[Federal Register: April 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 19750-19752]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ap07-69]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Final Environmental Impact Statement--Nolichucky Reservoir Flood
Remediation Project
AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and
TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
TVA has decided to adopt Alternative A--No Action, the preferred
alternative identified in its Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), Nolichucky Reservoir Flood Remediation Project. In implementing
Alternative A, TVA would continue to provide updated flood level
information to local agencies and individuals. This would not preclude
TVA working with individual landowners to address problems in the
future. TVA would take no other action to address the impacts of
flooding of private land and property around Nolichucky Reservoir.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles P. Nicholson, NEPA Program
Manager, Environmental Stewardship & Policy, Tennessee Valley
Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee
37902-1401; telephone (865) 632-3582 or e-mail cpnicholson@tva.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nolichucky Dam was built by the Tennessee
Eastern Electric Company in 1913 at mile 46 on the Nolichucky River,
about 7.5 miles south of Greeneville, Greene County, Tennessee.
Nolichucky Reservoir, also known as Davy Crockett Lake, extends
upstream about 6 miles from the dam. TVA acquired the project in 1945
and operated it as a single-purpose power production facility. By 1945,
sand and silt from mining in the upper Nolichucky watershed in western
North Carolina had begun to fill the reservoir. The sediment in the
reservoir continued to accumulate to the point that TVA removed the
electric generators from service between 1965 and 1972. Since 1972, the
project has been jointly managed by TVA, the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, and local organizations for wildlife management,
environmental education, and recreation.
The Federal government owns approximately 1,400 acres of land under
and around Nolichucky Reservoir and holds easements giving it the right
to flood an additional 370 acres of land along this part of the river.
At the time TVA acquired these landrights in 1945, the landrights did
not include all of the area affected by Nolichucky Dam during flood
events. Since then, the 100-year flood elevation has increased up to 10
feet due to the accumulated sediment in the reservoir. The federal
landrights include about 54 percent of the area within the present 500-
year floodplain and about 63 percent of the area within the 100-year
floodplain.
TVA published a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2000. Public and agency scoping meetings were
held on January 20, 2000; 52 people attended the public scoping
meeting. Scoping comments were received from one Federal agency, one
nongovernmental organization, and seven individuals. Following a series
of agency and public workshops, the Draft EIS was released in January
2002 and the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in
the Federal Register on February 8, 2002. TVA held a public meeting on
the Draft EIS in on February 21, 2002 and accepted comments through
March 29, 2002. Comments on the Draft EIS were received from 65
individuals. Two federal agencies and three state agencies. The Notice
of Availability for
[[Page 19751]]
the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 3,
2006.
Alternatives Considered
TVA identified four alternatives in the EIS.
Under Alternative A--No Action, TVA would provide updated flood
level information to local agencies and individuals but would not take
any other actions to address flood impacts on nonfederal lands. TVA
would continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by
federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value.
TVA would maintain the reservoir's recreational uses through agreements
with other agencies and organizations that provide for wildlife
management, environmental education, and public parks.
Under Alternative B--Acquire Landrights, TVA would address flood
impacts on nonfederal lands by acquiring either fee title or easements
with the right to flood all of the nonfederal land within the present
500-year floodplain around Nolichucky Reservoir (about 1,060 acres). If
TVA acquired fee title, TVA would buy the affected land and all
structures built on it and would hold all rights concerning use of that
land. If TVA acquired only a flowage easement, TVA would buy the right
to overflow and flood specific parts of the property on an intermittent
and temporary basis. The owner could continue to use the easement land
in many ways, but would relinquish the right to build structures below
a specific elevation and would have to receive TVA approval prior to
developing the affected land. TVA would maintain the reservoir's
recreational uses through agreements with other agencies and
organizations that provide for wildlife management, environmental
education, and public parks. Most new land acquired in fee would
probably be added to the existing wildlife management area. TVA would
continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by
federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value.
This alternative could be implemented within 3 years and would cost
between $15 and $20 million.
Under Alternative C--Lower Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address flood
impacts on nonfederal lands by lowering the Nolichucky Dam spillway
after removing or stabilizing sediment in the reservoir. The spillway
would be lowered by about 40 feet so that the 500-year flood elevation
would only affect land already in federal ownership or covered by
flowage easement. This would reduce the reservoir pool area from 455 to
about 160 acres and convert much of it into a more riverine
environment. All federal land around the reservoir would remain in
public ownership and would continue to be used for wildlife management,
environmental education, and public parks. TVA would continue to
maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by federal dam
safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. This
alternative would require 5 to 10 years to implement and cost between
$45 and $70 million.
Under Alternative D--Remove Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address flood
impacts on nonfederal lands by removing all visible components of
Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse and removing or stabilizing sediment in
the reservoir. In accordance with historic preservation requirements,
TVA would document the dam and powerhouse and preserve qualifying
equipment. Up to 19,000 acre-feet (30 million cubic yards) would be
removed from the reservoir area and deposited on nearby lands. In
cooperation with appropriate state and local agencies, TVA would
determine how the federal lands would be used, probably as parts of
modified versions of the existing wildlife management, environmental
education, and public park areas. This alternative would require 10 to
12 years to implement and cost between $90 and $150 million.
TVA did not identify a preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. TVA
identified Alternative A--No Action as the preferred alternative in the
Final EIS.
Comments on the Final EIS
TVA received comments on the Final EIS from the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and one
individual affected by the flooding. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency expressed a preference for Alternative B. The Environmental
Protection Agency did not express a preference for any alternative and
noted the positive and negative aspects of each alternative. They did,
however, suggest further consideration of Alternative B. TVA has
carefully considered Alternative B and, as described below, decided to
adopt Alternative A.
The Environmental Protection Agency requested a more detailed
analysis of the potential impacts of the preferred No Action
Alternative on minority and low-income populations. The Environmental
Justice analysis in the FEIS was based on relatively large census
tracts and concluded that the action alternatives would not result in
disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations. TVA
has repeated this analysis for minority populations using data from
smaller census blocks adjoining Nolichucky Reservoir. Minority
populations made up about 1.2 percent of the year 2000 population of
578 persons in these blocks. This proportion is well below the
national, state, and county levels, and below that of the larger census
tracts in which the blocks are located. The population within this area
is well dispersed and there are few concentrations of residents within
the floodplain. Data on low-income populations are not available for
individual census blocks. A small cluster of low-cost housing occurs in
the floodplain on the right bank of the reservoir; housing on the left
bank is widely dispersed with no similar clusters. Due to the low
percentage of minority populations, the low poverty level in much of
the area, and the scattered location of housing in most of the area, no
disproportionate effect on minority or low-income populations is
anticipated.
Decision
TVA has decided to adopt Alternative A--No Action.
Alternative A--No Action was selected over the other alternatives
because it would result in few, if any, additional adverse
environmental impacts, and could be implemented at little cost to TVA.
As described in the FEIS, TVA has determined that the rate of sediment
inflow into Nolichucky Reservoir has greatly decreased in recent years,
and the present sediment inflow rate is likely close to the sand
dredging removal rate of around 70,000 tons per year. Based on this
sediment inflow rate, there is little potential for flood damage to
lands and existing structures within the floodplain to markedly
increase in the future, even in the absence of sand dredging. TVA,
however, would continue to permit qualified sand dredging operations to
operate in the reservoir, further reducing the potential for increased
future flood damages. While the risk of flooding would slowly decrease
under this alternative assuming sand dredging continues, the risk of
flooding non-federal property would continue. Community awareness of
flood risk, however, has increased in part because of this EIS process,
and because TVA has provided updated flood level information to the
community. In the event that flooding of some property occurs in the
future, TVA would address it on a case by case basis as it has in the
past.
In reaching this decision, TVA has carefully considered both the
comments
[[Page 19752]]
and concerns voiced by the public and the results of the impact
analyses. There was some support for each alternative. Based on the
comments TVA received during the scoping and EIS review processes,
there was strong public support for maintaining the reservoir and the
existing recreational uses of the reservoir and adjacent public lands;
Alternative A does this.
Alternatives C and D would eliminate the dam-related flooding. In
doing so, they would partially or fully eliminate the reservoir and
many of its current recreational uses. They would also destroy the
wetlands habitats around the reservoir, and adversely affect the
Nolichucky River downstream of the dam. While Alternative B would not
have the adverse impacts of Alternatives C and D, it would cost $15 to
$20 million to implement and could result in the relocation of many
homeowners or restrictions on use of their property. None of the
alternatives would restore the recreational benefits that once existed
at Nolichucky Reservoir and have since been lost due to the
accumulation of sediment.
TVA has determined that the implementation of Alternative A would
not affect historic properties and has consulted with the Tennessee
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The SHPO concurred with
TVA's determination on April 28, 2005. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) also concurred that implementation of Alternative A
would not adversely affect federally listed or proposed endangered or
threatened species.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative because
it would accomplish the project purpose of alleviating the flood
impacts on private land and property, would not involve any adverse
impacts on the surrounding natural and human environment, would
increase the land area available for public recreation, and would
enhance the conservation of many resources. Even though Alternative B
is the environmentally preferred alternative, Alternative A also would
not have adverse environmental impacts.
Mitigation
Alternative A--No Action that TVA has selected is not anticipated
to adversely affect natural or human resources, and consequently TVA
has determined that no associated mitigation measures are necessary.
TVA does commit, however, to providing updated flood level information
to local agencies and individuals so that they are better aware of
flooding risks.
Dated: April 13, 2007.
Kathryn J. Jackson,
Executive Vice President, River System Operations & Environment.
[FR Doc. E7-7439 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P