FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE
LITTLE CEDAR MOUNTAIN TRACTS
NICKAJACK RESERVOIR
MARION COUNTY, TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 1996
For more information, please contact:
Michael R. Crowson
Tennessee Valley Authority
2009 Grubb Road
Lenoir City, Tennessee 37771-7129
(423) 988-2444
EXTRA COPY
Index No: 383
Title: FONSI and EA - Recreational
Development of the Little Cedar Mountain
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..........................................1
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..............................................4
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................6
3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife .........................................6
3.2 Forest Resources ...............................................10
3.3 Prime Farmland .................................................10
3.4 Wetlands .......................................................10
3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................11
3.6 Water Quality ..................................................12
3.7 Reservoir Operating Levels and Areas Subject to Flood ..........14
3.8 Aquatic Life ...................................................14
3.9 Navigation .....................................................15
3.10 Existing Public Recreation Opportunities ......................15
3.11 Existing Visual Setting .......................................17
3.12 Historical and Cultural Resources .............................17
3.13 Socioeconomic Conditions ......................................18
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..........................................19
4.1 Vegetation and Wildlife ........................................19
4.2 Forest Resources ...............................................21
4.3 Prime Farmland .................................................21
4.4 Wetlands .......................................................22
4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................23
4.6 Reserving of Access for Tract 5 ................................26
4.7 Potential Effects on Water Quality .............................27
4.8 Flood Hazard Analysis ..........................................28
4.9 Aquatic Life ...................................................29
4.10 Navigation ....................................................29
4.11 Impacts on Public Recreation Opportunities ....................30
4.12 Visual Impacts ................................................31
4.13 Historical and Cultural Resources .............................32
4.14 Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................32
4.15 Air and Noise .................................................33
4.16 Cumulative Impacts ............................................34
4.17 Conclusions ...................................................35
5.0 COMMITMENTS .........................................................36
6.0 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS .........................................38
APPENDIX: MAPS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND STUDIES
[chapter 1, page 1]
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
Following the closure of Nickajack Dam in 1967, the State of Tennessee, with TVA's
cooperation, expressed interest in developing a 701-acre (284-hectare or ha) tract of TVA
land (Tract No. XNJR-3PT, or Tract 3) on Shellmound Road for a state resort park. The
tract is located between Nickajack Dam and Interstate 24 at Exit 158. The state initiated
planning efforts for a large-scale resort park, completing a master plan in 1973. However,
the state subsequently decided not to develop the area as a park. While the state's
planning efforts were underway, TVA developed the Shellmound Recreation Area on
approximately 81 acres (30 ha) of the property. It contains a campground, picnic area,
boat ramp, and trails. For the past 27 years, it has been the site of the annual Fall Color
Cruise, which attracts visitors to view the fall colors on surrounding mountain slopes, as
well as to participate in craft and music festivities.
Prior to the construction of Nickajack Dam, the State of Tennessee and the Marion
County Planning Commission identified a 638-acre (258-ha) tract of TVA land (Tract No.
XNJR-1PT, or Tract 1), located on the Tennessee River between Tennessee River Miles
423 and 424 (km 682 and 684), as a suitable site for industrial use. Its attractive features
are road access, rail access within three miles (5 km) of the site, and its location along the
navigable waterway. Located just downstream from the dam, it is the last parcel of TVA
land suitable for major waterfront industrial development on the Tennessee River between
Loudon, Tennessee and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Despite periodic interest
by large industrial prospects, the site has never been developed for industrial use and has
been managed for wildlife for the last 28 years. Portions have also been used for non-
wildlife uses such as the 87-acre (35-ha) TVA Safety and Emergency Response Training
Academy.
In 1987, TVA initiated the Nickajack Reservoir lands planning process to identify
appropriate uses of TVA lands on the reservoir, ranging from industrial to habitat
protection. In 1990, the TVA Board of Directors approved the Nickajack Reservoir Land
Management Plan, which identified the 638 acres (258 ha) of Tract 1 for an Industrial
Site, the 701 acres (284 ha) of Tract 3 for public recreation development, and 39 acres (16
ha) of Tract No. XNJR-4PT (Tract 4) for public recreation development. The plan stated
that private sector proposals for development of public recreation facilities on Tract 3
would be considered with evidence of financial feasibility. The plan also stated that
private residential or non-recreational commercial development would not be allowed.
Periodically throughout the 1980s and 1990s, TVA has received proposals from local
governments and individuals for recreation development on Tract 3 which included non-
recreation components. Recent proposals have been received from Marion County, the
Sequatchie Valley Planning and Development Agency, and private developers. All recent
proposals have contained non-recreational commercial development or private residential
development.
[chapter 1, page 2]
TVA continues to receive statements of interest from individual developers and local
governments in developing this area for recreational use. TVA believes these proposals
demonstrate the need for recreational facilities in the area.
In order to respond to this need, TVA proposes to establish a 1379-acre (558-ha) outdoor
recreational complex containing developed and undeveloped recreation components. In
order to accomplish this development, TVA would modify the Nickajack Lake Land
Management Plan by changing the allocation of two tracts of land and take other actions
to allow private sector development. Specifically, TVA proposes to:
(1) make a 620-acre (251-ha) portion of Tract No. XNJR-3PT available to the private
sector for commercial recreation, public recreation, and residential development;
(2) make Tract No. XNJR-4PT (40 acres or 16 ha located between Interstate 24 and US
41-64-72), available to the private sector for commercial recreation development;
(3) change the industrial allocation of 498 acres (202 ha) of Tract No. XNJR-1PT to
allow this tract to be used for wildlife management over a long-term period;
(4) change the public recreation allocation of Tract No. XNJR-3PT to allow residential
development.
The total area of the outdoor recreational complex would be 1379 acres (558 ha), of
which 620 acres (267 ha) would be available for commercial recreation, with a possible
residential component, and 40 acres (16 ha) would be available for commercial recreation
only.
In proposing to develop the Little Cedar Mountain outdoor recreation complex, TVA's
goals are the following:
[chapter 1, page 3] In response to the public notice, 170 citizens voiced opinions. There were 144 telephone calls recorded. The majority of callers (60 percent) voiced support for the proposed development. About 33 percent opposed the proposed development and the remainder did not state a preference. In addition, 34 letters were received. The majority of letters (79 percent) were supportive of the proposed development, 15 percent were opposed, and the remainder did not state a preference. The main reasons for supporting the proposed project were economic benefits to Marion County and enhanced recreational opportunities. The main reasons for opposing the proposed development were environmental concerns such as impacts to wildlife habitat and fertilizer run off and a preference that public land remain undeveloped. Following release of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in April 1996, numerous additional comments were received from individuals and organizations. These comments have been addressed either by changing the EA or by responding in the appendix to this EA. In addition, TVA informally consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential for endangered species impacts. The result of this consultation is also included in this EA.
[chapter 2, page 4] 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED TVA considered three alternatives to accomplish recreation development and one alternative which would retain the tracts in their current status as lands designated for industrial and recreational development. ALTERNATIVE 1. Develop Tracts 3 and 4 for commercial recreation, and allocate Tract 1 for wildlife management. TVA would allow Tract 3 to be developed by private firms as resort-oriented recreational facilities such as golf courses, marinas, lodging, restaurants, and conference centers. All such facilities would be open to the public. The Shellmound Recreation Area (81 acres or 33 ha) would continue to exist, but could be incorporated into the resort development and could be operated by a private firm. In addition, Tract 4 could also be considered as part of the resort development, if the private firm wishes to include the additional tract as part of its proposal. Under this alternative, certain land allocations in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan would have to be revised. Also under this alternative, the current industrial allocation for Tract 1 would be changed to allow its long-term use for wildlife management. If Alternative 1 were chosen, the successful bidder would likely receive a permanent or term recreation easement from TVA in order to develop the tracts, with TVA retaining fee title to the land. ALTERNATIVE 2. Develop Tract 3 for commercial recreation and residential uses and Tract 4 for commercial recreation; and allocate Tract 1 for wildlife management. Because development has not occurred, commercial recreation development may be too restrictive. In order to increase the financial feasibility of recreation development, this alternative would allow the developer the flexibility to include residential development in a proposal to develop Tract 3. The Shellmound Recreation Area would continue to exist, but could be operated as part of the commercial resort development. Tract 4 could also be considered as part of the resort development if the private firm wishes to include this tract in its proposal. However, Tract 4 would not be available for residential development. Under this alternative, certain allocations in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan would have to be revised. As with Alternative 1, this alternative would also include reallocation of Tract 1 from industrial to wildlife management. Further, the allocation of Tract 3 would be revised to allow private residential development in addition to commercial recreation. If Alternative 2 were chosen, TVA may participate as a partner in developing the land and would likely retain fee simple title to a large part of the land involved. ALTERNATIVE 3. Transfer Tracts 3 and 4 to the state or a local government agency to develop, and allocate Tract 1 for wildlife management. Under this alternative, TVA would transfer Tracts 3 and 4 to another government agency with few restrictions other than that subsequent development should be consistent with TVA's allocations in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan. The current allocations do not allow residential development. TVA would not transfer Tract 1, but would change the current
[chapter 2, page 5] industrial allocation to allow its long-term use for wildlife management. This reallocation would be accomplished through revision of the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan. If Alternative 3 were chosen, TVA would contact state and local agencies and offer to transfer the tracts upon receipt of an acceptable development proposal. Development proposals would be reviewed for consistency with this EA. Deviations from the EA would be subject to additional environmental review. TVA would not retain ownership of Tracts 3 and 4. ALTERNATIVE 4. Leave the tracts undeveloped. Under this alternative, the current land use designations would not be changed. Until actually committed to designated uses, the Shellmound Road tracts would continue to be available for informal recreation, public open space, wildlife habitat enhancement, and agricultural licensing, for some interim period. As in the past, TVA would continue to operate the Shellmound Recreation Area, and would retain fee ownership of all three tracts. With this alternative, TVA would retain future options to consider industrial development for Tract 1 and commercial recreation proposals for Tracts 3 and 4, consistent with the allocations in the Nickajack Land Management Plan, after appropriate environmental review. For the purposes of this review, this is the No Action alternative. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TVA prefers to adopt Alternative 2 since it has the best chance of meeting the purpose of this action to provide recreational facilities in the region. TVA believes that inclusion of a residential component is necessary to facilitate the development of increased recreational opportunities in this area. Because the proposed action includes the reallocation of Tract 1 from industrial to wildlife management, potential future impacts to wildlife related outdoor recreation would be reduced. In addition, development of Tracts 3 and 4 would retain some open space components, while continuing to support most species of wildlife occurring there now. However, to protect public safety, hunting would not be allowed on the undeveloped portions of Tracts 3 and 4. One criterion that would be used to evaluate development proposals would be the amount of wildlife habitat to be protected. The potential benefits to the area from industrial development on Tract 1, however, would be foregone.
[chapter 3, page 6] 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Nickajack Reservoir is 46 miles (74 km) long, stretching from the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to the mouth to the Sequatchie Valley. The lake contains 10,370 acres (4,198 ha) of water surface and 192 miles (310 km) of shoreline. The site of the proposed recreational development project is on the northwest shore of Nickajack Reservoir, approximately 37 river miles (60 km) or 20 air miles (32 km) west- southwest from downtown Chattanooga. The site consists of approximately 4 miles (6.5 km) of lake frontage (proposed to be developed) and one mile (2 km) of river frontage in the Nickajack tailwater (proposed to be allocated to wildlife management). Access to the property is provided by a paved, two-lane road that parallels the property. This road provides access to Nickajack Dam and TVA public recreation facilities near the dam, and is accessible via Exit 158 from Interstate 24. 3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Tracts 1, 3, and 4 are located within the Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Province, an elevated plateau surrounded by cliffs and steep slopes. Within this province, these tracts are somewhat unusual in that they are topographically and physiographically similar to the adjacent Ridge and Valley Province. The Ridge and Valley Province is characterized by prominent, northeast-southwest trending ridges and their adjacent valleys. With regard to vegetation, these tracts are located within the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region. However, because of their unusual topography and soils, vegetation is more similar to that of the adjacent Oak-Chestnut Forest Region. Area forests are characterized by red oak, white oak, various hickories, red maple, black gum, sour wood, sassafras, tulip tree, loblolly pine, Virginia pine, short-leaf pine, and dogwood. Valleys and lower ridge slopes in the region have been cleared for agricultural use. Row crops are typically restricted to broad valleys. The ridges and knolls are mostly forested, although timber has been repeatedly harvested for more than 200 years. Tracts 1, 3 and 4 are located on the right descending bank of the reservoir, and extend from just north of 1-24 downstream to a point approximately a mile (2 km) past Nickajack Dam. To the east, the tracts are bordered by approximately 4.5 miles (7 km) of Nickajack Reservoir shoreline, and 0.85 miles (1 km) of upland habitat along the base of Little Cedar Mountain. To the northwest, the tract is bordered by private property in residential, forest and open land condition. Geologically, the tracts are underlain by pre-Pennsylvanian limestone of the Pennington Formation. The dominant rocks are cherty dolomite or limestone. Soils are derived from limestone, sedimentary deposits, and rock debris. The soils are generally clay loam, with depths of 15 to 40 inches (40 to 100 cm) to bedrock. Soils are classified as poorly to
[chapter 3, page 7] moderately well drained with an erosion hazard of slight to moderate. Soil types are loam, silt loam and silty clay loam, eroded and undulating, gently rolling to hilly phases. Vegetative cover has been altered by decades of timber harvest and agriculture. Past and current land/resource uses have resulted in a mosaic of plant communities representing a wide range of successional stages. The percentage of weedy plant species (both native and exotic) occurring within this mosaic is high. Approximately 162 acres (66 ha) of Tracts 3 and 4 are currently licensed for agricultural uses. A small percentage of this area is used for row crops. The majority is being used for pasture, or for producing hay. At present, the licensed area is composed of a mosaic of 16 fields, interrupted by densely vegetated fence rows and scattered wood lots. Some of the fields are fallow and reverting through the initial stages of forest succession. Pasture and hayfields contain fescue, orchard grass, Johnson grass, Bermuda grass, and numerous broad leaf weeds. Fence rows support a mixture of herbaceous and woody species, with the more common being mulberry, hackbeny, sassafras, Japanese honeysuckle, privet, blackberry, and pokeweed. Generally speaking, old fields include the same species as found in fence rows, plus species that thrive in full sunlight (such as Joe- pye-weed, coreopsis, various asters, lespedeza, foxtail, and other native grasses). In an effort to improve wildlife habitat, 22 acres (9 ha) have been seeded in partridge pea, lespedeza, and native warm season, grasses. Additionally, bicolor lespedeza has been established in selected field margins and fence rows. About 366 acres (148 ha) of Tracts 3 and 4 are forested; however, most of this is forest fragments or small woodlots. Forest cover types include planted and natural pine, pine- hardwood, and upland hardwoods, and riparian or bottomland hardwoods. Age classes of these communities vary from 5-100 years old. Upland hardwood forests consist of various oaks, hickories, red maple, black gum, sassafras, and white ash. Narrow, non-continuous, riparian forests exist along the reservoir edge and stream courses. In these communities, the canopy includes such species as white oak, winged elm, river birch, swamp tupelo, sycamore, hackberry, and hornbeam. The understories include pokeweed, honeysuckle, privet, Virginia creeper, muscadine, and swamp dogwood. The remaining portion of Tract 3 is managed as a developed recreation area, and consists of a campground and day use area, a public boat launch, an informal trail system, and associated roads and parking areas. Three intermittent streams, two man-made ponds, and two natural ponds also exist on the tract. Tract 4 is managed for informal recreation. In their present condition, these lands provide excellent habitat for a variety of game and non-game wildlife, and support a variety of public uses associated with this resource. On an average day during the hunting season, it is estimated that nine small game hunters and twelve deer hunters use Tracts 3 and 4. Game species found on these lands include white- tailed deer, gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, and bobwhite quail. The area has been used by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency for demonstrating small game habitat
[chapter 3, page 8] enhancement techniques, and for conducting hunter safety training. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) also considers Tracts 1 and 3 to be the best publicly- owned small game and white-tailed deer habitat remaining in Marion County. In a September 14, 1987 letter to TVA, Dr. Gary T. Myers (Executive Director of TWRA) identified the need to "retain and provide lands for wildlife recreation." He went on to say that Tract 3 is suitable for "intensive upland game management that includes dove, quail, and rabbit hunting along with a much needed area for retriever and pointing dog training," and that "under proper management the tract could provide additional wildlife-related benefits within three years." Wildlife-related benefits available at Little Cedar Mountain are estimated in Table 1. Table 1. Additional Wildlife Related Benefits Available at Little Cedar Mountain _______Activity___________________Man-days of Use_______ Dove Hunting 2,000 Wildlife Watching 780 Dog Training 350 Juvenile Quail Hunting 250 Rabbit Hunting 150 Deer Hunting 125 Organized Field Trials 600 Source: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. September 14. 1987 letter In a subsequent letter (December 19, 1995), Dr. Myers describes Tract 3 as "one of the last remaining properties of significant size in the vicinity of Chattanooga that remains potentially available for wildlife recreation." A copy of the latter letter is included in the Section 6 of this document. In addition to game species, a diverse array of non-game and furbearing wildlife inhabit the tracts. Common non-game or furbearing mammals include white-footed mouse, short- tail shrew, opossum, red and gray fox, chipmunk, raccoon, coyote, eastern mole, mink, muskrat, and woodchucks. Numerous species of songbirds, including several neotropical migrants, also use the diverse mosaic of habitats present. Migratory species include yellow-billed cuckoo, wood thrush, red-eyed vireo, Kentucky warbler, oven bird, and summer tanager. Resident songbirds utilizing forested habitats would include several species of woodpecker (i.e., hairy, downy, red-bellied, pileated, and common flicker), blue jay, tufted titmouse, Carolina chickadee, and white-breasted nuthatch. Eastern king birds, prairie warblers, indigo buntings, field sparrows, song sparrows, American gold finches, purple finches, and eastern blue birds are all abundant in open-land or early successional habitats. Common birds utilizing a variety of habitat types include turkey vulture, black vulture, red-tailed and red-shouldered hawk, American crow, great homed owl, barred owl, screech owl, and northern cardinal. For forested shorelines and other riparian
[chapter 3, page 9] habitats, typical birds would include green-backed heron, great blue heron, yellow-billed cuckoo, eastern kingbird, prothonotary warbler, common yellowthroat, red-winged blackbird, common grackle, and killdeer. Additionally, spotted sandpipers have been observed along the shoreline during the spring and early fall. Resident and migratory waterfowl use shoreline and riparian habitats, as well as aquatic bed wetlands and deep water habitats. Common species are the Canada goose, American coot, double-crested cormorant, loon. mallard, blue-winged teal, wood duck, and bufflehead. Sandhill cranes have also been observed using agricultural fields during spring and fall migration. Bald eagles and osprey are observed on Nickajack Reservoir throughout the year, and make frequent use of shoreline areas for foraging, loafing, and perching. A great blue heron nest colony is located near Interstate 24 on an island off of Tract 5. Numerous species of reptiles and amphibians also use the shoreline, adjacent areas of riparian habitat, and upland habitats on the tract. Common species would include northern watersnake, black rat snake, worm snake, black racer, black kingsnake, common snapping turtle, red-eared turtle, river cooter, eastern box turtle, broad-head and five lined skinks, fence lizards, and Fowler's toad. Even though these non-game species are not sought by hunters and trappers, they are routinely utilized by the public in a variety of non-consumptive ways, including wildlife watching. Tract 5, which includes the actual mountainous portion of "Little Cedar Mountain", consists of approximately 320 acres (130 ha) of steep, rocky land. The tract lies along the western shoreline of Nickajack Lake, immediately downstream from Interstate Highway 24. To the west and north. Tract 5 shares a common boundary with adjoining portions of Tract 3 and Tract 4, respectively. To the east and south. Tract 5 is bordered by Nickajack Lake. Historically, portions of Tract 5 have been impacted by various land uses, although the shallow soils and extensive areas of limestone outcrop have largely excluded agriculture. Still, there is evidence of a rural road bed, complete with adjacent hand laid stone retaining walls, and stone paving. Additionally, cedar fence rows border the lane, and a pair of large cedars mark the entrance way off the main road. Tract 5 soils are described in the Marion County soil survey as limestone rocklands, with limestone ledges and outcrops occupying more than 50% of the surface area. Slopes range from 12 to 60 percent, with those between 25 and 60 percent being more common. In some areas shallow layers of soil, consisting of dark silty clay, support a forest canopy consisting of a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees. These forested areas include post, red, and blackjack oaks; redbud; and red cedar. In several areas, the forest canopy has remained open to form distinctive "glade-like" openings. Gray's Bluff overlooks Nickajack Lake. In addition to its significance as a visual resource, this geological feature provides potential habitat for several rare plant species.
[chapter 3, page 10] 3.2 Forest Resources About 366 acres (148 ha) of the lands proposed for development m Tracts 3 and 4 are forested. Forested acreage consist of both planted/managed, and naturally reverted pine stands, mixed pine-hardwoods, and upland and bottomland hardwoods. Within these stands, age classes range from 5-100 years. 3.3 Prime Farmland Prime farmlands are those areas that offer the best available soils for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Characteristically, prime farmlands have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce high sustained yields of crops. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to air and water, and are not excessively erosion-prone or saturated with water for long periods of time. Additionally, they do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding. Based on inspection of soil maps for Marion County, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has concluded that 397 acres (161 ha) of Tracts 3 and 4 meet established prime farmland standards. Of this total, approximately 162 acres (66 ha) are currently being licensed for agricultural uses, 50 acres (16 ha) have been allocated for wildlife habitat enhancement, and the remaining 185 acres (75 ha) are in managed forest. Additionally, TVA estimates that 85 percent of Tract 1 is prime farmland. 3.4 Wetlands Lacustrine fringe (Brinson) and lacustrine aquatic bed (Cowardin et. al) wetlands, occur along the 4.5 miles (7 km) of shoreline fronting Tracts 3 and 4 (See Appendix). These wetlands are characterized by the presence of emergent, scrub-shrub, or permanently inundated aquatic plants. Generally speaking, these types of wetlands occur in areas where suitable water depth and substrate, and sufficient light, facilitate their development. Such conditions exist within littoral zones (i.e., shallow overbank areas) adjacent to the old river channel, or within the reservoir fluctuation zone. On Nickajack Reservoir, the lacustrine fringe communities occur between elevations 633.5' and 636.0'. Lacustrine aquatic bed wetlands are usually found between elevations 621.0' and 634.0.' Fringe wetlands typically include such plant species as common cattail, woolgrass, soft rush, buttonbush, black willow, silky dogwood, river alder, river birch, sycamore, willow oak and water oak. Aquatic bed wetlands are most often formed by floating mats of Eurasian water milfoil or hydrilla.
[chapter 3, page 11] Fringe wetlands stabilize shorelines by dispersing wave energy and currents, thereby reducing erosion and the re-suspension of sediments. This helps maintain water clarity and improves water quality. Fringe wetlands also trap sediments and nutrients carried by runoff waters from upslope areas. Fringe and aquatic bed wetlands also provide habitat for a diversity of wetland-dependent wildlife species including wood ducks, Canada geese, and mallards; great blue and green- backed herons; red-winged blackbirds, swamp sparrows, mink, muskrat, beavers, and raccoon; and a variety of reptiles and amphibians. These systems also help sustain the aquatic food chain by incorporating nutrients from decomposing organic debris. This process benefits plant and animal communities within the wetland, on the adjoining uplands, and in adjacent water bodies. Because of the scarcity of such habitats locally, associated values are considered important. Elsewhere on the tracts, a recent survey confirmed the presence of sixteen jurisdictional wetlands (slope or depressional types) on Tracts 1 and 3. The methodology and results of this study are included in Section 6. As identified through the survey. Tract 3 contains two depressional wetlands ("sink hole" ponds," with well-developed lacustrine fringe communities. One of these ponds is 0.33 acres (0.12 ha) and the other is 0.75 acres (0.3 ha). The location of these two wetlands is shown on the wetlands map in the Appendix. 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species Several animal species listed as endangered or threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) occur near the site proposed for development. These species are the gray bat (Myotis gnsescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and Anthony's riversnail (Atheamia anthonyi). All are listed as endangered. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephaius) and snail darter (Perdna tanasi). both listed as threatened, have also been reported from the area. No federally-listed plant species are known from the TVA lands in question. However, Price's potato bean (Apios firiceana), American hart's tongue fern (PhyllitLs scolopendrium), and Eggert's sunflower (Helianthus eggerii), listed as threatened by USFWS, and large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana). listed as endangered, all have known populations in Marion County, Tennessee. The gray bat and the Indiana bat are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered. Both species utilize caves as roost sites, at least during the winter months. During the summer, however, Indiana bats seem to prefer forested riparian zones, where they roost in tree cavities and under loose bark. These bats eat insects that are captured in flight. Gray bats feed almost exclusively over water, while Indiana bats select the canopy zone of nearby riparian forest. Both of these bats are known to utilize Nickajack Cave which is located within 1.25 air miles (2 km) of Tract 3. During the spring and summer, Nickajack cave supports a colony of approximately 120,000 gray bats. A small number of Indiana bats also routinely use this cave as a hibernating site. For this reason, TVA (the cave owner) has designated Nickajack Cave as a Habitat Protection Area, and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency has designated the cave as a Wildlife Observation
[chapter 3, page 12] Area and Nongame Wildlife Refuge. This latter designation is the only one of its kind in the State of Tennessee. Recently, a second cave, located on Tract 5, was found to be supporting a summer colony of gray bats. The size of the colony, and the nature of use (i.e., bachelor, maternity, etc.) is unknown; however, estimates place the number of bats using the cave at around 3,500. Tract 5 is a TVA-designated Habitat Protection Area. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). a threatened species, are not uncommon on the lower portion of Nickajack Reservoir. These birds utilize shoreline/riparian, and shallow overbank habitats for perching, loafing and foraging. For the past 10 to 15 years, most of this use has been during the migrant-wintering period. However, in recent years nesting attempts have occurred with increasing regularity. A pair of birds is now nesting near the southwestern end of Anderson Ridge, approximately 2 miles (3 km) west-northwest of Tract 3 and just to the north of Tract 1. There is no evidence to suggest that bald eagles have ever nested on Tracts 1, 3, or 4; however, suitable habitat is present along some of the more remote segments of shoreline. Anthony's riversnail is a federal endangered species which is known to occur in the lower Sequatchie River and in the Tennessee River near Long Island, approximately nine river miles (14 km) downstream from Nickajack Dam. In the Tennessee River, this species seems to be most abundant on submerged objects along the shore. The snail darter is a federal threatened species which occurs in the lower Sequatchie River and in adjacent parts of the Tennessee River. Young snail darters typically spend most of their first year of life in Tennessee River habitats, then move to shoal habitats on the small stream to breed. No federal or state-protected endangered or threatened aquatic species are known to occur in the portion of Nickajack Reservoir near Tracts 3 or 4. That part of the reservoir is no longer suitable habitat for protected aquatic species, nearly all of which are adapted to life in flowing water. None of the streams on Tracts 1, 3, or 4 are likely to support Anthony's riversnail, the snail darter, or other protected aquatic species. The streams on Tracts 3 and 4 are quite small and have little or no flow during much of the year. Both of the larger streams on Tract 1 have been substantially modified and do not contain suitable flowing water habitat for protected aquatic species. 3.6 Water Quality Water quality in the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Little Cedar Mountain is good. The waters are moderately hard, moderately turbid, and are slightly alkaline. Nutrient levels are low. Iron, an indicator of mining runoff, was lower than generally found in this stretch
[chapter 3, page 13] of the river. TVA's "1994 RiverPulse", a report on the condition of the Tennessee River, designated NickaJack Lake as the healthiest lake on the river system (from an ecological standpoint) for the second consecutive year. However, the State of Tennessee has issued a precautionary advisory for catfish in Nickajack because of PCB contamination. Two small streams flow across much of Tract 1 and empty into the Tennessee River at approximately TRM 424.4 and TRM 423.4 just below Nickajack Dam. The more easterly stream. Stream 1, has two forks. One fork originates at a shallow pond which is likely intermittent and fed by surface flow. However, ground water seeps are found nearby and may also contribute to flow. The other fork, which originates in a swale, is probably intermittent, and is fed by surface runoff and "red water" seeps. The red water seeps indicate that iron is present in the water. Immediately below the red water seeps are black encrusted rocks, which may be an indication of manganese in the ground water. Beavers have dammed this stream near its mouth and a marsh-like settling basin has developed. The other stream. Stream 2, originates in a swale and is fed by red water seeps and runoff. Because this stream has been channelized along approximately the lower half of its length, it is probably intermittent, drying up in the summer. Approximately 100 yards from its mouth, this stream drops into a ravine and is little more than a ditch filled with turbid water. Stream flow on Tracts 3 and 4 is highly variable; direct runoff supplies most of the water volume. During a November 28, 1995 site survey, only one of the streams depicted on the Sequatchie Quadrangle map contained flowing water, although there had been a 2-inch (5 cm) rainfall event two days before. Two streambeds located in Tract 4 exhibited evidence of sheet flow and erosion (episodic flooding). The streambed bordering the west-bound lane of the interchange between Shellmound Road and Interstate 24 flows through the limestone riprap lining the road bed. Debris indicated sheet flow is prevalent at this stream also. On Tract 3, the stream adjacent to Shellmound Recreation Area was the only stream with flowing water during the November 28 site survey; stream flow reached neither bank, indicating that the stream is subject to episodic flooding. Streams on the site flow to the Tennessee River. Area runoff is estimated at 24 inches (60 cm) per year, approximately half the annual rainfall. Area groundwater quality is good with relatively soft water and some iron. Numerous wells serve the residential community east of Anderson Ridge. Septic tanks are used for wastewater treatment. Based on what is known about the geology of the area, capacity to produce ground water is moderate to low. Infiltration rates are slow, causing high runoff. No springs are recorded on Tracts 3 or 4, Municipal water from the City of Jasper is available on Tract 3 at Nickajack Dam and Shellmound Recreation Area. The nearest municipal sewage treatment line is several miles away in Jasper. The plant is operating at approximately 50 percent capacity.
[chapter 3, page 14] 3.7 Reservoir Operating Levels and Areas Subject to Flood For Tract 1, the 100-year floodplain varies from elevation 615.6 at TRM 423.0 to elevation 616.2 at TRM 424.7 (immediately downstream of Nickajack Dam). The 500- year (or critical action) floodplain varies from elevation 618.8 at TRM 423.0 to elevation 619.9 at TRM 424.7. Guntersville Reservoir normally operates between a normal minimum pool elevation of 593.0 and a normal maximum pool elevation of 595.0. The normal minimum pool elevation is typically reached around January 1 and the normal maximum pool elevation around April 15. The top-of-gates elevation at Guntersville Dam is 595.44. The TVA Flood Risk Profile elevations are the same as the 500-year flood elevations for this tract. For Tracts 3 and 4, the 100- and 500-year (or critical action) floodplains are the areas lying below elevation 635.0. Nickajack Reservoir is operated to fluctuate between a normal minimum pool elevation of 632.0 and a normal maximum pool level elevation of 634.0 year-round. The top-of-gates elevation at Nickajack Dam is 635.0. The TVA Flood Risk Profile elevation is 639.0. Marion County has adopted the 100-year flood as the basis for its floodplain regulations. There is an adopted floodway along this reach of the Tennessee River. 3.8 Aquatic Life Because Nickajack Reservoir is the healthiest reservoir in the Tennessee River system, it supports an abundance and variety of aquatic life. Recent sampling not far upstream from Nickajack Dam indicates that 20 or more types of bottom-dwelling aquatic species and 40 or more fish species occur near Tracts 3 and 4. The bottom-dwelling species include many types of insects, some crustaceans, a few types of worms, and the Asiatic clam. Some thin-shelled freshwater mussels also occur in the shallows but no stocks of thick- shelled (commercially-valuable) mussels are known to survive in this part of Nickajack Reservoir. Sport fish which are relatively abundant in this part of the reservoir include bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow bass, redbreast sunfish, channel catfish, and spotted bass. The embayments and other shallow-water habitats in Nickajack Reservoir near Tracts 3 and 4 provide spawning and feeding sites for many aquatic species, especially the sunfish, bass, and catfish which sportsmen value. Vegetation contained within aquatic bed and shoreline fringe wetlands provides habitat for prey species and cover for young fish and larger predators. While maps of Tracts 3 and 4 indicate that several small streams flow across the property into Nickajack Reservoir, those streams have surface flow only during rainy weather. Field examination showed that the beds of these streams were covered with grasses and other terrestrial vegetation. No springs or other flowing-water aquatic habitats were observed on these tracts. See Section 3.7 for additional information,
[chapter 3, page 15] Tract 1 occurs along a substantially different Tennessee River aquatic habitat. Downstream from Nickajack Dam, the river flows essentially within its original banks, has obvious current, and the bottom is composed of rocks and gravel. Recent sampling in this area indicates that 30 or more bottom-dwelling aquatic species and at least 30 species of fish occur there. The most abundant bottom-dwelling species is the Asiatic clam, followed by crustaceans and aquatic insects. Several species of thick-shelled freshwater mussels are known from this part of the river; however, they are not abundant enough to support a commercial fishery. Sport fish which are relatively abundant in this area include bluegill, redear sunfish, channel catfish, blue catfish, spotted bass, and largemouth bass. Two small streams flow across much of Tract 1 and empty into the Tennessee River within the first mile downstream from Nickajack Dam. Both of these streams originate in wet woodlands but flow through substantially disturbed areas on this tract. The small stream which enters the river halfway between the dam and the mouth of the Sequatchie River has been dredged for much of its length. Both of these streams contain some aquatic life; however, neither appears to support a diverse flowing-water community. 3.9 Navigation All three tracts being considered are located on the right bank between Tennessee River. Tract 4 is not near the commercial navigation channel. The channel follows the right bank side of the river fronting Tract 3; however, only a small portion of the tract's shoreline fronts directly on the channel. The remainder of the shoreline fronts on large embayments on both the downstream and upstream end of the tract. Little Cedar Mountain Light is located upstream from Tract 3 at river mile 426.9R (km 688.5), and Nickajack Lock is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) downstream. Two federal mooring cells used by the towing industry to tie off during the locking process are also located downstream from Tract 3. Tract 1 is downstream from Nickajack Lock. The navigation channel in this stretch of the river was dredged through rock during construction of Nickajack Lock and Dam. Buoys have been installed to mark the outside limits of the 9-foot draft channel. In addition, there are two federal mooring cells fronting the upstream end of Tract 1. Approximately 25 percent of the total barge traffic moving on the Tennessee River passes through Nickajack Lock. A total of 895 tows, about 2.7 tows per day, passed through the lock in 1994 in transit to and from the 33 barge terminals located upstream from the lock. Approximately 5.3 million tons (4.8 million metric tons) of commodities consisting primarily of wood products, grain and grain products, limestone, cement, petroleum products, coal, and salt were handled at these terminals during this period. 3.10 Existing Public Recreation Opportunities Tracts 1,3, and 4 have a gently rolling topography, large open spaces, panoramic mountain views and open expanses of water. This is in stark contrast to shoreline properties on the upper sections of Nickajack Reservoir which are characterized by steep
[chapter 3, page 16] bluffs and a riverine setting, To the east. Tract 3 adjoins a 320-acre (130-ha) tract of TVA land (Tract 5) allocated for wildlife management and habitat protection in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan. TVA's Shellmound recreation area is located on the southern portion of Tract 3, adjacent to Nickajack Dam, and provides a variety of developed recreation facilities including a boat ramp and courtesy pier, paved parking lot, 34-unit campground with toilet/shower building and dump station, 1/2 mile (1 km) hiking trail, 22 picnic units, ampitheater, 2 pavilions, athletic field, multi-purpose tennis court, toilet building, swimming beach, and fishing pier. In addition, this recreation area has been used for the past 27 years as the site for the annual Fall Color Cruise Festival, sponsored by the Chattanooga area Shriners. The festival typically draws in excess of 75,000 visitors and is held during the last two weeks in October. There are no developed recreation facilities on Tract 1 or 4; however, both tracts are well- suited for informal recreation activities and are frequently used for bank fishing, picnicking, camping, wildlife observation, hiking, and hunting. Because Chattanooga, South Pittsburg and Jasper are nearby, there are considerable land- based and water-based recreational activities occurring on and around the site, including wildlife observation, pleasure walking, fishing (bank and boat), skiing, and pleasure boating, in addition to hunting described previously. These activities are expected to increase as residential development increases on the surrounding private lands. Other TVA developed recreation areas within the immediate project area include Maple View day use area at TRM 425.1L (km 685.6L), Cole City Creek boat access at TRM 425.8L (km 686.8L), and Guild boat access area at TRM 430.5L (km 694.4L). Developed facilities at Maple View include a paved boat ramp and 74 unit car/trailer parking lot, 30 picnic sites, toilet building, and swimming beach. This area also provides access for persons visiting Nickajack Cave. The cave is home to a federally endangered gray bat population and has been designated by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency as a Wildlife Observation Area and nongame refuge (see Section 3.5). The area provides viewing opportunities for those wishing to observe the evening emergence of approximately 120,000 gray bats as they leave the cave to feed on insects over Nickajack Reservoir. Developed facilities at Guild and Cole City Creek boat access include a paved boat ramp and 64 unit car/trailer parking lot at each site. Additional public recreation facilities are located at Marion County Park (TRM 428.2R or km 690.6R), immediately upstream from Tracts 3 and 4, The park is managed by Marion County and provides boating access, camping, picnicking and swimming opportunities, ln addition, the county has a license on a three-acre (1.2 ha) tract of TVA land in the Guild Community (TRM. 430.2L or km 693.8L) for an undeveloped community park that provides informal recreation opportunities. Existing commercial recreation development in the project area includes one full service marina. Hales Bar Resort and Marina at TRM 431.2L (km 695.5L), one commercial dock, Anchor Inn Bait and Tackle at TRM 429.7L (km 693.1L) and one commercial
[chapter 3, page 17] campground. Camp On The Lake at TRM 429.0L (km 691.9L). Hales Bar Resort and Marina offers boating access, boat rentals, marine fuel, boat storage, snacks and camping services. Anchor Inn Bait and Tackle offers marine fuel, boating access, boat rentals, grocery supplies and camping services. Camp On The Lake provides campsites with water and electric hookups and boating access. 3.11 Existing Visual Setting The lower two-thirds of Tract 3 is visible to lake users while portions of the whole land base are visible to travelers along Shellmound Road and the dam reservation access road. Tract 4 is a partially wooded tract that lies in direct view of north-bound travelers along both 1-24 and US 41-64-72. A restaurant and a few residences lie across Highway 41-64- 72 from the tract while a large fireworks store occupies private land on a portion of the interstate median to the south and west of the tract. Views from within the tract are of the highway corridors, Marion County Park toward the main channel, and of Raccoon and Sand Mountains in the background. Viewers from an interstate rest area located on an island in Nickajack Reservoir have somewhat distant views of portions of Tracts 3 and 4. Views into the subject tracts from the other side of the reservoir are generally from distances in excess of one mile (2 km). Adjoining Tract 3 is Little Cedar Mountain (Tract 5), which makes up the southern tip of the Cedar/Little Cedar Mountain chain. This low-lying mountainous shoreline stretches northward for six miles (10 km), forming the western bank of Nickajack Reservoir. Little Cedar Mountain is tree-covered with a cedar/hardwood mix. Bluff-like portions with limestone outcrops front the main channel opposite the much higher Sand and Raccoon Mountains on the opposite shore. One third of Tract 3 is screened from the main channel by Little Cedar Mountain. Little Cedar Mountain screens Tract 3 almost entirely from view of 1-24 travelers as they look downstream. Viewers of Little Cedar Mountain from the dam reservation access road see it as wooded middle ground, backdropped by the distant high mountains on the opposite bank of the reservoir. Viewers of the western shore of Little Cedar Mountain from Tract 3 across a cove off the main channel find the shoreline accented by the remains of a limestone quarry Across Nickajack Reservoir from Tract 3 is a residential development called "The Bluffs." This site is currently under development and would be visible from Tract 3. 3.12 Historical and Cultural Resources The Office of Archaeological Research at the University of Alabama conducted a cultural resources survey of Tracts 1,3, and 4 on Nickajack Reservoir in 1987. Ten archaeological sites were identified on Tract 1, but of these ten, only two were deemed
[chapter 3, page 18] eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Both of these sites represent an important archaeological research resource. The first site (40MI188) dates to the Middle and Late Woodland Periods while the second site (40MI21) dates to the Woodland Period and Pre- Ceramic, probably Late Archaic Period or Periods. Eleven archaeological sites were identified on Tracts 3 and 4; four are late 19th or early 20th century house sites, one is a historical cemetery, and six are prehistoric stone tool sites (lithic scatters). Of these sites, the cemetery (40MI194) must be protected, and one of the lithic scatters (40MI197) has been judged as potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Although cemeteries are not normally considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, this cemetery derives its primary significance from age and may be eligible. There is one marked grave dating to 1820, and other unmarked graves may be present. 3.13 Socioeconomic Conditions The land affected by the proposed action is located in Marion County, Tennessee, about 20 miles (30 km) west of Chattanooga near Interstate 24. Marion County has-close economic ties to Chattanooga, as shown by its inclusion in the Chattanooga Metropolitan Statistical Area. According to the U. S. Bureau of the Census, the population of Marion County was 26,469 in 1995. The age distribution of the population is similar to that of the state. However, a slightly smaller share of persons of working age are in the younger age categories. Of the population between the ages of 18 and 64 in 1990, about 65 percent were younger than 45, compared to 68 percent in the state. Per capita personal income in 1993 was $14,415, about 69 percent of the national average. Total employment in the county was 8,561, of which about 80 percent are wage and salary workers and the remainder business owners. Much of the income of county residents is earned elsewhere, to a large extent in neighboring Hamilton County (Chattanooga). Almost 23 percent of the jobs and 27 percent of the earnings of persons who work in Marion County are in the manufacturing sector, however, half of the manufacturing earnings in the county are from the generally low-wage textile and apparel industries. Both retail trade and services account for large shares of jobs and income also. Retail trade provides slightly over 23 percent of the jobs and 18 percent of the earnings, while services accounts for 20 percent of the jobs and 19 percent of the earnings. Together these three sectors provide almost two-thirds of the jobs and earnings in the county.
[chapter 4, page 19] 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Under the current land allocations. Tracts 1,3, and 4 are available for development. However, in the proposed action, only tracts 3 and 4 are being considered for development. Adoption of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would likely result in commercial and/or residential development of 660 acres (267 ha) of undeveloped TVA land in the long term. Because there is a minor amount of existing commercial recreation development in the area, these alternatives would increase the presence of these types of land uses in the landscape of the general area. 4.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Adoption of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would eventually result in the disruption and loss of about half of the acreage of the natural ecological communities occurring on Tracts 3 and 4. Additionally, clearing and grading, followed by construction of residential dwellings and commercial recreation facilities, would eliminate or reduce the habitat suitability for most of the resident and migratory wildlife species that currently utilize the lands to be developed. These communities are generally representative of those found elsewhere in southeastern Tennessee, and the alluvial valleys of the Tennessee and lower Sequatchie River systems in Marion County. Within the Tennessee River basin portion of the surrounding area, most of these habitats were eliminated by construction of Nickajack Dam, and the subsequent impoundment of Nickajack Reservoir. For the most part, what remains of this type of habitat is confined to Tracts 1, 3, and 4. Under the three development alternatives, wildlife utilizing habitats associated with Tracts 3 and 4 would either be lost or displaced into surrounding areas of suitable habitat. Over time, these animals would be pushed out of the area on to adjacent private lands and Tract 1. In addition to the loss of wildlife habitat and populations, there would be an associated loss of public opportunity for both consumptive (i.e., hunting and trapping), and non- consumptive (i.e., observation and photography) enjoyment of wildlife on Tracts 3 and 4. TVA would reallocate approximately 498 acres (202 ha) of the adjacent 637.7-acre (258- ha) industrial tract (Tract 1) for "Wildlife Management." The remaining acreage has already been utilized by TVA for development of the Safety and Emergency Response Training Academy, operations and maintenance complex, law enforcement offices, and a police firing range. An abandoned landfill site occupies approximately 47 acres (19 ha) of the portion of Tract 1 proposed for reallocation. This area is currently in early successional cover types, and would most likely be maintained in a grass/forb mixture because re-establishment of trees may disrupt the soil layer (i.e., cap) that covers the landfill site. Also contained on the portion of Tract 1 proposed for reallocation is approximately 150 acres (61 ha) of spoil materials (rock, sand, and gravel) removed during construction of Nickajack Dam. This former spoil disposal area is dominated by a mixture of eastern red
[chapter 4, page 20] cedar, privet, blackberry briars, sumac, mixed hardwood and pine saplings, along with various grass and forb species. At present, there is no large timber on this site. The area does provide suitable cover for many wildlife species; however, its food production potential is low due to low soil fertility. Some habitat enhancement such as bushog stripping, burning, or planting of species more favorable to wildlife food production is possible. Approximately 15 acres (6 ha) of the portion of Tract 1 proposed for reallocation is in mixed hardwood sawtimber, and another 116 acres (47 ha) supports bottomland hardwoods ranging in age from 20 to 70 years. Hard mast producing species are lacking throughout these stands and some management would be required to restore stand vigor and productivity. Within these stands are approximately 15 acres (6 ha) of riparian wetlands that occur along seeps, streambanks, and around the margins of depressional ponds. For the most part, these wetlands are dominated by pole-sized green ash. Open land conditions persist on approximately 100 acres (40 ha) of the portion of Tract 1 proposed for reallocation. At present, these open lands are licensed by TVA for row crop production. These agricultural lands meet established criteria for "prime farmland". The current crop rotation of corn, soybeans, and various small grains, provides desirable forage for both game and non-game species. Separating these agricultural lands from the Tennessee River are approximately 8 acres (3 ha) of riparian buffer zone. This buffer protects shoreline and riparian habitats and prevents runoff from adjacent agricultural lands into the Tennessee River. The remaining 62 acres (25 ha) of the portion of Tract 1 proposed for reallocation consists of TVA transmission line right-of-way (ROW) that is maintained as early successional habitat (grass/forb/shrub) through periodic mowing and shear clearing. This acreage could be utilized for wildlife food production, thereby saving TVA the costs associated with periodic ROW maintenance activities. A small portion of this ROW crosses the aforementioned former landfill site. In its present condition. Tract 1 provides habitat for a variety of game and non-game species, and receives frequent use by sportsmen during the various hunting seasons. Through the Nickajack Reservoir lands planning process, TVA staff evaluated the wildlife resource capability of this tract as "excellent" and identified its potential value as habitat for agriculture related wildlife species such as quail, dove, and rabbit. Staff further concluded that these lands had potential for supporting high populations of wildlife for both consumptive and non-consumptive public uses including hunting, bird watching, and retriever training. Portions of this tract have historically been made available to local hunting organizations for retriever field trials. Through the proposed reallocation. TVA would commit to retaining these 498 acres (202 ha), and to making these lands available on a long-term basis for wildlife related public uses such as hunting, hunting dog training and field trials, wildlife observation, nature photography, etc.
[chapter 4, page 21] Under Alternative 4, Tracts 1, 3, and 4 would be retained in public ownership as open space for some indefinite interim period. While the tracts would be available for development consideration, TVA would continue licensing portions of the tract for agricultural purposes and implement programs for improved management of forest and wildlife resources. The area would remain open for both consumptive and non- consumptive uses of wildlife, bank fishing, hiking, and other dispersed forms of outdoor recreation, at least until approvable development proposals, which are consistent with existing allocations, are made. TVA's Shellmound recreation area would continue to operate as in the past. 4.2 Forest Resources Adoption of Alternatives 1,2, or 3, and development of the tracts, would lead to a cessation of forest management activities on Tracts 3 and 4, and a reduction in the amount of forested acreage occurring on the tracts. However, because of the vast amounts of forest acreage available within the region, these impacts would be minor and insignificant. Under Alternative 4, TVA would continue managing forested areas for some indefinite interim period to sustain a diverse array of wildlife habitats and forest age classes. 4.3 Prime Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S. Code 4201-4209) requires that TVA consider potential losses of prime farmland associated with its proposed actions. The regulations implementing the Act set up criteria for determining whether a site is prime farmland. An agency receives a score of a site's relative value from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and then conducts a site assessment to identify the impacts of its program on prime farmland. Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 need not be given further consideration for protection and no additional sites need be evaluated. When a site receives a total score of 160 or more, the agency is encouraged to consider use of other land that is not farmland, the use of other sites that would also serve the proposed purpose, and the extent to which alternative sites fail to consider the special siting requirements. Under Alternatives 1, 2. and 3, a total of 397 acres (161 ha) of publicly-owned prime farmland on Tracts 3 and 4 would be converted to non-agricultural uses. This conversion would receive an impact rating of 162, which is marginally above the 160 score described above. Because the primary value of the proposed outdoor recreation development is as a lakeside resort and the agency does not have any other nearby sites that qualify for this purpose, including the adjacent industrial tract, TVA does not believe that other nearby land exists that would meet the purpose of this project and that conversion is warranted in this case. In addition, implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would result in long-term
[chapter 4, page 22] protection of prime farmland on Tract 1, land that was originally planned for conversion to industrial uses. Although the NRCS has not been asked to evaluate prime farmland on Tract 1, TVA estimates that about 85 percent of the tract is prime farmland. Adoption of Alternative 4 would, in the short term, preserve the value of 939 acres (380 ha) of prime farmland on all three tracts. TVA likely would continue licensing at least a portion of this acreage for agricultural uses. The remainder would be managed for wildlife habitat enhancement, improved forest productivity; and maintenance of aesthetic qualities. 4.4 Wetlands Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, expanded recreational use of the reservoir, and the development of adjacent shorelands occurring on Tracts 3 and 4, could result in modification, or loss of, lacustrine fringe and aquatic bed wetlands. These modifications could eventually lead to loss or reductions of beneficial wetland functions and values associated with these wetlands. TVA is committed to protecting shoreline (i.e., lacustrine fringe and lacustrine aquatic bed communities), and depressional (i.e., sink hole) wetlands associated with Tracts 1, 3, and 4. For the two sink hole ponds identified on Tract 3, TVA would delineate an appropriately-sized wetland protection area surrounding these wetlands (See map in Appendix). Elsewhere on Tracts 3 and 4, TVA would ensure protection of fringe and aquatic bed communities by requiring that the developer prepare, and implement, a detailed shoreline management plan specifying strategies for avoiding, or appropriately mitigating, any anticipated wetland impacts. At a minimum, this plan would specify measures to be used in protecting fringe and aquatic bed wetlands, and for preserving the full range of functions and values associated with these wetlands. If there are situations where potential wetland impacts could not be successfully avoided or minimized, TVA would require an appropriate mitigation response on the part of the developer. At present, specific plans for development of Tracts 3 and 4 are not known. However, under any development scenario, TVA would require all facilities to be sited to avoid or to have insignificant impacts on wetlands. Through this approach, TVA can ensure that recreation and/or residential development affecting Tracts 3 and 4 could be accomplished consistent with the provisions of Presidential Executive Order No. 11990. Under Alternative 4, wetlands, and wetlands-associated functions and values, would be protected for some indefinite interim period. As future management activities are planned and implemented, project-specific wetlands evaluations would be conducted to ensure that impacts are avoided or appropriately mitigated.
[chapter 4, page 23] 4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species Adoption of any of the development alternatives for Tracts 3 and 4 would not affect endangered or threatened aquatic species. As indicated in Section 3.5, no protected aquatic species are known or likely to occur on Tracts 3 or 4. The proposed land use change for Tract 1 would not affect Anthony's riversnail, snail darters, or their habitats in adjacent reaches of the Tennessee River. Tracts 1, 3,4, and 5 have been surveyed for endangered or threatened species on six different occasions since 1984. These surveys coincided with earlier land use requests including proposals for recreational development, special use licenses for hunting dog field trials, proposed timber harvests, and the Nickajack Reservoir lands planning process. During each of these surveys, special emphasis was placed on assessing the potential for occurrences of federally listed plant species such as American hart's tongue fern. Price's potato bean, Eggert's sunflower, and large-flowered skullcap. Despite intensive efforts, none of these species have been observed on any of the four tracts in question; and, for at least three of these species, no potentially suitable habitat is known to occur on these tracts. Staff did observe areas of "forest edge" habitat required by Price's potato bean. However, no individuals of this species were observed on the properties, and none are presumed to occur. In that no federally listed plant species are known from Tracts 3 or 4, no direct impacts to such species would be anticipated as a result of any of the proposed action alternatives. However, in the absence of protection strategies, improved access and increased human visitation to adjacent areas of Tract 5 could result in population reductions for at least four plant species listed by the State of Tennessee. For this reason, TVA would develop and implement a management plan for these lands. This plan would include strategies to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to State-listed plants. TVA would require development proposals to include measures to avoid impacts to suitable habitat for the gray bat, Indiana bat, and bald eagle. Human use and development of shorelines, and adjacent over-water areas, could reduce the suitability of these habitats for such species as the bald eagle, gray bat, and Indiana bat. Additionally, the type of development proposed for these lands would likely result in increased boat traffic and other recreational activities. While TVA would protect the recently discovered gray bat roost cave on Tract 5, a development nearby could lead to increased visitation and disturbance of the cave. Human disturbance of roost caves is a primary reason for the decline of the gray bat, and human disturbance has long been recognized as a factor contributing to abandonment of preferred roost/nest sites by bald eagles. To lessen the risk of adverse impacts to bald eagles, gray bats and Indiana bats, TVA would impose the following restrictions under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (as applicable) for fature development and use of shoreline areas fronting Tracts 3 and 4. 1. All of the shoreline fronting Tracts 3 and 4 would be allocated to one of three management categories - public recreation, shoreline management, and habitat
[chapter 4, page 24] protection. The preliminary allocations for these three categories are depicted on the maps in the Appendix. The purpose of the habitat protection area is to protect wetlands and the Little Cedar Mountain Cave. 2. Except for those segments allocated for public recreation facilities, TVA would retain an appropriate width management zone for all shoreline areas fronting Tracts 3 and 4. Similarly, habitat protection zones also would be maintained along stream channels and surrounding jurisdictional wetlands. Except for areas within residential access corridors, and those segments used for public recreation facilities, shoreline and streamside management zones would be maintained in a forested condition, with no clearing or removal of vegetation. The width of these zones would vary depending on slope and resource condition, however, in no instance would they be narrower than 100 feet (30 m) as measured landward from the Summer pool elevation. 3. For segments allocated for shoreline management, access corridors would be permitted consistent with applicable TVA policies. 4. To protect the recently discovered gray bat roost and other sensitive resources occurring on adjacent portions of Tract 5, TVA would develop and implement a resource management/protection plan for these lands. In addition to identifying trail corridors, this plan would also address potential impacts resulting from improved public access, and would establish safeguards to avoid adverse impacts. 5. Forest clearing activities associated with removal of larger trees will be completed between October 15 and March 31 to protect Indiana bat habitat. 6. Public visitation and bat usage at Little Cedar Mountain Cave would be monitored, and TVA would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the need for gates or other restrictive measures. TVA has informally consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on these measures. By letter dated August 26, 1996, the Service has concurred with TVA's determination that the proposed actions would not effect listed or proposed endangered and threatened species, including locally occurring populations of gray and Indiana bats, or bald eagles. In support of this position, TVA provided the following information to the Service: Shoreline development restrictions would be imposed under any of the three development alternatives. Since 1993, such restrictions have been routinely prescribed for proposed developments likely to impact TVA owned shorelines (including. Swan Harbor, Bat Creek, Marble Bluff, and Norris Crest). These measures would lessen the risk of potentially adverse impacts to bald eagles, gray bats, and Indiana bats. TVA sees very little potential for significant impacts to individuals, populations, or areas of critical habitat if any of the three development alternatives is selected. In addition, if one of the proposed recreational/residential use alternatives is selected, there is very little, if any, potential that such use would jeopardize the continued existence of, or lead to the further decline of, any federally listed species; or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitats.
[chapter 4, page 25] Subsequent to the release of the Little Cedar Mountain Draft EA, additional field surveys were conducted to further clarify the significance of shoreline and riparian habitats fronting Tracts 1, 3, 4, and 5; and Quarry and Little Cedar Mountain Caves. Concerning the caves, TVA's recent assessment indicates that there is no significant bat usage of Quarry Cave; and, with the exception of the last room, this cave seems too dry to support cave roosting bats. During TVA's initial inspection of the entrance to Little Cedar Mountain Cave, small amounts of bat guano was scattered over the large boulders and breakdown that clutter the entrance floor. However, no bats were observed during the peak period for evening emergence, and a thorough examination of accessible passageways revealed only 7 eastern pipistrells (Pipistrellus subflavus) roosting individually throughout the cave. However, three small (< 1 m2) guano piles, and some light ceiling staining confirm some Spring and/or late Summer use by transient gray bats. Even though this cave does not hold major significance as a preferred roost site for either gray or Indiana bats, it does provide suitable habitat for a number of other cave residing species, and is likely used by a variety of bat species throughout the year. During field inspections, staff also identified important overwater foraging habitats for gray bats, and riparian foraging and roosting habitats for Indiana bats. These habitats occur intermittently along the shoreline fronting Tracts 3 and 4. Based on the numerous shag-bark hickories (Carya ovata), standing snags, and den trees occurring in areas of forested shoreline, and the presence of several woodland ponds, it is possible that Indiana bats forage in this area. Also, lacustrine aquatic bed wetlands observed along the shoreline from Shellmound Recreation Area upstream to 1-75 were being used (as confirmed by bat detectors and spotlight surveys) by foraging gray bats. TVA will impose restrictions on the nature and extent of shoreline development as a means of ensuring protection for lacustrine aquatic bed wetlands and shoreline and riparian habitats. Prior to development, staff would delineate buffer zones along the shoreline [This has subsequently been completed.]. During and following development, these zones would be closely monitored to identify and correct encroachments and/or violations. For the past two years, a pair of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have nested in a large tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) located approximately 800' north of Tract 1 On June 6, 1996, staff visited the location to examine the nest site and its relationship to adjacent TVA lands. During our inspection, we observed two adult birds and one fledgling. The adult female is marked with a
[chapter 4, page 26] patagial wing tag and has been identified as a bird that was transplanted from Chesapeake Bay, and hacked at Land Between the Lakes. The close proximity of this nest to occupied dwellings (< 300 ft.) and family gardens (immediately adjacent) indicates that these birds have become acclimated to human activity. Nothing associated with the proposed development of Tracts 3 and 4 would pose any type of threats to these birds. In fact, reallocation of adjacent portions of Tract 1 from Industrial Development to Wildlife Management would actually benefit these birds by ensuring long-term protection for foraging, perching, and loafing habitat located between Nickajack Dam and the mouth of the Sequatchie River. Upon review of this information, the Service indicated they would concur with the finding of "not likely to adversely affect" the gray and Indiana bats if buffer zones were established along the shorelines and drainages crossing the property. The Service also recommended that TVA restrict all land clearing to dates between October 15 and March 31, and that a bat gate be installed at the entrance of Little Cedar Mountain Cave. TVA concurs with the Service's recommendation regarding the timing of land clearing activities. Additionally, under any of the development alternatives, TVA would establish shoreline management and habitat protection zones as recommended by the Service. With regard to the cave gate, however, TVA would defer a decision on the placement of such a structure until it is determined whether public visitation is likely to become a problem. This is because placement of cave entrance gates in other TVA bat caves has been a less reliable mechanism for protecting these habitats, and in some instances these structures have seriously interfered with movement of bats to and from the cave. TVA views cave entrance gating as a measure of last resort for protection of cave and cave-associated resources. For this reason, TVA will monitor public visitation and bat usage of Little Cedar Mountain Cave, and consult with the Service on the need for gates or other restrictive measures. Under Alternative 4, there would be no adverse impacts to federally listed species, or sensitive terrestrial habitats at this time. However, since these are interim uses, the potential for adverse impacts to federally listed species would have to be reevaluated at such time as any development is proposed. TVA would continue managing these tracts to maintain biological diversity on lands under its control. The existing landscape mosaic created by agricultural fields interspersed with forest would continue to meet the habitat needs of a diverse array of wildlife and plant species. Maintaining the existing character of these lands, and allowing for a continuation of dispersed recreational uses would not adversely impact sensitive species or habitats. 4.6 Reserving of Access for Tract 5 Actions under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would necessitate the designation of an access corridor to Little Cedar Mountain (Tract 5.). The most direct, and least impacting, access would be by way of a 100' wide corridor paralleling the 1-24 entrance ramp in an east-
[chapter 4, page 27] west direction. This would provide access from the reservation access road into the tract. A small parking area could then be used by visitors to the Habitat Protection Area. TVA would ensure that the parking lot is located far enough from the 1-24 right-of-way to provide visual buffering for those using the Habitat Protection Area. Under Alternative 4 (no action), access could remain as it is at present for some indefinite interim period. 4.7 Potential Effects on Water Quality Under Alternative 1, the increase in roads, parking lots, and buildings would increase the percent of impermeable surface on the site. This has the potential to increase runoff and episodic flooding. This construction would constitute a project covered under EPA's Phase I Storm Water Runoff regulations. Phase I regulations require best management practices (BMP) to prevent erosion, sediment runoff, and deterioration in stream water quality during construction, Development of a golf course would not significantly alter water quality when compared with the present use of the land for agriculture. Runoff from a professionally maintained, established course is generally less than from comparable agricultural lands. Where deemed necessary, placement of water hazards to act as storm surge and sedimentation ponds would be required by TVA in the golf course design. Some undesirable water quality effects would be expected as a result of site development. Although BMPs would be required during construction, some small amounts of pollutants could reach the receiving waters. TVA would require buffer zones in the development plan to decrease storm water transport of pollutants into the reservoir. To accommodate the proposed level of development, potable water and sewage treatment facilities will have to be provided. The city of Jasper has been contacted to determine if its water and wastewater facilities were adequate to service the proposed development. It was learned that the Jasper wastewater treatment plant was currently operating at 50 percent of its design capacity and could easily accommodate the additional wastewater. There is also adequate potable water supply from the Sequatchie River. Water and wastewater transmission pipelines would likely follow existing and proposed road rights- of-way. Connecting to the Jasper utilities sewage treatment plant would increase the nutrient load to the Sequatchie River. If water and sewage services are obtained from Jasper, the existing community east of Anderson Ridge (which does not now have sewer service) would likely connect to them. This would significantly reduce the chances of contamination of surface water by improperly maintained septic systems.
[chapter 4, page 28] Under Alternative 2, the mix of public recreational and conference facilities and private residential homes has not been determined. All the potential effects discussed for Alternative 1 would also apply to this alternative. Additionally, residential sites are likely to result in more cumulative impermeable area than would be the case with only recreational and commercial development. . To limit the possibility of sewage overflows to the reservoir, no sewer lines would be constructed below the Maximum Shoreline Contour. Sewage pumping stations would have to have backup pumps, an alternative power source, and backup wetwell holding capacity. Residential lawn runoff contains more pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers than plots maintained by professional greens keepers and agriculturists. The watershed can be expected to experience higher runoff and erosion as urbanization increases. The shallow, restricted embayments can be expected to receive increased nutrient and sediment loading. Because TVA would not retain ownership of the property under Alternative 3, the provisions of the development proposal would be the primary instrument for assuring that development meets TVA's goals. TVA would require the development plan to specify precautions and mitigation measures which would be taken to minimize adverse water quality impacts Special conditions which would reduce water pollution and which would be addressed in the development plan are buffer zones, wildlife movement corridors, limits on vegetation removal, no construction below the Maximum Shoreline Contour, and control of dredge and fill. Any proposed golf course would be maintained by a certified landscape manager. Under Alternative 4, there would be no impacts to water quality for some indefinite interim period; however, because these are interim uses, the potential impacts would be evaluated when proposals to change the land use were received. 4.8 Flood Hazard Analysis Under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, Tract 3 and possibly Tract 4 would be developed with commercial and public recreational facilities and possibly residential development (Alternative 2 only on Tract 3 only) or commercial or retail business. Land below the Maximum Shoreline Contour (elevation 640 feet or 195.1 m) would be included in any transfer agreement. However, the only portions of Tracts 3 and 4 that are below the 100- year floodplain are immediately adjacent to the shoreline and would not likely impact the design of the development. Any facilities within the 100-year floodplain are likely to be waer use facilities. All development within the 100-year floodplain would be consistent with Executive Order No. 11988. Conditions would be included in any land transfer agreement. TVA would follow local floodplain requirements resulting from implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. The placement of fill or other obstructions within the limits of the adopted floodway would be avoided to prevent increases in flood elevations. Activities proposed in the adopted floodway would be accompanied by a "No Rise Certification" indicating that the development would result in
[chapter 4, page 29] no increases in the 100-year flood and "with floodway" elevations and floodway widths. Under Alternative 4, there would be no change in floodplain conditions for some indefinite interim period. 4.9 Aquatic Life Changing the use allocation of Tract 1 under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would have little or no effect on aquatic life in this area. Habitat conditions in the streams on this tract would stay as they are, or possibly, could improve slightly depending on exactly how the land is managed. Aquatic habitat in the river would not be affected by this change in land allocation. Adoption of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would each result in some, as yet undetermined, amount of habitat loss for aquatic life in Nickajack Reservoir. The extent of this habitat loss would be determined by the location and nature of any land disturbances, the extent of any shoreline modifications, the nature of any sewage or chemical discharges, and the design and volume of any dredging to be conducted. The combination of modest impacts from these activities would reduce conditions for aquatic life at places along the shoreline to facilitate specific human uses. Only minimal impacts to aquatic life would occur where erosion controls prevent additional sedimentation in the water, where natural vegetative buffers are maintained along the shoreline, where sewage and other pollutants are adequately treated before they enter the water, and where dredging is kept to a minimum and conducted in ways which minimize the disturbance to adjacent aquatic habitats. Each of these types of minimization measures would be covered by appropriate commitments in the transfer or lease document, and by individual Section 26a reviews for shoreline facilities. In light of the environmental safeguards and controls that would be required and implemented for any development proposal, this site can be developed in a variety of ways without causing substantial adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the resident aquatic life. Adoption of Alternative 4 would result in no impact to the resident aquatic life for some indefinite interim period. Maintenance of the existing vegetation along the shoreline would allow fish and other aquatic species to feed and reproduce in this area as they have since the reservoir was built. 4.10 Navigation Alternative 1 involves development of the shoreline for commercial recreation, including a marina. Alternative 2 includes development of the shoreline for residential use as well as a marina, while Alternative 3 would not include residential uses. TVA would review any structures proposed for construction in the reservoir to ensure that neither a marina nor private water use facilities associated with residential development would encroach upon
[chapter 4, page 30] the commercial navigation channel. The preferred location for a marina, if proposed by a developer, would be in one of the embayment areas where it would be protected from wind and wave wash action. In addition, private water use facilities fronting on the navigation channel would be restricted to 40 feet (12 m) in length from normal maximum pool elevation 634 feet (193 m). With these restrictions, there would be no significant impact on navigation associated with Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. There would be no impact to commercial navigation under Alternative 4 since there would be no development on the tract for some indefinite interim period. 4.11 Impacts on Public Recreation Opportunities Most public recreational activities occurring in the project area are generally associated with the developed facilities located at TVA's Shellmound Recreation Area. Each of the four action alternatives allow for continued existence of Shellmound; however, under Alternatives 1,2, and 3 the area could be incorporated as a part of a total commercial resort development. Short term impacts associated with Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 may be positive in that existing developed facilities could be expanded or improved. Public access would be provided, although operation under a commercial scenario may increase the likelihood of expanded user fees for portions of the recreation area. Alternative 4 provides no specific public recreation enhancements An additional short term impact associated with Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 might be the relocation of automobile parking for the Annual Fall Color Cruise Festival. Land currently used as an overflow parking lot during this event may be incorporated into a total project development and not be available for that use. An alternative overflow parking area could be established, south of the recreation area, on adjoining TVA property to accommodate this event. Alternative 4 would not impact current activities associated with the festival. Expanded commercial recreation and/or residential development on the project site under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 might impact informal recreation opportunities currently available on the site including bank fishing, wildlife observation and pleasure walking. While such development may displace some users, it is possible that many of these opportunities would remain available and potentially be enhanced through the development of additional walking trails and water access facilities. Informal recreational activities not compatible with commercial recreation and residential development (i.e. hunting, field dog trials) would be displaced to other reservoir lands suitable for these type activities. Alternative 4 would not impact current informal recreation use patterns. Water based recreation activities in the immediate project area could be impacted under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Potential development of additional water use facilities associated with a commercial recreation or residential component will likely increase boating traffic in the area. Current boating levels within the project area are considered to be moderate with the highest use occurring during weekends and holidays. Boating activities are generally concentrated near the developed water access facilities at Shellmound and Maple
[chapter 4, page 31] View recreation areas. Weekday boating activities are considered low to moderate. Any increase in boating activities associated with Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would likely be minor and comparable to other TVA reservoirs where commercial recreation and residential development occur. Development of any commercial or community water use facilities would be controlled by TVA and permitted subject to resolution of any navigation concerns. Adoption of Alternative 4 would preclude development of any private water use facilities. None of the identified alternatives are expected to have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative negative impacts on either the water-based or land based recreational activities associated with any county park or commercial recreation facility in the project area. Any increase in recreational visits to the reservoir associated with development options under Alternative 1,2, or 3 would likely have a positive economic impact on these existing facilities. 4.12 Visual Impacts Development of Tract 3 under any of the Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would result in a change to the existing visual/aesthetic character of the land. Changes could be viewed positively or negatively depending on each individual's aesthetic values and preferences. Negative visual impacts could result if development is not sensitive to the aesthetic qualities of the existing environment. TVA would review proposals to ensure that development on the tract is done in such a way as to screen major structures, maintain shoreline buffers, and set and enforce standards for residential development. Visual impacts would be a part of the screening. The incorporation of a golf course, designed to create separation and screening of structures, could further mitigate aesthetic impacts. Commercial development that might occur at the north end of Tract 3, adjacent to 1-24, should not create a visual/aesthetic departure from the existing development at this interchange. Commercial/retail types of development that could occur along the reservation access road, away from the interchange, would likely create negative visual impacts. Community residents that regularly travel the reservation access road would be among those most often impacted. Development of Tract 4 under any of the alternatives would most likely not result in negative visual/aesthetic impacts. Existing commercial development on adjacent tracts in addition to highways and associated traffic is currently the dominant visual factor as seen by passersby in the area. Some visual impact may be experienced by residents to the north of Highway 41-64-72 as they have direct views into the tract. A vegetative screening along this section of highway frontage would lessen impacts. The greatest visual/aesthetic impact from the development as outlined in Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would be to the hunter, fisherman, and recreational user that enjoy the use of these tracts and their adjacent waters. The net visual/aesthetic impact created by Alternatives 1,
[chapter 4, page 32] 2, or 3 should be insignificant when all viewers, frequency of views, and vantage points are weighed. Under Alternative 4 (no action) visual character of the tracts should remain unchanged for some indefinite interim period. 4.13 Historical and Cultural Resources Under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, site 40MI197 would have to be subjected to a phase II survey to determine site significance. If the site is determined to be significant, any adverse impact to it would have to be avoided or mitigated in accordance with a research proposal approved by TVA, the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Alternative 4 would not result in any adverse impact to 40MI197. The cemetery (site 40MI194) would be protected under all alternatives through appropriate prohibitions in land transfer agreements. 4.14 Socioeconomic Impacts Under Alternative 1, the proposed commercial and public recreational uses would increase jobs and income in the area, both during construction and during operation. Not only would these facilities attract users from nearby Chattanooga, but they would also be in an accessible location from most of the Southeast, including Atlanta, and the Midwest. A well-designed and well-promoted complex might attract a large number of conventions and other groups from these areas, with possibilities for smaller numbers from the mid- Atlantic and other more distant sections of the country. The natural beauty and relative seclusion of the area could provide a competitive advantage to the complex. Infrastructure needs for such a development would include roads, water and sewer, energy. While the exact configuration of these infrastructure improvements will not be known until a detailed proposal is received, there is already interstate highway access and public water supply available at the site, and sewer lines are nearby. Therefore, these impacts would be primarily local and are expected to be insignificant. Construction would provide some economic benefit to the area, but it would probably be relatively small. The development would increase tax revenues to the county through increased sales and property tax collections. Costs of infrastructure needed for the development would presumably be borne by the developer. However, there would be some increased expense to the local government, such as more frequent road repair due to heavier traffic on public roads. The excellent interstate access of the site would help to ensure that these impacts are insignificant. The increase in local government revenues likely would be greater than the increase in local government expenditures.
[chapter 4, page 33] Potential economic benefits of Alternative 2 from the commercial and public recreation development would be similar to those above. However, residential development might diminish the attractiveness of the recreational components unless they were carefully located and designed. Residential development would increase the population of Marion County. Given the small population base now in the county, this could be a noticeable increase, depending on the number of residential lots made available. However, many of the residents are likely to be persons who otherwise would live in Hamilton County or another nearby county, probably working in Chattanooga. Infrastructure needs would be similar to those in Alternative 1, but probably somewhat greater, especially with respect to roads, The increased population on the site would increase demands for public services, including education, law enforcement, water, and waste disposal. Local government revenues likely would exceed local government expenditures for the recreation components. On the other hand, costs could exceed increased tax revenues from the residential development, even though the developer would be expected to pay the front-end construction costs of infrastructure; these residential effects may depend largely on the number of children. Existing county subdivision regulations would assure that the residential development meets reasonable standards such that the impacts are not significant. Depending on the type of development chosen, economic impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 for the recreational development portion. Infrastructure needs would also be similar. Transfer to state or local government should have no significant economic impacts, given the same type, quality, and intensity of development. However, if the development were to remain in government ownership, local government revenues might be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2. Because the same uses would continue without development of any facilities, there would be no additional economic impacts from Alternative 4. There also would be no significant new infrastructure needs. 4.15 Air and Noise Detailed proposals and construction schedules have not yet been received; however, during construction under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, any open burning activity would be required to comply with applicable state and federal air pollution control requirements. Pollution from fossil-fuel combustion in construction equipment, fugitive dust emissions from operation of this equipment under dry conditions, and increased traffic during construction would cause some minor and temporary air quality degradation in the vicinity of the project. After construction is completed under Alternative 2, normal residential activities such as wood stoves and fireplaces would contribute somewhat to deterioration in air quality. Although the number and the type of these is unknown, new wood stoves
[chapter 4, page 34] would comply with EPA's particulate matter standards, and particulate matter air quality standards are expected to be protected. Any construction noise under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would be short-term in nature. Facilities that might exceed community noise standards would be very unlikely in a commercial recreation and resort community. Potential noise sources would include trucks and construction equipment. Under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, TVA would review development plans to ensure that no significant air emitting or noise emitting facilities are included. No significant air quality or noise impacts would be expected from construction or operation of facilities under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. No significant air quality or noise impacts would be expected under Alternative 4 for some indefinite interim period. 4.16 Cumulative Impacts If Tract 3 were developed with a residential component under Alternative 2, some portion of the four miles (6 km) of shoreline fronting the tract could have residential shoreline alterations, assuming that they would be consistent with conditions in Section 5.0. Currently, 13.4 miles (21.6 km) of the 178.7 miles (302.7 km) of shoreline on Nickajack Reservoir are developed for residential uses, and an additional 84.6 miles (136.5 km) are undeveloped flowage easement which could potentially be developed by the landowners. Some of these privately-owned lands are likely to be developed over the next 25 years, but exactly when, how, and where is unknown- An area across the lake from the proposed development, called "The Bluffs," is currently being developed. The development of an additional four miles (6 km) under Alternative 2 would raise the total percentage of shoreline that could be developed for residential uses in the long term from 55 percent to 57 percent of Nickajack Reservoir. Development of flowage easement shoreline for residential uses could have many of the same impacts described for development of Tract 3, including potential impacts to wildlife, endangered and threatened species, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic life. As a result, TVA would consider the cumulative impacts of any development of Tracts 3 and 4 when considering Section 26a applications for shoreline facilities elsewhere on the reservoir. Although development of the tracts under Alternative 4 is not likely to occur in the near term, development in the area outside of TVA lands may continue as envisioned in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. However, the extent of development in the absence of development on TVA lands is uncertain. It is likely that lakefront residential and commercial recreation development could occur on nearby flowage easement lands, thus creating some of the same impacts to water quality in Nickajack Lake discussed in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Except for water use facilities, this is beyond TVA's control.
[chapter 4, page 35] 4.17 Conclusions Development under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would likely result in adverse environmental impacts. However, as described in the analysis, potential adverse environmental impacts can be substantially avoided or minimized through commitments and environmental protection measures which are buih into the alternatives. Construction of commercial recreation and residential facilities would lead to losses of the potential use of this lard for agriculture, wildlife habitat, and associated wildlife-oriented recreation. There would also be aesthetic impacts. However, increased development of the area would generate new jobs and income, leading to enhanced long-term economic productivity. Fuel and energy used in construction and operation of the development would be irreversibly lost, There would be some irretrievable losses of renewable resources if development alternatives were chosen Potential renewable resources that would be lost include agricultural lands and wildlife habitat. Specialized resources such as wetlands and threatened and endangered species would be avoided or protected under any of the alternatives. With the inclusion of additional measures for avoiding or minimizing adverse development impacts, implementation of Alternatives 1,2, or 3 would not be expected to result in regionally significant impacts to wildlife, water quality, aquatic life, cultural resources, or other environmental resources. The allocation of Tract 1 for long-term wildlife management would enhance wildlife resource management and protection and help to preserve other natural resources on that tract. Development of Tracts 3 and/or 4 would be beneficial to public recreation in the region. Therefore, from an environmental standpoint, the site is suitable for development as proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3.
[chapter 5, page 36] 5.0 COMMITMENTS If TVA proceeds with its preferred alternative, the following commitments would be adhered to: 1. TVA will designate a public access corridor to Little Cedar Mountain (Tract 5) 2. The final site development plan shall specify measures for minimizing adverse water quality impacts. Evaluation criteria for any plan approved by TVA would evaluate plans based on the provisions they contain for habitat protection and shoreline management zones, wildlife movement corridors, vegetation removal/establishment, wetlands protection, dredging, and development proposed for areas occurring below the Maximum Shoreline Contour. 3. If development is proposed for Tract 4, a visual buffer (consisting of natural vegetation) would be required between the development and Highway 41-64-72. 4. Archaeological site 40MI197 would be surveyed, and avoided or mitigated before development that may impact it proceeds. 5. Except for those segments allocated for public recreation facilities, TVA would retain an appropriate width management zone for all shoreline areas fronting Tracts 3 and 4. Similarly, habitat protection zones also would be maintained along stream channels and surrounding jurisdictional wetlands. Except for areas within residential access corridors, and those segments used for public recreation facilities, shoreline and streamside management zones would be maintained in a forested condition, with no clearing or removal of vegetation. The width of these zones would vary depending on slope and resource condition; however, in no instance would they be narrower than 100 feet (30 m) as measured landward from the Summer pool elevation. 6. For segments allocated for shoreline management, access corridors would be permitted consistent with applicable TVA policies. 7. To protect the recently discovered gray bat roost and other sensitive resources occurring on adjacent portions of Tract 5, TVA would develop and implement a resource management/protection plan for these lands. In addition to identifying trail corridors, this plan would also address potential impacts resulting from improved public access, and would establish safeguards to avoid adverse impacts. 8. Forest clearing activities associated with removal of larger trees will be completed between October 15 and March 31 to protect Indiana bat habitat. 9. Public visitation and bat usage at Little Cedar Mountain Cave would be monitored, and TVA would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the need for gates or other restrictive measures. 10. As part of the proposal submitted to TVA, developers would prepare a detailed plan specifying strategies for protecting lacustrine fringe and lacustrine aquatic bed wetlands, and for mitigating potential impacts to wetland associated functions/values. This plan would include strategies for protection of fringe and aquatic bed wetlands occurring along shoreline fronting Tracts 3 and 4.
[chapter 5, page 37] 11. In situations where wetland impacts cannot be avoided or effectively minimized, TVA would require mitigation as appropriate to replace wetlands functions and values that would be lost due to development. 12. Proposed development plans, including strategies for protecting fringe and aquatic bed wetlands, will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for determination of permit requirements. Appropriate permits will be obtained by the developer or TVA prior to development.
[chapter 6, page 38] 6.0 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Numerous individuals and organizations made presentations at Marion County High School on April 24, 1996, or submitted written comments during the public comment period following the release of the Draft Environmental Assessment, A total of about 710 cards and letters were received prior to completion of the Final EA. Most of these were supportive of Alternative 2. Those who submitted comments during the public comment period, and their questions and comments, are discussed below. Due to the volume of these comments and their frequent similarity, TVA has summarized all of them. In some cases, the Environmental Assessment was changed because of the comments. TVA has identified, when possible, those individuals and organizations that made similar comments after each summarized response. Because the comments were summarized, the precise wording of the comments was not always used. Also, in some cases, the identified commenters did not individually raise every point or element within a summarized comment. However, TVA tried to retain all important differences among similar comments. Consequently, a number of summarized comments may appear repetitious. Transcripts of the public meeting and all original comments are available for review at the TVA Chickamauga Land Management Office. A large number of the commenters sent in letters supportive of Alternative 2, and provided several reasons for their support, For convenience, this comment was listed first, and the names of persons submitting the comment were listed in alphabetical order after the comment. 6.1. I support Alternative 2 because the property is underutilized, more diversity of recreation is needed in the county, it would increase the tax base and be an economic boon to Marion County, and it would represent a minor loss of outdoor recreation opportunities compared to the large acreage in the region (Kevin Eugene Abney, John Acuff, Mary W. Adams, Crystal Adkins, Candace Aker, George Alder, Roger Alder, Bruce Alien, Caiyl Ann Alien, Ken Alien, Bedford Allison, Brenda Neal Andersen, Clara Anderson. Kevin Anderson, Lois T. Anderson, Virgil Anderson, Annetta Anthony, Mariin Anthony, Man-in Anthony, Alma Ashbum, Gary Ashbum, Guy A. Aycock, Fred Bainhill, John P. Baird, Beulah Baker, Judy Baker, Stan Baker, Wayne Baker, William Baker, R. Ball, Hubert C. Ballard, Lori Ballard, Watson Ballard, Brandi Bames, James W. Bames, Robert D. Bames, Jr., Tom Barnhill, Lindsay Bash, Josh Beene, Rachun Beene, Louis H. Bell, Ashley Benyhill, Daniel Benyhill, Gabe Billingsley, Jake Billingsley, Larry Billingsley, Nathan Billingsley, Mandy Blansett, Samantha Blansett, Christy Blevins, Shell Blevins. Matt Blevins, Stacy Blaze, Caria Blizzard, Deborah L. Blount, J. L. Bonner, Heather Boren, Ann Bowen, June Bowlin, Gary Boyd, Mary Grace Boyd, Jim Boyd, R- Daniel Bracken, Lany Bracket, Ronald Daniel Bracket, Dora Brewer, Lewis Brewer, Angela Brown, Devin Brown, Don Brown, Jere R. Brown, Mary Jo Brown, Mindy Diane Brown, Teoeika Brown, Will Broyles, Bary P Bryant, Ben Bumpus, Chris Bumpus, Jane Bumpus, Mac Bumpus, Bob Bynum, Danieal Bynum, [Marion County Partnership for Econ. Dev. Inc.], Robert A. Cagle, Sharon A. Cagle, Emily C. Cameron, Cameron and Leidennan, P.C. [J. Harvey Cameron], Charles Campbell, Lamar Campbelt, Dale Carter, Gwen Carter, Rick Carter, Willie Cartwright, Carl E. Case, Connie Case, Erin Case, Jeny Don Case, George Cate, Kenny Case, Lonnie Catlett, Arien H. Chapman, W. A. Clarke, Susan Chodle, R. E. Choppty, James W. Christian, Frank Cofiett, Robert Cole, Donald L. Collins, Jason Collins, Sue C. Collins, Bobby G. Condra, Sam Condra, Sandy Condra. Susie Condra, W. A. Condra, Amanda Cooper, Mandy Cooper, Roger Cooper, Debbi Coppinger, Nelda R. Craig, David Crane, Dennis Crawford, Marilyn Curtis, Misty Dalton, Janet Daniel, Joyce Daniel, Lavon L. Daniel, Gary F. Davis, Jan Davis, Linda Davis, Reba & Joe Davis, Phillip Dawson, Sharon D. Dawson, Thelma B. Defur, Angela DeJamette, R. Edward DeMars, Louise Dempsey, Scott Desjarlais, Stefer Dietz, Josh Dobson, Abby Dobson, Sissy Dobson, Tommy Dobson, Josh Dodson, Dyan L. Doll, Joy Donenum, Rick Dover, Stephen Dover, Tammy Dover, Donala Downum, Jim Dunwoody, Charlotte Durham, Dallas Durham, Michael Eakins, Ted Edmeston, Janice Elliott, Scott EUiott, Jacquelyn Ellis, Selina Eirod, LibbaEstep, Greg Estes, Jeremy Tyier Evans, Sheree Fagin, Emily Featherston, Kevin L. Featherston, Sue Featherston, Wendy Featherston, Billy Forehand, Stacey Forehand, Melissa Foshee, Brenda Foust, Aubney Fox, Danny Fox, James D. Frame, Lee Ann
[chapter 6, page 39]
[chapter 6, page 40] Walden, Linda Walden, Melissa Walden, Chip Wampler, Christy Ware, Sherry Warren, Peter Webb, Jeannie Weber, Josh Weeks, Sherry L. Wesson, Carolyn West, Robert West, Frank Weslmoreland, Mark E, Wesson, David West, Elizabeth West, Paul West, Robert Eugene West. Eric Westmoreland, Billy Wheeler [President Sequatchie Valley Planning & Development District}, Dr. & Mrs. R. B. White, Virgil White, Crystal Wilernan, Robin, Williams, Ronnie L. Williams, Wallace Ray Williams, Connie Willis, Charles H. Wilson [West Wind Technology], Joe Ray Wilson [Wilson Reality], Lany Wilson, Samantha Wilson, Toby Wilson, Lee Winders, Richard C. Winslow, David Wood, Sharon Wood, Leroy Woodard, W. L. Woriey, Tom Wright, Monica Yarbrough, Charlene Young, Charles W. Young, Frances Young, Lany Ziegler TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.2. The total man-days for use in hunting and related activities is 4255 per year. Thus, less than 12 hunters per day use this property (Cameron and Leidennan, P.C.-J. Harvey Cameron) TVA Response: The number of hunters per day cannot be calculated by dividing the total of the man days of use (as shown in Table 1) by 365. This is because hunting seasons are not in effect 365 days out of the year. Only non-consumptive uses of wildlife, such as wildlife observation, are allowed throughout the year. 6.3. If TVA does not need the Little Cedar Mountain property, it should return it to the individuals that had previous title (Kirk Johnson, George C. Jackson, William C. Kilhan, Martha Campbell) V the Little Cedar Mountain tracts were acquired for public use, would this not limit development of this land for public use only and exclude residential? (Herb Gravitt) TVA Response: TVA intends to retain the property. The proposed use is consistent with TVA's goals for the property. TVA intends to use the Little Cedar Mountain properties to accomplish the broad land management goals established in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan, including: (1) provision of improved public recreation opportunities, (2) protection of the natural and cultural environment, and (3) enhancement of economic development opportunities. Even if TVA did not need the property or wished to change the purpose for which it was originally acquired, the agency may dispose of it or change its use as permitted by statute. A change or abandonment of the original purpose for which the property was acquired does not affect the validity of the acquisition or permit the government to return the property to the original owners. Under Section 31 of the TVA Act, real estate that in the opinion of the TVA Board is necessary to carry out TVA's plans and projects may be held by the agency. The fulfillment of the goals established in the Nickajack Land Management Plan make it necessary for TVA to hold title to the Little Cedar Mountain properties. Further, even in the situation where these properties are no longer necessary, such properties are required by the TVA Act to be sold at a public auction to the highest bidder. TVA may make changes in the uses of land under its custody and control following appropriate NEPA review. 6.4. Two of the five lower Cherokee towns of the 1780s and 1790s, Nickajack and Running Water, were located within sight of Little Cedar Mountain. The area is rich in archaeological material. If Tract 1 contains 5 burial sites, there is the possibility for even more sites on Little Cedar Mountain. (Kirk Johnson, Gary N. Williams, Fred Felix, Sandra Scott, Lauranna Clark, Susan E. Lutin, J. Benjamin Lutin, Linda Lutin, Cynthia Kennedy, Ronnie Kennedy, Linda D. Kilgore, Ruben Gardner, Jennifer K. Riddle, Gregory Kicking Bird Woman, Rita A, Pappas, Linda A. Riddle, Renee Downs) TVA Response: An archaeological survey was conducted by the Division of Archaeology, University of Alabama. This information is summarized in the EA.
[chapter 6, page 41] 6.5. Little Cedar Mountain (tract 5) should be a natural area and there should not be any future possibility of development (Kirk Johnson, Stephen P. Frye, Paul W. Turner, Delores Howard, Donna Lawson, Tom Lawson, Karen Null, Charles F. Landis, Jr., Charlotte Landis,) TVA Response: TVA is not proposing to develop tract 5 and would take steps to heighten protection of the sensitive resources on the tract, 6.6. I support the use of tract 3 for a public park but not leasing or selling it to a developer (Kirk Johnson, Jaioes Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Your comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.7. I support no change: I could live with a golf course but not the residential component and manicured lawns (Juanita Terry, William Terry, Richard Sims) TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted, 6.8. This development would take only a minimum amount of the public land and preserved land in the Prentice-Cooper State Forest, Franklin-Marion State Forest, and Foster Falls are 32,975 acres. TVA owns an additional 4875 acres, and the Tennessee River Gorge trust owns 2,322 acres. Therefore, 40,172 acres, or 12 percent of the land is already set aside for recreation. Large corporate owners own 53,000 acres, all of which is open to the public. Thus, we have 3.66 acres per person set aside for recreation. Marion County residents are only using 22,000 acres of 6.79 percent of our 324,480 acres for residences and commerce (Bobbie Brad Carter, John Moore, George Alder) TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.9. Development of the Little Cedar Mountain project will set a dangerous precedent for development of public lands. Other federal agencies will do the same thing (General Ecology Corporation-David White, Dennis Haldeman, Frank S. McDonald, Kenneth Wills - Alabama Environmental Council, Joe & Dara Chernicki) TVA Response: TVA disagrees. TVA has historically accommodated a wide variety of uses on lands under its control. It frequently leases lands for various commercial recreation uses such as marinas and campgrounds. TVA has also sold land to local reservoir development agencies for commercial and residential purposes on such reservoirs as Tims Ford and Tellico. Each proposal would continue to be evaluated on its own merits by TVA. Further, each Federal agency must make its own decision regarding uses for public lands in accordance with the agency's charter. 6.10. Development that does take place should be of the highest order. We can have economic growth and environmental preservation. This project should be an example of sustainable development (General Ecology Corporation-David White, Frank S. McDonald) TVA Response: TVA agrees with the thrust of this comment, which is generally consistent with TVA's goals for public recreational development. 6.11. Please explain why the Tennessee River Gorge Trust area of operations did not extend downstream from Old Hales Bar Lock and Dam (John Moore) TVA Response: Tennessee River Gorge Trust is an independent organization and chose to include an area between Tennessee River Miles 434 and 456 as their area of concern for conservation efforts. TVA did not influence this decision.
[chapter 6, page 42] 6.12. If TVA develops their property, I will also develop mine. We will make along that river a beautiful community (George Alder). The document does not address any alternatives of development adjacent to the TVA tracts. (Reginald G. Reeves - Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, James Brook - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: TVA recognizes in the EA that adjacent property owners may choose to develop their property in response to the action TVA may take. However, the extent and nature of these private actions is speculative at this time. TVA has no control over and is not aware of any proposals to develop adjacent tracts Also, it is not clear that adjacent tracts would be as attractive for the specific public recreation proposed as the Little Cedar Mountain tracts. 6.13. The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians wishes to acquire and preserve properties relative to the Cherokee Nation History. The site could he returned to Native Americans for interpretive parks, living history, or archaeological purposes (Walter Williams, Joyce C. Dugan - The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, Dennis Haldeman, Dale F. Cook, Sr, Joe & Dara Chenucki) The area should be promoted for historical interpretation (Richard Wilkey) TVA Response: TVA is both aware of, and sensitive to, its stewardship responsibility for cultural resource sites (both historic and prehistoric) on TVA land. TVA considers long-term historic preservation and interpretation from a regional perspective. While TVA does not plan historic interpretation for the three land tracts involved in the current proposal, it has done so in other cases and is considering long-term preservation at other locations across the Tennessee River valley. In addition, TVA provided land and money to the Eastern Band for the Sequoyah Birthplace Museum in Vonore, Tennessee to interpret the Overhill Cherokee history in the Little Tennessee River valley. 6.14. In order to maintain biodiversity in the U.S., it is important not to sell or misplan any federal land (Walter Williams, Dennis Haldeman) TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. Commitments in the EA related to endangered and threatened species would help preserve biodiversity, as would the reallocation of Tract 1 to a wildlife management designation. 6.15. I am opposed to sale of public land. This is a sell-off of public land for just a few. TVA is supposed to be a public steward (Daisy Branan, Leaf Myczack, Dara Chenucky, Katuah Earth First-John Johnson, Louis Campbell, Prentice Hicks, Southeast Center for Ecological Awareness- Sheila Cheyenne, Jeff Pfitzer, League of Women Voters of Chattanooga and Hamilton County- Caroline Williams, Jo A. Walters, Richard Wilkey, Glean Donahuc, Kenneth Wills - Alabama Environmental Council, Martha Campbell, William C. Killian, Ernest B. AlteKruse, Joan AlteKruse, Mar)' Ramsey, Stephen P. Fry, Vicki Hill, Vicki L. Betas. Joe & Dara Chenucki, Ronald Flowers, Linda Pfitzer, William H. Terry, Leonie GaliI, Jesse Spencer, Carol Stephens, Delores Mittoward, Martha L. Glenn, Vicki Pullman, Ann P. Murray - Tennessee Conservation League) TVA Response'- This comment has been reviewed and noted. Proposed development of Tracts 3 and 4 would produce important socioeconomic benefits for the general public, local and county governments, and the developers. 6.16. The land should be some type of nature park with a living history component (James O'Neal) TVA response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. Allocation of Tract 1 to wildlife management would not preclude an interpretive facility or a "nature park" area. Creating a nature park or
[chapter 6, page 43] living history interpretive site, although a less intensive land use, would result in environmental impacts from building construction and utilities, as well as from increased public use. 6.17. What will TVA do with the money? It will go to fund Land Management. There are better ways to fund this (James O'Neal) TVA Response: Revenues generated in Land Management from the use of TVA lands are generally used for a broad range of stewardship activities within the Resource Group that pertain to the operation of TVA dams and reservoirs. 6.18. A golf course is a bad idea for other creatures living on the river, such as the owls and the two endangered species of bats who use it as their habitat (Leaf Myczack, Katuah Earth First - John Johnson, Sandra F. Webb, Jeff Pfitzer) TVA Response: Section 4.1 of the EA discusses anticipated impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats. As noted in this section, development of commercial recreational facilities, including a golf course and marina, would negatively impact some species of wildlife by eliminating or reducing the availability of suitable habitat As noted in Section 4.5, however, two species of endangered bats known from the local area would not be adversely affected. 6.19 Nickajack Reservoir is not the cleanest reservoir in the valley, contrary to the EA, because it has the highest nutrient budget (Leaf Myczack). TVA Response: The EA does not refer to Nickajack Reservoir as the cleanest reservoir in the Valley. It states that TVA's 1994 RiverPulse report designated Nickajack Lake as the ecologically "healthiest" lake on the river system. Nutrient data discussed in the EA were from a location at TRM 425.5 just off Shellmound Recreation Area. The sampling period covered January 23, 1990 through June 19, 1995 and for standard water chemistry parameters, covered approximately 50 sampling events. Higher nutrient loading is found in other TVA lakes. Selected Water Quality Parameters at TRM 425.5(mg/L) Parameter Mean)± STD Dey Maximum Minimum NOr-NO, N-Total 0.2852±0.0922 0.52 0.10 Phosphate Total 0.031667±0.0001122 0.090 0.020 BOD* 2.00±1.0 2.7 1.3 un-ionized NHa-N** 0.0007796±0.0006441 0.003 0.00002 Chlorophyll A ug/L 5.31±3.76 21.00 1.00 (vertical) corrected *Based on only 2 measurements, **Based on 20 measurements Clean waters are generally considered to have a BOD of less than 3 mg/L while "grossly polluted" waters are those having a BOD of greater than 12 mg/L. Late winter concentrations of 0.3 mg/1 NO3-N and 0.01 PO4 are considered as the critical limits for eutrophic waters. Examples of advanced eutrophic nutrient levels would be NH4-N, 0.27 mg/1; albuminoid-N, 0.0212 mg/L; NOa-N,7.6 mg/L. Clorophyll A levels of > 25 ug/L would also be considered as highly eutrophic. Thus, this station does not exhibit highly eutrophic nutrient levels. 6.20. If TVA wants to modify the Nickajack Reservoir Land management Plan, they must conduct a comprehensive EIS which deals with the cumulative and offsite and onsite impacts of the proposed changes (Katuah Earth First-John Johnson, Cielo Sand Myczack, Jeff Pfitzer, James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society, Dennis Haldeman) It is a procedural violation and illegal to modify the Nickajack Land Management Plan and is a violation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Cielo Sand Myczack)
[chapter 6, page 44] TVA Response: Cumulative, offsite, and onsite impacts have been assessed in Section 4. The Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan provides general guidelines for allocating uses of TVA lands. Specific projects, such as the Little Cedar Mountain proposal, are subjected to the appropriate level of NEPA and Endangered Species Act review. 6.21. Section 3.2 displays a short-term profit-oriented world view (Katuah Earth First-John Johnson) TVA Response: The section has been modified in response to this comment. 6.22. Section 4.1 points out that the habitat is not well represented on public lands. This is all the more reason to preserve it (Katuah Earth First - john Johnson, Jeff Pfitzer) TVA Response: While early successional habitats are not common on public lands, they are very common elsewhere on private holdings in the area. Your comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.23. Section 4.2 states that impacts would be minor on the forest No impact is minor with global climate change and ozone depletion. As much forest cover as possible needs to be preserved (Katuah Earth First - john Johnson) TVA Response: TVA disagrees. The potential impacts of removing portions of the forest cover on 660 acres would not influence global climate change potential or ozone depletion potential. Not all of the 366 acres of forested land on tracts 3 and 4 would be impacted by a commercial recreation development. Assuming that forests in this area average 40 dry tons of wood per acre and that all this is removed, and that wood is 49 percent carbon, there would be a one-time release of about 7,200 tons of carbon. Much of this would be re-"sequestered" in other vegetation or not released to the atmosphere because it would be made into wood products. The U.S. annually releases in excess of 5 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels and other sources. 6.24. Nickajack Reservoir and Guntersville Reservoir are hypereutrophic, meaning that they cannot assimilate all the crap we're dumping into the reservoirs (Land Ethics Alliance-Dennis Haldeman) TVA Response: Neither Guntersville or Nickajack has the extremely high nutrient loading (See response to Comment 6.19), algal mats, or chlorophyll levels associated with advanced eutrophication. 6.25. Golf courses historically use about 7 times more chemicals per acre than farmers do (Land Ethics Alliance-Dennis Haldeman) TVA Response: Golf courses apply comparable amounts of chemicals per acre to agriculture, and their total water quality impact may be less, as described in Section 4.7. For example, the Professional Lawncare Association of America recommends three applications of one pound of insoluble nitrogen per 1000 ft2 per year for turf grasses such as fescue. This amounts to 43.5 pounds per acre per application or 130.5 Ib. per acre/year. Agricultural usage of nitrogen fertilizer generally varies between 110 and 120 pounds per year. The form of nitrogen in agricultural applications is often ammonium nitrate which is extremely soluble and subject to runoff or percolation. The need to properly apply chemicals was the reason that the EA required that the golf course be maintained by a certified landscape manager. Also, the required buffer would help prevent impacts. 6.26. The consequences of riverside development here will be felt all along the river. Sewage will be carried to homes downstream. These individual loads have a cumulative impact that will eventually break the camel's back (Cielo Sand Myczack)
[chapter 6, page 45] TVA Response: Given that there will be oversight by both TVA and the county, it is unlikely that significant amounts of untreated sewage will enter the river. Sewage would most likely be sent to the Jasper facility for treatment. The erosion and sedimentation associated with stormwater runoff during construction are of concern and were addressed in the assessment. 6.27. TVA could promote a truly sustainable organic fanning venture here on this prime farmland (Jeff Pfitzer) TVA Response: Information on the occurrence of prime farmland on the Little Cedar Mountain tracts is provided in Sections 3,3 and 4,2. Tract 3 may in fact be suitable for a demonstration project as described in this comment; however, no such demonstration projects have been proposed. Moreover, the tract has been designated for Public Recreation in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan. 6.28. The manner in which TVA has thus far managed the Little Cedar Mountain properties has produced a biologically diverse community of plants and animals. As a result, this area is utilized by a variety of hunters and trappers. The shallow waters provide the best unspoiled beds in Nickajack lake for bass, bluegill and shelkracker fishing. There are also nonconsumptive users. It is one of only two areas in which river otters have been seen. There is a population of 300 endangered gray bats in Nickajack. Development will negatively impact the rare river otters and gray bats. Construction of a marina and public knowledge of the cave would be devastating to gray bats. (Mike Bailey - Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency [TWRA], Gary T. Myers - TWBA TVA Response: Section 3.1 of the EA provides a detailed description of biological resources occurring on tracts 1,3,4 and 5. TVA recognizes that its past management of these properties has provided for a diversity of ecological communities and supported a variety of associated public uses. For this reason, all of the development alternatives under consideration call for reallocation of tract 1 for long- term wildlife management. Additionally, under any of the development alternatives, strategies for minimizing potential impacts to riparian habitats, wetlands, and other ecologically sensitive resources are included. No impacts to river otters or gray bats are anticipated from this proposal, 6.29. There is a large Indian burial ground on Tract 1 that is being desecrated (Ron Kennedy) TVA Response: TVA was not aware of the desecration; however, TVA has now taken steps to stabilize the site. 6.30. On page 31 of the EA, eliminate short-term construction.... These are permanent (Delores Howard) TVA Response: The EA has been changed in response to this comment. 6.31. The TVA lakeside lands should be left for permanent greenways. The Little Cedar Mountain tracts are part of a larger corridor that will help ensure the future of natural communities, wildlife, and public outdoor recreation within the Tennessee Valley, and they should not be developed. (Kenneth Wills - Alabama Environmental Council) TVA Response: TVA partially agrees. TVA is trying to balance the needs for public outdoor recreation with other needs, while conserving natural communities and wildlife. Because Tracts 3 and 4 will be primarily dedicated to public recreation, they will continue to serve a greenway or corridor purpose. Also, development proposals will be evaluated for their relative impacts on natural communities, wildlife, and public outdoor recreation.
[chapter 6, page 46] 6.32. Consideration should be given to the comprehensive and cumulative impacts associated with the project. It is probable that any proposed development will increase stream crossings, affect instream, aquatic, and riprap habitat and therefore degrade significant habitat. (Reginald G. Reeves - Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage) TVA Response: To the extent that these impacts are foreseeable, TVA has evaluated them. As noted in the EA, there are few perennial streams and therefore few stream crossings and instream habitat impacts are anticipated. Aquatic habitat impacts are in part protected by shoreline buffers and other shoreline protection measures. Use of riprap is not anticipated at this time. See section 4.9. 6.33. The document does not outline the anticipated long term effects of habitat loss for this region. (Reginald G. Reeves - Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage) TVA Response: TVA recognizes that through development of these properties, some habitat impacts would occur. In TVA's opinion, however, these impacts would not be significant when viewed at the regional, or even subregional, level. However, reallocating Tract 1 for long term wildlife management as a component of each of the three development alternatives will help preserve wildlife values and resources in the area. 6.34. Commitments are not specific and do not address long-term protection of habitat and species (Reginald G. Reeves - Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage) TVA Response: Proposed strategies for protecting wetlands, shoreline, and riparian habitats, as well as the sensitive ecological resources occurring on tract 5, are presented in Section 5.0, Commitments. These commitments protect species that are dependent on such resources. 6.35. The proposed action is inconsistent with the long-standing cooperative efforts of TVA with TDEC (Reginald G. Reeves - Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage) TVA Response: TVA disagrees and will continue to coordinate and cooperate with TDEC as in the past. Toward this end, TVA will solicit input from TDEC, and other interested agencies, as it develops plans for managing shoreline management zones, and tract 5. 6.36. The plant species spreading rockcress, Arabis patens; and slender blazing star (Liatris cylndracea)are found within the proposed project site (Reginald G. Reeves - Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage) TVA Response: TVA surveys did not locate these state-listed species on Tracts 1, 3 or 4. 6.37. Marion County's tax base is increasing daily due to private subdivisions. TVA does not have to sacrifice this for Marion County's tax base (William C. Killian) TVA Response: TVA's primary objective for the Little Cedar Mountain tracts is to provide increased outdoor recreation opportunities. Private subdivisions would be included only to the extent necessary to encourage the development of recreation opportunities. 6.38. The principles of the Shoreline Management Initiative should be followed for shoreline buffer zones and restrictions on dredging, docks, as well as other structures. (Gary T. Myers - TWRA) TVA Response: TVA agrees and will follow SMI principles. 6.39. Developers should be encouraged to protect as much habitat as possible when undertaking residential planning (Gary T. Myers - TWRA)
[chapter 6, page 47] TVA Response: TVA agrees. The commitments in Section 5 will apply to the activities of the selected developer. Further, protection of these habitats will be a criterion in judging competing proposals, as described in TVA's goals for the project in Section 1.0. 6.40. We would prefer that Tracts 3 and 4 not be developed. However, this would be mitigated somewhat by the dedication of Tract 1 to wildlife management There is promise in the wildlife development potential of Tract 1. (Gary T. Myers - TWRA) TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.41. Shellmound Recreation Area should remain and be controlled by TVA. (Herb Gravitt) TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.42. I requested to be put on mailing list for TVA hearings. Why wasn't I informed about this one? (Jo Walters) TVA Response: Because of the diversity of projects undertaken by TVA and the large geographic area in which they may occur (parts of 7 states), TVA compiles a mailing list for each project. Widespread local public notice, using a diversity of media, is made for public meetings. 6.43. We could support a limited state park-type development, but this is not being considered. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Comment noted. Efforts by TVA to secure stale park-type development on the Little Cedar Mountain properties through other public agencies have been unsuccessful. Information received from the private sector indicate that a state park-type development on the Little Cedar Mountain property is not financially feasible. However, a state park-type development could be pursued by the state under Alternative 3. 6.44. This appears to be part of a large-scale TVA plan to make money by privatizing public lands. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: TVA does not have a plan to privatize public lands. This proposal seeks to accomplish the original purpose for which me Little Cedar Mountain tracts were acquired (increased public recreation) through consideration of innovative partnerships. 6.45. Because the development involves 1500 acres, half the land TVA owns on Nickajack Reservoir, regionally significant agricultural lands, wildlife habitat, recreation, and endangered and threatened species impacts, it is not an insignificant action and an EIS is required. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: TVA disagrees. Development is proposed for 660 acres, and not all will be developed. The potential significance of the action is reduced by the limited scope of the proposal, its consistency with existing land use plans, mitigation measures to protect wildlife habitat and the lack of impacts on endangered and threatened species. There are other publicly-owned tracts on Nickajack Reservoir, including Prentice Cooper State Forest, Marion County Park, Maple View Recreation Area, and Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage Project. Excluding Tracts 3 and 4, lands held by Federal, State, or local agencies on Nickajack (public lands) amount to 40 percent of the shoreline. 6.46. We fail to see bow the gray bat roost could be adequately protected, especially with a commercial marina in the same cove. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society)
[chapter 6, page 48] TVA Response: TVA would develop a resource management/protection plan for these lands. There has been no final decision on whether there will be a marina, or where it will be located. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred that TVA's proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect the gray bat. See Section 4,5. 6.47. There has been a lack of time for public involvement, and the project is being rushed through. TVA is not taking the time to adequately assess potential impacts. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Initial public notice of the project was in November, 1995. The draft EA was released in April 1996. The public review period on the draft EA was one month, which is a typical review period used by federal agencies for Environmental Assessments, 6.48. Selection of an alternative allowing residential development conflicts with section 1506.1 of NEPA regulations. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Section 1506.1 describes conditions under which there are limitations on actions during the NEPA process. The only other agency decision making process taking place related to residential shoreline development is the Shoreline Management Initiative (SMI) Programmatic EIS process. SMI addresses whether a policy is needed to protect shoreline and aquatic resources while accommodating reasonable access to the water by adjacent residents. SMI also is intended to determine whether to open additional lands for residential development, and if so, to establish a procedure for doing so. Because SMI is a programmatic EIS, Section 1506.1 does not preclude proceeding with the Little Cedar Mountain proposal if it is determined to not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 6.49. The proposed development would adversely impact low-income populations who would be disproportionately impacted by the high-priced resort and residential development. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: The commenter does not support this statement or otherwise explain it TVA is not aware of the proportion of current users which would qualify as low-income; however, abundant public lands would remain in the area and the proposed recreational development would be open to all members of the public. Sec comment 6.45. 6.50. Alternative sites on private land should be considered. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: TVA's proposed action involves fostering recreational development on the Little Cedar Mountain tracts. Alternative sites on private land in the nearby area would neither meet this need nor be as attractive for recreational development because they do not have water access. 6.51. There is no discussion of the impacts of not using Tract I for industrial development. Why is it not suitable? (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Tract 1 was judged to be suitable for industrial development in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan. Reallocating Tract 1 for wildlife management does mean that the potential benefits of using the tract for industrial development would be foregone. However, no industrial proposal exists or has been made for this tract. As discussed in the EA, the environmental impacts of changing the industrial designation to wildlife management would be positive.
[chapter 6, page 49] 6.52. Do the man-days of use in section 3.2 refer to only Tracts 3 and 4, or the whole complex? Is the hunter use of Tract 1 presently at capacity? (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society') TVA Response: Man-day estimates for hunting, as presented in Section 3,1, Table I, refer only to use involving Tract 3. This information has not been collected for Tracts 1,4, and 5, For this reason, it would be difficult to assess whether or not hunter use of Tract 1 is at, or below, "capacity." However, TVA's observations from 30 years of managing the site suggest that hunting use on Tract 1 is high. 6.53. Tract 5 resources, public use, and location should be described. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: The EA has been changed in response to this comment. For more detailed information on Tract 5, please refer to TVA's Nickajack Reservoir Land Use Plan. 6.54. There is no analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts such as utility connections, outfalls in the Sequatchie River, and development of adjacent private lands. (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Water and sewer utility connections are expected to originate from Jasper (see Section 4.7). There is currently a water line serving the area. Where appropriate and reasonably foreseeable, indirect and cumulative impacts are addressed in the EA. 6.55. The preservation of 498 acres would not offset the privatization of 660 acres. Tract 1 has an entirely different waterfront (James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: Reallocation of Tract 1 (498 acres) for wildlife management is not intended to "offset" the impacts of potential commercial development on Tracts 3 and 4. The stated intent of this reallocation is to provide long-term opportunities for wildlife management, and for wildlife related public use, on TVA lands proximal to Tracts 3 and 4. TVA believes that by making these lands available for wildlife management purposes, anticipated adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and wildlife oriented public recreation would be offset to some degree. 6.56. We have only a limited amount of natural scenic shoreline and lands that are managed by TVA. Keep it natural and undeveloped. (Delores M, Howard) TVA Response: This comment has been reviewed and noted. About 17 percent of TVA's shoreline in the seven-state Tennessee Valley region is currently developed for residential, recreation, or industrial use. TVA owns 62 percent of the shoreline Valley-wide. TVA continues to balance the needs for public outdoor recreation with other needs. 6.57. Is there a need for public recreation lands to become financially self-sufficient? Tax dollars should be available to keep the lands public, open to all, and maintained in a manner that best serves the quality of life interests of the many. The best uses for this area are what the most people want-outdoor activities, natural settings, natural diversity. (Delores M. Howard) TVA Response: There is increasing pressure from the U.S. Congress for cost recovery, and for users to bear more of the expense for operating and maintaining public recreation areas. Your comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.58. Adverse effects are so numerous that I wonder why this kind of development is even being considered. (Delores M. Howard)
[chapter 6, page 50] TVA Response: TVA disagrees. According to the environmental analysis, potential environmental impacts are not significant and the few remaining adverse effects can be minimized- As addressed in the EA, there are important socioeconomic benefits associated with the proposal. 6.59 Every penny spent on planning mitigation should be borne by the developer. (Delores M. Howard) TVA Response: Your comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.60 Convention centers and golf courses can be built anywhere, and are best away from riparian areas. Delores M. Howard) TVA Response: Recreation development in proximity to riparian areas can be mutually beneficial when approached with proper planning and a sensitivity to existing ecosystems. 6.61. You cannot sell it, lease it, or give it away, and still have it. (Delores M. Howard) TVA Response: Your comment has been reviewed and noted. 6.62. The mitigation is not adequate; the tracts are not comparable. One is prime waterfront, the other is landfill, rock spoil, and power line. (Delores Howard, James Brooks - Tennessee Ornithological Society) TVA Response: TVA recognizes that the ecological characteristics of Tracts 1 and 4 are different. However, opportunities for enhancing wildlife habitat are available on Tract 1, and reallocating the tract from industrial to wildlife management would allow this to be done. 6.63. The problem of appropriate sewage disposal from a development of this size is not a small matter. Jasper may be unable to accept additional flow at its present facility without plant modifications. The suggestion that a more localized sewage treatment works could be constructed in con junction with the development is also problematic. The Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control would be unlikely to permit such a treatment facility unless a legally viable and continuing entity is created to be responsible for the operation of the facility and the quality of the discharge (Gregory M. Denton - Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control) TVA Response; The Jasper sewage treatment facility is being used at about 50% of design capacity, and could handle increased load. 6.64 A commitment should be added in Section 6 to stipulate that proposed development plans will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for determination of permit requirements and that appropriate permits be obtained prior to the initiation of any development plans (Lt. Col. John L. Whisler, Jr. - Nashville District, Army Corps of Engineers). TVA Response: The EA has been changed appropriately, 6.65 Plant species such as the large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana). Price's potato bean (Apios priceana), American hart's tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium) and Eggert's sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) were originally identified by the Service as possibly occurring in the project area. The EA should reference the demonstrated absence of suitable habitat, appropriate site surveys, or other basis for TVA's conclusion The Service concurs with your determination that the project "may affect" the gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and bald eagle (Heliaeetus leucocephalus). The Service recommends that TVA
[chapter 6, page 51] initiate formal consultation concerning the potential impacts as a result of the proposed project (Lee A. Barclay - U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). TVA Response: The EA has been changed to respond to this comment LISTING OF AGENCIES CONSULTED U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Field Office, Lee A. Barclay U.S. Department of the Army, Nashville District, Corps of Engineers, John L. Whisler, Jr. and Thomas W. Waters Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tennessee Historical Commission, Herbert L. Harper Division of Natural Heritage, Reginald G. Reeves Division of Water Pollution Control, Gregory M. Denton Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Gary T. Myers and Mike Bailey Tennessee Technological University, Thomas H. Roberts
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NASHVILLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 1070 NASHVILLE:, TENNESSEE 37202-1070 [DoD Seal] IN REPLY REFER TO Planning Branch Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Jon M. Loney 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 Dear Mr. Loney: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on development of the Shellmound Road Tracts, Nickajack Reservoir, Marion County, Tennessee. The proposal involves making a 701- acre tract of TVA land on Nickajack Reservoir available for commercial recreation, public recreation, and residential development:. A second 39-acre tract would be marketed for commercial and public recreation as part of the same proposed action. The proposal would have no effect on any programs being planned or executed by Nashville District, but appears to include activities subject to Department of the Army (DA) permit authority. The proposed tracts border the Tennessee River, a navigable water of the United States. Any work performed in, over, or across this waterway will require a DA permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Other work involving a discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including streams and wetlands, would require a. DA permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. I assume, as usual, TVA will address its Section 106 responsibilities in the environmental review to ensure that historic properties are considered during project planning and execution. The Nashville District would appreciate copies of documentation resulting from your environmental review of alternatives for the development, please feel free to contact Mr, Brad Bishop (615/736-5181) should you have any questions or wish to initiate the DA permit process. Thanks again for including us in your planning process. Sincerely [signed:Bradley B. Moot)?)] for Thomas W.J Waters, P.E. Chief, Engineering-Planning Division RECEIVED FEB 12 1996 Doc. No.__25__ __1__JML _____MLI __*__Files _____MDM Environmental Management ------------------------------------------------------ [DoD Seal] DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NASHVILLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 1070 NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37202-!070 June 3, 1996 IN REPLY REFER TO Planning Branch Mr. Jon M. Loney Environmental Management Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summitt Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 Dear Mr. Loney; Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment Recreation Development Alternatives for the Little Cedar Mountain Tracts, Nickajack Reservoir, Marion County, Tennessee. My only comment on the preferred alternative pertains to Department of the Army permit requirements. It appears that some of the possible development actions will require issuance of Section 404 Permits. A commitment should be added in Section 6 to stipulate that proposed development plans will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for determination of permit requirements and that appropriate permits will be obtained prior to implementation of development plans. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment, and if there are any questions, please contact Tom Swor at the above address or by phone at (615) 736- 7666. Sincerely, [signed for] John L. Whisler, Jr. Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer cc Hernandez [handwritten] RECEIVED JUN 7 1996 Doc. No. __38__ __*__JML _____MLI __*__Files _____AHL _____MDM __2__DVW Environmental Management ------------------------------------------------------ [USDOI Seal] United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 446 Neal Street Cookeville, Tennessee 38501 RECEIVED January 29, 1996 Doc. No.____153____ __1__JML _____MLI __*__Files _____AHL _____MDM __2___DVW [handwritten] Mr. Jon M. Loney Manager, Environmental Management Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dear Mr. Loney: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has evaluated potential environmental impacts concerning the proposed development of two TVA tracts of land on Shellmound Road in Marion County, Tennessee, as requested in your letter of November 22, 1995. The Service has also investigated the existence or threatened and/or endangered species as requested in your letter of December 8, 1995. TVA proposes to offer a 701-acre tract (Tract No. XNJR-3PT) for commercial recreation, public recreation, and residential development; and a 39-acre tract (Tract No- XNJR- 4PT) for commercial and public recreation. Both tracts are located on Nickajack Reservoir. The Shellmound Tracts are within the range of the Federally endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodallis, gray bat, Myotis grisescens, and large-flowered skullcap, Scutellaria montana; and the Federally threatened bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Price's potato bean, Apios priceana, American hart's tongue fern, Phyllitis scolopendrium, and Eggert's sunflower, Helianthus eggertii. You should assess potential impacts and determine if the proposed development may affect the species mentioned above. A finding of "may affect" could require initiation of formal consultation. Transfer of TVA lands from public ownership could potentially allow changes in land use practices from low-impact recreational use to high-impact recreational use and high-density residential development. Such changes would have negative impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the area, such as a significant increase in shoreline degradation, loss of habitat and habitat types, and a potential increase in sedimentation to streams and the reservoir. Shallow lacustrine wetlands which are located along the shorelines of the Shellmound Road Tracts could be adversely influenced by development, potentially requiring mitigation. Wetlands such as these serve as spawning and nursery areas for aquatic resources, and as forging areas for the Indiana bat gray bat, and bald eagle. Bald eagles are known to nest in the vicinity of Nickajack Dam. A nest which has been active for the past several years is located within two miles of the --- Shellmound Tracts. NickaJack Cave, a known maternity colony for gray bats and wintering area for Indiana bats, lies directly across the reservoir from the Shellmound Tracts. Habitat manipulation on the Shellmound Tracts could affect the existing streams and shorelines which provide forging areas for local bat and eagle populations. The proposed development could drastically alter the way in which the public, is now able to utilize the area (i.e., camping, hiking, hunting, backpacking, birdwatching, etc.). We recommend that TVA retain possession of the tracts and maintain them in their natural state to benefit fish and wildlife resources, aesthetics, and public recreation. Please provide us with a copy of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for review and comment. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Brad Bingham of my staff at 615/528-6481. Sincerely, [signed] Lee A. Barclay, Ph.D. Field Supervisor xc: Reggie Reeves, TDEC, Nashville, TN Bob Hatcher, TWRA, Nashville, TN Ruben Hernandez, TVA Knoxville, TN ------------------------------------------------------ [USDOI Seal] United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 446 Neal Street Cookeville, Tennessee 38501 May 23,1996 RECEIVED MAY 2 8 1996 Doc. No. 163 __1___JML ____MLI __*___Files ___ AHL ___MDM _2_DVW/HD Environmental Management Mr. Jon M. Loney Manager, Environmental Management Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville. Tennessee 37902 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the development of the Little Cedar Mountain Tracts, Nickajack Reservoir, Marion County. Tennessee. Dear Mr. Loney: Thank you for providing a copy of your draft EA of April 17, 1996, concerning the potential sale and/or development of Tract No. XNJR-1PT (possible future development), XNJR-3PT (commercial recreation, public recreation, and residential development), XNJR-4PT (commercial recreation), and Tract 5 (access corridor) of the above-referenced properties- The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information contained in the draft EA and offers the following comments. Plant species such as the large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana), Price's potato bean (Apios priceana), American hart's tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium), and Eggerfs sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) were originally identified by the Service as possibly occurring within the project area (letter of January 26, 1996). The Service requested that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) determine potential impacts to these species and provide the Service an opportunity to review all information used in making your determination. TVA has subsequently concluded that no federally listed plant species occur within the proposed project area. We note, however, that the subject EA contains no information regarding the basis for this conclusion. In the absence of such data, the Service is unable to concur with TVA's determination. The EA should reference the demonstrated absence of suitable habitat, appropriate site surveys, or other basis for TVA's conclusion. The Senrice concurs with your determination that the project "may affect" the gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Given your "may affect" determination for these species, the Service recommends that TVA initiate formal consultation concerning the potential impacts as a result of the proposed project. --- We appreciate for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Brad Bingham of my staff at 615/528-6481. Sincerely, [signed] Lee A. Barclay, Ph.D. Field Supervisor xc: Reggie Reeves, TDEC, Nashville Dan Sherry, TWRA, Nashville Ruben Hernandez, TVA, Knoxville ------------------------------------------------------ [USDOI Seal] United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 446 Neal Street Cookeville, Tennessee 38501 RECEIVED AUG 29 1996 Doc. No._________ __1__JML _____MLI __*__Files _____AHL _____MDM __2__DVW/6A [scratched over with pen] August 26,1996 Mr. Jon M. Loney Manager, Environmental Management Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Subject: Response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments of May 23, 1996, concerning the revisions to the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the development of the Little Cedar Mountain Tracts, Nickajack Reservoir, Marion County, Tennessee. Dear Mr. Loney: Thank you for providing your response to the Service's comments of May 23, 1996. regarding the potential impacts resulting from me proposed development of the Little Cedar Mountain tracts. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the new information and offers the following comments. According to your letter, the Little Cedar Mountain tracts have been surveyed on six different occasions since 1984, resulting in no records identifying the following federally protected plant species: large-flowered skullcap (Sculellaria montana), Price's potato bean (Apios priceana), American hart's tongue fem (Phyllitis scolopendrium), and Eggert's sunflower (Helianthus eggertii). Based on the survey work performed by TVA, the Sendee concurs that the listed plant species do not occur on the affected tracts and, consequently, the proposed development should not have an effect on the species. The Service concurs with the determination of "no effect" that TVA made concerning the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The bald eagle nest referenced in TVA's letter of June 26. 1996, is located adjacent to Tract 1, which is not slated for development. Quarry Cave and Little Cedar Mountain Cave were surveyed for the presence of the federally listed gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). No bats were found to be using Quarry Cave at the time of the survey. According to the field survey results most of Quarry Cave appeared to be too dry to support bats, with only the last room having suitable --- conditions for bat usage. Evidence of gray bat usage discovered in the Little Cedar Mountain Cave included guano piles and ceiling staining. The investigator estimated that approximately 3,500 gray bats utilize the cave during various times of the year. Another species of bat known to use this cave as a roosting site was the eastern pipistrelle {Pipistrellus subflavus}. No occurrences of the Indiana bat were noted, but potential foraging habitat and maternity habitat were identified. Based on this fact, the Service recommends that TVA place a restriction on the proposed tracts stating that all land clearing will be completed between October 15 and March 31. During this period, Indiana bat usage of upland forested areas is at a minimum. The Service recommends that TVA install a suitable bat gate at the entrance to Little Cedar Mountain Cave to prevent human intrusion. Human intrusion can be very detrimental to all bats, especially gray and Indiana bats which tend to be highly sensitive. As stated in the draft EA, a buffer zone will be required along all shoreline areas except segments allocated for the marina development. Buffer zone widths would vary depending on degree of slope, however, in no instances would this zone be narrower than 100 feet. The Service recommends a buffer zone of similar width be left along all stream channels or drainages associated with the proposed tracts. This would assist in the reduction of sediments entering the reservoir and would also maintain a travel corridor for bats and other wildlife species as they forage throughout these areas. If buffer zones are established along the shoreline and drainages crossing the property, then the Service would concur with a finding of "not likely to adversely affect" for the gray bat and Indiana bat based on project descriptions provided in your letters of April 17,1996, and June 26, 1996. The Service strongly discourages the development of public lands. Public lands are being offered for sale or development at an alarming rate. These proposed sales or developments could drastically alter the way in which the public is now able to utilize these areas (i.e., camping, hiking, hunting, backpacking, birdwatching, etc.). We recommend that TVA retain possession of such tracts and maintain them in their natural state to benefit fish and wildlife resources, aesthetics, and public recreation. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Brad Bingham of my staff at 615/528-6481. Sincerely, Lee A. Barclay, Ph.D. Field Supervisor --- xc: Reggie Reeves, TDEC Dan Sherry, TWRA Ruben Hernandez, TVA ------------------------------------------------------ United States Senate WASHINGTON. DC 20510-4204 November 2, 1995 Mr. Ruben 0. Hernandez Vice President Land Management Tennessee Valley Authority 17 Ridgeway Road Norris, Tn 37828-0920 Dear Mr. Hernandez: Both local officials and private citizens have approched my office to discuss the disposition of a parcel of Tennessee Valley Authority property known as Little Cedar Mountain. It is my understanding that your office is in the process of deciding the potential land use options for this parcel. These local interests suggest that the area be opened up for multi-use purposes beyond recreation. Multi-use would seem to have an enormous beneficial impact on Marion County. I ask that you consider these alternatives as you formulate your decision on the disposition of this piece of land. I know that your office is striving to determine the best use of this land for TVA, Marion County, and Southeast Tennessee. I applaud-these efforts and hope that you will factor in the needs and wishes of the local community in your decision making process. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Sincerely [signed] Fred Thompson United States Senator FDT:sjb RLC:CJG - 11/20/95 cc: Harold M. Draper. WT 8C-K - For information. Jonny M. Loney, WT 8C-K - For information. ------------------------------------------------------ January 21. 1997 Ruben O. Hernandez, NRB 1A-N FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) - RECREATION DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITTLE CEDAR MOUNTAIN TRACTS, NICKAJACK RESERVOIR, MARION COUNTY, TENNESSEE TVA proposes to change two land use designations in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan (Tract I from "industrial development" to "wildlife management" and Tract 3 from "public recreation" to "public recreation and residential development") and make Tract 3 available to the private sector for recreation and residential development. ln addition, an adjacent tract of land (Tract 4) would be made available to the private sector for recreation development Since 1967, Tract 3 has been proposed for recreational development, first as a state resort park and later as a public recreation site in the Nickajack Reservoir Land Management Plan. Tract 1 has been identified as a site suitable for industrial use for about the same number of years, and was also designated for industrial use in me reservoir plan. Neither site has been developed for its intended purpose, although a number of recent proposals have been received for recreation development on tract 3. All recent proposals contained non-recreational commercial development or private residential development. These proposals have encouraged TVA to consider expanding the permissible uses of Tract 3. At the same time, TVA has identified a need to establish a more permanent''wildlife" designation for Tract 1 in order to encourage expanded wildlife habitat management, rather than use the tract for wildlife as an interim use. The EA prepared for this proposed action and attached to this FONSI evaluates the environmental consequences of three alternatives to accomplish recreation development and one alternative which would retain the tracts in their current status with interim use as open space for wildlife habitat or agricultural land. Under Alternative 1, TVA would develop tracts 3 and 4 for commercial recreation, and allocate Tract 1 for wildlife management. Under Alternative 2, TVA would develop Tract 3 for commercial recreation and residential uses and Tract 4 for commercial recreation, and allocate Tract 1 for wildlife management Under Alternative 3, TVA would transfer Tracts 3 and 4 to a state or local government agency to develop, and allocate Tract 1 for wildlife management, while under Alternative 4, all tracts would remain undeveloped until a suitable proposal was received for commercial recreation or industrial development consistent with their land use allocations. In response to public, agency, and internal comments, several major issues were identified, and the impacts of each alternative assessed in the EA. Chief among these were loss of public hunting lands and loss of prime farmland, and the potential impact on endangered and threatened species, water quality, and historic and cultural resources. The potential impacts from development under Alternatives 1,2, or 3 can be substantially avoided or minimized through commitments and environmental protection measures which are built into the alternatives. An important component of the alternatives is the permanent allocation of Tract 1 to wildlife management This allocation change would enhance wildlife resource management and protection, and help preserve other natural resources on that tract Special resources such as endangered and threatened species and historic and cultural resources would be avoided or protected. With the inclusion of additional measures for avoiding or minimizing adverse development impacts, implementation of the development alternatives are not expected to result in significant impacts to wildlife, water quality, aquatic life, cultural resources, or other environmental resources. Development would be beneficial to public recreation. LAST COPY: DO NOT REMOVE Index No: 383 Title: FONSI and EA - Recreational Development of the Little Cedar Mountain Tracks, Nickajack Reservoir, Marion County --- Ruben 0. Hernandez Page 2 January 21, 1997 In November 1995, TVA provided public notice of the proposed land allocation change, and also notified interested state and federal agencies of the proposed action. In April 1996, TVA issued a draft EA for public review and comment, and held a public meeting on April 24,1996 at Marion County High School to receive public comments. Public comments received were polarized, and either strongly supported the proposed development or strongly opposed development of this area. TVA has considered and responded to all comments received, either by modifying the EA or by a separate response in an appendix to the EA (Section 6). By letter of August 26,1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that the proposed development would have no effect on endangered and threatened plants, as well as on the bald eagle. The Service indicated that the actions would not likely adversely affect the gray bat and Indiana bat if buffer zones were established along the shorelines and drainages crossing the property. The Service also recommended that TVA restrict all land clearing to dates between October 15 and March 31, and thai a bat gate be installed at the entrance to Little Cedar Mountain Cave on Tract 5. TVA proposes to implement the buffer zones and will consult with the Service on the need for a batgate. After considering the public and agency comments received, as well as the results of this environmental review, TVA prefers to adopt Alternative 2. After almost 30 years of effort, TVA believes that developers need greater financial flexibility in order to accomplish recreation development of this area, and that allowing residential development as a component of the recreational complex may be the necessary element to facilitate increased recreational opportunities in the area. Based on me EA, we agree that the proposed land allocation changes, recreation development, and intention to make one tract available for public recreation with .a possible residential component would not be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment Accordingly, an environmental impact statement is not required. The Office of General Counsel concurs in this determination. Original Signed By Jon M. Loney Manager Environmental Management WT 8C-K HMD:MDC Attachment cc: G.L. Askew, WT 8C-K J.A. Carmichael, ET 12A-K. LJ. Carter, LMO 1A-C E.S. Christenbury, ET 10A-K M.R. Crowson, MHL 1L-LCT M.E. Danby, PSC IE-C R.D. Davis, Sr., NRB 1A-N K.J. Jackson, WT 11A-K R.J. Williams, CTR 2C-M Files, EM, WT 8C-K Prepared by Harold M. Draper; reviewed by Lee J. Carter (LM) and Michael R- Crowson (LM) with concurrence of Gregory Signer and Khurshid Mehta.(OGC) ------------------------------------------------------ [the end] [thanks to John Hedgecoth for scanning and converting the pdf images into text. nov04]
In accordance with US Code Title 17, Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit or monetary gain
to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the material
for research and non-profit news and educational purposes.