William Lisowsky

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area
Golden Pond, KY 42211

     The key objectives of the presentation were to provide an overview of the Forest Service, a short review of the legislation that brought Land Between The Lakes (LBL) to the Forest Service—(The Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998) and our assessment of the future management challenges we face. A period of questions and answers followed.

     The Forest Service appreciates and respects the outstanding research and resource management that has been accomplished at LBL over the past 30-plus years. We are anxious to work with members of the educational community and other members of the public, to learn from those efforts, and develop goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide us to even greater heights. The desire of the Forest Service to develop relationships with universities, researchers, academicians and the scientific community is sincere. In addition to working with us in the daily challenges of LBL, the soon-to-be-revised (again) planning regulations are expected to identify additional significant opportunities for interested parties to get involved.

     Specific answers to what will occur in the future will not be available until the new Plan is completed. Sustainability of uses, services or resources will be one of the tests each proposed action must pass. Many members of the general public are supportive of management strategies already in place. Likewise, there are many supporters of the management goals of the Biosphere Reserve, although use of this term sometimes creates misunderstandings and apprehension as well. It would be inappropriate and premature for the Forest Service to discuss future land allocations although it is likely that ecologically sensitive areas will be identified and appropriately protected in the planning process. The Forest Service needs to validate and/or add to these comments through our public participation process.

1. Forest Service Mission and Applicable Laws
2. LBL Protection Act
3. Looking to the Future

Organic Act of 1897:

< Created the National Forest System to "improve and protect" federal forests;
< Forest Service "…is vested with broad authority to make rules to regulate occupancy and use and to preserve the forests from destruction";
< Reaffirmed congressional intent to improve and protect the forests, secure water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of products.
< Confirms FS management responsibility for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish purposes;
< Gives each unit discretion to set levels and mix of uses.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:

< Promote efforts to prevent damage to the environment;
< Stimulate health and welfare of humans;
< Improve understanding of effects and proposal alternatives.

Endangered Species Act of 1973:

< Conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend;
< Utilize Forest Service authorities in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Forest Management Act of 1976:

< Manage NF lands using a plan;
< Process and analyses described;
< Provide for multiple use and sustained yield;
< Integrate science with action;
< Provide and preserve diversity and communities from a biological, social and economic perspective.

Forest Service Mission Statement:

< "…sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations";
< Motto of the FS: "Caring for the Land and Serving People."

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 2000 Goals:

< Promote ecosystem health and conservation to sustain forests;
< Provide a variety of uses, values, products and services within capability of sustainable ecosystems;
< Forest Service is the leading provider of recreation in the US;
< Develop and use the best scientific information to support ecological, economic and social sustainability;
< Ensure infrastructure to enable delivery of variety of uses and effective public services.

In Management of a "Typical" National Forest Unit There Are Several Scales to Consider:

< Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) covers 10-15 years. The Plan guides future management by articulating priorities, standards and desired conditions to be achieved;
< Strategic Plan (3-5 yrs) with tiers to the Plan. Shorter-term implementation strategies are created to reach milestones and monitor progress towards long range goals of LRMP;
< Annual Plans and decisions are made to match intent of Congress, emerging issues, available objectives, funds and people;
< Decisions move in direction of Goals and Desired Future Conditions identified in the Plan.

2. LBL PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

Four Key Purposes:

1. Transfer jurisdiction of LBL from TVA to the Forest Service;

4

---

2. Protect and manage resources for optimum yield of outdoor recreation and environmental education through multiple use management;

3. Authorize, research, test, and demonstrate cost-effective and innovative government management;

4. Cooperate between and among agencies, organizations, corporations and individuals; help stimulate development of surrounding region; extend results as widely as practicable.

Emphases:

< Provide for public recreation opportunities;
< Conserve fish and wildlife and habitat;
< Provide for diversity of plants, animals, opportunities for hunting and fishing, and environmental education.

LBL Advisory Board:

< Created by the Protection Act with two purposes:

1. Means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area;
2. Environmental education.

LBL Land and Resources Management Plan:

< Protection Act anticipated need to develop Plan;
< Recognized crucial role of public in the process, including the Advisory Board- collaboration is crucial to success;
< Allows use, as appropriate, of existing 1994 Natural Resources Management Plan, until Plan is in place.

Other Provisions of Act:

< Ensures cemetery access;
< Trust fund created to support regional promotion and public education, grants, and internships;
< Counties eligible for Payment in Lieu of Taxes;
< No general entrance fee may be charged.

3. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Transition Priorities:

< Overall goal of seamless transition to avoid disruption to public;
< Difficult summer for employees required great sensitivity;
< Building relationships and trust a primary objective and a cornerstone of future interactions;
< Important to get to know the resources, public, and the area in which we live and work.

Strategies We’re Using While The Plan is Being Developed:

< Now that transition is mostly complete, this is the current phase for LBL;

< We are not making significant changes for the foreseeable future. There are plenty of examples of "We made some changes, what do you think"? LBL needs to demonstrate

5

---

integrity and build trust first. The Plan will be the place to make such changes if warranted, with the owners and the public, clearly communicating what they want from their public land.

< We are striving to meet intent of Protection Act and moving towards goals of sustainability.
< We are also keeping future management options open by avoiding irretrievable commitments or investments.
< We intend to continue existing programs and activities and focus our energy on developing long-term goals and objectives for LBL, with public input.
< We must find ways to engage and truly collaborate with the public. Part of this will relate to the role of the Advisory Board.
< It takes information to do Planning. We are observing, monitoring, and gathering data needed to assess condition, and find ways to make information understandable for discussions.
< We will identify resource protection issues and respond accordingly. There are places that need specific actions taken to protect them.
< We are moving forward with re-establishing past relationships. LBL has a long history of university involvement and research that we wish to continue.
< Every visitor should receive an environmental education message when they visit. We’ll be moving ahead on some environmental education efforts, again with the help of the Advisory Board.
< Backlog maintenance is a major issue. Many facilities are nearing the end of their design life. It will be a priority to deal with health and safety issues as they arise.

6

---

WILDFLOWERS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
OF THE NEGEV DESERT, ISRAEL

Jerry M. Baskin¹ and Carol C. Baskin^1,2

1School of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
²Department of Agronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546

     ABSTRACT. In late March-early April 1998, the authors spent about 10 days in the central Negev Desert, Sede Boqer, Israel. The Negev is a hot, winter-rainfall desert with a highly-variable annual precipitation that averages less than 100 mm (4 inches); annual temperature at Sede Boqer is about 19-20EC. The shrubs Zygophyllum dumosum and Artemisia herba-alba are important components of the vegetation in the central Negev, and in spring 1998 many annuals and herbaceous perennials were in bloom following the winter rainy season. Several botanical excursions were made into the Negev with our host Professor Yitzchak Gutterman, a plant ecologist. This talk primarily will be a short survey of the plants photographed on these excursions. In addition, brief accounts will be given of (1) the exotic ornamental woody plants (e.g., Acacia, Cupressus, Eucalyptus) of Sede Boqer; (2) the collection of succulents (e.g., Aloe, Cactaceae, Euphorbiaceae) in the botanical garden at the Desert Research Institute, Sede Boqer; (3) the shrub (Thymelaea)-annual grass (Stipa) community on löess in the northern Negev (200-300 mm annual precipitation) just south of the Mediterranean Region; and (4) a sacred grove of matorral vegetation in the Mediterranean Region south of Jerusalem (about 400 mm annual precipitation) dominated by Pinus halepensis and Quercus calliprinos. Our biggest "taxonomic surprise" was that 82% of the families and 25% of the genera in our photographic survey are indigenous to the Kentucky-Tennessee area. The five largest families are Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Leguminosae, Liliaceae, and Poaceae. Genera quite familiar to Kentucky and Tennessee botanists include Allium, Convolvulus, Iris, Pinus (matorral), Plantago, Populus (along a canyon stream), Quercus (matorral), Rumex, and Senecio. Our biggest "botanical thrill" was seeing a desert species of tulip (Tulipa systola) with its velvet-red flowers.

7

 

---