optimal” 

benchmark. Attaining “optimal” benchmark conditions was constrained by expected 

levels of funding and organizational resources, and other multiple-use considerations 

consistent with the emphasis of each alternative. Expected acreage outcomes for each 

alternative were then assessed for each Key Factor by comparing them to Indicator 

Thresholds. In general, outcomes in the “good” and “very good” ranges are assumed to 

provide low risk to diversity and species viability; outcomes in the “fair” and “poor” 

ranges are of potential concern. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 85 of 329 

Analysis of landscape-level mixes of ecological conditions is designed to ensure that 

conditions are generally suitable for sustaining whole communities and viability of 

associated species within the constraints of land capability and agency mandates. 

However, a closer look at individual species of viability concern is necessary to ensure 

these broader scale provisions adequately provide for their needs. This closer look began 

by grouping these species into Habitat Associations based on their habitat relationships. 

Habitat Associations are defined primarily in terms of combinations of Site Types, Cover 

Types, Structure Types, or Rare Communities. Additional Habitat Associations are 

defined on the basis of specific habitat components (e.g., snags) or aquatic systems. 

Habitat availability for these groups under each alternative is compared to “optimal” 

conditions to identify where habitat may be most limiting to these species. Finally, each 

species of viability concern is given a final review, using the preceding analysis and 

considering species-specific needs. Where necessary, plan provisions and environmental 

analysis are focused on individual species of concern. 

In addition to requirements relative to species viability, National Forest Management Act 

regulations require selection of management indicator species as part of the planning 

process to help indicate the effects of management on fish and wildlife resources (36 

CFR 219.19). Where appropriate, management indicator species have been selected and 

are analyzed in the following sections according to the purpose for which they were 

selected. The full list of management indicator species and reasons for their selection are 

found in Appendix F. 

Table 3.2.1A - Percentage of “optimal” benchmark conditions used to calculate 

thresholds for categorizing poor, fair, good, and very good conditions. Percentages 

vary by relative abundance (% of LBL acreage) of the condition at an optimal state. 

Percent of Optimal

Percent of LBL 

occupied under 

optimal conditions 

Very Good is 

> 

Good is > Fair is > Poor is < 

> 10% 75% 50% 25% 25% 

1% to 10% 85% 60% 35% 35% 

< 1% 95% 70% 45% 45% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 3.2.1a. Process used during plan development for Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area to pof plant and animal communities and viability of associated plants, fish, and wildlife, 2004. 

1. List and define elements of habitat: site types, cover types, forest structure types, rare communities, aquatic habitat types, and watersheds. 

2. List species of viability concern ( federally listed threatened and endangered species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, Birds of Conservation Concern, and species of local viability concern). 

3. Group species into Habitat Association Groups based on similar habitat relationships to viability. 

4. Identify “Conservation Targets,” which are the elements to be addressed and provided for by the plan. They may include cover types, rare communities, watersheds, habitat association groups, or individual species of viability concern. 

5. Identify “Key Factors” for each 

Conservation Target. Key Factors are the limiting factors or management issues associated with each Conservation Target. 

6. Define “Indicators” that serve to measure the status of the Key Factors. Determine current condition of indicators. 

8. Use Indicators as input to the interdisciplinary planning team for deliberation on desired conditions. Develop Area Plan language (varied by alternative as appropriate) designed to achieve desired conditions relative to Indicators. Use Indicators as elements for monitoring plan implementation. 

9. Analyze effects of aConservation Targets in the outline of Key FactIndicators. Estimate fuin

dicators u

nder each a
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 87 of 329 

3.2.2 Historical Perspective 

Knowledge of historical ecological conditions is important because approximating 

some of these conditions through maintenance or restoration activities may be 

necessary to sustain populations of some native plants and animals. While complete 

re-creation of historical conditions is not feasible, and in many cases not socially 

desirable, knowledge of such conditions can provide one type of template or 

benchmark for assessing effects of management on native communities. Historical 

conditions of most interest are those of the period directly preceding European 

contact and settlement, because these conditions presumably are those to which most 

native plants and animals are best adapted. This focus is not meant to imply that 

ecological conditions during this period were not impacted by humans or necessarily 

highly stable. Evidence indicates that American Indians influenced their environment 

in extensive and important ways. However, in comparison, these influences were less 

severe and more stable over a longer period than those that followed European 

settlement, allowing a higher degree of adaptation by native plants and animals. 

The forest resources of LBL have been affected by humans for many centuries, 

beginning with prehistoric hunters who burned areas to flush game. This also created 

changes in habitat conditions for wildlife and fruit bearing shrubs which provided 

important food sources. From the early 1800s until TVA's management began in 1964, 

the forest resources of LBL were generally heavily exploited. The iron industry years 

were followed by demand for railroad ties and mine timbers. In addition to human 

activity, tree disease, drought, wind throw, and wildfire have had significant impacts on 

forest composition. The American chestnut blight is an example of a devastating tree 

disease. As elsewhere in the Eastern United States, this once dominant forest canopy 

tree disappeared from the LBL area in the early to mid-1900s (TVA NRMP 1994). 

Historically, about 400,000 hectares of grasslands and open woodlands were part of 

the vegetation mosaic of Kentucky in pre-settlement times, particularly in the western 

part of the state. Early settlers and travelers called the region “the barrens” referring 

to extensive meadows without trees. With immediate suppression of fire and 

extensive cultivation this vegetation type virtually disappeared. In this century, these 

grasslands have been viewed as a successional, temporary type maintained by fires 

set by American Indians. Recent reviews of the historical references to the “Big 

Barrens” of Kentucky and Tennessee provided climatic, paleo-vegetation, floristic, 

and faunistic evidence that these barrens originated with and were maintained by 

Indians in the last 3000-4000 years, not as a vegetation type that established during a 

dry interval at the beginning of the Holocene, about 20,000 years ago (Martin and 

Taylor, 2002). 

In the historic “Barrens region”, floristic elements of this vegetation type still exist in 

abandoned cultivated fields and pastures, along highway rights-of-way, and in areas 

with shallow soils. In particular, abandoned cultivated fields and pastures are often 

dominated by grasses such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and 

Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), in addition to old-field grasses such as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 88 of 329 

broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Along drainages, in ditches, and on more 

mesic sites, the dominants can be big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), switchgrass 

(Panicum virgatum), and eastern gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides) in order of 

increasingly wetter sites (Martin and Taylor, 2002).

Perhaps the most profound ecological disturbance of all occurred with the introduction 

to North America and spread of Cryphonectria parasitica, the exotic fungus that causes 

chestnut blight. While it causes only minor direct effects on a few oak species, it has 

caused unequaled impacts on oak forests that are still manifest today. American 

chestnut (Castanea detata) was the most important hardwood tree in the Southern 

Appalachian forests (Oak, 2002) and to a much lesser extent, LBL based on the historic 

range of this species (Schlarbaum et. al., 1997) and 1789-1818 land surveys in LBL 

(DeSelm, 1999). 

 

Originating in Asia, the chestnut blight pathogen was first detected in the Bronx, New 

York in 1904. The pathogen spread rapidly, since native chestnuts lacked co-evolved 

disease resistance. By 1940, chestnut blight had killed 50-99 percent of the American 

chestnuts throughout its botanical range. The tree persists today as sprout growth from 

residual root systems, but usually attains diameters of only a few centimeters and rarely 

flowers before succumbing again. As chestnuts died, newly available growing space 

was quickly occupied by other species already positioned in the mid- and understory by 

earlier disturbances such as repeated fire and logging. Chestnut replacement was 

variable, but typically oak species (Quercus prinus L., Q. rubra L. and Q. velutina

Lam.) in particular increased (Oak, 2002). 

When Europeans began exploring LBL and surrounding areas cultures 300 years 

before present, they found bottomland hardwoods of enormous size and upland parklike forests with an herbaceous understory. Europeans began settling the area in the 

late 1700s. Their influence on the vegetation included farming, grazing, whiskey 

distilling, timber cutting for charcoal production, railroad ties, and other wood 

products, and impounding of the Cumberland (1964) and Tennessee (1945) rivers. 

Aside from the damming that eliminated the bottomland forests, the charcoal industry 

that peaked in the mid-1800s may have had the greatest impact on the LBL 

landscape. Iron ore manufacturing required large amounts of limestone (mined in the 

vicinity), iron ore, (mined in the vicinity from the cretaceous gravel), and charcoal 

(created from the felling of large acreages of timber). There were eight iron furnaces 

in blast in LBL, and each left its mark on the landscape. Very few forest trees in LBL 

can boast ages of greater than 150 years. The onset of European occupation included 

widespread clearing of land for agriculture and the suppression of fire, mainly to 

protect the timber. In the end, agro-deforestation (turning forest into field) and 

wildland fire led to the reduction of forest dominance across the landscape. 

Bottomland forests were converted to agricultural land and were later inundated by 

Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley (Franklin, 1994 and Franklin et. al., 2002). 

The decline of the red oak group has led to a loss of these species in both stable and 

successional forest communities in LBL forest wide. This decline is not unique to LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 89 of 329 

During the early 1980s, high mortality rates were experienced across the central 

hardwood region due to a severe episode of oak decline. Red oak species in particular 

are a key contributor to the consistent long-term production of mast, utilized as food by 

many species of wildlife. The decline and subsequent mortality of red oak species can 

affect wildlife population levels, vegetative diversity, abundance, and richness. 

However, red oak snags and downed logs also serve as important structural components 

of the forest for various wildlife species. Annual mortality and decomposition rates 

affect accumulation of snags and downed logs. Snags and downed logs are considered 

to be common forest wide, even though data is not currently available for LBL (TVA 

NRMP 1994). 

According to TVA 1994 NRMP FEIS, the maple of the maple-beech forest cover type is 

increasing more than the beech in the forest understory and mid-story on approximately 

30 percent of LBL's forest. The maple-beech cover type is dominant as an overstory 

component of approximately five percent of the forest. The southern half of LBL 

contains the largest portion of the 35 percent maple/beech component and the northern 

half has a patchy distribution. In stands below an elevation of 460 feet (excluding 

Saffell soils, some ridges, and the upper slopes of south and west aspects), succession to 

maple, especially of the maple-beech forest type, with white oak as a minor associated 

species, is occurring and many stands are already dominated by these species. Estimates 

are that 40 to 50 percent of LBL's forest has the potential to gradually (100 to 300 years) 

convert to this cover type in the absence of disturbance. Studies of central hardwood 

forests throughout the LBL region and the LBL forest, point to a tendency for the 

present predominantly red and white oak forests on mesic sites to succeed to maplebeech, unless significant disturbance occurs. Significant disturbance includes timber 

harvest, TSI, fire, insects, disease, and weather-related events. Maple-beech dominated 

stands contribute to the richness of LBL's predominantly oak-hickory forest, and 

enhance fall colors at LBL which many visitors enjoy. However, the continuing 

development of maple-beech in all canopy layers of the forest will cause shifts over the 

long term in the species composition of the herbaceous layer and the shrub layer. Such 

shifts will also prevent oak seedling establishment and growth due to resulting heavy 

shade (TVA NRMP 1994). 

3.2.3 Major Forest Communities 

Affected Environment 

Site Types 

To determine the ecological potential for vegetation cover types within LBL the 

landscape was stratified by ecological site types. Within LBL, 118 soil types were 

combined with data on elevation, slope, and aspect to define five Site Types: Xeric, 

Dry, Dry-Mesic, Mesic, and Alluvial (Appendix E). These site types are based 

primarily on soil moisture conditions and elevation. The geology of LBL and 

characteristics for 10 major soil types are discussed and defined in Section 3.1.2. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 90 of 329 

Xeric site type - 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 site type - 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 site type - 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 site type - 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 site type - 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 zero to three percent 

slopes. 

Analysis indicates 41 of LBL is comprised of dry-mesic sites, with 47 percent dry and 

xeric sites, and the remaining 12 percent representing mesic and alluvial sites (Table 

3.2.3A). 

Table 3.2.3A - Site type acres in Land Between The Lakes 

SITE TYPE 

 Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial Total 

Acres 3,357 76,793 69,286 8,988 12,830 171,254

Percent 2.0% 44.8% 40.5% 5.2% 7.5% 100.0%
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 91 of 329 

Major Cover Types 

Cover Types, or vegetation community types, are the basic building blocks for 

assessing community diversity on a landscape. Nine cover types were defined and 

mapped using a combination of GIS data from Kentucky GAP Analysis, remote 

sensing satellite imagery, and TVA databases (see Appendix E, Cover Type Map). 

Cover Types are: Oak Forest, Mesophytic Forest, Riparian Forest, Shortleaf Pine 

Forest, Planted Pine Forest, Grassland, Cultivated Lands, Water, and Administrative 

Areas. 

Oak Forests are forests dominated by mixed oak species. For some analysis 

purposes, this cover type was divided into two groups based on the site types on 

which they occur and the related composition of understory regeneration in the 

absence of ecological disturbance. 

• Oak Forests on Xeric and Dry Sites generally support a predominance of 

oak regeneration in the understory without the presence of fire or other 

disturbance factors, indicating that oak will replace itself and remain the 

dominant tree species over time without management intervention. Tree 

species associated with this forest type include: white oak, southern red oak, 

post oak, blackjack oak, chestnut oak, and pignut hickory (GIS Data, 

Appendix B.2; KDFWR-GAP 2003). This type includes the Chestnut Oak 

(Quercus prinus) and Post Oak Communities (Quercus stellata), and in part 

the White Oak (Quercus alba) and Black Oak (Quercus velutina)

Communities of Fralish and Crooks (1989). It also includes the 

compositionally-stable Chestnut Oak, Post Oak, Mixed Oak, and White Oak 

Communities of Franklin et al. (2002). 

• Oak Forest on Dry-Mesic, Mesic, and Alluvial Sites generally support sugar 

maple and American beech regeneration in the understory. In the absence of 

some disturbance factor such as fire, grazing, or vegetation management, 

these shade tolerant species will eventually become dominant in the stand as 

overstory oaks die. This type includes, in part, the White Oak (Quercus alba)

and Black Oak (Quercus velutina) Communities of Fralish and Crooks (1989) 

and the successional Mixed Oak, Chestnut Oak, Black Oak, and White Oak 

Communities of Franklin et al. (2002). All Oak Forests on LBL are a subset 

of the South-Central Interior Highlands Dry Oak Forest (CES202.898) of 

NatureServe’s Ecological Systems classification (NatureServe, 2003). 

Mesophytic Forests generally occur on dry-mesic, mesic, and alluvial sites and are 

dominated by sugar maple and American beech with up to 23 associated tree species, 

including white oak, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and 

elm (Fralish and Crooks 1988 and 1989). This type includes the American beech

(Fagus grandifolia, -Sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and Acer saccharumMesophytic Communities of Fralish and Crooks (1989), and the American Beech, 

Mixed Mesophytes, and Sugar Maple Communities of Franklin et. al. (2002). This 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 92 of 329 

forest type falls within the CES202.887 South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest 

Ecological System of NatureServe (2003). 

Riparian Forests primarily occur on alluvial sites and mesic sites. This forest type is 

dominated by riparian associated species such as sweetgum, elm, box-elder, red 

maple, yellow poplar, sycamore, birch, and black willow, or dominated by sugar 

maple with a significant component of these other riparian species (KDFWR-GAP, 

2003; NatureServe, 2003). They are typically found adjacent to rivers or large 

streams on levees or floodplains. This type includes four types of bottomland 

hardwood forests described by Fralish and Crooks (1988 and 1989): box-elder forest, 

sweetgum/cherrybark oak forest, sycamore/birch forest, and overcup/swamp chestnut 

oak forest. This type is a subset of the CES202.706 South-Central Interior Small 

Stream and Riparian Ecological System of NatureServe (2003). 

Shortleaf Pine Forest is dominated by naturally regenerated shortleaf pine, but may 

include a significant component of oak. It includes the Shortleaf Pine (Pinus 

echinata) Community of Fralish and Crooks (1989), and the successional Shortleaf 

Pine Community of Franklin et al. (2002). It falls within the CES202.332 Southern 

Appalachian Low Mountain Pine Forest Ecological System of NatureServe (2003). 

On LBL, this native shortleaf pine community is limited to a small area located within a 

registered Core Area and a registered State of Tennessee Natural Area. Franklin and 

Kupfer (2000) studied and reported on 10 years of change and the current classification 

of vegetation of this community type within about a 1,100 acre area. They noted that the 

pine component has decreased and the shortleaf pine forest is converting to oak 

dominance. Reasons for succession to oak appear to be suppression of fire during this 

century (Franklin and Kupfer, 2000). These authors also indicate that shortleaf pine 

depends on the exposure of mineral soil and high light levels, conditions provided by 

periodic fire. Franklin and Kupfer (2000) suggest that the area surrounding and 

including the native shortleaf pine be thinned and burned to expand the current pine 

population. 

Planted Pine Forest is comprised of relatively small patches of pine historically planted 

across LBL to provide vegetation diversity and thermal cover for wildlife. Loblolly pine 

is most common, but some patches of Virginia pine, eastern white pine, and bald cypress 

also occur. 

Grassland includes all open lands maintained in a grass/forb condition through periodic 

maintenance. It includes areas restored and maintained as native grasslands, hayfields, 

old fields, and road and utility rights-of-way. A variety of conditions exist within this 

type, with quality as wildlife habitat varying widely. Most is currently dominated by 

nonnative grasses, which do not create the vegetation structure preferred by many native 

species. 

Cultivated Land includes open lands cultivated for crops through the co-op program, 

as well as areas maintained and planted solely for the benefit of wildlife. The latter 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 93 of 329 

areas are generally smaller than cropland fields, and are maintained by Forest Service 

staff. 

Water includes lakes, ponds, and associated wetland areas.

Administrative Areas include all areas modified by developed facilities to the extent 

that ecological community and habitat values are clearly subordinate to human uses. It 

includes buildings and associated lawns, developed campgrounds, major roads, and high 

use portions of the OHV areas and trail heads. 

LBL is currently dominated by Oak Forest (82.2 percent), which occurs across a wide 

range of site types (Table 3.2.3B). Mesophytic and Riparian Forests occupy a relatively 

small proportion of LBL (3.8 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively), and are likely greatly 

reduced on the landscape due to the impoundment of Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley, 

which flooded prime sites for these forest types. Other cover types, including the open 

land types (grassland and cultivated lands), represent much smaller proportions of the 

LBL landscape, but provide important elements of community diversity. Grasslands 

dominated by native grasses are currently being restored through active management on 

approximately 600 acres, representing nine percent of grassland acres, and less than 0.4 

percent of total acres on LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 94 of 329 

Table 3.2.3B. - Current acres of cover types by site type on Land Between The 

Lakes.

 ACRES BY SITE TYPE 

COVER TYPE Xeric Dry 

DryMesic Mesic Alluvial Total % of 

Total 

Oak Forest 2,784 70,543 58,350 5,762 3,359 140,798 82.2%

Mesophytic 

Forest 0 526 4,310 764 981 6,580 3.8%

Riparian Forest 0 13 955 494 4,054 5,515 3.2%

Shortleaf Pine 

Forest 7 82 36 5 0 130 0.1%

Planted Pine 

Forest 173 1,848 1,646 272 297 4,236 2.5%

Grasslands 264 2,312 2,205 576 1,165 6,522 3.8%

Cultivated 

Lands 37 439 849 989 1,811 4,124 2.4%

Water 2 8 21 3 917 952 0.6%

Administrative 

Areas 89 1,022 915 125 245 2,396 1.4%

Total 3,357 76,793 69,286 8,988 12,830 171,254 100.0%

Structure Types 

Plant and animal diversity within a given forest cover type is greatly dependent on the 

structural condition of the community. Seven general forest structure types were 

defined: Mature Closed Canopy Forest, Mature Open Canopy Forest, Mature 

Woodland, Mature Forest with Canopy Gaps, Mid-aged Forest, Young Forest, and 

Regenerating Forest. 

For simplicity and ease of inventory and analysis, the minimum age for all mature 

forest type definitions is 60 years. Some commenters on the Draft EIS felt like this 

was too young to represent truly mature stands. In the Final EIS, this parameter is 

retained, following Helms (1998), who defines mature forests as a stand “that is 

capable of sexual reproduction..., has attained most of its potential height growth, or 

has reached merchantability standards...”. While this definition in some ways 

reflects a timber management orientation, it is also relevant to important habitat 

components such as mast production, tree size, and structure. For oak forests, the 

dominant forest type on LBL, sixty years is deemed the beginning of peak acorn 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 95 of 329 

production and habitat suitability for many wildlife species associated with mature 

forest. At the same time, it is recognized that these forests do not provide all of the 

structural characteristics (snags, downed wood, canopy gaps) needed or preferred by 

some wildlife species. For this reason, “old growth” is recognized as a subset of 

mature forest types and optimal benchmarks for it has been set. Criteria for old 

growth, including minimum ages by forest type, are discussed at the end of Section 

3.2.4, along with estimated effects of alternatives on old growth abundance. 

Structure Type definitions are: 

• Mature Closed Forest are forests with canopy trees averaging greater than 60 

years old, with less than 80 percent of the understory or forest floor receiving 

direct sunlight. 

• Mature Open Forest is a forest with canopy trees averaging greater than 60 

years old with 60 to 80 percent of the understory or forest floor receiving 

direct sunlight. 

• Mature Woodland are very open forests with canopy trees averaging greater 

than 60 years old and 10 to 60 percent of the understory or forest floor 

receiving direct sunlight. Understories are dominated by grasses and forbs. 

• Mature Forest with Canopy Gaps are forests with canopy trees averaging 

greater than 60 years old, with a very heterogeneous canopy. Canopy gaps of 

0.25 to 2.0 acres occupy approximately five to 40 percent of the stand area. 

Patches of regenerating forest typically occupy gaps. This structure type is 

distinguished from Mature Open Forest by the heterogeneity of canopy 

coverage. In general, Mature Open Forest is more typical of drier sites, while 

this structural type is more typical of more mesic sites. It is thought to 

represent typical structure of old growth forests, especially on mesic sites. 

• Mid-aged Forests are characterized by mid-sized trees, typically with complete 

canopy closure and undergoing significant reduction in stem densities due to 

competitive exclusion. Age of canopy trees generally will average between 

30 and 60 years, and diameter generally will average five to 11 inches. 

Scattered larger and older trees may be present (less than 60 percent canopycover). 

• Young Forests are forests with a closed canopy and high density of developing 

saplings that have not yet reached five inches in diameter. These forests will 

generally be 10 to 30 years of age. Scattered large older trees may be present 

if less than 60 percent canopy cover. 

• Regenerating Forests are dominated by trees less than 10 years old, generally 

at densities exceeding 100 developing tree seedlings per acre and overstories 

of older trees providing less than 60 percent canopy closure.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 96 of 329 

Kentucky GAP Analysis was combined with the LBL Vegetation Age Class data to 

map these forest structure types across LBL (see Appendix E, Structure Type Map). 

These data were combined with cover type data to determine acres of each forest type 

in each structural condition by site type (Tables 3.2.3C thru 3.2.3H). 

Table 3.2.3C - Structure Types of Oak Forest on Xeric and Dry Site Types 

 Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry DryMesic Mesic Alluvial Total 

Acres 

Mature Closed 26 43,591 43,618

Mature Open 2,186 7,874 10,059

Mature Woodland 0 0 0

Mature with Gaps 0 55 55

Mid-aged 110 7,568 7,678

Young 435 10,286 10,721

Regenerating 28 1,168 1,196

Total 2,784 70,543 73,327

Table 3.2.3D - Structure Type of Oak Forest on Dry-Mesic, Mesic, and Alluvial Site 

Types 

 Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial Total Acres 

Mature Closed 35,936 3,457 1,484 40,878

Mature Open 5,131 511 146 5,787

Mature Woodland 0 0 0 0

Mature with Gaps 63 0 1 65

Mid-aged 5,387 383 306 6,076

Young 10,726 1,302 1,389 13,417

Regenerating 1,107 109 33 1,249

Total 58,350 5,762 3,359 67,471
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 97 of 329 

Table 3.2.3E - Structure Type of Mesophytic Forest by Site Type 

 Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial Total 

Acres 

Mature Closed 0 367 2835 349 229 3,781

Mature Open 0 42 218 31 14 306

Mature Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mature with Gaps 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mid-aged 0 41 311 29 77 458

Young 0 66 897 350 658 1,971

Regenerating 0 9 48 5 2 65

Total 0 526 4,310 764 981 6,580

Table 3.2.3F - Structure Type of Riparian Forest by Site Type 

 Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry DryMesic Mesic Alluvial Total 

Acres 

Mature Closed 0 4 514 166 1229 1913

Mature Open 0 1 47 3 47 97

Mature Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mature with Gaps 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mid-aged 0 3 108 44 449 604

Young 0 5 282 280 2308 2875

Regenerating 0 0 4 0 22 26

Total 0 13 955 494 4054 5515

Table 3.2.3G - Structure Type of Shortleaf Pine Forest by Site Type 

 Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry 

 DryMesic Mesic Alluvial 

 Total 

Acres 

Mature Closed 5 82 36 5 0 128

Mature Open 2 0 0 0 0 2

Mature Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mature with Gaps 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mid-aged 0 0 0 0 0 1

Young 0 0 0 0 0 0

Regenerating 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7 82 36 5 0 130
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 98 of 329 

Table 3.2.3H- Structure Type of Planted Pine Forest by Site Type

 Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial Total Acres 

Mature Closed 9 435 316 78 42 879

Mature Open 30 27 24 2 3 87

Mature Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mature with Gaps 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mid-aged 91 967 779 60 124 2020

Young 42 365 450 118 95 1070

Regenerating 1 55 79 14 33 181

Total 173 1848 1646 272 297 4236

3.2.4 Environmental Effects 

Mix of Cover Types 

Management can change the mix of cover types on the LBL landscape by converting 

one type to another. For example, forests can be converted to grasslands, grasslands 

allowed to grow into forests, or cultivated lands converted to grasslands and 

ultimately to forests. 

To determine where conversions between cover types may be desirable, a benchmark 

condition representing the “optimal” mix of cover types was developed by LBL 

biologists (Table 3.2.4A). “Optimal” in this context is that condition that, in the 

judgment of biologists, would best provide for native community diversity and the 

viability of associated species. Historical conditions prior to European settlement are 

used as a general template for defining this mix (see Section 3.2.1 for more detail on 

this process). Comparison of this benchmark condition with current condition helps 

identify where conversions may be desirable. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 99 of 329 

Table 3.2.4A - The percentages of cover types by site type representing an “optimal”

benchmark for sustaining diversity of plant and animal communities and viability of 

associated species on LBL. 

Percent by Site Type 

COVER TYPE Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial Total 

Oak Forest 92.0% 93.0% 85.0% 25.0% 10.0% 80.0%

Mesophytic 

Forest 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 70.0% 30.0% 10.0%

Riparian Forest 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 3.0%

Shortleaf Pine –

Oak Forest 3.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Planted Pine 

Forest 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Grasslands 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Cultivated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Water 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 1.0%

Administrative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Some key factors considered when defining this benchmark condition are: 

• Oak forests have been, and should remain, the dominant forest type on LBL, 

providing important wildlife food through acorn production and woody 

browse, and structure for dens and nests. Loss of chestnut to chestnut blight 

during the early 1900s may have reduced some mast and den tree capability, 

but chestnut restoration efforts cannot be counted on for the foreseeable 

future. 

• Mesophytic and Riparian Forests are much reduced on today’s landscape due 

to flooding of prime sites for these communities by lake impoundment. 

Although remaining mesic and riparian sites are not ideal for supporting 

Mesophytic and Riparian Forests because they historically represented midslope positions, development of these forest communities will occur on these 

sites in the absence of ecological disturbance. Some increase in acreage of 

these types is inevitable, and desirable for community diversity The optimal 

benchmark level for Mesophytic Forest on Dry-Mesic Sites was reduced 

between draft and final based on input from consulted scientists. This change 

reflects doubt that quality Mesophytic Forests can be restored on these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 100 of 329 

transitional sites, and that in most cases Oak Forest is ecologically more 

appropriate. 

• Shortleaf Pine Forest is native to the LBL landscape, but at the edge of its 

range. Therefore, it likely was not ever abundant, but more abundant than 

today due to succession to oak forest in the absence of fire. Acreage of 

Shortleaf Pine Forest may be increased by thinning the oak component stands 

with a shortleaf pine component and reintroducing fire to encourage pine 

regeneration. Analysis of sites and conditions surrounding the remaining 

patches of Shortleaf Pine Forest indicates a top potential of restoring this type 

to approximately 1300 to 1600 acres. 

• Planted Pine Forest was not a component of historical landscapes, and 

therefore is not shown as a part of the benchmark condition. It does, however, 

add some diversity to the landscape without apparently impacting native 

community diversity; therefore, reducing its abundance is not viewed as a 

management need. 

• American Indian use of fire helped create and maintain areas of Grassland 

especially on xeric and dry sites, where fire intensity was highest. Large 

grazers such as bison and elk also helped maintain grasslands. Although it is 

not possible to determine with precision the range of percent of the landscape 

in grassland during historical reference conditions, evidence indicates that it 

was higher than that, present today, due to recent effects of fire suppression. 

Distribution of grasslands across site types was likely skewed historically 

toward xeric and dry sites, as compared to today, where preference for 

creating fields on flatter fertile sites has skewed distribution of this type to 

more mesic sites (Table 3.2.3A). However, based on input from scientists 

during the review period for the Draft EIS, much of the dry and xeric 

grassland reflected in the draft benchmark has been added to oak forest type 

as mature woodland structure. General consensus of scientists consulted is 

that the woodland structure probably better reflects historical conditions on 

dry and xeric sites where fire was frequent. 

• Although American Indians also cleared areas for cultivation, primarily on flat 

and fertile alluvial sites, the differences in American Indian cultivation 

methods and those practiced today are great enough that their effects on 

diversity are not highly comparable. For this reason, as discussed with 

scientists during draft review, the benchmark condition does not include 

cultivated lands. American Indian influence through cultivation is reflected in 

benchmark levels of grassland and canebrakes on mesic and alluvial sites. 

• Although area in lakes is much increased today due to the large 

impoundments, small ponds and wetlands important to many native species 

are likely much reduced due to reduced activity of beaver and flooding of 

prime riparian sites where beaver ponds and wetlands would have been most 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 101 of 329 

abundant. The percent of water indicated for the benchmark condition 

represents desired amounts of quality wetlands and small ponds that would 

have been characteristic of historic conditions. 

A comparison of the benchmark condition with current conditions reveals the 

following differences (see Appendix E, Table E.2) and potential management actions: 

• Oak Forests are currently near the benchmark condition. 

• Mesophytic Forests are currently less abundant than the benchmark condition 

and could be increased by reducing oak overstories in oak forests on drymesic, mesic, and alluvial sites. This type will increase on its own over long 

periods of time on these sites if some types of ecological disturbance or 

management actions are excluded. Core Areas provide portions of the 

landscape where this succession is most likely due to limited management 

activity. 

• Riparian Forests are near the benchmark condition. Some increase in this 

forest type could be achieved by converting cultivated lands to forest on 

alluvial sites, especially within riparian corridors. 

• Shortleaf Pine Forest is currently less abundant than the benchmark condition. 

This type could be increased by thinning and burning existing forest and 

converting oak forest with some pine component by thinning the oak and 

reintroducing fire. 

• Grasslands are currently less abundant than the benchmark condition, 

especially on dry and dry-mesic sites. Grasslands on mesic and riparian sites 

slightly exceed benchmark conditions. Grasslands may be recreated on dry 

and xeric sites by clearing Oak Forest and reintroducing fire to these sites. 

• Cultivated lands are currently more abundant than benchmark conditions. 

• Water, not including Lake Barkley and Kentucky Lake, is slightly less 

abundant than benchmark conditions. Allowing beaver activity, to the extent 

compatible with facility protection and other resource uses, could increase 

acreage of quality wetlands. 

Effects of alternatives on abundance of each cover type are discussed and disclosed in 

the following sections. 

Mix of Structural Types within Forest Cover Types 

Just as an “optimal” benchmark was set for the mix of cover types on the landscape, 

an “optimal” mix of structure types within each forest type was also defined. The 

following assumptions were used in defining these structural mixes. 

• A uniform distribution of tree ages across all potential age classes is desirable for 

sustainable supplies of habitat and high levels of diversity. 

• Because timber production is not a primary objective, “regulation” of tree ages is 

based on average maximum ages or average age at senescence of the dominant 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 102 of 329 

canopy trees in each forest type (See Table 3.2.4B). These ages are taken from 

unpublished data of George Hopper, University of Tennessee. 

• Sustainable reverse J curve size distributions with the largest sized trees represent 

the oldest potential age classes. 

• Mature Closed and Mature Open under optimal conditions are even-aged or twoaged and acreages are uniformly distributed across 10 year age classes. 

• For even- and two-aged forests, “old growth” is defined on the basis of minimum 

old growth ages (See Table 3.2.4B ). Minimum old growth ages are from the R8 

policy guidance on old growth (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Uneven-aged 

forest, under optimal conditions, are also viewed as “old growth,” because they 

contain enough trees over minimum old growth age to qualify. Where it is an 

appropriate structural condition, mature woodland may also represent old growth 

once canopy trees reach minimum old growth age. 

Table 3.2.4B - Average maximum age, average age at senescence, minimum "old 

growth" age, and percent of area occupied by each 10-year age class for forest 

communities in a landscape with balanced age-class distributions, Land Between The 

Lakes. 

Forest Community Oak on 

Xeric 

Sites 

Oak on 

Dry 

Sites 

Oak on 

Other 

Sites 

Mesophytic Alluvial Shortleaf 

Pine 

Index Species Chestnut 

oak 

White 

oak 

White 

oak 

American 

Beech 

Sweetgum 

Shortleaf 

Pine 

Avg. Maximum Age 250 350 350 330 200 210 

Avg. Age at 

Senescence 

140 190 190 170 110 110 

Min. Old Growth 

Age 

90 120 120 140 100 100 

Area per 10-yr Ageclass at “Optimal” 

Benchmark 

4.0% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 5.0% 4.8% 

Percent Old Growth 

at “Optimal” 

Benchmark 64.0% 65.7% 65.7% 57.6% 50.0% 52.4% 

Oak Forests 

Factors considered in setting “optimal” benchmark condition for structure within Oak 

Forests (Table 3.2.4C) include: 

• Oak trees are not highly shade tolerant and generally require relatively open 

forest conditions to develop levels of regeneration in the understory that are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 103 of 329 

adequate to sustain their dominance on a site. Especially on more mesic sites, 

some moderate level of ecological disturbance, such as from periodic ground 

fires or grazing, is needed to maintain this open condition. Historically, such 

disturbances were present, resulting in the abundant oak forests we now enjoy; 

however, in recent times, fire suppression and removal of large grazers (elk 

and bison) have resulted in dense closed forests and concern about long-term 

oak maintenance. For these reasons, mature open forest structure is viewed as 

the desirable structural condition for most oak forests on the benchmark 

landscape. 

• In the DEIS, mature closed oak forests and mature oak forests with canopy 

gaps (structural conditions generally indicative of lower levels of ecological 

disturbance) were not included as components of the benchmark landscape, 

because they are not optimal for providing oak regeneration and sustaining 

oak dominance on a site. However, based on input from scientists who 

reviewed the DEIS, some level of these conditions have been added to the 

benchmark landscape in the FEIS. These structural conditions provide 

additional habitat diversity (including optimal conditions for some species) 

and were likely present to some extent on the historical landscape. They 

would have occurred as part of the development history of some stands, 

especially those established in areas with lower levels of disturbance 

(generally the more mesic sites). Histories of these stands would still need to 

incorporate some ecological disturbance surrounding periods of forest 

regeneration; however, such disturbance may have been more episodic than 

regular. To model this complexity for a benchmark landscape, we have 

simplified disturbance regimes into three types: 

1) Woodland Regime--frequent and regular disturbance from ground fires 

and grazing which results in maintenance of a very open woodland 

condition sustained over time by small patches of tree regeneration, 

2) Open Forest Regime--less frequent or intense but regular disturbance 

from ground fires results in maintenance open forest conditions through 

the life of a stand with regeneration occurring in patches created by 

periodic canopy disturbance, and 

3) Closed Forest Regime--low levels of disturbance results in closed oak 

forests for significant portion of a stand’s history, with development of 

canopy gaps following stand senescence, but with more regular 

disturbance events providing for oak regeneration toward the end of a 

stand’s history. 

• Because of frequent low-intensity disturbances such as fire, and less frequent 

high-intensity disturbances such as tornados, the historical structure of oak 

forests on LBL probably represented some mixture of even-aged and unevenaged conditions. However, because oak is generally intolerant of heavy 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 104 of 329 

shade, a two-aged model, with a uniform distribution of age classes up to the 

average maximum age of the index species for a site (Table 3.2.4B), was used 

in the DEIS to approximate the benchmark landscape condition. Index 

species chosen for oak forests in the DEIS were all white oak species, which 

tend to be the longest-lived species within these forest types. However, input 

from scientific review of the DEIS raised concerns that shorter-lived species, 

especially red oaks, may not be adequately sustained and represented on the 

landscape under the assumption that oak forests are uniformly distributed 

across the age span of long-lived white oaks. Red oaks are ecologically 

important as a complement to white oaks in providing consistent mast crops. 

To address this concern in the FEIS, for the benchmark landscape, a portion of 

the total oak forest acreage is assumed to be uniformly distributed up to the 

average age of senescence for selected index red oak species (Table 3.2.4D). 

The remaining portion is treated as discussed in the DEIS. 

• Considerations raised during scientific review described above were combined 

as shown in Table 3.2.4E to create a template for assigning optimal 

benchmark levels by categories of disturbance regime and maximum stand 

age. These figures were then used to calculate optimal benchmark 

percentages for oak forest structure types by site type (Table 3.2.4C). These 

calculations result in a larger percentage of oak forest acreage in younger age 

classes on the benchmark landscape (though potential old growth remains 

very abundant). This condition is likely to be a better reflection of historical 

age classes on the benchmark landscape. This is reasonable to assume 

because the probability for a stand to avoid regenerating disturbances and 

make it to the oldest age classes would be relatively low in comparison to the 

probability of it being regenerated during some younger age class. These 

calculations also reflect some portion of the oak forest in mature closed and 

mature with canopy gap structural conditions. 

• In addition to creating some grassland on xeric and dry sites, American Indian 

use of fire maintained some portion of the oak forest on these sites in open 

oak woodland. As with grassland, determining this historical proportion with 

precision is not possible, but it undoubtedly was a more common condition 

than that found today. Woodlands were most abundant on xeric sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 105 of 329 

Table 3.2.4C - Percentages of structure type by site type within Oak Forests on all 

site types that represent the “optimal” benchmark for sustaining diversity of plant 

and animal communities and viability of associated species on Land Between The 

Lakes.

Percent Compositionally Stable and Un-stable Oak Forests and Structure by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial 

% of 

Forest 

Type 

Mature Closed 0.0% 3.3% 10.0% 21.9% 21.9% 6.6%

Mature Open 26.8% 34.6% 53.0% 38.3% 38.3% 42.4%

Mature Woodland 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2%

Mature with Gaps 0.0% 1.1% 4.5% 11.1% 11.1% 2.8%

Mid-aged 6.6% 10.5% 16.3% 14.4% 14.4% 13.0%

Young 4.4% 7.0% 10.8% 9.6% 9.6% 8.7%

Regenerating 2.2% 3.5% 5.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4D - Average maximum age, average age at senescence, and minimum "old growth" age for Red Oak ispecies selected for each site type, Land Between The Lakes. Red Oak Index Species 

Scarlet oak Black oak Black oak Cherry-bark oak Cherry-bark oak 

Avg. Maximum Age 

170 210 210 240 240 

Avg. Age at Senescence 

100 130 130 140 140 

Min. Old Growth Age 

90 120 120 120 120 

Area per 10-yr Age-Class based on uniform distribution up to Avg. Age at Senescence 

10.0% 7.7% 7.7% 7.1% 7.1% 

Percent Old Growth 

10.0% 7.7% 7.7% 14.3% 14.3% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

3.2.4E - Optimal benchmarks categories of disturbance regime by site type. 

Percent by Site Type 

Disturbance Regime Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial % o

Woodland 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Open/White Oak 30.0% 20.0% 35.0% 25.0% 25.0% Open/Red Oak 10.0% 30.0% 35.0% 15.0% 15.0% Closed/White Oak 0.0% 3.0% 12.0% 30.0% 30.0% Closed/Red Oak 0.0% 7.0% 18.0% 30.0% 30.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total Open Total Closed Total White Oak Total Red Oak 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 108 of 329 

A comparison of the benchmark condition with current conditions reveals the 

following differences (see Appendix E, Table E.2) and potential management actions: 

• Mature closed oak forests are currently in much greater supply than the 

benchmark condition; mature open oak forests are at relatively low levels. To 

restore mature open oak forest on LBL would require thinning mature closed 

oak forest and maintaining these conditions with prescribed burning. 

• Mature oak woodland is currently in short supply relative to the benchmark 

condition. This condition may be increased by thinning oak forests and 

reintroducing fire to maintain open conditions. 

• Young oak forests are abundant relative to the benchmark condition, but 

regenerating oak forests are less than benchmark condition. Old growth oak 

forests are rare to absent—well below benchmark conditions. Improving age 

diversity would require allowing some forests to continue to age, while 

periodically regenerating others (see Old Growth part of this section). 

• Mature oak forest with canopy gaps are below benchmark levels. Increasing 

this element of structural diversity may be accomplished through creation of 

canopy gaps in the short-term or waiting for natural senescence in the longterm. 

Using the process described in Section 3.2.1, expected outcomes for acreage of Oak 

Forests and associated structural conditions were calculated for each alternative 

(Table 3.2.4F). Also following the process described in Section 3.2.1, Key Factors, 

Indicators, and Thresholds for “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” conditions 

were identified for Oak Forests (Table 3.2.4G). Expected acreage outcomes were 

then rated according to these thresholds (Table 3.2.4H). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4F - Expected acreage of Oak Forest on all Site Types in 10 and 50 years under Alternatives W, X, YBetween The Lakes of LBL 2004. Cover Type Current Optimal Alt W Alt X Alt Y Structure Type Acres Acres 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs Compositionally Stable Oak Forest 73327 74506 73327 73327 73267 73167 73267 73167 Mature Closed 43618 2334 32317 21696 37117 16856 37117 16856 Mature Open 10059 25537 14259 31059 10014 9614 10014 9614 Mature Woodland 0 30420 00 6000 30000 6000 30000 Mature With Gaps 55 796 9715 19375 00 00 Mid-aged 7678 7710 10479 1196 10479 7396 10479 7396 Young 10721 5140 6557 0 6557 6200 6557 6200 Regenerating 1196 2570 00 3100 3100 3100 3100 CompositionallyUn-Stable Oak Forest 67471 62423 67471 67471 67411 67461 67411 67461 Mature Closed 40878 6658 40103 46370 36443 28210 36443 28210 Mature Open 5787 32582 5479 4247 8968 21368 8968 21368 Mature Woodland 0 

0 00 00 00 

Mature With Gaps 65 3018 65 65 1184 5984 1184 5984 Mid-aged 6076 10082 10759 7465 10759 5599 10759 5599 Young 13417 6722 7957 6216 7957 4200 7957 4200 Regenerating 1249 3361 3108 3108 2100 2100 2100 2100 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

. 

Table 3.2.4G - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Oak Forests on all Site 

Key Factor Indicator Optimal 

Bench-mark 

 Very 

Good is 

> 

Good 

is> 

F

Amount of oak forest Acres of oak forest 

136,929 102,697 684,65 34

Amount of oak forest managed for open or woodland condition 

Acres of oak with open forest or woodland structure 

88,538 66,404 44,269 22

Amount of oak woodland Acres of oak woodland 

30,420 22,815 15,210 7

Amount of compositionally unstable oak forest managed for sustained oak dominance 

Acres of compositionally 

unstable oak managed for sustained oak 

52,747 39,560 26,373 13

Amount of regenerating oak forest (two-aged) 

Acres of regenerating oak Forest 

5,931 5,041 3,558 2

Amount of mature oak forest Acres of mature oak forest 101,345 76,009 50,672 25
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4H - Oak Forest on all Site Types indicator levels and ratings (VG= very good, G= good, F=fair, and 

for current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for LaBetween The Lakes, 2004.

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Years (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Y Amount of oak forest (Acres) 140,798 140,798 140,678 140,678 140,678 140,798 140,628 140,628 (Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of oak forest managed for open or woodland condition (Acres) 

15,846 19,738 24,982 24,982 19,482 35,306 60,982 60,982 

(Rating) P P F F P F G G Amount of oak woodland (Acres) 

0 0 6,000 6,000 3,000 0 30,000 30,000 

(Rating) P P P P P P VG VG Amount of compositionally unstable oak managed for sustained oak (Acres) 

26,528 27,303 29,784 29,784 27,184 21,036 33,267 33,267 

(Rating) G G G G G F G G Amount of regenerating oak (Acres) 

2,445 3,108 5,200 5,200 3,600 3,108 5,200 5,200 

(Rating) G F VG VG G F VG VG Amount of mature oak forest (Acres) 

100,461 101,938 99,726 99,726 101,326 122,813 112,033 112,033 

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 112 of 329 

The indicator levels and ratings in Table 3.2.4H were derived from Table 3.2.4G, the 

combined expected acreage for all oak forests for the 10 and 50 year periods in each 

alternative. 

Total amount of oak forest varies little across alternatives in both the short-and long-term. 

Because of oak forest’s dominance on the landscape, current and all future outcomes are 

rated “very good.” Total acreage of mature oak, similarly, is abundant across all 

alternatives and time periods. Acreage in mature open or woodland structural condition 

is less favorable, though improves over time under all alternatives due to thinning and/or 

woodland restoration. This indicator exceeds the “good” threshold only for Alternatives 

X and Y in 50 years, largely because of these alternatives relatively high levels of 

woodland restoration. 

Levels of regenerating oak forest are currently rated as “good.” Sustained levels of 

regeneration under Alternative W are only rated as “fair,” while Alternatives X and Y 

provide “very good” levels and Alternative Z provides “good’ levels. Management of 

compositionally unstable oak forests to sustain oak dominance is currently “good” and 

remains so under all alternatives in the first 10 years. In 50 years, Alternatives W and Z 

fall to “fair” because these alternatives include lower levels of forest thinning. 

Management Indicator Species 

The prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) was selected to help indicate the effectiveness 

of management in restoring oak woodlands. The key breeding habitat requirements for 

this species are saplings and shrubs, usually in open country and in poor soil (Hamel, 

1992). The oak woodland is considered suitable habitat for this species beginning about 

five years after the area has been created (NatureServe 2003). Based on Table 3.2.4H, 

Alternatives X and Y would provide the most habitat, and Alternative W would not 

provide this type habitat as none would be created (Table 3.2.4I). Because of the 

relatively large increases in habitat projected in 50 years under Alternatives X and Y 

(Table 3.2.4I), changes in prairie warbler population levels are expected to increase over 

time. Smaller increases in this habitat under Alternative X are expected to result in 

correspondingly smaller population increases. 

Cumulatively, on LBL and surrounding lands, prairie warblers may find habitat in forest 

regeneration areas. However quality habitats are limited. This species is indentified as a 

species of conservation priority (Ford et. al., 2000) due to population declines range-wide 

and in the physiographic region (Sauer e.t al., 2004). Habitat restoration efforts on LBL 

represent an important contribution to physiographic area objectives (Ford et. al., 2000). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 113 of 329 

Table 3.2.4I - Expected population trend1 of the prairie warbler on LBL under 

each alternative for 10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population 

trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = + + + 

50 years = ++ ++ ++ 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 

The great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) was selected as an indicator to represent 

the mature open oak forest conditions of the oak forest types. Key breeding habitat 

requirements for this species includes generally somewhat open forests with a suitable 

cavity for a nest (Hamel 1992). This species is also associated with hardwood woodland 

habitat (Hamel 1992 and NatureServe 2004). The current total acres of mature open oak 

forest are 15,846 acres (Table 3.2.4G). The combined totals of open oak forest for each 

alternative for 10 and 50 years is provided in Table 3.2.4J. 

Table 3.2.4J - Total acres of compositionally stable and unstable mature open oak 

forest 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years 19,738 18,982 18,982 16,482 

50 years 35,306 30,982 30,982 18,332 

Based on Table 3.2.4J, there is an increase in the amount of mature open oak forest in 

Alternatives W, X, and Y and not much change in Alternative Z for the 10 and 50 year 

periods. Over the next 50 years there would be a relatively large increase in available 

habitat for the greatcrested flycatcher in Alternatives W, X, and Y. The greater amount 

of mature open oak forest habitat in Alternative W in 50 years, compared to alternatives 

X, Y, and Z, is a result of an emphasis on creating open oak forest and not creating oak 

woodland (Table 3.2.4K). 

Table 3.2.4K - Expected population trend1 of the great crested flycatcher on LBL 

under each alternative for 10 and 50 years following the Area Plan adoption. 

Population trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and 

quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years + + + = 

50 years ++ ++ ++ + 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 114 of 329 

Mesophytic Forests 

Mesophytic Forests (Table 3.2.4L) include:

• Mesophytic Forests are dominated by shade tolerant tree species such as maple 

and beech; maple to a greater extent than beech. They typically replace 

themselves through creation of canopy gaps caused by single or small groups of 

dying trees. Fire is not a major factor in their regeneration. For this reason, the 

predominate structure in the benchmark condition is mature forest with canopy 

gaps, which represents an uneven-aged forest condition. 

• More intensive disturbances, such as tornados, do have some effect on 

Mesophytic Forests; therefore, a relatively small percentage of this forest type is 

assigned to a two-aged condition as part of the benchmark condition. 

• Because fire does not play an important role in maintenance of this forest type, 

Mature Open Forest and Mature Woodland are not appropriate structural types. 

Table 3.2.4L - Percentages of structure type by site type within Mesophytic Forests that 

are deemed an “optimal” benchmark for sustaining diversity of plant and animal 

communities and viability of associated species, Land Between The Lakes. 

Mesophytic Forest and Structure Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry DryMesic Mesic Alluvial % of Forest 

Type 

Mature Closed 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4%

Mature Open 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mature Woodland 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mature with Gaps 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0%

Mid-aged 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

Young 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Regenerating 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

A comparison of the benchmark condition with current conditions reveals the following 

differences (see Appendix E, Table E.2) and potential management actions: 

• Total acreage of Mesophytic Forest is currently much below benchmark 

conditions due to extensive loss of this type from creation of large reservoirs. 

This overall shortage of Mesophytic Forest results in shortages of structure types, 

especially Mature Forest with Gaps and Mature Closed Forest. Large increases 

in this cover type are expected in the long term (beyond 50 years) as oak 

overstory trees in Successional Oak Forests die and mesophytic species respond 

by growing into the overstory. Management actions could speed this conversion 

by removing some oak overstory. Development of canopy gaps, a characteristic 

of older forests, will also occur naturally over time, but could be speeded by 

creating gaps through vegetation management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 115 of 329 

Using the process described in Section 3.2.1, expected outcomes for acreage of 

Mesophytic Forests and associated structural conditions were calculated for each 

alternative (Table 3.2.4M). Also following the process described in Section 3.2.1, Key 

Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” 

conditions were identified for Mesophytic Forests (Table 3.2.4N). Expected acreage 

outcomes were then rated according to these thresholds (Table 3.2.4O). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4M - Expected acreage by Mesophytic Forest Cover Type and Condition in 10- and 50-years under Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. Cover Type Current Optimal Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Z Structure Type Acres Acres 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 5Mesophytic Forest 6580 17069 6580 6580 6580 6580 6580 6580 6580 Mature Closed 3781 2793 3721 5455 3633 5015 3633 5015 3758 Mature Open 306 

0 306 0 306 0 306 0 306 

Mature Woodland 0 

0 00 00 00 0

Mature With Gaps 0 13656 00 200 1000 200 1000 100 Mid-aged 458 310 1291 489 1291 265 1291 265 1291 Young 1971 207 1050 424 1050 200 1050 200 1050 Regenerating 65 103 212 212 100 100 100 100 75 Table 3.2.4N - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Mesophytic Forests

Key Factor Indicator Optimal 

Acres 

 Very 

Good is 

> 

 Good 

is > 

 Fair 

is > 

 

Amount of mesophytic forest Acres of mesophytic 

forest 

17,069 14,509 10,242 5,974 

Amount of mesophytic forest with complex structures (canopy gaps) 

Acres of mesophytic forest with complex structures (canopy gaps) 

13,656 11,607 8,193 4,779 

Amount of regenerating mesophytic forest (two-aged) 

Acres of regenerating mesophytic forest (twoaged) 

103 98 72 47 

Amount of mature mesophytic forest 

Acres of mature mesophytic forest 

16,449 13,981 9,869 5,757 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4O - Mesophytic Forest indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and P=poor

conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Betw

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Amount of mesophytic forest (Acres) 

6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580 

(Rating) F F F F F F F Amount of mesophytic forest with complex structures (Acres) 

0 0 200 200 100 0 1,000 

(Rating) P P P P P P P Amount of two-aged regenerating mesophytic forest (Acres) 

65 212 100 100 75 212 100 

(Rating) F VG VG VG G VG VG Amount of mature mesophytic forest (Acres) 

4087 4,027 4,139 4,139 4,164 5,455 6,015 

(Rating) P P P P P P F 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 118 of 329 

The amount of mesophytic forest does not change across the alternatives. This forest 

cover type currently represents four percent of the total acres in LBL. 

Although the rating for the amount of complex structures will not change in the 10- and 

50-year periods, canopy gap creation will provide some structural diversity in this mostly 

closed canopy forest type. The abundance of two-aged regenerating, mature, and old 

growth mesophytic forests is not predicted to change much from current levels (see Old 

Growth part of this section). 

Management Indicator Species 

The wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) has been selected as an indicator species to help 

indicate the effects of management on mesophytic forests. This species favors 

deciduous or mixed forest with a fairly well-developed deciduous understory, especially 

where moist (Hamel, 1992 and NatureServe, 2003). Its association with well-developed 

understories may make it especially useful in assessing the effectiveness of management 

for canopy gaps and complex structure in mesic forests. For this reason it will also be 

used to help assess effects of management on the structure of Riparian Forest (see section 

on Riparian Forest). In addition, the wood thrush has been selected to help indicate 

effects of management on forest interior birds because of its sensitivity to cowbird 

parasitism. Analysis of effects of alternatives on wood thrush populations is presented in 

the section on Forest Interior Bird Habitat. 

Based on Table 3.2.4O, there would be an increase in this habitat type in all of the 

alternatives in the next 10 and 50 years except Alternative W (Table 3.2.4P). 

Management for canopy gaps and complex structure would not be prescribed for this 

forest type in Alternative W. 

Table 3.2.4P - Expected population trend1 of wood thrush on LBL under each 

alternative for 10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population trend 

estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = + + + 

50 years = + + + 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 

Riparian Forests 

Factors considered in setting “optimal” benchmark condition for structure within 

Riparian Forests (Table 3.2.4Q) include: 

• Riparian Forests share some characteristics with Mesophytic Forests in not being 

dependent on fire for maintaining themselves. Therefore, a good proportion, 60 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 119 of 329 

percent, are assigned to an optimal benchmark condition of Mature Forest with 

Canopy Gaps. This structure represents an uneven-aged forest condition.

• Riparian forest has been historically subject to more intensive disturbances than 

mesophytic forests, such as flooding, beaver activity, and American Indian 

clearing. As a result, many associated tree species, such as sweetgum and 

sycamore, are relatively intolerant of shade and relatively short-lived. For this 

reason, a larger percentage of this type is assigned to two-aged structural 

conditions. 

• Because fire is not a major factor in this forest type, mature open forest and 

Mature Woodland are not appropriate structure types. 

Table 3.2.4Q - Percentages of structure type by site type within Riparian Forests that are 

deemed an “optimal” benchmark for sustaining diversity of plant and animal communities 

and viability of associated species, Land Between The Lakes. 

Riparian Forest and Structure Percentage by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial % of 

Forest 

Type 

Mature Closed 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0%

Mature Open 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mature Woodland 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mature with Gaps 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%

Mid-aged 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%

Young 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Regenerating 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

A comparison of the benchmark condition with current conditions reveals the following 

differences (see Appendix E, Table E.2) and potential management actions: 

• Total acreage of Riparian Forest is near benchmark conditions, but less of it 

occurs on riparian sites than is desirable. Management could increase acreage of 

Riparian Forest on these sites by converting some existing Grasslands and 

Cultivated Lands. 

• Riparian Forest in a structural condition of Mature Forest with Canopy Gaps is 

currently lacking relative to benchmark conditions. Development of canopy gaps, 

a characteristic of older forests, will occur naturally over time, but could be 

speeded by creating gaps through vegetation management. 

Using the process described in Section 3.2.1, expected outcomes for acreage of Riparian 

Forests and associated structural conditions were calculated for each alternative (Table 

3.2.4R). Also following the process described in Section 3.2.1, Key Factors, Indicators, 

and Thresholds for “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” conditions were identified for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 120 of 329 

Mesophytic Forests (Table 3.2.4S). Expected acreage outcomes were then rated 

according to these thresholds (Table 3.2.4T). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4R - Expected acreage by Riparian Forest Cover Type and Condition in 10 and 50 years under Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. Cover Type/ Current Optimal Alt W Alt X Alt Y Alt Structure Type Acres Acres 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs Riparian Forest 5515 5132 5515 5515 5515 5965 5515 5965 5515 Mature Closed 1913 1437 1902 4429 1814 2989 1814 2989 1939 Mature Open 97 

0 97 0 97 0 97 0 97 

Mature Woodland 0 

0 00 00 00 0

Mature With Gaps 0 3079 00 200 2000 200 2000 100 Mid-aged 604 308 1840 450 1840 676 1840 676 1840 Young 2875 205 1463 424 1463 200 1463 200 1463 Regenerating 26 103 212 212 100 100 100 100 75 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4S - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Riparian Forests

Key Factor Indicator Optimal 

Acres 

 Very 

Good is 

> 

 Good 

is > 

 Fair 

is > 

 

Amount of riparian forest Acres of riparian forest 5,132 4,362 3,079 1,796 Amount of riparian forest with complex structures 

Acres of riparian forest with complex structures 

3,079 2,617 1,848 1,078 

Amount of regenerating riparian forest (two-aged) 

Acres of regenerating riparian forest (two-aged)

103 98 72 46 

Amount of mature riparian forest 

Acres of mature riparian forest 

4,516 3,839 2,710 1,581 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4T - Riparian Forest indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and P=poor) for cconditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between 

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Y(Indicator) Level W X Y Z W X Amount of riparian forest (Acres) 

5515 5515 5515 5515 5515 5515 5965 

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of riparian forest with complex structures (canopy gap) (Acres) 

0 0 200 200 100 0 2000 

(Rating) P P P P P P G Amount of two-aged regenerating riparian forest (Acres) 

26 212 100 100 75 212 100 

(Rating) P VG VG VG G VG VG Amount of mature riparian forest (Acres) 

2010 2000 2112 2112 2137 4430 4990 

(Rating) F F F F F VG VG 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 124 of 329 

The indicator levels and ratings in Table 3.2.4T were derived from Table 3.4.2R, the 

expected acreage for riparian forests for the 10- and 50-year periods in each 

alternative. 

The amount of riparian forest does not change across the alternatives. This forest 

cover type currently represents three percent of the total acres in LBL. 

In the first decade, the rating does not change for the amount of complex structures 

however, through canopy gap treatments, 1000 acres are created and the structural 

diversity of this cover type improves in the next four decades except in Alternative Z 

where there would be a reduction in forest vegetation management. 

The regeneration of riparian forest improves considerably in Alternatives X and Y 

during the 10 and 50 year periods and only the first decade for Alternative Z. There 

isn’t an emphasis for regeneration of riparian forest in Alternative W or as much of an 

emphasis for Alternative Z in the next four decades compared to Alternatives X and 

Y. 

During the first decade there is slight increase in the amount of mature riparian forest 

and over the 50-year period there is a considerable increase in the amount of mature 

forest. This is as a result of fewer trees desired overall in mid-aged and young 

structure than currently exists in acres, and these trees will mature and count toward 

the total acres in mature forest. 

The rating for the amount of old growth is not projected to change in the 10- and 50-

year periods except for Alternative W in 50 years, where there would be an increase 

in the total acres of old growth from current conditions. As noted above, there is a 

desire to have fewer total acres in mid-aged and young forest conditions and in 

Alternative W there aren’t any acres projected for regeneration. The acres that are 

not planned for regeneration, and the acres not intended to be retained in mid-aged 

and young forest, would count toward the higher total acres of old growth in 

Alternative W (see Old Growth part of this section). 

Management Indicator Species 

The Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), that favors rich deciduous forest with 

moderate understory and along streams (Hamel, 1992), was selected as an indicator to 

represent these habitat conditions within mature riparian forest. Based on Table 

3.2.4T, mature riparian forest, there would be little change across the alternatives in 

10 years (Table 3.2.4U). In 50 years there would be a relatively large increase in 

mature riparian forest for all of the alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 125 of 329 

Table 3.2.4U - Expected population trend1 of Acadian flycatcher on LBL under 

each alternative for 10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population 

trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = = = = 

50 years ++ ++ ++ ++ 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 

As described in the Mesophytic Forest section, the wood thrush has been selected to 

help indicate effects on complex structures within Mesophytic Forests. Because 

similar habitat conditions may occur within Riparian Forests, it will also be used to 

help indicate effects of management within this forest type. Analysis of effects of 

alternatives on wood thrush populations is presented in the section on Forest Interior 

Bird Habitat. 

Based on Table 3.2.4T, amount of riparian forest with complex structures (canopy 

gaps), there would be an increase in this habitat type in all of the alternatives in the 

next 10 and 50 years except Alternative W (Table 3.2.4V). In 50 years, there would 

be a relatively large increase in mature riparian forest in Alternatives X and Y. 

Management for canopy gaps and complex structure would not be prescribed for this 

forest type in Alternative W. 

Table 3.2.4V - Expected population trend1 of wood thrush on LBL under each 

alternative for 10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population trend 

estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years + + + + 

50 years + ++ ++ + 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 

Shortleaf Pine Forest 

Factors considered in setting “optimal” benchmark condition for structure within 

Shortleaf Pine Forests (Table 3.2.4W) include: 

• Shortleaf pine is a shade intolerant, fire-adapted species. It needs open forest 

conditions to produce good seed crops, and periodic fire to expose seedbeds 

and maintain open conditions necessary for development of regeneration. 

Historically, this fire was present in large part due to American Indian use of 

fire. For these reasons, Mature Closed Canopy structures are not optimal. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 126 of 329 

• American Indian use of fire maintained some portion of the shortleaf pine 

forest in open pine or pine-oak woodlands. Woodland conditions would have 

been most abundant on xeric sites. 

• A two-aged model, with the oldest age class moving toward the maximum 

average age of shortleaf pine (Table 3.2.4W), was assumed as the standard 

forest condition. Age diversity within mature woodland is expected to 

develop over time as regeneration becomes established and survives the 

variable intensities of prescribed fire. This sequence of events is expected to 

create an uneven-aged forest structure with very low tree densities. 

A comparison of the benchmark condition with current conditions reveals that 

Shortleaf Pine Forests are below levels indicated by benchmark conditions (see 

Appendix E, Table E.2). Current acreage is in Mature Closed Forest condition, which 

is not optimal. Thinning of current pine forest, as well as surrounding oak-dominated 

forest, and reintroducing fire would improve structural conditions and increase 

acreage of Shortleaf Pine Forest (Franklin and Kupfer, 2000). 

 

Using the process described in Section 3.2.1, expected outcomes for acreage of 

Shortleaf Pine Forests and associated structural conditions were calculated for each 

alternative (Table 3.2.4X). Also following the process described in Section 3.2.1, 

Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” 

conditions were identified for Oak Forests (Table 3.2.4Y). Expected acreage 

outcomes were then rated according to these thresholds (Table 3.2.4Z). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4W - Acres of structure type by site type within a Shortleaf Pine Forest that represent the“optimal” benchmark condition for sustaining diversity of plant and animal communities and viability of associated species, Land Between The Lakes.

Shortleaf Pine Forest and Structure Acres by Site Type 

Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial % of Forest 

Type 

Mature Closed 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Mature Open 28.6% 57.1% 71.4% 71.4% 71.4% 0.7%Mature Woodland 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%Mature with Gaps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Mid-aged 5.7% 11.4% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 0.1%Young 3.8% 7.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 0.1%Regenerating 1.9% 3.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.2%
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4X - Expected acreage by Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest Cover Type and Condition in 10 and 50 years W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. Cover Type Current Optimal Alt W Alt X Alt Y Structure Type Acres Acres 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs Shortleaf PineOak Forest 130 1,637 130 130 250 450 250 450 Mature Closed 128 

0 128 128 0 0 00 

Mature Open 2 906 22 130 130 130 130 Mature Woodland 0 368 00 120 120 120 120 Mature With Gaps 0 

0 00 0 0 00 

Mid-aged 0 181 00 0 50 0 50 Young 0 121 00 0 100 0 100 Regenerating 0 60 00 0 50 0 50 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4Y - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Shortleaf Pine Forest

Key Factor Indicator Optimal 

Acres 

 Very 

Good is 

> 

 Good 

is > 

 Fair 

is > 

 

Amount of shortleaf pine forest 

Acres of shortleaf pine forest 

1,637 1,555 1,146 736 

Amount of shortleaf pine forest in good reproductive condition 

Acres of shortleaf pine forest in good reproductive condition 

1,274 1,210 892 573 

Amount of regenerating shortleaf pine forest (twoaged) 

Acres of regenerating shortleaf pine forest (two-aged) 

60 57 42 27 

Amount of mature shortleaf pine forest 

Acres of mature shortleaf pine forest 

1,274 1,210 892 573 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.4Z - Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and P= conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Betwee

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 (Indicator) Level W X Y Z W X Amount of shortleaf pine forest (Acres) 130 

 130 250 250 250 130 450 

(Rating) P P P P P P P Amount of shortleaf pine forest in good reproductive condition (Acres) 2 

 2 250 250 250 2 250 

(Rating) P P P P P P P Amount of two-aged regenerating shortleaf pine forest (Acres) 0 

 0 0 0 0 0 50 

(Rating) P P P P P VG VG Amount of mature shortleaf pine forest (Acres) 130 

 130 250 250 250 130 250 

(Rating) P P P P P P P 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 131 of 329 

The indicator levels and ratings in Table 3.2.4Z were derived from Table 3.2.4X. The expected 

acreage for shortleaf pine forests for the 10- and 50-year periods in each alternative will increase 

in the amount of shortleaf pine from the total current acres in all of the alternatives except W. 

This will be as a result of creating 120 acres of pine woodland in the Devil’s Backbone Natural 

Area where pine are being succeeded by oak. Alternative W does not cover woodland creation. 

In the 50-year period, it is anticipated that management of this species would extend past the 

Natural Area boundary and include additional acres of shortleaf pine restoration. With this 

extension, two-age regeneration treatment is being considered to provide for structural diversity 

that would include mid-aged, young, and regenerating shortleaf pine in addition to the mature 

open canopy shortleaf pine. The open shortleaf pine forest would be created in the first decade 

by thinning the current mature closed canopy forest. The amount of old growth shortleaf pine is 

directly correlated to the current acres in mature closed canopy (see Old Growth part of this 

section). 

Planted Pine Forests 

Because they are not a part of the overall benchmark condition, an optimal mix of structural 

conditions for Non-Native Pine Forest was not defined. Acreage of this type is expected to be 

maintained at approximately current levels under all alternatives for the foreseeable future with 

structure adjusted as needed to maintain health and persistence of these stands. Because of its 

relatively small acreage, maintenance of this type is not expected to significantly impact ability 

to provide desirable levels of other ecological conditions. 

Old Growth 

The Southern Region of the Forest Service recognizes old growth forests as a valuable natural 

resource worthy of protection, restoration, and management. In 1989, then-Forest Service Chief 

Dale Robertson issued a national position statement on old growth forests. He provided this 

definition in the Guide for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on 

National Forests in the Southern Region. 

“Old growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. 

Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier 

stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulation of large wood 

material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function.” 

The age at which old growth develops, and the specific structural attributes that characterize old 

growth, will vary widely according to forest type, climate, site conditions, and disturbance 

regime. Old growth in fire-dependent forest types may not differ from younger forests in the 

number of canopy layers or accumulation of down woody material. However, old growth is 

typically distinguished from younger growth by several of the following attributes: 

• Large trees for the species and site; 

• Wide variation in tree sizes and spacing; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 132 of 329 

• Accumulations of large-sized dead standing and fallen trees that are high relative to 

earlier stages; 

• Decadence in the form of broken or deformed tops or boles and root decay; 

• Multiple canopy layers; 

• Canopy gaps and understory patchiness. 

Old growth forests provide a variety of values, such as biological diversity, wildlife habitat, 

recreation, aesthetics, soil productivity, water quality, aquatic habitat, and cultural values as well 

as high-value timber products on a small scale. Forestry Report R8-FR 62 provide direction for 

management of old growth in R8. Current federal laws and regulations governing national 

forests do not specifically mandate management for old growth conditions. Various laws do, 

however, provide direction to the Forest Service for: 

• Management of multiple natural resources and values 

• Protection and recovery of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) 

Species 

• Provision of habitats to sustain viable populations of native plants and animals 

• Maintaining and enhancing the diversity of plant and animal communities. 

These concerns can be addressed in part by establishing and maintaining a network of old growth 

across national forest system lands. In that way the concept of old growth encompasses more 

than the presence of “old” trees. Different forest communities reach old growth conditions at 

different ages, under different disturbance regimes, and via different management strategies. 

LBL has not conducted a preliminary inventory of old growth as required by the R8 guidelines 

(USDA Forest Service, 1997). Therefore, LBL cannot accurately account for the existing old 

growth community or communities based on the criteria listed below. 

To be identified as old growth, a stand must meet four criteria: 

• Minimum age of the oldest existing age class; 

• Minimum basal area; 

• Minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of the largest trees in the stand; 

• Disturbance history. 

To address social concerns raised by the public, areas to be considered should have minimal 

evidence of past human disturbance. However, recent management activities that are not 

inconsistent with old growth, including prescribed burning, some silvicultural practices, and trail 

maintenance might not disqualify a stand from management as old growth. 

Linkages between the R8 Old Growth Forest Communities (USDA Forest Service 1997) and 

LBL’s descriptions of old growth forest community types are displayed in this table. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 133 of 329 

R8 Old Growth Forest Community Types Land Between the Lakes Forest Community Types 

Dry and Xeric Oak Forest, Woodland, and Savanna 

(Old Growth Forest Community Type 22) 

Oak Forests on Xeric and Dry Sites 

Dry-Mesic Oak Forest (Old Growth Forest 

Community Type 21) 

Oak Forests on Dry-Mesic, Mesic, and Alluvial sites 

Mixed Mesophytic and Western Mesophytic Forest 

(Old Growth Forest Community Type 5) 

Mesophytic Forests 

Hardwood Wetland Forest (Old Growth Community 

Type 10) and River Floodplain Hardwood Forest 

(Old Growth Forest Community Type 13) 

Riparian Forests 

Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland (Old 

Growth Forest Community Type 24) 

Shortleaf Pine Forests 

Three terms to be used by national forests when describing old growth are: 

Existing Old Growth: Forest stands or patches that meet the age, disturbance, basal area, and 

tree size criteria described in the operational definitions for the 16 forest community types. A 

stand or patch must meet all four criteria in order to be classified as existing old growth. 

The number of acres of existing old growth are not known at this time. The number of acres will 

not be known until an inventory has been conducted during plan implementation. 

Possible Old Growth: Forest stands identified during the preliminary inventory of old growth 

that meet one or more of the preliminary inventory criteria. The areas of possible old growth 

will be used to help identify areas to consider for old growth allocation during forest plan 

alternative development and to establish priorities for areas of old growth field inventories 

during project-level planning. The identification of a stand as possible old growth infers no land 

management decision regarding the stand’s status as existing or future old growth. 

Once stands have been identified as possible old growth based on the R8 criteria for 

identification, then areas may be considered for old growth allocation and priorities established 

for areas of old growth inventories during project-level planning. 

Future Old Growth: Forest stands or patches allocated to old growth through land management 

decisions, but which do not meet one or more of the old growth criteria in the operational 

definitions. 

Once an LBL inventory is completed during Plan implementation, future old growth stands will 

be managed according to the R8 guidelines for old growth. The Core Areas are likely to contain 

some acres of old growth. These acres will also be identified after the inventory. 

All old growth is classified as future old growth mainly due to the age criterion. Core Areas will 

provide the majority of forests meeting minimum old growth criterion but subject to lower levels 

of ecological disturbance which may not reflect historical conditions. Small stands of future old 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 134 of 329 

growth outside the core area will be identified at the project level and managed with silvicultural 

and burning treatments designed to create or manipulate conditions meeting old growth criteria. 

Forested stands on LBL range from 60 to 90 years old which does not meet the age criteria to be 

defined as possible or existing old growth. Therefore, the old growth forest community types 

(acres) in LBL Core Areas based on the R8 Old growth patch size definitions will be considered 

Future Old Growth. 

National forest lands in the Southeastern United States will contain a mix of large, medium, and 

small-sized old growth patches, (U.S. Forest Service, Forestry Report R8-FR 62, 1997): 

• Large - old growth patches greater than 2,500 acres; 

• Medium - in the absence of other criteria, old growth areas between 100 and 2,499 acres; 

• Small - in the absence of other criteria, old growth areas between 1 and 99. 

Table 3.2.4 AA displays future old growth forest community types (acres) across alternatives on 

LBL for large, medium, and small patch sizes identified in the Core Area prescription, therefore 

this is a conservative estimate. The amount of old growth projected in the major forest 

community types is based on conservative assumptions about age and condition of forest stands. 

Old growth conditions will be more prevalent within the oak forest community types because 

there are more acres on LBL in this forest type. Old growth conditions will be attained to a 

much lesser extent on a limited amount of riparian forest acres. Old growth of trees is attained 

quicker on xeric and riparian site types. The forest community structure by site type and 

prescriptive area will predict the kind of resource management treatments needed to attain old 

growth desired conditions. 

All alternatives have approximately 31,000 acres of future old growth that meets the large patch 

size criteria. Alternative Z has approximately 3400 more acres than Alternative Y in small and 

medium patches of future old growth. 

The amount of future old growth in the General Forest and Oak-grassland Demo areas will be 

addressed during plan implementation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Pag

Table 3.2.4AA LBL Future Old Growth Community Types in Core Areas

Alternative W 

(Patch Size in Acres) 

Alternative X 

(Patch Size in Acres) 

Alternative Y 

(Patch Size in Acres) 

Alte

(Patch S

Patch Sizes Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Large MedOak Forests on Xeric and Dry Sites 

15937 0 0 15906 1205 518 15938 1365 579 15970 187

Oak Forests on Drymesic, Mesic, and Alluvial Sites 

10752 0 0 10672 1983 391 10753 2118 460 10791 2572 

Mesophytic Forests 

1727 0 0 1708 245 52 1729 258 55 1731 330 

Riparian Forests 

1134 0 0 1125 108 49 1134 108 54 1137 142 

Shortleaf Pine Forests 

1172 0 0 1175 27 47 1176 34 47 1176 54 

Total Acres 30722 0 0 30586 3568 1057 30730 3883 1195 30805 497
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 136 of 329 

Old growth communities were assessed across all forested areas through the species 

viability assessment process (refer to major cover type discussions and Table 3.2.4AB). 

Using the process described in Section 3.2.1, expected outcomes for acreage of old 

growth for each major forest cover type were calculated for each alternative (Table 

3.2.4AC). Also following the process described in Section 3.2.1, Key Factors, Indicators, 

and Thresholds for “very good”, “good”, “fair”, and “poor” conditions were identified for 

old growth conditions (Table 3.2.4AD). Expected acreage outcomes were then rated 

according to these Thresholds (Table 3.2.4AE). 

The viability assessment shows a poor rating across all forest communities in 10 years, 

and this moves to a range of poor to very good in 50 years. Over the next decade old 

growth acres would increase slightly. There would be a significant increase of old 

growth acres over the next 50 years based on the projections of the species viability 

assessment (See Table 3.2.4AE). 

Expected old growth within the major forest cover types LBL-wide were assessed by site 

type for 10 and 50 years. It is expected that the majority of future old growth acres 

would be those within the minimally disturbed Core Areas on LBL. The remaining 

portions of old growth would be from actively managed areas such as the General Forest 

in the form of Woodlands and Mature Open Forest. 

Once an inventory of potential old growth acres has been completed during the Area Plan 

implementation, then those acres of expected old growth in Core Areas and other forested 

areas across LBL’s landscape will be determined. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 137 of 329 

Table 3.2.4AB - Percentages of structure type by site type within forest types that represent the 

“optimal” old growth benchmark for sustaining diversity of plant and animal communities and 

viability of associated species on LBL. 

Percent Forest and Structure by Site Type 

Forest and Structure 

Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic Alluvial 

% of 

Forest 

Type 

Oak Forests 

Two-Aged 20.2% 16.8% 30.5% 31.4% 31.4% 23.2%

Woodland 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2%

Canopy Gaps 0.0% 1.1% 4.5% 11.1% 11.1% 2.8%

Oak Forest Total 80.2% 58.0% 35.0% 42.6% 42.6% 48.2%

Mesophytic Forest 

Two-Aged 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5%

Woodland 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Canopy Gaps 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0%

Mesophytic Forest Total 91.5% 91.5% 91.5% 91.5% 91.5% 91.5%

Riparian Forest 

Two-Aged 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 6.0%

Woodland 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Canopy Gaps 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 18.0%

Riparian Forest Total 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 24.1%

Shortleaf Pine Forest 

Two-Aged 21.0% 41.9% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 0.5%

Woodland 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

Canopy Gaps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Shortleaf Pine Forest 

Total 81.0% 61.9% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 0.8%
Final Environmental Impact Statement Pag

Table 3.2.4AC - Expected acreage of old growth by Cover Type in 10 and 50 years under Alternatives W, XLand Between the Lakes Land and Resource Management Plan, 2004. Cover Type Current Optimal Alt W Alt X Alt Y Old Growth Acres Acres 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs Oak Forest 0 65964 713 57489 673 50104 673 50104 Mesophytic Forest 0 15621 00 0 0 00 Riparian Forest 0 4106 0 1152 0 1712 0 1712 Shortleaf Pine Forest 0 1032 0 130 0 250 0 250 

Table 3.2.4AD - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Old-grow

Forests

Key Factor: Amount of old growth forest Indicator: Acres of old growth forest 

Optimal 

Benchmark 

Very 

Good is 

> 

Good 

is > 

Fair 

is > 

Oak Forest 65,964 49,473 32,982 16,491 Mesophytic Forest 15,621 13,278 9,373 5,467 Riparian Forest 4,106 3,490 2,463 1,437 Shortleaf Pine Forest 1,032 981 723 465 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Pag

Table 3.2.4AE - Forest old growth indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and P=poo

current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Be

The Lakes, 2004.

Indicator Level

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Year(Indicator) : Acres of Old Growth W X Y Z W X Y Oak Forest 0 713 673 673 684 57,489 50,104 50,10(Rating) P P P P P VG VG VG Mesophytic Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Rating) P P P P P P P P Riparian Forest 0 0 0 0 0 1152 1712 171(Rating) P P P P P P F F Shortleaf Pine 0 0 0 0 0 130 250 25(Rating) P P P P P P P P 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 140 of 329 

3.2.5 Major Open Land Communities 

Affected Environment 

Open lands have been managed to provide for the orderly growth and development of 

desirable stages of early plant succession and to meet wildlife habitat needs. This has 

been done by managing open lands for native vegetation, grain, green forage and other 

cover types. Sustainable management practices have been tested and demonstrated 

through ecological restoration, maintenance of open lands, and agricultural practices and 

techniques. Management of the open lands in LBL has provided for outdoor recreation 

activities and environmental education. 

The major open land communities within LBL have been grouped into grassland and 

cultivated community types for the effects analysis. The specific type of management 

done for each of these major community types is noted by the cover type name in Table 

3.2.5A. The management of some of the openings and what they are called has changed 

over the years to present for various reasons. For example, some fields that were in 

cropland have become hayfields and some wildlife plantings are now being managed as 

maintained open land due to land productivity capabilities and changes in management 

philosophy. There is a need to evaluate the abundance of each major open land 

community type; identify spatially, where the open lands may be best represented on the 

landscape; and how the management of these types provides for species viability needs as 

well as for recreational demand species needs. 

Grassland Cover Community Types 

Maintained open lands are those identified in TVA’s 1994 Plan plus some areas 

identified for ecological restoration of native plants. "Maintained Open Lands" are 

assumed not to be disked frequently enough to be classified as cropland or wildlife 

plantings but are best classified as grasslands. Maintenance may occur by mowing, fire, 

or low frequency disking. 

Native grasslands are defined as grass and herb dominated areas with few to no trees (< 

10 percent canopy closure) and having as little as 50 percent native grass and broadleaf 

herbs in dry areas with barren or bare ground and 80 percent to 100 percent native grass 

and broadleaf herbs on the more mesic and hydric sites. The type as noted above 

includes dry, mesic, and hydric grassland communities depending on site (Martin, 2003). 

This type is sometimes referred to as “prairie” or “barrens.” This type is similar to the 

CES202.355 Pennyroyal Karst Plain Prairie and Barrens Ecological System described by 

NatureServe (2003), but technically LBL is not in the Western Pennyroyal Karst Plain 

Ecoregion (Chester, 2003 and Chester and Fralish, 2002). Current abundance of the type 

will be determined by separating this type from old fields and hayfields based on 

knowledge of staff and external experts. An inventory of all of the native grassland 

within LBL is not complete and will be determined through project level analyses. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 141 of 329 

Hayfields are open lands dominated by grasses and herbs that are annually mowed for 

hay under a cooperative hay farming program. The special use permits issued for this 

program operate under a barter system whereby a certain percentage of the hay is 

provided to LBL for feeding the elk and bison herds. 

Old fields are open lands dominated by grasses and herbs but which do not meet the 

definition of native grasslands and are not regularly hayed. They may be maintained by 

mowing on a relatively long cycle (> 2 years), or be succeeding to forest and would 

include shrub growth species. Old Fields become Regenerating Forest when tree 

regeneration, rather than grass/herb and some shrub cover, dominates the site (generally 

when >100 tree seedlings per acre that exceed 3.5 feet in height and will comprise a 

cover type). 

Road right-of-ways (ROW) are open land areas maintained annually by mowing along 

major roads while utility ROWs are open land areas maintained for clearance for powerlines and gas-lines. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.5A - Current acres of Grassland and Cultivated Openings by site types and percentages of cover typ

represent an “optimal” benchmark for sustaining diversity of plant and animal communities and viability of assLand Between The Lakes.

Soil Site Type

Grassland Cover/Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic All

Maintained Openland/Open  (Native grasses and forbs have been restored on 600  acres within this cover type) 144 288 222 189 Hayfield/Open 

27 373 430 169 

Old Field/Open 

5 152 229 84 

Road ROW/Open 

81 1106 996 128 

Utility ROW/Open 

7 394 328 5 

Total Acres: 

264 2312 2205 576 

Percent Optimal Grassland 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 

Soil Site Type

Cultivated/Structure Type Xeric Dry Dry-Mesic Mesic RipCropland/Open 

0 19 362 823 

Wildlife Plantings/Open 

37 420 487 166 

Total Acres: 37 439 849 989 Percent Optimal Cultivated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 143 of 329 

Cultivated Cover Community Types 

Croplands are open lands that are cultivated for traditional row-crops, such as corn and 

soybeans, through a cooperative farming program. The croplands provide for wildlife 

habitat diversity at a minimal cost and demonstrate sound agricultural practices. The 

cooperative farming program is administered under the special-use permit system. 

Wildlife plantings are open land areas maintained and planted solely for the benefit of 

wildlife. These are generally smaller than cropland patches, and are maintained by Forest 

Service or state agency staff. This open land cover type includes areas currently 

managed as woods openings and wildlife plantings. 

The wildlife plantings are typically planted in corn or a mixture of milo/iron-clay 

cowpeas/Korean lespedeza or other desirable forb/legume species. Plantings result in 

wildlife foods available through summer, fall, and winter. 

The woods openings are managed to provide green forage for wildlife habitat diversity 

and distribution. Most tracts are currently located where no cooperative farming occurs 

or in highly visible areas. They are located in interior forested areas, adjacent to 

roadsides, and in other areas not suitable for cooperative farming. These openings are 

disked and seeded in early fall to a combination of winter wheat, cool season grasses, and 

legumes. The areas can be mowed during the following years to maintain the 

grass/legume forage. The areas planted are rotated for management about every three 

years to the point that succession advances to the grass/legume or forb stage. 

Environmental Effects 

Some key factors considered when defining this benchmark condition are: 

• Optimal American Indian use of fire helped create and maintain areas of Grassland 

especially on xeric and dry sites where fire intensity was highest. Large grazers, such 

as bison and elk, also helped maintain grasslands. Although it is not possible to 

determine with precision the range of percent of the landscape in grassland during 

historical reference conditions, evidence indicates that it was higher than that present 

today, due to recent effects of fire suppression. Distribution of grasslands across site 

types was likely skewed historically toward xeric and dry sites, as compared to today, 

where preference for creating fields on flatter fertile sites has skewed distribution of 

this type to more mesic sites (Table 3.2.3B). However, based on input from scientists 

during the review period for the DEIS, much of the dry and xeric grassland reflected 

in the draft benchmark has been added to oak forest type as mature woodland 

structure. General consensus of scientists consulted is that the woodland structure 

probably better reflects historical conditions on dry and xeric sites where fire was 

frequent. 

 

• American Indians also cleared areas for cultivation, primarily on flat and fertile 

riparian sites. The benchmark condition in the DEIS included some cultivated lands 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 144 of 329 

for this reason. However, based on information from scientists during the review 

period, the draft benchmark was changed to zero. 

A comparison of the benchmark condition with current conditions reveals the following 

differences (see Appendix E, Table E.2) and potential management actions: 

• Grasslands are currently less abundant than the benchmark condition, especially 

on dry and dry-mesic sites. Grasslands on alluvial sites exceed benchmark 

conditions. Grassland type habitat conditions may be recreated on xeric and dry 

sites by creating woodland and reintroducing fire to these sites. On dry-mesic, 

grasslands may be increased by converting some Cultivated Lands. 

 

Using the process described in Section 3.2.1, expected outcomes for acreage of 

Grasslands and Cultivated Lands by site type were calculated for each alternative (Table 

3.2.5B). Also following the process described in Section 3.2.1, Key Factors, Indicators, 

and Thresholds for “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” conditions were identified for 

Oak Forests (Table 3.2.5C). Expected acreage outcomes were then rated according to 

these thresholds (Table 3.2.5D). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.5B - Expected acreage by Grassland and Cultivated Cover Type by Site Type in 10 and 50 years un

W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

Cover Type Current Optimal Alt W Alt X Alt Y Condition Acres Acres 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 10 Yrs 50 Yrs Grassland 6522 8563 6522 6522 7672 7262 7672 7262 Xeric 264 168 264 264 264 264 264 264 Dry 2312 3840 2312 2312 2312 2312 2312 2312 Dry-Mesic 2205 3464 2205 2205 2205 2205 2205 2205 Mesic 576 449 576 576 826 676 826 676 Riparian --not Canebrake 1165 321 1165 1165 2015 1565 2015 1565 Riparian -- Canebrake 0 321 00 50 240 50 240 Cultivated 4124 

0 4124 4124 2974 2784 2974 2784 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.5C - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Grasslands

Key Factor Indicator Optimal

Acres 

 Very 

Good 

is > 

 Good 

is > 

 Fair 

is > 

 

Amount of grassland Acres of grassland 8,563 6,422 4,281 2,141 Amount of grassland dominated by native grasses 

Acres of grassland dominated by native grasses 

8,563 6,422 4,281 2,141 

Amount of grassland on xeric sites 

Acres of grassland on xeric sites 

168 143 101 59 

Amount of grassland on dry sites 

Acres of grassland on dry sites 

3,840 3,264 2,304 1,344 

Amount of grassland on drymesic sites Acres of grassland on dry-mesic sites 3,464 2,945 2,079 1,213 Amount of grassland on mesic sites 

Acres of grassland on mesic sites 

449 382 270 157 

Amount of grassland on riparian sites 

Acres of grassland on riparian sites 

641 609 449 289 

Amount of canebrake Acres of canebrake 321 305 225 144 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.5D - Grassland indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and P=poo

current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, anfor Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Years (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Y Amount of grassland (Acres) 

6,522 6,522 7,672 7,672 8,272 6,522 7,262 7,262 

(Rating) G G G G G G G G Amount of grassland dominated by native grasses (Acres) 

600 1,600 1,350 1,350 1,100 2,600 2,600 2,600 

(Rating) P P P P P F F F Amount of grassland on xeric sites (Acres) 

264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of grassland on dry sites (Acres) 

2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312 

(Rating) G G G G G G G G Amount of grassland on dry-mesic sites (Acres) 

2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 

(Rating) G G G G G G G G Amount of grassland on mesic sites (Acres) 

576 576 826 826 976 576 676 676 

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.5D - (Continued) Grassland indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair

P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W

Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Years (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Y Amount of grassland on riparian sites (Acres) 

1,165 1,165 2,015 2,015 2,465 1,165 1,565 1,565 

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of canebrake (Acres) 

0 0 50 50 50 0 240 240 

(Rating) P P P P P P G G 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 149 of 329 

The indicator levels and ratings in Table 3.2.5D were derived from Table 3.2.5B, the 

expected acreage of grassland for the 10- and 50-year periods in each alternative. 

The overall abundance of grassland increases for all of the alternatives except W in 10 

and 50 years even though the rating does not change except for Alternative Z in 50 years. 

Compared to the other alternatives, there is a higher increase of total grassland in 

Alternative Z for the 10-year period, due to overall reduced levels of open land 

management. As a result, more cultivated opening acreage would be converted to 

grassland. Through the implementation of a standard for riparian corridors, it is projected 

that a portion of current acres in cultivation will be converted to grassland in the first 10 

years. During the next four decades, there is a slight decrease in the amount of grassland 

acres for Alternatives X, Y, and Z, due to grassland in riparian corridors converting to 

forest. The current levels of grassland on all site types are already good or very good and 

these levels are projected to be retained. 

Currently we have approximately 600 acres in native grasses. In the first decade we 

intend to convert another 1000 acres in alternative W, another 500 acres in Alternative Z, 

and 750 acres in alternatives X and Y. In 50 years, no more than 2,600 acres are 

projected to be converted for all alternatives. The acreages projected for conversion of 

existing grassland to native grasses are based on the use of approved herbicide 

applications. See Canebrake under 3.2.6 for the discussion of effects to this rare 

community type. 

Management Indicator Species 

The Eastern meadowlark (Sternella magna) has been selected as an indicator to represent 

the conditions associated with preferred short to medium height grasses of the grassland 

community. This species favors somewhat taller grasses (up to 2 feet high, .6m) for 

nesting rather than foraging (Hamel, 1992). This species nests on the ground in 

concealing herbage and has avoided recently burned grassland habitats (NatureServe 

2004). Based on Table 3.2.5D, there is little to no change for Alternatives W, X, and Y 

in 10 and 50 years (Table 3.2.5E). In Alternative Z, there would be an increase in the 

amount of additional acres as a result of cultivated open land being converted to 

grassland in the first decade. In 50 years, there would be a slight decrease in acres of 

grassland compared to the first decade due to grassland converting to forest. 

Table 3.2.5E - Expected population trend1 of Eastern meadowlark on LBL under 

each alternative for 10 and 50 years following plan adoption. Population trend 

estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = = = + 

50 years = = = - 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 150 of 329 

The Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) was selected as an indicator to 

represent the habitat conditions in the grassland and cultivated community types that 

include brushy areas and thickets, tall herbs, grasses, and saplings (e.g. old field and 

hedgerows bordering cropland and woodlands) (Hamel, 1992 and NatureServe, 2004). 

Nesting occurs in dense grass or other thick cover (Hamel, 1992). The expected 

population trend for this species would be dependent upon the habitat conditions present 

in the grassland, cultivated community types, and woodlands. 

The expected population trends for this species, based on Table 3.2.4H for woodlands 

and Table 3.2.5C for grassland and cultivated, indicate no change in Alternative W in 10 

and 50 years (Table 3.2.5F). In 10 years, there would be an increase in the amount of 

habitat available for the bobwhite in Alternatives X, Y, and Z as grassland open lands are 

retained, and increased slightly as openings in cultivation are converted to grassland and 

woodland habitat is created. In 50 years, there would be a relatively large increase in 

habitat for this species for Alternatives X, Y, and Z even with relatively less management 

prescribed for open lands and woodlands in Alternative Z. 

Table 3.2.5F - Expected population trend1 of Northern bobwhite quail on LBL 

under each alternative for 10 and 50 years following plan adoption. Population 

trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = + + + 

50 years = ++ ++ ++ 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large descrease. 

3.2.6 Rare Communities 

Calcareous Cliffs and Talus 

Affected Environment 

There are a small number of calcareous cliffs and talus communities occurring on LBL. 

This type corresponds to CES202.690 Central Interior Calcareous Cliff and Talus 

(NatureServe, 2003). It may have Virginia pine associated (Chester, 2003). 

Environmental Effects 

This rare community type will be protected from negative impacts in each alternative 

where management or other potentially damaging activities are planned. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 151 of 329 

Canebrakes 

Affected Environment 

Canebrakes are characterized by almost monotypic stands of giant or switch cane 

(Arundinaria gigantea), usually with no or low densities of overstory tree canopy. They 

are typically found on alluvial sites or mesic stream terraces. They correspond to the 

Floodplain Canebrake Vegetation Association (CEGL003836) of the South-Central 

Interior Small Stream and Riparian Ecological System (CES202.706) (NatureServe 

2003). Currently cane is found commonly as an understory component on many sites, 

provisions of the Rare Community prescription apply only to larger patches (generally 

greater than 0.25 acres) and exhibit high densities that result in monotypic conditions 

where it would occur naturally or to areas selected for restoration of such conditions. The 

patch condition as described is rare to nonexistent. The canebrakes that exist in LBL are 

remnant populations and they are generally small in number and size and scattered across 

LBL. Primary management needs are restoration and maintenance through overstory 

reduction and periodic prescribed fire. 

Environmental Effects 

Table 3.2.6A - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the 

Conservation Target: Canebrakes

Key 

Factor 

Indicator Optimal Very 

Good 

is > 

Good 

is > 

Fair 

is > 

Poor 

is < 

Amount of 

habitat for 

Canebrake 

Associates 

Acres of habitat 

for Canebrake 

Associates 

321 305 225 144 144 

Table 3.2.6B - Canebrake indicator levels and ratings VG=Very good, G=good, 

F=fair, and P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions 

under Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

 Indicator Level 

 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 

Current W X Y Z W X Y Z 

Amount of 

habitat for 

Canebrake 

Associates 

(Acres) 

0 0 50 50 50 0 240 240 240 

(Rating) P P P P P P G G G 

In the first decade we plan to provide 50 acres of canebrake in all of the alternatives 

except W, which does not have an objective to provide for this rare community type. In 

50 years this rare community will have improved its rating to good, compared to poor 

currently. This species is being recognized as a floodplain species, thus the anticipated 

area of greatest potential is on alluvial site types. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 152 of 329 

Species associated with this cover type will be positively affected in the long term as 

management for this rare community type increases over the next 50 years. The 

canebrakes will be managed primarily outside of Riparian and Mesophytic Forest 

conditions. Canebrakes are restored through plantings and regenerating remnant 

populations within their existing location. The progress in restoring the desired 

conditions of canebrake would be monitored for size and density. 

Springs and Seeps 

Affected Environment 

Springs are defined as the immediate area surrounding emergence of groundwater flow or 

seepage, which are characterized by soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated 

and there is a presence of hydric plant communities. Seeps that are characterized by flow 

that is insufficient to support characteristic vegetation are not included. This type may 

include the Cumberland Forested Acid Seep (CEGL007443), Interior Forested Acid Seep 

(CEGL004425), Midwest Sand Seep (CEGL002392), and Midwest Acid Seep 

(CEGL002263) Vegetation Associations of the South-Central Interior Small Stream and 

Riparian Ecological System (CES202.706) (NatureServe, 2003). According to TVA’s 

1994 Plan, there have been surveys done that looked at the types of springs in LBL. 

Survey results of a 1969 survey identified four types of springs, 131 springs; 19 freeflowing; 29 trickle-flowing; 34 seep; and 49 seasonal springs. LBL’s largest free-flowing 

spring is Lost Creek Spring. Lingle-Gillis and Hamilton (1990) describe this spring as a 

temperate, calcarious with an average temperature of 58 degrees Fahrenheit and a 

discharge volume of 14,100 cubic feet per hour. There were 90 species of aquatic 

invertebrates found in this spring. 

Hamilton et. al., 2002 states the following: 

“The unique physical and chemical characteristics of springs produce habitats 

where only adapted aquatic species exist. Thus aquatic communities associated 

with springs are often specialized and limited in distribution. Spring biota is often 

highly specialized and sometimes has endemic taxa and glacial relics. The taxa 

richness varied widely among ten springs sampled in 1989 in LBL. No single 

taxon was found in all ten springs. Four taxa were found in eight springs and 

seventy-five percent of the taxa were collected in three or fewer springs. A 

tentative assessment at the time showed that springs that were geographically 

closer were more similar, while those that were more distant were taxonomically 

less similar.” 

 

Environmental Effects 

This rare community type will be protected from negative impacts in each alternative 

where management or other potentially damaging activities are planned. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 153 of 329 

Rocky Shores and Bars 

Affected Environment 

Rocky shores and bars are primarily stream-associated supporting characteristic 

communities of vegetation. This type may include the Rocky Bar and Shore (Alder - 

Yellowroot Type) (CEGL003895), Rocky Bar and Shore (Twisted Sedge Type) 

(CEGL004103), Spiderlily - Water-willow Rocky Shoals (CEGL004285) Water-willow 

Rocky Bar and Shore (CEGL004286), and Rocky Bar and Shore (Riverweed Type) 

(CEGL004331) Vegetation Associations of the South-Central Interior Small Stream and 

Riparian Ecological System (CES202.706) (NatureServe 2003). The current abundance 

of this rare community type is unknown. 

Environmental Effects 

These rare community types will be protected from indirect and direct negative impacts 

from management in LBL through implementation of Area Plan standards primarily for 

riparian corridors and soil erosion. These areas are associated with stream terraces and 

gravel bars within stream corridors. 

Lakeshores and Mudflats 

Affected Environment 

The mudflats and lake shoreline areas as described in this section are within the 354 to 

359 foot elevations. These areas surrounding LBL fall within the jurisdiction of the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA). The USDA Forest Service manages all land acres above the summer pool 

elevation of 359 feet. The Forest Service will work in cooperatively with the USACE 

and TVA on projects that involve their jurisdictional boundaries. 

 

Lakeshore makes up 96 percent of LBL’s boundary (about 300 miles of lakeshore edge 

compared to 12 miles of private property edge). Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley 

(218,000 total surface acres) are the last downstream impoundments on the Tennessee 

and Cumberland Rivers, respectively. The two lakes are connected near their dams at 

LBL’s north end by Barkley Canal, a 1.75 mile navigation channel. The canal allows for 

an equal pool level for the two lake systems. Flood control and electricity are the major 

functions of these high dams that result in having the reservoirs. The pool levels for both 

lakes are gradually lowered from a normal summer elevation of 359 feet above sea level 

to a winter elevation of 354 feet above sea level. The time span for draw-down varies 

somewhat, but normally begins in late July and ends in November. 

There are many acres of shoreline and former bottomlands and floodplains that are 

exposed by draw-down. Reservoir shoreline areas that are covered by water during much 

of the growing season and exposed during late summer, autumn, and into (sometimes 

through) winter are referred to as seasonally dewatered flats or mudflats. Such mudflats 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 154 of 329 

are prominent landscape features of reservoirs on lower sections of riverine systems, such 

as those in LBL, since floodplains were generally wider there before inundation than they 

were upstream (Baskin et.al., 2002). 

 

The five foot fluctuation zone for Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley represents a 

biologically diverse zone. The most diverse plant communities are in back of 

embayments, notably mudflat wetland habitats. Sixty-five species of vascular plants 

were recorded from 30 such mudflats on Lake Barkley. Of these, 52 species were native 

and 13 were introduced species. Sixty-eight percent were annual plants. These 

fluctuation zone plants provide food for waterfowl during early spring and fall 

migrations. 

Environmental Effects 

The Forest Service will manage the resources within its jurisdiction that adjoin the 

lakeshores and mudflats as to not directly or indirectly adversely affect them under all 

alternatives. 

Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana)

Affected Environment 

This rare community of native Virginia pine occurs on precipitous bluffs above the 

Tennessee River and it is only known from two locations in LBL. The larger of two 

known communities in Stewart County, Tennessee is on Cedar Bluff in the Rushing 

Creek area. The second site is located on top of Pine Bluff and south of Clay Bay. This 

community may possibly occur on other bluffs elsewhere in LBL. Virginia pine often 

grows in pure stands and usually as a pioneer species. 

Environmental Effects 

This rare community type will be protected from negative impacts in each alternative 

where management or other potentially damaging activities are planned. 

Mountain-Laurel (Kalmia latifolia)

This primarily Appalachian species community is scattered along the Tennessee River 

drainage, and LBL is on the western edge of its range. Mountain-laurel is widely 

distributed, from New Brunswick to central Florida. It occurs primarily along the 

Appalachian Mountains, westward to Louisiana and northward into southern Ohio and 

Indiana. This species occupies dry to mesic sites on upper rocky slopes and mountainous 

areas. The largest community of this species in LBL occurs between Colson Hollow and 

Red Hollow in Stewart County, Tennessee. Other smaller and scattered sites of this 

community occur primarily in Tennessee compared to the Kentucky portion of LBL 

where there are fewer bluffs present. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 155 of 329 

Common trees associated include table mountain pine (Pinus pungens), pitch pine (P. 

rigida), Virginia pine (P. virginia), white pine (P. strobus), and red maple (Acer rubrum). 

Environmental Effects 

This rare community type will be protected from negative impacts in each alternative 

where management or other potentially damaging activities are planned. 

3.2.7 Special Habitat Components 

Snags, Den Trees, and Downed Wood 

Affected Environment 

Large woody debris (including branches, large logs, stumps, and root wads) is an 

important component of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is important both 

structurally and as a source of energy. Large snags provide birds with nesting and 

feeding sites, singing perches, and as lookout posts for predators and prey (Howard and 

Allen, 1988). Bats roost and produce maternity colonies under exfoliating bark. 

Amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates utilize woody debris as cover. 

Animals use snags, logs, and stumps as denning sites. Turtles and snakes use logs in 

streams and overhanging branches for basking and sunning. Large woody debris in 

riparian areas is used as cover by amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates, and small 

mammals. Small mammals utilize logs as travel ways. Fungi and other decomposers of 

woody debris are key components of food webs. Rotting wood tends to absorb moisture 

during wet periods and release it in dry periods thus helping to maintain a cooler 

microclimate (Ernst and Brown, 1988; Knutson and Naef, 1997). 

Within the stream system, downed wood from riparian trees and shrubs greatly influence 

channel morphology and aquatic ecology. By obstructing stream flow, large woody 

debris stores and distributes sediment and creates channel features, such as pools, riffles, 

and waterfalls. Wood also traps organic matter, which allows this material to be 

processed by instream organisms. Fish and insects occupy the pools and riffles created 

by the large woody debris, and riparian forest regeneration occurs on deposited sediment 

(Lassettre and Harris 2001). Den trees, defined as living trees with hollows or cavities 

inhabited by animals, also are a necessary habitat component for many species. They are 

used for nesting, roosting, and hibernating. Viability of the Southeastern myotis bat and 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat are tied to snags and hollow trees because of their use as 

roosts. Other species of potential viability concern associated with snags, downed wood, 

or den trees are listed in Table 3.2.8H.

Hunter (1990) states that little information is available on how much large woody 

material is sufficient to support associated species. He cites literature that reviews expert 

opinion on snags, with a recommendation of two to four snags per acre being a 

“reasonable target.” Generally, for most dependent wildlife, the more snags the better for 

associated species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 156 of 329 

Current abundance of den trees, snags, and downed wood on LBL are assumed to be 

below optimal as a result of the relatively young age of existing forests. Presence of 

species dependent on these components indicates at least a short term ability of current 

densities to support associated populations of wildlife. For analysis purposes, optimal 

conditions for these components are assumed to be present once old growth conditions 

are reached, because these components are produced by the decadent conditions 

characteristic of old growth. Currently, no old growth on LBL is known. Snags and 

downed wood also may be extremely abundant in forests affected by mortality events 

such as storms and insect and disease outbreaks. Such conditions are not currently 

widespread on LBL. Nevertheless, these habitat components are present on LBL at less 

than optimal levels within mature forests of all types. Currently, approximately 106,688 

acres, or 62 percent of LBL, supports mature forests. The current abundance and wide 

distribution of mature forests likely compensates to some extent for the lack of optimal 

densities of these habitat elements relative to supporting associated species. 

Environmental Effects 

All alternatives would include a standard for the protection of existing snags and den 

trees, except where removal is needed for public or employee safety, control of insects or 

disease infestations, or for timber salvage in cases of significant events of tree mortality. 

Implementation of the standard for snags and den tree protection is expected to maximize 

the benefits of existing snags and den trees to associated wildlife until more optimal 

densities are reached as trees age. Downed wood, which is produced as snags decay and 

fall, is expected to follow trends in snag abundance. 

Vegetation management activities, such as forest thinning using timber harvest or 

herbicide treatment, are expected to increase abundance of snags due to associated tree 

mortality. These activities are highest under Alternatives W, X, and Y. Prescribed fire, 

used most prevalently under Alternatives X and Y, would have mixed effects on snag and 

downed wood abundance, reducing it through burning of these components while 

creating it in some cases through tree mortality. Eventually, densities of these 

components would be less in regularly burned areas than in unburned areas. Overall, 

however, providing these habitat components in the long run is best achieved by 

providing a sustained supply of older forests and old growth forests. 

Indicators used for assessing habitat abundance for the Snag, Den Tree, and Downed 

Wood Habitat Associations are the acreage of old growth forests and the acreage of 

mature forests (Table 3.2.7A). This analysis shows current conditions relative to old 

growth to be “poor” due to the current age of LBL forests, but improvement to “good” 

conditions in the long term under all alternatives due to aging of forests over time. In 

contrast, acreage of mature forests is currently rated as “very good” and will remain so 

over time under all alternatives. In combination, these measures indicate a currently 

acceptable but greatly improving condition, under all alternatives, for species associated 

with snags, den trees, and downed wood. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 157 of 329 

In summary, snag, den tree, and downed wood densities are currently not optimal, but 

plan standards under all alternatives will protect most available habitat until conditions 

are improved over time through the aging of forests. 

Table 3.2.7A - Snags, Den Trees, and Downed Wood indicator levels and ratings VG=Very good, 

G=good, F=fair, and P=poor for current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area 

Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

 Indicator Level 

 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 

Current W X Y Z W X Y Z 

Acres of old 

growth 

forests 

0 713 673 673 684 58,640 51,816 51,816 57,331 

(Rating) P P P P P G G G G 

Acres of 

mature 

forests 

106,688 108,094 106,226 106,226 107,876 132,828 123,288 123,288 131,538

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG 

Management Indicator Species 

Snags in Forested Situations 

The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) has been selected as an indicator because 

it requires large snags for nesting and feeding. The occurrence of this species may be 

correlated with forested habitats with abundant large dead trees and fallen logs (Hamel, 

1992), which also are used by other woodpeckers, owls, and numerous other birds, 

mammals, and amphibians. It requires large cavity trees for nesting, and forages on dead 

trees and downed logs across a variety of community types. This species is selected to 

help indicate the effects of management activities on the availability of forests with 

desired abundance of snags in forested situations. Its use as an indicator is limited by its 

wide-ranging habits, which causes it to be documented in forest types that are not 

particularly suitable. In correlation with Table 3.2.7A, the amount of potential habitat for 

this species would increase in the first decade and increase considerably over the 50 year 

period (Table 3.2.7B). 

Table 3.2.7B - Expected population trend1 of pileated woodpecker on LBL under 

each alternative for 10- and 50-years following Area Plan adoption. Population 

trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years + + + + 

50 years ++ ++ ++ ++ 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large descrease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 158 of 329 

Snags in Open Forest Situations 

The Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) nests in natural cavities in open or semi open country 

such as in woodland, forest edge, roadsides, and partly open situations with scattered 

trees (Hamel, 1992 and NatureServe, 2004). This species has been selected as an 

indicator to represent habitat conditions in open forest situations. Habitat potential for 

the Eastern bluebird will increase in abundance proportionately to the amount of old 

growth available in open forested conditions (Table 3.2.7C). These increases are 

expected to provide for increases in Eastern bluebird populations under all alternatives in 

the next 10 years and even larger increases in 50 years (Table 3.2.7D). 

Table 3.2.7C - Amount of habitat for Forest Opening Generalists indicator levels and ratings VG=Very good, G=good, 

F=fair, and P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50-year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, 

and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

 Indicator Level 

 Current 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 

Acres of 

old 

growth 

forest

0 713 673 673 684 58,640 51,816 51,816 57,331 

(Rating) P P P P P G G G G 

Acres of 

mature 

forest

106,688 108,094 106,226 106,226 107,876 132,828 123,288 123,288 131,538

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG

Amount of 

habitat for 

Forest 

Opening 

Generalists 

(Acres) 

18,907 33,455 32,619 32,619 24,669 58,280 75,666 75,666 42,266 

(Rating) P F F F P G G G F 

Table 3.2.7D Expected population trend1 of Eastern bluebird on LBL under each 

alternative for 10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population trend 

estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years + + + + 

50 years ++ ++ ++ ++ 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large descrease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 159 of 329 

Regenerating Forest Habitat 

Affected Environment 

Regenerating forests are important because they are highly productive in terms of forage, 

diversity of food sources, insect production, nesting and escape cover, and soft mast. 

Regenerating forests have the shortest lifespan (10 years) of any of the forest structural 

types, and are typically in short supply and declining on public lands and in the eastern 

United States (Thompson and DeGraff, 2001). Early successional forests are also not 

distributed regularly or randomly across the landscape (Lorimer, 2001). These habitats 

are important for some birds (prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Swainson’s warbler); 

key to deer and turkey; and sought by hunters, berry pickers, crafters, and herb gatherers 

for the wealth of opportunities they provide (Gobster, 2001). Many species commonly 

associated with mature forest conditions also use regenerating forests periodically, or 

depend upon it during some portion of their life cycle (Hunter et. al., 2001). 

Quality of regenerating forest habitats often vary between private and public lands. 

Objectives on LBL to provide for wildlife habitat needs, recreational activities, scenic 

integrity objectives, and water quality often result in greater vegetation structure retained 

in regenerating forests than in similar habitats on private lands. On private lands, more 

intensive management may simplify structure and composition, reducing habitat quality. 

For these reasons, conclusions regarding cumulative habitat availability from both private 

and national forest lands must be made with caution. 

Tornados, fire, and pre-settlement cultural activities (Delcourt, 1987) were probably the 

major sources of disturbance events that created regenerating forests prior to European 

occupation. Less drastic perturbations such as insect or disease outbreaks, or defoliation 

(passenger pigeon roosts) were typically less extensive and cyclic but nonetheless 

provided a source of regenerating forest conditions. Natural disturbances, however, are 

unpredictable, episodic, and heterogeneous (Lorimer, 2001); influential at a landscape 

scale; and are neither uniform nor random in distribution. Anthropogenic disturbances 

occurred more frequently in floodplains along major rivers and in “hunting grounds.” 

Overall, landscape patterns more consistently contain a component of regenerating 

forests in places more “likely” to be susceptible to disturbances, i.e., south and west 

facing slopes, sandy or well drained soils, or in fire-adapted plant communities. Fire 

suppression, intensive agriculture resulting in massive soil losses, land use changes, and 

urban sprawl has drastically altered the variables that would perpetuate a landscape with 

a significant component of regenerating forests. With many species associated with early 

successional forests in the southeast in decline (Hunter et. al., 2001), it is imperative that 

management actions include some provision for perpetuating regenerating forest 

conditions. 

 LBL currently supports 2,371 of regenerating forests of all types, which rates as “good” 

based on combined structural condition benchmarks for all forest types. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 160 of 329 

Environmental Effects 

Because regenerating forests provide suitable structural conditions for only a short period 

(10 years), they must be continually created to sustain associated species. Therefore, 

projections of amounts available represent a snapshot in time reflecting a sustained level 

of habitat creation. 

Levels of regenerating forest created through management action are expected to remain 

close to current conditions (rated “good”) under Alternative W, increase to “very good” 

conditions under Alternatives X and Y, and decline to “fair” conditions under Alternative 

Z (Table 3.2.7E). These trends are similar for both 10- and 50-year projections. 

Some natural disturbance events that create regenerating forests, such as tornados, will 

still occur on the LBL landscape. Their occurrence, however, is highly stochastic, 

resulting in potential booms and busts in availability of these habitats. When and where 

they occur, their effects would be used under all alternatives to help meet objectives for 

this structural condition. Occurrence of these disturbance events would reduce the need 

for creation of regenerating forests through management action. However, to better 

provide a sustained flow of these habitats, as well as a diversity of forest ages, regular 

creation of regenerating forests by management action is anticipated under all 

alternatives. 

Table 3.2.7E - Amount of habitat for Regenerating Forest Associates indicator levels and ratings 

VG=Very good, G=good, F=fair, and P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50-year future 

conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

 

 Indicator Level 

10 Yrs 

 

50 Yrs 

 

Current 

W X Y Z W X Y Z 

Amount of 

habitat for 

Regenerating 

Forest 

Associates 

(Acres) 

2,535 3,352 5,400 5,400 3,750 3,532 5,450 5,450 3,800 

(Rating) F F VG VG G F VG VG G 

Management Indicator Species 

The yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) primary habitats include secondary growth 

generally in dry situations that are comprised of thickets, brushy areas, woodland 

undergrowth, forest regeneration, and overgrown fields (Hamel, 1992 and NatureServe 

2004). The yellow-breasted chat has been selected as an indicator of forest regeneration 

habitat. Based on Table 3.2.7E, there is little change in the amount of potential 

regeneration habitat in 10 and 50 years in Alternative W. There is a slight increase in 

Alternative Z and a relatively large increase in Alternatives X and Y in 10 and 50 years 

(Table 3.2.7F). There is less forest regeneration management being proposed in 

Alternative Z thus not as great of an increase compared to Alternatives X and Y. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 161 of 329 

Table 3.2.7F - Expected population trend1 of yellow-breasted chat on LBL under 

each alternative for 10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population 

trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = ++ ++ + 

50 years = ++ ++ + 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large descrease. 

Forest Interior Bird Habitat 

Habitat fragmentation is a key issue for viability of local populations of breeding birds 

that are associated with mature deciduous forest interiors (Robbins, 1979; Faaborg, 2003; 

and Rosenburg et. al., 2003). These species are grouped for effects analysis due to their 

sensitivity to forest fragmentation and edge effects (Hamel 1992: Appendix G, G1-G2). 

Numerous studies have documented that forest interior species may not successfully 

breed in small patches of otherwise suitable habitat due in large part to adverse effects of 

forest edge (Faaborg, 2003). These adverse affects may include high rates of nest 

predation (Gates and Geysel, 1978; Wilcove, 1985; Yahner and Scott, 1988) and 

increased brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Robinson et. al., 1993; 

Primack, 1993; Yahner, 1988). However, characteristics of the surrounding landscape, 

such as percent forest cover and composition of nonforest habitats, determine the 

magnitude of local edge effects (Faaborg, 2003). 

Findings of Robinson et. al. (1995) indicate that edge effects in large landscapes 

(approximately 75,000 acres) with at least 70-80 percent forest cover are small enough to 

allow interior bird populations to be productive and viable. As a general rule, parasitism 

levels of 25 percent or less, and daily nest predation rates of four percent or less, should 

give most forest interior species "at least a chance" (Robinson et. al., 1995) of having 

self-sustaining local populations (see also May and Robinson, 1985; Donovan et. al.,

1995). These conclusions are deemed to generally hold across the eastern United States 

based on a review of nest productivity studies (Faaborg, 2003). 

The type of land use creating the opening may also affect the severity of edge effects. 

Agriculture, pasture, and urban/suburban edges are generally more detrimental to forest 

interior birds because they support higher populations of nest predators (raccoons, 

skunks, opossums, crows, and jays) and brown-headed cowbirds, a nest parasite, than do 

early successional forest edges. Duguay et. al. (2001) found that in a forested setting in 

West Virginia (Monongahela National Forest with greater than 88 percent forest cover) 

“fifteen years after harvest, cuts placed within otherwise extensively forested areas do not 

result in the type of edge effects (population sinks) observed in areas fragmented by 

agriculture in the midwestern United States.” They also concluded that implementing 

relatively small cuts that create an edge on a small proportion of the landscape may not 

result in increased nest failure, provided that other factors such as proximity to cowbird 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 162 of 329 

feeding sites are not prominent. The study involved tracking 556 nests of 46 species over 

a four-year period and calculation of daily nest survival rates. 

Recent research has shown that some edge in forested settings is even beneficial to forest 

interior birds (Faaborg, 2003; Rosenburg et. al., 2003). Vega Rivera (1998) and Anders 

et. al. (1998) found that after fledging, juvenile wood thrushes disperse from mature 

forest habitats and enter early successional forests where they fed on invertebrates and 

fruit. Use of these habitats was very high relative to their availability. Later in the 

season, they shifted back into mature forest habitats. Fledglings preferred areas with 

dense understory and ground cover with species such as blackberry, sumac, and grape. 

Such areas may be provided by relatively small even-aged regeneration areas or by 

smaller dispersed canopy gaps (Rosenburg et. al., 2003). Scattered canopy gaps and 

associated dense understories likely were characteristic of old growth mesic deciduous 

forests, providing optimal habitat for these species. 

A study of cowbirds on LBL indicates they are common and associated with maintained 

openings (Miles, 1995). Nest parasitism rates averaged 23.6 percent, which is near the 

threshold level of 25 percent identified by Robinson et. al. (1995). Two species with 

sufficient sample size (northern cardinal and wood thrush) exceeded this level, and forest 

interior species were parasitized at a higher rate (30.5 percent) than edge or open habitat 

species. These results are not extreme, but warrant caution if management actions should 

cause substantive decreases in forest cover, or increases in edge and maintained openings 

favored by cowbirds. 

Based on the research by Robinson et. al. (1995) and the review by Faaborg (2003), the 

percent on forest cover within LBL boundaries was chosen as an indicator of interior 

forest bird habitat. Thresholds were set based on this research, with 70 percent used to 

separate “good” and “fair” outcomes (Table 3.2.7G). Although regenerating forest 

creates edge that is less harmful than other land uses, it was subtracted from forest 

acreage during forest cover calculations to provide a conservative estimate of percent 

forest cover. Woodland has some characteristics of nonforest and some of forest. 

Because the response of nest predators and parasites to woodland conditions is uncertain, 

forest cover calculations were made both with and without woodland included as forest 

cover to allow consideration of effects from either perspective. 

Currently, more than 90 percent of LBL is in forest cover, with or without woodland 

included, indicating a “very good” condition for forest interior associates (Table 3.2.7H). 

A more sophisticated GIS analysis using satellite imagery of land cover and a “roving 

window” of 75,000 acres was used to assess the landscape context of LBL lands 

(unpublished analysis by Andy Peavy, Inventory and Monitoring Institute, USDA Forest 

Service). This analysis indicates that all of LBL is within a landscape context with 

greater than 70 percent forest cover. Although surrounding private lands are severely 

fragmented, LBL, by virtue of its own forests, currently provides abundant mature 

deciduous forest habitat within a predominately forested landscape. In addition, the 

presence of large lakes surrounding LBL may reduce to some extent the effect of these 

fragmented private lands to forest interior nesting birds on LBL, by impeding the influx 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 163 of 329 

of nest predators, and potentially even cowbirds. However, the “very good” indicator 

rating is tempered by research results of Miles (1995), which indicate a more marginal 

situation, at least in terms of cowbird parasitism. Some influences within LBL, such as 

the presence of campgrounds, administrative areas, cultivated lands, hayfields, 

maintained open lands, and bison and elk prairies, likely enhance populations of nest 

predators and cowbirds. In addition, LBL is a relatively narrow peninsula of forested 

landscape surrounded by large areas of relatively hostile habitat for interior birds. 

Environmental Effects 

Under all alternatives within the next 10 years, percent forest cover declines slightly, 

dropping the indicator rating just below the “very good” threshold (90 percent) into the 

“good” range (Table 3.2.7H). Counting woodland as forest, this drop is very slight and is 

a result of slightly increased rates of forest regeneration under all alternatives. Over 50 

years, these numbers rebound slightly for Alternatives X, Y, and Z as a result of 

conversion of some cultivated land to forest. This conversion is greatest under 

Alternative Z, taking the indicator back over the 90 percent threshold to a “very good” 

condition. Counting woodland as non-forest reduces the percent forest cover further for 

Alternatives X, Y, and Z, but still leaves them high within the “good” range within the 

next 10 years. These reductions in forest cover become more pronounced over 50 years 

as more acreage is restored to woodland structure, but in all cases the indicator remains 

above the 70 percent threshold, below which conditions would be rated only as “fair.” 

Interpretation of these results depends substantially on the role of restored woodlands in 

supporting higher populations of nest predators and cowbirds that would affect forest 

interior birds in surrounding habitats. Because quality woodlands are relatively rare 

today, especially distributed across a landscape in anything approximating a native 

condition, more complex interactions such as this have not been well studied. Because 

woodland conditions are expected to be restored in larger patches with variable residual 

tree density and “soft” indistinct edges, one might expect them not to concentrate adverse 

edge effects as do more typical permanent forest openings. Regardless of their potential 

for adverse effects to forest interior birds, woodlands are viewed as a critical habitat 

component for many grassland associated birds, which also are of high conservation 

concern. Their restoration is the focus of one of five habitat objectives identified in the 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Interior Low Plateaus (Ford et. al., 

2000) the physiographic region that includes LBL. Determining the effects of landscapelevel restoration of oak woodland on forest interior birds is a research need. 

Cumulatively, forest interior bird habitat on surrounding lands, and within the ecoregion 

in general is expected to remain fragmented and of low quality because of adverse edge 

effects. This fact makes maintaining quality habitat on LBL important to sustaining 

populations of forest interior birds within the region. The same can be said, however, for 

quality grassland and woodland habitats. The most desirable outcome for bird 

conservation as a whole involves some mix of forest interior and woodland/grassland 

habitats. Alternatives X, Y, and Z provide mixes estimated to support viable populations 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 164 of 329 

of woodland/grassland and forest interior birds. Within this range, Alternatives X and Y 

provide a larger emphasis on woodland and grassland habitats. 

Table 3.2.7G - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: 

Forest Interior Associates

Key Factor Indicator Optimal Very 

Good 

is > 

Good 

is > 

Fair 

 is > 

Poor 

 is < 

Forest 

Interior 

Associates 

Percent of LBL 

landscape in 

forested condition 

100% 90% 70% 50% 50% 

Table 3.2.7H - Interior Forest indicator levels and ratings VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and 

P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50 year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, 

X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004. 

 Indicator Level 

 10 Yrs 50 Yrs 

Current W X Y Z W X Y Z 

Forest 

Interior 

Associates 

(% forest , 

including 

woodlands) 

90.2% 89.8% 88.7% 88.7% 89.6% 89.8% 89.0% 89.0% 90.2% 

(Rating) VG G G G G G G G G 

Forest 

Interior 

Associates 

(% forest , 

excluding 

woodlands) 

90.2% 89.8% 85.1% 85.1% 87.8% 89.8% 71.4% 71.4% 81.2% 

(Rating) VG G G G G G G G G 

Management Indicator Species 

In addition to its selection as indicator species for mature mesophytic and riparian forests 

with complex structures, the wood thrush has been selected as indicator species for forest 

interior birds because of its association with mature deciduous forest interiors, and its 

apparent susceptibility to cowbird nest parasitism on LBL (Miles, 1995). This species is 

identified as a conservation priority species for mesophytic and oak-hickory forest types 

in this physiographic region (Ford et. al., 2000) and it has been touted as a good indicator 

of a forest’s ability to support healthy bird populations (Rosenburg et. al., 2003). It 

replaces the ovenbird, identified as an MIS for this group in the Draft EIS, because 

further literature review indicates it is not a conservation priority species, and it did not 

figure prominently in baseline research on fragmentation effects on interior bird 

productivity on LBL (Miles, 1995). 

Assessment of effects of alternatives on wood thrush populations requires combining 

trends of habitat indicators for each of the relevant habitat elements. Currently the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 165 of 329 

amount of mature mesophytic and miparian Forests with complex structures is rated as 

“poor” and is expected to remain that way over the next 10 years, despite some 

management efforts to create canopy gaps in these types under Alternatives X, Y, and Z 

(Tables 3.2.4M and 3.2.4R). At 50 years, the amount of Mesophytic Forests with 

complex structures is still poor across all alternatives, but the amount of Riparian Forest 

with complex structure improves to “good” for Alternatives X and Y, and “fair” for 

Alternative Z. Differences reflect level of management emphasis placed on creating 

canopy gaps to encourage complex structures. Assumptions used in this analysis very 

likely underestimate the status of these habitats because current and future creation of 

complex structures by natural causes are not estimated. They will, however, be 

inventoried and acknowledged during plan implementation, and therefore should be 

reflected in monitoring results, as well as in justifications for project-level proposals. 

Another measure of available habitat is provided by analysis for the Mesic Closed Forest 

Habitat Association, which includes both Mature Closed Forest and Mature Forest with 

Canopy Gap structures. Conditions for this association are currently rated as “fair” with 

improvement to “good” over 50 years for all alternatives except Z which reaches “very 

good” (Table 3.2.8J). Improvements in this indicator occur as a result of aging of mesic 

forests and emphasis on retaining them while improving structure on a subset of that 

acreage. 

Combining these indicators with the percent forest cover indicator (3.2.7H) presents a 

mixed picture for the wood thrush. Compared to current conditions, Alternative W 

would maintain the most forest cover but would not contribute to complex structures 

above background levels. Alternatives X and Y do the most for complex structures, but 

also involve the most woodland restoration which may have adverse affects on predation 

and nest parasitism in nearby interior habitats. Alternative Z involves levels of canopy 

gap and woodland restoration treatments between the other two outcomes. Similarly, 

both positive and potentially negative effects increase over time. For these reasons, 

management effects to wood thrush populations are estimated to be neutral across all 

alternatives (Table 3.2.7I). This conclusion is influenced by the uncertainty surrounding 

the effects of woodland restoration on landscape context for forest interior birds which is 

identified above as a research need. 

Cumulatively, wood thrush populations across their range are declining, but show more 

stability within the region encompassing LBL (Sauer et. al., 2004). Effects of 

management on LBL on wood thrush populations may be difficult to separate from those 

caused by land uses within the larger landscape (as described above) or those incurred 

during migration and wintering. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 166 of 329 

Table 3.2.7I - Expected population trend1 of Wood Thrush on LBL under each alternative for 

10 and 50 years following Area Plan adoption. Population trend estimates are based on 

expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years = = = = 

50 years = = = = 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large increase, 

“+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively large descrease. 

3.2.8 Species of Viability Concern 

The species of viability concern include Federally-listed, Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

(RFS), Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and Locally rare species and communities. 

As noted at the beginning of this section, the National Forest Management Act 

regulations, adopted in 1982, require that habitat be managed to support viable 

populations of native and desirable non-native vertebrates within the planning area (36 

CFR 219.19). USDA regulation 9500-004, adopted in 1983, reinforces the NFMA 

viability regulation by requiring that habitats on national forests be managed to support 

viable populations of native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife. These 

regulations focus on the role of habitat management in providing for species viability. 

Supporting viable populations involves providing habitat in amounts and distributions 

that can support interacting populations at levels that result in continued existence of the 

species well-distributed over time. 

Viability Evaluation 

The global rank, federal and state status, Regional Forester’s Sensitive listing, state 

ranking and local ranking as defined below were determined for 101 species (Table 

3.2.8A thru 3.2.8F) that occur or have the potential to occur within Land Between The 

Lakes due to existing and potential habitat. The state status and ranking and local (LBL) 

ranking were considered for both Kentucky and Tennessee. The area of consideration for 

state and locally rare species in the Table 3.2.8 series are those where the state listed 

species were recorded on 1:24,000 scale topographical quadrangles that cover LBL. The 

Grand Rivers quadrangle was not used as very little LBL topography is included on this 

quadrangle. Kentucky and Tennessee State Natural Heritage databases; NatureServe 

database, recent survey records and research documents, and expert opinion were used in 

developing the species list for LBL. 

G-RANK - Estimate of element abundance on a global scale:

G1 = Extremely rare; G2 = Rare; G3 = Uncommon; G4 = Common; and G5 = Very 

Common; Subspecies and variety abundances are coded with a ‘T’ suffix; the ‘G? portion 

of the rank then refers to the entire species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 167 of 329 

Status – Federal and State 

None = No status; E = Endangered; T = Threatened; S = Special Concern; H =Historic; 

X = Extirpated; and D = Declining and in need of management 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

These are species assigned to a list developed by the Regional Forester in coordination 

with the Forests in the Region (LBL is in Region 8). They are all native and desired 

nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their 

geographic range on National Forest System lands that are in need of special 

management objectives and practices to maintain viable populations. The intent of the 

Regional Forester’s sensitive species policy is to insure Forest Service actions do not 

result in a trend toward federal listing of sensitive species. These species are noted in 

Table 3.2.8A thru 3.2.8F as being a RFS species by yes (Y) or no (N). 

Birds of Conservation Concern 

The primary legal authority for Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (BCC, 2002) is the 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA), as amended; other authorities 

include the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and 16 

U.S.C.§701. The 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) to the FWCA 

requires the Secretary of the Interior, through the USFWS, to “identify species, 

subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional 

conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973.” BBC 2002 is the most recent effort by the USFWS to carry out 

this proactive conservation mandate. The species chosen are those from the Central 

Hardwoods BCC list that are known to breed in LBL. 

S-RANK: Estimate of element occurrence abundance in Kentucky and Tennessee. 

S1 = Extremely rare; S2 = Rare; S3 = Uncommon; S4 = Many occurrences; S5 = Very 

common; SH = Historically known in the state; SR = Reported but without persuasive 

documentation; and S? = State rank unknown 

Local (LBL) Forest Rank - Estimate of element occurrence abundance in LBL for 

Kentucky and Tennessee. 

F1 = Extremely Rare on the Forest Unit, generally with 1-5 occurrences; 

F2 = Very rare on the Forest Unit, generally with 6-20 occurrences; 

F3 = Rare and uncommon on the Forest Unit, from 21-100 occurrences; 

F4 = Widespread, abundant, and apparently secure on the Forest Unit; 

F5 = Demonstrably secure on the Forest Unit; 

FH = Of historical occurrence on the Forest Unit, may be rediscovered; 

FP = Possibly could occur on the Forest Unit but documented occurrences not known; 

FX = Extirpated from the Forest Unit, not likely to be rediscovered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 168 of 329 

Table 3.2.8A - Federally listed, Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Locally Rare Plants 

Scientific Name/ 

(Common Name) 

G-Rank Federal 

Status 

RFS 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Aesculus pavia 

(Red buckeye)

G5 None N T/S2S3 -/SR (F1)

Agalinis obtusifolia 

(Ten-lobe false 

foxglove)

G4G5 None N E/S1 -/SR (F1) 

Apios priceana 

(Price’s potato bean) 

G2 T N E/S1 E/S2 (F1)

Aristida ramosissima 

(Branched three-awn 

grass) 

G5 None N H/SH E/SH (F1) 

Armoracia lacustris 

(Lakecress) 

G4? None N T/S1S2 S/S2 (F2)

Asclepias 

purpurascens 

(Purple Milkweed) 

G4G5 None N -/S4 S/S1 (F1) 

Aster concolor 

(Eastern silvery aster) 

G4? None N T/S2 -/SR (FP) 

Aster drummondii var. 

texanus 

(Texas aster) 

G5T? None N T/S2SH (None) (FP) 

Aster (Eurybia) 

hemisphericus 

(Southern prairie aster) 

G4T4? None N E/S1 -/SR (F3)

Aureolaria patula 

(Spreading yellow false 

foxglove) 

G3 None Y S/S3 T/S2 (F1) 

Baptisia bracteata var. 

leucophaea 

(Cream wild indigo) 

G4G5T4

T5 

None N S/S3 S/S1S2 (F3)

Carex comosa 

(Bristly sedge) 

G5 None N H/SH T/S2 (F1)

Carex lacustris 

(Lake-bank sedge) 

G5 None N (None) T/S1 (F1)

Carex reniformis

(Reniform sedge) 

G4? None N E/S1? S/S1 (FP) 

Castanea dentate

(American chestnut) 

G4 None N E/S1? S/S2? (F2) 

Cimicifuga rubifolia 

(Appalachian bugbane) 

G3 None Y T/S2 T/S3 (F1)

Dalea candida 

(White prairie clover) 

G5 None N -/S3S4 E/S2 (F1) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 169 of 329 

Table 3.2.8A (Continued) 

Scientific Name/ 

(Common Name) 

G-Rank Federal 

Status 

RFS 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Echinacea pallida 

(Pale-purple coneflower) 

G4 None N (None) T/S1 (F1) 

Eleocharis intermedia 

(Matted spike-rush) 

G5 None N -/SR S/S1 (F1) 

Glandularia canadensis 

(Rose mock vervain) 

G5 None N T/S2S3 -/SR (F1) 

Gymnopogon 

ambiguous 

(Bearded Skeletongrass) 

G4 None N S/S2S3 -/SR (F1) 

Halesia tetraptera 

(Mountain silver-bell) 

G5 None N E/S1S2 -/S4 (F3) 

Hedeoma hispida 

(Rough pennyroyal) 

G5 None N T/S2 -/SR (F1) 

Heteranthera dubia 

(Grassleaf mud-plantain) 

G5 None N S/S3 -/SR (F1) 

Heteranthera limosa 

(Blue mud-plantain) 

G5 None N S/S2S3 T/S1 (F1) 

Hieracium longipilum 

(Hairy hawkweed) 

G4G5 None N T/S2 S/S1S2 (FP) 

Hottonia inflate 

(Featherfoil) 

G4 None N -/S4? S/S2 (F1) 

Iris brevicaulis 

(Lamance iris) 

G4 None N -/S? E/S1 (F1) 

Juglans cinerea 

(Butternut) 

G3G4 None Y S/S3 T/S2S3 (F2) 

Lesquerella lescurii 

(Lescur’s bladder-pod) 

G4 None N S/S1 -/S3 (F1) 

Lilium michiganense 

(Michigan lily) 

G5 None N -/S? T/S2 (F2) 

Lilium superbum 

(Turk’s Cap lily) 

G5 None N T/S1S2 -/SR (FP) 

Liparis loeselli 

(Fen orchis) 

G5 None N T/S2S3 E/S1 (F1) 

Lysimachia fraseri 

(Fraser’s yellow 

loosestrife) 

G2 None Y E/S1 E/S2 (FH) 

Malus angustifolia 

(Southern crabapple) 

G5? None N S/S3 -/SR (F2) 

Matelea carolinensis 

(Carolina anglepod) 

G4 None N E/S1? -/SR (F1) 

Muhlenbergia 

glabrifloris 

(Hair grass) 

G4? None N S/S2S3 S/S1 (F1) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 170 of 329 

Table 3.2.8A (Continued)

Scientific Name/ 

(Common Name) 

G-Rank Federal 

Status 

RFS 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Najas gracillima 

(Thread-like naiad) 

G5? None N S/S2S3 -/SR (F1) 

Nemophila aphylla 

(Baby blue eyes) 

G5 None N T/S2? -/SR (F1) 

Oldenlandia uniflora 

(Clustered bluets) 

G5 None N E/S1 -/SR (F1) 

Paspalum boscianum 

(Bull-grass) 

G5 None N S/S2S3 -/S4 (FH) 

Phacelia ranunculacea 

(Ocean-blue phacelia) 

G3G4 None Y S/S3 S/S3 (F1) 

Philadelphus inodorus 

(Mock orange) 

G4G5 None N T/S1S2 -/S4S5 (F1) 

Phlox pilosa ssp. 

Ozarkana 

(Ozark downy phlox) 

G5T? None N (None) S/S1 (FP) 

Polytaenia nuttallii 

(Prairie parsley) 

G5 None N PE/?S T/S1 (FH) 

Populus grandidentata 

(Big-tooth aspen) 

G5 None N -/S? S/S2 (F1) 

Prenanthes barbata 

(Barbed rattlesnakeroot) 

G2 None Y E/S1 S/S2 (F1) 

Prenanthes crepidinea 

(Nodding rattlesnakeroot) 

G3G4 None N T/S2 E/S1 (F1) 

Ptilimnium capillaceum 

(Mock Bishop’s weed) 

G5 None N T/S1S2 -/SR (F2) 

Ptilimnium nuttallii 

(Nuttall’s Mock 

(Bishop’s weed) 

G5? None N E/S1S2 -/SR (F2) 

Pycnanthemum 

albescens 

(Whiteleaf 

mountainmint) 

G5 None N E/S1 (None) (FP) 

Ranunculus flabellaris 

(Yellow watercrowfoot) 

G5 None N -/S? T/S2 (F1) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 171 of 329 

Table 3.2.8A (Continued)

Scientific Name/ 

(Common Name) 

G-Rank Federal 

Status 

RFS 

Specie 

Y/N 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Sagittaria brevirostra 

(Short-beaked 

arrowhead) 

G5 None N -/S4 T/S1 (F1) 

Sagittaria graminea 

(Grassleaf arrowhead) 

G5 None N T/S1S2 T/S1 (F1) 

Sagittaria platyphylla 

(Delta or Ovate-leaved 

arrowhead) 

G5 None N T/S2? S/S2S3 (F1) 

Salvia azurea var 

grandiflora 

(Blue sage) 

G4G5T4? None N -/S? S/S2 (F3) 

Scleria ciliata var. 

ciliate 

(Fringed nutrush) 

G5T? None N E/S1? -/S? (FP) 

Silphium pinnatifidum 

(Prairie-dock) 

G3Q None N S/S3S4 T/S2 (F1) 

Solidago buckleyi 

(Buckley’s goldenrod) 

G4 None N S/S2S3 (None) (F1) 

Stellaria longifolia 

(Longleaf stitchwort) 

G5 None N S/S2S3 E/S1 (FP) 

Synosma (Hasteola) 

sauveolens 

(Sweet-scented or Indian 

plantain) 

G3G4 None Y -/S? T/S2 (F1) 

Trepocarpus aethusae 

(Trepocarpus) 

G4G5 None N T/S3 -/SR (F3) 

Trifolium reflexum 

(Buffalo clover) 

G5 None N E/S1S2 E/S1 (F1) 

Ulmus serotina 

(September elm) 

G4 None N S/S3 -/S3S4 (F1) 

Zanthoxylum 

americanum 

(American prickly ash) 

G5 None N -/S? S/S1 (FH) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 172 of 329 

Table 3.2.8B - Federally-listed Birds 

Common Name/ 

(Scientific Name) 

G-Rank Federal 

Status 

RFS 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(FRank) 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

G4 T N E/S1S2B D/S3 (F3) 

Interior least tern 

(Sterna antillarum 

athalassos) 

G4 E N E/S2B E/S2S3B (FP) 

Table 3.2.8C - Locally Rare Birds and Birds of Conservation Concern

Common Name/ 

(Scientific Name) 

GRank 

Locally 

Rare 

Y/N 

BCC 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status 

/S-Rank 

TN 

Status 

/S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Sharp-shinned 

hawk 

(Accipiter striatus) 

G5 Y N S/S3BS4N D/S3B (F1) 

Henslow’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

henslowii) 

G4 Y Y S/S3B D/S1B (F1) 

Whip-poor-will 

(Caprimulgus 

vociferous) 

G5 N Y -/S5B -/S3S4 (F4) 

Northern bobwhite 

quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

G5 Y N -/S5 -/S2S3 (F4) 

Cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica 

cerulean) 

G4 Y Y -/S4S5B D/S3B (F1) 

Prairie warbler 

(Dendroica discolor)

G5 N Y -/S5B -/S3S4 (F4) 

Little blue heron 

(Egretta caerulea)

G5 Y N E/S1B D/S2BS3N (FP) 

Worm-eating 

warbler 

(Helmitheros 

vermivorus)

G5 N Y -/S4S5B -/S4 (F4) 

Wood thrush 

(Hylocichla 

mustelina)

G5 N Y -/S5B -/S4 (F4) 

Swainson’s warbler 

(Limnothlypis 

swainsonii) 

G4 N Y -/S3S4B D/S3 (FP) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 173 of 329 

Table 3.2.8C (Continued)

Common Name/ 

(Scientific Name) 

G-Rank 

Locally 

Rare 

Y/N 

BCC 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status 

/S-Rank 

TN 

Status 

/S-Rank 

LBL 

(FRank) 

Red-headed 

woodpecker 

(Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus)

G5 N Y -/S4BS4N -/S4 (F4) 

Black-crowned night 

heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax)

G5 Y N T/S1S2B -/S2S3B (FP) 

Osprey 

(Pandion haliaetus) 

G5 Y N T/S1S2B -/S3B (F2) 

Adjacent 

Large 

Lakes to 

LBL 

Louisiana waterthrush 

(Seiurus motacilla) 

G5 N Y -/S5B -/S4 (F4) 

Bewick’s wren 

(Thryomanes bewickii) 

G5 Y Y S/S3B E/S1 (F1) 

Barn owl 

(Tyto alba) 

G5 Y N S/S3 D/S3 (FP) 

Blue-winged warbler 

(Vermivora pinus) 

G5 N Y -/S4S5B -/S4 (F4) 

Table 3.2.8D - Federally-listed, Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Locally Rare Mammals 

Common Name/ 

(Scientific Name) 

G-Rank Federal 

Status 

RFS 

Species 

Y/N 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Gray bat 

(Myotis grisescens) 

G3 E N E/S2 E/S2 (F2) 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

G2 E N E/S1S2 E/S1 (FP) 

Southeastern myotis bat 

(Myotis austroriparius) 

G3G4 None Y E/S1S2 --/S3 (FP) 

Rafinesque’s big-eared 

bat 

(Corynorhinus rafinesquii) 

G3G4 None Y S/S3 None (FP) 

Evening bat 

(Nycticeius humeralis) 

G5 None N T/S2S3 None (F3) 

Pigmy Shrew 

(Microsorex hoyi) 

G5 None N None D/S2 (FP) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 174 of 329 

Table 3.2.8E - Locally Rare Amphibians and Reptiles

Common Name/ 

(Scientific Name) 

G-Rank 

KY 

Status 

/S-Rank 

TN 

Status 

/S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Barking treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) 

G5 S/S3 D/S3 (FP) 

Southeastern five-lined skink 

(Eumeces inexpectatus) 

G5 S/S3 -/S5 (F3) 

Coal skink 

Eumeces anthracinus) 

G5 T/S2 D/S3 (FP) 

Scarlet kingsnake 

(Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides) 

G5T5 S/S3 None (F2) 

Alligator snapping turtle 

(Macrochelys temminckii) 

G3G4 T/S2 D/S2S3 (F2) 

Northern pine snake 

(Pituophis melanoleucus 

melanoleucus) 

G4T4 T/S2 T/S3 (F2) 

Eastern ribbon snake 

(Thamnophis sauritus sauritus) 

G5 S/S3 -/S4S5 (F3) 

Western pigmy rattlesnake 

(Sistrurus miliarius streckeri) 

G5T5 T/S2 T/S2S3 (F2) 

Table 3.2.8F - Locally Rare Fish 

Common Name/ 

(Scientific Name) 

G-Rank 

KY 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

TN 

Status/ 

S-Rank 

LBL 

(F-Rank) 

Blotched chub 

(Erimystax insignis) 

G3G4 E/S1 ?/S3 (FH) 

Spring cavefish 

(Forbesichthys agassizi) 

G4 -/S4S5 -/S4 (F3) 

Slender madtom 

(Noturus exilis) 

G5 E/S1 -/S4S5 (F2)

Habitat Associations as defined in Table 3.2.8G were developed based on a single key 

limiting requirement and combinations of key limiting requirements for all the species of 

viability concern. The key limiting requirements for each species were linked to specific 

cover, structure, and site types. These links or groupings formed the Habitat 

Associations. The species of viability concern listed in Tables 3.2.8A thru 3.2.8F are 

linked to the habitat associations in Table 3.2.8H. Following the process described in 

Section 3.2.1, Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for “very good”, “good”, “fair”, 

and “poor” conditions were identified for the Habitat Associations (Table 3.2.8I ). 

Expected acreage outcomes were then rated according to these Thresholds (Table 3.2.8J). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 175 of 329 

Table 3.2.8G - Habitat Associations and Descriptions

Association Name Association Description 

Upland Forest Associates Species associated with all forest cover types on all 

site types except Alluvial sites. 

Forest Opening Associates Species associated with structural types of Mature 

Open Forest, Mature Forest with Gaps, Mature 

Woodland, and Regenerating Forests in all forest 

cover types 

Xeric and Dry Open Forest 

Associates 

Species associated with Oak Forest and Shortleaf 

Pine Forest with Mature Open Forest, Mature 

Woodland, and Regenerating Forest structures on 

Xeric and Dry sites 

Mesic Forest Associates Species associated with Mesophytic Forest, Riparian 

Forest of all structural types on all site types, plus 

Oak Forest on Mesic and Alluvial site types. 

Mesic Closed Canopy Forest 

Associates 

Species associated with Mesophytic Forest and 

Riparian Forest with Mature Closed Forest and 

Mature Forest with Gaps structures, plus Oak 

Forests on Mesic and Alluvial sites with Mature 

Closed Forest and Mature Forest with Gaps 

structures. 

Mesic Forest Opening 

Associates 

Species associated with Mesophytic Forest and 

Riparian Forest with Mature Open Forest, Mature 

Woodland, Mature Forest with Canopy Gaps, and 

Regenerating Forest structures on all site types, plus 

Oak Forests with Mature Open Forest, Mature 

Woodland, Mature Forest with Canopy Gaps, and 

Regenerating Forest on Mesic and Alluvial sites 

Riparian Forest Associates Species associated with Oak Forest, Mesophytic 

Forest, and Riparian Forest of all structural types on 

Alluvial sites 

Riparian Forest Openings 

Associates 

Species associated with Oak Forest, Mesophytic 

Forest, and Riparian Forest, with Mature Open 

Forest, Mature Woodland, Mature Forest with 

Canopy Gaps, and Regenerating Forest structures 

on Alluvial sites 

Xeric and Dry Grassland and 

Woodland Associates 

Species associated with Grasslands, and Oak 

Forests in Mature Woodland structure, on Xeric and 

Dry sites 

Wet Grassland Associates Species associated with Grasslands on Alluvial sites 

Calcareous Cliffs and Talus 

Associates 

Species associated with Calcareous Cliffs and Talus 

Ponds and Marshes Associates Species associated with Ponds and Marshes 

Springs and Seeps Species associated with Springs and Seeps 

Rocky Shores and Bars 

Associates 

Species associated with Rocky Shores and Bars 

Mudflats Associates Species associated with Mudflats 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 176 of 329 

Table 3.2.8G (Continued) 

Limestone Soil Associates Species associated with limestone soils 

Stream Associates Species associated with streams 

Open Water Associates Species associated with open water 

Lakeshore Associates Species associated with forested lakeshores 

Pine Forest Associates Species associated with Shortleaf Pine Forests and 

Planted Pine Forests of all structure and site types 

Grassland Associates Species associated with Grasslands on all site types 

Canebrake Associates Species associated with Canebrakes 

Den Trees Associates Species associated with den trees 

Regenerating Forest 

Associates 

Species associated with Regenerating Forest of all 

forest types and site types 

Snag Associates Species associated with standing dead trees 

Downed Wood Associates Species associated with large downed logs 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 177 of 329 

Table 3.2.8H - Species of Viability Concern by Habitat Association. Bolded = Federally 

listed; Italics = Regional Forester’s Sensitive; and * = Bird of Conservation Concern. 

 

Upland Forest Associates

Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland

Associates (cont.)

American chestnut Barbed rattlesnake root 

American prickly ash Ozark downy phlox 

Scarlet kingsnake Blue sage 

Prairie-dock 

Forest Opening Associates Buffalo clover 

Price’s potato bean Prairie warbler* 

Fraser’s yellow loosestrife Barn owl 

Southern crabapple Northern bobwhite quail* 

Texas aster Northern pine snake 

Sharp-shinned hawk Southern five-lined skink 

Red-headed woodpecker* 

Bewick’s wren* Pine Forest Associates

Indiana bat Whip-poor-will* 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Sharp-shinned hawk 

Evening bat Northern pine snake 

Xeric and Dry Open Forest Associates Calcareous Cliffs and Talus Associates

Ten-lobe false foxglove Price’s potato bean 

Southern prairie aster Spreading yellow false foxglove 

Spreading yellow false foxglove Appalachian bugbane 

Crème wild indigo Pale purple coneflower 

Carolina anglepod Rose mock vervain 

Ozark downy phlox Bearded skeleton-grass 

Big-tooth aspen Rough pennyroyal 

Barbed rattlesnake root Mock orange 

White-leaf mountain mint 

Fringed nutrush Limestone Soil Associates

Buckley’s goldenrod Appalachian bugbane 

Buffalo clover Rose mock vervain 

Evening bat Rough pennyroyal 

Northern pine snake Mock orange 

 Nodding rattlesnake-root 

Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland Assoc. September elm 

Branched three-awn grass 

Purple milkweed Interior Forest Associates

Eastern silvery aster Worm-eating warbler* 

Crème wild indigo Wood thrush* 

Rose mock vervain Cerulean warbler* 

Hairy hawkweed Sharp-shinned hawk 

White prairie clover Whip-poor-will* 

Hair grass Swainson’s warbler* 

Prairie parsley Louisiana waterthrush* 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 178 of 329 

Table 3.2.8H (Continued) 

Mesic Forest Associates Riparian Forest Opening Assoc. (cont.)

Red buckeye Evening bat

Appalachian bugbane Western pigmy rattlesnake 

Mountain silver-bell Barking treefrog 

Butternut 

Fen orchis Regenerating Forest Associates

Baby blue eyes Blue-winged warbler* 

September elm Praire warbler* 

Coal skink Bewick’s wren* 

Pigmy shrew Northern pine snake 

Mesic Closed Canopy Forest Associates Canebrake Associates

 Ocean-blue phacelia Swainson’s warbler 

 Worm-eating warbler* 

Wood thrush * Den Tree Associates 

Barn owl 

Mesic Forest Opening Associates Indiana bat 

Michigan lily Southeastern myotis bat 

Turk’s Cap lily Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 

Nodding rattlesnake-root 

Bigtooth aspen Snag Associates

Whip-poor-will* Indiana bat 

Cerulean Warbler* Evening bat 

Wood thrush* Red-headed woodpecker* 

Bewick’s wren* 

Riparian Forest Associates Osprey 

Reniform sedge Bald eagle 

Lamance iris 

Louisiana waterthrush* Downed Wood Associates

Eastern ribbon snake Southeastern five-lined skink 

 Coal skink 

Riparian Forest Opening Associates Scarlet kingsnake 

Fraser’s yellow loosestrife 

Indian plantain Mudflat Associates

Longleaf stitchwort Grassleaf mud-plantain 

Trepocarpus Blue mud-plantain 

Whip-poor-will* Thread-like naiad 

Swainson’s warbler Little blue heron 

Cerulean warbler* 

Black-crowned night heron Springs and Seeps Associates

Gray bat Fen orchis 

Indiana bat Spring cavefish 

Southeastern myotis bat 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 179 of 329 

Table 3.2.8H (Continued) 

 

Wet Grassland Associates Ponds and Marshes Associates

Fraser’s yellow loosestrife Lakecress 

Lescur’s bladder-pod Bristly sedge 

Bull-grass Lake-bank sedge 

Reniform sedge Reniform sedge 

Longleaf stitchwort Matted spike-rush 

Henslow’s sparrow* Grassleaf mud-plantain 

Barn owl Blue mud-plantain 

Eastern ribbon snake Featherfoil 

Western pigmy rattlesnake Lamance iris 

Barking treefrog Fen orchis 

Pigmy shrew Thread-like naiad 

Clustered bluets 

Lakeshores Associates Mock Bishop’s weed 

Bald eagle Short-beaked arrowhead 

Interior least tern Grassleaf arrowhead 

Black-crowned night heron Delta-leaved arrowhead 

Osprey Yellow watercrowfoot 

Gray bat Little blue heron 

Southeastern myotis bat Black-crowned night heron 

Western pigmy rattlesnake Gray bat 

Indiana bat 

Rocky Shores and Bars Associates Southeastern myotis bat 

Lakecress Barking treefrog 

Lake-bank sedge Western pigmy rattlesnake 

Matted spike-rush 

Grassleaf mud-plantain Streams Associates

Blue mud-plantain Little blue heron 

Featherfoil Black-crowned night heron 

Thread-like naiad Louisiana waterthrush* 

Clustered bluets Blotched chub 

Mock Bishop’s weed Slender madtom 

Nutall’s Mock Bishop’s weed 

Short-beaked arrowhead Lakes (Water) Associates

Grassleaf arrowhead Bald eagle 

Indian plantain Osprey 

Little blue heron 

Alligator snapping turtle 

See Appendix E (Table E.3) for Habitat Associations by Species of Viability Concern.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.8I - Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Habitat Associations

Key Factor Indicator Optimal

Acres 

 Very 

Good 

is > 

 Good 

is > 

 Fair 

is > 

 

Amount of habitat for Upland Forest Associates 

Acres of habitat for Upland Forest Generalists 

150,503 112,878 75,252 37,626 

Amount of habitat for Forest Opening Associates 

Acres of habitat for Forest Opening Generalists 

116,559 87,419 58,279 29,140 

Amount of habitat for Xeric and Dry Open Forest Associates 

Acres of habitat for Dry and Xeric Open Forest Associates 

59,861 44,896 29,931 14,965 

Amount of habitat for Mesic Forest Associates 

Acres of habitat for Mesic Forest Generalists 

25,731 19,299 12,866 6,433 

Amount of habitat for Mesic Closed Canopy Forest Associates 

Acres of habitat for Mesic Closed Canopy Forest Associates 

22,130 16,597 11,065 5,532 

Amount of habitat for Mesic Forest Opening Associates 

Acres of habitat for Mesic Forest Opening Associates 

18,855 14,141 9,427 4,714 

Amount of habitat for Riparian Forest Associates 

Acres of habitat for Riparian Forest Generalists 

10,264 8,724 6,158 3,592 

Amount of habitat for Riparian Forest Openings Associates 

Acres of habitat for Riparian Forest Openings Associates 

6,980 5,933 4,188 2,443 

Amount of habitat for Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland Associates 

Acres of habitat for Dry and Xeric Grassland and Woodland Associates 

34,428 25,821 17,214 8,607 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.8I - (Continued) Key Factors, Indicators, and Thresholds for the Conservation Target: Habitat Associ

Key Factor Indicator Optimal 

Acres/ 

Percent 

 Very 

Good 

is > 

 Good 

is > 

 

Amount of habitat for Wet Grassland Associates 

Acres of habitat for Wet Grassland Associates 

641 609 449 

Amount of habitat for Ponds and Marshes Associates 

Acres of habitat for Ponds and Marshes Associates 

1,924 1,636 1,155 

Amount of habitat for Pine Forest Associates Acres of habitat for Pine 

Forest Associates 

1,637 1,555 1,146 

Amount of habitat for Grassland Associates Acres of habitat for Grassland 

Generalist 

8,563 7,278 5,138 2

Quality of habitat for Grassland Associates Acres of grassland habitat 

dominated by native grasses 

8,563 7,278 5,138 2

Amount of habitat for Canebrake Associates Acres of habitat for 

Canebrake Associates 

321 305 225 

Amount of habitat for Den Trees Associates Acres of habitat for Den 

Trees Associates 

85,691 64,268 42,845 2

Amount of habitat for Regenerating Forest Associates 

Acres of habitat for Regenerating Forest Associates 

6,197 5,268 3,718 2

Snag Associates Acres of habitat for Snag 

Associates 

85,691 64,268 42,845 2

Downed Wood Associates Acres of habitat for Downed 

Wood Associates 

85,691 64,268 42,845 2

Forest Interior Associates Percent of LBL landscape in 

forested condition 

100% 90% 70% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.8J - Habitat Association indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, and P=poo

conditions and 10- and 50 year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Betw2004. 

Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Ye(Indicator) W X Y Z W X Amount of habitat for Upland Forest Associates (Acres) 

148,569 152,127 152,127 152,127 152,127 152,127 152,396 15

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of habitat for Forest Opening Associates (Acres) 

18,907 33,455 32,619 32,619 24,669 58,280 75,666 7

(Rating) P F F F P G G Amount of habitat for Xeric and Dry Open Forest Associates (Acres) 

11,257 14,260 19,285 19,285 14,785 31,060 42,919 4

(Rating) P P F F P G G Amount of habitat for Mesic Forest Associates (Acres) 

21,216 21,216 21,208 21,208 21,208 21,216 21,665 2

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of habitat for Mesic Closed Canopy Forest Associates (Acres) 

10,637 11,054 10,934 10,934 11,335 16,162 15,627 1

(Rating) F F F F G G G 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.8J - (Continued) Habitat Association indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fa

and P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50 year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004.

 Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Years (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Y Amount of habitat for Mesic Forest Opening Associates (Acres) 

1,293 1,997 2,660 2,660 1,977 1,427 7,182 7,182 3

(Rating) P P P P P P F F Amount of habitat for Riparian Forest Associates (Acres) 

8,394 8,394 8,391 8,391 8,391 8,394 8,724 8,724 8

(Rating) G G G G G G VG VG VAmount of habitat for Riparian Forest Openings Associates (Acres) 

265 736 993 993 723 557 3,174 3,174 1

(Rating) P P P P P P F F Amount of habitat for Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland Associates (Acres) 

2,576 2,576 8,576 8,576 5,576 2,576 32,576 32,576 17

(Rating) P P P P P P VG VG Amount of habitat for Wet Grassland Associates (Acres) 

1,165 1,165 2,015 2,015 2,465 1,165 1,565 1,565 1

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.8J - (Continued) Habitat Association indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, 

and P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50 year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004.

 Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Years (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Y Z Amount of habitat for Ponds and Marshes Associates (Acres) 

952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 

(Rating) F F F F F F F F F Amount of habitat for Pine Forest Associates (Acres) 

4,366 4,366 4,486 4,486 4,486 4,366 4,686 4,686 4,686 

(Rating) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG Amount of habitat for Grassland Generalist (Acres) 

6,522 6,522 7,672 7,672 8,272 6,522 7,262 7,262 7,512 

(Rating) G G G G G G G G G Amount of habitat for Canebrake Associates (Acres) 

0 0 50 50 50 0 240 240 240 

(Rating) P P P P P P G G G Amount of habitat for Den Trees Associates (Acres) 

0 713 673 673 684 58,640 51,816 51,816 57,331 

(Rating) P P P P P G G G G 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3.2.8J - (Continued) Habitat Association indicator levels and ratings (VG=very good, G=good, F=fair, 

and P=poor) for current conditions and 10- and 50 year future conditions under Area Plan Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z for Land Between The Lakes, 2004.

 Indicator Level 

Key Factor Current 10 Years 50 Years (Indicator) W X Y Z W X Y Z Amount of habitat for Regenerating Forest Associates (Acres) 

2,535 3,532 5,400 5,400 3,750 3,532 5,450 5,450 3,800

(Rating) F F VG VG G F VG VG G Snag Associates (Acres) 

0 713 673 673 684 58,640 51,816 51,816 57,331

(Rating) P P P P G G G G Downed Wood Associates (Acres) 

0 713 673 673 684 58,640 51,816 51,816 57,331

(Rating) P P P P G G G G Forest Interior Associates (% forest, including woodlands) 

90.2% 89.8% 88.7% 88.7% 89.6% 89.8% 89.0% 89.0% 90.2%

(Rating) VG G G G G G G G VG Forest Interior Associates (% forest, excluding woodlands) 

90.2% 89.8% 85.1% 85.1% 87.8% 89.8% 71.4% 71.4% 81.2% 

(Rating) VG G G G G G G G G 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 186 of 329 

Indicators at “fair” and “poor” levels in the long-term (50 years) are areas for potential 

concern about persistence of associated species. Under Alternative W, two indicators meet 

these criteria: Acres of habitat for Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland Associates, and 

Acres of Habitat for Canebrake Associates (Table 3.2.8J). In neither case is progress made 

to improve abundance of these habitats because such objectives are not recognized in the 

1994 Plan. Only the Swainson’s warbler is a known species of viability concern that is 

associated with the canebrake community. It is at the edge of its range on LBL, so its 

viability on LBL may be in doubt even if additional canebrake habitat were provided. In 

contrast, the Xeric and Dry Grassland and Woodland Associates include 18 species of 

plants and two birds (Table 3.2.8H). Although some of this habitat is provided, its 

abundance is rated as “poor.” Lack of focus on woodland restoration is this alternative’s 

biggest weakness when viewed from a community diversity and species viability 

perspective. 

Alternative X and Y show two Habitat Association Indicators below the “good” threshold 

at 50 years: Acres of Habitat for Mesic Forest Opening Associates, and Acres of Habitat 

for Riparian Forest Opening Associates. For both, the amount of habitat is expected to 

increase over time relative to current conditions but does not do so enough to reach the 

“good” threshold. The primary difference between these alternatives and Alternative W, 

which rates “poor” for these indicators, is that TVA’s 1994 Plan did not provide for 

“Forest openings” to be created thru canopy gap type management activities in Mesic and 

Riparian forest types. Forest opening treatments for creating complex structural diversity 

thru canopy gaps was provided only on upland xeric and dry site types in TVA’s 1994 Plan 

(Alternative W). Alternative W includes more effort to open the upland forest conditions 

to sustain oak, resulting in more habitat for these habitat associations. Under Alternatives 

X and Y, reduced attention to oak forest management on dry-mesic, mesic, and alluvial 

sites is a result of a shift in use of vegetation management resources to restore woodlands. 

So, while some risk is indicated for these habitat groups under this alternative, progress 

toward increasing habitat availability would be made, these habitat conditions would not 

be rare, and resources would be applied to more critical restoration activities. 

Alternative Z is expected to result in four Habitat Association Indicators below the “good” 

threshold at 50 years. Like Alternatives X and Y, Alternative Z is rated below the “good” 

threshold for Acres of Habitat for Mesic Forest Opening Associates and Acres of Habitat 

for Riparian Forest Opening Associates for many of the same reasons. It also is rated 

below “good” for Forest Opening Associates and Xeric and Dry Open Forest Associates. 

The lower rating for these two Habitat Associations reflects this alternatives emphasis on 

lower levels of management intensity and activity levels. Some level of habitat 

management would occur in each case, resulting in “fair” ratings. For both of these 

associations, the amount of habitat is expected to increase over current resulting in 

improved conditions for associated species. This risk reflects a trade-off between lower 

intensity management approaches and associated uses versus full biological diversity, 

which requires restoring some levels of appropriate ecological disturbance to the 

landscape. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 187 of 329 

The current Habitat Association Indicator for Ponds and Marshes Associates is below the 

“good” threshold for all alternatives and does not increase over current in 10 and 50 years. 

If beaver activity would be allowed to the extent compatible with facility protection and 

other resource uses, there could be an increase in acreage of quality wetland habitat (i.e., 

ponds and marshes). Likewise if there are anymore man-made wetlands created in LBL, 

these acres would be increased. 

Management Indicator Species 

Threatened and Endangered 

The Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) a federally threatened perennial vine has been 

selected as an appropriate MIS for recovery of this species. There are four sites where this 

species is known to occur in Kentucky and one in Tennessee. The Price’s potato bean is 

an inhabitant of open, mixed-oak forests, forest edges, and clearings on river bottoms, and 

ravines, and is unable to tolerate deep shade (NatureServe, 2004). This species is also 

associated with calcareous boulders and several populations extend onto road or utility 

rights-of-way (NatureServe, 2004). The greatest threat to the LBL populations is shade. 

There is a need for shade removal on four of the sites (White, 2001). Conservation 

measures for natural regeneration of the existing populations and propagation of additional 

populations will follow the Price’s Potato bean Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1993). Potential 

habitat for this species includes forest openings and calcareous cliffs and talus slopes. 

Forest opening associates habitat potential increases for the Price’s potato bean in all of the 

alternatives in the next 10 and 50 years, based on Table 3.2.8K. There is a considerable 

increase in potential habitat in the next 50 years. 

Table 3.2.8K Potential habitat for population occurrences of Price’s potato bean 

in open forest conditions on LBL under each alternative for 10 and 50 years 

following Area Plan adoption. Population trend estimates are based on expected 

trends in habitat quantity and quality. 

Alternative 

Time Period W X Y Z 

10 years + + + + 

50 years ++ ++ ++ ++ 

1

Population trend expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively 

large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“ = decrease, “- -“ = relatively 

large decrease. 

3.2.9 Demand Species 

In addition to requirements for providing for a diversity of plant and animal communities 

and viability of associated species, units of the national forest system are charged with 

providing for sustained multiple uses, including recreational use of fish and wildlife 

populations. The recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in LBL are evaluated for 

each of the alternatives in terms of their demand by our public. The “demand” label does 

not imply that a species is of greater value than a “non-demand” species. All species are 

always “in demand” for one or more reasons (e.g., ecological, scientific, ethical, aesthetic, 

recreational, commercial, or legal). However, for the purpose of this section, “demand 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 188 of 329 

species” are those most associated with the recreational wildlife pursuits (i.e. hunting, 

fishing, and viewing activities). Because these activities are generally limited or restricted 

on non-public lands, LBL offers a unique opportunity to those wishing to participate in 

these activities. 

The level of demand for each species or group of species varies to some degree across 

LBL. Consumptive demand for species includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. A level of 

demand is also recognized for non-consumptive uses such as viewing, which enhances the 

experience of forest users. 

Some species that exist on LBL are of concern due to their importance for recreation 

purposes. Some species are in demand for wildlife viewing, some are game species, and 

some are both. These species population levels are regulated by the constraints of 

available year-round habitat and/or by harvest regulations. Collectively these species are 

referred to as Demand Species. They include: 

• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

• Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) 

• White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

• Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

• Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 

• Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 

• Fallow deer (Dama dama) 

Of these, the bald eagle and northern bobwhite are also listed as species of viability 

concern. 

The bald eagle and Eastern bluebird are demand species for wildlife viewing. The bald 

eagle is a federally threatened species and the Eastern bluebird is management indicator 

species for snags in open forested situations and as a non-game demand species. The 

effects of management are addressed for the bald eagle in the Biological Assessment and 

for the Eastern bluebird in Section 3.2.7. Following is a discussion of the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects of Alternatives W, X, Y, and Z with respect to their impact on the 

other five Demand Species population levels. Also outlined are the critical elements and 

the forecasted impact of harvest on population levels. Alternatives X and Y are considered 

concurrently because of modest differences in forecasted impacts on critical elements of 

Demand Species habitat. With the exception of Northern bobwhite and bald eagle, there is 

no concern to be found in current literature about the viability of the other Demand Species 

on LBL. Population levels are healthy and are expected to remain so for the duration of 

the planning period. 

In all cases exact populations are difficult or impossible to determine, therefore population 

trends or coarse, broad-scale determinations are made. In some cases, such as white-tailed 

deer we have population trend data, in other cases we must tie an individual Demand 

Species to its habitat and forecast population trends based on the effect an alternative is 

expected to have on that habitat. An example of this principle is to relate gray squirrel 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 189 of 329 

populations to acorn and hickory-nut availability. A vegetation management practice that 

provides for oak-hickory forest health would be expected to provide for stable or 

increasing gray squirrel populations. 

In most cases vegetation management prescribed to provide for the viability of threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, or otherwise rare species will have positive effects for Demand 

Species as well. For example, vegetation thinning and prescribed burning to provide for 

open oak-hickory woodland habitat (Xeric and Dry Open Forest habitat association) 

favored by Prenanthes barbata or barbed rattlesnake-root a Regional Foresters Sensitive 

species would have beneficial impacts to white-tailed deer, Eastern wild turkey, and gray 

squirrel. Conversely, wildlife plantings established traditionally for game species would 

also contribute to the viability of many non-game species including raptors, small 

mammals, and migratory songbirds. 

Management Indicator Species 

The white-tail deer, Eastern wild turkey and Northern bobwhite quail have been selected as 

appropriate demand game management indicator species. Discussion under each species 

section will reflect how these MIS will be affected by the proposed management in each 

alternative. 

White-tailed Deer 

Affected Environment 

White-tails are most frequently found near stream bottoms, draws, swamps, and other 

riparian areas. They also frequent mixed deciduous and coniferous forests at low to mid 

elevations with gentle slopes. White-tails are very adaptable to disturbances, such as 

agriculture and forestry practices, and prefer these areas if adequate forage and cover is 

available (Snyder, 1991). 

Deer nutrition, reproduction, weights, and antler characteristics are influenced by the 

availability of acorns (Harlow et. al., 1975; Feldhammer et. al., 1989; Wentworth et. al.,

1990a and1992). Food plots, especially those containing clover-grass mixtures, are used 

most intensively in early spring. They are also an important source of nutritious forage in 

winter, especially during mast failure years (Wentworth et. al., 1990b). 

White-tailed deer use a variety of habitats ranging from closed canopy forest to croplands. 

They exist in both remote areas as well as in urban interface. This species is of particular 

interest to both hunters and wildlife watchers. White-tails are primarily browsers and eat a 

tremendous variety of plants throughout their range. Forage consumed is regionally 

specific and usually consists of leaves, twigs, and stems of woody plants, as well as mast, 

fruits, cultivated crops, and sometimes grasses and forbs. Browse consumption is highest 

when acorn mast is scarce and lowest when acorn mast is abundant. When white-tails can 

afford to be selective they tend to choose the most nutritious plants. Some of the most 

commonly browsed plants are listed below: maple (Acer spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), hazel 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 190 of 329 

(Corylus spp.), dogwood (Cornus spp.), sumac (Rhus spp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), 

birch (Betula spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), 

juniper (Juniperus spp.), apple (Malus spp.), persimmon (Diospyros spp.), hawthorne 

(Crataegus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), buffaloberry (Shepherdia spp.), low panicum 

grasses (Panicum spp.), and viburnum (Viburnum spp.). White-tails will also eat fleshy 

berries of cherry, raspberry (Rubus spp.), elder (Sambucus spp.), and huckleberry 

(Vaccinium spp.) White-tails also eat cultivated crops, most notably corn, alfalfa, and 

wheat (Snyder, 1991). 

Environmental Effects 

Prescribed fire is a commonly used tool for white-tail habitat improvement. It can be used 

to maintain or prevent the development of certain vegetation types and create a diversity of 

age classes to provide forage and cover. Prescribed fire can also be used to reduce slash, 

which impedes deer movement, and to reduce duff in areas where quick duff accumulation 

can prevent growth of understory forage species. Timber harvest is another common and 

important tool to improve white-tail habitat (Snyder, 1991). 

The effects of fire on white-tail habitat have been well documented. Much of the literature 

reports in detail on the foraging behavior of white-tails following fire. In general, whitetails are seen foraging more frequently on burned sites than adjacent unburned sites. 

Patchy burns that create a mosaic of browse and cover are usually beneficial to white-tail 

populations. Historically, logging followed by fire played a major role in the westward 

expansion of the white-tail's range. In many areas fire suppression has led to a decrease in 

forage quality and subsequently quantity as early seral communities are replaced with 

unpalatable browse or browse that grows out of reach of deer. Many studies have reported 

an increase in plant nutrients following fire, most notably potassium, phosphorus, calcium, 

and potash. Crude fiber and protein also tend to increase, as well as water and fat content. 

These nutrient increases tend to be temporary, only lasting a few years before returning to 

preburn levels. As discussed above white-tailed deer require a variety of habitats. Critical 

factors are mature mast producing stands, young vigorous stands, cropland, and permanent 

openings. Populations are controlled in large part by harvest regulations (Snyder, 1991). 

All alternatives would provide for the factors critical for sustainable deer populations; 

however, Alternatives X and Y would likely support the highest population levels because 

an aggressive thinning program will improve forest conditions and therefore mast 

production. Repeated prescribed fire will top-kill and stimulate coppice sprouting of many 

woody forage plants which are currently out of reach for white-tailed deer, including 

dogwood, sugar maple, smaller oaks and hickories. However, cover, forage, and mast 

should be in ample supply with all alternatives. 

Populations, hunting and viewing opportunities would likely remain stable or increase 

slightly during the planning period under Alternatives W and Z. Larger increases would be 

expected under alternatives X and Y due to higher levels of vegetation management and 

prescribed burning. Refer to Section 3.2.4, Environmental Effects for a more detailed 

analysis of the major forest cover types. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 191 of 329 

Eastern Wild Turkey 

Affected Environment 

Wild turkeys occupy a wide range of habitats, with diversified habitats providing optimum 

conditions (Snyder, 1992). Mature mast producing stands are critical during the fall and 

winter, shrubby areas are critical for nesting, and herb dominated areas including native 

warm season grasses and agricultural areas are critical for brood rearing. Habitat 

conditions for wild turkey can be enhanced by activities such as prescribed burning and 

thinning (Hurst, 1978; Pack et al., 1988), and the development of herbaceous openings 

(Nenno and Lindzey, 1979; Healy and Nenno, 1983). Wild turkeys eat fruits, seeds, tubers, 

bulbs, and greens of locally common plants. They also eat animals such as snails, spiders, 

grasshoppers, millipedes, and salamanders (Snyder, 1992). Grasses are usually important 

spring foods, while mast and fruits are important during the fall and winter. Poults rely on 

insects for protein. Some plant food species of the wild turkey include flowering dogwood 

(Cornus florida), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), hackberry 

(Celtis occidentalis), hickory (Carya spp.), hawthorn (Crateagus spp.), oak, cottonwood 

(Populus spp.), sumac (Rhus spp.), wheat (Triticum aestivum), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), 

rye (Secale cereale), soybean (Glycine max), and panic grass (Panicum spp.) (Snyder, 

1992). Wild turkeys must be near drinking water on a daily basis (Snyder, 1992). 

Environmental Effects 

As discussed above, wild turkeys require a mixture of forest successional stage habitats to 

meet their year-round needs. Populations are controlled in part by harvest regulations. 

Due to the high level of mobility of wild turkey, thinning and prescribed burning would 

have little impact on population levels. However, disturbance during the nesting season is, 

and may continue to be, a concern because fire can destroy turkey nests. Fast moving fire 

may also kill newly hatched turkey poults, but once poults can fly losses are probably 

negligible. 

Timber thinning, regeneration and creation of open, early successional habitat would be 

greatest under Alternatives X and Y. Alternatives W and Z would have the least impact on 

wild turkey populations. 

Following prescribed fires in the Georgia Peidmont, total seed production of desirable food 

plants increased from 5.7 pounds per acre to 23.52 pounds per acre. Prescribed fire can be 

used to stimulate the growth of food plants and promote early spring green-up of grasses. 

Fire can also reduce litter, exposing seeds and insects, and reduce brush so that turkeys can 

be wary of predators. Fire can be used to create edges to increase nesting habitat. It can 

also reduce parasites such as ticks and lice (Snyder, 1992). 

Although all alternatives would support viable populations of wild turkey, Alternatives X 

and Y would support the highest populations due to the creation of early successional 

habitat characteristics and grasslands through thinning and burning. The effects of each of 

the alternatives on these key habitat features is discussed in detail in previous sections. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 192 of 329 

Populations are expected to increase moderately over present levels under Alternatives X 

and Y and would remain stable or increase slightly under Alternatives W and Z. 

Gray Squirrel 

Affected Environment 

The gray squirrel is a common species on LBL. It is present in almost all areas. Gray 

squirrels inhabit upland forests with a high availability of mast. They are seldom found far 

from permanent water sources (NatureServe, 2004). Currently 90 percent of LBL is 

forested gray squirrel habitat, and there is some limited use of wildlife plantings as well. 

Environmental Effects 

No alternative would have any significant negative impact to gray squirrel food sources. 

Alternatives W and Z would maintain populations at current levels whereas Alternatives X 

and Y may yield a modest increase in mast production that would have a positive impact 

on the population. Additionally increases in prescribed burning under Alternatives X, Y, 

and Z would create a steady supply of high quality snags to be used as den trees. 

Alternatives W and Z would result in a gradual transition of many acres currently 

dominated by oak-hickory to succeed to non-mast species such as maple and beech. While 

gray squirrels do consume the buds of these species they are an unreliable food source due 

to their susceptibility to frost. The net result would be a gradual decline in optimal gray 

squirrel habitat. 

Alternatives X and Y would result in stabilization of the oak-hickory communities that 

currently exist on successional sites. Over time, thinning and burning oak-hickory forests 

results in more open stands, which allows for full crown and mast development in the 

remaining trees. While this probably will not have an impact on home range sizes, it will 

increase the average litter size, and over the next decades squirrel population should 

exhibit a modest increase. 

Northern Bobwhite 

Affected Environment 

The Northern bobwhite has drawn much attention as both a game species and as a species 

for which there is a viability concern. It is listed as a State Threatened species in 

Tennessee. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and Christmas Bird Counts 

(CBC) indicate a significant range-wide population decline during the last 30 years. 

Declines are thought to be the result of habitat loss and fragmentation associated with 

changing land use, particularly clean farming techniques, single crop production, 

plantation forestry, fire suppression, and replacement of native-grass pasture with tall 

fescue (Festuca arundinacea) (NatureServe, 2004). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 193 of 329 

Predators of adult Northern bobwhite include hawks and eagles, falcons, foxes, bobcat, and 

domestic cats and dogs. Predators of chicks and eggs include weasels and skunks, 

raccoons, Virginia opossum, snakes, crows, rats, squirrels, and chipmunks (Snyder, 1991). 

Because the species responds well to management, restoration potential is good. For 

example, in Arkansas, breeding birds were significantly more abundant in forested stands 

after the canopy was opened by thinning and prescribed fire than in untreated stands 

(NatureServe, 2004). 

Northern bobwhite nest in shallow ground depression areas where the density of grasses 

and forbs is moderate (Snyder, 1991). Eggs are laid as early as April in the south, but not 

until May in the north. This species re-nests as late as September or even October in south 

Texas. Females can produce up to three broods per season. Above average rainfall and 

cooler temperatures, particularly in arid regions, increases reproductive success 

(NatureServe, 2004). 

Northern bobwhite are known to eats seeds of at least 650 plant species, including 

agricultural crops. They tend to eat a larger amount and greater variety of legume seeds 

than seeds from any other plant family (Snyder, 1991). Important plant foods include 

legumes, grasses, pine and oak mast, and fruits, but also consume buds, tender leaves, and 

a wide variety of arthropods. Arthropods are especially important (>80 percent) in the diet 

of chicks. Although surface water is used when available, it is not necessary for survival 

or successful reproduction (NatureServe, 2004). 

Optimum habitat has been described as consisting of 30 to 40 percent grassland, 40 to 60 

percent cropland, 5 to 20 percent brushy cover, and 5 to 40 percent woodland cover. 

Prescribed fire is also an important management tool, especially in the southeast. Numbers 

of individuals are higher in areas managed by fire than those not burned. Prescribed fire 

increases arthropod abundance and facilitates travel of chicks through groundcover 

vegetation. Fire also reduces hardwood encroachment and promotes the sun-loving 

groundcover plant species essential for food and cover. Agricultural and silvicultural 

practices that retain streamside vegetation also benefit this species. Tall fescue dominance 

can be reduced by disking and herbicide application, or burning and herbicide application 

followed by establishment of native warm-season grasses (NatureServe, 2004). 

Environmental Effects 

Northern bobwhite prefer open hardwood forests and southern pine forests, as well as 

grasslands, pastures, meadows, and agricultural land with shrubby cover. Northern 

bobwhite tend to avoid areas with dense tree and shrub cover (Snyder, 1991). Good 

Northern bobwhite habitat requires interspersion of food species and cover that is not too 

dense. 

Rosene, in Snyder (1991), recommended managing forests on an uneven-aged rotation 

basis, and thinning after 20 years to maintain an open canopy. He also suggested creating 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 194 of 329 

park-like woodlands in the South with high open canopies and a thin, spotty pattern of 

shrubs in the understory. 

Fires during the nesting season may destroy nest eggs and young chicks. Prescribed 

burning has been deemed one of the most effective means of stimulating and controlling 

vegetation for improvement of Northern bobwhite habitat. Prescribed fires in the pine 

forests of Alabama increased the number of legume species and improved the quality of 

their species, which caused an increase in quail numbers (Snyder, 1991). 

Fire is a frequently used management tool for Northern bobwhite habitat improvement in 

the south. Frequent fires that do not allow regeneration of adequate nesting cover may also 

be detrimental to quail. Pine-oak types in Georgia were burned each year for 3 years to 

determine the effects of fire on Northern bobwhite nesting success. Sites were burned in 

late March and early April. Here, late winter or fall burning is recommended over spring 

and summer burning. Burning between mid-February and the end of March can make 

seeds available that are buried below the duff layer. Insects begin to emerge after March in 

the south, and late-spring fires could kill this food source, as well as consume seeds 

important to Northern bobwhite. Other evidence suggests that spring or summer fires may 

increase food plants, including some legumes and Desmodium species (Snyder, 1991). 

Alternative W would maintain existing Northern bobwhite habitat on LBL. Existing 

openlands and native warm season grass prairies would continue to support a limited 

population of birds. Although there is no current estimate of the population, existing 

habitat on LBL is good and should support a population of around 4,500 birds. 

Alternatives X and Y would dramatically increase Northern bobwhite habitat by increasing 

open areas dominated by native warm season grasses and by opening the forest canopy and 

favoring those forage and cover species preferred by quail. Prescribed burning, forest 

thinning, and regeneration would create suitable or good habitat on areas where none 

currently exists. While thinning and timber harvest are very predictable methods of habitat 

manipulation, prescribed burning produces more variable results. A combination of 

mechanical manipulation, prescribed fire, wildlife plantings, and row-cropping would 

produce near optimal habitat for Northern bobwhite. A population estimate based on 

approximately 2.2 birds per hectare (or roughly 1 bird per acre) multiplied by the amount 

of quail habitat that would be created over the life of this plan would reach as high as 

11,900 birds. 

With respect to Northern bobwhite, Alternative Z falls between Alternatives W and X/Y. 

Limited mechanical treatments and timber harvest would serve to cap the quail population. 

Prescribed fire alone would be relied upon more heavily in this alternative than in 

Alternatives W and X/Y. An estimated population is around 7,000 birds. 

The combined short and long term impact of Alternative W on quail populations is a little 

unclear. As oak-hickory forest is replaced by the maple-beech community and associates 

the amount of available forage for Northern bobwhite would decline. But bobwhite are a 

versatile forager, and can be expected to make use of any forage available provided that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 195 of 329 

other critical habitat elements are present in a given area. The likely cumulative impact of 

Alternative W on the Northern bobwhite population on LBL is null. The population could 

be expected to remain relatively stable. 

Alternatives X and Y are expected to hold the greatest benefit for bobwhite. Long term, 

the population is expected to expand into areas currently considered unsuitable or marginal 

at best. Spatially large scale thinning, regeneration, woodland-grassland restoration, and 

continuance of the current practices of wildlife forage plantings and co-op agriculture on 

LBL are expected to create sustainable, near optimal quail habitat. 

Given a long period of time Alternative Z would have a significantly positive impact on 

Northern bobwhite population as well. Although there would be limited thinning and 

regeneration and some areas currently suitable for quail would be allowed to succeed to 

forest, repeated prescribed fire would, over time, thin some areas to open woodland 

densities. These areas would occur primarily on dry to very dry (xeric) sites. The effect of 

repeated fire is a gradual thermal thinning on these sites. Given many years and repeated 

use of prescribed fire these areas would develop into a mosaic of forest, woodland, and 

xeric grasslands which would be highly suitable quail habitat. Cumulatively the effect 

would be a gradual juxtaposition of quail habitat from lowland sites to upland in some 

sites, no net loss of habitat acres, and a modest but significant increase in the number of 

quail on LBL. 

Fallow Deer 

Affected Environment 

Fallow deer were originally native to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and the shores of the 

Mediterranean Sea. They were prized for their high quality venison and thrived in 

captivity. As a result, they are one of the most widely distributed species of deer in the 

world. Fallow deer were introduced here by the Hillman Land Company around 1918. 

The Fallow deer herd in LBL is probably the oldest established population in the United 

States. 

The fallow deer herd concentrates in the vicinity of Woodlands Nature Station in LBL’s 

Environmental Education Area (EEA). They are a favorite of visitors to Woodlands 

Nature Station and wildlife watchers in general. 

Fallow deer are smaller than native white-tail deer and somewhat shorter and stockier in 

appearance. Their colors vary from solid white to almost black. Fallow deer prefer a diet 

of grass but also eat a wide variety of herbs, shrubs and fruits. 

In 1976, 357 fallow deer were captured and tagged on LBL; currently the population is 

estimated to be around 25-30 animals. Many explanations exist for the dramatic decline 

including disease and parasites, habitat loss, and lack of new genetic material. In truth all 

of these factors are probably combining with the fallow deer naturally low reproductive 

rate to reduce the population. The future of the herd is uncertain. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 196 of 329 

Environmental Effects 

If problems other than habitat loss are responsible for the population decline there is little 

that can be done to increase the population. The population is centered in the 

Environmental Education Area and no alternative calls for aggressive vegetation 

management in the EEA. However, some habitat will be created or enhanced in the EEA 

under all alternatives, and this would benefit the species. The effect of prescribed fire on 

fallow deer is unknown but it is reasonable to assume that it would be beneficial since 

herbs and grasses generally respond positively to fire. 

Over the next decades fallow deer habitat will be enhanced in their historic range on LBL. 

If the population is limited by available habitat, populations should increase. However, if 

the population’s genetic material is deteriorating due to the lack of immigration, it will 

likely continue to decline. Similarly, if disease and parasites are responsible for the 

decline, there is little to be done and the population may continue to decrease or stabilize 

around its current level. 

3.2.10 Forest Health 

To assess forest health of existing forest stands on LBL on the landscape level, a number 

of factors including the physical environment, biotic resources, land-use history, need to be 

taken into consideration. The physical environment of LBL is determined by the 

proximity of the parallel valleys of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Closely-spaced 

tributaries form a dissected topography. These valleys are short with steep gradients in the 

headwaters, but broad down stream bottomlands. The valleys are now occupied to an 

elevation of about 358 feet by Kentucky and Barkley Lakes. 

LBL is located in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province at the western edge 

of Section 222E Interior Low Plateau, Highland Rim, and is within the Western 

Mesophytic Region, where the vegetation is transitional from the more mesic Mixed 

Mesophytic Region to the east and the more xeric Oak-Hickory Region to the west. There 

is no single climax type but a mosaic of types occurs, with local climatic, edaphic, and 

topographic factors determining specific conditions. Generally, the Western Rim plant life 

is more closely aligned to the Oak-Hickory Region than to the Mixed Mesophytic Region 

(Close et. al.,. 2002). Chestnut was a lesser component in this physiographic region than 

in the Southern Appalachians, but was still a significant component in places. 

Physical resources include soil, water, and air quality. Poor visibility days in summer due 

to surface ozone, other aerosols, and particulates are frequent and may be increasing. 

Ozone is a regional pollutant of concern, causing foliar symptoms in some localities on 

sensitive species (e.g., yellow poplar, eastern white pine, white ash, black cherry), but oaks 

are relatively tolerant of ozone. The soils of LBL have developed from limestone bedrock, 

in Cretaceous gravels or in loess. Many of the soils derived from underlying parent 

material are typically low in nutrients. Due to the dissected nature of the topography, 

erosion over a long period of time has had a major impact on the processes of soil 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 197 of 329 

formation on the ridgetops and upland slopes. The soils on LBL are directly associated 

with the site types (xeric, dry, dry-mesic, mesophytic, and riparian) on which the forest 

vegetative cover types occur. 

Oak and hickory likely dominated LBL forests throughout the late Holocene, partially due 

to the influence of bison herds and partially due to frequent burning by American Indians. 

The impact on vegetation caused by bison, deer, and elk was mostly eliminated by the mid1700s due to over exploitation by European settlers. Early Europeans described the local 

vegetation as either swampy, upland and bottomland hardwood forests, or open savannas, 

prairies, or barrens (Close et. al., 2002). 

Vegetation during the 1900s was highly impacted by the various exploitive activities of the 

early settlers and their descendants. These activities include iron smelting, agriculture, 

timber harvesting, whiskey distilling, and the damming of the Tennessee and Cumberland 

Rivers. Europeans nearly eliminated widespread annual burning, which allowed forests to 

develop on areas that were historically open savannas, barrens, or prairies. The iron 

industry brought about resource extraction at all levels resulting in drastic impacts on the 

upland forested landscape. While extensive areas of land were denuded of forest during 

the iron industry days, the lack of a forest overstory and high light intensity at ground level 

were ideal for regeneration of oak and hickory (Close et. al., 2002). 

On the dry, high ridges of the Devil’s Backbone section of LBL, the Brandon soil series is 

common with shortleaf pine the dominant forest canopy species on many sites. Shortleaf 

pine is a successional species and the present understory of mostly oaks, including post, 

blackjack, white, black, and scarlet, indicate that oak forest ultimately may dominate the 

overstory (Close et. al., 2002). One early result of systematic inventory of natural 

resources was an aggressive tree planting program; approximately 1.9 million trees were 

planted between 1965 and 1974. Most plantings were pine seedlings, but thousands of 

hardwood seedlings were also planted. Today, planted pine stands in LBL often are found 

in and around gullies. These are the places where small dams were built and then pine was 

planted behind them for erosion control. 

The historic and present status of oak on the LBL landscape must be considered. Oaks 

were an important but subordinate component of historic forests. The elimination of 

American chestnut as a canopy species has elevated oaks to an unprecedented position as 

the most dominant species group. There is hope for the future recovery of American 

chestnut through resistance breeding. However, many substantial hurdles remain, not the 

least of which will be social acceptance of the type, severity, and frequency of disturbance 

necessary to reintroduce the tree as an ecosystem component functioning in a manner 

similar to historic forests. The physical and biotic resources of the LBL will support forest 

cover with or without any proposed management. 

Forest ecosystems depend on change for sustainability, stand renewal and growth, and 

catastrophic changes will continue to occur on LBL over time. Over the past 9,000 years 

there have been several types of disturbance that enabled sunlight to reach the forest floor. 

Strong wind events, like the tornadoes that flattened hundreds of acres of the LBL forest in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 198 of 329 

1968 and 1994, periodically occurred in the past. Wildfires caused by lightening were 

probably not as common here as in the western United States, but they did occur. Whether 

started by American Indians or lightening, uncontrolled intense wildfires killed trees. 

Droughts, such as those in the 1950s, 1970s, and in 1999, would have resulted in 

widespread death of shallow-rooted trees. Insect outbreaks, such as the late 1980s 

explosion of leaf defoliators that produced death and loss of vigor to trees across 35,000 

LBL acres, also probably occurred in the distant past. And finally, diseases associated 

with old-age killed many trees. A current example of this is oak decline, where a complex 

of factors attacks mature trees in the red oak group and kills them. LBL has lost trees from 

the red oak group (black, scarlet, blackjack, northern red, southern red) at an alarming rate 

over the past 20 years. 

The onset of European occupation included widespread clearing of land for agriculture and 

the suppression of fire, mainly to protect timber. In the end, agro-deforestation and 

wildland fire led to the reduction of forest dominance across the landscape. Bottomland 

forests were converted to agricultural land and were later inundated by the impoundment 

of Kentucky and Barkley Lakes. The remaining open woodlands succeeded to close forest, 

currently dominated by oak species (Franklin et. al., 2002). 

The prevailing low disturbance regime is not permitting the replacement of dying oaks in 

many areas. Instead, oaks are being replaced by shade-tolerant mid-story species such as 

maple and American beech. With over half of upland oak forests vulnerable in LBL, it is 

also apparent that oak decline represents a significant forest health issue. Whether one 

considers the reference condition to be the historic chestnut-oak-hickory forest, or the 

present mixed oak-hickory forest, the combination of chestnut blight, widespread oak 

decline, and incomplete oak replacement have resulted in new tree species mixtures that 

are less desirable to many wildlife species. The prevailing low disturbance regime coupled 

with the relatively homogenous structure of forest stands on LBL places the forest stands 

across the landscape at risk to catastrophic change. 

The pattern of oak decline across landscapes is highly variable and is dependent on 

complicated and inter-related predisposing factors including previous land-use history, site 

quality, and stand age. There are cases where outbreaks of defoliators such as the gypsy 

moth are a significant inciting factor in severe oak decline over large landscapes. 

Thousands of hectares of severe oak decline mortality occurred during gypsy moth 

outbreaks, in the mid-1980s, in northern Virginia national forests that may have disturbed 

water relations, nutrient cycling, and light and growing space for desirable tree 

reproduction. 

Having devastated Northeastern U.S. forests, the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) now 

poses a serious threat to forests in the Southeast. Originally from France, the pest is a 

particular threat to species of red and white oak. In its larval stage, the gypsy moth can 

defoliate an entire tree, weakening and eventually killing it. Large numbers of gypsy 

moths can decimate entire stands of trees, especially in drought years when they are 

already weak. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 199 of 329 

Biologists studying the gypsy moth know the species is slowly moving south. While it has 

not yet advanced into western Kentucky and Tennessee, an infestation is likely in the 

future. 

Since 1973, LBL has been part of a USDA Forest Service program to monitor for the 

presence of gypsy moths. This involves setting out pheromone-baited traps in spring, then 

collecting them in late summer. Traps are set out in LBL’s campgrounds and public use 

areas, as gypsy moth egg masses are often carried on motor vehicles such as RVs and 

trailers. 

From 1973-1994, only two male gypsy moths were trapped at LBL. When the surveillance 

program indicates a more substantial presence of these pests, an integrated pest 

management plan will be launched. Monitoring and detection efforts for gypsy moth and 

other serious forest pests will continue to be important indicators for maintaining 

equilibrium between supply and demand of essential resources. 

In the United States, sudden oak death is known to occur only along the west coast. 

However, the fact that widely traded rhododendron ornamentals can be infected with the 

pathogen and the demonstrated susceptibility of some important eastern oaks make 

introduction to eastern hardwood forests a significant risk. Early detection will be 

important for successful eradication. Eastern oak disorders that resemble sudden oak death 

incude oak wilt, oak decline, and red oak borer. 

Oak decline has always been part of the landscape, but it is unlikely that such a large 

proportion has ever been vulnerable simultaneously. The high proportion of forest area 

affected by or vulnerable to oak decline illustrates the relative homogeneity of Southern 

Appalachian oak forests and points to a lack of young, regenerating oak stands and oak 

stands with more complex age structures. While younger aged stands exist, oaks are not as 

heavily represented. The current trend in silviculture of upland oak forests is towards 

stands with more complex age structure, but maintaining an oak component requires direct 

attention and action. Oak stands on LBL in general are probably unhealthy under this 

criterion. Current lack of diversity in seral stages and stand structures will continue to 

pose risks to forest health. 

Cohorts of oak that replaced chestnut over large areas in the region are now reaching 

physiologic maturity and are subject to the stress-mediated disease known as oak decline. 

Analysis of the four criteria to describe forest health indicates that forest cover on LBL 

will continue to persist, but with forest-wide risk to oak decline, mostly non-oak species 

will exploit future available growing space. The future result will be a new forest with a 

smaller and less diverse oak component. Chief among the forces guiding the development 

of this new forest, fire suppression and social resistance to intentional forest disturbances, 

unfavorable growing conditions for oak stand replacement will persist across the forest 

landscape on LBL. Oaks will continue to be represented in the new forest but expected to 

lose their current level of dominance across the forest landscape and the new forest will be 

less susceptible to oak decline; however, some social values met by oak forests (e.g. some 

wildlife habitat components and economic value of timber) will be compromised. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 200 of 329 

3.2.11 Non-Native Invasive Species 

The Chief of the Forest Service has identified invasive species as one of the four threats to 

our Nation’s ecosystems. Through internal and external collaboration, the Forest Service 

is currently in the process of developing a National Strategy to guide efforts to more 

aggressively address the invasive species threat. The national strategy will be directly 

tiered to the Forest Service Strategic Plan and the National Invasive Species Management 

Plan prepared by the National Invasive Species Council. 

A definition of invasive species from Executive Order 13112 is provided. Essentially, a 

species is considered invasive if: 

• It is not native (i.e. alien) to the ecosystem under consideration; and 

• Its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health. 

Invasive species threaten the sustainability of our forest ecosystems, regionally, nationally, 

and globally. Forests within the thirteen states of the Southern Region are rich in 

biological diversity and provide vital goods and services. The current infestations and 

growing threat of non-native invasive species can displace diversity and habitats, disrupt 

vital ecosystem functions, and degrade productivity and recreational benefits. Non-native 

invasive plants, insects, diseases, mammals, fish, mussels, snails and earthworms have 

increased in their range and severity, while others await entry through global commerce. A 

well conceived and organized program of invasive species prevention and management is 

warranted and overdue. This Non-Native Invasive Species Strategy (NNIS) for the 

Southern Region is part of an ongoing national effort to combat existing non-native 

invasive species populations and curtail entry of new non-native invasive species. 

Generally, biological invasion is promoted by disturbance. Building and/or maintaining 

roads into a forest represent disturbances that create and maintain new edge habitat. These 

roadside habitats can be invaded by a suite of exotic invasive plant species, which may 

disperse by natural agents such as wind, water, and wildlife. It appears that the level of 

road is not a determining factor in invasive plants, as plants colonize on even Level 1 

roads. (Southern Forest Resource Assessment - Effects of Linear Land Use on Forest 

Wildlife, October 2002). 

There are a number of laws, regulations and policies that relate to NNIS management on 

National Forest system lands, only a few of which are listed here. The principles of Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2080 address Noxious Weed Management on National Forest 

Systems and can be interpreted broadly to accomplish the objectives of Executive Order 

13112 for all NNIS plant and animal species. 

Table 3.2.11A lists invasive non-native species that are relatively widespread and locally 

abundant primarily in wildlife openings, along the 68/80 highway corridor, and across 

other areas of Land Between the Lakes. The species list was derived from the “Modified 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 201 of 329 

and Extended Report on Botanical Survey of Wildlife Opening Margins” by Julian 

Campbell, January 3, 2003, “Invasive Weed Threat” list from Scott Gunn’s report of 68/80 

highway, and some species discussed in the 1994 TVA NRMP. 

There were a number of invasive non-native weed species that rated severe from Scott 

Gunn’s Invasive Weed Species report. This list includes Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus 

altissima), Japanese siltgrass (Eulalia viminea), Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), 

European privet (Ligustrum vulgare), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Multiflora rose (Rosa 

multiflora), Kudzu (Pueraria montana), Large periwinkle (Vinca major), and Common 

periwinkle (Vinca minor). 

The Goal of the R8 NNIS Program in the South is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the 

potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of non-native invasive 

species across all landscapes and ownerships. Table 3.2.11B identifies the list of species 

that the Region 8 Regional Forester has identified as non-native and invasive. Category 1 

species are exotic plant species that are known to be invasive and persistent throughout all 

or most of their range within the Southern Region. Category 2 species are exotic plant 

species that are suspected to be invasive or are known to be invasive in limited areas of 

the Southern Region.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 202 of 329 

Table 3.2.11A - Invasive non-native species known to occur on Land Between The Lakes.

Common Name Scientific Name 

Abelia Abelia grandiflora

Common yarrow Achillea millefolium

Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima

Mimosa Albizia julibrissim 

Wild garlic Allium vineale

Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

Small carpgrass Arthraxon hispidus

Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii 

Flowering quince Chaenomelis jabonica

Crown vetch Coronilla varia

Queen Ann’s lace Daucus carota

Smooth crabgrass Digitaria ischaemum

Hairy crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis

Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata

Japanese siltgrass Eulalia viminea

Climbing euonymus Euonymus fortunei

Tall fescue Festuca elatior

Yellowbells Forsythia suspensa

Yellowbells Forsythia viridissima

Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea

Orange daylily Hemerocallis fulva

Shrubby lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor

Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata

Common lespedeza Lespedeza striata

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense

European privet Ligustrum vulgare

Bush honeysuckle Lonicera bella

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica

Nepal grass Microstegium vimineum

Princess tree Paulownia tomentosa

Beefsteak plant Perilla frutescens

White pine Pinus strobis

Loblolly pine Pinus taeda

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Smartweed Polygonum sp

White poplar Populus alba

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

Giant foxtail Setaria faberi

Green bristlegrass Setaria viridis

Johnson grass Sorghum halpense

Bridal wreath Spiraea spp

White clover Trifolium repens

Large periwinkle Vinca major

Common periwinkle Vinca minor

Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis

Cocklebur Xanthium commune
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 203 of 329 

Table 3.2.11B - Regional Forester’s List of Category 1 and 2 Weed Species, May 2001.

Category 1 Species Category 2 Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name 

Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Allium vineale Wild garlic 

Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Alternanthera 

philoxeroides 

Alligator weed 

Ardisia crenata Scrated throat Ampelopsis 

brevipedunculata 

Amur peppervine 

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Arthraxon hispidus Small carpgrass 

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet Bromus inermis Smooth brome 

Cinnamomum camphora Campho rtree Carduus nutans Nodding plumless thistle 

Dioscorea alata Water yam Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed 

Dioscorea batatas Air potato Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle 

Dioscorea bulbifera Chinese yam Egeria densa Brazilian waterweed 

Eichhornia crassipes Common water hyacinth Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive 

Elaeagnus umbellate Autumn olive Elaeagnus pungens Thorny olive 

Euonymus fortunei Winter creeper Eragrostis curvula Weeping lovegrass 

Hydrilla verticillata Waterthyme Hedera helix English ivy 

Imperata cylindrical 

(including I. brasiliensis) Cogongrass Kummerowia striata (=Lespedeza striata) 

Japanese clover 

Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet Macfadyena unguis-cati Catclaw vine 

Ligustrum lucidum Glossy privet Melia azedarach Chinaberry tree 

Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Mimosa pigra Black mimosa 

Ligustrum vulgare European privet Myriophyllum spicatum Spike watermilfoil 

Lolium arundinaceum 

*(=Festuca elatior 

vararundinacea)

Tall fescue Nandina domestica Sacred bamboo 

Lonicera fragrantissima Sweet breath of spring Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce 

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Polygonum caespitosum Asiatic smartweed 

Lonicera maackii Amur honeysuckle Polygonum perfoliatum Asiatic tearthumb 

Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle Spiraea japonica Japansese meadowsweet 

Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern Vetiveria zizanioides ** Vetiver grass 

Lygodium microphyllum Small leaf climbing fern Wisteria floribunda Japanese wisteria 

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Wisteria sinensis Chinese wisteria 

Microstegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass 

Paederia foetida Stinkvine 

Panicum repens Torpedo grass 

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed 

Pueraria montana Kudzu 

Rhodomyrtus tomentosus Rose myrtle 

Salvinia molesta Kariba-weed 

Sapium sebiferum Tallow tree 

Schefflera actinophylla Octopus tree 

Schinus terebinthifolius Christmasberry 

Solanum viarum Tropical soda apple 

Sorghum halepense Johnson grass 

Verbena brasiliensis Brazilian vervain 

*=Applies only to endophyte-enhanced cultivars. All KY31 Tall Fescue is considered endophyte-enhanced. 

**=Prohibition dies not apply to sterile (nonflowering) cultivars of zizanioides 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 204 of 329 

Around LBL facilities and rights of ways, integrated pest management practices include 

mowing, soil disturbance, mulching, plantings of grasses and shrubs, controlled burning, and 

the use of EPA-registered herbicides. Herbicides are used by cooperative farmers, contractors, 

and LBL operators who are state-certified pesticide applicators or under the direct supervision 

of a state-certified applicator. Exceptions would be for herbicide use on rights of way 

managed by their respective utilities or highway departments and not directly controlled by 

LBL; e.g., TVA Power, Pennyrile Electric, Cumberland Electric, American Natural Gas 

Companies, and Kentucky Department of Transportation. 

Over the last two years, LBL has established approximately 626 acres of native warm 

season grasses in Kentucky and Tennessee. In fiscal year 2004 alone, LBL has established 

these grasses in places such as the Elk and Bison Prairie, Woodlands Nature Station, Pryor 

Hollow, Long Creek, Crocket Creek/Crocket Hollow, and Tharpe Fields totaling 320 acres 

of native grass species. During this Area Plan revision process, we will incorporate and 

adopt Forest Service Manual direction to address the threat of non-native invasive species 

to allow for various types of management actions such as chemical, mechanical, and 

prescribed fire for native species restoration and protection. 

The use of native plants for revegetation and restoration is integral to the overall national 

goal of conserving the biodiversity, health, productivity, and sustainable use of forest, 

rangeland and aquatic ecosystems. Maintaining biodiversity includes retaining the genetic 

variability within plant populations. The policy provides guidance for planning and 

implementing revegetation projects including rehabilitation and restoration of forest, range, 

and aquatic ecosystems (FMS 2200, Ch. 2240.1). 

A discussion on gypsy moth and oak decline can be found under the 3.2.10 Forest Health 

Section. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 205 of 329 

3.3 Resource Management 

Resource Management covers many allocations and aspects of LBL that are not general 

forest or recreation areas. This section describes the Core Areas in the General Forest, 

approximately 25 percent of LBL, that are managed to demonstrate natural resource 

management and protection. This section also addresses the area of Fire Management, 

which includes naturally occurring and prescribed fires on LBL, and its uses, preventions, 

and applicability as a silvicultural method. The Roads and Infrastructure Management 

portions are included in this section as well and outlines the impact the alternatives could 

have under each. 

3.3.1 Core Areas 

The emphasis of management in the Core Areas is to build harmonious relationships 

between humans and the environment. (Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves, 1984) Core 

Areas are used to develop greater understanding in wise use of the area’s renewable 

resources, in conserving and promoting the conservation of its unique and fragile attributes, in 

supporting sustainable development, and by serving as a demonstration of both natural 

resource management and protection. This is accomplished in cooperation with other 

agencies and organizations. 

Affected Environment 

The Core Areas consist of a network of small, medium, and large tracts of land that provide 

research opportunities for investigating site-dependent and configuration concerns for 

resource management. The purpose for this range of core sizes is to facilitate greater 

understanding of factors determining optimum size of natural reserves for various flora and 

fauna community types. Approximately 35,200 acres make up the Core Areas at LBL. The 

location of these acres is illustrated on the Alternative W prescription map in Appendix I. 

Management of Core Areas 

Core Areas are minimally disturbed ecosystems which are protected to serve as benchmarks 

or experimental controls for comparative studies with actively managed acres. Environmental 

education and recreation activities which have minimal environmental impacts are

encouraged in Core Areas. Estimates of old growth are discussed in Section 3.2 of this FEIS. 

With few exceptions, natural processes have determined eventual vegetation conditions; 

however, in some cases, the prevailing environmental conditions have changed to prevent, 

or at least hinder, natural processes. Examples of these conditions include past land-use 

activities and an influx of non-native species. 

Vegetative management techniques may be used for ecological restoration or to maintain or 

enhance habitat conditions for federally listed threatened or endangered species. Such 

management techniques also may be necessary to perpetuate unique plant communities or to 

control non-native species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 206 of 329 

The Core Areas contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historic value. These areas have been protected and managed to perpetuate their 

rare or unique attributes. The Core Area blocks provide a baseline control for long-term 

ecological research and serve as ecological restoration areas. Seven Core Area blocks 

(Large and Medium Blocks) range in size from approximately 2500 acres to 11,000 acres, 

totaling over 35,000 acres. The remaining Core Areas fall in smaller blocks throughout 

LBL. The prescription maps in Appendix I illustrate the Core Areas sizes and locations 

across LBL. 

Large and Medium Blocks 

The Large and Medium Blocks provide a baseline control for long-term ecological research 

under the Man and the Biosphere Program and serve as ecological restoration areas. These 

Large and Medium Blocks include three large blocks and four medium size blocks. Large 

Blocks comprise approximately 24,320 acres, and Medium Blocks comprise approximately 

11,640 acres (1994 Plan). Most of these large and medium tracts encompass entire 

watersheds. 

Ecology Study Areas 

Ecology study areas have been identified as having unique vegetation, historical, or geologic 

features. These ecology study areas are listed in the appendix to the 1994 Plan. Most of these 

areas have been protected since the early 1970s with minimal active management. Many of 

these areas are incorporated in the Large and Medium Blocks. Management emphasis will be 

placed on each area’s unique attributes. Ecological Study Areas are smaller in size than 

the Large and Medium Blocks; however, visitors experience many of the same features of 

the larger areas. These areas have been be protected and managed to perpetuate their rare 

or unique attributes. 

Research Natural Areas 

Research Natural Areas under the 1994 Plan are a part of the Society of National Foresters 

network of special areas set aside to allow for studying natural ecological processes. Three 

were identified in LBL as having unique vegetative features with the emphasis aimed at 

providing suitable to optimal habitats to support populations of the plant and animal 

species associated with these communities. Two of these areas are incorporated into the 

Core Areas in the 1994 Plan. 

The two State Natural Areas on LBL are both in the Tennessee portion, and are 

incorporated into the most southern Core Areas. These areas are managed under a mutual 

agreement between the Tennessee Department of Conservation and the US Forest Service. 

State Natural Area agreements are designed to aid both parties in their efforts to recognize 

and conserve the scenic, natural, and aesthetic values of the areas. The State Natural Areas 

at LBL have been identified as having unique vegetative features with the emphasis aimed 

at providing suitable to optimal habitats to support populations of the plant and animal 

species associated with these communities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 207 of 329 

The Slopes of Bear Creek State Natural Area, located on the eastern side of the Trace, 

supports a variety of oaks and other hardwoods as well as a number of plant species of 

special concern. 

The Devil’s Backbone State Natural Area, located on the western side of the Trace, 

contains a native shortleaf pine community. Management emphasis has been placed on 

restoring the shortleaf pine forest in this SNA by exposing more mineral soil and high light 

levels. Thinning and burning perpetuates the unique attributes of this shortleaf pine 

community. 

Effects of All Alternatives 

The amount of acres allocated to Core Areas in each alternative are listed in Table 3.3.1A 

and illustrated on the prescription maps in Appendix I. 

There are good to optimal habitat conditions in the Core Areas for mid- to latesuccessional deciduous forest associates; area-sensitive, mid- to late-successional 

deciduous associates; bottomland hardwood associates; mixed mesic forest associates; 

basic mesic forest associates; mixed xeric forest associates; and basic xeric forest 

associates. In some cases, plant and animal species which formerly occurred in late 

successional forest types in the LBL region could be reintroduced. 

The naturally-evolving character of the landscape due to low intensity management within 

forested areas will result in primarily older forests with areas of continuous canopy and 

occasional gaps as a result of storms, insect or disease outbreak, fire, reverting fields, and 

fields with managed native early successional stage vegetation. Old-growth forest 

communities is expected to increase over the decades, except where significant natural 

disturbances occur. Future old growth in the Core Areas is discussed in the old growth 

section of this EIS. With few exceptions, natural processes would determine eventual 

vegetation conditions; however, in some cases, the prevailing environmental conditions 

have changed to prevent, or at least hinder, natural processes. Examples of these 

conditions include past land-use activities and an influx of nonnative species. 

Recreation opportunities in Core Areas include scenic driving, bird-watching, wildlife 

viewing, nature photography, horseback riding, hunting, fishing and hiking. Access to 

Core Areas consist sof public roads, administrative roads, hiking trails, horse trails, and 

bike trails. Visitors may encounter cemeteries, and old homesteads. Maintenance or new 

activities in the Core Areas, particularly in the larger blocks, will complement, not detract 

from a semi-primitive recreation experience. Visitors enjoy a natural setting isolated from 

sights and sounds of other human activity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 208 of 329 

Table 3.3.1A: General Forest Core Areas by Alternative 

 W X Y Z 

Core Areas 

(Acreage) 

35,000 40,800 41,800 45,600 

Core Areas 

(Percent of LBL) 

20 24 24 27 

Effects of Core Acres Under Alternative W 

Under this alternative the Deferred Area designation described in TVA’s 1994 Plan would 

no longer exist. Approximately 10,400 acres would be incorporated into the General 

Forest and some would be incorporated into developed area prescriptions. The Core Areas 

total acreage would be approximately 35,000 acres (less than the 1994 Plan’s target of 

42,500). 

The difference in acres between the goal and the current condition is not expected to have a 

large impact on the resources at LBL. Approximately six percent of LBL that had deferred 

management under the 1994 plan becomes part of the forest available for more active 

management. This more active vegetation management would support species needs. This 

six percent of LBL would continue to provide dispersed Rec/EE experiences. 

Effects of Core Acres Under Alternative X 

Under Alternative X, approximately 5,600 acres, or four percent of LBL, described as 

Deferred Area designation in TVA’s 1994 Plan would become Core Areas. 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 lands 

under Alternative X would be approximately 40,800 acres, within four 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. 

This change in acres is not expected to have a large impact on the resources at LBL. 

Approximately 5,600 additional acres would be added to the Core Areas. A total of 

approximately 40,800 acres would be areas of low intensity management to support the 

objectives of greater understanding of ecosystems and to provide more remote recreational 

experiences and non-facility-based environmental education. The amount of estimated old 

growth in these Core Areas is discussed in the Old-Growth section of this chapter. 

Effects of Core Acres Under Alternative Y 

Under Alternative Y, approximately 6600 acres described as Deferred Area designation in 

TVA’s 1994 Plan would become Core Areas. These acres were selected primarily from 

deferred acres located within developed facility boundaries to support the emphasis on 

dispersed recreation opportunities. However, no Core acres were selected within the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 209 of 329 

boundaries of Hillman Ferry or Rushing Creek Campgrounds, Turkey Bay OHV Area or 

The Homeplace-A Living History Farm. The total Core Area acreage under Alternative Y 

would be approximately 41,800 acres, within two percent of the 42,500 acre goal set in the 

1994 Plan. The remaining 3800 acres of deferred areas would be incorporated into 

General Forest Areas. 

This change in acres is not expected to have a large impact on the resources at LBL. A 

total of approximately 40,800 acres would be areas of low intensity management to 

support the objectives of greater understanding of ecosystems and to provide more remote 

recreational experiences and non-facility-based environmental education. The amount of 

future old growth in these Core Areas is discussed in the Old-Growth section of this 

chapter. The additional Core Areas in Alternative Y are spread across the landscape of 

LBL. 

Effects of Core Acres Under Alternative Z 

Under Alternative Z, all areas identified as deferred areas, approximately 10,400 acres, in 

TVA’s 1994 Plan would become General Forest Core acres. The total Core Area acreage 

under Alternative Z would be approximately 45,600 acres, approximately seven percent 

greater than the 42,500 acres goal set in the 1994 Plan. 

This change in acres is not expected to have a large impact on the resources at LBL. 

Approximately 27 percent of LBL is in Core Areas in Alternative Z. An additional 10,000 

acres would be minimally managed and provide Rec/EE opportunities in small areas across 

LBL. Alternative Z provides for the highest acreage of land designated as having minimal 

vegetation management of all the alternatives. 

3.3.2 Fire Management: Prescribed and Wildland Fire 

Affected Environment 

Wildland fire in the south results from two forces. One is natural, those caused by 

lightning, and the anthropogenic, those caused by humans. Historically, fire has been used 

for thousands of years by American Indians over the landscape to aid in hunting, clear land 

for travel, increase berry crops, improve grazing for bison and other reasons. 

It was this prescribed fire that has shaped the forest over the years. These fires were 

ignited with a designed purpose to achieve a specific vegetative response - a response that 

was a benefit to the indigenous American Indian tribe. However, European settlers have 

populated the eastern United States since the early 1700s and modern fire suppression 

efforts have all but removed anthropogenic fire from the landscape. 

Science continues to teach us about fire’s role in the historic landscape of Kentucky and 

Tennessee and how it modified the vegetation. Biologists have documented corresponding 

changes in vegetation, including the decline of many fire-adapted communities since the 

removal of fire from the landscape. Fire-adapted communities are dependant on a historic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 210 of 329 

disturbance regime. This is evident from the increase of dense understory vegetation that 

no longer resembles the overstory, as a result of fire exclusion. Without fire or other 

disturbances, the forest composition is slowly converting to species such as maple, beech, 

blackgum, and white pine. 

There is an ongoing debate over the use of fire to restore vegetative communities to the 

Pre-European settlement or “Natural” assemblage. Some publics argue that human-ignited 

fires are not natural; therefore, should not be used in the management of national forests. 

This argument implies that the use of fire by American Indians was not part of the natural 

system. However, converting the forest to vegetation that was here during the American 

Indian dominance is no longer a viable option. The climate and vegetative species 

dominance has changed as well as the influence and abundance of the modern population. 

Patterson and Sassaman (1988) compared amounts of sedimentary charcoal to 

archaeological sites and found that fires were common near larger American Indian 

populations and where their land-use practices were greatest. Charcoal records prior to 

European settlement and post-settlement show little difference except during the slash fires 

associated with the logging boom at the turn of the century. These records clearly suggest 

that fires have been important in that area for the past 4,000 years, during a period of low 

lightning incidence. Human use of fire has been important in determining plant 

community composition (see also Sutherland, and others, 1993). 

In the past, fire was likely the most common natural disturbance on the landscape that is 

now LBL. Fire plays an important role in maintaining southern yellow pine ecosystems 

and appears to be a major factor in the development of oak forest. The current existence of 

oak-dominated forests is probably a result of periodic fire. Without periodic fire, many of 

these stands would eventually be replaced by more shade tolerant species such as red 

maple that are fire-intolerant. 

In the early 1900s the national direction of the Forest Service was quite clear (Pyne, 

1982)..."Forest fires have no place in any forest but as a result of ignorance, carelessness, 

and indifference (Anonymous, 1936).” The practitioners of controlled burning battled 

against an enormous campaign set at the national level to stop all fire. With that new 

direction of suppressing all fires, that major force of selection that had been present since 

the ice age was suddenly altered. The consequences of that well-intentioned but misguided 

policy would not be obvious for several decades. The selection process that influenced 

plant and animal communities now changed with the absence of fire. 

Perhaps, though, in defense of the dedicated firefighters during these times, this is the way 

it had to happen. Fire fighting equipment, intelligence, weather forecasts, budgets and fire 

behavior prediction have only recently enabled prescribed fire on a substantial level. 

Recent scientific literature regarding plant and animal reactions and effects are now better 

known. We have better data on pre-eurosettlement conditions. And now we are beginning 

to understand some of the more dramatic long-term impacts of fire exclusion as plant and 

animal populations and conditions of forest ecosystems are altered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 211 of 329 

Research suggests many reasons for the use of prescribed fire as a vegetation management 

tool. Foresters, wildlife managers, recreation managers, and fire managers all have valid 

uses for fire. The following is list for possible uses of fire on LBL: 

• Hazardous fuel reduction to minimize catastrophic fire; 

• Enhancement of wildlife browse and soft mast; 

• Regenerate fire dependant species, such as yellow pine, endangered and 

sensitive species; 

• Increase the regeneration of oaks, reducing competition from maple, beech, 

blackgum, white pine, and poplar; 

• Reduce non-native species; 

• Improve over-all forest health by reducing diseases and insects; 

• Maintain successional stages, and unique habitats, such as balds, by inhibiting 

succession; 

• Maintain open stands for scenery enhancement and recreation use. 

Encompassing many of these uses is the utilization of fire to achieve ecosystem-based 

management goals for ecological communities where fire has played a major role in 

natural stand replacement or maintenance. They are all very consistent with LBL’s 

mission. 

This is not a complete list and many of the uses overlap. Occasionally, burning for one 

purpose precludes another benefit, but usually burning for one reason creates many other 

benefits. For instance, a hazardous fuel reduction burn will usually enhance browse, open 

up the stands for recreation use, and reduce competition of fire intolerant species, which 

improves the growing conditions for mast-producing oaks. 

Prescribed fire is an economical tool to manage large areas where other forms of 

management are not likely to be used. The amount of LBL that could reasonably be 

managed by mechanical and manual methods is limited by personnel and funding 

restrictions. There is extensive acreage on LBL where fire is the only form of management 

activity that could ever be reasonably accomplished. 

Prescribed fire, despite concerns about its use, remains an important, ecologically 

appropriate management tool. Both natural fuels and artificially produced managementactivity fuels must be managed over time to meet long-term resource management 

objectives. Artificially produced fuels have been of little concern because of the small 

volume generated, but may have to be managed in the future. The EPA states (EPA, 1998) 

that while future air quality concerns from prescribed fire may arise, fire should function in 

its natural role in maintaining healthy wildland ecosystems. It also protects human health 

and welfare by mitigating the impacts of air pollutant emissions on air quality and 

visibility. 

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a 

landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention but including the 

influence of aboriginal burning (Frost, 1998). Coarsescale definitions for natural 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 212 of 329 

(historical) fire regimes have been developed by Hardy et. al., (2001) and Schmidt et al. 

(2002), and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The 

five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years 

between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the 

fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. These five regimes include: 

• I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity 

(less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

• II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

• III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

• IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

• V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. 

As scale of application becomes finer these five classes may be defined with more detail, 

or any one class may be split into finer classes, but the hierarchy to the coarse scale 

definitions should be retained. 

Table 3.3.2A represents the approximate current acreage of fire dependent and adapted 

communities on LBL with fire regime designation. 

Table 3.3.2A Fire Adapted Communities with Fire Regime Designation 

Community Type Acres Fire Regime 

Dry-Mesic Oak Forest 88,900 I 

Xeric-Dry Oak Forest 51,800 I 

Grassland 6,500 I 

Native Shortleaf and Planted Pine 4,300 I 

Prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments are designed to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires by decreasing the amount of available fuel that the fire is able to 

consume and thus carry the fire. Both methods are utilized to restore fire regimes within or 

near an historical range. Condition classes are a function of the departure from historical 

fire regimes resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components such as species 

composition, stand structure, successional stage, stand age, and canopy closure. One or 

more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire exclusion, timber 

harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects and 

disease (introduced or native), or other past management activities. Fire condition class is a 

measure of general wildland fire risk and ecosystem condition defined as follows: 

• Condition Class 1: 

• Fire regimes are within or near an historical range; 

• The risk of losing key ecosystem components is low; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 213 of 329 

• Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by no more than one 

return interval; 

• Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and 

functioning within an historical range. 

• Condition Class 2: 

• Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range; 

• The risk of losing key ecosystem components has increased to moderate; 

• Fire frequencies have departed (either increased or decreased) from historical 

frequencies by more than one return interval. This results in moderate changes 

to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or 

landscape patterns; 

• Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range. 

• Condition Class 3: 

• Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range; 

• The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high; 

• Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return 

intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire 

size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns; 

• Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range. 

LBL uses prescribed fire to reduce fuel loading and to breakup fuel continuity, both 

vertically and horizontally, to reduce rates of spread and therefore fire size, intensity, and 

severity. Nationally, the direction is to increase hazardous fuels treatment in the wildland 

urban interface areas. Those areas are the most expensive areas to suppress wildland fires 

and pose the greatest threat to public and firefighter safety. Though there is not a one-toone correlation between acres treated and suppression dollars saved or fewer acres burned, 

there is sufficient evidence to show that areas that have been treated typically exhibit lower 

rates of spread, less intensity, less severity, and a smaller final fire size under normal 

conditions. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Fire has been shown to be a significant and necessary component in developing and 

maintaining forest and ecosystem health. Its intentional use and applications, as well as its 

use in wild fire situations, provides the Forest Service with a natural means of regeneration 

and fuels reduction that is applicable to all managed areas. The following apply to all 

Alternatives, with exceptions noted in subsequent paragraphs. 

Regardless of the Proposed Action chosen, fire use will be considered in both the dormant 

season and the growing season. This is the current direction of management and should be 

considered in all alternatives. 

The following effects statements are extracted from R8-TR-11, A Guide for Prescribed 

Fire in Southern Forests (Wade and Lundford, 1989), a publication of the U.S.D.A. Forest 

Service unless otherwise noted. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 214 of 329 

Prescribed burning has direct and indirect effects on the environment. Proper use of 

prescribed fire, and evaluation of the benefits and costs of a burn require knowledge of 

how fire affects vegetation, wildlife, soil, water, and air. Burning techniques and timing of 

burns can be varied to alter fire effects. 

Effects on Vegetation 

Plants in fire-prone ecosystems have adapted to fire in various ways, including thickening 

of bark, ability to resprout from below the soil surface, and dispersing seeds (Stanturf et 

al., 2002). Shortleaf pine is a classic example of these adaptations. Above ground portions 

of hardwood species (which overwhelmingly predominate on LBL) are not as resistant to 

fire damage as conifers, primarily because of thinner bark. 

Hardwoods typically resprout from the base of the stem or form root suckers, when the 

tops are killed by fire. Larger hardwood stems (oak, hickory, poplar) are much less 

susceptible to top-kill. In one study (Waldrop et al, 1992) many hardwood stems over 6 

inches in diameter at breast height survived after 30 years of low intensity, annual burning 

with little stem damage. It is a general principle, however, that increasing diameter 

decreases sprouting potential after top-kill. 

Prescribed fire does kill some large trees, and in woodland restoration areas this is 

intentional. Growing season fires will kill a larger portion of trees when compared to a fire 

of similar intensity during the dormant season (Smith and Sutherland, 1999). Large trees 

die slowly when killed by fire. This is due to initial scarring by fire which leads to 

invasion of the tree by insects and fungus that if not fatal to the tree will weaken it to the 

point that it will likely die as the result of additional fires. 

Frequent burning (3 to 4 times over 10 years) limited development of a sapling layer and 

canopy recruitment, however seedling density was not affected (Peterson and Reich, 2001). 

Fire will have a significant impact on forest canopy structure by causing the immediate 

mortality of individual tree stems and indirectly by restructuring both canopy 

structure/composition and age class distribution. Another meaningful and desirable result 

of prescribed fire will be a significant change in the herb layer in areas burned repeatedly. 

The frequency and richness of native plants increased by an average of 20 percent and 11 

percent respectively on two sites treated with prescribed fire. There were some decreases 

in frequency as species adjusted to the disturbance (Huthinson and Sutherland, 2000). 

Perennial herbs and vines decrease in importance values and native grasses and forbs take 

their place. 

Effects on Wildlife 

The major effects on wildlife are indirect and pertain to changes in food and cover. 

Prescribed fires can increase the edge effect and amount of browse material, thereby 

improving conditions for deer and other wildlife. Quail and turkey favor food species and 

semi-open or open conditions that can be created and maintained by burning. Burning can 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 215 of 329 

improve habitat for marshland birds and animals by increasing food production and 

availability (Davis et al, 2000). 

The deleterious effects of prescribed fire on wildlife can include destruction of nesting 

sites and possible killing of birds, reptiles, or mammals trapped in the fire. Fortunately, 

prescribed fires can be planned for times when nests are not being used. Also, virtually all 

the types of prescribed fire used in the South provide ample escape routes for wildlife. For 

example, in one study a large tract was operationally burned with aerially-ignited spot fires 

and immediately examined for wildlife mortality. Fish and game agency personnel found 

none, but noted deer moving back into the still-smoking burn. 

Prescribed fire does not benefit fish habitat, but it can have adverse effects. This is 

somewhat of a moot point however, because it is often difficult to ignite a continuous 

flaming front in riparian fuels. Riparian fuels are often compacted and moist during all but 

the driest portions of the year. In addition fuels derived from riparian plants seem to decay 

and mineralize more rapidly than more combustible upland fuels. For these reasons it is 

difficult to conduct prescribed burning in stream corridors during the dormant season. 

During the growing season stream corridor herb layers are populated by an abundance of 

succulents and other plants which tend to stifle ignition and impede fire spread (Wade and 

Lundford, 1989). 

Studies of birds and oak savannas have emphasized within-patch effects of prescribed 

burning. Overall, it is clear that bird communities of oak savanna reflect the transitional 

status of this vegetation type. Blue-wing warbler, prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, 

and scarlet tanager occupy the tier habitats of Ozark woodlands. Most bird species 

characteristic of oak savannas also have affinities with either prairies or forests. 

Effects on Aesthetics 

The principal effect of prescribed burning on aesthetics can be summarized in one word: 

contrast. Contrast, or change from the pre-burn landscape, may be positive or negative 

depending largely on personal opinion. What may be judged an improvement in scenic 

beauty by one may be considered undesirable by another. 

Many of the undesirable impacts are relatively short term and can be minimized by 

considering scenic qualities when planning a burn. For example, the increased turbulence 

and updrafts along roads and other forest openings will cause more intense fire with 

resulting higher tree trunk char and needle scorch. Generally, the more immediate 

unfavorable impacts such as smoke and ash, top-killed under-story plants, and a blackened 

forest floor are necessary to achieve two major benefits - increased visual variety and 

increased visual penetration. Variety or diversity in vegetative cover will create a more 

pleasing, general visual character to the stand. Similarly, scenic qualities of the forest can 

be better appreciated if the stand can be made more transparent. An example is the 

reduction of an under-story buildup along a forest road that will permit the traveler to see 

into the interior of the stand, perhaps to a landscape feature such as a pond or interesting 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 216 of 329 

rock outcrop. The smutty appearance of the ground will "green up" fairly quickly. Any 

scorched needle will soon drop and not be noticeable Flowers and wildlife will increase. 

The direct and indirect effects of prescribed and wild fire on the physical resources (Soil, 

Water, and Air) are discussed in previous chapters. 

Cumulative Effects 

The most noteworthy cumulative effect of frequent fire on forested landscapes is the 

development of a highly diverse herbaceous layer composed primarily of native grass and 

forb species. This is correlated to the top-kill of small stem tree and shrub species and the 

resultant increase in light penetration to the forest floor (Huthinson and Sutherland, 2000). 

Repeated fire (a restored fire regime) will favor primarily oak and hickory reproduction 

over that of many competing shade intolerant species on upland sites. In areas targeted for 

fire restoration the long term effect of fire will be the development of a stock of repeatedly 

top-killed but vigorous tree seedlings and saplings capable or recruitment into the canopy. 

Visually these stands will have an open appearance with a well developed herb community 

and an abundance of tree seedlings (Huthinson and Sutherland, 2000). 

The herbaceous response of forested stands is directly proportional to light penetration to 

the forest floor (assuming all other factors are present). It is likely that in many areas 

prescribed fire alone will not be sufficient to restore woodlands or meet other objectives. 

In such cases mechanical treatment (harvest or chainsaw felling) would be required to meet 

objectives stated in this document. The effects of these activities are similar to other 

silvicultural activities discussed elsewhere in this document. However, when taken 

together the long term effect of burning in mechanically treated areas is not significantly 

different from that of non-mechanically treated areas. Some differences in overstory 

mortality and soil, water, and air impacts are typical of fires in logging debris in the shortterm. These impacts are short-lived. 

Regardless of the proposed action chosen, fire will be administered in both the growing 

season and the dormant season within existing regulations to minimize damage to soils, air, 

water, desirable vegetation, TES, recreation resources, cultural resources, and species of 

viability concern. 

Alternative W—No Change to the 1994 Plan

Wildland fire suppression 

Wildland fire suppression strategies will remain unchanged. All wildland fires will be 

suppressed. The average visitor will notice no change to the overall fire management 

strategy. Approximately 150 acres of wildland fire per year can be expected. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 217 of 329 

Wildland Fire Use 

Wildland fire use will not occur except in the Core Areas. All fires will be suppressed by 

the most direct means possible, considering firefighter and public safety. However, in the 

Core Areas, fires may be allowed to burn to existing boundaries within predetermined 

parameters. 

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire will remain unchanged. Approximately 500 to 1,500 acres will be 

prescribed burned annually for leaf litter reduction and scenery improvement in developed 

recreation areas, and for the maintenance of open-lands. The current fire management 

strategy for the Elk and Bison Prairie and the South Bison Range will remain unchanged. 

The average visitor will notice no change to the overall management strategy. 

Exceptions or Changes under Alternatives X & Y 

Summary 

Under these alternatives fire will play a significant role in the over all vegetation 

management strategy for LBL and in some areas may be the primary tool used to 

accomplish both plan and project objectives. Recognizing the natural and imperative role 

of fire in ecosystems and continuing the current fire management strategy and expanding it 

in the following areas: 

• Decreasing aggressive wildland fire suppression with a shift to Minimum 

Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST); 

• Allowing onset of Wildland Fire Use; 

• Attaining an increase to about 10,000 acres of prescribed fire use annually, 

gradually over the planning cycle with a shift in program emphasis from 

burning to maintain open grassland and to reduce leaf litter accumulation in 

developed recreation areas toward prescribed fire use in forested settings. 

The primary emphasis will be placed on re-establishment of historic fire 

regimes for ecosystem restoration. 

Wildland Fire Suppression 

Under these alternatives, strategies will shift toward the use of MIST to reduce the 

negative impact of fire suppression where possible. MIST should not be confused with 

Wildland Fire Use, which is allowing a naturally-caused fire to burn within predetermined 

parameters. The premise of MIST is to reduce the impact and expense of wildland fire 

suppression by using existing barriers to prevent fire spread, such as roads, streams, and 

changes to a less flammable vegetation type (e.g., from a dry field to a damp woodland or 

wetland rather than to aggressively construct fire-lines). In appropriate situations wildland 

fire may be allowed to burn to an existing barrier or may be allowed to be extinguished by 

precipitation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 218 of 329 

The public will notice an increase in the size of the areas burned by some wildland fires 

and fewer dozer or fire plow lines. Snags and hollow trees may still be removed from 

existing fire lines by chainsaw or dozer in advance of a wildland fire, and low impact 

hand-lines or fire retardant foam lines will replace dozer-lines. However, some aggressive 

tactics will still be necessary to ensure public and firefighter safety and for resource 

protection. 

The area burned using MIST could increase from around 150 acres (existing level) to as 

much as 1,000 acres. However, it is difficult to determine the ultimate annual acreage 

burned using MIST because of the inherent variables involved. 

Wildland Fire Use 

Allowing some naturally-caused fires to burn will be considered when an approved 

operating plan is in place. Currently, about 50 percent of the wildland fires on LBL are 

from unknown or miscellaneous ignition sources; however, none of these fires has been 

used to date. Under this alternative some wildland fires will be allowed to burn within 

predetermined parameters. The premise of this concept is that fire should be allowed, 

where possible, to play its natural role in ecosystems. The increase of open conditions 

created with this alternative will actually create the potential for more natural, lowintensity wildland fires, thus allowing the opportunity to use these natural wildland fires. 

Prescribed Fire 

Under these alternatives, prescribed fire use on LBL will increase gradually but 

significantly over current levels from 1,500 acres to a range of 5,000 to 10,000 acres 

annually. 

By capitalizing on expanded burning windows, a gradual increase in the experience levels 

of fire personnel, and local partnerships, LBL will gradually expand the existing prescribed 

fire program from the maintenance and enhancement of openlands (primarily in native 

warm season grasses) and recreation areas toward prescribed fire use in wooded systems. 

The primary objective will be the reintroduction of fire as a key ecosystem process in two 

selected demonstration areas with a combined total of about 8,000 acres. Prescribed fire 

will continue to be used in open lands and recreation areas, as well as in support of and to 

augment other vegetation management opportunities. The exact acreage of prescribed fire 

use may depend on many factors so a range of acres is appropriate for discussion of the 

program on an annual basis. However, at estimated capacity toward the end of the 

planning period the yearly average should approach 10,000 acres. 

Burning should begin with an increase to about 5,000 acres over the first five years. Over 

the next five years (years 5-10 of the planning cycle), burning opportunities should begin 

to expand allowing for the addition of larger blocks of land to the annual fire management 

plans. By year 10 of the planning cycle LBL should burn roughly 10,000 acres/year for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 219 of 329 

hazardous fuels reduction, restoration of ecological processes, scenery improvement, leaf 

litter reduction, and maintenance. 

In wooded areas treated with prescribed fire the public will notice a significant shift in the 

structure of the forest. In general, walking and hiking in the woods will be easier due to 

removal of accumulated sticks, logs, and brush. They should also notice an increase in the 

number and diversity of herbs (mainly grasses) on the forest floor as the number of trees is 

decreased. Many areas will become more open and park-like, facilitating uses such as 

wildlife and nature viewing, camping, hiking, and hunting. Users may also notice an 

increase in the density of snags and living den trees, and associated wildlife species such as 

pileated woodpeckers, Carolina chickadees, and squirrels. Within open lands and 

recreation areas visitors will notice no change but may see woodlands adjacent to some of 

these areas appear more open and park-like. Visitors will see that at certain times of the 

year large areas of LBL have been burned; leaf litter will be removed and tree trunks may 

be blackened by fire. They may also see smoke plumes from large fires and smoke may 

impact some uses at certain times. Roads that are used as fire lines may be temporarily 

closed to public use. 

Historically, much of LBL burned often. Estimated fire return intervals range from one to 

three years in grass-dominated areas prevalent before European contact, to five to 12 years 

in wooded systems with only the most mesic and barren areas being insulated from 

frequent fire. The entire area falls into Fire Regime 1 in the national hierarchy. This 

history of frequent fire is reported to be as old as 6,000 years and has played a significant 

role in the development of a regionally adapted flora and fauna that depends on the 

continuance of fire use for sustainability and health. Mathematically, these fire return 

intervals indicate that in purely ecological terms prescribed fire should be used on up to 

50,000 acres of LBL annually, an amount above our current capacity. 

The factors limiting the implementation of a prescribed fire program are primarily 

logistical given public acceptance and support. Logistical problems include the 

availability of qualified personnel and specialized fire equipment, the availability of funds 

for implementation, and the availability of time periods within predetermined weather and 

policy parameters, or windows in which to conduct burning. Of these, the most limiting is 

the window. 

Many things affect the size of the burning window, but the primary constraint on window 

size is weather, or specifically the effect of weather on the fuel available for combustion. 

As a general rule, if weather conditions are constant (and dry and windy) over a large area, 

open areas will dry to the point that they are available for combustion faster than areas that 

are shaded. Connected to this premise is that the more open a woodland is, the faster it 

will dry. The effect of this condition on the burning window is an increase of window 

length directly related to recent past fire history because fire removes or kills small shrubs 

and trees in the understory that shade fuel. So an area that has been recently burned 

(within the last three to five years) will have a slightly longer window than an area with no 

recent fire history. An area with a recent history of several fires will have a longer window 

still. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 220 of 329 

The current window is approximately parallel to the number of acres burned annually with 

the qualified personnel available, and occurs on about 14 to 20 days (an estimate) in the 

months of March and April. It is anticipated the number of acres burned annually will 

gradually increase, with an increase in window length and availability of qualified 

personnel, as funding is not expected to be a limiting factor with respect to prescribed fire 

implementation. 

Exceptions Under Alternative Z

Summary 

Under this alternative Wildland Fire Use and prescribed fire will remain mainly static with 

only modest increases over the current program. Although in some areas it may be the sole 

tool used to accomplish both plan and project objectives. Use of MIST could contribute to 

a slight increase in the acreage burned annually. Roughly speaking, however, the overall 

fire management program on LBL will change little over the existing program by 

continuing the current fire management strategy with modest changes in the following 

areas: 

• Decreased aggressive wildland fire suppression with a shift to MIST; 

• Onset of Wildland Fire Use; 

• An increase of about 4,000 to 5,000 acres of prescribed fire use in xeric 

forest annually, and gradually over the planning cycle. 

Wildland Fire Suppression 

See narrative for Alternatives X and Y. 

Wildland Fire Use 

Allowing some naturally caused fires to burn will be considered when an approved 

operating plan is in place. Currently, about 50 percent of the wildland fires on LBL are 

from unknown or miscellaneous ignition sources, however none of these wildland fires has 

been used to date. Under this alternative some wildland fires will be allowed to burn 

within predetermined parameters. The premise of this concept is that fire should be 

allowed, where possible, to play its natural role in ecosystems. The general lack of 

increase of open conditions created with this alternative is not likely to create the potential 

for more natural, low-intensity wildland fires, thus no increase in the opportunity for 

Wildland Fire Use is expected. 

Prescribed Fire 

Under this alternative, prescribed fire use will increase gradually, but significantly over 

current levels, from 1,500 acres to a range of 4,000 to 5,000 acres annually. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 221 of 329 

The primary objective will be on the maintenance of the existing fire program by 

continuing to use fire for the management and maintenance of open lands and developed 

recreation areas. In xeric wooded systems where fire can be expected to have a significant 

positive impact on vegetation structure and composition, prescribed fire will be used. 

Burning should begin an immediate increase to about 3,000 acres within two years and 

then slowly increase to about 5,000 acres by five years. Over the next five years (years 5-

10 of the planning cycle), the focus of prescribed fire use will be to maintain existing 

accomplishments within logistical boundaries. By year 10 of the planning cycle, LBL 

should continue to burn 5,000 acres/year for hazardous fuels reduction, restoration of 

ecological processes, scenery improvement, leaf litter reduction, and maintenance. 

The current window on LBL is approximately parallel to the number of acres burned 

annually with the qualified personnel available, and occurs on about 14 to 20 days (an 

estimate) in the months of March and April. It is anticipated that there will be no 

significant increase in window length under this alternative because there will be limited 

opportunity to use mechanical means to thin trees. Consequently any increases in the 

number of acres burned annually will remain functionally static with only modest 

increases. The burning window is expected to remain the key limiting factor for prescribed 

fire. 

3.3.3 Roads Management 

Affected Environment 

The road system on LBL is comprised of roads under the maintenance jurisdictions of the 

Forest Service, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and Tennessee Department of 

Transportation (see Table 3.3.3A). There are approximately 736 miles of classified and 

unclassified roads on LBL, of which approximately 119 miles are classified as Forest 

Highways, as of April 2004. Maintenance agreements for these Forest Highways are 

covered by memorandums of agreement with the respective states. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Agreement No. DTFH71-02-X-00024 is with Kentucky and 

FHWA Agreement No. DTFH71-02-X-00025 is with Tennessee. 

When LBL was created, the existing roads and private drives were adapted to meet the 

needs of the area. Many of these roadbeds date back prior to the Civil War. One of the 

major changes was the creation of a main north-south route called The Trace. This 

involved building a good quality paved, two-lane road, generally along the roadbed of the 

existing north-south roads. Roads to the major campgrounds and lake access areas were 

upgraded and often paved. Other roads were reduced to lower maintenance levels. 

Hiking, biking, and horse trails were created, sometimes using old roadbeds. 

Engineering (Roads) 

There are approximately 736 miles of road in LBL’s GIS and INFRA databases. The 

classified road system, which is in INFRA, includes 449 miles of road (See Table 3.3.3A). 

There have been approximately 287 miles of additional roads identified that have not yet 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 222 of 329 

been evaluated, including some cemetery access roads, farm field access roads, and visitorcreated roads. There are five maintenance levels (ML) used by the Forest Service and 

described in FSH 7709.58, Transportation System Maintenance Handbook. In the 

classified road system, there are approximately 349 miles of ML 3, 4, and 5 roads, which 

means a road is suitable for passenger cars. There are approximately 98 miles of ML 2 

roads that are suitable for high-clearance vehicles and are seasonally impassable. The ML 

2 roads are single-purpose, low volume roads that are normally native or marginal 

aggregate surface and single-lane design. Less than two miles are ML 1 roads, which are 

currently impassable, administrative in nature, or are blocked to all traffic. The road 

density at LBL is approximately three miles of road per square mile of land. 

Table 3.3.3A Classified Roads 

Source: INFRA database (September 13, 2004) 

MAINTENANCE LEVEL MILES OF ROAD 

 5* 148 

4 71 

3 130 

2 98 

1 2 

*Includes 119 miles of roads maintained by KY and TN Highway departments 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

For all alternatives, density of open roads remains at or near current levels. 

New road construction could exist but would be rare under any alternative. Improvements 

to roads following BMPs may occur under Alternatives Y and Z to support the Nature 

Watch Demonstration Areas. Improvements or temporary roads may occur under 

Alternatives X and Y to support the Oak-Grassland Demonstration areas. To support 

recreational and educational opportunities in Alternatives X and Y, minor road 

improvements may occur. Administrative roads for timber removal under any alternative 

would be temporary and mitigated following BMPs. Road access to cemeteries would be 

maintained as described below. Under each alternative, roads (classified and unclassified) 

that are no longer needed will be decommissioned as funding is available. 

Cumulative effects upon transportation would be indeterminate and therefore not listed. 

Proposed changes to the section of Highway 68/80 that crosses LBL are being analyzed 

under a separate NEPA process. Improvements to Highway 68/80 are project level 

changes and outside the scope of this planning process. 

Soil and Water 

The impacts of roads to soil and water are discussed in the Soils Section 3.1.2 and the 

Watershed Section 3.1.3. These sections describe the need for continued road 

improvements under all alternatives to protect the resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 223 of 329 

Cemetery Access 

As specifically directed in the LBL Protection Act of 1998 (Section 528), access to 

cemeteries will be ensured for the purposes of burial, visitation, and maintenance. 

Cemetery access roads will be maintained at the same level as existed when the federal 

government acquired the land. Although some cemeteries may lie within areas where 

access fees are charged to the general public, there will be no charge for people wishing to 

visit cemeteries. If no road exists to a cemetery, it may be necessary to create an access 

trail for people and maintenance equipment. Trail construction is permitted, but should not 

disturb the ground. 

Recreation 

For LBL, the approximately 350 miles of ML 3-5 roads provide for roaded recreation 

opportunities. These roads represent the best and most heavily-used routes for scenic 

driving. A scenic byway corridor (The Trace) in Kentucky and Tennessee is managed to 

provide visitors with enjoyment of outstanding scenery, and natural and cultural 

landscapes along a well-maintained road. 

The area that is visible during the leaf-off season for up to one mile from either side of the 

road defines the byway corridor. The management focus is on protecting and showcasing 

the unique scenic, natural, and cultural resources, the elements which were the basis for the 

corridor’s scenic byway designation. 

3.3.4 Infrastructure 

Affected Environment 

Most of LBL’s current infrastructure was developed during the late 60s and 70s, and many 

facilities and utility systems are nearing the end of their design life. At the time of transfer 

to the Forest Service in 1999, the total estimated deferred maintenance backlog for 

buildings and developed sites was over $25,000,000. The total estimated deferred 

maintenance backlog for roads and bridges is split into two categories—paved and 

unpaved roads. An estimate completed by FHWA in 2002 for paved roads was over 

$34,000,000. The estimated deferred maintenance backlog for all other roads approaches 

$1 million. In previous years, several facilities were closed due to declining appropriated 

budgets, increasing maintenance costs, inflation, and low use. These facilities include part 

of Rushing Creek Campground, Youth Station, Silo Overlook, and Empire Farm. In order 

to allow for maximum options, these sites are maintained in a manner to slow degradation 

of buildings, utilities, and roads until a decision can be made concerning their use, reuse, 

demolition, or disposal. 

Forest Service efforts have focused on standardization of utilities, upgrading the electrical 

service, improving reliability, and influencing the built environment. This is being 

accomplished by reducing the deferred maintenance backlog, focusing on restoration 

activities at heavily-visited sites, primarily for safety and operational efficiencies. The 

natural features are the focus on LBL with the goal that buildings should blend in with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 224 of 329 

landform and setting. There are 317 structures at LBL, of which 51 have an administrative 

purpose. The administrative infrastructure includes offices and maintenance facilities. 

Table 3.3.4A illustrates the number and type of structures on LBL. Other infrastructure 

items, such as roads, trails, sewer systems, water systems, and recreation components are 

discussed elsewhere in this document. 

Table 3.3.4A Number and Type of structures on LBL 

ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS 

Type Number 

 Office/Maintenance 12

 Intern Housing 6

 Misc/Storage/Utility 32

Total 50

RECREATION BUILDINGS 

Type Number 

 Developed Environmental Education 38

 Developed Recreation 47

 Barns 14

 Outposts 3

 SST/Toilet/Shower&Toilet 52

 Wellhouses/Pumphouses 31

 Misc/Storage 81

Total 266

Effects 

There are no known cumulative effects on infrastructure. Under all alternatives, the 

emphasis will be to reduce the number of facilities, reduce the maintenance backlog, and 

reduce the operations and maintenance costs at all facilities, sites, and areas to the 

minimum needed to support the operational and public service needs, taking into account 

long-range planning, budget, usage, and status. With this being said, that does not 

completely eliminate the possibility that a new facility would ever be added under 

Alternative Y, if the above criteria was met. At the same time, if Alternative X is selected, 

it doesn't necessarily mean that a net gain in facilities will occur. Any direction regarding 

facilities management at LBL must be consistent with the environmental education, 

recreation, wildlife diversity, and economic sustainability stipulations of the LBL 

Protection Act. Over time under all alternatives, the square footage of infrastructure at 

LBL is expected to decrease slightly. 

For Alternative X, the cost to reopen a building that has been out of service as long as 

some of the closed facilities, can approach the cost to build a new structure. When 

renovation costs reach a certain percentage of net worth of a structure, new codes and 

requirements will need to be met. All of these costs will need to be factored into the 

decision to reopen a long dormant facility or site. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 225 of 329 

3.4 Socio-Economic Environment and Effects 

The social and economic environment is the people aspect of the EIS’s considerations. 

This takes into account the impact that tourism, and recreational and environmental 

education facilities, programs, and management have on LBL and the surrounding 

communities. It projects the potential impacts that future demands could have under the 

different alternatives’ management emphases. This section also looks at potential impacts 

to scenery, cultural resources, and economics of proposed management under each 

alternative. It further analyzes the potential net benefits to the public for timber harvesting 

and other vegetation treatments and management. 

3.4.1 Recreation and Environmental Education 

National Forests provide more than 191 million acres of public land within the United 

States. National Forests in the Southern Region contribute approximately 13 million acres 

to the national total and provide unique public land settings for a variety of outdoor 

recreation and education activities. On the 171,200 acres making up LBL, activities such 

as the following are available: primitive and developed camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, 

backpacking, horseback riding, OHV driving, canoeing/kayaking, picnicking, sightseeing, 

visiting nature centers and historical sites, nature watching, driving for pleasure, and 

mountain bike riding. 

Market Area 

Market areas have been established for different National Forests to better evaluate public 

demand for recreation opportunities. LBL market researchers have defined the local 

market area as all counties that fall within a 100-mile straight-line radius from LBL’s 

border. Past research has demonstrated that 67 percent of LBL’s visits originate from the 

seven counties surrounding LBL, and another 21 percent originate from areas of 

surrounding states (Freeman, 1998).

The largest cities within the LBL market area include Owensboro and Paducah, KY; 

Evansville, IN; and Clarksville, Jackson, Murfreesboro, and Nashville, TN. 

Opportunities for outdoor Rec/EE, within the market area, are not limited to LBL. Other 

public lands such as national parks, national wildlife refuges, state parks, and state wildlife 

management areas and forests serve to connect and expand the range of opportunities. 

Information for this section was compiled from the state and federal government web sites 

of each managing agency. 

Kentucky 

Within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, several state and federal lands are located within 

a 100-mile radius of LBL. Federal lands include the Clarks River and Reelfoot Lake 

National Wildlife Refuges, Fort Campbell Military Reservation, The US Army Corps of 

Engineer’s Lake Barkley Dam visitor center and numerous recreation areas and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 226 of 329 

campgrounds, and the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kentucky Lake Dam recreation areas 

and campgrounds. 

Among the Kentucky state lands are these state parks: Kentucky Dam Village, Kenlake, 

Lake Barkley, Columbus-Belmont, Mineral Mound, Pennyrile Forest, Lake Malone, John 

James Audubon, Rough River and Nolin Lake. Also within 100 miles of LBL, the state 

manages two state forests totaling 15,360 acres and approximately 20 wildlife management 

areas with a total acreage of about 119,800 acres. 

Tennessee 

Federal public lands within the state of Tennessee are also extensive within the 100-mile 

local market area. Federal lands include the Tennessee, Hatchie, Chickasaw and Cross 

Creeks National Wildlife Refuges, Shiloh National Military Park, and the Fort Donelson 

and Stones River National Battlefields. 

State of Tennessee lands includethe following state parks: Bledsoe Creek, Cedars of 

Lebanon, Henry Horton, David Crockett, Mousetail Landing, Montgomery Bell, Paris 

Landing, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Natchez Trace, Pickwick Landing, Chickasaw, Reelfoot 

Lake and Long Hunter. The state also manages approximately seven areas of state natural, 

historic, or archeological significance, six state forests totaling 62,400 acres, and 38 

wildlife management areas with a total of about 187,200 acres. 

Indiana 

Federal public lands within the state of Indiana include the Patoka River National Wildlife 

Refuge and Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial. 

State of Indiana lands within the 100-mile radius market area include Harmonie State Park, 

Lincoln & Colonel Jones Home State Park, and Angel Mounds State Historic Site. State 

forests include Pike and Ferdinand totaling approximately 10,600 acres. The state 

manages two historic sites, three fish and wildlife areas totaling approximately 16,500 

acres, and two nature preserves totaling nearly 700 acres. 

Illinois 

Federal public lands within the 100-mile radius include the Shawnee National Forest, the 

Crab Orchard, Cypress Creek, and Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge, and 

Rend Lake operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. 

Illinois has extensive state public lands within the 100-mile radius that include Cave-InRock, Dixon Springs, Ferne Clyffe, Fort Massac, Giant City, Lake Murphysboro, and 

Beall Woods State Parks and Wayne Fitzgerrell, Golconda Marina, and Pyramid State 

Recreation Areas. There is one state forest consisting of 5,000 acres, one natural area 

consisting of nearly 13,000 acres, and eight fish and wildlife areas totaling nearly 36,000 

acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 227 of 329 

Missouri 

Missouri does not have federal public land within the 100-mile radius. 

State lands include Big Oak Tree and Trail of Tears State Parks within the 100-mile radius. 

Also included are three historic sites and 32 conservation areas that include more than 

22,300 acres. 

Similar to LBL, these state and federally managed lands and areas offer a wide range of 

recreational and educational opportunities. Levels of development may range from very 

low to high depending on the type of experiences the managing agency has determined 

appropriate at the individual area. For example, some areas or sites may be day-use only, 

some may offer minimal camping facilities, and others may have hotels and other 

amenities. Several offer activities designed to educate visitors about the natural and/or 

historical significance of the site or area. 

Demand and Trends 

Recreational and educational demand is a complex relationship between people’s desires 

and preferences, price, and availability of time and facilities. The evaluation of current and 

future demand for Rec/EE on LBL is based on recent surveys that identify and quantify the 

following: 

• Estimated number of current recreation/education visits to LBL; 

• Participation rates for recreation/education activities within the LBL market area; 

• Future activity demand based on projected population growth and participation 

trends. 

The LBL Visitor Profile Survey completed in 1998 provides a baseline for estimating 

current use of recreation and education sites on LBL (Table 3.4.1A). Based on this survey 

data, developed areas on LBL accommodate approximately 60 percent of the estimated 

recreation/environmental education (Rec/EE) visits. The remaining 40 percent of Rec/EE 

visits can be defined as occurring in non-developed areas in the general forest. 

Table 3.4.1A - Baselines for Recreation/Environmental Education use on LBL 

Type of Site Current Percentage of Estimated LBL Visits 

Developed Sites 60 % 

Undeveloped Sites 40 % 

 

Total 100 % 

During a typical forest visit, people engage in a variety of Rec/EE activities. Table 3.4.1B

lists the most popular activities for visitors. The activities are ranked in order from highest 

to lowest participation rates based on the 1998 Visitor Profile Survey and reflect 

participation in an activity within LBL. Also listed, as a percentage of visitors, is the main 

reason individuals or families visited LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 228 of 329 

According to information in the Southern Forest Resource Assessment (SFRA) (Wear, 

2002), the top 10 outdoor recreation activities among southerners are walking for pleasure, 

attending family gatherings, visiting nature centers, sightseeing, driving for pleasure, 

picnicking, viewing or photographing natural scenery, visiting historic sites, swimming in 

lakes and streams, and viewing or photographing wildlife. Although many of these top 

activities do not require vast tracts of land for their enjoyment, Table 3.4.1B illustrates that 

visitors are relying on LBL to supply these opportunities. 

It should be noted that the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, which was 

used for information in the SFRA, surveyed for outdoor activities in general and not 

strictly for activities participated in on public lands. In fact, three of the top five main 

reasons for visiting LBL, according to visitor survey respondents, are not listed in the 

SFRA. They are fishing, camping, and hunting. 

LBL survey respondents ranked fishing as their number one reason for visiting LBL. With 

LBL being a peninsula between two popular recreational lakes, it would be expected that 

demand for fishing opportunities will continue to grow. Data from the recreation plans for 

Kentucky and Tennessee both rank LBL’s third most popular overall activity very high. 

About one third (33.5 percent) of Tennessee’s population enjoys warm water fishing 

(Gardner, 2004), while in Kentucky it is the fourth most popular activity with 43 percent 

participation (Creech, 2003). It should be noted that Kentucky did not include wildlife 

viewing or scenic driving in its survey. By the year 2050, the number of days spent fishing 

in the U.S. is expected to increase by approximately 27 percent (Cordell, 1999). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 229 of 329 

Table 3.4.1B Participation in Rec/EE activities at LBL and Reason for Visit 

ACTIVITY 

 Percent 

Participation*

Main Reason for 

Visit**

 

Wildlife Viewing/Study 54.6 % 8.1 % 

Driving(Scenic) 53.0 % 13.3 % 

Fishing(all) 52.5 % 16.8 % 

Camping (Family) 37.0 % 14.8 % 

Boating(Sport) 30.0 % 2.3 % 

Information/ Welcome center 28.9 % 1.1 % 

Hiking 28.6 % 3.5 % 

Historical Program 23.0 % 1.0 % 

Camping (Rustic) 22.8 % 4.7 % 

Hunting/Scouting 22.4 % 9.7 % 

Picnicking 21.8 % 0.8 % 

Shopping 19.1 % 0.1 % 

Beach Use 18.0 % 0.5 % 

Roadside Exhibits 15.4 % 0.0 % 

Swimming 15.4 % 0.4 % 

Bicycling(all) 15.2 % 1.9 % 

Driving (OHV) 9.2 % 2.5 % 

Astronomy 9.2 % 0.7 % 

Other 8.7 % 5.4 % 

Resource Foraging 7.2 % 0.6 % 

Horseback Riding 7.1 % 5.1 % 

Historical Site 6.6 % 1.9 % 

Reunion/Gathering 6.2 % 2.3 % 

Special Event 4.4 % 2.0 % 

Target Shooting 3.5 % 0.4 % 

Backpacking 3.1 % 0.2 % 

Jogging/Running 2.6 % 0.1 % 

* 1439 individuals responded to this part of survey 

**1118 individuals responded to this part of survey

The second most stated reason for visiting LBL is camping. In both the Kentucky and 

Tennessee surveys, approximately 20 percent of the respondents indicated that they 

participated in camping activities. According to National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) data collected at LBL (Aug. 2003) and on forests nation wide, the average length 

of stay for an LBL visitor in 2003 was 41.1 hours. This exceeds the national average 

length of stay on Forest Service lands of 19 hours by more than 100 percent. Visitation 

numbers for the four major campgrounds in LBL peaked in fiscal year1999 and declined 

somewhat through fiscal year 2003. Weather during the camping season is always a factor 

in visitation. Factors for declining visitation from 2001 to present may include such things 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 230 of 329 

as economic trends, fuel prices or the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. However, 

visitation data gathered through July 2004 indicates that visitation is up to levels 

documented in July 2001. (See tables in Appendix B.4 for more detailed information on 

visitation to LBL.) This may or may not be a sign of future increases in visitation. 

However, according to information found in Outdoor Recreation in American Life the 

number of people camping nationally is expected to increase by about 50 percent over the 

next 50 years. In the South the number is expected to nearly double (Cordell, 1999). 

Respondents to the 1998 LBL Visitor Profile Survey indicated that hunting and scouting 

for good hunting spots was the fourth main reason for coming to the area. According to a 

US Fish and Wildlife Service survey, participation in hunting is on the decline overall 

(DOI, 2001). However, the same survey states that big game hunting participation, 

popular at LBL, remained statistically stable between 1991 and 1996. Table 3.4.1B shows 

that hunting is one of the top 10 activities at LBL. Hunting, both big and small game, 

remains popular at LBL. Applications for quota deer and turkey hunts have remained 

relatively stable from 1994 through 2003. For this 10-year period, LBL has received an 

average of 14,110 quota deer and 4,087 quota turkey hunt applications per year. During 

the 2003 hunting season, 43 percent of deer hunt and 60 percent of turkey hunt applicants 

received permits for quota hunts. 

Observation by wildlife and law enforcement staff indicates that small game hunting on 

LBL also continues to remain popular. Hunting participation on LBL is expected to 

remain stable or increase slightly over the next 10-15 years due to projected loss of private 

lands for hunting opportunities (Bloemer, 2003). This last statement is further supported 

by Cordell and Tarrant in the SFRA, which stated, “Unless conditions become more 

favorable for landowners, the percentage of them permitting public access is likely to 

continue to decrease...”. They go on to state “Thus, the weight of providing for increases 

in public recreation is likely to fall mostly on public providers, who increasingly face 

significant budget and capacity constraints (Wear, 2002). 

The two activities with the most participation at LBL are wildlife viewing and scenic 

driving. Approximately 67 percent of the nation’s population participated in viewing and 

learning activities such as visiting a nature center or historic site in 2002 (NSRE, 2003). 

Viewing and photography activities such as bird-watching, and viewing/photographing 

other wildlife, wildflowers, and natural scenery were participated in by about 74 percent of 

the population. The fact that people choose to spend their leisure time participating in 

learning activities supports the emphasis placed on the Environmental Education program 

of LBL. In fact, national projections show that visiting historic sites could increase by up 

to 75 percent by the year 2050 and non-consumptive wildlife uses could increase by 61 

percent above 1995 levels (Cordell, 1999). Both Kentucky and Tennessee’s recreation 

plans indicate a move toward more emphasis on environmental education at the state 

levels. Under LBL’s mission and The Protection Act, environmental education is given a 

high priority. With the added emphasis from the states, the demand for educational 

programs would be expected to rise, and LBL would be in a position to accommodate the 

added demand. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 231 of 329 

Demographic information reveals the aging of the U.S. population. Older adults are 

becoming a larger portion of the American population. As their numbers increase, demand 

for less physically-challenging activities such as viewing and photographing wildlife and 

driving for pleasure may increase as well. 

As the population within the local and regional areas continues to grow and the private 

land base becomes more developed, public lands will increasingly be seen as a place of 

relaxation and quiet retreat from the built community. Additionally, as forest recreation 

and education demands grow, visitors and their chosen activities may conflict more with 

each other, especially on trails, in backcountry, at developed sites, on lakes, streams, and 

on roads on their way to those environs (Cordell, 2001). 

Recreation and Environmental Education Supply 

For planning purposes, Rec/EE supply is defined as the opportunity to participate in a 

desired activity in a preferred setting to realize desired and expected experiences and 

outcomes. Visitors choose a setting and activity to create a desired experience. Three 

components of supply are settings, activities, and facilities. At the planning level, the 

Forest Service manages a supply of settings and facilities. 

Settings 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a planning tool used to identify and 

evaluate the supply of recreation settings on National Forests. Four ROS classes and one 

sub-class are currently inventoried on LBL. These settings include Semi-Primitive NonMotorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Remote Roaded Natural 

respectively. See the ROS map in Appendix I for the supply and distribution of these 

classes. Table 3.4.1C further illustrates the amount of LBL’s land that has been identified 

as offering each of the opportunity types classified in the ROS. 

Only four of six possible ROS classifications are available to visitors of LBL. An 

additional sub-class of Roaded Natural has been added to further delineate recreation 

opportunities available to visitors. The sub-class has been titled Remote Roaded Natural. 

LBL’s five inventoried ROS categories are explained below in order from least primitive 

to most primitive experience. 

Rural (R) settings represent the most developed sites and modified natural settings on the 

forest, such as campgrounds, day-use facilities, picnicking areas, administrative zones, and 

other areas of highly concentrated use. Areas where croplands are adjacent to main travel 

routes are also in this class due to the obvious human impact on the landscape. 

Roaded Natural (RN) settings are located within one-half mile of open roads and usually 

provide slightly higher levels of development but retain a natural appearance to the casual 

viewer. Given the high road density of LBL, this is the predominant ROS class found on 

the area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 232 of 329 

Remote Roaded Natural (RRN) is a sub classification of Roaded Natural. This sub class 

was developed by LBL managers to describe those areas which offer semi-primitive 

motorized experiences but do not meet the size requirements for the Semi-Primitive class 

as set forth in the official ROS Users Guide. They are at least one-half mile from betterthan-primitive roads and at least 1,000 acres in size. These areas are small in size but are 

scattered widely over the landscape providing visitors a SPM experience in a variety of 

settings. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) areas are at least 2,500 acres in size and at least one-half 

mile from better-than-primitive roads. These areas may be within one-half mile of 

primitive roads or trails that allow motorized use. Uses in this ROS class would be similar 

to SPNM but motorized vehicles may be allowed on some of the primitive roads. LBL 

contains one area that meets these requirements. 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) areas are generally less remote than primitive 

areas and can be as small as 2,500 acres in size and one-half mile to three miles from any 

roads open to motorized use. These settings accommodate dispersed, non-motorized 

recreation such as hiking, biking, hunting, and horseback riding. One area in LBL meets 

this requirement. 

Table3.4.1C Distributions of ROS Classes on LBL 

ROS Class Acres in ROS Class Percent of Land Base 

in ROS Class 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 3,266 1.9 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 5,388 3.2 

Remote Roaded Natural 15,470 9.1 

Roaded Natural 138,317 81.2 

Rural 7,810 4.6 

Also refer to map in Appendix I. 

Facilities 

Facilities have been developed on LBL to enhance opportunities for visitors to participate 

in specific activities. Various levels of development have been designed to accommodate 

the differing degrees of settings and experiences valued by visitors. 

The Rec/EE programs of LBL support and manage developed facilities for use by visitors. 

Developed Recreation areas on LBL are areas that have received some level of site 

improvement in support of recreational activities. This category contains any area that 

requires a significant level of maintenance or capital investment. Trailheads and boat 

ramps, as well as large family campgrounds, are examples of developed recreation. 

Facility-Based Environmental Education (EE) refers to the educational delivery method 

used at more highly-developed facilities. These facilities have been designed with specific 

educational objectives in mind. They are staffed by EE personnel during set operating 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 233 of 329 

hours and provide the visitor with developed locations in which to seek learning 

opportunities. The Homeplace-Living History Farm, Woodlands Nature Station, Golden 

Pond Planetarium and Observatory, and Brandon Spring Group Center are currently the 

only EE facilities in operation at LBL. 

In the following sections Rec/EE will be discussed separately due to the differences in 

experiences sought by visitors, and the way in which these programs are managed. 

3.4.2 Recreation 

Affected Environment 

Developed Recreation 

Recreation sites are developed within different outdoor settings to facilitate desired 

recreational use. These facilities may include campgrounds, picnic areas, shooting ranges, 

boat ramps, and OHV areas. “Developed recreation” is the term used to describe these 

types of facilities. 

Developed recreation sites provide different levels of user comfort and convenience. 

Development Levels range from 1 to 5, with Level 1 representing the most primitive, 

natural settings with minimal or no site amenities. Level 5 represents the highest level of 

development with fully accessible facilities. These classifications are described below 

with examples of sites at LBL classified at each level. 

Level 1: Undeveloped recreation sites. Rustic, rudimentary improvements have been 

made for the protection of the site rather than the comfort of the user. Little active 

management occurs. LBL currently has no areas inventoried for this classification. 

Level 2: Minor site modifications; with no developed campsites and no potable water 

available. Jenny Ridge Picnic Area is an example of a Level 2 development site with 

picnic tables and fire rings as the only amenities. In LBL some of these sites may have 

chemical or vault toilets and trash pick-up for the protection of the site. Examples would 

be ‘backcountry’ areas such as Ginger Bay, Shaw Branch, and Devils Elbow. 

Level 3: Sites such as ‘fee lake access’ areas provide a comparable amount of 

development for site protection and user comfort. These sites typically include vault or 

chemical toilets, designated campsites or picnic sites and may provide a developed water 

source. ‘Backcountry’ areas with developed campsites are included in this classification. 

Examples would be Birmingham Ferry and Boswell Landing. 

Level 4: Offer more user conveniences such as well hardened campsites, flush or vault 

toilets, high standard roads, some combination of bathhouses and/or options for electric or 

water hookups. Rushing Creek, Energy Lake, and Cravens Bay campgrounds along with 

Fenton Lake Access Area are examples of Level 4 campgrounds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 234 of 329 

Level 5: Large family campgrounds are examples of Level 5 developed sites on LBL. 

They offer flush toilets, bathhouses with warm showers, electric, water and sewer hookups, 

paved roads, and high staffing levels. These areas, typically have amphitheaters, 

playgrounds, or other amenities. Hillman Ferry, Piney, and Wrangler’s Campgrounds are 

examples. 

The Forest Service defines the capacity of developed recreation sites in terms of the 

number of “people at one time” (PAOT) that a site can support. Currently, there are 90 

developed sites managed by LBL to accommodate different recreation activities. 

The following tables illustrate the different types of facilities provided across the area and 

their current capacity in PAOTs. 

Table 3.4.2A - Current Capacities and Number of Overnight-Use Developed Sites 

Level of Campground Number of Campgrounds Capacity (PAOT) 

2 11 1,328 

3 11 3,256 

4 4 1,184 

5 3 7,744 

Total 29 13,512 

Table 3.4.2B - Current Capacities and Number of Day-Use Developed Sites 

Type of Day Use Developed Areas Number of Areas Capacity (PAOT) 

Picnic Areas 12 588 

Shooting Range 1 73 

Scenic Drives/Watchable Wildlife 3 1000 

Visitor Centers 3 699 

Public Swimming Areas 1 100 

Total 20 2460 

Table 3.4.2C - Developed Access Points for Dispersed Recreation 

Type of Developed Sites Total Number of Sites Total Capacity (PAOT) 

Trailheads 10 687 

Lake Boat Ramps 28 1595 

Fishing Docks 3 77 

Total 41 2167 

As previously mentioned, developed sites require a considerable amount of maintenance 

investment. More highly-developed sites, such as level 4 and 5 campgrounds, typically 

receive higher levels of maintenance than areas of lesser demand and less infrstructure, 

such as trailheads and shooting ranges. LBL contains more highly-developed sites than the 

average Forest Service unit. 

The public demand for campsites with utility-type amenities is growing and often exceeds 

supply during peak periods (i.e. holiday weekends and special events). Information 

gathered from campground staff, comment cards, user meetings, and during public scoping 

for this Area Plan process indicates many campers desire more accessible sites with water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 235 of 329 

and electrical hookups. As campgrounds are evaluated for upgrading, the potential for 

additional utility hookups and accessible sites is considered. However, annual occupancy 

levels do not support the demand for construction of additional developed campsites at this 

time. Table 3.4.2D illustrates the number and type of campsites found in the development 

Level 4 and 5 campgrounds of LBL. 

Table 3.4.2D - Type and Number of Sites at Level 4 and 5 Campgrounds 

Dispersed Recreation 

Dispersed recreation is defined as those activities that occur outside of developed 

recreation sites such as boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, and biking. However, there are 

41 developed recreation sites that facilitate dispersed use of the forest, including trailheads, 

boat ramps, and fishing piers. The two large lakes on either side of LBL, and five interior 

lakes, provide fishing, canoeing, motor-boating, and other water-related recreation 

activities. Table 3.4.2C above illustrates the type and capacity of these sites. 

Just over 260 miles of non-motorized trails traverse LBL, including the 68-mile

North/South National Recreation Trail and approximately 100 miles of designated 

equestrian trails. Sections of the North/South Trail are shared by hikers with mountain 

bikers and horseback riders. Canal Loop Trail system also serves multiple needs, being 

open for hiking and mountain biking. Other popular trails include the Fort Henry National 

Recreation Trail system and Hematite Lake trail. Hiking, backpacking, and mountain 

biking are experiencing an increase in popularity across LBL. In some areas, conflicts 

exist among the different types of user groups. Table 3.4.2E shows miles of nonmotorized trails on LBL by type of use. 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) opportunities are limited to the Turkey Bay OHV area. This 

designated area contains many miles of designated routes within an area of approximately 

2,200 acres. Off-road riding opportunities are available for visitors utilizing various types 

of vehicles including four wheelers, motorcycles, motorized buggies, and other fourwheel-drive vehicles (4WD). With the exception of specific special events and permitted 

activities, Turkey Bay OHV area is the only area on LBL allowing unlicensed all-terrain 

vehicles (ATV) and motorcycles. Open roads with low maintenance levels have 

traditionally provided some additional opportunities for street-legal 4WD vehicles to 

access remote settings. 

Demand for off-road experiences is growing nationally and is expected to exceed LBL’s 

supply by the end of this planning cycle. Illegal riding continues in certain isolated areas, 

including one classified as being able to provide a SPNM recreational experience. 

Type of Site Number of Sites 

Basic 304 

Electric 505 

Electric and Water 160 

Full Hookup 123 

Total 1,092 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 236 of 329 

Requests by disabled users to access other areas with ATVs are growing rapidly (10 

requests in 2002; 28 requests in 2003). 

Table3.4.2E Type and Miles of Non-Motorized Trails on LBL 

Type of Non-Motorized Use Allowed Existing Miles of Designated Trails 

Hiking only 110.8 miles 

Horseback Riding only 100 miles 

Mountain Biking/ Hiking 54 miles 

Paved Bicycle/ Hiking 2.2 miles 

Total 267 miles 

Table3.4.2F Motorized OHV Use Area 

Type of Motorized Use Allowed Area 

ATV, 4-wheel drive Vehicles 2,200 acres 

Dispersed recreation opportunities are not limited to trail uses only. As shown in Table 

3.4.1B, LBL is a popular area for activities from scenic driving to picking berries. Many 

of these activities require little more than a means of access to the forest or lake. Some 

activities are not managed by recreation professionals specifically, but forest restoration 

and wildlife habitat improvement may enhance recreation opportunities. 

Viewing and photographing nature while driving one of LBL’s hundreds of miles of roads, 

are very popular activities. Managers must consider this when performing land 

management activities adjacent to roads and trails. Two areas specifically developed for 

the viewing of reintroduced species, elk and bison, are the South Bison range and the Elk 

& Bison Prairie. Thousands of visitors annually enjoy an up-close view of these large 

mammals, once native to the area. 

LBL hosts over 250 days of hunting opportunities yearly. Opportunities for hunting 

various types of small game, deer, turkey, and waterfowl abound. 

LBL also creates many opportunities for water-based activities because it is situated 

between two large reservoirs. Some of the most popular include fishing, motor boating, 

and swimming. Access to the lakes is very important for those participating in these 

activities. 

Management of dispersed recreation is becoming more complex as an increasing number 

of people depend on public land to provide settings for their preferred activities. The 

number of private owners allowing the public to recreate on their land has been decreasing 

over time. Increasing demands for off-highway vehicle use, hunting, fishing, and other 

consumptive recreational activities are likely to bring about more recreation 

participant/land owner conflicts over time (Cordell, 2001). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 237 of 329 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Recreation demand is expected to grow for a variety of dispersed and developed activities. 

Existing use will increase as recreation demand and the population grows over the next ten 

years. 

Area management could affect recreation by improving or limiting roaded access; 

constructing or removing recreation facilities and improvements; changing their 

development level; restricting, prohibiting, or encouraging use; altering the land to make it 

suitable or unsuitable for use; and changing the landscape setting. 

General themes were developed for all alternatives that emphasize different resource 

management objectives. Alternative W represents the current management alternative and 

provides a baseline for evaluating other alternatives. Each alternative theme and its 

management emphasis for the recreational program provide the parameters for redefining 

the current distribution of recreational opportunities, as well as the level of facility 

development. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The distribution of ROS classes on LBL is not expected to change regardless of alternative. 

This is primarily due to two factors: road density and cemetery access. 

One of the primary components in determining ROS classifications is distance of the land 

base from roads. LBL has over 736 miles of roads on its 170,000 plus acres. Due to 

LBL’s high road density the land is predominantly classified under the Roaded Natural 

ROS setting (see Table 3.4.1C). 

In order to change the ROS setting of a piece of land on LBL, it becomes apparent that 

roads must be decommissioned. However, under section 529 of the Protection Act, the 

Forest Service must “...ensure access to cemeteries within the Recreation Area for 

purposes of burial, visitation and maintenance.” With over 228 cemeteries dispersed 

across the landscape of LBL, few roads may be available for closure. 

Under all alternatives, land areas located in the Remote-Roaded Natural, Semi-Primitive 

Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes will be managed for semiprimitive recreational experiences. Several of these areas lie within LBL Core areas and 

management direction for these areas proposes a minimally disturbed ecosystem. Roads 

within these ROS classes have been classified as primitive. Primitive roads not needed for 

cemetery or other special access may be obliterated upon project-level review. These road 

closures would expand visitor opportunities to experience solitude. 

Any change in ROS class during the planning cycle is expected to be toward a more 

primitive setting. For example, there are numerous areas on LBL where croplands fall 

within the Rural ROS class. If open lands management decisions convert the vegetative 

structure of current cropland into hay production or native grasses, those acreages would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 238 of 329 

then fall within the Roaded Natural ROS class. However, those decisions are to be made 

at the project level. 

Developed Recreation 

Proposed changes discussed in this section are considered optimum for each alternative. 

Improvements for public health, safety, and accessibility will be top priorities. Budget 

constraints will also be a determining factor in the amount of improvements that can 

reasonably be accomplished through the course of the Area Plan implementation. 

Alternatives X, Y, and Z allow for a decrease in the number of developed campgrounds. 

This overall decrease would happen through the reallocation of at least two development 

Level 2 campgrounds to day-use only in each alternative. 

Alternatives X and Y propose a moderate to high degree of change in the development 

level of some campgrounds while Alternative Z proposes an overall lower development 

level. 

Alternative X proposes improvement of an existing Level 3 campground outside of Turkey 

Bay OHV area to accommodate users of the area, making the area day-use only. This 

alternative also creates an overall higher development level of campground throughout the 

area. 

Alternative Y proposes to keep the OHV area open to camping. Opportunities for 

additional development in Turkey Bay OHV area will be considered at the project level. 

This alternative proposes fewer campgrounds overall within LBL with lesser development 

levels. Up to five Level 2 campgrounds may be decommissioned or reallocated to day-use 

under this alternative. 

Alternative Z proposes a similar change in Level 2 campgrounds as Alternative Y, but with 

more of a shift to lesser developed sites overall. 

Table 3.4.2G displays the estimated number of campgrounds and development levels under 

each alternative. For planning purposes, campgrounds are all developed areas in which 

overnight camping is allowed. 

Table 3.4.2G - Estimated Number of Campgrounds by Development Level 

Campground Level W X Y Z 

2 11 7 6 6 

3 11 8 10 13 

4 4 9 5 2 

5 3 3 3 3 

Total 29 27 24 24 

Based on information from LBL’s Point of Sale (POS) system, current overall occupancy 

rates do not justify an increase in the number of developed campsites. However, as stated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 239 of 329 

previously, demand for campsite amenities, such as electric and water hook-ups, is 

increasing. The number of these more developed site types may increase under any of the 

alternatives. However, a greater increase would be expected under Alternative X. 

Alternatives Y and Z may see an increase in site level but only if budget monies are 

available after dispersed recreation projects have been addressed. These proposed changes 

may be affected and shaped by drinking water limitations, electrical availability and 

sewage treatment capacity. Any site additions or upgrades that include water, electric or 

full hook-ups would be expected to increase the visitation of that particular campground 

over the course of the camping seasons and into the future, as well as make a return on the 

capital investment used to upgrade the site. 

Increase in visitation to LBL campgrounds could result in two situations. Additional 

overnights on LBL by campers would add to the economic benefits to the local 

communities as campers spend their travel dollars at surrounding businesses. Conversely, 

if private campgrounds’ highly developed sites are not being filled to capacity, additional 

sites at LBL may be detrimental to those particular campgrounds. 

Other developed areas in LBL provide for a wide variety of day-use and dispersed 

recreation opportunities. Table 3.4.2H illustrates the current number and estimated 

changes for developed day-use sites. 

Table 3.4.2H - Estimated Change in Numbers of Day-Use Sites by Alternative 

Day Use Developed Areas W X Y Z 

Picnic Areas 12 11 12 11 

Shooting Range 1 1 1 1 

Scenic Drives/Watchable Wildlife 3 3 4 4 

Visitor Centers 3 3 3 3 

Public Swimming Areas 1 3 3 1 

Shoreline Fishing Opportunities 11 11 11 11 

*Turkey Bay OHV Area 0 1 0 0 

Total 31 33 34 31 

* See Motorized Trails area of Dispersed Recreation Section 

Dispersed Recreation 

Hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, backpacking, swimming, and bicycling are just 

a few examples of dispersed recreational activities. Developed sites may be provided to 

assure safe and reasonable access to a dispersed opportunity. 

Alternatives X, Y and Z (see Table 3.4.2.I) all propose some increase in developed sites 

that provide access to dispersed opportunities. The increase is estimated to be between 12 

and 19 percent across the three main site types providing access to dispersed activities. 

Trail head numbers would experience the most proposed growth over all alternatives. 

Alternative X proposes some additional trail development in proximity to highly developed 

facilities. Emphasis on dispersed opportunities would result in additional recreation trails 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 240 of 329 

and the need for interpretive trails to support the Nature Watch Demonstration Areas 

proposed in Alternatives Y and Z. 

A slight increase is estimated for fishing piers in both X and Y. New docks would 

probably be constructed as part of boat ramp improvements in areas where fishing success 

would be most likely. 

No net gain in boat ramp numbers is proposed. Alternatives X and Y provide for possible 

closure of some lesser used, hard to access ramps. Likewise, areas with better access and 

potential of higher use may be targeted for boat ramp construction, particularly under 

Alternative X. 

Alternative Y would place additional emphasis on upgrading and enhancing more popular 

boat ramps and adjacent parking areas. However, Alternative Z allows for a decrease in 

the number of boat ramps on the NRA due to decreased emphasis on development. See 

Table3.4.2I for more details. 

Table 3.4.2I - Developed sites leading to dispersed opportunities 

Site type W X Y Z 

Fishing Piers 3 5 5 3 

Trail Heads 10 13 15 17 

Boat Ramps 28 28 </=28 </=28 

Total 41 46 48 48 

Alternatives that emphasize prescriptions which would provide habitat for a diversity of 

wildlife species would also increase opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing. 

Alternatives X and Y propose the development of Oak-Grassland Demonstration Areas, 

reintroduction of native warm season grasses, and timber harvest practices that promote 

habitat improvement. This management direction could potentially increase suitable 

habitat for bobwhite quail, prairie warbler, and other grassland species substantially above 

the current direction of Alternative W due to an increase in openland acreage. Likewise 

the increased amount of edge and open area would allow greater opportunities for viewing 

wildlife such as deer, turkey, and numerous types of songbirds. Also, Alternatives X and 

Y provide for additional use of timber harvest and prescribed fire which are expected to 

increase suitable habitat for demand and non-demand species of flora and fauna; thus, 

increasing recreational and educational opportunities associated with wildlife in general. 

Alternative Z proposes to decrease the management of the resources of LBL. This would 

result in a decrease in openland acreage and habitat diversity; therefore, decreasing the 

opportunity for hunting and viewing activities. The reversion of approximately 1,000 

acres of openland to early successional forest types would decrease the amount of habitat 

preferred by species which require openlands for survival; thus, decreasing the diversity of 

recreational opportunities associated with those species. Alternative Z also proposes a less 

active management of the General Forest Areas. Less active management would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 241 of 329 

expected to result in less habitat diversity and fewer types of recreational opportunities 

associated with the species of demand. 

Non-Motorized Trails 

All alternatives propose at least a slight increase in the number of non-motorized trails. 

Alternatives Y and Z propose the greatest increase in non-motorized trail opportunities, 

including single- and multi-use trails. Emphasis on new construction of loop trails would 

be on maximizing use by those seeking shorter hiking and educational experiences. 

Emphasis would also be placed on increasing mountain biking opportunities by utilizing 

multi-use trails, creating new, or opening closed sections of existing trails. 

Alternative X focuses more emphasis on developed Rec/EE facilities. However, a slight 

increase in trails is proposed in support of interpretive goals and to enhance visitor 

experiences within developed areas. 

Table 3.4.2J - Estimated increase in non-motorized trails on LBL 

Type of Non-Motorized Use W X Y Z 

Allowed ExistingMiles 

Hiking only 110.8 miles Low Mod Mod/High

Horseback Riding only 100 miles None None None

Mountain Biking/ Hiking 54 miles None Mod Mod

Paved Bicycle/ Hiking 2.2 miles None None None

None = No change 

Low = 3-7 percent increase 

Moderate = 8-12 percent increase 

High = 13-20 percent increase 

Motorized Trails 

Turkey Bay OHV Area is the only portion of LBL that allows unlicensed off-road vehicle 

riding. None of the proposed alternatives recommends the expansion of Turkey Bay or 

OHV use outside of its boundaries. All alternatives do, however, make rider education 

about resource sustainability a priority. 

Riding in the OHV area will be done on designated routes in all alternatives. Turkey Bay 

has traditionally been an open riding area, but resource sustainability issues, coupled with 

the growing number of riders, has made it apparent that this open riding is no longer 

appropriate for the area. Alternatives X and Y further provide for policy changes and/or 

the closure and rehabilitation of trails or areas that prove to be unacceptably impacted. 

Furthermore, use of certain types of vehicles may be prohibited in areas where monitoring 

proves they are extremely detrimental to the resources of the area. 

Alternative X proposes that Turkey Bay OHV area be re-allocated to a ‘day-use’ only 

facility. Camping in the area would be prohibited. The alternative also proposes that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 242 of 329 

either an existing campground be improved to accommodate displaced overnight users, or 

a new campground be developed outside the Turkey Bay area boundaries. This proposal 

would be expected to provide increased riding opportunity in the OHV area during periods 

of high water when flooding limits the number of camping spots available for use. It is 

also expected to improve safety and decrease user conflicts by eliminating the crowded 

situations which occur in the camping areas during times of peak visitation. Increased 

visitation at other campgrounds would also be anticipated. Transportation of riding 

equipment from an outside campsite to the OHV area could be troublesome for some users 

once they have set up a campsite. This problem would be taken into account through 

improvements to day-use facilities at Turkey Bay. 

Alternative Y would propose that the Turkey Bay OHV area remain open to camping. 

Development of more improved camping opportunities than currently exists is possible. 

However, analysis of the appropriateness, type and size of camping development, inside or 

outside the area, is beyond the scope of this plan. Designated sites, within the area, would 

be expected to improve safety and reduce visitor conflicts. 

Alternative Z is the most restrictive of the alternatives proposed. It would allow for ATV 

and motorcycle use only. Larger 4WD vehicles and motorized buggies would be 

prohibited. Camping would remain as is currently allowed. Implementation of this 

alternative would be expected to decrease riding opportunities for larger 4WD vehicles, but 

increase safety by eliminating conflicts between large and small vehicles. 

All alternatives recognize the need to reduce the amount of impact OHV use has on the 

environment. Through collaboration with resource managers and user groups in educating 

the riding public and rehabilitating damaged areas, all alternatives seek to accomplish 

sustainability. Further analysis of past and anticipated future impacts by alternative are 

located in the Soils, Air and Water Section of this EIS. 

3.4.3 Environmental Education 

Affected Environment 

Environmental education at LBL is an integrated program targeted at helping individuals 

become aware of their relationship with the natural, physical, and cultural resources of the 

area while supporting stewardship of these resources through action. LBL’s 

Environmental Education program strives to provide the most effective methods for getting 

these messages to visitors. The two primary delivery methods utilized to reach visitors of 

varying interests are facility-based and non-facility-based. Similar to developed and 

dispersed recreation, these methods are not exclusive of one another but are integrated into 

the whole of the educational program. Each delivery type is discussed in more detail on 

the following pages. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 243 of 329 

Facility-Based Environmental Education 

Facility-based EE refers to those educational programs, activities, and messages presented 

at the highly-developed educational facilities. These facilities are staffed by EE personnel 

during set operating hours and offer a range of educational delivery methods. They 

accommodate both formal organized groups (schools and scout troops, for example) and 

informal recreational visitors (families and individuals). 

Developed facilities offer specific locations at which visitors may receive educational and 

recreational information in a structured setting. Highly trained staff can: 1) provide a level 

of knowledge about LBL’s resources which may not be communicated as thoroughly or 

holistically through the non-facility-based segment of the overall EE program; 2) facilitate 

personal interactions by visitors with the resources; and 3) illustrate and provide examples, 

ideas, demonstrations and behaviors that can be utilized and practiced when visitors return 

home. A variety of facility types and diversity of program themes strive to appeal to the 

varying interests of LBL’s users while providing a comprehensive picture of the overall 

resource story. Opportunities to interact with staff at the facilities seek to strengthen 

novice visitors’ curiosity and energize the more initiated outdoor enthusiasts’ interests. 

One-on-one interactions also increase the potential for motivating visitors to take personal 

actions with regard to resource stewardship. 

There are six EE facilities on LBL. Four of the six facilities are currently in operation. 

Empire Farm and Youth Station have been out of operation since 1994. Developed 

facilities currently serve as the cornerstone of the overall EE program. Their high visibility 

and easy access to knowledgeable staff often make them popular catalysts for self-guided 

activities among visitors. Personnel at these facilities also become the developers and 

suppliers of non-facility-based programs in LBL. 

Three of these facilities offer day-use experiences for those visitors seeking to learn about 

the natural and cultural history of the area. 

The Golden Pond Visitor Center and Planetarium offers a variety of astronomy-based 

programs in its 81-seat domed auditorium. Visitors are also taken on a virtual tour of the 

night sky with the help of a computerized star machine. Another popular attraction at the 

visitor center is a historical timeline of LBL from prehistoric human occupation to present. 

An on-site observatory also provides opportunities for special night time programs. 

The Homeplace – A Living History Farm (Homeplace) offers visitors the opportunity to 

experience the lifestyles and customs of life between the Cumberland and Tennessee 

Rivers during the 1850s. A setting of farm animals, antique furnishings, historic log 

buildings, and traditional activities re-creates the life of a mid-19th century farm family. 

Interpreters, attired in period clothing, demonstrate agricultural and domestic skills, and 

social life and customs of the men, women, and children of the time. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 244 of 329 

Woodlands Nature Station communicates the relationship between people and the natural 

environment. Interpretive staff assist visitors in discovering the interconnectedness of 

humans and nature. A variety of activities featuring live animal and plant exhibits, handson discovery programs, and hiking trails are focal points of the experience. 

The wide variety of daily activities and programs at these sites is bolstered by a number of 

special events and programs held throughout the year. Special events may be held at the 

facility, such as the ‘Hummingbird Festival’ at the Nature Station or ‘Harvest Celebration’ 

at the Homeplace. Varieties of special staff-led programs originate at a facility and then go 

to more remote locations for activities. For example, eagle viewing tours on LBL are 

conducted by Woodlands Nature Station Staff. 

Brandon Spring Group Center is the only educational facility at LBL to offer overnight 

accommodations. Brandon Spring caters to organized groups, making multiple-day visits 

possible to those seeking a broad range of educational and recreational experiences on and 

off site. 

The level of development for these facilities is high. Day-use facilities offer visitors a high 

level of comfort with paved parking areas, accessible indoor and outdoor exhibits, 

restrooms and well maintained trails and grounds. Brandon Spring has dormitory style 

lodging, full service cafeteria, meeting rooms, and other amenities conducive to a 

‘developed camp’ experience. 

Most of LBL’s current infrastructure was built during the late 1960s and 1970s, and some 

facilities are at the end of their design life. The educational facilities offer very specific 

maintenance challenges with historic log structures, animal housing/enclosures, overnight 

accommodations, kitchen facilities, and other high-use buildings being part of the 

maintenance equation. Recent efforts have focused on reducing maintenance backlogs 

through the updating of heavily visited sites, primarily with safety and operational 

efficiencies in mind. Educational facilities will continue to require fairly large 

maintenance budgets to keep them up-to-date and safe for visitor use. 

Overall visitation to the developed EE facilities has experienced a decline during the past 

nine years. A sharp drop was seen for fiscal year 2000 during the management transition 

from TVA to the Forest Service. This particular decline may be attributed mainly to 

uncertainty on the part of the recreating public and formal educational groups about the 

future of the EE facilities. During the four years following the transition there has 

continued to be variation in visitation numbers. Visitation by school groups has been of 

particular concern with continued decline, despite program efforts to assist classes in 

meeting state educational objectives. Possible reasons for this trend may include higher 

costs of transportation, lower education budgets, greater focus on standardized test 

performance, and weather-related cancellations at key visitation periods. Appendix B.4 

contains visitation charts for Rec/EE programs. 

Some available data infers that recreational participation in facility-based learning 

activities is on the rise. Comparisons by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant of the National 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 245 of 329 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) for 1995 and 2000 show upward 

trends in visitation to nature centers and historic sites (Wear, 2002). The same report 

places visiting nature centers as the third most popular recreational activity in the south 

with 53.69 percent of the population participating. Visiting historic sites is eighth in the 

participation rating at 43.83 percent (Wear, 2002). 

Information from LBL’s 1998 Visitor Profile Study indicates that approximately 47 

percent of recreational visitors participate in an educational activity while at LBL. These 

activities include visits to the Planetarium, Homeplace and Nature Station. Table 3.4.3A

offers a comparison of visitation averages based on totals for the years 1995 to 2003 and 

2000 to 2003 by facility type. This offers a quick snapshot of the visitation trends facility 

managers must use to make management and budgetary decisions. 

Table 3.4.3A - Visitation Comparisons of EE Facilities 

Facility Facility Type 

1995-2003 

Average 

2000-2003 

Average 

The Woodlands Nature Station Day-Use 45,248 42,786 

The Homeplace Day-Use 50,642 45,259 

Golden Pond Planetarium Day-Use 26,137 24,477 

Brandon Spring Overnight 19,958 18,899 

Total 141,985 131,421 

Non-Facility Based Environmental Education 

Non-facility based environmental education opportunities are characterized by methods of 

delivering targeted educational messages to visitors in settings away from a designated EE 

facility. Interpretive signs, trails, and printed materials are part of this opportunity when 

not associated with an EE facility. Also, when Forest Service personnel, volunteers, or 

other LBL personnel lead educational programs, in remote locations or developed 

campgrounds, it is considered to be non-facility-based EE. This type of educational 

experience tends to be utilized more by the informal recreational user than by formal 

educational groups. 

This segment of the larger EE program strives to serve as a catalyst to spark awareness of 

natural resources and an understanding of resource issues in the casual user of LBL’s 

recreational opportunities. It is also an extension of the facility-based programs in that it 

often serves to connect the educational messages presented at the facilities with various 

management and resource activities being undertaken on LBL. This increases the number 

of opportunities for visitors to learn about the natural and cultural history of the area 

through experiencing it first hand. Use of publications, media stories, signage and printed 

materials are other outlets that can support self discovery. 

Non-facility based learning may take place at an area that has received some level of 

development such as the Elk & Bison Prairie, an iron furnace site, or trailhead. These sites 

would usually be described as being similar to a Level 2 recreation site, with development 

primarily designed for the protection of the site rather than the comfort of the visitor. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 246 of 329 

Since these sites are not normally staffed and the basic delivery method of educational 

messages differs from the highly developed EE facilities, they are considered non-facilitybased. 

Table 3.4.3B - Developed access points for Non-Facility-Based EE 

Type of Developed Sites Total Number of Sites Total Capacity (PAOT) 

Interpretive Trailheads 2 135 

Iron Furnace Sites 2 150 

Elk & Bison Prairie Stops 3 185 

South Bison Range 1 185 

Total 8 655 

In addition to the more obvious sites previously mentioned, non-facility-based educational 

opportunities exist in many forms and locations. Settings range from the most highlydeveloped campgrounds to the most remote area of the property. Methods of delivery 

may be scheduled staff-led tours and programs or roadside exhibits and interpretive 

signage. 

A comparison of four non-facility-based interpretive programs at LBL should help 

illustrate the diversity of the overall program. 

1) Jr. Forest Ranger: This self-directed program is designed for children 5-12 years 

of age. An activities booklet is provided to assist in exploring LBL and learning 

more about the water, woods, wildlife and history of the area. The age-appropriate 

activities may be completed on or off LBL. Upon completion of the activities, the 

child receives recognition for his/her achievement by receiving a Junior Forest 

Ranger patch. 

2) Passport In Time (PIT) project: Volunteers for these projects participate in an 

actual archeological dig under the supervision of a Forest Service archeologist. 

This activity is performed at specific locations over a designated period of time. A 

PIT project has been completed at the site of Center Furnace site in 2003 and 2004. 

3) Respect the Resource: This informational program is designed to educate visitors 

on the impacts individual actions can have on the environment. A variety of 

delivery methods may be used, including signs, brochures, or short interpretive 

talks. Messages may be found on trails, at visitor centers, back country areas, or 

anywhere else visitor use may be concentrated. As projects are designed and 

planned, considerations are given to the need for educational messages and the best 

method of delivering those messages. 

4) Campground interpretive programs: These activities are held at the more highly 

developed campgrounds. They are led by LBL interpretive staff or other resource 

professionals and are targeted at teaching campers about the natural and cultural 

resources in the area and where they can learn more about those resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 247 of 329 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The management of the EE program at LBL can affect the opportunities to participate in 

types of learning activities in several ways. Facilities may be expanded, upgraded or 

developed, and scenic areas and trails may be maintained or expanded with interpretive 

objectives in mind. Programs may be expanded, or developed to meet resource protection 

needs, enhance visitor experiences, or teach school-aged children about the world in which 

we live. Educating the public about the natural and cultural resources of LBL and the 

nation is the main goal of any EE program. The key difference in the alternatives is in how 

this goal is achieved. 

All alternatives present differing proposals for the direction of environmental education at 

LBL. None of the alternatives proposes a net decrease in the EE program but each 

presents a slightly different emphasis of delivery methods. Alternative W represents the 

current management alternative and provides a baseline for evaluating other alternatives. 

Each alternative theme and its proposed emphasis for the educational program provide the 

parameters for redefining the current delivery focus of educational opportunities at LBL. 

The differences between alternatives are primarily based on which area of the EE program 

will be given priority in the determination of where limited program dollars will be spent. 

The main consideration in the selection of the EE program is the alternative that provides 

the optimum mix of educational delivery methods and opportunities to effectively educate

visitors to LBL. Table 3.4.3C provides an overview of the types of educational 

opportunities emphasized by alternative. 

Table 3.4.3C - Educational Program Emphasis by Alternative 

 W X Y Z 

Facility Based 

EE 

No Change Increase No Change No Change/ 

Slight Decrease

Non-Facility 

Based EE 

No Change No Change Increase Increase 

Facility-Based Environmental Education 

Alternative X is the only alternative which proposes more facility-based education than 

currently exists on LBL. It provides for added emphasis on programs and upgrades at 

current facilities. Development of additional EE facilities or opening closed facilities is 

possible under this alternative, but only after a project level market analysis proves the 

demand and viability of such a venture. Increased overnight capacity for organized groups 

would be possible under this alternative. This alternative also places additional emphasis 

on creating a greater diversity of programming opportunities at developed facilities. 

Opportunities for formal user group type (schools, scouts, tours, etc.) would increase since 

these types of groups tend to desire a well-organized, staff-led type of experience. This 

increase in opportunities may, or may not, lead to increased visitation, depending upon 

factors already mentioned in the visitation discussion of the EE Affected Environment 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 248 of 329 

section. The number of non-formal visitors (families, individuals, etc.) is expected to 

increase slightly due to additional opportunities provided. 

One example of a possible new development is from comments received through public 

scoping. The comment suggested the development of an interpretive center at the Fort 

Henry site. This type of development may focus more attention on LBL with the growing 

number of individuals visiting Civil War sites. However, additional facilities equate to 

higher levels of operation. The ability to maintain a facility and its operations under 

increasing budgetary constraints would be an important factor in the determination of new 

development. 

Alternatives Y and Z place less emphasis on facility-based programs than does Alternative 

X. Neither alternative proposes closure of facilities but allows for potential upgrades in 

order to provide additional educational opportunities and services for visitors, which is 

similar to Alternative W. 

Alternative Y proposes to increase the emphasis of the non-facility-based programs to the 

level of emphasis placed on facility-based programs as currently exists under Alternative 

W. This alternative proposes no change in the current emphasis of the facility-based 

program, thus creating a more balanced emphasis between the two delivery methods of the 

overall EE program. A higher level of maintenance and potential upgrades at developed 

EE facilities would be more likely under Alternative Y than Alternative Z. Also proposed 

under Alternatives Y and Z is the decommissioning of the closed EE facilities, the Youth 

Station and Empire Farm. Overall staffing levels would be expected to remain somewhat 

stable. However, budgetary constraints and increased emphasis on non-facility-based 

programs may require additional facility staff time in development and implementation of 

those programs. Formal organized group visitation would be expected to remain 

somewhat stable under this alternative due to dependence on staff-led programs. Informal 

visitor use to facilities may increase due to the proposed creation of two Nature Watch 

Demonstration Areas (see Non-Facility-Based section). These areas would foreseeably 

encourage visitors to seek more information about their experiences, and the facility staff 

would be naturally sought out. 

A slight increase in visitation may be expected in Alternative Z due to proposed reduction 

or elimination of fees to EE facilities. However, reduction of revenue from all sources of 

fees in LBL is also proposed in this alternative making it difficult to anticipate effects. 

One possible effect may be that fewer budget dollars would be available to facilities due to 

added emphasis on non-facility-based programs. Over time, this may likely result in a 

decrease in visitor satisfaction at developed facilities due to less interaction with 

knowledgeable staff and possible maintenance backlogs from decreased budget 

availability. This would be expected to negatively affect formal groups and recreational 

users alike. This decrease may be offset to some degree at Woodlands Nature Station by 

the interest produced in the Nature Watch Demonstration areas. Staff reduction at facilities 

would possibly result in reduction of special events offered; therefore, a further decrease in 

visitation may be expected. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 249 of 329 

Visitors have indicated their desire for quality staff-led programs in a visually pleasing, 

well-maintained setting. This has proven especially true of school groups. The 

alternatives propose varying degrees of emphasis for educational facility programs and 

management. It is difficult to speculate on how these changes may affect other public and 

private educational sites within LBL and outside of LBL. If, under Alternatives W and X 

facility based programs increase and the demands for those types of programs are 

favorable, visitation at outside sites may be negatively affected. However, if additional 

visitors are drawn to LBL to participate in the EE program, they may also visit those sites 

in the immediate vicinity. Likewise, under Alternatives Y and Z, facility-based programs 

may or may not increase depending upon budgetary constraints. If EE facilities offer less 

programming and fewer staff, sites outside of LBL may see an increase in visitation if they 

provide services not offered at LBL, but overall visitation to the region is likely to drop as 

a whole. 

Non-Facility-Based Environmental Education 

In Alternative W emphasis on Non-Facility Based programs (delivery of EE programs, 

activities, and opportunities not directly associated with a designated EE facility) remains 

the same as current direction. 

Alternative X does not propose to eliminate any current non-facility-based programs but 

this type of EE delivery system would play a secondary role to the developed facilities. 

This alternative is the same as Alternative W for non-facility-based EE. Educational 

projects currently being offered such as Junior Forest Ranger and Respect the Resource 

would not be affected, and an increase in these types of programs may be allowed if 

budgets permit. The priority for time and money would, however, be toward the 

developed EE facilities. 

Alternative X would also propose eliminating the boundary of the current Environmental 

Education Area (EEA) in the vicinity of Woodlands Nature Station. This area was 

originally designated to be a showcase area for environmental education and proper land 

management techniques. The EEA as it exists under Alternative W has lost most of this 

emphasis over time for numerous reasons. This alternative proposal is aimed at 

emphasizing the role of EE throughout LBL instead of focusing on just one area. The 

portion of the Core Area currently within the EEA would retain its limited hunting status 

under this alternative. All other land area would be included in the General Forest 

management prescription. 

Alternatives Y and Z would place greater emphasis on the non-facility-based programs 

than currently exists under Alternative W. The main difference between the two is the 

level of emphasis. Alternative Y seeks to create more balance in educational opportunities 

between facility and non-facility-based programs. Alternative Z would place greater 

emphasis on non-facility-based experiences. 

Under both Alternatives Y and Z, existing programs, such as the campground interpretive 

programs and Junior Forest Ranger Program, may be targeted and funded for expansion. 

Through this expansion, more diversified opportunities for visitors to learn about LBL’s 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 250 of 329 

resources would be expected. Through expansion of this segment of the overall EE 

program, visitors to popular recreation sites may be targeted for delivery of educational 

activities or messages not currently in place. For example, the Respect the Resource 

program is already under way within the Turkey Bay OHV area. Messages are directed 

toward responsible riding practices and why this is important for protection of the 

resources. Expansion of educational messages to other areas of high use would result in 

greater numbers of visitors receiving educational messages. 

Numbers vary by surveys, but there is no disputing that nature viewing is a popular and 

growing activity for visitors to public lands and to LBL. According to data gathered in the 

2003 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), over 50 percent of the 

US population enjoys driving for pleasure through natural scenery. Likewise, 31 percent 

participates in bird watching, 44 percent in viewing other wildlife and 43 percent in 

viewing wildflowers and natural vegetation. The 1998 Visitor Profile Survey conducted at 

LBL reports that 55 percent of those surveyed participated in wildlife viewing/study and 

53 percent participated in scenic driving. 

The popularity of these activities can be utilized as an avenue for delivering environmental 

education. It has been suggested that land managers should be most concerned with 

“attracting the disengaged to the outdoors” (Eubanks, 2002). Historically, hunting and 

fishing were avenues for engaging Americans with the out-of-doors. As hunting 

recruitment declines in most states, an effective way of engaging more Americans with the 

outdoors is nature-viewing activities. This engagement of people with nature may be 

essential to ensure the long-term viability of public lands and resources. 

Alternatives Y and Z respond to the growing participation in nature-viewing activities by 

proposing the creation of management prescription areas that emphasize nature-viewing 

activities. These Nature Watch Demonstration Areas are actual management prescriptions 

and are located within the current EEA in the north and the no-hunting area across from 

South Welcome Station in the south (see prescription map in Appendix I for exact 

locations). These areas would offer visitors the opportunity to have a closer, more intimate 

experience with the natural world. Features of the areas may include improved roads, road 

pullouts, viewing platforms and towers, interpretive trails, interpretive panels, signs, and 

brochures. They would strive to meet the needs of the ‘curious’ nature viewer of limited 

experience as well as those that have slightly more experience and seek these types of 

opportunities as recreational choices. These areas would provide a focus for the delivery 

of environmental education activities, programs, themes, and messages. 

Due to the uniqueness of these areas, a little more explanation is in order. The following 

paragraphs offer a more descriptive narrative of the philosophy behind the creation of the 

Nature Watch Areas. 

Not all participants or potential participants in nature-viewing activities have the same 

desires and skill levels for pursuing their activities. The ‘viewer’ may be divided into 

three categories: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 251 of 329 

• Curious: These are visitors who take advantage of viewing opportunities as they 

arise. However, they do not typically make special plans to engage in viewing 

activities. 

• Aspiring: These people are more confident than the curious. Nature viewing 

activities are important recreational pursuits as shown by their willingness to seek 

out opportunities. 

• Hooked: Nature viewing is a major part of these individuals’ lives. They may 

make trips focused entirely on viewing nature and will spend considerable time and 

money pursuing their desires. 

Recognizing the differences among these types of nature viewers provides critical direction 

for developing the delivery framework for EE in the Nature Watch Areas. “Engaging the 

disengaged” can be accomplished through well-designed, accessible features that permit 

visitors a closer, more intimate experience with the natural world. Since the target 

audience is the “curious” and “aspiring” nature viewer, providing some obvious 

opportunities that require little knowledge, previous experience, or effort is very important. 

Results from an unpublished 1992 TVA survey, as reported in TVA’s 1994 Plan, identify 

the most popular species for wildlife viewing at LBL (NRMP, 1994). In order, the species 

determined to be very or extremely important were: 

1) bald eagle 

2) deer 

3) songbirds and waterfowl 

4) shorebirds 

5) turkey 

These demand species can be utilized to connect the visitor to the surroundings and 

motivate the visitor to want more – more viewing experiences, more information, more 

learning. This connection is then augmented with education through a variety of 

techniques such as: interpretive panels, signs, displays, “how-to” demonstrations, 

brochures, staff-led programs, interpretive trails, information sheets, etc. 

The Nature Watch Demonstration Areas are a means to an end. The goal is to use the 

activity of nature viewing to deliver environmental education while providing 

opportunities to move visitors through an educational process: 

• Awareness and appreciation of LBL’s natural and cultural histories and resources; 

• Knowledge and understanding of basic ecological concepts, interdependencies, and 

interrelationships; 

• Development of skills and abilities to problem solve and to make informed 

decisions (analysis and synthesis); 

• Motivation to take personal actions that support stewardship of LBL’s resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 252 of 329 

To further illustrate the connection that must be made between nature viewing and 

environmental education, consider this as an example: 

Imagine the Elk & Bison Prairie (EBP) with only two signs at the entrance: 1) A 

sign identifying the area as the Elk & Bison Prairie, and 2) a sign explaining how to 

purchase a token and gain entry into the Prairie. No other signs are found at the 

entrance, as well as no brochures, no information sheets, no Bugle Corps 

volunteers, no staff-led programs/tours, and no interpretive stops/displays in the 

Prairie. 

A visitor who enters may still have an enjoyable and memorable experience 

viewing buffalo and elk, but what learning/education has occurred? Will the visitor 

know that the EBP is a re-created (and a continuing restoration project) oakgrassland with native vegetation, that elk and bison were once common species in 

this area, what an elk bugle sounds like, or that it’s possible to volunteer to monitor 

the EBP and its visitors? 

A visit to the EBP is a blended recreational and educational opportunity because the 

wildlife viewing activity is supplemented and enhanced with a variety of interpretive 

methods and techniques. The ‘hook’ (up-close viewable wildlife) is available because the 

animals are maintained at relatively high densities, are confined within a square mile, are 

easily accessible by road, and are not hunted. Education is provided as described above 

through intensified management of resources and visitors. 

The Nature Watch Demonstration Areas and the EBP are different than the viewing 

opportunities that are available throughout LBL. General viewing of wildlife does not 

necessarily translate into education, particularly when you are attempting to initiate the 

‘curious’ visitor. It is more suited for the ‘aspiring’ or ‘hooked’ visitor. 

In order to enhance the viewing opportunities of the Nature Watch Demonstration Areas 

some management changes will be required within their boundaries under Alternatives Y 

and Z. Compared to Alternative W, three recreational opportunities are affected under 

Alternatives Y and Z: hunting, wildlife viewing, and backcountry camping. Limited or 

reduced hunting would be considered on an annual basis depending on habitat degradation 

due to species density and wildlife management objectives. As discussed previously, 

national trends indicate a high demand for nature-viewing activities. These demonstration 

areas have a high potential to increase opportunities for delivery of EE. For example, if 

only 10 percent of LBL’s approximately 2 million visitors go to the Nature Watch 

Demonstration Areas, the potential exists to reach 200,000 individuals and deliver an 

education theme, concept, or message. 

The main difference between Alternatives Y and Z is boundary locations for the northern 

Nature Watch Demonstration Area. Based on public input and LBL staff discussions, 

Alternative Y has been somewhat modified from the draft to reflect increased opportunities 

for viewing, utilizing existing infrastructure, incorporating additional habitat types, and 

addressing concerns about hunting animals that may become tolerant of human presence. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 253 of 329 

Under Alternative Y, the current EEA is expanded to include an area of approximately 

1200 acres bordered by Energy Lake Road to the west and the Energy Lake Dam and Lake 

Barkley shoreline to the south. In addition, this area is also divided into two sections, 

using old roads into Barnes Hollow from Silver Trail and Mulberry Flat Road to form a 

section boundary west of Hematite Lake. Alternative Z proposes an additional boundary 

expansion to include an area of approximately 1350 acres bordered by Silver Trail Road to 

the south, Road 310 to the west, Road 131 to the north and Road 312 to the east. 

Under the expanded area of Alternative Y, the northern area is divided into two sections 

and managed for different types of nature-viewing experiences (see map): 

1) The eastern section will take advantage of existing infrastructure, habitat diversity, 

and proximity to Lake Barkley to provide viewing opportunities mostly along 

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 trails. Structures associated with these 

former environmental education sites may be incorporated into the area’s 

opportunities and settings, while others may be removed from the setting. In later 

stages of the planning cycle, consideration may be given to 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. 

2) 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 selfdirected viewing experiences. While hunting pressure is also reduced in this area to 

facilitate nature viewing, wildlife and recreation management objectives may allow 

for additional hunting opportunities in this section including additional youth 

hunting, quota bow hunting, or opportunities for physically challenged hunters. 

Woodlands Nature Station plays an important role as a “hub” or center for nature viewing 

and other recreational activities in the northern Nature Watch Demonstration Area. It 

serves as the primary information source for the season’s nature viewing opportunities, 

provides staff-led programs and activities in the area, and facilitates opportunities for 

school groups and other organized groups. 

Project implementation under Alternative Z would focus along Silver Trail and in Barnes 

Hollow. Nature-viewing opportunities could be facilitated to provide two different types 

of experiences: from a paved, well maintained road, and a more rustic, solitary experience 

gained either by hiking or by unpaved road. 

As mentioned previously, there are effects to hunting and backcountry opportunities under 

Alternatives Y and Z for the northern area. Under Alternative Y, there would be a 

decrease of hunting opportunity in the extended area from approximately 226-228 days of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 254 of 329 

hunting opportunity to 2-4 days of hunting opportunity. Also in the extended area, no 

waterfowl hunting would be allowed from the shore, although waterfowl hunters would 

still be able to access hunting blinds located offshore. Additionally, open backcountry 

camping would be restricted, but some specialized camping opportunities may be 

considered in the extended area. The extended area also provides some additional 

protection for the fallow deer in the area. On the other hand, hunting opportunity may 

increase in the west section (Barnes Hollow) area. Additional youth hunts, quota bow 

hunts, or opportunities for handicapped/challenged hunters might be offered. Decisions 

regarding hunting in these areas will be made annually and are dependent on habitat 

conditions, wildlife management and recreation management objectives. 

The rationale behind the extended area in Alternative Z is to provide a buffer of reduced 

hunting activity to facilitate increased viewing of demand species, such as deer and turkey, 

and to provide some protection to individuals that have become somewhat tolerant of 

human presence. This decreases the hunting opportunity in the extended area from 

approximately 226-228 days of hunting opportunity annually to 2-4 days of hunting 

opportunity. 

In both Alternatives Y and Z, the currently designated “no hunting area” across from the 

South Welcome Station in the Tennessee portion of LBL would become a Nature Watch 

Demonstration Area. In contrast to the northern area, the southern area does not currently 

contain extensive infrastructure. Fort Henry Road forms its northern border, The Trace 

borders the east with LBL’s southern boundary serving as the border in that direction. The 

area contains portions of the Fort Henry trail system with Telegraph, Peytona and The Fort 

Henry N/S connector serving as boundaries to the west. Emphasis for nature viewing 

activities will center mostly on vegetation such as wildflowers, especially in proximity to 

Bear Creek. Instead of accessing viewing opportunities along roads, visitors would 

experience most opportunities by walking or hiking. South Welcome Station would serve 

as the key facility for providing information about seasonal viewing opportunities, 

activities, and programs. Bow hunting has been allowed in this area for approximately six 

weeks each year. This hunting opportunity would probably be decreased to about 2-10 

days of hunting opportunity, dependent on habitat conditions, wildlife management and 

recreation management objectives. Loss of dispersed camping opportunity is expected to 

be minimal due to the lack of satisfactory campsites in the area. 

Visitation to the Nature Watch Demonstration Areas would be expected to increase under 

both Alternatives Y and Z with a greater increase under Alternative Y. The use of existing 

roads, once popular visitor destination areas (the Empire Farm and Youth Station sites), 

and lake vistas is expected to be a popular draw. Repeat visitation is expected to be high 

with changing seasonal viewing and activities. Alternative Z would not expect to have the 

same high increase due to presence of fewer habitat types along Silver Trail and access 

challenges to Barnes Hollow. Visitation to Woodlands Nature Station could be expected 

to increase, with a larger increase under Alternative Y due to its being more centrally 

located to the viewing opportunities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 255 of 329 

Under both Alternatives Y and Z, an opportunity is created to contrast the viewing 

opportunities and successes between an area with mostly roaded access in the North and an 

area with mostly trail access in the South. 

Development of the Nature Watch areas would require more intensive management of 

some of the natural resources. Roads would have to be improved and pull-offs 

constructed. Trail heads, and in some cases trails, would need to be built. Interpretive 

signs and displays may be part of the infrastructure. Vegetative management would be 

intensified in order to create viewing areas, meet habitat requirements and enhance 

ecological diversity. All these changes would create short and long term effects that would 

prove positive for the majority of visitors to the areas. 

Initially, there is a fairly large budgetary investment in developing the infrastructure 

necessary for the Nature Watch Demonstration Areas. This is less true for the proposed 

northern area than the southern area, because roads and trails already exist in potential key 

viewing areas. Although there are some maintenance costs associated with the necessary 

infrastructure for a successful viewing area, the costs do not approach the budget needed to 

maintain and staff a facility. The proposed demonstration areas have high potential to 

reach increasing numbers of visitors which ultimately also affects the local and regional 

economies. 

3.4.4 Wilderness and Roadless 

Wilderness 

Congressionally-designated wilderness areas are protected by law and valued for their 

ecological, historical, scientific and experiential resources. This designation can be 

considered the most protective of management areas, since only another act of Congress 

can change a wilderness area’s status. Wilderness areas are generally managed to maintain 

the area’s natural characteristics. 

Natural processes such as insect outbreaks or diseases are allowed to operate as freely as 

possible and human-made intrusions are very restricted. Only under emergency conditions 

and with appropriate approvals can mechanical equipment and motorized transport be 

allowed for the control of fire that threatens life, property, or the wilderness resource. 

Areas that are designated Wilderness are managed for a Primitive (P) recreation 

opportunity; however, most forests in the Southern Region do not have lands that meet the 

actual Primitive ROS criteria. Further management guidelines are set forth in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Currently, LBL has no designated wilderness or wilderness study areas. 

Roadless 

Roadless areas are places that have retained or are regaining a natural, untrammeled 

appearance. Any signs of prior human activity are disappearing or being muted by natural 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 256 of 329 

forces. However, the criteria for the Eastern US do provide for an individual roadless area 

to include no more than one-half mile of improved road for each 1,000 acres. 

“The first step in the evaluation of potential wilderness is to identify and inventory all 

roadless, undeveloped areas that satisfy the definition of wilderness found in Section 2 (c) 

of the 1964 Wilderness Act” (FSH 1909.12, Chap. 7, Section 7.1). This step is 

accomplished as a part of the forest planning process. An initial screen for roadless 

inventory was completed on LBL in 2003. Twelve areas were identified as possibly 

meeting the roadless inventory criteria. Further analysis identified that only five areas, 

totaling approximately 11,490 acres, met the initial roadless criteria of having no more 

than one-half mile of improved road per 1000 acres (Schaefer, 2003). 

Of these five areas, only the Devil’s Backbone Central area offers a Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM) recreation opportunity. All remaining areas are located within the 

Roaded Natural (RN) ROS class and therefore do not meet the criteria that the area is 

“conducive to the perpetuation of wilderness values” (FSH 1909.12, Chap. 7, Sec 7.11b, 

criteria 4). See Appendix C for a more in depth discussion of the results of this analysis. 

The ‘Devil’s Backbone Central’ area is approximately 5300 acres in size. In accordance 

with FSH 1090.12 Chap. 7, Sec 7.11b, the Devil’s Backbone Central area was then 

considered against the remaining roadless inventory criteria. The roadless inventory 

criteria are: 

• The land is regaining a natural, untrammeled appearance; 

• Improvements existing in the area are being affected by the forces of nature rather 

than humans and are disappearing or muted; 

• The area has existing or attainable National Forest System ownership pattern, both 

surface and subsurface, that could ensure perpetuation of identified wilderness; 

• The location of the area is conducive to the perpetuation of wilderness values; 

• The area contains no more than one-half mile of improved road for each 1,000 

acres; 

• No more than 15 percent of the area is in non-native, planted vegetation; 

• Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested within the past 10 years; 

• The area contains only a few dwellings on private lands and the location of these 

dwellings and their access needs insulate their effects on the natural conditions of 

Federal lands. 

In brief, the analysis of the Devil’s Backbone area indicates that this area does not meet the 

criteria for inclusion in the roadless area inventory. The main factors in reaching this 

conclusion include high density of trails with intensive maintenance practices; degree of 

entrenchment of historical road beds; other extensive evidence of past habitation and land 

uses; and frequency of low-level military air flights over the area. These and other factors 

contrast with the values of a wilderness experience. For a full discussion of how the 

Devil’s Backbone Central area addresses the roadless inventory criteria, see Appendix C. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 257 of 329 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service issued the Final Rule for Roadless Area 

Conservation in the Federal Register. Since that time, numerous legal challenges have 

been made to this decision, including a ruling on July 14, 2003 from the United States 

District Court, Wyoming District, where Judge Clarence Brimmer found the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule to be in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the 

Wilderness Act and enjoined its implementation. However, this issue is not settled. 

Appeals of the Wyoming District Court decision, other litigation, new rulemaking, or new 

FSM directives could result in a change in direction for inventoried roadless areas. 

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) would place restrictions on the road 

construction and reconstruction activities; and the timber cutting, sale, or removal activities 

that could occur in inventoried roadless areas. 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 identify the 

exceptions where road construction/reconstruction activities and timber cutting/removal 

activities would be allowed. 

The 2001 FEIS to the RACR, however, did not identify any applicable lands in the Land 

Between the Lakes NRA, and this FEIS (to the LRMP) does not identify any lands that 

meet the roadless area inventory criteria. Therefore, should the 2001 RACR go into effect, 

it would not be applicable to any lands within LBL. 

Alternatives 

Since there are no acres that meet the criteria to be identified as “inventoried roadless 

areas,” there were no acres to be evaluated further for possible wilderness 

recommendations. However, both Alternatives X and Y do allow for other areas within 

LBL to be managed in such a way as to provide the most primitive recreation experience 

possible. Larger areas within the ‘General Forest Lands’ sub-allocation of ‘Core’ along 

with areas classified as Semi-Primitive and Remote Roaded Natural (RRN) in the ROS 

will be managed to provide for semi-primitive recreational experiences. These areas 

involve approximately 60,574 acres total spread across LBL. 

Alternative Z initially called for including wilderness recommendations if any qualified 

roadless areas were identified. However, since there are no acres that meet the roadless 

inventory criteria, there will be no wilderness recommendations in this alternative. Like 

Alternatives X and Y, the above mentioned ‘Core’, Semi-Primitive and Remote Roaded 

Natural areas would also be managed to provide a semi-primitive recreational opportunity in 

Alternative Z. 

Across all alternatives management of the Devil’s Backbone area will remain relatively 

unchanged. The area lies within the largest Core Area in LBL and is also the only portion of 

LBL with an ROS classification of SPNM. These two factors will continue to provide one of 

the most primitive experiences available on LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 258 of 329 

3.4.5 Scenery 

LBL is an important regional resource because it forms a large, contiguous block of public 

land in a region where public lands are relatively uncommon. Unlike most national forests 

and other federal lands in the Southern Region, it has no private in-holdings. Although LBL 

is not considered mountainous terrain like the Ozarks region, its rolling hills and isolation 

between two reservoirs give the area some unique visual qualities. The land is 92 percent 

forested with scattered open land (6 percent), mostly in the narrow branch bottoms radiating 

from the Tennessee and Cumberland watercourses. Currently, few remnants of the past are 

readily observable while driving through the property; however, some evidence of many prior 

activities can be found, including former roads, home places and village sites, logging trails, 

charcoal hearths, farming, and surface mining for iron ore and gravel. 

As a visual resource, LBL is primarily an oak-hickory forest of 157,260 acres. The relatively 

small amount of non-forested land (10,650 acres) is represented by a variety of open land 

types -- row cropped fields, hay fields, wildlife woods openings, food plots, managed native 

grass areas, and power line rights-of-way. This diversity of landscape features is partly due to 

the natural topography and vegetation of the area, and partly due to active management 

programs to maintain or enhance vegetative diversity. LBL possesses very few spectacular 

natural landscape features such as large rock outcroppings, waterfalls, or large flowing 

streams. However, seasonal beauty can be striking, particularly in spring and fall, and in the 

winter following occasional snowfalls. Although some visitors to LBL are impressed by the 

vast amount of forest land, others would prefer more visual diversity and would like to see 

more open lands, scenic vistas of the lakes and other features, and landscaped roadways. 

Less than one percent of LBL's land (1754 acres) has developed facilities for recreation, 

education, or administration. Developed sites are designed so as not to detract from the visual 

quality of LBL. These sites are nodes of development and recreation/education concentration 

to provide access to a variety of settings. Developed sites are spread across the land base with 

a majority utilizing lakeshore areas for enhancement of visitors’ scenic experiences.

Existing Scenery Management 

The scenic resources of LBL are currently managed in accordance with TVA’s 1994 Plan. 

That plan established five objectives for the visual management program: 

• Manage vegetation to increase sightseeing and wildlife viewing opportunities along 

selected roadways and around developed facilities; 

• Enhance the visual quality of LBL both in naturalness and visual diversity; 

• Establish native vegetation including native grasses, wildflowers and flowering 

trees and shrubs; 

• Develop methods and techniques in visual resource management and demonstrate 

new approaches to other public agencies; 

• Demonstrate how visual management on a recreation and educational area can 

stimulate the local economy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 259 of 329 

These objectives apply to the overall area of LBL. Decisions on the desired landscape 

character and the proper techniques used to achieve it for a particular area of land are made 

during specific analysis. Guidelines set forth in the 1994 plan are utilized during 

implementation of land management activities. 

Specific measures are stated in the 1994 Plan for the enhancement of scenic viewing. 

Some of these measures are to take place during timber harvest and other land management 

activities. Thirteen specific scenic drives are mentioned for consideration for further 

development. A separate Sightseeing Master Plan was developed in the early 1990s in 

response to visitor surveys and requests for more viewing opportunities. This master plan 

sets several ‘uniform requirements’ for the enhancement of sightseeing at LBL. These 

include actions such as creating scenic vistas, removal of vegetative barriers to sightseeing, 

creating trail heads for hiking and biking to points of interest, and developing visually 

pleasing conditions throughout LBL. 

Visual Quality Zones (VQZs) act as landscape buffers between land management practices 

and visually sensitive areas such as along roadways, waterways and trails. Land managers 

take these guidelines into consideration when practicing management objectives. The 

VQZs are designed to maintain aesthetic features of the landscape in order to enhance the 

visitor’s experience. VQZs may not be strictly utilized in areas where short-term visual 

impacts area are acceptable in order to improve the overall scenic quality of an area. 

In areas of resource management activities, such as timber harvest, VQZ guidelines have 

been followed. However, due to budgetary constraints and staff priorities, few of the goals 

set out in the Sightseeing Master Plan have been accomplished. Open areas along the 

major travel routes have been maintained to allow for visitor recognition of potential 

hazards from wildlife, wildlife viewing opportunities, and visual diversity. As 

implementation of the master plan continues, some disturbance to the scenery is expected. 

However, this disturbance would be needed to move the scenery into the desired landscape 

character of the selected area. Short-term objectives may be implemented until this overall 

desired character is established. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The scenic resource is affected by management activities that alter the appearance of what 

is seen in the landscape. Short-term scenic effects are usually considered in terms of the 

degree in which a management activity affects the aesthetics of the existing or adjacent 

landscape. Management activities may change the scenic landscape over the long term if 

the visual character of the land is altered. Road construction, vegetation management, 

insect and disease control and utility rights-of-way (ROWs) are examples of management 

activities that have a high potential to affect the scenery of an area. To a lesser degree, the 

scenic resource is affected by habitat management, prescribed fire, fire suppression, old 

growth forest management, recreation and administrative site construction. Changing to a 

sustainable vegetative type may cause a short-term impact that could take the length of the 

Area Plan to implement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 260 of 329 

In LBL’s 1998 Visitor Profile Survey, scenic driving and wildlife viewing were listed as 

two of the most popular activities participated in at LBL. However, these are not the only 

activities in which aesthetic beauty adds to the enjoyment of the participant. Therefore, 

land managers must take into account the scenic impacts to all users when making 

decisions about the proper tools and methods used in performing management objectives. 

Scenery management at LBL will continue to focus on creating as few short and long term 

negative impacts to the visual landscape as possible across all alternatives. Visual buffer 

zones will be maintained between land management practices and highly traveled roads 

and trails where practicable unless demonstration or environmental education aspects are 

to be highlighted. 

Under all alternatives open areas along highly traveled roadways will be maintained for 

safety of visitors, wildlife viewing, and visual diversity. The development of scenic vistas 

and removal of visual barriers to enhance scenic beauty are also appropriate. 

Vegetation management has a great potential to alter the landscape and impact the scenic 

resource. This impact occurs through both active and passive management. Timber 

harvest practices can cause long-term effects on scenery. However, not managing timber 

resources also have effects. Openland size, location, frequency, and vegetation type all 

have effects on the scenic resource as well. The effects may be positive or negative, 

depending on their consistency with the desired future condition of the landscape and the 

visitor’s perspective. 

Alternatives W, X and Y all propose a variety of land management techniques in order to 

enhance ecological diversity. 

Alternatives X and Y propose more vegetation management than Alternative W to support 

wildlife diversity and nature viewing. Both also propose some redistribution of selected 

open lands along with reintroduction of more native grasses. Methods of achieving these 

proposals would vary, as would the effects to scenic integrity. However, the effects would 

be expected to be short-term from the techniques used. Long-term effects would be an 

enhancement of the ability to maintain open areas in a more sustainable fashion and 

improve wildlife viewing. 

Alternative Z proposes passive vegetative management take place on LBL. Under this 

alternative interior open lands would be allowed to revert to forest unhindered. Other open 

lands would be maintained for visitor safety, utility rights of way, maintenance, and access. 

The emphasis would be to move away from cultivated fields to more natural open land 

vegetation where possible. Woodlands would be allowed to age naturally toward an old 

growth forest type. Little effects of human intervention would be noticeable on the general 

landscape. 

Wildland fire can have a negative effect on the scenic integrity of an area. Wildfire 

suppression would be appropriate under all alternatives with some variation. Alternative 

W would continue current suppression actions which may leave more visual remnants of 

suppression activities such as dozer-made fire lines. Alternatives X, Y and Z would see a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 261 of 329 

shift to the use of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST), which would reduce 

negative impacts of suppression efforts. With use of MIST existing barriers such as roads, 

streams, and damp areas are used to reduce fire spread. The public may see more signs of 

fire but fewer signs of high impact, constructed fire lines. Natural fire will be allowed to 

burn more under Alternatives X, Y and Z than under W, except when safety of visitors and 

protection of property are concerned. This would be part of establishing a sustainable 

landscape. 

Prescribed fire is also allowed under all alternatives. Alternative W proposes the least 

amount of acreage burned under fire prescriptions. Alternative Z is the next most 

restrictive with an increase over time of about 4,000-5,000 acres annually. Alternatives X 

and Y propose the highest use of prescribed fire, each allowing for up to 10,000 acres 

annually. Drifting smoke, blackened vegetation, and charred tree trunks would be the main 

negative effects to scenery. The intended purpose is to mimic pre-settlement conditions 

and habitats. The contrast levels and duration vary with fire frequency and intensity. 

Smoke may last only one day; blackened vegetation usually lasts only a short time, while 

charring of trees may last somewhat longer. These are short-term effects when considering 

that it may take the life of the Area Plan to accomplish long-term desired landscape 

character. Prescribed fire repeated over time produces timber stands with open 

understories that allow views farther into the forest. 

Alternatives X and Y also propose the creation of designated Oak-Grassland 

Demonstration Areas. In these areas the land would be managed to the extent necessary to 

demonstrate the landscape character found at the time of European settlement in the area. 

The demonstration areas would be relatively small in size but would have local impacts to 

scenery. Visitors would see an open forest with signs of frequent fire as was common in 

the period. Scenery enhancement for wildlife viewing, wildlife, and vegetative diversity 

would be expected from this type of management. Techniques used to establish these 

areas would be as unobtrusive as possible. However, some scenic impacts would be 

visible during the process of conversion. Negative impacts would be expected to be of a 

short-term as the landscape character moves toward the desired condition over the course 

of the Area Plan. 

Utility ROWs pose a high potential for affecting scenic integrity over a long period of 

time. Cleared ROWs do not usually blend well with the surrounding forest landscape. 

Existing utility corridors will remain open but no new corridors are proposed under any of 

the alternatives. An opportunity to improve scenery by burial of transmission lines is 

encouraged, though economically this may be infeasible or unlikely. 

Road maintenance affects scenery, especially activities in ROWs. Mowing frequency and 

timing are factors that can potentially alter the appearance of the landscape. Road 

construction introduces unnatural visual elements into the landscape and causes contrasts 

to form, line, color, and texture. Having roads open or closed offers some control over 

how much of the landscape is seen, especially the forest interior. None of the alternatives 

presented propose new road construction. Some limited, temporary roads may be built for 

the purposes of timber harvest or other land management practices. Any temporary roads 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 262 of 329 

would be returned to a natural state at completion of the project for which they were 

constructed unless retained as trail routes. No public use of temporary roads is expected. 

Implementation of the area wide roads analysis will call for improved scenery as unneeded 

roads ore obliterated. 

Recreation, environmental education, and administrative facilities are not part of the 

natural landscape. The Forest Service attempts to design facilities that blend into the 

natural landscape as much as possible. Alternatives X and Y propose the greatest degree 

of development through potential construction of new facilities, road side pull-offs and 

trail heads. Alternative W would allow for some further development of sites, while 

Alternative Z allows for little or no further construction. All alternatives call for the 

constructed or built environment to be better blended with surrounding features. 

Alternatives Y and Z propose the development of nature watching areas in which the 

landscape character would be conducive to the viewing of all forms of native vegetation 

and wildlife. Scenic changes would be local but long-term in nature. Trailheads, open 

areas and pull-offs would be the main landscape changes along with demonstration 

activities that help the public understand advantages, differences, and professional 

objectives for active land management. 

3.4.6 Cultural Resources 

LBL contains approximately 110 known prehistoric and historic archeological sites. 

Ongoing archeological surveys have covered approximately 16 percent of LBL (some 

28,000 acres) over the past 15 years. Three sites have been placed on the National Register 

of Historic Places: Center Furnace, the Great Western Furnace, and Fort Henry. 

Prehistoric Sites

LBL contains the remains of human occupation dating back as far as 10,000 years ago. 

Evidence from archeological sites suggests that the area has been occupied or at least 

visited throughout this time period. 

Data recovered from archeological sites dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic Periods in 

the Southeast indicate that a hunter/gatherer economy prevailed during these time periods. 

Sites from a hunter/gatherer economy can generally be found in all parts of the landscape, 

from bottomlands to ridge tops. A hunter/gatherer will go wherever natural resources are 

available and can be exploited for human use. With the introduction of horticulture in the 

Woodland Period, followed by agriculture in the Mississippian Period, the focus of human 

use of the landscape shifted to the rich bottomlands of the Cumberland and Tennessee 

Rivers. 

The creations of Lake Barkley and Kentucky Lake inundated a significant part of the 

landscape around LBL. Archeological surveys conducted before Kentucky and Barkley 

Dams were built show that the bottomland zone was heavily utilized during the Woodland 

and Mississippian periods, and that this use continued into the historic period. A decreased 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 263 of 329 

usage of uplands during the Woodland and Mississippian periods has been widely 

observed in the archeological record of the Southeast, and this general trend holds true for 

the LBL area, as well. The archeological record of LBL was truncated by the creation of 

the lakes. 

The most common archeological sites found in the rolling uplands and hills of LBL date to 

the Archaic Period (8000 – 1000 BC). Both earlier (Paleoindian) and later sites 

(Woodland and Mississippian) may be present on the uplands of LBL, but the most 

intensive prehistoric use of the high ground occurred during the Archaic Period. 

Historic Sites

The oldest historic sites situated between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers date to the 

initial occupation of the area by white settlers. Western Kentucky was the last part of the 

state to be settled. The Jackson Purchase, just west of LBL, was not completed until 1818. 

Some settlers were occupying homesteads in the land between the rivers as early as the 

1780s, but most settlers did not arrive until after 1800. 

The first settlers established small farms and used the rivers as their main transportation 

system. The earliest crude shelters were replaced as soon as possible by single- or doublepen log cabins. Corn was the primary crop with tobacco as the main cash crop. 

Very soon after the area was settled, an iron industry developed. The confluence of four 

factors led to the development of the iron industry here: the presence of iron ore, 

limestone, plentiful timber to make charcoal, and readily-accessible transportation offered 

by the rivers. The iron industry in Stewart County, Tennessee reached its highest point in 

the 1850s. Seven furnaces were located in what is today LBL. They were (from north to 

south): Mammoth Furnace, Fulton Furnace, Center Furnace, Laura Furnace, Great Western 

Furnace, Iron Mountain Furnace, and Peytona Furnace. An eighth operation, Empire 

Furnace, was east of Center Furnace but is currently under the waters of Lake Barkley. 

The Tennessee Rolling Mill, which processed most of the pig iron produced by these 

furnaces, was located on the eastern side of the Cumberland River just east of LBL. 

The presence of the iron furnaces made this area strategically important for both sides 

when the Civil War started. The transportation system offered by the rivers is another 

reason. Western Kentucky and Tennessee were generally pro-southern in sentiment, but 

native sons served on both sides of the conflict. The capture of Forts Henry and Donelson 

in February 1862 was the first major success of Union forces during the war. This 

campaign also marked the beginning of the rise of General Ulysses S. Grant to leadership 

of all Union forces and eventually to the presidency. Fort Henry today lies below the 

waters of Kentucky Lake, but some of its outer defensive works can still be seen on LBL. 

Fort Donelson National Battlefield is directly south of LBL and is managed as a separate 

unit by the National Park Service. 

The disruptions of the Civil War and advancements in the iron industry led to the closure 

of most of the iron furnaces in western Kentucky and Tennessee during and after the war. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 264 of 329 

The introduction of coal (and later coke) as preferred fuels, along with the preference for 

richer and larger sources of iron ore, resulted in the movement of the industry away from 

this area. The last furnace operating in LBL was Center Furnace, which closed for the last 

time in 1912. 

After the war the South remained predominantly agricultural, while the rest of the country 

entered the industrial age. The historic occupation of LBL reflected this agricultural 

heritage. The main cash crop continued to be tobacco, but the local residents took every 

opportunity they could to produce other goods for sale. These included producing railroad 

crossties, bricks, whiskey, and any other product that might diversify their earnings 

potential. However, the basic economy remained rural subsistence farming. 

The area that is now LBL was acquired by the federal government in several stages 

beginning in the 1930s, displacing some former residents as many as four times. The first 

displacement of these residents occurred in 1937. Through the Constitutional power of 

Eminent Domain, 65,000 acres were acquired by the US Resettlement Administration and 

transferred to the US Department of the Interior to be managed as the Kentucky Woodlands 

National Wildlife Refuge. The residents who were displaced by this action settled in other 

parts of the area between the rivers or in nearby towns on the eastern side of the Cumberland 

River. 

The second round of displacements came in the early 1940s, when the Tennessee Valley 

Authority was granted the right to impound the Tennessee River at Gilbertsville, Kentucky by 

constructing a hydro-electric dam. The resulting lake was named Kentucky Lake and became 

the western boundary of the "between the rivers" area. Many displaced residents resettled 

either to the east, along the Cumberland River, or moved into surrounding Kentucky or 

Tennessee counties.

The third relocation began in the mid-1950s, with the planned impoundment of the 

Cumberland River by the Corps of Engineers with the construction of Barkley Dam. This 

formed Lake Barkley on the eastern side of the between the rivers area. During this process, 

some former residents were displaced for the third time in only two decades.

The final relocation loomed over residents beginning in the late 1950s when the US 

government initiated a study on the opportunity for a "between the lakes" national recreation 

area. The final plan to make the entire area a federal entity meant that those residents still 

living between the rivers, many who had been moved three times, faced the possibility of 

having to relocate for a fourth time. This time they would be leaving the “between the rivers” 

area for good. 

In 1963 President John F. Kennedy signed the legislation that granted TVA authority and 

funding to purchase the remaining lands and relocate the residents of all of the lands 

“between the rivers.” The last resident was moved in 1967, marking the end of private 

land ownership on LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 265 of 329 

This lengthy history of displacement, forced relocation, and finally complete removal from 

the area, was marked by bitterness, resentment, and distrust among many of the former 

residents. They feel a closeness and relationship with the lands that are LBL because of 

the sacrifices their families made over the years leading to the establishment of the national 

recreation area. Even among former residents who live across the country, their interest in 

and attention to LBL remains as high as it was in 1967. 

Effects of the Alternatives

Tribal groups known to use the land between the rivers in prehistoric times include the 

Cherokee, the Shawnee, and the Chickasaw Tribes. This area was part of the hunting 

grounds of these three tribes, but not the heartland of any of them. The Cherokee tribe was 

situated to the east of LBL. The Chickasaw were located to the south, and the Shawnee to 

the north. 

Prehistoric and historic cultural resources are nonrenewable resources. Significant cultural 

resources (those determined to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places) will be protected under all alternatives. Any ground disturbing activity 

will be preceded by an archeological survey. Any sites discovered will be assessed as to 

their eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. LBL will then 

formally consult with the Kentucky and Tennessee state historic preservation offices. 

Consultation will also be done with the federally recognized tribes that are acknowledged 

to have a historical interest in the land between the rivers – the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and 

Shawnee. Today there are six separate groups that represent these three tribes. These are 

the Eastern Band of Cherokee American Indians, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the 

Chickasaw Nation, the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe 

of Oklahoma, and the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. 

Direct and indirect effects of this management plan could result from both natural and 

human-caused events. Four types of ground-disturbing land management activities have 

the greatest potential to affect historic resources. These include recreation use, timber 

management, fire management, and road construction. To a lesser degree, other land 

management activities can also affect historic properties proportional to their ground 

disturbing potential. 

Disturbance to archeological resources would result from any activity that includes soil 

disturbance. Timber management can cause soil disturbance from heavy machinery, from 

dragging logs, or through erosion from the disruption or loss of vegetative cover. Evenaged harvesting may create moderate disturbance for significant properties located near the 

ground surface or at shallow depths, and such disturbance may occur throughout the entire 

stand or area being harvested. An uneven-aged harvest or single tree selection would 

similarly disturb historic properties, but disturbed areas would be dispersed within the 

harvest area. In either case, skid trails, log landings, and other areas where vehicles are 

concentrated would receive the greatest depth of disturbance and provide the most 

significant direct affects to historic properties. Indirect effects could include deterioration 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 266 of 329 

of sites and artifacts from erosion and increased site vandalism from increased access and 

surface exposure of historic sites. 

Road or trail construction could cause significant damage to any historic property that 

might be impacted. However, little road construction is expected on LBL. Survey prior to 

construction would permit the adjustment of any roads or trails to avoid historic properties 

and effects; both direct and indirect should be minimal. 

Historic properties may be directly and indirectly affected by heat damage to artifacts and 

sites and from erosion to sites resulting from wildfire or prescribed burns. High 

temperature wildfires would have greater effects to archeological sites than prescribed 

burns. Sites of the historic period are most subject to direct effects from fire because many 

of these properties are more likely to have surface artifacts. Studies show that wildfire, 

and in some cases prescribed burns, may alter the character and condition of surface 

artifacts by melting glass, “crazing” lithic and ceramic artifacts, and by burning wooden 

structures. Prescribed burns could also affect surface artifacts or very shallow sites, but 

because of reduced temperatures in these types of burns, the affects should be much less 

than for wildfires. 

Recreation management includes both developed sites and dispersed recreation. Direct 

affects to significant historic resources can result from installation or expansion of 

recreation facilities. Indirect affects could result from soil erosion and compaction related 

to visitor use and from vandalism related to increased access to historic sites. 

Greater visitor use may lead to an increase in vandalism, littering, and general disturbance 

to cultural sites under all alternatives. Cultural properties situated in developed recreation 

areas and along designated trails and road corridors can be signed, monitored, patrolled, 

and protected. Cultural properties outside these areas are at greater risk. 

Pursuant to and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other federal laws and 

Forest Service regulations and guidelines, LBL will systematically identify, record, and 

protect all significant cultural properties located on LBL. This includes all significant 

historic properties that may be potentially affected by implementation of Forest Service 

project activities. However, cumulative affects may still result in the degradation of sites 

and a reduction in the number of intact historic resources over time. The increased 

visitation to LBL could cause increased damage to sites as the result of increased public 

access, erosion, and vandalism. 

3.4.7 Population and Economy 

This summary information is supported by the detailed reporting in Appendix B.14 under 

the subtitles of “Economic And Local Government Impact Analysis” and “Demographic 

Changes and Economy Trends.” The LBL Analysis Area in Section 3.4.1 refers to a 

seven-county area. Three counties, Lyon and Trigg in Kentucky and Stewart in Tennessee, 

fall within LBL boundaries; four more counties in the region include Calloway, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 267 of 329 

Livingston, and Marshall in Kentucky and Henry in Tennessee. Population and economic 

dynamics depict a rural setting and are changing at a moderate rate within the LBL 

Analysis Area. Population growth was only three percent in the 1980s and increased to a 

growth rate of nearly 14 percent in the 1990s (see Appendix B.14, Table 4). The 

population within LBL’s Analysis Area grew at a faster rate than the population of the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky in both the 1980s and the 1990s. 

The minority population in the LBL Analysis Area has remained below 10 percent for the 

last two decades and was below the state level during this period (see Appendix B.14, 

Tables 1 and 2). In the year 2000 minorities made up seven percent of the LBL Analysis 

Area population and 10 percent of the states’ population (see Appendix B.14, Table 3). 

This was a slight gain from 1990 for both areas indicating slight net migration to the LBL 

Analysis Area and states as a whole. The percent of minority population is below the 

national average of 13 percent for both the LBL Analysis Area and state. The use of the 

LBL 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 LBL Analysis Area and the state with regard to its 

rural character of the population. In 2000 the LBL Analysis Area was much more rural, 

100 percent rural in three counties and more than 75 percent rural in the Analysis Area (see 

Appendix B.14, Table 6). Further, the LBL Analysis Area maintained its rural character 

during the 1990s while the states as a whole realized about a 10 percent decline. 

The LBL Analysis Area’s economic health, as measured by per capita income, grew at a 

robust rate during the 1990’s--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 $1350 below state per capita 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 (see Appendix B.14, Table 7) and a downward trend in 

unemployment (see Appendix B.14, Table 16), 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. Federally managed lands can be a 

prime outlet for many types of recreational activities. 

The LBL Analysis Area poverty rate improved over the past two decades and remains 

below the level of Kentucky (see Appendix B.14, Table 8). It was about two percentage 

points below the state in 1980 and increased to almost three percentage points below in 

2000. 

“Female heads of households with children”, and “persons per household” are two 

demographic characteristics that traditionally indicate lower-than-average economic 

growth in some areas (see Appendix B.14, Table 9). These data in the Analysis Area are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 268 of 329 

better than the data for Kentucky as a whole, and should not be a deterrent to economic 

growth. 

The Analysis Area’s economy was very dependent on manufacturing in 1990. This sector 

continued its dominance in 2000, with 57 percent of its net exports coming from the 

Manufacturing sector in that year (Appendix B.14, Table 14). As measured by total dollar 

output in 2000, Manufacturing was about 41 percent of the economy but substantially less 

if measured by employment—only 20 percent (see Appendix B.14, Table 13). 

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 sub-sectors that make up the wood products 

manufacturing component of the total Analysis Area economy was about 2.6 percent of 

total industry output in 2000. 

A principle way an economy grows is by exporting goods and services. Most typically, 

manufacturing activity is thought of as providing most of this export-related activity. It 

can, however, be a net importer if it imports more of all commodities than it exports. 

Services and retail trade can be considered “export” industries if significant visitors come 

from outside the Analysis Area and participate in travel-related activities to bring in new 

dollars. In this context, tourism could be classified as an export-driven activity. 

In general, economies that export more than they import are able to grow faster than those 

that are net importers. The 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 subsectors 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. 

The LBL area economy and demography reflect a strong rural base. The economy appears 

healthy but very dependent on manufacturing and not positioned for rapid 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. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Economic Effects 

The management of LBL has the potential to affect jobs and incomes within its area of 

influence. Employment and income estimates were determined by using the inputoutput model IMPLAN (Impact for Planning Analysis). Due to substitution effects 

from competing non-government sources, these jobs are characterized as being 

associated with local economic activity initiated by Forest Service programs and activities, 

rather than caused by these activities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 269 of 329 

The database in IMPLAN represents Census 2000 information for 528 industries. On LBL, 

effects are based on changes in five major forest-level outputs: the amount of timber 

volume; type of timber product to be harvested; payments to states (counties); Forest 

Service expenditures; and recreation use (an explanation of how recreation visits 

were calculated can be found in Appendix B.9, subtitle: ”Conversion of Survey 

Results to Visits and Trips”). For purposes of estimating the socio-economic impact, 

counties around LBL were selected as the impact area. The input/output analysis is 

based on the interdependencies of the production and consumption elements of the 

economy within the impact area. 

Industries purchase from primary sources (raw materials) and other industries 

(manufactured goods) for use in their production process. These outputs are sold either 

to other industries for use in their production process or to final consumers. The 

structure of interdependencies between the individual sectors of the economy forms the 

basis of the input/output model. The flow of industrial inputs can be traced through the 

input/output accounts of the IMPLAN model to show the linkages in the impact area 

economy. This allows the determination of estimated economic effects (in terms of 

employment and income). 

Employment 

Table 3.4.7A illustrates how the proposed alternatives differ from the current management 

direction (Alternative W) for potentially affecting jobs in the local economy. 

Estimated employment changes from the current situation range from a decrease of 

approximately five percent for Alternative Z to an estimated increase of nearly seven 

percent in Alternative Y. The recreation program has the greatest potential to affect jobs 

and labor income in the local economy, followed by wildlife and fish. Timber-related 

jobs fluctuate between the alternatives as a result of the various levels of timber harvest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 270 of 329 

Table 3.4.7A - Employment by Program by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1) 

Total Number of Jobs Contributed 

Resource Current Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Recreation 1,076 1,076 1,081 1,135 1,033 

Wildlife and Fish 554 554 587 598 533 

Grazing 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber 127 127 158 150 124 

Minerals 0 0 0 0 0 

Payments to States/Counties 35 35 39 37 29 

Forest Service Expenditures 132 132 134 133 113 

Total Forest Management 1924 1924 1999 2053 1832 

Percent Change from Current --- 0.0% 3.9% 6.7% -4.8% 

Employment impacts are divided into the major sectors of LBL's economy in Table 3.4.7B. 

For all alternatives, Manufacturing, Services, Retail Trade, and Government are the sectors 

most affected by Forest Service programs and expenditures. To the extent that an 

alternative has a commodity program, manufacturing is also affected to a significant 

degree. 

Table 3.4.7B - Employment by Major Industry by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1) 

Total Number of Jobs Contributed 

Industry Current Alt. W Alt X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Agriculture 52 52 54 56 50 

Mining 21 21 22 22 20 

Construction 26 26 28 28 24 

Manufacturing 160 160 182 179 153 

Transportation, Communication, & 

Utilities 45 45 48 49 43 

Wholesale Trade 75 75 78 80 72 

Retail Trade 776 776 798 825 742 

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 35 35 36 37 33 

Services 591 591 607 628 565 

Government (Federal, State, & Local) 138 138 144 144 127 

Miscellaneous 3 3 3 3 3 

Total Forest Management 1922 1922 2000 2051 1832 

Percent Change from Current --- 0.0% 3.9% 6.7% -4.8% 

Labor Income 

Labor income for the first decade for each resource program expenditure is given by 

alternatives in Table 3.4.7C. Impacts to the local economy sectors are shown in Table 

3.4.7D. The current management direction alternative (Alternative W) has $40 million of 

labor income associated with it. The spectrum of labor income then ranges from $42.8 

million for Alternative Y to $37.7 million for Alternative Z. The recreation program, 

Forest Service expenditures, and the wildlife and fish program consistently contribute 

the majority of labor income for all alternatives. Alternatives X and Y also contribute more 

labor income from the timber program compared to Alternatives W and Z. Retail Trade, 

Services, Government, and Manufacturing are the four industry sectors most affected by Forest 

Service programs and expenditures for all Alternatives. The range is approximately six 

percent increase for Alternative Y, to approximately six percent decrease for Alternative Z. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 271 of 329 

Table 3.4.7C - Labor Income by Program by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1; 

$1,000,000) 

Millions of Dollars 

Resource Current Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Recreation $19.1 $19.1 $19.2 $20.2 $18.4 

Wildlife and Fish $10.2 $10.2 $10.8 $11.0 $9.8 

Grazing $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Timber $3.3 $3.3 $4.1 $3.9 $3.2 

Minerals $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Payments to States/Counties $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.1 $0.9 

Forest Service Expenditures $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $5.3 

Total Forest Management $40.3 $40.3 $42.0 $42.8 $37.7 

Percent Change from Current --- 0.0% 4.2% 6.4% -6.4% 

Table 3.4.7D - Labor Income by Major Industry by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1; 

$1,000,000)

Millions of Dollars 

Industry Current Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Agriculture $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.5 

Mining $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.5 

Construction $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.8 

Manufacturing $5.5 $5.5 $6.1 $6.1 $5.2 

Transportation, Communication, & 

Utilities $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.6 

Wholesale Trade $2.7 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $2.6 

Retail Trade $10.9 $10.9 $11.2 $11.6 $10.4 

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.7 

Services $9.5 $9.5 $9.8 $10.1 $9.0 

Government (Federal, State, & Local) $7.3 $7.3 $7.5 $7.5 $6.2 

Miscellaneous $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Total Forest Management $40.3 $40.3 $42.0 $42.8 $37.7 

Percent Change from Current --- 0.0% 4.2% 6.4% -6.4% 

Cumulative effects analysis is designed to reveal the context of alternative impacts within 

the planning area. This is done by comparing total changes in the planning area with each 

alternative to total changes with no action. Such a comparison is done by estimating 

employment and income at the expected end of the forest planning horizon (15 years) and 

calculating a share of the total economy that each alternative represents of the entire 

economy. Estimates for employment and income growth were derived by calculating the 

average annual increase in employment and the real average annual income growth for 

counties in the analysis area from 1969 to 2000. The analysis is made with employment 

and income estimates for each alternative remaining at 2000 levels. 

The assumption made in our analysis is that the same rate of growth will continue over the 

15 years of the Area Plan. The source of the data for these estimates is the US Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. 

Table 3.4.7F shows employment and labor income for the planning area. The first two 

columns present the 2003 base year and that portion of the base year attributable to use and 

management of the national forest. The next column shows state and local government 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 272 of 329 

projections for 2018. Forest alternative outputs are assumed to be constant over the 

planning horizon. Included in the projections are employment and income effects 

attributed to the current direction (or no action) alternative. The remaining columns show 

the separate effects of each alternative at the end 2018. 

What in 2003 accounted for 3.4 percent of all employment will in 2018 account for about 

2.5 percent for Alternative W. For the proposed alternatives in the EIS, expected shares of 

the economy will range from 2.4 percent of the economy for Alternative Z to 2.7 percent 

for Alternative Y. 

Employment changes in 2018 from Alternative W range from – 4.8 percent for Alternative 

Z to 6.7 percent for Alternative Y. 

What in 2003 accounted for 2.6 percent of all income will in 2018 account for about 1.0 

percent for Alternative W. For the proposed alternatives in the EIS, expected shares of the 

economy will range from 0.9 percent of the economy for Alternative Z to 1.0 percent for 

Alternatives X and Y. 

Income changes in 2018 from Alternative W range from -6.4 percent for Alternative Z to 

6.4 percent for Alternative Y. 

The cumulative effects analysis shows that over time each alternative has a very different 

effect on employment and income. Alternative X and Y have positive proportionate 

effects with Alternative Y having almost twice the effect as Alternative X. Alternative Z is 

the only alternative that would be expected to have a negative proportionate effect on 

income and employment. 

Table 3.4.7E - Cumulative Economic Impacts in 2018 

2003 2018 

Forest Portion 

Economic Indicator 

Area 

Totals 

Forest 

Portion 

Area 

Totals Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Employment 

Total (jobs) 56,582 1,924 76,714 1,924 1,999 2,052 1,832 

% of Area Totals 100% 3.4% 100% 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.4% 

% Change from No Action --- --- --- 0.0% 3.9% 6.7% -4.8% 

Labor Income 

Total ($ million) $1,533.0 $40.3 $4,225.0 $40.3 $42.0 $42.8 $37.7 

% of Base 100% 2.6% 100% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 

% Change from No Action --- --- --- 0.0% 4.2% 6.4% -6.4% 

Revenues and Payments 

With the exception of Alternative Z, Forest Service revenues from program activities, 

which result in payments to states (counties), are expected to increase slightly from the 

current direction of Alternative W. The magnitude of annual payments to states 

expected in the first decade is shown in Table 3.4.7F. Under Alternative W, LBL is 

expected to distribute about $1.6 million per year to surrounding counties. Alternatives 

X and Y would be expected to produce a $1.7 million payment. Alternative Z would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 273 of 329 

produce approximately a $1.3 million payment to Lyon and Trigg counties in 

Kentucky and Stewart County in Tennessee. 

Table 3.4.7F - Forest Service Revenues and Payments to Counties (Annual Avg, Decade 1; 

$1,000,000) 

Forest Service Program Current Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Recreation $3.5 $3.5 $3.8 $3.6 $3.0 

Wildlife and Fish $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Grazing $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Timber $2.5 $2.5 $2.7 $2.6 $2.2 

Minerals $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Soil, Water & Air $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Protection $0.3 $0.3 $0.5 $0.5 $0.1 

Total Revenues $6.3 $6.3 $7.0 $6.7 $5.3 

 Payment to States/Counties $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.3 

Land Between The Lakes Current Role 

Finally, Table 3.4.7G illustrates the percentage contribution of LBL’s current 

management program (Alternative W) to the area's economy. LBL is associated with 2.7 

percent of the total local economy's jobs, and 2.0 percent of the labor income. 

Manufacturing, Services, Retail Trade, and Government are the sectors of the 

economy that show the most benefit from the forest's activities. 

Economically speaking, commodity-oriented alternatives have a greater role in 

producing impacts on the economy. However, substitutions may occur in certain 

sectors, such as those related to the timber program. Non-government owners could 

supply local mills with the timber demanded by the local economy. Therefore, there 

would likely be no loss of jobs or income from a reduced federal timber program. 

Although the effects of the recreation, and wildlife and fish programs are relatively 

small compared to the overall LBL economy, they are the most significant contribution 

of all of LBL’s programs. In total, the current direction shows a 2.7 percent share 

contribution to the total local economy’s employment and 2.0 percent of labor income. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 274 of 329 

Table 3.4.7G - Current Role of Forest Service-Related Contributions to the Area Economy 

Employment (jobs) Labor Income ($ million) 

Industry Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related 

Agriculture 5,728 52 $54.2 $0.5 

Mining 658 21 $29.3 $0.5 

Construction 6,193 26 $191.4 $0.9 

Manufacturing 13,198 160 $557.4 $5.5 

Transportation, Communication, & 

Utilities 3,196 45 $109.2 $1.6 

Wholesale Trade 2,278 75 $77.1 $2.7 

Retail Trade 12,668 776 $199.9 $10.9 

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 2,859 35 $66.9 $0.8 

Services 12,427 591 $301.6 $9.5 

Government (Federal, State, & Local) 12,458 138 $402.7 $7.3 

Miscellaneous 281 3 $2.0 $0.0 

Total 71,944 1,922 $1,989.9 $40.2 

Percent of Total 100.0% 2.7% 100.0% 2.0% 

Values 

There are many values associated with National Forests that cannot be expressed in 

monetary terms. Following are treatments using both monetary and non-monetary 

values. Many values are highly personal and subjective in nature. 

Present Net Value of the Alternatives 

Table 3.4.7H shows the estimated benefits, costs, and present net value (PNV) 

by alternative. All figures are in 2000 dollars. The benefits include market values 

and non-market estimated values. Market values include those values where the 

Forest Service receives money for timber, minerals, range, special uses, etc. Non-market 

values are estimated values for amenities such as wildlife and recreation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 275 of 329 

3.4.7H Cumulative Decadal Present Values of Costs and Benefits (in Thousands of $)

 

Alt. W Alt. X Alt. Y Alt. Z 

Cumulative Total Present Net Value $2,030,444 $2,148,870 $2,334,236 $1,959,108 

Percent Difference compared to Alt. W 0 +5.8 +15.5 -3.5 

 

Present Value Benefits by Program 

 Range $0 $0 $0 $0 

 Timber $3,039 $3,139 $3,233 $1,861 

 Minerals $0 $0 $0 $0 

 Recreation $510,801 $524,822 $543,839 $486,646 

 Wildlife $1,679,873 $1,784,178 $1,950,434 $1,603,722 

 PV of Benefits $2,193,713 $2,312,139 $2,497,506 $2,092,229 

 

Present Value Costs by Program: 

 Range $0 $0 $0 $0 

 Timber $3,183 $3,394 $3,394 $3,104 

 Roads/Engineering $9,796 $9,796 $10,776 $9,796 

 Minerals $0 $0 $0 $0 

 Recreation $119,541 $119,501 $119,716 $95,405 

 Wildlife $20,238 $21,094 $19,900 $16,348 

 Soil, Water, Air $1,006 $1,217 $1,217 $644 

 Protection/Forest Health $1,773 $1,773 $1,773 $1,330 

 Lands $831 $831 $831 $831 

 Planning, Inv., Monitoring $6,901 $5,663 $5,663 $5,663 

PV of Costs: $163,269 $163,269 $163,270 $133,121 

Other values, such as existence, option and bequest values, can and have been 

expressed in monetary terms in the economics literature. The economics literature 

clearly shows that people hold passive-use values for a variety of conditions on national 

forests. Although the Forest Service recognizes the validity and importance of these values, 

the existing literature is not sufficient to serve as a quantitative measure for some of the 

values since they are often geographically localized in nature. Therefore, passive 

use values for such things as wildlife habitat must be taken into consideration in a 

qualitative sense. Since such values are not expressed in monetary terms, they are 

not included in the economic efficiency analysis. In the section below, LBL has 

addressed the importance of passive-use values, and has weighed them within their 

management decisions, and they have been used in the determination of ‘net public 

benefits’. 

Alternatives X and Y will yield the greatest benefits to the local areas due to a 

higher cumulative PNV. Alternative Z, with the lowest PNV, differs from 

Alternative Y with the greatest PNV by less than 20 percent, primarily because 

Alternative Y has a heavier emphasis on recreation and wildlife than the other 

alternatives. Although some programs may change between alternatives, both the 

costs and benefits change at a proportional rate. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 276 of 329 

The NFMA regulations define net public benefits as: 'An expression used to signify 

the overall long-term 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. Net public benefits are measured by both 

quantitative and qualitative criteria, rather than a single measure or index [36 

CFR 219.3].' 

For those resources that can be reasonably valued using market data (e.g. timber, 

minerals, and range) and for those non-market resources that have Forest Service 

estimated values from research (recreation), we have presented values in the present 

net value calculations. 

Use and Passive-Use Values 

A value is something that contributes to one or more person’s psychological well-being. 

Different forest management regimes produce different types of economic stimulations and 

services that lead to values. In the case of LBL, alternatives are focused on wise resource 

use and conservation. This management style puts emphasis on recreational opportunities, 

watershed protection, resource management, and providing future generations with 

enhanced opportunities and options to enjoy the resources wisely. There are various ways 

in which each alternative provides value--all of which can be characterized as either use 

value or passive-use value. 

Use Values 

Use values are obtained when someone gets enjoyment from some form of direct 

interaction with the resource. Use values can help provide benefits such as exercise, 

socialization, escape from physical and social pressures, self gratitude, privacy, spirituality, 

recreation use, economic development, and others. The above mentioned benefits are 

results of the sub-values noted in Table 3.4.7I. 

Definitions of the use values discussed in the table and this section are: 

Use Values/Benefits Definitions 

Direct Use: Providing an enjoyment to a user or group from a direct 

interaction/participation with the resource or opportunity. 

Community: A benefit received by the community from the use and existence of 

an area, place, experience, or resource. 

Research: A benefit received in the scientific community from the use and 

existence of an area or resource. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 277 of 329 

Sub-Values Definitions 

On-site Recreation: recreation opportunities provided on LBL; may be at 

developed sites or at dispersed non-developed locations throughout the area. 

Human Development: increase in population and impacts. 

Cultural Heritage: experiencing and learning about the cultural history and heritage 

of the land. Also includes, not forgetting the people who once lived here and 

keeping their culture and heritage alive. 

On-site hunting: hunting opportunities and experiences at LBL. 

On-site-Environmental Education: environmental education opportunities provided 

on LBL; may be facility or non-facility-based 

Research: opportunities for the government or public to conduct research. 

Education: opportunities for individuals or groups to use LBL to learn. 

Management: types of management opportunities explored and demonstrated. e.g., 

Recreation Management and Resource Management. 

Economic Development: providing economic support to the region and local 

economies. 

Subsistence use: customary and traditional uses by residents of wild renewable 

resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, 

tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family 

consumption, for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for 

customary trade. 

Non-Recreation jobs: jobs that are created by the existence of LBL that are not in 

the recreation field. 

Retirement Income: income that is contributed to the local and regional economies 

by retirement income. 

Recreation Jobs: jobs that are created in the recreation field by the existence of 

LBL. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 278 of 329 

Table 3.4.7I: - Use Values/Benefits 

Direct Use Community Scientific 

Sub-Values 

On-site Recreation 

Human Development 

Cultural-Heritage 

On-site hunting 

*On-site Environmental 

 Education 

*Economic Development 

Sub-Values 

Non-recreation jobs 

Retirement income 

Recreation Jobs 

Subsistence Use 

*Economic Development 

Sub-Values 

Research 

Education 

Management 

Use values/benefits categories were drawn from Morton, Pete Wilderness Society; The Economic Benefits of 

Wilderness. * Were added since all use benefits of different user types were not represented. Some 

Values/Benefits of original table were deleted since they were not relative to LBL. 

Passive-Use Values 

Passive-use value can be defined as satisfaction achieved by simply knowing that a 

resource, action, place, or opportunity exists, and a benefit from the knowledge of 

continued existence. Passive-use values can be broken down into three categories 

represented in chart below. 

Definitions of passive-use values in this above table and section are: 

Passive-Use Values/Benefits Definitions: 

Option Value: When a person derives satisfaction simply from knowing that a 

resource, place, action, or opportunity exists for future direct or indirect use. 

Bequest Value: Value of conserving a resource, place, action, or opportunity. 

Existence Value: When a person derives satisfaction simply from knowing that 

resource place, action, or opportunity will continue existence. 

Sub-Values Definitions: 

On-site Primitive Recreation Experiences: providing primitive recreational 

opportunities. 

Passive Vegetation Management: promotes the reversion of open lands to forest 

and forest cover types and minimal forest management in Core Areas. 

Ecological Diversity: actively manage our land and water resources to support and 

enhance wildlife and outdoor recreation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 279 of 329 

Table 3.4.7J - Passive-Use Values/Benefits 

Option Value Bequest Value Existence Value 

Future direct, indirect, and off-site 

benefits 

Sub-Values: 

*On-site Primitive Recreation 

 Experiences 

*Passive Vegetation Management 

*Ecological Diversity 

*On-site Recreation 

*On-site Environmental 

 Education 

*On-site Hunting

Value of conserving/managing forest 

or natural areas for future generations 

Sub-Values: 

*Ecological Diversity 

*Passive Vegetation Management 

*On-site Recreation 

*On-site Primitive Recreation 

Experiences 

*Cultural Heritage 

*On-site Environmental 

 Education

Benefits from knowledge of 

continued existence 

Sub-Values: 

*On-site Primitive Recreation 

 Experiences 

*Passive Vegetation Management 

*Ecological Diversity 

*On-site Recreation 

*On-site Environmental 

 Education 

*Cultural Heritage 

*On-site Hunting 

Use values/benefits categories were drawn from Morton, Pete Wilderness Society; The Economic Benefits of 

Wilderness. (*) Added since all passive-use benefits were not represented in relation to LBL. Majority of 

values/benefits of table were deleted since they were not relative to LBL. Values in above table were 

designed to represent the diversity of the population and what they value. 

Both use and passive-use values are important to the quality of life among specific users 

and other persons. Both have been addressed in each alternative that LBL evaluated. 

Keep in mind that a significant number of people relate passive-use values to the 

designation of natural areas or wilderness areas; however, passive-use values can also be 

contributed to people by providing/designating Rec/EE opportunities, and cultural heritage 

protection, just to mention a few. 

Many groups view passive-use values differently. For example, a developed recreation 

user may get satisfaction knowing LBL provides a variety of recreation opportunities for 

them or their children to use in the future. People who want to enjoy primitive recreation 

experiences might get the same satisfaction from LBL designating areas such as the 

General Forest Core Areas. 

Below is an analysis of use-values and passive-use values, and how each alternative may 

satisfy them. Values were assigned by utilizing the best data available to the Forest 

Service in the form of surveys, research, and professional experience. LBL’s capacity to 

meet passive use values relating to primitive recreation experiences was based on roadless 

area studies conducted at LBL. These values are also based on each alternative’s 

prescription areas. The Use and Passive-Use Value Analysis for all alternatives was based 

on an increase or decrease from present day management (Alternative W). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 280 of 329 

Increases and decreases shown under Direct Use Values/Benefits are influenced in the 

estimated visitation change that could take place under each alternative, and the type of 

recreation focus that each alternative provides. (Table 3.4.7K) 

Scale: 

- - Small Decrease 

- Moderate Decrease 

N No Change or Slight Increase/Decrease 

+ Moderate Increase 

++ Large Increase 

Use-Value Anaysis 

Table 3.4.7K - Direct Use Values/ Benefits 

W X Y Z 

On-Site Developed Recreation N ++ + - 

On-site Dispersed Recreation N N ++ N 

On-site Primitive Recreation 

Experiences N N + + 

Human Development N N N N 

Cultural Heritage N N N N 

On-site hunting N + + - 

On-Site Facility Based 

Environmental Education N ++ N N 

On-site Non-Facility Based 

Environmental Education N N ++ + 

Increases and decreases shown under Community Use Values/Benefits are influenced in 

the visitation change that could take place under each alternative and IMPLAN data for 

this area related to labor income and employment. 

Table 3.4.7L - Community Use Values/Benefits 

W X Y Z 

Subsistence Use N N N N 

Non-Recreation Jobs N N + N 

Retirement Income N + + N 

Recreation Jobs N N ++ - 

Economic Development N + ++ - 

The Scientific Use Values/Benefits increases and decreases were based on the type of 

vegetation management proposed for each alternative as well as the type of recreation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 281 of 329 

management that would be needed for the recreation opportunities that may exist under 

each alternative. 

Table 3.4.7M - Scientific Use Values/Benefits 

W X Y Z 

Research N + + + 

Education N + ++ + 

Management N + ++ N 

The Option Values effects in Table 3.4.7N were based on current situations (Alternative 

W) and whether there would be an increase or decrease in a person’s gratification related 

to that specific sub-value. For example, Alternatives X and Y would provide a person who 

receives a value/benefit from knowing that LBL provides an opportunity for on-site 

hunting with the greatest gratification, measured by hunting days and game species, 

numbers, health, and habitat. (This example could be used for both bequest and existence 

values just by applying their specific definition to the example.) 

Passive-Value Analysis 

Table 3.4.7N - Option Value 

 W X Y Z 

Ecological Diversity N + + - 

Passive Vegetation Management N N N + 

On-site Developed Recreation N + + N - 

On-site Dispersed Recreation N N + + 

Onsite Primitive Recreation Experiences N N N + 

On-site Hunting N + + - 

On-site Facility Based Environmental 

Education 

N + + + N 

On-site Non-Facility Based 

Environmental Education 

N N ++ + 

A bequest value is a value gained from knowing that conserving/managing forests or 

natural areas, and providing recreational opportunities for future generations exist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 282 of 329 

Table 3.4.7O - Bequest Value 

W X Y Z 

Ecological Diversity N + + - 

Passive Vegetation Management N N N + 

On-site Developed Recreation N ++ + - 

On-site Dispersed Recreation N N ++ ++ 

On-site Primitive Recreation 

Experiences 

N N N + 

On-site Facility Based Environmental 

Education 

N ++ + N 

On-site Non-Facility Based 

Environmental Education 

N N ++ + 

Cultural Heritage N N N N 

An existence value refers to benefits gained from knowledge of continued existence of 

natural areas and recreational opportunities. 

Table 3.4.7P - Existence Value 

 W X Y Z 

Ecological Diversity N + + - 

Passive Vegetation Management N N N + 

On-site Developed Recreation N ++ + - 

On-site Dispersed Recreation N N ++ + 

On-site Primitive Recreation 

Experiences 

N N N + 

On-site Facility Based Environmental 

Education 

N ++ + N 

On-site Non-Facility Based 

Environmental Education 

N N ++ + 

Cultural Heritage N N N N 

On-site Hunting N + + - 

Overall values of use and passive-use values address the diversity and the specific 

population that would receive the benefits, and the 2 million visitors that LBL receives 

annually. 

Qualitative values analysis indicates that alternatives X, Y and Z all show some positive 

benefits as compared to Alternative W. Due to the amount of emphasis placed on managed 

recreational and educational activities in alternatives X and Y, larger increases are 

anticipated as compared to Alternative Z. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 283 of 329 

Compared to Alternatives W, X and Y, more increases in value benefits for primitive and 

lesser managed experiences exist under Alternative Z. These increases are due to the 

emphasis on passive land uses and fewer developed recreational opportunities. 

Additional research of both Use and Passive-Use Values as they relate to eastern forests 

needs to be conducted. The information provided by studies to date can only provide 

conclusions that are general in nature (Hagen, Swanser, Vincent, Well., 1995). 

3.4.8 Tourism 

LBL, along with Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley functions as a cornerstone destination 

for the region’s $600 million tourism industry. Commercial tourism activity, in the form 

of resorts, marinas, campgrounds, motels, restaurants, and entertainment, is concentrated in 

counties immediately adjacent to Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. The region includes 

additional attractions such as national wildlife refuges and parks, museums and historic 

sites, and state parks. 

The presence of LBL within the region provides such an attraction, that a majority of the 

communities base their appearance and appeal around LBL. LBL is used as a major 

recreation attraction when local communities attend trade fairs to increase tourism within 

the area. Based on Kentucky Western Waterland’s Summer Surveys 2003, 53.5 percent of 

all visitors come to Western Kentucky for the lake attractions and activities. LBL’s draw 

in St. Louis, MO; Louisville, KY; Evansville, IN; Memphis and Nashville, TN; Chicago, 

IL; and other major urban areas within seven hours are increasing each year as shown by 

our POS system. 

Local communities are utilizing LBL as a “backyard” to host activities to draw visitors and 

recruit new business to the area. Major events held on LBL include outdoor sporting and 

hunting events, off-road jamborees, dragboat competitions, horseback riding events and 

rodeos; and more localized events such as campers’ fairs, arts and crafts festivals, cultural 

and heritage events, and special nature programs. Communities often cite LBL as a 

primary reason businesses choose to relocate in the area. Companies often consider the 

“quality of life” in an area as one of the main criteria when considering locations for 

expansion. LBL helps to provide a “quality of life” advantage for the region when leaders 

seek to bring in new businesses. 

LBL focuses on providing a diverse mix of activities and experiences to encourage visitors 

to stay in the area longer. A proven factor in community economic development is that 

expenditure per capita increases as average length of stay increases. LBL strives to 

provide some conveniences to visitors while avoiding competitive impacts to gateway 

businesses. 

An average user of public lands stays approximately 19 hours in one trip, however, an 

average LBL user stays an average of 41 hours, which results in higher tourism dollars 

spent in local communities. This is why basic, emergency-type product sales are offered to 

respond to visitor demand and avoid “early departures” due to inconvenient or remote 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 284 of 329 

basic services. Use of gateway motels, food services, gas stations, shopping, and other 

businesses are actively encouraged at all facilities. 

3.4.9 Social Importance of Public Lands 

Social Importance of Public Lands 

As populations increase, the national need for conservation of public land will continue to 

grow. People need accessible and safe places to connect with the out of doors for multiple 

and individual reasons. Places for people to get in touch with nature are becoming more 

precious with each passing generation. Public lands provide that place where people may 

experience the rich traditions and relationships associated with heritage, wildlife, forest, 

and water. 

By “caring for the land and serving the people,” the nation’s national forest and recreation 

areas provide extraordinary economic, scientific, recreational, and educational benefits to 

society. 

Social Importance of LBL 

LBL receives visits from all 50 states totaling approximately two million visits each year. 

Citizens come to LBL seeking quality recreation and educational experiences connected to 

heritage, wildlife, forest, and water. 

For the surrounding communities, LBL contributes significantly to the quality of life by 

providing employment, recreation, and education opportunities. Local communities 

showcase LBL as a unique asset for recruiting new business and industry to the area. 

Educational communities, ranging from the elementary level to university masters level, 

utilize LBL as a discovery, study, and research laboratory. 

3.4.10 Forest Products 

LBL provides a small percentage of the total sawtimber and pulpwood in the area market. 

A decision was made by the Forest Service not to harvest timber off LBL during the 

transition years. The historic data from LBL under TVA tenure indicates that 5.16 million 

board-feet were for sale each year, plus an average 6,500 cords. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 285 of 329 

Table 3.4.10A Hardwood Timber Summary for LBL 

Fiscal Year Timber Volume (mmbf) Pulpwood (cords) 

1983 5.39 9,235 

1984 7.70 11,447 

1985 5.50 8,238 

1986 8.01 9,411 

1987 6.03 7,297 

1988 6.67 7,496 

1989 7.12 8,325 

1990 6.44 6,546 

1991 6.21 6,343 

1992 6.11 6,180 

1993 0 0 

1994 0 0 

1995 3.19 6,403 

1996 4.38 6,287 

1997 4.68 5,022 

TOTAL 77.43 98,230 

The annual capacity for sawmills in the 35-mile impact area is 346.2 million board-feet. 

Local Mill capacity is listed in a table in Appendix B.6. The historic average for LBL 

production is 5.16 million board-feet, or 1.5 percent of the local capacity. As 

demonstrated in the table above, LBL prepared no timber for sale in FY 93 or 94, and 

under US Forest Service administration, has sold no green timber since 2000. The relative 

insignificance of the annual supply from LBL to the local market has had negligible impact 

on the employment or income to the surrounding communities. 

Base Sale Schedule for 5 Decades 

All timber production from suitable lands on LBL result from activities intended to 

enhance habitats, promote healthy forest conditions, or for purposes of recreation, 

according to the LBL mission. Analysis of timber production for the five decade period 

covered in this analysis resulted from estimating the yields from treatments prescribed by 

LBL biologists as those needed to produce the desired wildlife habitat conditions under 

each alternative. 

Table 3.4.10B summarizes the estimated timber outputs for the four alternatives. This 

level of output in the first decade equates to the allowable sale quantity for the alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 286 of 329 

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 

Table 3.4.10B 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. 

Forest Treatment Methods and Rotations 

Silvicultural activities may be categorized according to the type of regeneration they drive 

or enhance. Beginning a new stand all at once is an important trait of the even-aged 

management system where methods such as clearcutting, shelterwood, and seedtree cuts 

are used. Beginning a new stand by gradually replacing trees cut or lost while maintaining 

mixed sizes of larger trees as the predominant cover is a common trait of the uneven-aged 

system. Methods used in uneven-aged management are individual tree and group 

selection, thus the term selection system is often applied. These two systems are the only 

silvicultural systems recognized in the regulations implementing the National Forest 

Management Act (1982 revision). In 1998, the Society of American Foresters adopted a 

third silvicultural system which primarily employs a modified shelterwood method 

common in even-aged management. The intent of this system is to maintain an overstory 

of larger trees for various resource concerns such as visuals, soils, economics, and site 

amelioration. As new seedlings and sprouts develop, these oversory trees are not removed, 

thus creating a two-aged (two-tiered) system. This two-tiered method will be used most 

often on the dryer sites to help open stands up for regeneration and promote desirable 

herbaceous species. At LBL, many of these two-tiered stands develop into structures with 

three or more canopy layers, even on dryer sites, thus gaining the favorable attributes of 

uneven-aged management. Many of these stands on dryer sites will not be managed for 

the favorable attributes of even-aged management - efficient sprout and advance 

regeneration management with more rapid site utilization. In practice, applying even-aged 

systems on upland oak-hickory sites often leads to fewer impacts to trees, soils, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 287 of 329 

watershed. On dryer upland sites, the modified shelterwood defined as an even-aged 

system in NFMA and a two-aged system by SAF, accomplishes many benefits of both the 

even-aged and uneven-aged systems with fewer disadvantages overall. 

The rotation ages for major forest types at the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) were 

developed from estimates of senescence and longevity of oak species in Eastern deciduous 

forests. Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) for major types at LBL is based 

on the growth models projected for pines, xeric oak, dry to mesic oaks, and mesic 

(mesophytes). Since CMAI indicates the point of reduced growth inflection and not the 

growth plateau, rotation ages based on senescence will be longer. Harvesting before 

CMAI would likely result in shorter rotations that do not meet other management 

objectives. Any rotations less than the point of CMAI will be in response to specific 

wildlife or recreation needs, or severe stand damage such as in an insect and disease 

epidemic or where weather related. 

The CMAI and rotation ages displayed by major vegetation groups are as follows: 

CMAI Age (yrs) Scheduled Rotation Age (yrs) Vegetation Group 

95 100 Pine 

90 120 Xeric Oak 

100 120 Other Oak 

100 140 Mesophytic 

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.” 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 288 of 329 

3.4.11 Special Uses 

Demands made on the national forest for special use permits for a variety of uses are 

growing each year. Each application for a permit is reviewed to determine if it is in the 

public interest and is allowed by law. No permits for occupancy of NFS lands can be 

issued unless authorized by a specific law. In 2003, LBL administered about 322 permits 

on LBL. 

Table 3.4.11A- Type of Permits or Agreements in 2001 

Forest Service Special Use Permits 

Recreation 

Disabled Hunter Access 28 

Special Events 46 

Special Event Services 22 

Concessionaire 3 

Seasonal Camping 171 

Research and Training 34 

Agriculture Cooperative Farming 7 

Utility Corridor (buried cable) 1 

Land Use 1 

Agreements Under the Protection Act 

Utility Corridors 4 

Communication 4 

State Agency in Facility 2 

Total Permits and Agreements 323 

For communication sites and utility rights of way, LBL will continue with sites officially 

designated under the LBL Protection Act. If single use sites or temporary sites are needed 

for permanent uses, the sites will be designated by following the formal designation 

process. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Land and road ROWs, or construction could affect various wildlife species during 

maintenance of these corridors or access routes. Habitat alteration would potentially occur. 

On the other hand, many wildlife species can utilize and benefit from the early succession 

habitat provided by the construction and subsequent vegetative cover for road banks or 

utility covers on the ROWs (See discussion in Section 3.2). Cleared ROWs can contrast in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 289 of 329 

form, line, color, and texture compared with natural conditions and is not expected to 

change from existing condition. ROW management has effects on scenery, as discussed in 

Section 3.4.7. 

As a general rule, special use authorizations are discouraged especially if the same benefits 

can be achieved from private land. Sometimes these benefits can only be obtained from 

Forest Service or federally managed land, such as recreation uses, communication sites, 

and research projects. Special use access requiring OHVs must be consistent with 

National Forest Service policy. Each request for a special use authorization will be 

screened and evaluated to determine if the direct and indirect impacts to LBL can be 

mitigated. 

In most cases, special use authorizations would have a low impact on federal land, 

especially if proper mitigation is addressed in all site specific environmental considerations 

and permit operating plans. 

Cumulatively, there would be no significant effects to Special Uses. 

3.4.12 Environmental Justice 

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decision-making is 

encompassed with the concerns of environmental justice and civil rights. Executive Order 

12898, Federal actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, stipulates “each Federal agency shall make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

Principles for considering environmental justice are outlined in Environmental Justice 

Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), 1997. The Executive Order also contains emphasis on the potential effects 

of agency actions on subsistence consumption of fish, vegetation or wildlife. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies to work to ensure effective public participation and 

access to information. 

To fulfill these principles, environmental justice was considered throughout the land 

management planning process in the following phases: 

1. Scoping and Public Participation – Efforts were made by the Forest Service to reach as 

many people in the area as possible, through mailings, newsletters, newspaper articles, 

news releases, radio interviews, and contacts with federal, state, and local governments, 

non-profit organizations, civic organizations, and other type of organizations. Participation 

was sought in various locations and formats throughout the planning process. (See 

Appendix A on Public Involvement.) 

2. Determining the Affected Environment – The Socio-Economic Environment and Effects 

section of Chapter 3 for the EIS presented information related to population growth, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 290 of 329 

minority populations, population density, income, unemployment and poverty, and 

economic diversity in the area affected directly by LBL management, and compared this 

information within a more regional context when appropriate. There were no segments of 

the population identified who depend on subsistence consumption of fish, wildlife, or 

vegetation within the planning area. No areas were identified that had significant minority 

populations. However, the unemployment rate in the area is below the national level 

average; the work available produces an average family income low enough to be a factor 

in determining LBL programs and fees. Because Stewart and Henry counties of Tennessee 

qualify and are designated as Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) zones, for the 

purpose of evaluating environmental justice, this area is recognized as a ‘low-income’ 

population. 

3. Analysis and Effects - Chapter 3 of the EIS, the Recreation Affected Environment and 

Environmental Education Affected Environment portion of the land management planning 

process, discusses in more detail the estimated effects for each alternative if implemented. 

Management actions that have the greatest potential for impacting human health are those 

that may influence air quality and water quality; LBL does not possess any of these 

problems. So, there are no disproportionately adverse environmental or health effects to 

the low-income populations, based on programmatic decisions and land allocations within 

the Area Plan or EIS. 

4. Alternatives – Although low-income populations are identified in Stewart and Henry 

Counties of Tennessee, the alternatives considered in this EIS contain no management 

activities planned where the effects on human health are considered significant. Therefore, 

there was no need to develop an alternative specifically driven by an environmental justice 

concern. 

5. Record of Decision - The record of decision must address any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on a low-income population, minority, 

population, or Indian tribe. Based on the effects analysis in earlier parts on this chapter, 

there were none. 

6. Mitigation – Mitigation measures to avoid, mitigate, minimize, rectify, reduce or 

eliminate the impacts on affected populations should be identified in the EIS. There are no 

mitigation measures necessary to specifically address an environmental justice concern. 

* Environmental Justice issues are typically found in connection with proposals having 

adverse environmental effects that may affect public health. Those kinds of effects are less 

likely in a forest plan decision because a plan revision does not normally include sitespecific projects or effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 291 of 329 

Other Effects 

LBL’s alternatives may impact low income persons and families by charging fees at 

specified facilities. Alternatives W, X, and Y would produce the same impact; Z may 

reduce fees or eliminates some fees. Fees under each alternative will be evaluated for 

changes in each Alternative. 

For all alternatives, general access to LBL will be available to everyone. The general 

forest and many day-use areas will be open to everyone as well. There are free days 

provided each year to some facilities at LBL, and the expansion of these opportunities is 

being considered under all the alternatives. Nature Watch Demonstration Areas, in 

Alternatives Y and Z, will create more self-guided opportunities for all visitors, regardless 

of income. 

3.4.13 Incomplete or Unavailable Information 

LBL has used the most current scientific information available and state-of-the-art 

analytical tools to evaluate management activities and to estimate their environmental 

effects. 

However, gaps exist in our knowledge. The Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations discuss the process for evaluating incomplete and unavailable information (40 

CFR 1502.22 (a) and (b)). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 292 of 329 

Chapter 4 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

4.1 List of Preparers and Contributing Sources 

Table 4.1A – List of Preparers 

Name and Title Credentials and Experience 

Core Team 

Barbara Wysock 

Area Planner 

MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati 

BE, Chemical Engineering, Vanderbilt University 

Federal Employment: Forest Service and Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Richard T. Lomax 

Environmental Education 

Specialist 

BS, Recreation Resource Mgt., University of South Alabama 

Federal Employment: Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service 

Elizabeth P. Raikes 

Biologist, Fisheries and 

Wildlife Management 

BS, Fisheries & Wildlife Mgt., Lake Superior State College 

AAS, Recreation & Wildlife Mgt., Hocking Technical College 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Darrius Truss 

Soils Scientist 

BS, Environmental Sciences, Alabama A&M University 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Philip L. Sammon 

Writer/Editor; Public Affairs 

Specialist 

Certified Public Affairs Officer, Journalist, Broadcaster 

Defense Information School, Ft. Meade, MD 

Federal Employment: Department of Defense, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, and Forest Service 

Susanne DeCenso 

Office Automation Clerk 

Certified Paralegal; Certification, Managerial Accounting 

Civilian professional experience 

Leadership Team

William P. Lisowsky 

Area Supervisor 

BS, Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University 

Licensed Professional Engineer 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Judy Hallisey 

Environmental Stewardship 

Department Manager 

BS, Forest Resources Management, MS Watershed Science and 

Affiliated Faculty, University of Idaho 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 293 of 329 

Table 4.1A - Continued 

Brian Beisel 

Customer Service Department 

Manager 

BS, Forest Management, University of Wisconsin 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Kathryn Harper 

Communications Services 

Department Manager 

BA and MFA, Visual Arts Communication, Louisiana State 

University; BA, Communication Design, Northeast LA State 

University 

Federal Employment: Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service 

Barry Haley 

Business Performance 

Manager 

Business Major (+ equivalent of MBA) 

Federal Employment: Department of Defense and Forest Service 

Duane Cameron 

Law Enforcement Supervisor 

Federal Employment: Forest Service Law Enforcement and 

Investigation 

Extended Team

Steve Bloemer 

Wildlife Biologist 

MS, Biology, Tennessee Technological University 

BA, Biology, Murray State University 

Federal Employment: Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service 

Steve Hanna 

Forester 

BS, Forest Science, MS, Forest Ecology, University of Illinois; Ph.D. 

in Forest Ecology and soils, Auburn University 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Gary Hawkins 

Recreation Services Manager 

BS, Forestry, University of Kentucky 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Russell Hayes 

Facility Engineer 

BS Mechanical Engineering, University of Kentucky 

Federal Employment: Department of Defense and Forest Service 

Robert Wise 

Archeologist 

MA, Anthropology, State University of New York 

BA, Anthropology, Southern Illinois University 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Daphne Sewing 

Environmental Education 

Manager 

MS, Wildland Recreation Management, University of Idaho 

BS, Secondary Education, Southeast Missouri State University 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Jim McCoy, 

Wildlife Biologist; 

Fire Management Officer 

BS, Wildlife Biology, Arkansas Technical University 

Federal Employment: Forest Service 

Other Specialists

James R. “Red” Anderson, 

Cherokee NF 

Forest Planner

Paul Arndt, Forest Service 

Region 8 

Regional Planner

Greg Barnes, LBL Social Scientist 

Kristy Barnes, LBL Forestry Recreation Specialist 

Facility Manager, Piney Campground 

Bruce Bayle, Forest Service 

Region 8 

ARM Program Manager 

Biological and Physical Resource Unit
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 294 of 329 

Table 4.1A - Continued 

Jane Benson, LBL GIS, Mapping Specialist 

Sharon Byers, LBL Executive Secretary 

Deborah Caffin, Forest ServiceRegion 

8 

Wilderness and Trails 

Avanell Clardy, LBL Resource Assistant 

Alan Clingenpeel, Ouachita NF Hydrologist 

John Donahue, Jefferson NF Forester 

Matthew J. Edwards, LBL Forestry Technician 

Turkey Bay Off-Highway Vehicle Manager 

Bill Hughes, Forest ServiceRegion 8 Landscape Architect 

Mary Hughes-Frye, Forest Service 

Region 8 

Developed Recreation 

David Jones, LBL GIS, Mapping Specialist 

Sandy Jones, LBL Office Automation Clerk 

Glen Kinder, LBL Procurement Clerk 

Emily Loomis, LBL Recreation Trainee 

Dale Wine Fire Suppression Specialist 

Tim Mersmann, Forest ServiceRegion 

8 

Planning Biologist 

Biological and Physical Resource Unit

Randall Mitchell, LBL Wranglers Campground Manager 

Rick Morgan, Forest ServiceRegion 8 Planning, NEPA, Budget

Crystal Powell, LBL Recreation Specialist 

Hillman Ferry Campground Manager 

Scott Ray, LBL Wildlife Technician 

Clair Redmond, Forest ServiceRegion 

8 

Regional Economist

William Ryan, LBL Recreation Specialist 

Turkey Bay Off-Highway Vehicle Manager 

Darrin Samborski, LBL Environmental Education Specialist 

Paul Schaefer, LBL NEPA Specialist 

Denise Schmittou, LBL Public Affairs Specialist 

James B. Thweatt, LBL Forestry Technician 

Assistant Manager, Wranglers Campground 

Eric Twombly, Wallowa-Whitman NF Forest Service Soil Scientist

Regina Weakley, LBL Information Assistant 

Donna Thompson, LBL Financial Management Technician 

Wanda Crump Office Automation Assistant 

Alan Whited, LBL Wildlife Biologist 

Bob Wilhelm, Forest Service 

Region 8 

Regional Planner
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 295 of 329 

4.2 Distribution List 

Individuals 

Individuals who provided a comment response on the Draft Area Plan were sent a CD copy 

of the final documents. Unless otherwise requested, one copy was provided for each form 

letter received. Anyone who requested a paper copy of the draft documents was sent a 

paper copy of the final documents. The remaining individuals on the Focus on the Future

mailing list, as of November 1, 2004, were notified of the availability of the FEIS. 

All organizations and agencies in the following list received a copy of the FEIS and final 

plan. 

Associations, Businesses, Federal Agencies, State, City, and County 

Agencies and Organizations 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Austin Peay State University Library 

Benton County Public Library 

Big Sandy Library 

Bureau of Land Management 

Cadiz-Trigg County Tourist Commission 

Calloway County Public Library 

Calvert City Library Branch 

Caroline Neilson, US House of Representatives 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

Chickasaw Nation 

Clarksville/Montgomery County Economic Development Council 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Railroad Administration 

General Services Administration 

Hardin Branch Library 

Houston County Library 

Humphreys County Public Library 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 296 of 329 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

John L. Street Library 

Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Services 

Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Kentucky Heritage Council 

Kentucky Resources Council Inc 

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 

Lyon County Public Library 

Marshall County Public Library 

McCracken County Public Library 

Murray State University Library 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

NOAA Ecology and Conservation Office 

Office of Economic Opportunity 

Ohio River Basins Commission 

Paducah Community College Library 

Region 8, Regional Administrator 

Rural Development Administration 

Shawnee Trail Conservancy 

Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project 

Stewart County Public Library 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

Berlin Moore, Judge Executive, Trigg Co., KY 

Bill Frist, US Senate 

Bob Jackson, US Senate 

Brian T. Moody, Mayor of Grand Rivers, KY 

Chris Lasher, Judge Executive, Livingston Co., KY 

Danny Orazine, Judge Executive, McCracken Co., KY 

David Wallace, County Mayor, Stewart Co., TN 

Douglas Wieland, County Mayor, Montgomery Co., TN 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield, US House of Representatives 

J. R. Gray, US House of Representatives 

Gayle Griffith, Mayor of Paris, TN 

Jim Bunning, US Senate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 297 of 329 

Jim Cooper, US House of Representatives 

Joey Pendleton, Kentucky Senate 

John May, Judge Executive, Crittenden Co., KY 

John Tanner, US House of Representatives 

John W. Adams, Kentucky State Representative 

Lamar Alexander, US Senate 

Larry Elkins, Judge Executive, Calloway Co. KY 

Marsha Blackburn, US House of Representatives 

Mike Cherry, Kentucky State Representative 

Mike Haywood, US Senate 

Mike Miller, Judge Executive, Marshall Co., KY 

Mitch McConnell, US Senate 

Richard Adams; Kentucky State Senate 

Robert Buckingham, Kentucky State Representative 

Sara Boyd, Judge Executive, Lyon Co., KY 

Steve Tribble, Judge Executive, Christian Co. KY 

Thomas Rushing, Mayor of Murray, KY 

Tony Smith, Judge Executive, Graves Co., KY 

Van Knight, Judge Executive, Caldwell Co., KY 

TN Department of Tourist Development 

Tourism Development Cabinet, State of Kentucky 

US Air Force 

US Army Engr. Div, South Atlantic, CESAD 

US Coast Guard (USCG) 

US Department of Commerce 

US Department of Defense 

US Department of Energy 

US Department of the Interior 

US Department of Transportation 

US Navy 

US Department of Housing & Urban Development 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA Forest Service, Region 8 

USDA National Agricultural Library 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 298 of 329 

Chapter 5 

GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS AND LIST OF REFERENCES 

5.1 Glossary 

Term Definition 

Accessibility The relative ease or difficulty of getting to or from someplace, especially the ability of a site, facility 

or opportunity to be utilized by persons of varying physical and mental abilities. 

Accessible Facility: A single or contiguous group of improvements, that exists to shelter or support Forest Service 

Programs that is in compliance with the highest standard of current Federal or Forest Service 

accessibility guidelines, at the time of construction. 

Advanced 

Regeneration 

 New growth which appears spontaneously or is induced under existing stands 

Aesthetics How visual features are perceived in relation to the sense of beauty. 

Age-class An aggregation of trees that are essentially the same age. Age-class is often used synonymously 

with "size-class." 

Agricultural land Lands suitable for a sustained yield of food, fiber, or forage crops. (excluding wood). Examples 

include cropland, pasture, orchards, vineyards, nurseries, confined feeding areas, farmsteads, etc. 

Alluvial site type Pertains to and generally representative of the bank of a river, lake, or other body of water, wetness 

for a period of time. See Section 3.2 of the FEIS for a full description of this site type. 

Alternative In Area planning, a mix of resource outputs designed to achieve a desired management emphasis 

as expressed in goals and objectives, and in response to public issues or management concerns.

Annuals Plants living and growing for only one year or growing season. 

Archaeological sites (see Historic sites). 

Aspect The cardinal (north, south, etc.) direction a slope faces. 

Bankfull stage The point at which flooding occurs on the floodplain. 

Basal area The area of the cross-section of a tree inclusive of bark at breast height (4.5 feet or 1.37 meters 

above the ground) most commonly expressed as square feet per acre or square meters per hectare. 

Used to measure the density of a stand of trees. For shrubs and herbs it is used to determine 

phytomass. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs usually measured at or less than 1 inch above soil level and 

may also be tallied through the use of basal area factor angle gauge. 

BEIG Built Environment Image Guide, is a guide for design of administrative and recreation buildings, 

landscape structures, site furnishings, wayside structures, and signs installed or operated by the 

Forest Service, its cooperators and permittees. 

Best Management 

Practices 

A practice, or combination of practices, that is determined to be the most effective, practical means 

of preventing or reducing non-point source pollution to a level compatible with maintaining water 

quality. 

Biological 

assessment 

A “biological evaluation” conducted for major federal construction or planning projects requiring 

an environmental impact statement, in accordance with legal requirements under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(C)). The purpose of the assessment and resulting 

document is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect an endangered, threatened, 

or proposed species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 299 of 329 

Biological diversity The diversity of life in all its forms (i. e., genetic, species, ecosystem) and all its levels of 

organization. Also termed biodiversity. 

Biological evaluation A documented Forest Service review of its programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how an action or proposed action may affect any proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive 

species. 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Breeding migratory and non-migratory birds of the United States and its territories that are of 

concern for proactive conservation actions and that without these actions, are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The primary legal authority for 

Birds of Conservation efforts is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. 

Board foot An amount of wood equal to a piece 12-inch by 12-inch by one-inch. 

Bottomland The normal flood plain of a stream. 

Bottomland 

hardwood 

 Extensive wooded area on low alluvial land next to a forest river containing various tree species with 

hard compact woods such as oak, cherry, maple, etc. 

Browse Palatable twigs, shoots, leaves, and buds of woody plants that animals feed on. 

Canopy The layer of vegetation comprised of the foliage of tree crowns in a forest. 

Canopy cover The percent of a fixed area covered by the crown of an individual plant species or delimited by the 

vertical projection of its outermost perimeter. Small openings in the crown are included. Used to 

express the relative importance of individual species within a vegetation community, or to express 

the canopy cover of woody species. Canopy cover may be used as a measure of land cover change 

or trend. Often used for wildlife habitat evaluations. 

Canopy Gap In forest ecology, a space occurring in the general forest crown cover caused by the fall or death of 

one or more trees forming the canopy/ 

Central hardwoods Refers to the forests of the central United States. 

Chert A structureless form of silica, closely related to flint, which breaks into angular fragments. 

Clearcut The removal of a timber stand (all trees greater than one inch in diameter) in one harvest cut under 

the even-aged silvicultural system. The cut area is prepared for either natural or artificial 

regeneration. A "modified clearcut" leaves 10 to 20 square feet of basal area in trees standing 

following all cultural treatments. These trees serve as perch trees, dens, and provide hard mast for 

wildlife. 

Codominant tree Trees with crowns forming the general level of the canopy and receiving full light from above but 

comparatively little from the sides; usually with medium-sized crowns more or less crowded on the 

sides. 

Community An assemblage of plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi that live in an environment and interact with 

one another; forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure, environmental 

relations, development, and functions. 

Conservation The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife and of natural resources such as 

forests, soils, and water. 

Constraint A qualification of the minimum and maximum amount of an output or cost that could or should be 

produced or incurred in a given time period. 

Controlled burning (see Prescribed fire) 

Coppice A method of regenerating a stand in which all trees in the previous stand are harvested and the 

majority of regeneration is from stump sprouts or root suckers. 

Cord A unit of gross volume measurement for stacked roundwood based on external dimensions, generally 

a four-foot by four-foot by eight-foot stack (128 cubic feet). 

Core Area A designated section of the General Forest area where minimal management measures are applied. 

These areas were formerly labeled as Biosphere Reserve Core Areas in the Draft Plan and Draft EIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 300 of 329 

Cover Any physical or biological features or arrangements of features that provide shelter from weather or 

concealment from predators. 

Cubic foot A unit of measure reflecting a piece of wood 12 inches long, 12 inches wide, and 12 inches thick. 

Culmination of 

Mean Annual 

Increment 

The age at which the average rate of annual tree growth stops increasing and begins to decline. 

Mean annual increment is expressed in cubic feet measure and is based upon expected growth, 

according to the management intensities and utilization standards assumed in accordance with 

36CFR 219.16(a)(2)(i) and (ii). Culmination of mean annual increment includes regeneration 

harvest yields and any additional yields from planned intermediate harvests. 

Cultural resources The physical remains (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) and conceptual content or 

context (such as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events for native people) of an area 

which is useful in gaining knowledge about man's past. Cultural resources are non-renewable. 

Cultural site The physical location of a cultural resource. 

Cutting cycle The planned, recurring time period between successive harvests within a forest management 

compartment. This term is also used to describe the time period between successive harvests within 

a stand. 

Danger tree A tree within a developed site, or adjoining area, which may cause bodily harm to users because of 

breakage or uprooting. 

Decadent (See Old growth) 

Deferred 

maintenance 

Any routine maintenance (weekly, monthly, semi-annually, etc.) that is delayed for any reason. 

Den trees Trees that are alive and contain holes or hollows in the trunk or limbs large enough to shelter 

wildlife. They are used by many birds, mammals, and reptiles throughout the year for nesting, 

cover, and protection from the weather. 

Dens Those sites chosen by a given species of wildlife to sleep, rest, hibernate, and/or rear young. 

Desired condition An expression of resource goals that have been set for a unit of land. It is written as a narrative 

description of the landscape as it will appear when the goals have been achieved. The condition also 

includes a description of physical and biological processes, the environmental setting, and the human 

experience. 

Desired Landscape 

Character 

Appearance of the landscape character to be retained or created over time, recognizing that a 

landscape is a dynamic and constantly changing community of plants and animals. It includes the 

combination of landscape design attributes and opportunities, as well as biological opportunities and 

constraints. 

Desired non-native 

species 

A non-indigenous species to an area that has been approved to focus management due to their noninvasive and non-threatening characteristics to native species. 

Developed 

Recreation 

 Recreation use or opportunities occurring at developed sites. 

Developed recreation 

site 

 A discrete place containing a concentration of facilities and services used to provide recreation 

opportunities to the public and evidencing a significant investment in facilities and management 

under the direction of an administrative unit in the National Forest System. 

Development Level A term that refers to campgrounds, expressed as Development Level 1-5. Visitors in levels 1 and 2 

campgrounds generally seek a relatively primitive experience with a minimum of facilities for 

comfort or convenience. Level 3 developments focus on tent campers and small RVs that do not 

contain a water closet or bathing facilities some electrical sites may be present. Water hydrants are 

centrally located to serve 3-5 sites, and flush toilets are typical. Traditionally, a moderate degree of 

accessibility is provided. Level 4 and 5 developments serve users with RVs of all types. Showers, 

flush toilets and other amenities are available; individual water, sewer and electrical hookups are 

commonly provided; service buildings are located within 200 to 300 feet of all sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 301 of 329 

Diameter at breast 

height (dbh) 

Tree diameter (outside bark) at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). 

Dispersed 

Recreation 

Recreation opportunities or use occurring away from developed sites, providing very little contact 

with FS or volunteer staff. 

Diversity The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the 

area covered by a land and resource management plan. 

Dominant tree Trees with crowns extending above the general level of the canopy and receiving full light from 

above and partly from the side; larger than the average trees in the stands, and with crowns well 

developed but possibly somewhat crowded on the sides. 

Drawdowns Manual manipulation of water levels. 

Dry Mesic site types A transitional site type, between mesic and dry site types. Dry-mesic site types are associated with 

mid and lower slopes less than 460 feet elevation. (See Section 3.2 of the FEIS for a full description 

of this site type.) 

Dry site type Representative of soils with conditions which are very limited or devoid of moisture. (See Section 

3.2 of this FEIS for a full description of this site type.) 

Early successional 

habitat 

A vegetative condition typically characterized by low density to no tree canopy cover and an 

abundance of herbaceous and/or woody ground cover. This condition may include early-successional 

forest, maintained openings, pastures, balds, and open woodlands. 

Ecological study area An area designated by LBL as containing significant or unique interrelationships between biotic 

organisms and their abiotic environment. 

Ecosystem The interacting populations of plants, animals, and microorganisms occupying an area, including the 

physical environment. 

Effects These include: (a) direct effects caused by an action and occur at the same time and place; (b) 

indirect effects caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. Effects and impacts as used in this document are synonymous. 

Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 

An act that enables endangered and threatened species to be conserved. It provides a program for the 

conservation of such species and takes appropriate steps to achieve the purposes of the (relevant) 

treaties and conventions. 

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

A disclosure document revealing the environmental effects of a proposed action, which is required 

for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, and released 

to the public and other agencies for comment and review. A Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) is the final version of the statement disclosing environmental effects required for major 

federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Ephemeral stream A stream or dry wash that flows during, and for short periods following rain or snowmelt. 

Ephemeral streams have a functional channel with streambed and banks and are annually cleared of 

debris and litter. 

Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by the action of wind, water, or gravity. 

European Settlement This refers to non-American Indian settlement. European settlement began in 1790 for LBL. 

Even-aged 

silvicultural 

management 

A silvicultural system that results in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age 

grow together. (A spread of 20 years is considered one age class.) Even-aged forests are 

characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and therefore tree sizes) throughout the 

forest area. Clearcut, shelterwood, and seed-tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands. 

Even-aged methods Regeneration methods designed to maintain and regenerate a stand with a single age class. 

Even-aged stand A stand of trees containing a single age class in which the range of tree ages is usually less than 20 

percent of rotation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 302 of 329 

Facility A single or contiguous group of improvements that exists to shelter or support Forest Service 

Programs. The term may be used in either a broad or narrow context; for example, a facility may be 

a lookout tower, leased office, work center, separate housing area, visitor center, recreation complex, 

utility system, or telecommunications site. 

Facility-based 

Environmental 

Education 

Portion of overall EE program which utilizes components of highly developed facilities to assist in 

presentation of educational programs, activities, and messages. 

Feathering A treatment used along the edges of openings in the forest canopy to reduce shadow contrasts by 

manipulating the density and size of vegetation. 

Federally listed 

species 

 Animals or plants that have been formally added to federal lists of endangered or threatened wildlife 

or plants by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. In legal 

terms, also includes species formally proposed for addition to these lists. 

Filter strip Strips of grass, trees, and/or shrubs planted between water and cropland, situated between a 

potential, pollutant-source area and a surface-water body that receives run off. Filter strips provide 

water-quality protection by reducing the amount of sediment, organic matter, and some nutrients and 

pesticides, in the run off at the edge of the field, and before the run off enters the surface-water 

body. They also provide localized erosion protection since the vegetation covers an area of soil that 

otherwise might have a high erosion potential. 

Fire Condition Class Based on coarse scale national data, classes measure general wildfire risk: 

Class One – Fire regimes are usually within historical ranges. Vegetation composition and structure 

are intact. The risk of losing key ecosystem components from the occurrence of fire is relatively low. 

Class Two – Fire regimes on these lands have been moderately altered from their historical range by 

increased or decreased fire frequency. A moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components has 

been identified. 

Class Three – Fire regimes on these lands have been significantly altered from their historical return 

interval. The risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Fire frequencies have 

departed from historical ranges by multiple return intervals. Vegetation composition, structure, and 

diversity have been significantly altered. 

Floodplains Lowland or relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal water including, at a minimum, that area 

subject to a one percent (100-year return period) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 

Although floodplains and wetlands fall within the riparian area, they are defined here separately as 

described in the Forest Service Manual. 

Food plots Open lands planted in crops deemed beneficial to a variety of wildlife species for food and cover. 

Forage Food eaten by wild or domestic animals usually through browsing or grazing. (see Green forage) 

Forb Any herbaceous plant other than a grass or grass-like form species growing in its native habitat (e.g., 

field, prairie, or meadow). 

Forest An area managed for the production of timber and other forest products, or maintained under woody 

vegetation for indirect benefits as protection of a watershed, recreation, or wildlife habitat. 

Forest cover type A descriptive classification of forest land based on present occupancy of an area by tree species (also 

known as "forest type"). Examples: Oak-hickory. Forests in which upland oaks or hickory, singly or 

in combination, constitute a plurality of stocking. Oak-pine or mixed. Forests in which hardwoods 

(usually upland oaks) constitute a plurality of stocking but in which pines account for 25 to 50 

percent of the stocking. (Common associates include gum, hickory, and yellow poplar). 

Forest health The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about factors as its age, structure, 

composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or disease, and resilience to 

disturbance. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 303 of 329 

Forest land Land area with a minimum size of one acre and 100 feet in width at least ten percent stocked with 

trees of any size. Minimum stocking is determined by either crown cover or basal area: (1) tree 

crowns occupy at least ten percent of the potential canopy area and/or; (2) there are at least 100 

seedlings and saplings combined per acre. 

Forest management The process of planning, organizing, and implementing actions within a forested area. 

Forest type A category of forest defined by its vegetation (particularly its dominant composition) as based on a 

percentage cover of trees. 

Game species Any species of wildlife or fish for which hunting/fishing seasons and/or bag/creel limits have been 

prescribed, and which are normally harvested by hunters, trappers, and fishermen under State or 

Federal laws, codes, and regulations. 

Geographic 

Information System 

An information processing technology to input, store, manipulate, analyze, and display spatial 

resource data to support the decision-making processes of an organization. Generally, an electronic 

medium for processing map information, typically used with manual processes to affect specific 

decisions about land base and its resources. 

Goals Lofty, desired, end-result conditions normally expressed in broad, general terms. 

Grassland Areas on which vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, and/or cryptogams 

(mosses, lichens, and ferns), provided these areas do not qualify as built-up land or cultivated 

cropland. Areas identified in the FEIS include currently existing maintained open land, ecological 

restoration areas, old fields, hayfields, and utility and road rights-of-way. 

Green forage All non-woody plants (grasses, grass-like plants, and forbs) and portions of woody plants (browse) 

available to wildlife for food. Only a portion of a plant is available for forage if the plant is to remain 

healthy. 

Ground-nesting A classification of birds that construct their nests on the ground. 

Groundwater Water within the earth or geologic stratum that supplies wells and springs. 

Group selection A method of harvest in an uneven-aged silvicultural system in which trees are removed in groups 

large enough to allow new trees to become established and remain free to grow in direct sunlight. 

Gullyheads The narrow beginning of a gully. 

Habitat The total environmental conditions on a unit of land as they relate to the distribution of food, cover, 

and water. 

Habitat diversity The variety and variability of habitat types as well as their interrelationships on a given area and 

scale. 

Hardwoods Angiosperms, usually broadleaf and deciduous. Soft hardwoods are soft-textured hardwoods such as 

box elder, red and silver maple, hackberry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, blackgum, sycamore, black 

cherry, and elm. Hard hardwoods are hard-textured hardwoods such as sugar maple, hickory, 

dogwood, persimmon, black locust, beech, ash, black walnut, and all commercial oaks. 

Harvest (timber) Cutting and removal of trees from the forest. 

Harvest intensity The relative volume of wood removed per acre. 

Herbicide A chemical used for killing or controlling the growth of undesirable plants. 

Heritage Sites/Assets Remnants of past cultures that remind us of the centuries-old relationship between people and the 

land (from National Heritage Strategy); property, plant or equipment that are unique for one or more 

of the following reasons: (1) historical or natural significance; (2) cultural, educational or 

artistic/aesthetic significance; or (3) significant architectural characteristics. 

High-grading Harvesting to extract only the most valuable trees from a forest. No consideration is given to 

regeneration requirements of tree species or for future development of the trees or forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 304 of 329 

Historic Landscapes Industrial, agricultural, pastoral or domestic landscapes that have evolved over many years from 

human alteration. They are commonly functional and often vernacular, and may not always be 

visually pleasing, often responding to specific functions or topography, not formally planned or 

designed. They may be informal to the degree that they appear to be natural occurrences, or the 

spatial organization of built and natural elements may be quite traditional or formal. They are 

identifiable and can be mapped, either as point-specific features or enclaves within a larger 

landscape, as entire landscapes themselves, or as a combination of both. 

Historic period The time period from A.D. 1700 to within the past 50 years. 

Historic site Cultural sites more than 50 years old. 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code (HUC) 

 A unique number “consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the 

hydrologic unit system.” The hydrologic unit system is a means of dividing the United States “into 

successively smaller hydrologic units which are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, 

accounting units, and cataloging units: 

Improvement 

cuttings 

 Intermediate cuttings made in older stands (past the sapling stage) to regulate species composition 

and tree quality. 

Indicator Species One of six categories of Focal Species per NFMA; an organism whose characteristics are used as an 

index of attributes too difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure for other species 

environmental conditions of interest. 

Infestation The attack by macroscopic organisms in considerable concentration. Examples are infestations of 

tree crowns by budworm, timber by termites, soil or other substrates by nematodes or weeds. 

INFRA An integrated database for collection/storage/use of information about features, land units, facilities 

and utilities, accessibility and real property. For recreation management, INFRA holds information 

on operation and maintenance costs, recreation funding shortfalls, recreation use data, information 

on accessibility, and inventories of facilities. INFRA, as a trademarked software program, brings 

together Oracle, Arc Info, and Arc View GIS technology, and supplements recreation management 

systems. 

Infrastructure The basic facilities, services and installations needed for the functioning of LBL, such as roads, 

communications systems, water, power lines, and buildings. 

Integrated pest 

management (IPM) 

The comprehensive systems approach to achieving economical pest control in an environmentally 

acceptable manner. The individual components of integrated pest management in forestry include 

cultural, mechanical, manual, prescribed fire, biological, chemical, and regulatory means. 

Intermediate cutting Any removal of trees between the time of stand formation and regeneration harvest. The purpose is 

to control stand growth by adjusting stand density. These cuttings are made without effort directed at 

regeneration. 

Intermediate tree Trees shorter than those in the dominant or codominant classes but with crowns extending into the 

general level of the canopy, receiving little direct light from above and none from the sides; 

characterized by small crowns considerably crowded on the sides. 

Intermittent stream A stream that flows in a well defined channel during the wet seasons of the year but not the entire 

year. 

Interpretation Communication activities, messages, and programs designed to improve individuals understanding 

of natural and cultural resources. 

Introduced species Non-native or exotic species of plants and animals that have been introduced to an area either 

accidentally or knowingly. 

Invertebrates Animals lacking a backbone or spinal column. 

Karst (topography) The relief of an area underlain by limestone that dissolves in differing degrees, thus forming 

numerous depressions or small basins. 

Landscape An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, land form, soils, 

climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscapes are generally of a size, shape, 

and pattern that are determined by interacting ecosystems. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 305 of 329 

Landscape 

Character 

 Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or 

unique. 

Legume A pod, such as that of a pea or bean, that splits into two valves (parts) with the seeds attached to one 

edge of the valves. Generally referred to as a plant of the pea family. 

Lime A material containing carbonates, oxides and/or hydroxides of calcium and/or magnesium used to 

neutralize soil acidity. 

Litter The uppermost layer of organic debris on the ground under a vegetative cover type, composed of 

freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetable material from foliage with small amounts of bark 

fragments, twigs, flowers, fruits, etc. 

Locally rare Species for which representation in LBL is a concern. Development of a locally rare species list is at 

the discretion of LBL and may be completed in cooperation with the state and other federal agencies 

as well as other interested groups, organizations, or individuals. 

Log deck/landing The location where felled trees are brought to be cut into logs and loaded onto trucks. 

Logging The occupation of felling trees, cutting them into logs and transporting the logs to sawmills or to a 

place of sale. 

Low thinning An intermediate thinning in which trees are removed primarily from the lower crown classes. This 

simulates, but also accelerates, the natural elimination of these classes in stand development. 

Maintenance level 

(roads) 

The level of service provided by a specific road and the maintenance required for that road, 

consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. 

Level 5 – Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally they are 

two-lane, paved facilities or aggregate surfaces with dust abatement. 

Level 4 – Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate 

speeds. Most are two-lane and aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane, and some may have 

dust abatement. 

Level 3 – Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. 

User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Typically low speed, single lane with 

turnouts and native or aggregate surfacing. 

Level 2 – Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. May be closed on an intermittent basis. 

Passenger car traffic is discouraged. Traffic is minor administrative, permitted, or dispersed 

recreation. Non-traffic generated maintenance is minimal. 

Level 1 – These roads are closed to motorized use for a period of one or more years. They may be 

suitable and used for non-motorized uses, with custodial maintenance. 

Management 

Indicator Species 

An animal or plant selected for use as a planning tool in accordance with 1982 NFMA regulations 

(36 CFR 219.19). These species are used to help set objectives, analyze effects of alternatives, and 

monitor plan implementation. They are chosen because their population changes are believed to 

indicate the effects of management on selected biological components. 

Management unit The smallest forest activity area in LBL on which records are kept. 

Mast Fruits, berries, or nuts. An important food source for many wildlife species. Hard mast includes 

fruit or nuts of oaks, beech, walnuts, and hickories. Soft mast includes fruits and berries of black 

gum, dogwood, viburnums, crataegus, grape, blackberries, and honeysuckle. 

Mature stands Stands of trees that have grown into the sawtimber class but have not yet begun to decline and die 

from natural processes. 

Memorandum Of 

Understanding 

(MOU) 

A formal agreement between any two organizations or agencies, wherein the two parties agree to 

specific actions or items that are mutually beneficial to both, and are in the best interest of the 

organizations, their members, employees or patrons, as well as the general public in the case of 

federal agencies. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 306 of 329 

Mesic site type Moist site conditions with relatively productive soil types. See Section 3.2 of the FEIS for a full 

description of this site type. 

Mesophytic plants Plants that are adapted to growing conditions where water availability is intermediate. Often referred 

to as "moist-site plants". 

Mid-story Shrubs and small trees growing between the forest floor and the canopy. This includes suppressed, 

overtopped, and intermediate trees. 

Migrant species An animal that shifts from one habitat to another whether by chance, as a normal phase of a life 

cycle, or as part of a population’s expansion. 

Million board feet 

(mmbf) 

A large-scale measurement equal to one-thousand-thousand board feet of unfinished cut wood. 

Commonly, 1,000 board feet is written as 1 mbf, and 1,000,000 board feet is written as 1 mmbf 

(“M” is Roman numeral for 1,000). 

Mitigation A strategy contained within an alternative which seeks to a) avoid an impact by not taking a certain 

action; b) minimize an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; c) rectify an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; d) reduce or eliminate an impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; or e) compensate for an impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments. 

Monitoring Techniques used to validate standards, determine visitor expectations, needs and preferences and to 

assess resource conditions. 

Monitoring and 

Evaluation (also 

M&E) 

 The process of determining, on a sample basis, how well the objectives of forest plan management 

practices have been met and what effects those practices had on the land and environment. 

Motorized 

Recreation 

Recreation that takes place on or in a vehicle or device powered by a motor, engine or other nonliving power source. This includes but is not limited to ATV’s, motorbikes, aircraft, motor boats, 

motorized buggies and four wheel drive vehicles. 

Multiple use The management of all the various resources of the NFS so that they are used in a manner that will 

best meet the needs of the American people. Making the most judicious use of the land for these 

resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in the use to conform to changing needs and conditions. 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 

An act to declare a national policy that will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

humankind and the environment. 

It was created to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, 

biosphere, and stimulate the health and welfare of humanity. In addition, the Act was crafted to 

enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation, and 

establish a Council of Environmental Quality. 

National Forest 

Management Act 

(NFMA) of 1976 

Act passed as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 

requiring the preparation of regional guides and forest plans, and the preparation of regulations to 

guide them. 

National Recreation 

Trails 

Trails designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture as part of the 

national system of trails authorized by the National Trails System Act. National recreation trails 

provide a variety of outdoor recreation uses in or reasonably accessible to urban areas. 

National Register of 

Historic Places 

The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of 

preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register 

is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, 

and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, 

archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park 

Service, which is part of the US Department of the Interior. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 307 of 329 

National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) 

A systematic process to estimate annual recreation and other uses of National Forest lands through 

user surveys. 

National Wilderness 

Preservation System 

All lands covered by the Wilderness Act and subsequent wilderness designations, irrespective of the 

department or agency having jurisdiction. 

Native species Species normally indigenous to an area; not introduced by man. 

Natural regeneration An age class created from natural seeding, sprouting, suckering, or layering. 

Neotropical migratory 

Birds (NMB) 

Birds that breed in the United States during summer and winter in Mexico, Central America, South 

America, and the Caribbean Basin. 

Non-facility-based 

Environmental 

Education 

Method of interpretation in which targeted educational messages are delivered in sites unassociated 

with the highly developed educational facilities. Interpretive signs, trails and printed materials are 

examples of these methods. 

Non-game species Any species of wildlife or fish which is ordinarily not managed or otherwise controlled by hunting, 

fishing, or trapping regulations. The designation may vary by state. 

Non-native species Any species of plant or animal that is not historically indigenous to a given area or locale. 

Objectives Concise statements of measurable, desired results intended to promote achievement of goals. 

Off-Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) 

Any vehicle capable of being operated off established roads (e.g., motorbikes, and small and large 

four-wheel drive vehicles). 

Old growth Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth encompasses the 

latter stages of stand development. These latter stages typically differ from earlier successional 

stages in a variety of ways which may include tree size; accumulations of large, dead woody 

materials; number of canopy layers; species composition; and ecosystem function. 

Open land Land permanently maintained in a non-forested condition but not developed. 

Optimum The point at which the condition, degree, or amount of something is the most favorable. 

Biologically it is the most favorable condition for growth and reproduction. 

Outposts At LBL, these are small “camp stores” that provide basic necessities to visitors at the three highlydeveloped campgrounds. 

Overstory Trees forming the upper or uppermost canopy level in a forest of more than one story. Relative to 

even-aged stands; the mature trees which overtop the younger trees. 

PAOT Persons-at-one-time; a measure of recreation carrying capacity, especially for developed sites. 

National conventions include 5 persons per family picnic/camp unit, 3.5 persons per parking lot stall 

at a trailhead or visitor center, 1.5 persons per motorcycle parking stall and 40 persons per tour bus 

parking stall. 

Partial cutting (see Intermediate cutting). 

Partnership Voluntary, mutually beneficial and desired arrangement between the Forest Service and another or 

others to accomplish mutually agreed-on objectives consistent with the agency’s mission and serving 

the public’s interest. 

Perennial stream A stream that carries water during 90 percent or more of one year. 

Perennials Present in all seasons of the year. 

Pest control Actions taken to remove, eliminate or prevent infestation by undesirable (pest) species of plants or 

animals in a specific area. 

Pheromone Any hormonal substance secreted by an individual which stimulates a physiological or behavioral 

response from an individual of the same species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 308 of 329 

Physiographic 

divisions/provinces 

Systematic description of areas with some point of physical geology in common. 

Poletimber Live trees at least five inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) but smaller than sawtimber (11.0 

inches dbh) size. 

Prehistoric The time period from AD 1000 to 1700. 

Prescribed fire The practice of using controlled fires to reduce or eliminate the unincorporated organic matter of the 

forest floor, or low, undesirable vegetation (often referred to as controlled burning). 

Project A work schedule prescribed for a project area to accomplish management prescriptions. An 

organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, activities, outputs, effects, time 

period, and responsibilities for execution. 

Proposed action In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or decision that a federal 

agency intends to implement or undertake. The proposed action described in the Environmental 

Impact Statement is the Forest Plan. 

Public roads Roads across national forest land which were in place as public ways when these lands were 

acquired. These roads may be a part of the forest, state, or county system, and may be maintained by 

any of these agencies. 

Q-factor A geometric progression of increasing numbers of trees with decreasing diameters used for unevenaged management. 

Rare species Any native or once-native species of plant or wild animal which exists in small numbers, and has 

been determined to be in need of special management consideration and monitioring. 

Reconstruction Work that includes, but is not limited to, widening of roads, improving alignment, providing 

additional turnouts, and improving sight distance that improve the standard to which the road was 

originally constructed. Also undertaken to increase the capacity of the road or to provide greater 

traffic safety. 

Recreation 

Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) 

Range of opportunities expressed in terms of three principal components: the activity, the setting 

and the experience. The combinations of these are arranged along a continuum called the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and divided into six classes: Primitive; Semi-Primitive 

non-motorized (SPNM); Semi-primitive motorized (SPM); Roaded Natural; Roaded; and Urban. 

Recreation Visit The entry of one person upon a National Forest to participate in recreation activities for an 

unspecified period of time. An NF visit can be composed of multiple site visits. 

Reforestation The natural or artificial restocking of an area with trees. 

Regeneration The process by which young trees replace older trees, removed by harvest or disaster. 

Region 8 The states that make up the Southern Region of the USDA Forest Service. 

Regional Forester The official responsible for management of NFS land within a USDA Forest Service region. 

Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive (RFS) 

species 

Species assigned to a list developed by the Regional Forester in coordination with the Forests in the 

Region. LBL is in Region 8. These species are those in need of special management to maintain 

viable populations. 

Release cutting An intermediate treatment conducted to regulate species composition and improve the quality of very 

young stands. 

Research Natural 

Area 

Special areas designated in LBL by TVA in cooperation with the American Forester’s Society to 

allow for studying natural ecological processes. 

Residual trees Live trees left standing after completion of harvesting. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 309 of 329 

Revegetation The re-establishment and development of a plant cover. This may take place naturally through the 

reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through the direct action of humans (e.g., 

afforestation and range reseeding). 

Revision To make the plan new or up-to-date. Plan revision must be considered and approved in accordance 

with the requirements for the development and approval of a forest plan. Revisions take place every 

10-15 years, but may occur more frequently if conditions or public demands change significantly. 

Riparian Pertaining to the bank of a river, lake, or other body of water. 

Riparian areas Areas with 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 watercourse 

at a variable width. 

Riparian Corridor An administrative zone applied to both sides of a stream or along side a pond, lake, wetland, seep or 

spring. It is a fixed width by stream type that may fall within or beyond the true riparian area. 

Road A motor vehicle path more than 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a trail. It may be 

classed as a system or non-system road. 

Road density A measure of the total length of road in any given unit of area (e.g., four miles/square mile.) 

Road maintenance 

levels 

(See Maintenance Level.) 

Road Management 

Objectives 

 Guiding criteria that establishes the intended purpose of a road based on management needs. These 

also contain operational and maintenance criteria for existing and potential future roads. 

Roadless Area Undeveloped federal land where there are no improved roads or roads maintained for travel by means 

of motorized vehicles intended for highway use. 

Rotation The period of time to establish, grow, and harvest a crop of trees to a specified condition of maturity. 

Salvage cutting Removal of trees that are dead, damaged, or imminently threatened with, death or damage in order to 

utilize the wood before it is rendered valueless by natural decay agents. 

Sapling Live trees one to five inches dbh. 

Sawtimber Softwoods nine inches dbh and larger, and hardwoods 11.0 inches dbh and larger. 

Sawtimber volume Growing-stock volume in the saw-log portion of sawtimber-sized trees, measured in board feet per 

acre (International 1/4-inch Log Rule). 

Scalloping The undulating vegetative edge treatment given to a travel way or opening for aesthetic purposes. 

Scenery General appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of a landscape. 

Scenery Management 

System 

A system for the inventory and analysis of the aesthetic values of the National Forest Lands. It 

replaces the Visual Management System (VMS) as defined in Agriculture Handbook #462. 

Scenic Class A system of classification describing the importance or value of a particular landscape or portions of 

that landscape. Values range from 1 (highest value) to 7 (lowest value). 

Scenic Integrity A measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be "complete." The highest 

scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes which have little or no deviation from the 

character valued for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic integrity is used to describe an existing situation, 

standard for management, or desired future conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 310 of 329 

Scenic Integrity 

Objective (SIO) 

A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. Refers to 

the degree of alterations to the valued attributes of the characteristics of an area. Objectives include: 

Very High (VH) – Generally provides for only ecological changes in natural landscapes and 

complete intactness of landscape character in cultural landscapes 

High (H) – Human activities are not visually evident to the casual observer. Activities may only 

repeat attributes of the form, line, color and texture found in the existing landscape character. 

Moderate (M) – Landscapes appear slightly altered. Noticeable human-created deviations must 

remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. 

Low (L) – landscapes appear moderately altered. Human created deviations begin to dominate the 

valued landscape character being viewed but borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge 

effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the 

landscape being viewed. 

Scoping The process by which a federal agency identifies important issues and determines the extent of 

analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed action. Scoping is required by NEPA, and 

is an integral part of environmental analysis. 

Scoured channel A definable channel of flow where surface water converges with enough energy to remove soil, 

organic matter, and leaf litter. 

Sediment Solid mineral and organic material that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved 

from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice. 

Sedimentation The action or process of depositing sediment. 

Seed tree An even-aged regeneration method where in a single cut, the removal of all merchantable trees in a 

stand, except for a small number of widely dispersed trees retained for seed production; to produce a 

new age class in a fully-exposed microenvironment. 

Seedling Live trees of commercial species less than one inch dbh that are expected to survive and develop. 

Seep A wet area where a seasonal high water table intersects with the ground surface. Seeps that meet the 

definition of a wetland are included in the Riparian Corridor. 

Selection cutting The removal of selected trees, particularly mature trees at planned intervals (cutting cycle), 

individually or in small groups, from an uneven-aged forest to realize the yield, and establish a new 

crop of desired tree species. Additionally, the tending of immature stand components is 

accomplished at each cutting cycle. 

Sensitive species Species that are listed with states as needing special management. 

Shade-intolerant A tree or other plant species which requires direct sunlight for optimum growth. 

Shade-tolerant A tree or other plant species having the capacity to grow without receiving direct sunlight. 

Shelterwood A regeneration method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which a new age class develops 

beneath the partially shaped microenvironment provided by the residual trees. The sequence of 

treatments can include three distinct types of cuttings: (1) an optional preparatory harvest to enhance 

conditions for seed production; (2) an establishment harvest to prepare the seed bed, and to create a 

new age class; and (3) a removal harvest to release established regeneration from competition with 

the over-wood. 

Shelterwood method An even-aged harvesting method which removes mature timber in a series of cuttings which extend 

over a relatively short portion of the rotation in order to encourage establishment of essentially evenaged reproduction under partial shelter of seed trees. 

Shrub A woody perennial plant smaller than a tree, usually having permanent stems originating from or 

near the ground. 

Sidewalls The lower, widening upslopes of a gully, leading away from the gully head and downstream or 

downhill. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 311 of 329 

Silviculture The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of 

forests and woodlands. Silviculture entails the manipulation of forest and woodland vegetation in 

stands and on landscapes to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a 

sustainable basis. 

Single-tree selection A selection system in which trees are individually removed and openings are created through 

successive cuttings. 

Site The situation of a growing plant with respect to all environmental factors (as climate, soil, drainage, 

other plant and animal life) affecting growth. 

Site Visit (See Recreation Visit.) 

Slope Degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in 

degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the 

vertical distance (rise), as two:one. A two:one slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the 

slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a 90 degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 

degree being a one:one slope. 

SMS Scenery Management System, a system for the inventory and analysis of the aesthetic values of the 

National Forest Lands. The SMS replaces the Visual Management System (VMS) as defined in 

Agricultural Handbook #462. 

Snag A standing dead tree. These trees have little or no commercial value. While decaying, they provide 

important perching, feeding, nesting, and roosting habitat for numerous wildlife species. 

Softwoods Gymnosperms, in the order Coniferales, usually evergreen, having needles or scalelike leaves 

(pines). 

Soil productivity The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a 

sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of volume or 

weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation. 

Soil survey A term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in laboratories; their description and 

classification; the mapping of kinds of soil; the interpretation of soils according to their adaptability 

for various crops, grasses, and trees; their behavior under use of treatment for plant production or for 

other purposes; and their productivity under different management systems. 

Soils, fine-textured Consisting of or containing large quantities of the fine fractions, particularly of silt and clay (includes 

clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay textural classes). 

Special-use permit A permit issued to an individual, organization, or company for occupancy or use of NFS land for 

some special purpose. 

Species A class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name. 

Species of viability 

concern 

These include federally-listed, Regional Forester’s Sensitive, Birds of Conservation Concern, and 

locally rare species and communities. 

Spring A water source located where water begins to flow from the ground due to the intersection of the 

water table with the ground surface. Generally flows throughout the year. Springs that are the 

source of perennial or intermittent streams are included in the riparian corridor. 

Stand An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition, age 

arrangement, and condition to be distinguishable from the adjoining forest. Also referred to as 

"Timber stand". 

Stand density A quantitative measure of stocking expressed either absolutely per unit of land in terms of number of 

trees, basal area, volume per unit area, or relative to some standard condition. 

Standard Requirement that precludes or imposes limitations on resource management practices and uses. 

Usually for resource protection, public safety, or addressing an issue. 

State listed species Listed species formally added to state lists by appropriate state agencies. May or may not be 

federally listed or a Regional Forester’s Sensitive species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 312 of 329 

State Natural Area An area that represents intact ecosystems and serves as reference areas for how natural ecological 

processes function. These areas are managed through Cooperative Management Agreements with 

state agencies. 

Stocking An indication of the number of trees in a stand as compared to the desirable number for best growth 

and management. Often expressed in percent. 

Stream drainage 

basins 

 Watershed that collects and discharges surface stream flow through one outlet or mouth. 

Streamside An area of 50 feet or more on both sides of bodies of open water, perennial streams, and some 

intermittent and ephemeral streams where extra precaution is used in carrying out forest or open land 

management practices in order to protect bank edges, water quality, and wildlife habitat. 

Succession An orderly process of biotic community development that involves changes in species, structure and 

community processes over time; it is reasonably directional and, therefore, predictable. 

Suitability The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, 

as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative 

uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management 

practices. 

Suppressed tree (See Overtopped tree.) 

Sustainable To keep in existence; maintain. 

Thinning An intermediate treatment or harvest designed to reduce stand density and remove some 

merchantable timber. 

Thousand cubic feet A measurement of unfinished cut wood equal to approximately 5000 board feet. This measurement 

is becoming more commonly used among commercial timber companies, and is being adopted by 

the Forest Service units to make equivalent comparisons with commercial users in estimating timber 

harvests for proposed projects. 

Threatened species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. Designated as a threatened species in the Federal Register by 

the Secretary of Interior. 

Timber Stand 

Improvement (TSI) 

Usually related to activities conducted in young stands of timber to improve growth rate and form of 

the remaining trees. Examples are thinning, pruning, fertilization, and control of undesirable 

vegetation. 

Topography The physical features of a place or region. Commonly refers to land forms and variation in elevation. 

Trailheads The parking, signage, and other facilities available at the terminus of a trail. 

Two-aged stand A stand composed of two distinct age classes that are separated in age by more than 20 percent of 

rotation. 

Understory The lowermost strata of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation beneath the forest canopy. 

Uneven-aged 

silviculture management 

A silvicultural system designed to maintain a forest or stand composed of trees that are markedly 

different in age. Cutting methods used are single-tree and group selection. 

Upland Land at higher elevation, in general, than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land above the lowlands 

along streams. 

Vegetative filter 

strips 

(See Filter Strip.) 

Viable population Population of plants or animals that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive 

individuals to ensure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. 

Vistas A confined view, especially one seen through a long passage, as between a row of trees. A vista is 

often toward, or focuses upon, a specific feature in the landscape. Unlike a view, the vista is often 

man-created and, thereby subject to design. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 313 of 329 

Visual quality zones 

(VQZ) 

Areas of the landscape denoted by specified distances from the observer. Used as a frame of 

reference in which to discuss landscape characteristics or activities of man sometimes referred to as 

"distance zones." 

Watershed The entire area that contributes to a drainage or stream. 

Watershed Condition 

Classes 

 Class I- Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural 

potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic 

conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of 

supporting beneficial uses. 

Class II- Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their 

natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. 

Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk 

in being able to support beneficial uses. 

Class III- Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their 

natural potential condition. The majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, 

chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems do not support 

beneficial uses. 

Wetland Geographic areas characteristically supporting hydrophytes, hydric (wet) soils, and some saturation 

or flooding during the growing season. 

Wilderness A Congressionally-designated area that is part of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

established through the Wilderness Act of 1964; also defined in the Act as a wilderness, in contrast 

with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an 

area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area 

of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land 

or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

(4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value. 

Wilderness Study Area 

(WSA) 

Lands possessing the basic characteristics of wilderness and designated by Congress for further 

wilderness study. 

Wildfires Uncontrolled fires occurring in forest land, brushland, and grassland. 

Wildlife All non-domesticated mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in a natural environment, 

including game species and non-game species. Animals, or their progeny (i.e., feral animals - 

including horses, burros, and hogs), that once were domesticated, but escaped captivity, are not 

considered wildlife. 

Wildlife cut In LBL, a timber cutting practice resulting in early successional forest habitat. 

Wildlife waterhole Ponds and creek dams one-tenth acre or less in size, and three to four feet deep. Constructed at about 

one-half mile intervals to supply adequate year-round water for wildlife. 

Wildlife woods 

openings 

 An administratively designated development that is constructed and maintained to improve wildlife 

habitat. Areas designated as managed wildlife openings may include cereal grain plantings, warmseason grass plantings, legume plantings, old-fields successional lands, or native herbaceous open 

lands. 

Woodland A plant community in which trees are often small, characteristically with a greater proportion of their 

total height being crown more so than clear bole, and having trees spaced far enough apart that the 

canopies of adjacent trees usually do not touch and with the ground vegetation being mostly 

herbaceous, commonly grass. 

Work area Forest land management unit on LBL ranging in size from 1,025 to 4,000 acres and generally defined 

by physical boundaries such as roads, streams, trails, etc. Work areas generally contain a mix of all 

forest types and land uses. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 314 of 329 

Xeric site type Representative of extremely dry soil conditions and relatively poor soils. See Section 3.2 of the 

FEIS for a full description of this site type. 

Young-growth Live trees between the ages of one and 15 years 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 315 of 329 

5.2 Acronyms 

Acronym Explanation 

AI Appreciative Inquiry 

AQRV Air Quality Related Values 

BA Biological Assessment 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOC Budget Object Code 

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality 

CFI Continuous forest Inventory 

CFR Code of the Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act 

dbh diameter at breast height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EBP Elk & Bison Prairie 

EE Environmental Education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Ecological Study Area (also commonly used for 'endangered species act') 

ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FLMP Forest Land Management Practice 

GAP Gap Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPVC Golden Pond Visitors Center 

HP The Homeplace 

HQ Hazard Quotient; in relation to pesticide and herbicide safety 

HRMP Heritage Resources Management Plan 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

KLMP Kentucky Lake Monitoring Program 

LBL Land Between The Lakes 

LRMP Land and Resources Management Plan 

LT Leadership Team 

mcf thousand cubic feet 

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 

MARC Mid-America Remote Sensing Center 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 316 of 329 

MGD Million Gallons per Day 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MIST Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics 

mmbf million board feet 

MOS Margin of Safety 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NADP National Acid Deposit Program 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NO3 Nitrates 

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOx Nitrogen Oxide 

NPB Net Public Benefit 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRMP Natural Resources Management Plan 

NS Nature Station; also Woodlands Nature Station 

O3 Ozone 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

PAOT Persons at one time 

PBD Planning Background Document 

PCR Primary Contact Recreation 

PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive 

PILT Payment In Lieu of Taxes 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter (2.5 micrometers in size) 

PPM Parts Per Million 

RFS Regional Forester Species 

RMO Road Management Objective 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

RVD Recreation Visitor Day 

RV Recreational Vehicle 

SBR South Bison Range 

SCR Secondary Contact Recreation 

SIC Standard Industrial Code 

SIP State Implementation Plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 317 of 329 

SMZ Stream Management Zone 

SNA State Natural Area 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SO4 Sulfates 

SWCP Soils and Water Conservation Practices 

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS US Fish & Wildlife Service 

VQZ Visual Quality Zone 

WAH Water Aquatic Habitat 

WIN Watershed Improvement Needs 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WR Wildlife Refuge 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 318 of 329 

5.3 List of References 

Resource Citation 

Anders, A., J. Faaborg, and F. 

Thompson, 1998. 

Post-fledgling dispersal, habitat use, and home-range size of 

juvenile wood thrushes. In: The Auk 115(2):349-358. 

Anderson, C., 1992 The flight against blight. In: Nat Conserv Mag, Nov/Dec: 8-9. 

Ashe, W. W. 1911 Chestnut in Tennessee. Bulletin No. 10, Forest Studies in 

Tennessee, Extract (B). State of Tennessee, State Geological 

Survey. P6. Austin Peay Sate University, 1990. 1989-90 Annual 

Report for the Center for Field Biol. Austin Peay State Univ, 

Clarksville, TN. 

Blair, L., 1985 A survey of fresh water gastropods of selected habitats in Land 

Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. M.S. Thesis Murray 

State University, KY pp 167. 

Bloemer, S, 2003 E-mail, Hunting Trends at LBL, 12/5/03. 

Boehler, A.L. 1989. Unpublished report. An analysis of wildlife waterholes in Land 

Between The Lakes. Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 

pp 21. 

Bunte, K., and L.H. MacDonald, 

1999 

Scale considerations and the detectability of sedimentary 

cumulative watershed effects. Technical Bulletin No. 776, National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. pp 327. 

CATT, 2000 Rohair, C., and others. 2000; Center for Aquatic Technology 

Transfer (CATT); USDA Forest Service, Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University. 

Chester E. and Fralish J., 2002 Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: 

Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; 2002 

Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. 

Chester, E.W., 2003 Personal communication; 7-9-2003. 

Chester, Edward, .2003 Personal communication. Professor of Biology, Austin Peay State 

University, Clarksville, TN. 

Clean Water Act, 1972 Sec. 305(b), 303(d). 

Close, D.D., J.S. Fralish, and 

S.B. Franklin, 2002 

The Climate, Soils, and Vegetation of Land Between the Lakes. 

Pages 61-66 in E.W. Chester and J.S. Fralish, editors. Land 

Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of 

Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship. Miscellaneous 

Publication Number 16, The Center for Field Biology Austin Peay 

State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. 

Cordell, Ken PhD. Prin. 

Investigator, 1999 

Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of 

Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Press. 

Cordell, Ken., 1999 Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of 

Demand and Supply Trends.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 319 of 329 

Creech, Lee, 2003 Outdoor Recreation in Kentucky: Assessment, Policy and Actions. 

Kentucky Department of Local Government, Division of Local 

Davis et. al., 2000 Davis, M. A., Peterson, D.W., Reich, P.B., Crozier, M., Query, T., 

Mitchell, E., Huntington, J., and Bazakas, P. 2000. Restoring 

savanna using fire: Impact on the breeding bird community. 

Restoration Ecology Volume 8 No. 1, PP 30-40. 

Delcourt, H. R., 1987. The impact of prehistoric agriculture and land occupation on natural 

vegetation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2:39-44. 

DeSelm, H. R., 1999. Vegetation results from early land surveys in five counties of 

Tennessee, 1788-1839. Pages 89-108 in S. W. Hamilton, E. W. 

Chester, D. S. White and M. T. Finley, editors. Proceedings of the 

Eighth Symposium on the Natural History of Lower Tennessee and 

Cumberland River Valleys. The Center for Field Biology, Austin 

Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. USA. 

Dissmeyer and Foster, 1980 Dissmeyer, G.E. and Foster G.A. 1980. A guide for predicting 

sheet and rill erosion on forest land. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 

Southern Region. 

Donovan, T, P. Jones, E. 

Annand and F. Thompson, 1997. 

Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape 

context. In: Ecology 78(7):2064-2075. 

White, D., 2003 Personal Communication. Murray State University, 2003. 

Duguay, J., P. Wood, and J. 

Nichols, 2001 

Songbird Abundance and Avian Nest Survival Rates in Forests 

Fragmented by Different Silvicultural Techniques. Cons. Biol. 15 

(5):1405-1415. 

Eubanks, Ted L., 2002 The World of Watchers: An Assessment of the Implications of the 

Preliminary US Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, essay, 

Fermata Inc., Austin, TX. 

http://www.fermatainc.com/teds_essays/watchers.html 

EPA, 1998 “Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires.” 

Ernst, J. P. and V. Brown, 1988 Conserving Endangered Species on Southern Forested Wetlands. 

In Proceedings of the symposium The Forested Wetlands of the 

Southern United States. Ed. D. D. Hook and R. Lea. Orlando, FL. 

General Tech. Rep. SE-50, Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experimental Station. pp 168. 

Executive Order 13112, 1999 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 25/Monday, February 8, 1999/ 

Presidential Documents 

Faaborg, J., 2003. Saving Migrant Birds: Developing Strategies for the Future. 

University of Texas Press, Austin. pp 226. 

Feldhammer, G. A., T.P. 

Kilbane, and D. W. Sharp, 1989. 

Cumulative effect of winter on acorn yield and deer body weight. J. 

In: Wildlife Management. 53:292-295. 

Ford, B., S. Carr, C. Hunter, J. 

York, and M. Roedel, 2000. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 14: 

The Interior Low Plateaus. Draft Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 320 of 329 

Fralish, J. S., and F. B. Crooks, 

1988 

Forest communities of the Kentucky portion of Land Between The 

Lakes: A Preliminary Assessment. Pages 164-175. In D. H. Snyder 

ed., Proc. of the First Annual Symp. on the Natural History of Lower 

Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys. The Center for Field Biol., 

Austin Peay State Univ., Clarksville, TN. 

Fralish, J. S., and F. B. Crooks. 

1989 

Forest Composition, Environment and Dynamics at Land Between 

The Lakes in Northwest Middle Tennessee. J. of the Tennessee 

Academy of Science. Vol. 64, 3:107-111. 

Franklin, S. B. and J. A. Kupfe, 

2000 

Unpublished report. Vegetation in a Natural Shortleaf Pine Forest: 

Ten years of Change and Current Classification, Land Between The 

Lakes. Department of Biology, University of Memphis, Memphis, 

TN. pp 20 . 

Franklin, S.B., 1994 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Vegetation History of Land 

Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. Transactions 

Kentucky Academy of Science 55:6-19. 

Frankin, S. B., Fralish J. S. and 

Close D. D., 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; Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, 

TN, USA. 

Freeman, Patti A PhD, 1998 Land Between The Lakes Visitor Profile Study, Department of 

Parks, Recreation and Tourism, University of Utah. 

Frost, Cecil C., 1998 Presettlement Fire Frequency Regimes of the United States: a first 

approximation. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings 

No. 20 pp 70-81/ Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the 

paradigm from suppression to prescription. 

Gardner, E., 2004 TN Dept. of Environmental Conservation; The 2004 Tennessee 

State Recreation Plan. Tennessee Department of Environmental 

Conservation. 

Gates, J.E. and Geysel L.W., 

1978 

Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. 

In: Ecology 59(5):871-883. 

Gobster, P.H., 2001 Human dimensions of early successional landscapes in the eastern 

United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):474-482. 

Grace, Johnny McFero, III, 2002 Sediment movement from forest road systems-roads: a major 

contributor to erosion and stream sedimentation. In: American 

Society of Agricultural Engineers: 13-14. 

Groves, C.G., 2003 Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner's guide to planning 

for biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C. pp 457. 

Hagen, D.A., Swanser, K., 

Vincent, J. W., Welle, P. G. 

1995 

The Passive-Use Values of Public Forest Lands: A Survey of the 

Literature. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 321 of 329 

Hamel, P. B., LeGrand H. E., Jr., 

Lennartz M. R., and Gauthreaux 

S. A., Jr. 1992 

Bird-habitat relationships on southeastern forest lands. USDA Forest 

Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-22. 

Hamilton, S. W., 1992. Personal communications. Professor of Biology, Austin Peay State 

Univ., Clarksville, TN. 

Hamilton, S. W., Hamilton D. 

L., and Hamilton L. I., 2002 

Spring-Dwelling Macroinvertebrates in Land Between The Lakes. 

Pages 387-400 in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. Land 

Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of 

Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; Austin Peay State 

University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA. 

Hann, W.J. and Bunnell, D.L., 

2001 

Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire, Volume 10, 

pp 389-403.

Hardy et. al., 2001 Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. Coursescale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management [Online] 

(1999, November). Prescribed Fire and Fire Effects Research Work 

Unit, Rocky Mountain Research Station (producer). Available: 

www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman [1999, December]. 

Harlow, R. F., Whelan J. B., 

Crawford H. S., and Skeen J. E., 

1975 

Deer foods during years of oak mast abundance and scarcity. J of 

Wildlife Management 39:330-336. 

Harvey, Michael J. and Britzke, 

Eric R., 2000 

Survey for bats at Land Between The Lakes National Recreation 

Area. Final Report. 

Healy, W. M., and E. S. Nenno. 

1983 

Minimum maintenance versus intensive management of clearings 

for wild turkeys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11:113-120. 

Helms, J.A., ed. 1998 The Dictionary of Forestry. The Society of American Foresters, 

Bethesda, Maryland. pp 2113 . 

Hunter, W.C., Buehler, D.E., 

Canterbury, R.A., Confer, J.L., 

Hamel, P.B., 2001 

Conservation of disturbance dependent birds in eastern North 

America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):440-455. 

Hurst, G. A., 1978 Effects of controlled burning on wild turkey poult food habits. Proc. 

Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 32:30–37. 

Hutchinson, T.F. and 

Sutherland, S., 2000 

Fire and understory vegetation: A large-scale study in Ohio and a 

search for general response patterns in central hardwood forests. 

Proceedings: Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central 

Hardwoods Landscape, GTR-NE-74, PP 64-74. 

Kipphut, et. al., 2004 Kipphut, G.W., V.L. Leasure, B.I. Naugle, and T.C. Kind, 2004. 

An Evaluation of the Turkey Bay Off Highway Vehicle Area, Land 

Between The Lakes National Recreation Area, Final Report. Pages 

2-27. 

Kocis, Susan M.; English, 

Donald B. K., 2003 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Results (NVUM): Land Between 

The Lakes, report, USDA Forest Service, Region 8. 

www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year3/R8_land_b

etween_lakes_final.html. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 322 of 329 

Howard, R. J. and Allen, J. L., 

1988 

Streamside Habitats in Southern Forested Wetlands: Their Role 

and Implications for Management. In Proceedings of the 

Symposium The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States. 

Ed. D. D. Hook and R. Lea. Orlando, FL. General Tech. Rep. SE50, Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest 

Experimental Station. pp 168. 

KY 303(d) NREPC, 2003 2002 303(d) List of Waters for Kentucky; Natural Resources and 

Environment Protection Cabinet; KY Division of Water; Jan. 2003. 

KY NREPC, 2002 2002 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality; Kentucky 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet; Division 

of Water; September 2002. 

LBL Roads Analysis Report, 

2003 

USDA, Forest Service; Land Between The Lakes NRA; Roads 

Analysis Report; pp 68. 

Lingle-Gillis, D. L., and S. W. 

Hamilton, 1989 

Drift of benthic macroinvertebrates in two stenothermal first order 

streams in Land Between The Lakes. Page 60. in A. F. Scott ed. 

Proceedings of the contributed papers session of the Second Annual 

Symposium on the Natural History of Lower Tennessee and 

Cumberland River Valleys. The Center for Field Biol., Austin Peay 

State Univ., Clarksville, TN. 

Lorimer, C.G. 2001 Historical and ecological roles of disturbance in eastern North 

American forests: 9,000 years of change. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

29(2):425-439.

MacDonald, Lee H., 1989 Cumulative Watershed Effects: The Implications of Scale, paper 

presented at 1989 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical 

Union, San Francisco, CA. 

Martin, W. H. and Taylor, T. H., 

2002 

Grasslands and Grassland Management in Land Between The Lakes. 

Pages 267-283 in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. Land 

Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of 

Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; Austin Peay State 

University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA. 

Martin, W., 2003 Personal communication, July 9 and August 11 - Director for the 

Division of Natural Areas and Professor of Forest Ecology, Eastern 

Kentucky University., Richmond. 

May, R. and Robinson, S., 1985 Population dynamics of avian brood parasitism. Am. Nat. 126:475-

494. 

Miles, R.K., 1995 Modeling the effects of landscape structure on the spatial 

distribution of brown-headed cowbirds and nest parasitism in forest 

openings. Thesis for Master of Science Degree, The University of 

Tennessee. pp 92 . 

Morton, P., 1999 The Economic Benefits of Wilderness.

Moyer, B. D., C. E. Rebar, and 

T. Derting,. 1996. 

Survey of bat species on TVA’s Land Between The Lakes with 

emphasis on endangered, threatened, and special concern species. 

Final Report. 

NADP, 2001 National Acid Deposition Program. Data Access. 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/nadpdata/. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 323 of 329 

National Air Pollutant Emission 

Trends, 1999 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1999. EPA454/R-01-004. Research Triangle Park. NC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

National Air Pollutant Emissions 

Trends, 1900 – 1998 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC; 

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/trends98/trends98.pdf. 

National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) U.S. EPA, 2000 

Compilation of “area” and “point” emissions for analysis area 

counties (Lyon, KY, Trigg, KY, and Stewart, TN). 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports. Emissions estimation tool - 

“First Order Fire Effects Model” (FOFEM), version 5.0. 

National Environmental Policy 

Act 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1997, Title 40 CFR 1500.

NatureServe, 2003 NatureServe Explorer: An Online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. 2002 Version 1.6. Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. 

Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Accessed: 09/18/03 

NatureServe, 2003 International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial 

Ecological Systems of the United States. Natural Heritage Central 

Databases. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 

NatureServe, 2004 NatureServe Explorer: An Online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 1.6 to 4.0 Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. 

Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Accessed: 01/25/04, 2/26/04 

Neary and Currier, 1982 Neary, D.G. and Currier J.G. 1982. Impact of Wildfire and 

Watershed Restoration on Water Quality in South Carolina's Blue 

Ridge Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 6 

No. 2, PP 81-90. 

Nenno, E. S., and Lindzey, J. S., 

1979. 

Wild turkey poults feeding activity in old field, agricultural 

clearings, and forest communities. Trans. Northeastern Sect. Wildl. 

Soc. 36:97–109. 

TVA’s 1994 Plan Tennessee Valley Authority 1994 Natural Resources Management 

Plan (NRMP); the entire document is referenced in the Appendix. 

NSRE (National Survey on 

Recreation and the 

Environment) Results, 2003 

‘American’s Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Results From 

NSRE (With weighted data) (Versions 1 to 13), report, USDA 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/Rnd1t13weightrpt.pdf 

Oak, S. W,. 2002 Unpublished white paper. Health of Oak Forests in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 

Forest Health Protection, Asheville, North Carolina, USA. pp 12. 

Organic Act, 1977 16 U.S.C. Sections 551, 1601(a), 1602(5)(C), and 1609(a). 

Pack, J. C., Igo, W. K., and 

Taylor, C. I., 1988 

Use of prescribed burning in conjunction with thinnings to increase 

wild turkey brood range habitat in oak-hickory forests. Trans. 

Northeastern Sect. Wildl. Soc. 44:37–44. 

Patterson and Sassaman, 1988 Patterson, W.A. and Sassaman, K.E. Indian fires in the prehistory 

of New England. Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 324 of 329 

Peavy, A., 2004 Unpublished analysis. GIS analysis to assess the landscape context 

of Land Between The Lakes. Inventory and Monitoring Institute, 

USDA Forest Service. 

Peterson and Reich, 2001 Peterson, D.W., and Reich, P.B. 2001. Prescribed fire in oak 

savanna: Fire frequency effects on stand structure and dynamics. 

Ecological Applications, Volume 11 No. 3, PP 914-927. 

Primack, R., 1993 Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates Inc., 

Sunderland, MA. 

Pyne, 1982 Pyne, Stephen, A. Fire in America a cultural history of wildland 

and rural fire. Princeton University Press.

Rebar, C. E. and Hendricks, W. 

D., 1994 

Mist netting surveys for endangered, threatened, or special concern 

species on TVA Land Between The Lakes. Progress report 

submitted to Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Robbins, C.S. 1979 Effects of forest fragmentation on bird populations. In 

Management of North Central and Northeastern Forests for 

Nongame Birds, ed. R.M. DeGraaf and K.E. Evans, pp 198-212. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-51. St. Paul: USDA 

Forest Service North Central Experiment Station. 

Robinson, S., 1995. Threats to breeding neotropical migratory birds in the Midwest IN 

Management of Midwestern Landscapes for the Conservation of 

Neotropical Migratory Birds, F. Thompson, Ed. USDA Forest 

Service GTR NC-187. 

Robinson, S., Thompson, F., 

Donovan, T., Whitehead, D. and 

Faaborg, J, 1995. 

Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of 

Migratory Birds. Science 267:31. 

Robinson, S.K., Grzybowski, 

J.A., Rothstein, S.I., 

Brittingham, M.C., Petit, L.J., 

and Thompson, F.R., 1993 

Management implications of cowbird parasitism on neotropical 

migrant songbirds. Pages 93-102 in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel, 

(eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. 

Rosenburg, K.V., Hames, R.S., 

Rohrbaugh, R.W., Swarthout, 

Jr., S.B., Lowe, J.D., Dhondt, 

A.A., 2003. 

A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for forest thrushes. 

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. pp 29. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. 

Fallon. 2004. 

The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 

1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Laurel, MD 

Schaefer, 2003 Core Areas, Roadless Areas, and Wilderness Study Areas In LBL 

Planning, internal report, USDA Forest Service, Land Between The 

Lakes. 

Schlarbaum, S. E., Hebard, F., 

Spaine, P. C. and Kamalay, J. 

C., 1997 

Three American Tragedies: Chestnut Blight, Butternut Canker, and 

Dutch Elm Disease in Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests, Conference 

Proceedings – April 8-10, 1997, Nashville, TN. 

http://www.invasive.org/symposium/schlarba.html 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 325 of 329 

Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., 

Hardy, C.C., Hann, W.J., 

Bunnell, D.L., 2002 

Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Ft. Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Smith and Sutherland, 1999 Smith, K.T. and Sutherland, E.K. 1999. Fire-scar formation and 

compartmentalization in oak. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 

Volume 29, PP 166-171. 

Snyder, S. A., 1992 Meleagris gallopavo. In: Fire Effects Information System, 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2004, September 13]. 

Snyder, S. A. 1991 Colinus virginianus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2004, September 13]. 

Snyder, S. A. 1991 Odocoileus virginianus. In: Fire Effects Information System, 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2004, September 13].

Southern Forest Assessment, 

2002 

“Effects of Lines”...October 2002. 

Stanturf et. al., 2002 Stanturf, J.A., Wade, D.D., Waldrop, T.A., and Kennard, D.K. 

2002. Southern forest resource assessment. GTR-SRS-53. 

Asheville, NC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service Southern Research Station, 

PP 607-629. 

Sutherland, E.K., GrissinoMayer, H., Woodhouse, C.A., 

Covington,W.W., Horn, S., 

Huckaby, L., Kerr R., Kush, J., 

Moore, M., Plumb, T., 1993 

Two centuries of fire in a southwestern Virginia Pinus pungens 

community. Paper presented at the IUFRO Conference on 

Inventory and Management in the Context of Catastrophic Events, 

University Park, PA, on June 21-24, 1993. pp 12. 

Thompson, F.R., III, and 

DeGraff, R.M., 2001 

Conservation approaches for woody, early successional 

communities in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

29(2):483-494 

TN 303(d), DWPC, 2002 Year 2002, 303(d) List: Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation; Division of Pollution Control, Planning and 

Standards Section. 

TVA, 1994 Tennessee Valley Authority. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

on the Natural Resource Management Plan at Land Between The 

Lakes. Volume I. Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan 

Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211. 

TVA, 1994 Tennessee Valley Authority Natural Resource Management Plan 

for Land Between The Lakes. Volume II. Land Between The 

Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 326 of 329 

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. p 57. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1993 

Recovery Plan for Price’s Potato Bean (Apios priceana). US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. p 45. 

USDA, Soil Conservation 

Service, 1953 

Soil Survey of Stewart County, Tennessee. Soil Conservation 

Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

USDA, Soil Conservation 

Service, 1981 

Soil Survey of Lyon and Trigg Counties, Kentucky. Soil 

Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 

and US Dept of Commerce, US 

Census Bureau, 2001. 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated 

Recreation. 

Vega Rivera, J., Rappole J., 

McShea W., and Haas W., 1998 

Wood thrush post-fledgling movements and habitat use in northern 

Virginia. The Condor 100:69-78. 

Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., 

eds., 2002 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), Gen. 

Tech. Report. SRS-53. Asheville, NC, FS Southern Resource 

Station, Southern Forest Resource Assessment 

Wentworth, J. M, Johnson, A. 

S., Hale, P. E. and 

Kammermeye, K. E., 1992. 

Relationships of acorn abundance and deer herd characteristics in 

the Southern Appalachians. South J. Appl. For 16:5-8. 

Wentworth, J. M, Johnson, A. 

S., Hale, P. E. and 

Kammermeyer, K. E., 1990b 

Seasonal use of clearcuts and food plots by white-tailed deer in the 

Southern Appalachians. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. 44:215-223. 

Wentworth, J. M, Johnson, A. 

S., and Hale, P. E., 1990a 

Influence of acorn use on nutritional status, and reproduction of 

deer in the Southern Appalachians. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. 

Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 44:142-154.

Wilcove, D.S., 1985 Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory 

songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214. 

White, D, 2001 Apios priceana (Price’s Potato Bean) at Land Between The Lakes 

2001 Updates to Population Status and Management 

Recommendations. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 

pp 16. 

Yahner R. and Scott, D.P., 1988 Effects of forest fragmentation on depredation of artificial nests. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 52:158-161. 

Yahner, R., 1988 Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 

2:333-339. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 327 of 329 

5.4 Index 

A

Affected environment, 311 

All terrain vehicle (ATV), 236, 237, 244, 311 

Allowable sale quantity, 287 

Aquatic ecosystem, 71, 204, 314 

Aquatic habitat, 66, 132 

B

Best Management Practice, 52, 72, 302, 321 

Between the Rivers, 46, 264, 265, 266, 267 

Bike Trails, 56, 207, 221, 226, 233, 236, 242, 260 

Biological Assessment, 188, 321 

Biological Evaluation, 302, 321 

Biota, 61, 77, 78, 81, 82, 152, 309 

Biotic, 55, 196, 197, 305, 318, 319 

Birds of Conservation Concern, 10, 166, 167, 172, 173, 

303, 318, 321 

Bison, 31, 32, 37, 81, 100, 103, 141, 143, 163, 197, 

204, 209, 217, 237, 247, 253, 321, 322 

Boat ramp, 19, 233, 234, 236, 241 

Buffer, 255, 261 

C

Cemeteries, 30, 207, 222, 223, 238 

Cemetery, 222, 223, 238 

Clearcut, 303 

Cliffs, 150, 187 

Climatic, 87, 196 

Climax, 196 

Cover type, 22, 28, 56, 83, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 

101, 114, 118, 124, 136, 140, 141, 142, 143, 152, 

175, 190, 197, 280, 307, 310 

Criteria, 12, 22, 36, 76, 132, 133, 134, 186, 199, 225, 

257, 258, 259, 278, 285, 310, 315 

Critical habitat, 26, 27, 28, 163, 195 

Cultural, 16, 47, 132, 159, 216, 223, 226, 244, 245, 

247, 248, 253, 266, 268, 279, 281, 285, 303, 304, 

308, 309, 312, 316, 319, 330 

Cumulative effects, 18, 60, 63, 76, 77, 188, 225, 274 

D

Decision, 7, 8, 133, 223, 225, 258, 286, 291, 292, 307, 

313, 316 

Deer, 64, 159, 188, 189, 190, 195, 196, 197, 214, 215, 

231, 237, 241, 253, 255, 325, 332 

Demand species, 140, 188, 241, 253, 255 

Demonstration area (Nature View), 7, 8, 20, 31, 36, 37, 

38, 222, 241, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 293 

Demonstration area (Oak-Grassland), 38, 61, 134, 241, 

253, 263 

Desired condition, 261, 315 

Desired Condition, 5, 7, 12, 16, 34, 54, 62, 84, 134, 

152, 263 

Direct and Indirect Effects, 44, 45, 50, 73, 267 

Dispersed recreation, 208 

Dispersed Recreation, 19, 20, 25, 26, 57, 208, 237, 240, 

244, 267, 310 

E

Ecoregion, 163 

Ecosystem, 16, 71, 72, 74, 131, 197, 200, 211, 212, 

213, 217, 218, 238, 303, 306, 312, 314, 326 

Edaphic, 196 

Edge, 46, 64, 100, 153, 154, 158, 161, 162, 163, 186, 

196, 200, 214, 241, 306, 309, 315, 316, 319, 325 

Elk, 32, 100, 103, 141, 143, 163, 197, 237, 253 

Elk & Bison Prairie, 253, 254, 321 

Empire Farm, 223, 245, 250, 254, 256 

endangered species, 205, 318, 321 

Endangered species, 205, 318, 321 

Endemic, 152 

Environmental Education, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 

36, 37, 38, 56, 60, 140, 195, 196, 205, 209, 225, 

226, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 242, 244, 245, 

246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 261, 

263, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 292, 294, 295, 296, 

306, 312, 321 

Environmental Education Area, 36, 37, 38, 195, 196, 

251, 252, 254 

Ephemeral streams, 63, 71, 305, 318 

Equestrian, 32, 34, 51, 56, 207, 221, 226, 233, 236, 

285, 307, 313 

Erosion, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 

60, 61, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81, 153, 196, 197, 

267, 268, 306, 325, 326 

Escape cover, 159 

Evapotranspiration, 53, 68 

Even-aged, 102, 103, 162, 288, 303, 306, 313, 316 

F

Facility-based Environmental Education, 6, 19, 20, 25, 

26, 28, 208, 209 

Fauna, 205, 219, 241 

Fire Management, 66, 73, 216, 217, 218, 220, 267 

Fire regime, 211, 212, 216, 217 

Fire suppression, 61, 100, 103, 143, 190, 192, 199, 209, 

216, 217, 220, 261 

Flora, 205, 219, 241, 314 

Forb, 21, 27, 33, 55, 56, 92, 143, 216 

Forest Composition, 16, 21, 33, 48, 50, 87, 89, 91, 131, 

159, 161, 210, 212, 213, 214, 221, 303, 306, 307, 

308, 312, 314, 317, 318, 319 

Forest health, 21, 22, 25, 28, 33, 54, 189, 196, 198, 

199, 211 

Forest type, 21, 25, 26, 27, 33, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 

99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 113, 114, 118, 119, 125, 

131, 134, 137, 143, 157, 159, 164, 176, 186, 207, 

241, 262, 289, 307, 320 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 328 of 329 

Former residents, 23, 265, 266 

Fragipan, 49, 90 

Fragmentation, 161, 164, 192, 330, 332 

Framework, 5, 12, 65, 83, 252 

Fuel loading, 213 

Fuel reduction, 211 

Future old growth, 133, 134, 136, 209 

G

GIS (Geographic Information System), 38, 48, 59, 75, 

91, 162, 221, 296, 307, 309, 321, 329 

H

Habitat associations, 83, 174, 186 

Habitat diversity, 55, 103, 143, 241, 254 

Herbicide, 7, 21, 31, 33, 149, 156, 193, 204, 321 

Heritage (resources, sites, programs), 30, 265, 279, 

281, 285, 286 

Hiking Trails, 28, 56, 207, 219, 226, 233, 236, 240, 

242, 245, 255, 256, 260 

Hillman Ferry Campground, 19, 70, 81, 195, 209, 235, 

296 

Homeplace – Living History Farm, 69, 209, 234, 245, 

246, 321 

Hunting, 28, 32, 55, 159, 188, 190, 207, 209, 219, 226, 

229, 231, 233, 236, 237, 241, 251, 252, 254, 255, 

266, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285, 307, 312 

Hydrology, 59, 60, 74 

I

Indiana bat, 173, 177, 178, 179 

Indigenous, 209, 304, 312 

Integrated pest management, 199, 204, 309 

Irreversible, 50 

Issue, 7, 15, 18, 32, 43, 161, 198, 258, 318 

L

Lake access, 19, 20, 221, 234 

Land allocation, 3, 7, 35, 38, 39, 292 

Landscape character, 260, 261, 262, 263, 304, 316, 319 

M

Management Indicator species, 83, 85, 118, 164 

Management Indicator Species, 10, 85, 112, 118, 124, 

149, 157, 160, 164, 187, 188, 189, 310, 322 

management practice, 6, 8, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 

55, 66, 73, 140, 189, 260, 261, 263, 311, 318 

Management prescription, 71, 251, 252, 313 

Mast, 89, 94, 99, 104, 159, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 

211, 303, 306, 310, 327 

Monitoring, 41, 42, 52, 78, 165, 243 

N

Non-facility-based Environmental Education, 6, 19, 20, 

25, 26, 28, 247, 251 

Non-point source, 66 

O

Oak-hickory (forest, cover types, etc.), 21, 25, 26, 27, 

33, 89, 164, 189, 192, 194, 198, 259, 288, 307, 329 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV), 8, 32, 34, 37, 51, 56, 57, 

58, 60, 66, 81, 93, 209, 226, 230, 234, 236, 237, 

239, 240, 243, 244, 251, 312, 322 

Old Growth, 10, 17, 31, 102, 106, 108, 118, 124, 131, 

133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 207 

P

Piney Campground, 19, 69, 235, 295 

Possible old growth, 104, 133, 136 

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive, 28, 

132, 322 

Q

Quota hunt, 231 

R

Rare community, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 232, 314 

Recreation visitor day, 314 

Regeneration, 33, 91, 100, 102, 103, 112, 114, 124, 

125, 126, 131, 141, 155, 160, 162, 163, 187, 191, 

194, 195, 197, 211, 213, 288, 303, 304, 306, 308, 

309, 312, 316 

Riparian (corridors, areas, etc.), 16, 22, 52, 54, 56, 57, 

59, 71, 73, 77, 92, 99, 100, 101, 119, 122, 123, 124, 

125, 134, 143, 146, 148, 149, 153, 155, 164, 189, 

197, 215, 307, 314, 318, 319 

S

Scenic Integrity Level, 319 

Scoping, 6, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23, 235, 249 

Sedimentation, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 

60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 

155, 306, 316, 326 

Sensitive species, 167, 196, 211, 303 

Sensitive Species, 211 

Silo Overlook, 223 

Silviculture, 199, 319 

Snag, 156, 157 

Soil productivity, 21, 33, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 

58, 60, 61, 75, 132, 317 

Species of viability Concern, 26, 27, 83, 85, 166, 174, 

186, 188, 216 

Species viability, 21, 22, 25, 27, 33, 84, 85, 136, 140, 

166, 186 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 329 of 329 

Succession/successional, 21, 25, 27, 33, 87, 88, 91, 92, 

114, 159, 161, 162, 191, 192, 197, 207, 211, 212, 

241, 305, 312, 318, 320, 326, 331 

Suitability, 83, 95 

Sustainability – sustainable, 15, 16, 25, 27, 28, 37, 101, 

102, 140, 190, 195, 197, 200, 204, 205, 219, 225, 

243, 244, 261, 262, 317, 318 

Sustained yield, 289, 302 

T

Threatened species, 188, 305, 318 

Timber, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 50, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 61, 67, 75, 88, 89, 94, 101, 132, 156, 190, 

191, 194, 197, 198, 199, 212, 222, 226, 241, 258, 

260, 261, 262, 263, 265, 267, 270, 271, 272, 273, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 286, 287, 288, 289, 303, 307, 

308, 309, 316, 318, 320, 323 

Turkey Bay OHV, 8, 19, 34, 37, 38, 57, 58, 60, 66, 81, 

209, 236, 239, 240, 243, 251, 296, 327 

TVA’s 1994 NRMP, 3, 4, 5, 12, 24, 87, 89, 201, 253, 

322, 329 

U

Uneven aged, 102, 103, 114, 119, 126, 193, 267, 288, 

308, 313, 316, 319 

V

Vegetation type, 21, 22, 33, 64, 87, 190, 215, 217, 261 

Viable population, 83, 132, 163, 166, 167, 191, 314 

Visual quality, 54, 260 

W

Watershed, 50, 52, 60, 62, 63, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 

81, 82, 278, 289, 304, 307, 319, 324 

Wetland, 16, 22, 52, 63, 64, 74, 93, 154, 187, 217, 314, 

316 

Wilderness, 11, 13, 17, 22, 24, 28, 30, 36, 39, 257, 258, 

259, 280, 281, 296, 309, 312, 320, 323, 328, 330 

Woodlands Nature Station, 70, 195, 204, 234, 245, 246, 

250, 251, 255, 256, 322 

Y

Youth Station, 18, 65, 223, 245, 250, 254, 256