Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33599

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to

Maurice Swinton, Assistant

Administrator for Technology, Office of

Technology, Office of Policy, Planning,

and Liaison, Office of Government

Contracting/Business Development, U.S.

Small Business Administration, 409

Third Street, SW., Washington, DC

20416 or via e-mail to

technology@sba.gov.

Dated: June 14, 2001.

William A. Fisher,

Acting Associate Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–15717 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–U

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Use of Lands Acquired for the

Columbia Dam Component of the Duck

River Project and Future Water Supply

Needs in the Upper Duck River Basin

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA).

ACTION: Issuance of records of decision.

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations (40

CFR 1500 to 1508) and TVA’s

implementing procedures. TVA has

decided to implement Alternative D/C

(intermediate alternative) in its Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

Use Of Lands Acquired For The

Columbia Dam Component Of The Duck

River Project. In addition, TVA has

decided to recommend to local utilities,

government agencies, and other

interested parties in the upper Duck

River watershed that one or more of the

action alternatives addressed in the

TVA Final EIS, Future Water Supply

Needs in the Upper Duck River Basin be

pursued to meet the future water needs

in that area. TVA is not proposing to

implement any of these water supply

alternatives itself.

The Columbia Land Use Final EIS was

made available to the public in April

1999. A Notice of Availability of the

Final EIS was published in the Federal

Register on April 16, 1999. TVA made

a decision to implement Option 2 to

stabilize the unfinished Columbia Dam

structure on May 17, 1999. Under

Alternative D/C, the agency preferred

land use alternative, TVA seeks to

balance public use and protection of

project lands and to be responsive to

public comments received during the

EIS process.

To implement Land Use Alternative

D/C, TVA has decided to transfer all of

the Columbia Project lands, 5200

hectares (12,800 acres) of land in Maury

County, Tennessee, to the state of

Tennessee subject to various easements

and restrictions.

Under the deed restrictions, most of

the land is to be managed to enhance

recreational use of the area and to

protect natural and cultural resources.

Up to 800 hectares (2000 acres) of land

could be devoted to other recreational

uses, including residential development

if the State decides to do this. An

additional 1550 hectares (3800 acres)

would be preserved for the possible

construction of a water supply and

compatible recreation reservoir (Water

Supply EIS Alternative B). This

reservoir was identified as one way to

meet the future water supply needs of

the Maury/southern Williamson County

Water Service Area. In the interim, these

preserved tracts would be managed for

wildlife and other recreation uses.

The Columbia Water Supply Final EIS

was made available to the public in

February 2001. A Notice of Availability

of the Final EIS was published in the

Federal Register on March 2, 2001.

TVA’s preferred alternative is that one

or more of the action alternatives should

be pursued by local utilities,

government agencies, and other

interested parties in the upper Duck

River watershed to meet the future

water needs in the Maury/southern

Williamson County Water Service Area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda B. Oxendine, Senior NEPA

Specialist, Environmental Policy &

Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902–1499;

telephone (865) 632–3440 or e-mail

lboxendine@tva.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1968,

TVA proposed the Duck River Project, a

project that would have resulted in the

construction of two dams and reservoirs

on the Duck River in middle Tennessee,

south of Nashville. As proposed, one

dam was to be built at River Mile 248,

near Normandy, and the other at River

Mile 136, near Columbia. Congress

began appropriating money for the Duck

River Project in December 1969.

Construction of Normandy Dam and

Reservoir began in June 1972 and was

completed in 1976. Construction of

Columbia Dam and Reservoir was begun

in August 1973, but was halted in 1983

because of potential impacts to at least

two endangered mussel species which

occur in the proposed reservoir pool

area.

In 1995, after conservation efforts for

the endangered mussel species had

failed to meet established criteria, TVA

decided that Columbia Dam and

Reservoir could not be completed. At

that time, TVA proposed to address two

partially-related purposes of the original

project: future use of the lands that had

been acquired, and water supply needs

in the upper Duck River watershed.

The Columbia Project lands are

located along the Duck River between

the city of Columbia (on the west) and

U.S. Route 431, Lewisburg-Franklin

Pike (on the east), in Maury County,

Tennessee. The reach of the Duck River

included in this study extends from

approximately River Mile 130, in

Columbia, upstream to River Mile 165,

at Carpenters Bridge, 3 kilometers (2 air

miles) west of U.S. Route 431.

When construction was halted in

1983, the Columbia Project was about 45

percent complete. The concrete portion

of the dam was about 90 percent

complete and the earth-filled section

was about 60 percent complete. The

river had been moved to flow through

a 600-meter (2000-foot) long diversion

channel located along the east side of

the work site and a dike had been built

to keep normal stream flow out of the

spillway construction site.

Approximately 46 percent of the land

required for the reservoir (5200 of

11,140 hectares (12,800 of 27,500 acres))

had been acquired, and approximately

half of the 72 kilometers (45 miles) of

roads affected by the reservoir had been

relocated.

Present status of sensitive resources in

the project area includes the presence of

at least four federal endangered species,

unusually diverse aquatic and terrestrial

communities, and a number of

important archaeological sites. During

the past decade, the Columbia Project

lands have become important public

hunting grounds in middle Tennessee.

At the same time, increasing numbers of

people are building homes and

businesses around the area.

On February 25, 1995, TVA issued a

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS

on alternative uses for the land acquired

as part of the Columbia Project. A

similar NOI for the Water Supply EIS

was published in the Federal Register

on March 9, 1995. The Tennessee Duck

River Development Agency, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service decided to

cooperate in the preparation of both EIS

documents. In addition, the Tennessee

Department of Environmental and

Conservation decided to cooperate in

the preparation of the Water Supply EIS.

Public scoping meetings were held at

Culleoka School near the Project site on

April 18 and May 2, 1995, on the Land

Use EIS and Water Supply EIS,

respectively. The Notice of Availability

(NOA) on the Draft Land Use EIS was

published on January 6, 1997, and a

33600 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

similar NOA on the Draft Water Supply

EIS was published on September 15,

2000. The public and interested

agencies were invited to submit written

comments on the draft Land Use EIS

and to attend a public meeting on

January 27, 1997, at Columbia Senior

High School. The public and interested

agencies were invited to submit written

comments on the draft Water Supply

EIS and to attend a public meeting on

September 28, 2000, at the same

location.

For the Land Use EIS, TVA received

a total of 2,890 separate sets of

comments which included input from

over 4,600 individuals, three federal

agencies, four state agencies, six

identified county and local

governmental agencies, and over 20

other organizations. The comments

indicated that most people and agencies

want the bulk of the Columbia Project

lands to be available for a variety of

public uses. Comments also included

making land available for public

services, such as schools and

convenience centers, and to resolve

access problems created when only part

of the proposed Columbia Reservoir

lands were acquired. The Notice of

Availability of the Final EIS was

published on April 16, 1999.

With regard to the Water Supply EIS,

TVA received comments from 130

participants at the public meeting and a

total of 364 letters, which included

input from 339 individuals, three

federal agencies, seven state agencies,

two municipalities, eight state-level

non-governmental agencies, and four

local-level non-governmental agencies.

Many of the comments made about the

Land Use EIS also addressed issues

covered in the Water Supply EIS.

Alternatives Considered

Land Use Alternatives

Based on comments received during

the scoping process, TVA initially

considered four land use alternatives

and three dam stabilization options in

the Draft EIS. In response to public and

agency comments on the Draft EIS, TVA

and the cooperating agencies identified

and evaluated a fifth, intermediate,

alternative in the Final EIS.

On May 17, 1999, TVA issued a

Record of Decision on dam stabilization

and decided to implement Option 2 to

stabilize flood elevation at their present

levels, address public safety concerns,

and avoid substantial additional

construction in the river.

With respect to the land use

alternatives, under Alternative A—

Continue Present Uses (No Action),

there would be no wholesale change in

TVA ownership or use of the Columbia

Project lands. Most of the land would

continue to be used for informal

recreation while some would be

licensed for agricultural uses. Parcels of

land could be transferred to other

agencies, sold at public auction, or used

for specific purposes following

completion of appropriate NEPA

reviews.

Under Alternative B—Protective River

Corridor, only those Columbia Project

lands in a narrow corridor along the

Duck River would remain in public

ownership. Informal recreation could

occur on the river and in the corridor,

so long as it did not cause negative

impacts on the natural or cultural

resources which occur there. Nearly all

Columbia Project lands outside of this

corridor would be transferred to other

agencies or sold at public auction.

Under Alternative C—Protective and

Recreation Corridor, additional lands

would remain in public ownership

beyond those identified as part of the

protective river corridor. The additional

land would provide better protection for

the river and enhance the potential for

various types of formal recreational

development. Lands not included in

this larger corridor would be transferred

to other agencies or sold at public

auction.

Under Alternative D—Resource

Management Area, most of the

Columbia Project lands would be

transferred to a federal or state agency

to be managed, in part, to protect

natural and cultural resources. The

extent of recreational development and

other compatible uses of the land would

be determined by the receiving agency.

Only a few outlying parcels of Columbia

Project land would be sold at public

auction.

Under Alternative D/C—Public Use

and Protection—all of the Columbia

Project lands would be transferred to the

state of Tennessee or some specific state

or federal agency. The extent of

recreational development and other

compatible uses of this land would be

determined by the State or receiving

agency but would have to meet land use

and environmental restrictions included

in the transfer document. Up to 800

hectares (2000 acres) of land (Possible

Development Areas) could be devoted to

other recreational-based uses, including

residential development. An additional

1550 hectares (3800 acres) in the

Fountain Creek area would be set aside

for a possible water supply and

compatible recreation reservoir in the

future. In the interim, this land would

be managed for wildlife and recreation

activities.

While the land use alternatives differ

from each other in several ways, each

proposed setting aside the 1550 hectares

(3800 acres) of project lands in the

Fountain Creek watershed for a water

supply and compatible recreation

reservoir project later described as

Alternative B in the Water Supply EIS.

Of the five alternatives, four

(Alternatives A, B, C, and D/C) include

varying amounts of residential,

commercial, and/or industrial

development on parts of the Columbia

Project lands; Alternative D/C includes

no industrial development.

Water Supply Alternatives

The Water Supply EIS was developed

to achieve three purposes: (1) To

document if one or more of the three

water service areas in the upper Duck

River basin has a projected need for

additional water before about 2050, (2)

to identify potential ways to meet any

identified water needs in the three water

service areas, and (3) to determine the

likely environmental effects of the

water-supply alternatives that were

identified.

The results from the needs analysis

indicate that water releases from

Normandy Dam would meet projected

needs in the Bedford County and

Marshall County Water Service Areas

through 2050; however, the Maury/

southern Williamson County Service

Area (the area around Columbia) would

need additional water starting some

time after 2015. Five broad concepts for

meeting water supply needs were

evaluated in detail, including the No

Action alternative. Under Alternative

A—No Action, no new source of water

would be developed to meet the

projected future needs of the Maury/

southern Williamson County Water

Service Area. Under Alternative B—

Fountain Creek Reservoir, a water

supply reservoir would be constructed

on Fountain Creek along with a fivemile long pipeline to transport water

from the reservoir to a new treatment

plant and to the existing waterdistribution system. Under Alternative

C—Downstream Intake, a water-supply

intake and pumping station would be

constructed on the Duck River in

western Maury County along with a 13-

mile pipeline to transport water to a

new treatment plant and to the existing

water-distribution system. Under

Alternative D—Raise Normandy Pool

Level, the pool level on Normandy

Reservoir would be raised and the

minimum discharge from Normandy

Dam would be increased. Under

Alternative E—Tims Ford Intake, a

water-supply intake and pumping

station would be constructed on Tims

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33601

Ford reservoir along with a 20-mile

pipeline to transport water to a

discharge point on the Duck River near

Shelbyville in Bedford County.

In the Water Supply EIS, TVA found

that three alternatives would meet the

future needs of the Columbia area

through 2050. Raising the pool level on

Normandy Reservoir would meet

projected water needs through 2035;

however, the use of available water

conservation measures could extend the

utility of this alternative through 2050.

Preliminary reviews presented in the

EIS indicated that all four conceptual

action alternatives could be constructed

and operated without seriously harming

the environment.

Decisions

Land Use EIS

TVA has decided to implement

Alternative D/C (Public Use and

Protection). TVA will transfer all of the

Columbia Project lands to the state of

Tennessee subject to certain easements

and restrictions. This alternative, which

incorporates components of both

Alternative D (Resource Management

Area) and C (Protective and Recreational

Corridor), responds to the public

comments TVA received during the EIS

process. The bulk of the lands will be

retained in public ownership and

devoted to recreation and natural

resource management. This will protect

the cultural and natural resources,

including endangered species and

wetlands, which exist in the area. Under

restrictions in the document transferring

ownership of the property, the State

could choose to make up to 800 hectares

(2,000 acres) of land in the Possible

Development Areas available for other

recreational uses including residential

development which would help

respond to some of the development

pressures in the area. Prior to the

transfer, TVA will convey certain

easements to address property access

issues and to provide for specific public

uses, such as a site for a new school.

TVA closely coordinated the

formulation of Alternative D/C with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

Tennessee state natural resource

management agencies. The Service has

agreed with TVA’s determination that

implementation of Alternative D/C will

not jeopardize the continued existence

of any of the endangered or threatened

species that are present on, or could be

affected by, the restricted use of the

former Columbia Project lands. This

action will preserve a substantial block

of land for open space, wildlife

management, and natural resource

protection in an area that is under

increasing development pressures.

Devoting lands to these uses is

important now and will become

increasingly important to future

generations in the middle Tennessee

region.

Water Supply EIS

Although agencies typically identify

only one EIS alternative as preferable,

agencies can identify multiple

alternatives as preferable under CEQ’s

NEPA regulations. 40 CFR § 1502.14.(e).

Considering the programmatic nature of

the Water Supply EIS and TVA’s lack of

involvement in future implementation

of the action alternatives, TVA

identified all of the action alternatives

as preferable to not taking any action at

all. Accordingly, TVA has concluded

that one or more of the action

alternatives should be pursued to meet

the future water needs in the Maury/

southern Williamson County Water

Service Area. TVA is not proposing to

design or construct any of the facilities.

However as a regional water resource

agency, TVA can assist in evaluating

available alternatives and encourage

cooperation among all communities that

are dependent on common water

resources. Local utilities, government

agencies, and other interested parties in

the upper Duck River watershed will be

the ones to actually decide which water

supply alternatives should be pursued.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

TVA has concluded that Alternative

D, Resource Management Area, is the

environmentally preferable alternative

in the Land Use EIS. Alternative D

would likely result in little disturbance

of project lands and would best protect

natural resources in the area. Little or no

land would be transferred or sold out of

public ownership. The federal or state

agency recipient would commit to

manage these lands to protect natural

and cultural resources and to enhance

recreational use of the area. Most of the

Columbia Project lands would become a

resource management area. However,

TVA decided that Alternative D/C

adequately protects the area’s natural

resources and is the second-most

environmentally preferable alternative.

With regard to the Water Supply EIS,

TVA has concluded that any of the

action alternatives could be

implemented with acceptable impacts

on the environment. However, the

extent of potential environmental effects

of the conceptual alternatives is related

to the amount of land area that would

be modified or disturbed. TVA agrees

with EPA that the two alternatives

which would involve the least amount

of land disturbance (Alternative C—

Downstream Water Intake, and

Alternative E—Tims Ford Pipeline) also

appear likely to have the least potential

for adverse effects on the environment

(almost exclusively short-term effects

associated with construction of the

pipelines and other facilities). Both of

the other alternatives (Alternative B—

Fountain Creek Reservoir, and

Alternative D—Raise Normandy Pool

Level) would involve modifications in

much larger areas and would have

substantially more potential for adverse

environmental effects. Each of the

alternatives also would result in some

level of benefits to water quality, aquatic

life, and recreation on parts of the Duck

River where at least the minimum flow

would be higher than under the No

Action Alternative. Assuming that the

construction impacts per mile of

waterline would be comparable, the

small size of the intake site and the

shorter length of pipeline that would be

involved would combine to make

Alternative C the most environmentallypreferable alternative.

Environmental Mitigation

Although implementation of

Alternative D would have resulted in

heightened environmental protection on

more land, Alternative D/C was

purposefully formulated to safeguard

the sensitive natural resources found on

the Columbia Project lands. Setting

aside land in an expanded river corridor

and protecting such lands with a set of

comprehensive restrictions substantially

avoids the risks of adverse

environmental impacts. These

comprehensive restrictions also require

appropriate review and mitigation of

any subsequent potential impacts on

natural and cultural resources.

In the Water Supply EIS, the action

alternatives have been generally

described in light of their conceptual

nature at this early stage. If and when

a decision is made to provide some

additional water for the Maury/southern

Williamson County Water Service Area,

the sponsors would determine the

specific purposes of each project and

would develop site-specific plans for

the various facilities. As those plans are

developed and proposals are made,

detailed, site-specific evaluations of

environmental effects would be

conducted, if required and as

appropriate, under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Kathryn J. Jackson,

Executive Vice President, River System

Operations & Environment.

[FR Doc. 01–15729 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–U