Environmental Assessment Bear Creek Reservoirs Land Management Plan FINDING of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Environmental Assessment Bear Creek Reservoirs Land Management Plan FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FRANKLIN, MARION, AND WINSTON COUNTIES, ALABAMA Background TVA develops reservoir land management plans to assist in managing the public lands around its lakes. In the late 1960s and 1970s, TVA constructed four reservoirs in the Bear Creek watershed of northwestern Alabama. Lands above the maximum projected pool level were acquired by TVA for recreational and residential development and reservoir and shoreline protection. Lands bought through negotiation were acquired in the name of the Bear Creek Development Authority, while lands acquired through eminent domain were acquired in the name of the U.S. (TVA). In 1997, BCDA transferred 11,879 acres of land to TVA, including much of the land inundated by the reservoirs as well as other lands above the normal summer pool. In order to determine future management direction for this land and the previously acquired TVA land, TVA has prepared a land allocation plan for TVA-owned land on the four reservoirs of the Bear Creek watershed. TVA currently owns 930 ha (2,296 acres) of land above normal pool on Bear Creek Reservoir, located between Red Bay and Hackleburg; 1,112 ha (2,747 acres) of land above normal pool on Cedar Creek Reservoir, located between Red Bay and Russellville; 1,196 ha (2,955 acres) of land on Upper Bear Creek Reservoir, located east of the town of Bear Creek; and 478 ha (1,180 acres) of land on Little Bear Creek Reservoir, located between Cedar Creek and Bear Creek Reservoir. The proposed land allocation plan is the first to be prepared for the four northwest Alabama reservoirs. Lands administered by the BCDA were not allocated in this planning effort. TVA notified the public and environmental agencies of its land planning effort for the Bear Creek Reservoirs by letter in February 1999 and through a public meeting on February 23, 1999. At the public meetings, there was much concern over the status of private docks that had been previously approved by the BCDA, in addition to land allocation issues. In order to reassure those citizens who had water use facilities of TVA’s intentions in regard to facility permitting, TVA decided to complete a separate EA on the grandfathering of approximately 180 private docks which existed on the lands transferred from BCDA in 1997. The environmental impacts of grandfathering existing docks on three reservoirs were assessed in a separate EA and FONSI completed on May 24, 2000. This May 2000 EA described facility standards, including vegetation management, needed as part of TVA’s approval for grandfathering of the docks. Existing docks were grandfathered, in accordance with the 1999 Shoreline Management EIS and Record of Decision. A draft EA on the land allocations was released for comment in April 2000. Comments were received by mail and at public meetings held on April 27, 2000, in the town of Phil Campbell and on May 9, 2000, in Belgreen. After considering all comments, TVA developed a Final Environmental Assessment and Land Management Plan. The major issue in public comments was the status of lake properties and the determination whether these properties were allocated to residential access (zone 7) or resource conservation uses (zone 3, Sensitive Resource Management; or zone 4, Natural Resource Conservation). Property owners who owned land adjacent to the reservoir, but who did not have residential access rights, requested that they be granted these 1 rights. In the final plan, TVA proposes to grant residential access rights subject to Section 26a review for docks only when these properties are located in a shoreline reach where a cluster of previously permitted docks already exists, where deeded access rights exist, or adjacent to potential BCDA subdivisions. Also, in the proposed final plan, the allocation of three parcels fronting BCDA property was changed from Zone 7 (Residential Access) to Zone 4 (Natural Resource Conservation), at the request of BCDA. BCDA indicated that these lands were not planned for residential subdivision development and therefore residential access designations would not be appropriate. Agencies commenting on the land plan draft included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Alabama Historical Commission. USACE, by letter of June 14, 2000, indicated no comments at this time. FWS, by letter of June 15, 2000, concurred with selection of Alternative B and indicated that species diversity and abundance would likely increase. AHC requested that the EA address archaeological monitoring. Because the potential effects on historic properties are regional in scope and cannot be fully determined prior to the approval of the land plan, and plan implementation has the potential to affect historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, TVA initiated efforts to prepare a Programmatic Agreement (PA) consistent with regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. The PA includes provisions for monitoring of reservoir shorelines. The PA was executed in February 2001. The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, TVA, the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Chickasaw Nation are signatories in the PA, and the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission is a concurring party. Alternatives The EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of two alternatives, no action (Alternative A), and the proposed Reservoir Land Management Plan (Alternative B). The EA and accompanying Land Use Plan are attached and incorporated by reference. Under Alternative A, TVA would continue management of its properties pursuant to TVA policies, including the recently adopted Shoreline Management Policy, without benefit of a land management plan. Requests for use of TVA land would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Approximately 288 ha (712 acres) fronting BCDA lands on Upper Bear, Cedar, and Little Bear Creek Reservoirs are potentially developable over the long term, and another 2,834 ha (7000 acres) are undesignated. In the interim, TVA would likely continue basic land stewardship activities such as boundary maintenance and property protection on these lands. Land that has been previously conveyed for particular uses would remain in that use. Rights for water use facilities would exist for the existing grandfathered sites; and on two subdivisions developed by BCDA--Tanglewood Subdivision on Upper Bear Creek and Lick Creek Cove on Cedar Creek. Under Alternative B, 3,716 ha (9,178 acres) would be allocated into six planning zones, as follows: TVA Project Operations (344.7 ha or 851.4 acres), Sensitive Resource Management (2,805.3 ha or 6,929.2 acres), Natural Resource Conservation (213.3 ha or 526.8 acres), Industrial/Commercial Development (5.5 ha or 13.7 acres), Recreation (249.3 ha or 615.7 acres), and Residential Access (97.7 ha or 241.3 acres). The planning zones in Alternative B take into account the results of resource inventories for sensitive resources such as rare species, archaeological resources, significant visual resources, and wetlands. As a result of these inventories, additional Habitat Protection Areas and a Small Wild Area are proposed to be designated. Alternative B 2 grandfathers previous land use commitments and allocates uncommitted TVA land to zones emphasizing resource stewardship. Residential access would be considered on land where groups of shoreline alterations have already been approved or areas where outstanding rights exist for such requests. In addition, residential access would be granted on three parcels adjacent to BCDA lands subject to Section 26a review, should BCDA decide to grant these rights. Impacts Assessment Under either alternative, the EA finds that impacts to environmental resources would be insignificant. Under Alternative A, the individual project review process would avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources. By contrast, Alternative B provides enhanced protection to sensitive resources (such as cultural sites, wetlands, and rare species) by allocating certain lands (75 percent) to the Sensitive Resource Management category, thereby reducing the potential that these sensitive lands would be put to incompatible uses. Sensitive resources would be further protected by establishment of buffer zones around cave entrances and through administrative designation of habitat protection areas and a small wild area on tracts supporting rare plants and animals and uncommon ecological communities. The EA identifies Alternative B as the preferred alternative since it emphasizes conservation while continuing to allow compatible public uses on certain tracts. Conclusion and Findings As indicated above, TVA prepared a PA to ensure that the effects on historic properties are taken into account in lands planning and plan implementation on the Bear Creek Reservoirs. Execution and implementation of the PA evidences that TVA has taken into account the effects on historic properties and TVA has complied with its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. TVA also consulted with FWS on impacts to federally-listed endangered and threatened species. The June 15, 2000, letter from the FWS indicated that Alternative B would result in improved natural resources protection and management benefiting the gray bat and the bald eagle. Thus, TVA concludes that the requirements