US Army Corps US Army Corps Engineers Engineers Little Rock District Southwestern Division Water Supply Storage Reallocation Report Reallocation of Storage at Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, for Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance
DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW – NOVEMBER 2017
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 867 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0867
Water Supply Storage Reallocation Report Reallocation of Storage at Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, for Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance
DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW– NOVEMBER 2017
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – WATER SUPPLY REALLOCATION OF STORAGE AT GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS, CLEBURNE AND VAN BUREN COUNTIES (NOVEMBER 2017)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential environmental consequences resulting from implementation of a proposed reallocation of 25,360 acre-feet of storage (approximately 20.75 mgd) at Greers Ferry Lake, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Greers Ferry Lake is a 40,463-acre lake located in north- central Arkansas within Cleburne and Van Buren counties, with portions of Searcy and Stone counties contributing to its watershed. The communities of Greers Ferry and Heber Springs are located upstream of the dam on the lake, while Clinton, Arkansas sits approximately six miles northwest of the lake. Little Rock, Arkansas is 65 miles to the south, and Memphis, Tennessee is 130 miles to the east. The primary inflow of the lake is from the Little Red River with discharges from the lake flowing into the White River below the dam. The Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 United States Code § 390b), as amended, provides for storage and makes it available for municipal and industrial water supply. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address future water supply needs for the central Arkansas region. Increased demand is due to population growth, which is driving the need for additional water. Alternatives evaluated in the reallocation study include: groundwater; purchasing wholesale; water supply from a local river or stream; reallocation from either the conservation, flood or inactive pools at Greers Ferry Lake; reallocation from another existing reservoir and the “no action” alternative. As a result of evaluation and comparison of the alternatives, the Proposed Action would be to reallocate approximately 25,360 acre-feet of hydropower storage from the conservation pool in Greers Ferry Lake to water supply storage. The proposed reallocation would not require any construction or modifications to the dam. Anticipated Environmental Effects: Implementation of the Proposed Action would not impact any biological, geological, or cultural resources, land use, hazardous and toxic substances, environmental justice, recreation, transportation, or noise. There would be no impact to any proposed or listed species, or critical habitat, protected under the Endangered Species Act. Groundwater quality and quantity would benefit from the Proposed Action due to less reliance on groundwater for municipal and industrial water supplies. Insignificant adverse impacts are anticipated to socioeconomic resources due to lost hydropower revenue by Southwestern Power Association. This lost revenue would be offset by credits to the U.S. Treasury. Minor adverse impacts could occur to air quality and climate change if lost hydropower energy production were replaced by coal-fired energy sources. Any impacts would occur due to increases in annual levels of sulfur dioxide (0.02% increase), nitrous oxide (0.03%), and carbon dioxide (0.01%) in the United States. These extremely minor increases are likely unmeasurable, and therefore are considered insignificant. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not require a 404 permit or Arkansas State Water Quality Certification.
Facts and Conclusions: Based on a review of the information contained in the EA, it is determined that the implementation of the Recommended Action is not a major federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is unwarranted and a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) is appropriate. The signing of this document indicates the Corps final decision of the proposed action as it relates to NEPA.
Date ROBERT G. DIXON Colonel, EN Commanding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following document is an integrated reallocation report and environmental assessment completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Little Rock District (SWL) that presents the results of a water supply storage reallocation study. The overarching purpose of the study is to evaluate a request for storage in Greers Ferry Lake to provide municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply for the Mid- Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA) made up of nine water utilities in central Arkansas. MAWA members have requested that the Corps reallocate reservoir storage at Greers Ferry in amount necessary to produce additional water supplies totaling 20.75 millions of gallons (mgd) per day of water supply (approximately 25,360 acre-feet of storage). This study evaluates and compares an array of potential water supply storage alternatives including reallocation of storage from other authorized uses of the lake and recommends a preferred alternative. In addition, the report documents possible impacts to regional environmental, socioeconomic and cultural resources of implementing the recommended plan pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Initially, the study team qualitatively assessed measures and a preliminary array of alternatives based on factors including financial costs, environmental impacts and effects to authorized uses of reservoir storage (i.e., flood risk management, hydropower, and recreation), dam safety considerations, and the ability of a measure to yield comparable amounts of water. After screening a preliminary array of nine alternatives, the team selected three final alternatives for a quantitative analysis: . Alterative 3: No Federal Action (Future without Federal Project): In the absence of Federal action in developing water supplies, the alternatives analysis assumes that the designated water users (requesters) would build a new reservoir providing a yield of 60 million gallons per day.
. Alternative 5: Conservation Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake: This alternative would reallocate storage from hydropower to water supply.
. Alternative 6: Flood Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake: This alternative would reallocate storage from the flood pool to the conservation pool for supply.
Hydrologic and hydraulic studies were performed to determine, frequency and duration for pool elevation, lake-outflow, river stage, and river discharge for each of the respective reallocation alternatives. Reallocation of 25,360 acre feet of storage for water supply would provide firm yield of 20.75 mgd. Hydrologic analysis showed minimal impact if reallocated from conservation storage. However, reallocating from the flood pool would increase damaging releases and downstream impacts during flood events. Reallocating from the flood pool would also adversely affect recreational uses of the lake and require additional land acquisitions due to the associated increase in lake level and shoreline inundation. Table E-1 displays National Economic Development (NED) costs that include both financial costs to implement, maintain, and operate an alternative, and forgone economic benefits of implementing an alternative. NED financial costs include project capital costs including real estate, and operations,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitations and replacement (OMRR&R) costs. Forgone benefits in this case consist of hydropower, flood risk management, and recreation benefits. As shown in Table E-1, the alternative that minimizes NED costs is Alternative 5 (reallocate storage from conservation pool). Additional criteria as they related to other accounts including Environmental Quality, Regional Economic Development Benefits, Other Social Effects and Corps planning feasibility criteria (i.e., acceptability, completeness, effectiveness and efficiency, were also considered.)
Table E-1: National Economic Development Costs for Evaluation of Final Array of Alternatives
Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 (No Federal (Conservation pool (Flood pool Cost or Forgone Benefit (2) Action) 1 reallocation) reallocation) Hydropower energy benefits forgone $0 $117,000 $101,000 Hydropower capacity benefits forgone $0 $60,000 $ 57,000 Revenue forgone $0 $51,000 $44,000 Real estate costs $0 $0 $105,000 Recreation benefits forgone $0 $0 $587,000 Flood risk management $0 $0 $6,000 Capital costs $14.0 M $ 285,000 $ 274,000 OMRR&R Costs $ 1.0M $ 2.5 M $ 2.5M Total $15.0 M $ 2.75M $ 3.6 M
1. In the absence of Federal action to reallocate water supply storage from the Greers Ferry Project, the only viable option identified would be the construction of a single purpose reservoir by the water users.
Based on the analysis summarized above, the preferred alternative is reallocation of 25,620 acre-feet of reservoir storage from the conservation pool at Greers Ferry Lake for M&I water supply as requested by the MAWA. The Corps has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) as directed by NEPA; and based on the EA, prepared a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) per NEPA guidelines. In addition, the Corps has assessed potential “serious effects” to other authorized purposes at Greers Ferry Lake as defined by the Water Supply Act of 1958. Results of the analysis indicate that impacts to hydropower generation do not rise to the level of seriously affecting the hydropower purpose requiring major operational and structural changes as required by the statute and precedent case law.
If approved, MAWA would reimburse the Federal Treasury for the capitalized cost of storage in the amount of $285,427 per annum, and would pay a proportional share (1.50 percent) of joint annual OMRR&R costs for reservoir operations. Due to impacts to hydroelectric power generation, a credit to the accounting records for Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) in accordance with ER-1105-2- 100, Appendix E-57d(3) would also be required. Similarly, MAWA would have to enter into a supplemental water supply storage agreement with the Corps. Draft agreements have been prepared and accompany this storage reallocation report under separate cover.
Please address any comments regarding this study via email to: CESWL- [email protected] or via U.S. Mail to Mr. Craig Hilburn, Environmental Regional Technical Specialist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning & Environmental Center, Post Office Box 867, Little Rock, AR., 72203-0867.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents * Indicates a Section within the Report that is a NEPA requirement
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY ...... 1 1.1 STUDY OVERVIEW ...... 1
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1
1.3 AUTHORITY AND FEDERAL INTEREST...... 2
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT ...... 3 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY AREA ...... 3
STUDY AREA ...... 3
2.2 PROJECT DATA ...... 6
2.3 PREVIOUS WATER STORAGE PROJECTS AND EXISTING WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS ...... 7
PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 8 3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 8
3.2 INVENTORY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 9
3.2.1 DAM SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 10
3.2.2 HYDROLOGY &HYDRAULICS CONSIDERATIONS ...... 10
3.2.3 SEDIMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS ...... 10
3.2.4 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ANALYSIS ...... 10
FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS ...... 14
3.3.1 PRELIMINARY ARRAY OF MEASURES ...... 14
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF MEASURES ...... 15
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES –EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE FINAL ARRAY 17
FINAL REALLOCATION ALTERNATIVES TO EVALUATE IN DETAIL ...... 23
EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 23
DERIVATION OF USER COST ...... 24
HYDROPOWER BENEFITS FOREGONE ...... 24
HYDROELECTRIC POWER REVENUES FOREGONE ...... 26
HYDROELECTRIC POWER REPLACEMENT COST ...... 28
REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...... 28
FORGONE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT BENEFITS ...... 28
FORGONE RECREATION BENEFITS ...... 30
3.5 ECONOMIC ACCOUNTS: ANALYSIS AND SCREENING OF FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 31
3.6 SELECTED PLAN ...... 36
3.7 EVALUATION OF SERIOUS EFFECTS ON OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES AT GREERS FERRY LAKE ...... 37
3.8 UPDATED COST OF STORAGE ...... 39
3.9 USER COSTS ...... 42
TEST OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ...... 43 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS* ...... 44 5.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED PURSUANT TO NEPA ...... 44
FINAL ALTERNATIVES ...... 45
5.2 STUDY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 48
5.3 LAND USE* ...... 48
5.4 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES ...... 49
TOPOGRAPHY* ...... 49
GEOLOGY* ...... 49
MINERALS ...... 50
SOILS* ...... 50
5.5 WATER RESOURCES ...... 51
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ...... 52
SURFACE WATER ...... 52
GROUNDWATER* ...... 53
WATER QUALITY ...... 55
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 57
WETLANDS ...... 57
VEGETATION ...... 58
AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 59
WILDLIFE ...... 62
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES* ...... 63
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN ...... 68
HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES (HTRW)* ...... 71
CULTURAL RESOURCES* ...... 72
CULTURAL HISTORY ...... 72
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 74
CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS AT GREERS FERRY LAKE ...... 75
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OBJECTS (BSO) INVENTORIES AT GREERS FERRY LAKE...... 75
SOCIOECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE* ...... 76
POPULATION ...... 76
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 77
RECREATION ...... 79
TRANSPORTATION ...... 81
AIR QUALITY* ...... 81
CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE* ...... 83
LOCAL CLIMATE ...... 83
CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 84
HABITAT CHANGE ...... 88
NOISE ...... 92
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ...... 93
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 94
CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 95
AIR QUALITY ...... 96
GROUND WATER ...... 96
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 96
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA ...... 97
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT OFFSET THESE IMPACTS ...... 97
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...... 97
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...... 97
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PLAN ...... 97
CONCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 98
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, REVIEW, AND CONSULTATION ...... 99 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 99
INSTITUTIONAL INVOLVEMENT ...... 99
STUDY TEAM ...... 99
AGENCY COORDINATION ...... 99
CONCLUSIONS ...... 100 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 101 REFERENCES ...... 102
APPENDICES
Appendix A – DRAFT Economic Analysis Attachment 1 – Westin Water Demand Model Attachment 2 – GIS Maps Attachment 3 – Sponsor’s Request letter Appendix B – DRAFT Real Estate Plan Appendix C – DRAFT Dam Safety Considerations Appendix D – DRAFT Hydrologic (H&H) Analysis Appendix E – DRAFT Hydropower Analysis Center (HAC) Report Appendix F – Environmental Coordination
TABLES
Table 2-1: Project Physical Features ...... 6 Table 2-2: Existing Water Supply Allocations ...... 7 Table 3-1: Projected Water Demands and Current Supplies for MAWA ...... 12 Table 3-2: Water Supply Surplus or Shortfall by Designated Users of MAWA ...... 13 Table 3-3: Analysis of Potential Measures ...... 16 Table 3-4: Qualitative Screening of Initial Array of Alternatives ...... 19 Table 3-5: Cumulative Hydropower Benefits Foregone for White River System ...... 25 Table 3-6: Hydropower Revenues Foregone Current Condition ...... 26 Table 3-7: Cumulative Revenue Foregone for Reallocation from Conservation Pool Alternative ...... 27 Table 3-8: Cumulative Revenue Foregone for Reallocation from Flood Pool Alternative ...... 27 Table 3-9: Revenue Foregone for this Reallocation ...... 27 Table 3-10: Real Estate Economic Impact Summary ...... 28 Table 3-11: General Frequency Results ...... 29 Table 3-12: Flood Risk Management Impacts ...... 30 Table 3-13: National Economic Development Costs for Final Array of Alternatives Analysis(1) ...... 32 Table 3-14: System of Accounts Analysis and Screening of Final Array of Alternatives` ...... 33 Table 3-15: Costs Allocated to Storage ...... 36 Table 3-16: Updated Cost of Storage ...... 40 Table 3-17: Annual Cost of Storage for Alternatives Analysis* ...... 41 Table 3-18: Updated Cost of Storage for Mid Arkansas Water Alliance Financial Payments ...... 42 Table 4-1: Test of Financial Feasibility ...... 43 Table 5-1: Comparison of Environmental Effects of FWOP and FWP Alternatives ...... 46 Table 5-2: Fish Species Reported from the Greers Ferry Lake Watershed ...... 59 Table 5-3: Common Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of Greers Ferry Lake ...... 62 Table 5-4: Federally Listed Species for the Greers Ferry Lake Project Area ...... 64 Table 5-5: Species of Conservation Concern in the Vicinity of Greers Ferry Lake ...... 68 Table 5-6: State and County Population Data ...... 76 Table 5-7: Country, State, and County Income and Unemployment Rates ...... 77 Table 5-8: Racial Composition and Poverty Indictors ...... 78 Table 5-9: Greers Ferry 2012 Visitation Data ...... 79 Table 5-10: Recreation Facilities at Greers Ferry Lake ...... 80 Table 5-11: Estimated Average Power Generation Emissions by U.S. Region ...... 83 Table 5-12: Increase in Emissions from Combustion Power Generation ...... 83 Table 5-13: Estimated Average Power Generation Emissions by U.S. Region (pounds per kilowatt hour) ...... 91 Table 5-14: Increase in Emissions from Combustion Power Generation ...... 92 Table 5-15: Status of Environmental Compliance ...... 93
Table 5-16: Summary of Potential Cumulative Impacts of the TSP and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects within the Region ...... 95
FIGURES Figure 2-1: White River Basin ...... 4 Figure 5-1: Little Red River Watershed ...... 52 Figure 5-2. Western Interior Plains Aquifer (taken from the Arkansas State Water Plan, 2014)...... 54 Figure 5-3: Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer (taken from the Arkansas State Water Plan, 2014)...... 55 Figure 5-5-5: Long-term Temperature Variability in Arkansas (1895 through 2016) ...... 86 Figure 5-5-6: Long-term Precipitation Variability in Arkansas (1895 through 2016) ...... 87 Figure 5-5-7: Long-term Variability in the Palmer Drought Severity Index, Arkansas (1895 through 2016) ...... 88
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACE Annual Chance Exceedance AF Acre-feet Ag Census Census of Agriculture BSO Buildings, Structures, Objects CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers EA Environmental Assessment EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Gal Gallons GED Gallons of Water Use per Employee per Day GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day GPD Gallons per Day Gpm Gallons per Minute HAC Hydropower Analysis Center M&I Municipal and Industrial MAWA Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance Mgd Million Gallons per Day Mwh Megawatt-hours NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NCDC National Climate Data Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRW Non-Revenue Water NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum OMRR&R Operations, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitations and Replacement PS Public-Supply SWD United States Corps of Engineers Southwest Division SWL United States Corps of Engineers Little Rock District SWPA Southwestern Power Administration USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS US Geological Survey WIP Western Interior Plains Confining Unit
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 1.1 STUDY OVERVIEW
The following document is an integrated reallocation report completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Little Rock District (SWL) that presents the results of a water supply storage reallocation study. The overarching purpose of the study is evaluate a request for storage in Greers Ferry Lake to provide municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply for the Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA), which is comprised of nine water utilities in central Arkansas: 1) Cabot Waterworks; 2) Central Arkansas Water; 3) Clinton Waterworks; 4) Community Water System; 5) Conway Corporation; 6) Grand Prairie Bayou; 7) Jacksonville Water Works; 8) North Pulaski Waterworks; and 9) City of Ward Waterworks.
The report evaluates and compares an array of potential water supply alternatives including reallocation of storage from other authorized uses of the lake and recommends a preferred alternative or plan. In addition, the report documents possible impacts to regional environmental, socioeconomic and cultural resources of implementing the recommended plan pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Initially, the study team qualitatively assessed measures and a preliminary array of alternatives so that readers of the document can evaluate differences in costs or estimates as the study progresses from initial phases to a more detailed quantitative analysis of the final array of alternatives. Lastly, the report discusses potential cumulative impacts of the recommended plan analysis, and assesses potential “serious effects” to other authorized purposes at Greers Ferry Lake as defined by the Water Supply Act of 1958.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
In accordance with Corps guidance, the purpose of this study is to meet the water needs of the designated users and their partners. As part of guidance, a water demand study is conducted that demonstrates long term needs for additional water supply, and a sponsor’s ability and willingness to reimburse the Federal government for additional storage in a Corps project. (See Appendix A; attachment 3 of the report which contains MAWA’s Letter of Intent) In addition to evaluating alternatives and recommending a plan, the study analyzes water needs of the sponsors over a 50-year period of analysis (2015 to 2065). The water demand analysis model was certified and approved for one time use by the appropriate Corps Headquarters Review Panel in September of 2016.
1
1.3 AUTHORITY AND FEDERAL INTEREST
Authority for the Corps to reallocate existing storage space to M&I water supply is contained in Public Law 85-500, Title III, Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 390b. Section 301(a) of Water Supply Act of 1958, states: “It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water supplies in connection with the construction, maintenance, and operation of Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, or multiple purpose projects.” This law established a policy and federal interest in development of water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial and other purposes and established the federal interest in development of water supply storage from the Corps of Engineers’ reservoirs.
2
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY AREA
The Flood Control Act of 1938 authorized construction of the Greers Ferry Reservoir project for flood control and other purposes. The Flood Control Act of 1954 modified the above-stated authorization for the project to include hydropower and flood control, as recommended by the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 499, 83rd Congress, 2nd session. In 1957, the Corps began constructing the project. Facilities and offices were completed in January of 1958, and construction of the dam commenced in February of 1959. By 1962, the reservoir was ready for inflows and began filling. Power plant construction began in 1959, and the last turbine was online by May 1964. Flood control and power generation in-service dates are 1 February 1962, 1 April 1964 (Power Unit 1), and 1 June 1964 (Power Unit 2), respectively.
STUDY AREA
Greers Ferry Lake is located within Cleburne and Van Buren Counties in central Arkansas. Designated water supply users are spread across the central Arkansas counties of Cleburne, Conway, Faulkner, Lonoke, Pulaski, Perry, Saline, and Van Buren. This service area includes metropolitan Little Rock and portions of the Southern Ozarks and Northeastern Ouachita Mountains. The study area encompasses the Upper and Lower Arkansas River basin, Ouachita River basin, and Lower White River basin (Figure 2-1). The study area is the area within which significant project impacts will accrue from the use of M&I water supplies, including areas that will receive direct benefits and/or incur costs from the provision of M&I water supply. Figure 2-2 shows the service area for MAWA. Designated users are within four Water Resource Planning Regions (North Arkansas, East Arkansas, South-Central Arkansas, and West-Central Arkansas) as defined by the State of Arkansas for use in state and regional water planning.
3
Figure 2-1: White River Basin
4
Figure 2-2: Service Area for the Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance (project sponsor)
5
2.2 PROJECT DATA
At the top of the lake’s conservation pool at an elevation of 462 feet based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29), the surface is about 31,800 acres.* Surface acreage increases to 40,480 acres at the top of the flood-control pool at 487 feet NGVD (Table2-1). Total storage capacity of the lake stands at about 2,841,100 acre-feet with 901,200 allocated to flood risk management, 745,900 to conservation storage for a total useable storage of 1,647,100 acre-feet.
Table 2-1: Project Physical Features
Cumulative Incremental storage equivalent runoff (2) Elevation (1) (3) Area (acres) volume (acre-feet) (inches) Top of dam 503.00 46,720 227,100 58.06 Design pool 498.00 44,820 477,100 54.35 Top of flood control pool 487.00 40,475 901,200 46.54 Top of conservation pool 462.04 31,794 271,900 31.79 Spillway crest 453.00 29,000 474,000 27.29 Top of inactive pool 435.00 23,735 508,000 19.54 Probable maximum drawdown 410.00 17,030 686,000 Sluice invert 283.00 123
Streambed 260.00 0 Total storage 2,841,100 Flood control storage 462.04 - 487.00 901,200 Conservation storage 435.00 - 462.04 745,900 Inactive storage 283.00 – 435.00 1,194,000 Total Usable Storage (4) 1,647,100 (1) Feet at mean sea level (2) 1,146 square miles of drainage area upstream of dam (3) NAVD88 = NGVD29 Legacy Datum + 0.45 (4) Usable storage = flood control storage + conservation pool storage
* Project vertical datum for Greers Ferry Dam was originally referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). In the interest of consistency with historic records and public awareness, project structural elevations and pool elevations should continue to be referenced in NGVD29 Legacy Datum. The relationship of the NGVD29 Legacy Datum to the most currently referenced vertical datum, North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88) is: NAVD88 = NGVD29 Legacy Datum + 0.45. Elevations in this report are referenced to the NGVD29 Legacy Datum unless noted otherwise (e.g., NAVD88). In this report the presence of any form of the mean sea level acronym such as “msl” references NGVD29.
6
2.3 PREVIOUS WATER STORAGE PROJECTS AND EXISTING WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS
Over the years, many studies and proposals have addressed water storage at Greers Ferry Lake, on which the current study has relied upon (Table 2-2). Past studies have resulted in numerous storage reallocations. Currently, there have been six discretionary reallocation studies and two storage allocations mandated by the U.S. Congress. Using its discretionary authority, the Corps has reallocated 30,312 acre- feet and per the directive of the U.S. Congress, the Corps has reallocated 4,546 acre-feet for the City of Heber Springs. Today, SWL maintains ten water supply storage contracts with regional water suppliers. A supplemental water supply storage agreement between the City of Heber Springs for the 2005 Congressional allocation is still under underway, and has not been finalized to date. MAWA had a previous reallocation in 2010 for 15.0 mgd (about 18,556 acre-feet of storage) from the flood pool and their current request is for 20.75 mgd (approximately 25,360 acre-feet of storage).
Table 2-2: Existing Water Supply Allocations
Sponsor` Acre Feet MGD Pool Date Heber Springs 1,008.00 0.807 Original 05/1959 Heber Springs II 3,538.40 2.833 Flood Congressional - 2005 Clinton 900.00 0.721 Conservation 09/18/1970 Clinton II 2,175.39 1.742 Flood 09/27/2005 Community Water System 225.00 0.180 Conservation 03/05/1971 Community Water System Phase 1 3,776.00 3.024 Flood 02/17/1995 Community Water System Phase 2 4,295.00 3.440 Flood 09/02/1998 Red Apple Inn and Country Club 65.89 0.053 Flood 06/17/1996 Thunderbird County Club 54.88 0.044 Flood 03/10/1998 Tannenbaum Country Club 90.30 0.072 Flood 11/14/1998 MAWA (2010 Allocation) 18,729.71 15.000 Flood 05/05/2010
Total 34,858.57 27.916 - -
7
PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Plan formulation and evaluation of alternatives used for this study are conducted in accordance with the Corps Planning Guidance Notebook (Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100) and the Corps’ Water Supply Handbook, both of which, emanate from the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Planning Act (P.L. 89-80) and Executive Order 11747, which was approved by the U.S. Water Resources Council in 1982, and by the President in 1983. Based on guidance and policy, the Corps has a well-defined six-step process used to identify and respond to problems and opportunities associated with Federal water resources planning objectives, and specific state and local concerns: 1) Identify Problems and Opportunities 2) Inventory and Forecast Conditions 3) Formulate Alternative Plans 4) Evaluate Alternative Plans 5) Compare Alternative Plans 6) Select Recommended Pan
The remainder of this section describes each step of the process as it applies to this study.
3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Problem and Opportunity
Nine water utilities that make up part of Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA) have a need for additional water supply storage due to current population growth, projected groundwater depletion for this region and population growth projected over the course of the next fifty (50) years in central Arkansas. A feasible opportunity exists with the Corps’ water resource, Greers Ferry Lake, to meet the water needs of these water utilities, which corresponds with the Federal objective of water resources planning to contribute to national economic development in a manner consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment. Objective The study objective is to determine if there is an economically viable alternative to meet the current and future water supply storage deficiencies over the next fifty (50) years for central Arkansas pursuant to MAWA’s request for additional water supply storage, and if there are, determine which alternative is optimal in a manner consistent with protecting the environment, adhering to applicable statutes and executive orders and other Federal planning requirements. Constraints Meeting the study objective requires acknowledging and circumnavigating constraints on the planning process, which restricts or limits the planning process. Typically, there are two primary types of constraints: 1) resource constraints; and 2) planning constraints. In this study, the constraints relate to the
8
planning process and include: 1) necessity to conform to Corps policies for the project purpose, 2) requirements to adhere to all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, and 3) ensure that any changes to reservoir operations resulting from a reallocation of storage do not result in discharges exceeding 10,500 cubic feet per second during flood events, which would increase risks of life loss in communities downstream of the dam (Section 3 and appendices A and D discuss this in more detail). Screening Criteria and Measures Screening is an ongoing process of eliminating alternatives based on planning criteria. Criteria is derived from a specific planning study, based on planning objectives, constraints, and problems and opportunities. An alternative plan is a system of structural or nonstructural measures, strategies, or programs formulated to meet, fully or partially, the planning objectives subject to constraints. A management measure is a feature that is either a structural measure (a structural element that requires construction or assembly on-site) or a non-structural measure (a nonstructural action or activity) that can be implemented at a specific geographic site to address one or more planning objectives. Management measures are the building blocks of alternative plans. An alternative plan is a set of one or more management measures functioning together to address one or more objectives. In this study, the project team looked at combining measures or using stand-alone measures as alternative plans in the formulation process. Four general criteria are considered during alternative plan screening: 1) completeness, 2) effectiveness, 3) efficiency, and 4) acceptability. Note that these criteria may not be fully evaluated at the initial stages of plan formulation in regards to evaluation of measures and preliminary alternatives, but are fully evaluated for the final array of alternatives. The study team performed initial screening also utilizing the following criteria: 1) Environmental impacts; 2) Dam safety impacts; 3) Recreational impacts; 4) Flood risk management impacts; 5) Hydropower impacts; 6) Probability of insufficient quantity of water; and 7) Order of magnitude estimated costs.
There are also specific technical criteria related to engineering, economics, environment and the impacts to other authorized purposes, which are also considered in evaluating alternatives.
3.2 INVENTORY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
The inventory of current and future conditions is in different sections of the report and appendices. Section 2.5 discusses current water supply storage. Existing and future water demands are discussed in detail in Attachment 1 of Appendix A and summarized in sections 3.6 and 3.7 below. Current and future environmental conditions under the No-Action and future with project condition are discussed in Section 5 of this report. Prior to discussing, water demands and needs, Section 3.2.1 through 3.2.2 discuss dam safety considerations, hydrology and hydraulics, and sedimentation issues as they related to current and future conditions.
9
3.2.1 DAM SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
Greers Ferry Dam underwent a screening level risk assessment or Screening for Portfolio Risk Analysis (SPRA) in December of 2008. SPRAs have been phased out and replaced by Periodic Assessments (PAs). The first PA for Greers Ferry Dam is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2020. The December 2008 SPRA resulted in Greers Ferry Dam being classified as a Dam Safety Action Classification System (DSAC) 4 dam. Dams in this classification are of low urgency of action, characterized by a low “incremental risk”, but do not meet all Corps dam safety standards. Incremental risk is defined as the risk (likelihood and consequences) to the pool area and downstream floodplain occupants that can be attributed to the presence of the dam should the dam breach, overtop, or malfunction. The following three potential failure modes were identified during the 2008 SPRA. 1) Tainter gate and pier failure; 2) Overtopping and erosion of dikes by wave action during probable maximum flood; and, 3) Performance of Dike 2 foundation during probable maximum flood loading.
Potential failure modes developed during the FY2020 PA are not anticipated to change the current DSAC 4 classification based solely on likelihood of failure. However, if it is determined that the downstream consequences are higher than considered during the SPRA, it is possible that the Corps would re-classify Greers Ferry to a DSAC 3 rating. Appendix C contains a detailed discussion of dam safety considerations.
3.2.2 HYDROLOGY &HYDRAULICS CONSIDERATIONS
This study investigates the feasibility of storage reallocations in Greers Ferry Lake for water supply storage that would provide an additional firm yield of 20.75 million gallons per day. Firm yield is the amount of water available for a specific use on a dependable basis during the life of the project. Model runs were used to determine the firm yield. SWL developed firm yield curves for the White River Basin in 1997. District hydrologists established firm yield for Greers Ferry using inflows during the drought of record for the region that occurred from about May of 1961 until February 1965. As a side note, the worst drought occurred during construction of the lake and accounts for the lengthy filling period. The design manual for project construction used 1952 to 1956 as the drought of record. Appendix D presents a detailed analysis of storage volumes, frequency and durations of pool elevations, lake outflows and inflows, river stages, and river discharges for each study alternative that involves storage reallocation.
3.2.3 SEDIMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
The Little Red River above Greers Ferry Lake has a relatively low sediment load (0.0005 percent of average annual flow), and was estimated at the time of design to be about 315 acre-feet per year. Sediment ranges for twelve locations are available since the project began operation in 1962. Samples are from 1964, 1974 and 1977. In each year sampled, only three ranges indicated any measurable sediment deposition, and although, the lake is over 55 years old there have been no reported issues with sedimentation. Appendix D provides additional detail.
3.2.4 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ANALYSIS
The water supply forecast was used to describe the future without project condition and is based on data and input from MAWA members including groundwater use, current allocations from surface water
10
sources, and purchased water agreements (wholesale water use). Water demand forecasts are based on historic and current weather data, socio-economic and demographic statistics, and water use information. Data were obtained through a comprehensive survey distributed to MAWA members, and data received accounted for 94 percent of the population served by MAWA. Based on data received, the study team analyzed and extrapolated to cover the remaining 6 percent of the population served. The Institute for Economic Advancement at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) provided population data and projections. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center provided weather and climate data. Estimated impacts to Arkansas via global climate change were factored into the demand projections using findings of the U.S. National Climate Assessment (2014). Using data collected from MAWA members and other sources, coefficients were calculated for variables affecting residential water demand using a multiple regression model. Coefficients served as parameters for the residential water demand model. Non-residential demands were derived from a unit use time driver approach by calculating rates of water use per employee (gallons per employee per day) for different business sectors and using employment projections as drivers. Wholesale demands were also projected through a unit-use approach by calculating per capita rates of use and using retail population served by the wholesaler, while growth rates derived from population projections as drivers. Nonrevenue water use such as systems leakages, and water fire hydrant flushing was projected as a percent of the residential and non-residential demands as reported by MAWA members. Water demands were forecasted by sector for each MAWA member in five 10-year increments beginning in 2015 and ending in 2065, which will be updated to begin in 2018 through 2067 before finalization of the Reallocation Report. The forecast uses baseline data from 2010-2014 to project demands using high, medium, and low population projections as the primary driver. Populations in all study area counties have grown over the period 1990 through 2010. At the state level, population increased by 14 percent from 1990 through 2000, and 11 percent from 2000 through 2010. At a regional level, all counties have grown over the same period at comparable rates; however, rates of growth in Faulkner, Lonoke, and Saline counties are higher than the state rate. Econometric methods are used to forecast demand by statistically correlating residential water demands with factors influencing those demands including weather, economic, and demographic factors. This methodology performed by Westin in this study was adapted from a similar study conducted in Southwest Missouri by CDM Smith in 2012. The Greers Ferry water demand analysis model was approved for use by the Model Certification HQ Panel (as referred to EC 1105-2-412) on 2 September 2016. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show projected municipal and industrial surpluses or shortages based on projected water demands and water supplies through 2065, which will be updated through 2067 in the final report. Per the Corps Water Supply Handbook, demand projections are based on peak daily use for all systems. As shown in Table 3-1, total firm yield supply for all MAWA designated users is currently 172 million of gallons per day (mgd), and includes current water allocated to conservation storage in the lake. Based on expected decreases in groundwater supply, firm yield supply in 2065 is forecasted at 161 mgd. This firm yield supply is forecasted to be 161 mgd through 2067. In contrast, demands for MAWA are expected to range from 198 to 243 mgd with a midpoint of 219 mgd. Based on projections, deficits at the regional
11
level begin to occur in around 2035. Groundwater is a primary source for many systems, but based on analyses from the 2014 Arkansas State Water Plan, aquifers supporting these communities are only viable to sustain existing demands. In addition, according to the 2014 State Water Plan, regional aquifers will no longer be able to sustain existing designated users by 2055, and groundwater will no longer be a viable source for any users by 2065. Other surface water sources in the region (i.e., river or stream flows upstream or below the dam), are not sufficient to meet increased demands. Table 3-2 displays projected deficits and surpluses at the local level for each designated user. There is an immediate need in 2015 for the Ward Water and Sewer System (all growth scenarios), while total peak of all designated users appears adequate until 2035. Projection results by Designated User reveal that there is a supply shortage for Central Arkansas Water by 2025. Conway Corporation, Grand Prairie Two, and the North Pulaski County Waterworks Public Facilities Board are projected to have supply shortages by 2055 (medium and high growth scenarios). In some cases, designated users have capacity to share water through wholesale contracts and existing waterline connections; however, surpluses would not significantly offset deficits assuming connections were adequate (or existent) to convey surplus water.
Table 3-1: Projected Water Demands and Current Supplies for MAWA (millions of gallons per day, 2015-2065)*
Demands 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Low Growth 129 139 151 165 181 198 Medium Growth 131 145 161 178 198 219 High Growth 133 152 172 193 217 243 Current Supplies* 172 166 166 166 161 161
Projected Surpluses and Deficits Low Growth 43 27 15 1 (20) (37) Medium Growth 41 21 5 (12) (37) (58) High Growth 39 14 (6) (27) (56) (82) * Projections will be updated to 2018 through 2067 before finalization of the report. Source: “Water Demand Analysis for Mid- Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA) Water Supply Storage Reallocation Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.” Prepared by Weston Solution Inc. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District. Revised: August 2015.
12
Table 3-2: Water Supply Surplus or Shortfall by Designated Users of MAWA (Medium growth scenario, millions of gallons per day, 2015-2065)*
User Projection 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Low 6.64 6.32 5.87 5.33 4.71 4.01 Cabot Waterworks Medium 6.51 5.90 5.21 4.42 3.52 2.50 High 6.37 5.43 4.45 3.34 2.07 0.62 Low 1.93 (5.54) (14.55) (24.75) (36.10) (48.73) Central Arkansas Water Medium 0.73 (9.18) (20.04) (32.09) (45.47) (60.36) High (0.57) (12.96) (25.84) (39.94) (55.60) (73.09) Low 3.34 3.21 2.90 2.50 2.04 1.51 Community Water Public Water System Authority Medium 3.13 2.58 1.99 1.33 0.61 (0.19) High 2.90 1.90 0.97 (0.01) (1.06) (2.20) Low 7.72 6.77 5.46 3.92 2.19 0.24 Conway Corporation Medium 7.41 5.76 3.91 1.83 (0.54) (3.17) High 7.08 4.68 2.19 (0.58) (3.68) (7.18) Low 2.62 2.53 2.37 2.19 2.00 1.80 Conway County Regional Water Distribution District Medium 2.51 2.26 1.98 1.71 1.42 1.12 High 2.40 1.96 1.57 1.18 0.78 0.36 Low 5.56 5.44 5.28 5.09 (0.18) (0.43) Grand Prairie Bayou Two Regional Water District Medium 5.52 5.31 5.07 4.80 (0.56) (0.92) High 5.48 5.17 4.84 4.46 (1.02) (1.53) Low 14.55 8.11 7.60 7.02 6.39 5.70 Jacksonville Waterworks Medium 14.49 7.93 7.32 6.66 5.93 5.13 High 14.43 7.75 7.04 6.27 5.44 4.52
North Pulaski County Low 1.61 1.44 1.21 0.95 0.66 0.33 Waterworks Public Facilities Medium 1.56 1.27 0.96 0.62 0.23 (0.19) Board High 1.50 1.10 0.69 0.24 (0.26) (0.82) Low (0.66) (0.78) (0.96) (1.18) (1.43) (1.71) Ward Water and Sewer System Medium (0.71) (0.95) (1.23) (1.55) (1.91) (2.32) High (0.76) (1.14) (1.53) (1.98) (2.49) (3.08) Low 43.30 27.50 15.17 1.07 (19.72) (37.27) Total Medium 41.15 20.89 5.18 (12.28) (36.77) (58.39) High 38.83 13.88 (5.64) (27.03) (55.84) (82.40)
* Projections will be updated to 2018 through 2067 before finalization of the report. Source: “Water Demand Analysis for Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA) Water Supply Storage Reallocation Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.” Prepared by Weston Solution Inc. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District. Revised: August 2015.
13
FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
3.3.1 PRELIMINARY ARRAY OF MEASURES
Initially, the study team considered a wide range of potential measures to address the planning problem. As more information became available, many of these measures were screened out if they would not be effective in addressing the problem. For example, if a measure could not generate the amount of water needed or if it would not be cost effective relative to other measures, the study team eliminated the measure. Remaining preliminary measures considered include: 1) Construct a new single purpose Reservoir: This measure would consists of building a new dam and reservoir that provides a yield of 60 mgd to meet long-term needs. Measure is evaluated based on potential costs; technical considerations; completeness in regards to contribution to water supply over the 50-year period of water supply needs analysis; and potential effects, both environmental and societal.
2) Develop new groundwater supplies: This measure would involve constructing new groundwater well fields.
3) Obtain additional water supply from an existing reservoir: This measure consists of creating additional water storage, and thus, water supply, from another Corps or Non-Corps lake.
4) Purchase wholesale water from another water supplier: This measure consists of buying water wholesale from another water entity in the area.
5) Reallocate storage in Greers Ferry Lake to the conservation pool from the hydropower pool: This measure consists of reallocation of storage from hydropower storage to water supply storage in Greers Ferry Lake. This measure is a reallocation of storage within the same elevation range in the reservoir currently allocated to hydropower and water supply. Measure is evaluated for a range of reallocation volumes to determine the required volume necessary to meet water needs.
6) Raise the normal pool at Greers Ferry (reallocate storage from flood storage): Permanently raising the normal pool by reallocation of flood control (flood risk management) storage. Measure is evaluated to determine the required volume necessary to meet water needs.
7) Reallocate storage in the inactive pool to the conservation pool: This measure consists of the reallocation of storage from existing inactive/sediment storage to supplement water supply storage.
14
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF MEASURES
Four general criteria are considered during screening: 1) completeness, 2) effectiveness, 3) efficiency, and 4) acceptability:†
1) Completeness: Completeness is the extent that an alternative provides and accounts for all investments and actions required to ensure the planned output is achieved. These criteria may require that an alternative consider the relationship of the plan to other public and private plans if those plans affect the outcome of the project. Completeness also includes consideration of real estate issues, operations and maintenance (O&M), monitoring, and sponsorship factors. Adaptive management plans formulated to address project uncertainties also have to be considered.
2) Effectiveness: Effectiveness is defined as the degree to which the plan will achieve the planning objective. The plan must make a significant contribution to the problem or opportunity being addressed.
3) Efficiency: The project must be a cost-effective means of addressing the problem or opportunity, and plan outputs cannot be produced more cost-effectively by another institution or agency.
4) Acceptability: A plan must be acceptable to Federal, state, and local government in terms of applicable laws, regulation, and public policy.
Measures included in the final array of alternatives were forwarded for further consideration, and underwent additional analysis in terms of technical viability, environmental impacts, and economic costs and benefits. These technical criteria related to engineering, economics, environment and the impacts to other authorized purposes of the lake, included: . Engineering Criteria: The design of a safe, efficient, and reliable project that incorporates best engineering principles and practices in support of a plan that maximizes National Economic Development benefits.
. Economic Criteria: A plan must contribute to National Economic Development.
. Environmental Criteria: A plan should 1) fully comply with all relevant environmental laws, regulations, policies, and Executive Orders; 2) represent an appropriate balance between economic benefits and environmental sustainability; 3) develop in a manner consistent with the Corps Environmental Operating Principles; and 4) avoid adverse impacts to the environment, and in cases where adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigate and minimize impacts.
A management measure is a feature that can be structural or non-structural that can be implemented at a specific geographic site to address one or more planning objectives.
† These criteria may not be fully evaluated at the initial stages of plan formulation in regards to evaluation of measures and preliminary alternatives, but are fully evaluated for the final array of alternatives.
15
Measures included in the final array along with a No Action alternative are evaluated in subsequent sections of the report. As shown in Table 3-3, all measures were carried forward with the exception of water conservation and various combinations of each individual measure.
Table 3-3: Analysis of Potential Measures
Structural or Screened or Carried No Measure Non-Structural Forward or Both 1 Construct New Single-Purpose Reservoir Structural Carried Forward 2 Development of Groundwater Structural Carried Forward 3 Water Storage from another existing reservoir Non-Structural Carried Forward 4 Buy Wholesale Non-Structural Carried Forward 5 Greers Ferry reallocation within conservation pool Structural Carried Forward 6 Greers Ferry Lake reallocation within flood pool Structural Carried Forward 7 Greers Ferry Lake reallocation within inactive pool Structural Carried Forward 8 Obtain water supply from local/river stream Structural Carried Forward 9 Water conservation Non-Structural Screened (See below) Screened (See below) 10 Combination of measures Both One Carried Forward
Water conservation was screened out of active formulation for several reasons. First, given relatively low per capita consumption rates in central Arkansas, any structural conservation measures such as installation of low flow fixtures in existing residences, or non-structural measures such as restrictions in outdoor landscape irrigation or education programs would not generate sufficient volumes of water to meet deficits. For the most part, conservation program are most effective in the more arid western half of the nation. Second, the water demand projections for MAWA member incorporate “passive water conservation” that refers to the fact that new home and building construction in the future must use low flow water conserving fixtures and appliances as required by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. These practices are expected to continue in the future without- and with-project condition, and the sponsor is encouraged to continue implementing conservation best practices.
With respect to combinations of individual measures, the study team determined that only some measures could be combined to form a complete and efficient alternatives. The study team evaluated numerous combinations of storage reallocations from the conservation, flood or inactive pools and other non-reallocation measures. Examples include:
. Conservation, flood, or inactive pool and water supply from local river or stream; . Conservation, flood, or inactive pool and wholesale; . Conservation, flood, or inactive pool and groundwater; . Conservation and flood pool combination; . Conservation and inactive pool combination; . Storage from another lake and groundwater; . Storage from another lake and wholesale; and
16
. Groundwater and wholesale.
After extensive discussion and evaluation, the study team found among all measures considered, either alone or in combination with one another that storage reallocation in Greers Ferry Lake was the least cost; least environmentally damaging and most practicable plan. Therefore, most alternatives involving combinations of measures were eliminated from further consideration with the exception of the combined flood and conservation pool storage reallocation.
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES –EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE FINAL ARRAY
Section 3.2.3 assesses preliminary alternatives based on their ability to provide adequate water supply to the requesting water entities over the period of analysis (2015 through 2065). Alternatives with the capacity to meet projected demands are assessed based on cost-effectiveness, technical viability, environmental acceptability, and impacts on other project purposes to determine if an alternative should carry forward for further evaluation. Planning guidance requires identification of the least cost alternative to reallocation for comparison purposes and to evaluate National Economic Development benefits. To do this, the study team relied on input from the 2014 Arkansas State Water Plan and the study sponsor (MAWA). Preliminary alternatives for evaluation include: . Alternative 1 (wholesale water purchases); . Alternative 2 (groundwater development); . Alternative 3 (construction of new reservoir by the study sponsor; this is the No Action or Future without Project Condition); . Alternative 4 (purchase storage from another reservoir); . Alternative 5 (reallocation of conservation pool at Greers Ferry); . Alternative 6 (reallocation of flood pool at Greers Ferry); . Alternative 7 (new surface water supplies from rivers and streams); . Alternative 8 (reallocation of the inactive pool at Greers Ferry); and, . Alternative 9 (combination of reallocation of conservation and flood pools at Greers Ferry).
Discussed below is the preliminary screening for this stage of the planning process. Screening is an ongoing process of eliminating alternatives based on planning criteria. Criteria derive from a specific planning study, based on the planning objectives, constraints, and problems and opportunities of a study area. The study team gathered information from study sponsors, the Greers Ferry project office and other state and federal agencies. The team then used this information along with professional judgment as a group to perform an initial screening using the four general criteria. The study team also initially quantitatively assessed all authorized purposes at Greers Ferry Lake in an attempt to evaluated potential “serious effects” to other authorized purposes using the following criteria: 1) Environmental impacts; 2) Dam safety impacts; 3) Recreational impacts; 4) Flood risk management impacts;
17
5) Hydropower impacts; 6) Probability of insufficient quantity of water; and 7) Order of magnitude costs.
As the study team began the evaluation, it became apparent that quantity of water and costs were going to screen out alternatives prior to addressing effects from other authorized purposes as indicated in Table 3-4. The team started with initially evaluating effectiveness, by analyzing if the plan could produce the quantity of water requested. The plan(s) which received a high (H) probability of insufficient quantity were screened. The plan(s) which could provide the quantity of water requested or needed further evaluation to determine if the quantity of water requested was available received a low (L) to moderate (M), respectively. These plans were carried forward. During this initial screening, plan/alternative nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 below were screened from further evaluation. Next, the PDT evaluated the efficiency, by evaluating the cost of the plan. Again, the plans were evaluated given a low (L), moderate (M) or high (H) cost rating. During this analysis, plan/alternative no. 4 was screened. Plan/Alternative No. 3 was given a high cost rating. However, this plan was the least cost/most likely plan without a federal project. Therefore, No. 3 became the Future without a Federal Project and was carried forward to be compared against all other alternatives for the selected plan. The other remaining plan/alternative carried forward for evaluation were nos. 5, 6 and 9. Each of these alternatives/plans are discussed in more detail below.
18
Table 3-4: Qualitative Screening of Initial Array of Alternatives
Flood Risk Probability of Environment Dam Safety Recreation Management Hydropower Insufficient Alternative Impacts Impacts Impacts (FRM) Impacts Impacts Quantity Cost
L L L L L H H Alternative 1 Buy wholesale
M n/a n/a n/a n/a H H Alternative 2 Groundwater
Alternative 3 Dam - New H M M H n/a L H Construction (FWOP)
Alternative 4 Buy Storage from H L L L M/H M H another Lake
L L L L M L L Alternative 5 Conservation Pool
M M H H M L L Alternative 6 Flood Pool
Alternative 7 Water Supply H n/a H n/a n/a H M from local river /stream
L L L L H H M Alternative 8 Inactive Pool Alternative 9 Combination CON/Flood L H M M M L M
19
Alternative 1: Wholesale Water Purchases
After reviewing the Arkansas Department of Health public water supplier database, and discussing with MAWA representatives, the study team was unable to locate a wholesale water purveyor within a reasonable distance that had surplus water. As result, this alternative was eliminated.
Alternative 2: New Groundwater Supplies
Groundwater in central Arkansas is drawn from two aquifer systems: the alluvial aquifer system and the Mississippi Embayment aquifer system. The alluvial system consists of the Arkansas River aquifer and the more extensive Mississippi River Valley aquifer. The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) has declared these aquifers at “critical groundwater levels” due to the dependable yield concerns relating to poor water quality and to saline intrusions consistent with declining groundwater levels. Similarly, according to the Arkansas State Water Plan (2014), approximately 71 percent of water demand in the state is supplied through groundwater. However, the plan reported that even with sustainable pumping rates, groundwater could only meet 20 percent of projected groundwater demands by 2050. Several MAWA members that use groundwater reported that they are experiencing difficulty in obtaining adequate groundwater from their existing wells. Therefore, alternatives using groundwater sources were eliminated from the analysis.
Alternative 3 Construct a New Single Purpose Reservoir by Water Users - (Future without Federal Project)
The No Action Plan is the absence of Federal measures undertaken to solve the water supply problem facing the Central Arkansas region. NEPA requires an evaluation of a No Action Plan, and alternatives considered must be evaluated using the No Action plan as a baseline. In early formulation, the Corps has not yet identified the No Action alternative and assumes that the entities do not have access to water. Through formulation of measures, the Corps identifies the most likely least cost non-Federal alternative, which becomes the No Action alternative. Per ER 1105-2-100, as long as the action alternative meets the test of financial feasibility against the most likely least cost non-federal alternative, it is implementable as the Federal Action. In the absence of Federal action in developing water supplies, the alternatives analysis assumes that the project sponsors would build a new reservoir with a yield of 60 mgd. This yield will provide the medium projected growth through 2070. In 2002, the Mid-Arkansas Regional Water Discussion Group also proposed a new reservoir, but shelved the idea due to high costs and severe environmental impacts. Although this alternative has high costs (the team’s qualitative analysis at this stage of the study showed the capital costs alone for a new regional reservoir to be approximately $500 million dollars which was indexed to 2016 dollars from SWL’s H&H and Cost Engineering divisions), requirements for multiple permits, and significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Even though this alternative has high cost and potential for significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts, this alternatives appears to be the least cost, most likely condition without a Federal project. Therefore, the team carried this alternative forward as the No action or Future without Project Plan (FWOP).
20
Alternative 4: Buy Storage from another Lake
The nine entities that make up MAWA are located north of the Arkansas River. As such, the study team researched available sources of surface water in north-central Arkansas that could potentially provide an amount of water equivalent to the requested 25,360 acre-feet of storage. Four options were identified: 1) Norfork Lake, 2) Bull Shoals Lake, 3) Beaver Lake, and 4) Table Rock Lake, all Corps of Engineers projects. Obtaining water from any of these lakes would be very costly, due to construction of the conveyances, pumps and connections necessary to distribute the water long distances over rugged, hilly terrain common to north and central Arkansas. Construction conveyance infrastructure also has the potential to significantly affect numerous environmental and cultural resources, including impacts to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat, impacts to native terrestrial and aquatic species in the path of the construction, and impacts to water quality (both surface and groundwater), among others. The study team determined that a reallocation from Norfork Lake, while expensive, would likely be the least-cost option, as it is closest to Greers Ferry Lake. Of the existing surface reservoir alternatives, Norfork Lake is the only viable alternative. However, Norfork Dam has some structural issues at the dam would need to be addressed prior to a reallocations study. Norfork Lake has ample capacity for water supply; however, the study sponsors are a considerable distance from the lake (approximately 90+ miles of conveyance), and conveying water would be expensive. Construction costs for a 60-inch pipeline in rural area runs about $400 per linear foot (roughly $2,000,000 mile per mile). This is only for the pipeline and does not include land acquisition, design, permitting, other infrastructure such as pump stations, storage tanks, intake stations etc. Total capital costs for the conveyance system (indexed to 2012 dollars) is $11.4 billion or $12M per mile of conveyance. As a result, this alternative was screened out from further analysis due to the distance, Norfolk’s DSAC rating, potential environmental impacts, and high financial costs.
Alternative 5: Conservation Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake
When the Corps reallocates storage from a conservation pool there is no net change in the yield of the pool. Storage is taken directly from hydropower thereby reducing both hydropower storage and yield. In 2015, SWL sent coordination letters to the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) that operates the power plant at Greers Ferry. In response, SWPA voiced concern that the economic impacts of the reallocation alternatives be properly evaluated. The size of the proposed storage reallocation is comparable to the previous reallocation at Greers Ferry for MAWA; and therefore, hydropower and capacity losses for the proposed reallocation should be similar to values computed for the previous MAWA study. SWPA is also concerned with environmental impacts and potential for high costs of replacement energy and capacity relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The Corps’ Hydraulic Analysis Center (HAC) provided a report detailing impacts associated with reallocating from hydropower including power benefits and revenues foregone, and SWL has updated cost of storage in accordance with Corps guidance. The team selected this alternative to carry forward for further evaluation, and subsequent sections of this report summarize Hydropower Analysis Center (HAC) findings and other economic measures. The study team continued stakeholder and agency coordination to comply with NEPA and Corps policies.
21
Alternative 6: Flood Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake
If storage is reallocated from the flood pool, storage and water levels in the conservation pool would increase, and the yield and storage relationships changes in the lake. Based on an analysis of the yield and storage curve for Greers Ferry, SWL hydrologists determined that a flood reallocation would raise water levels about 0.8 feet (approximately 9 to 10 inches) on average over the course of a year. During the summer when recreation and municipal water withdrawals are the greatest, the seasonal pool would increase by roughly an additional foot. When storage is taken from a flood pool, the amount of storage allocated to each existing water supply user must increase to maintain expected yields. This additional storage is called “dependable yield mitigation storage” (DYMS). Per Federal policy, hydropower is not compensated by DYMS. As a result, hydropower storage would remain constant; however, hydropower yields would decline and in the hydropower entity would receive a credit on the amount owed to the U.S. Treasury. When a water user(s) request(s) additional storage via reallocation from a flood pool, the Corps estimates the requested dependable yield and the DYMS for existing users. The cost of the DYMS for the existing users within the reservoir is the responsibility of the entity requesting additional storage. The team selected this alternative to carry forward for further evaluation, and conducted required economic and NEPA analysis. In addition, the team continued stakeholder and agency coordination to comply with NEPA and Corps policies, including coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure that any impacts to threatened or endangered species were evaluated.
Alternative 7: Local River or Stream Surface Water There are no streams in the study area capable of providing enough dependable yield for this purpose. The team evaluated potential water supply storage from the East Fork of the Little Red River, north of Greers Ferry Lake. However, there is only about 5.0 mgd available and it is not available for about 20 percent of the year during low flow conditions in the summer. Therefore, this alternative was screened from further analysis due to insufficient dependable yield.
Alternative 8: Inactive Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake Storage in Greers Ferry Lake for sediment is not quantified, but is listed as a project purpose of the inactive pool. The inactive pool contains 1,194,000 acre-feet of storage below elevation 435 feet-NGVD. The maximum probable drawdown is 410 feet-NVGD (also the lowest rated pool for turbine operation). This is sometimes referred to as dead pool, and has a storage volume of 686,000 acre-feet. Inactive pool storage reduces the emergency drought-contingency pool for the Corps, and reduces hydropower’s operating head, and incurs additional costs. As with a flood pool reallocation, when a water user(s) request(s) additional storage via reallocation from the inactive pool, the Corps estimates the requested dependable yield and the DYMS for existing users. The cost of the DYMS for the existing users within the reservoir is the responsibility of the entity requesting additional storage. As we discussed above, SWL sent coordination letters to SWPA. In response, SWPA requested deleting any consideration of inactive storage from the Draft Report and eliminating inactive storage as an
22
alternative from all future storage reallocation studies. In addition, the inactive pool is the Corps emergency mission in drought conditions. Therefore due to cost, DYMS and other impacts, this alternative was screened from further analysis.
Alternative 9: Combined Reall0ocation of Conservation Pool and Flood Pool from Greers Ferry After the initial screening of alternatives, the team determined that the only viable combined alternative was a combination of reallocation from the conservation pool and flood pool at Greers Ferry Lake. This alternative carried forward for further evaluation.
FINAL REALLOCATION ALTERNATIVES TO EVALUATE IN DETAIL
After the initial qualitative analysis, the alternatives remaining as the final array include: . Alternative 3 (No Federal Action Plan – Construct a new single purpose reservoir by water users) . Alternative 5 (Conservation Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake) . Alternative 6 (Flood Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake) . Alternative 9 (Combination Reallocation within the Conservation Pool and Flood Pool from Greers Ferry Lake)
EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES
The study team evaluated and compared the final array of alternatives, concurrently with the serious effects analysis and cumulative discretionary water supply storage effects on other authorized purposes at Greers Ferry Lake associated with the final array of alternatives.
Alterative 3: No Federal Action (Future without Federal Project)
In the absence of Federal action in developing water supplies, the alternatives analysis assumes that the designated water users (requesters) would build a new reservoir providing a yield of 60 mgd to meet long- term needs.
Alternative 5: Conservation Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake
Reallocating storage from the conservation pool does not change the overall yield of the pool. Water storage in this case, transfers from hydropower to water supply causes a reduction in hydropower yield and increases water supply yield. The reallocation from the conservation pool as a sole source would yield approximately 25,360 acre-feet of storage, which is the amount of additional water supply immediately needed by MAWA.
23
Alternative 6: Flood Pool Reallocation from Greers Ferry Lake
Reallocating storage from the flood pool increases the conservation pool by the amount of acre-feet of the reallocation from the flood pool and the yield/storage relationship changes. This occurs because a flood pool reallocation requires raising the conservation pool into the flood pool. The reallocation from the flood pool as a sole source is approximately 26,702 acre-feet of storage. SWL hydrologists determined that a flood reallocation would raise water levels about 0.8 feet (approximately 9 to 10 inches) on average over the course of a year. During the summer when recreation and municipal water withdrawals are the greatest, the seasonal pool would increase by roughly two feet.
Alternative 9: Combined Reallocation within Conservation Pool and Flood Pool from Greers Ferry Lake
Reallocating storage from the combined conservation pool and flood pool would increase storage in the conservation pool by raising the elevation of the conservation pool into the flood pool thereby changing the elevation of the lake and the yield storage relationship within the reservoir. Given SMART Planning principles, the team used professional judgment and existing data to understand that the impacts from the releases would increase life loss; have adverse impacts to recreation; and require acquisition of additional lands around the Greers Ferry project. This occurs with any combination used with conservation and flood pools at Greers Ferry. The study evaluated both a 50 to 50 percent and 75 to 25 percent conservation/flood combination and found that impacts were similar to that of the sole source reallocation from the flood pool due to these known impacts (described in further detail in Sections 3.3.4 through 3.3.6). In addition, any combination from the flood pool would include dependable yield mitigation storage (DYMS) which would only increase financial costs for the study sponsor due to additional acre- feet of storage needed. Therefore, the team screened this alternative during the analysis and prior to reaching the final array.
DERIVATION OF USER COST
HYDROPOWER BENEFITS FOREGONE
The Corps’ Hydropower Analysis Center (HAC) estimated impacts to the hydropower project purpose for this report. Monetary figures are expressed at an estimated October, 2015 (FY2016) price level. Price levels will be updated to 2018 before finalization of the report to determine appropriate hydropower credits. Some prices, such as annual wholesale generation prices in the Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook forecasts, are based on a calendar year price level rather than fiscal year. Because the fiscal year overlaps three-quarters of the calendar year, these prices are used as if fiscal year prices, without adjustment. Costs and benefits occurring at different points in time are converted to an average annual equivalent basis over a 50-year period of analysis using the federal discount rate prescribed for water resources projects (currently at the time of analysis as 3.125 percent). Appendix E contains the full HAC analysis. Hydropower benefits are based on the cost of the most likely alternative source of power. When conservation storage is reallocated for water supply, the usual assumption is that the lost hydropower will be replaced with power generated from thermal sources. Power benefits foregone can be divided into two
24
components, energy benefits foregone and capacity benefits foregone. Energy benefits foregone are based on the loss in generation (both at-site and downstream) as a result of water being diverted from the reservoir for water supply rather than passing through the hydropower plant. In addition, there could be a loss of capacity benefits as a result of a loss in dependable capacity at the project. Energy benefits foregone are computed by multiplying expected annual losses in megawatt-hours (MWh) of super-peak, peak and off-peak generation by the average annual prices of super-peak, peak and off- peak energy in dollars per megawatt-hour ($ per MWh) over the period of analysis. Energy prices are based on the marginal cost of energy from a combination of thermal generating plants that would replace the energy lost from hydropower generation. For each month of the year, the present value of forecast energy prices (values) over the 50-year period of analysis is amortized to produce annualized monthly prices. Energy benefits foregone are computed by condition: for each condition; annualized monthly energy price and the energy loss due to water withdrawal are multiplied together. Capacity benefits foregone are the product of the composite fixed cost of the most likely mix of replacement thermal power plants and the loss of dependable capacity. Capacity benefits foregone are computed by determining a composite cost per MW representing the annualized fixed cost of the combination of thermal power plants most likely to replace the power lost to the White River system as a result of the reallocation conditions. Next, the loss of dependable capacity for each condition is calculated using the average availability method. Loss of dependable capacity can be a result of: 1) loss in head due to lower post-withdrawal reservoir elevations, or 2) inadequate water to support full capacity during low-flow periods (i.e., low-flow periods that reduce the amount of water that can be passed through the generators). Benefits foregone are computed for two conditions; 1) reallocation from the conservation pool at Greers Ferry Lake; and 2) reallocation from the flood pool at Greers Ferry Lake by calculating how generation would change when compared to the current conditions at Greers Ferry Lake (Table 3-5). Average monthly electricity prices during each peaking period (i.e., super peak, peak, weekday off-peak and weekend off- peak) were multiplied by these differences for the two conditions to obtain foregone energy benefits. Losses are expressed as negative numbers and increases in generation are presented as positive numbers.
Table 3-5: Cumulative Hydropower Benefits Foregone for White River System
Total Capacity Hydropower Energy Loss Energy Benefits Capacity Benefits Benefits Alternative (MWh) Foregone Loss (MW) Foregone Foregone Base Case ------Current Condition -3,807.5 -$136,974 -0.68 -$62,886 -$ 199,860 Conservation Pool -7,147.5 -$253,615 -1.33 -$122,998 -$376,613 Flood Pool -6,696.3 -$238,409 -1.30 -$120,224 -$358,633 *MWh = Megawatt hours. Source. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydropower Analysis Center.
25
To calculate the hydropower benefits foregone for this water supply storage reallocation, the net difference between the hydropower benefits foregone for each alternative minus the current condition equals the total hydropower benefits foregone for this reallocation study. Therefore, hydropower benefits foregone for reallocation from the conservation pool is $176,753 and reallocation from the flood pool is $158,773.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER REVENUES FOREGONE
Hydropower revenues foregone are on current SWPA contract rates for the White River projects and include the firm energy, supplemental energy, and excess energy rate of $9.40 per MWh and the power purchase addition of $5.90 MWh for a total energy rate of $15.30 per MWh. In addition, the following are included:
. Monthly capacity charge of $4,500 per MW, . Monthly regulation and frequency response of $70 per MW, . Monthly spinning operating reserve: $14.6 per MW, . Monthly supplemental operating reserve of $14.6 per MW; and, . Annual capacity rate total: $55,190.4 per MW per year.
To compute energy revenues foregone, the contract peaking energy rate is applied to the average annual on-peak contract energy losses, and the supplemental peaking energy rate is applied to on-peak non- contract energy losses and off-peak energy losses. Supportable capacity in the critical year of 1954, which is used in the revenue foregone calculation, was unaffected by any of the reallocation conditions, so there is no capacity revenue foregone. Table 3-6 presents power revenues foregone for each of the alternatives.
Table 3-6: Hydropower Revenues Foregone Current Condition
Energy (MWh) or Power Revenue SWPA Power Sales Rate Categories Capacity Loss (MW) SWPA Current Rates Foregone On-Peak Energy (contract) -889.79 $15.30 MWh -$13,614 On-Peak Energy (non-contract) -2,893.96 $15.30 MWh -$44,278 Off-Peak Energy -23.70 $15.30 MWh -$363 Capacity (critical year 1954) - $54,350.40/MW-yr - Total Power Revenue Foregone - - -$58,255
*MWh = Megawatt hours. Source. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydropower Analysis Center.
26
Table 3-7: Cumulative Revenue Foregone for Reallocation from Conservation Pool Alternative
Energy (MWh) or SWPA Power Sales Rate Categories Capacity Loss (MW) SWPA Current Rates Power Revenue Foregone On-Peak Energy (contract) -1,609.50 $15.30 MWh -$24,625 On-Peak Energy (non-contract) -4,687.16 $15.30 MWh -$71,714 Off-Peak Energy -850.85 $15.30 MWh -$13,018 Capacity (critical year 1954) - $54,350.40/MW-yr - Total Power Revenue Foregone - - -$109,357
*MWh = Megawatt hours. Source. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydropower Analysis Center.
Table 3-8: Cumulative Revenue Foregone for Reallocation from Flood Pool Alternative
Energy (MWh) or Power Revenue SWPA Power Sales Rate Categories Capacity Loss (MW) SWPA Current Rates Foregone On-Peak Energy (contract) -1,585.92 $15.30 MWh -$24,265 On-Peak Energy (non-contract) -4,270.61 $15.30 MWh -$65,340 Off-Peak Energy -839.77 $15.30 MWh -$12,848 Capacity (critical year 1954) - $54,350.40/MW-yr - Total Power Revenue Foregone - - -$102,453
*MWh = Megawatt hours. Source. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydropower Analysis Center.
The cumulative effects for hydropower revenue foregone from reallocation within the conservation pool is $109,357 and within the flood pool is $102,453 on the White River System. The net difference in hydropower revenues foregone for each alternative minus the revenues foregone current condition equals the revenues foregone for this reallocation. Therefore, the hydropower revenues foregone for reallocation from the conservation pool is $ 51,102 and reallocation from the flood pool is $ 44,198 (Table 3-9).
Table 3-9: Revenue Foregone for this Reallocation
Current Condition Total Power Revenue Cumulative Power Power Revenue Foregone for this Alternative Revenue Foregone Foregone Reallocation
Conservation Pool Alternative -$ 109,357 -$ 58,255 -$ 51,102
Flood Pool Alternative -$ 102,453 -$ 58,255 -$ 44,198
27
HYDROELECTRIC POWER REPLACEMENT COST
In the case of hydroelectric power, energy benefits foregone are based on the costs of the equivalent costs of thermal generating energy, the replacement costs of power are identical to energy benefits foregone and do not require separate calculation.
REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Since surface water elevations would not change due to a reallocation from the conservation pool, there would be no impacts to real estate with the conservation pool alternative. However, with a flood pool reallocation, the water elevation would increase 8/10 of a foot along with an additional one foot of seasonal pool rise from May to October every year. Therefore, the team evaluated GIS maps (see Attachment 2 to Appendix A) and determined the real estate effects associated with a flood pool reallocation. A reallocation from the flood pool would result in acquisition of approximately 5.63 acres or 120 tracts of land. This would be associated with the raise of the conservation pool from the current elevation of 462.04 feet to the elevation 462.84 feet. The total cost of 120 tracts of land at an estimated $130,000 per tract of land along with legal and title costs is approximately $2,635,000 or $99,000 annualized (Table 3-10).
Table 3-10: Real Estate Economic Impact Summary
Item Cost
Land Acquisition $735,000
Legal, Title and Other Administrative Costs $1,460,000
Contingency (20 percent) $440,000
Total Cost $2,635,000
Annualized Cost $105,000
* Annualized using a 3.125 percent discount rate over 50 years for consistency with hydropower benefits.
FORGONE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT BENEFITS
The project team evaluated effects and estimated the economic impacts as they relate to flood risk management and a flood pool reallocation. Section 3.3.5 discusses potential increases in risks of flood damages to downstream communities, and presents potential monetary damages of increased flooding estimated using the Corps Flood Inundation Analysis (FlA) model. Lastly, this section briefly discusses potential impacts to life safety in downstream reaches.
If storage volume in the lake’s flood pool declines, flood risks to downstream reaches would increase during non-breach conditions. Table 3-11 shows differences in general flood frequency between current conditions and a scenario where storage was reallocated from the flood pool to the conservation pool.
28
Figures were generated using period of record data from Riverware simulation software. As shown, the largest difference occurs at the 0.2 percent annual chance of exceedance (ACE) or 1 in 500 year event. This result makes sense given that pool elevations typically only produce large surcharge releases under the most adverse conditions (i.e., during low probability events). Differences at other ACE levels may be justified by the pool allowing more storage volume at conservation elevation, hence delaying the peak flood pool release of near 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Difference such as these are most noticeable in the 50 percent to 0.5 percent ACE (1 in 2 years to the 1 in 100 year range), or when there are small releases from the pool. The maximum difference in the above results was less than 3 percent for the 50 percent ACE event. Based on a non-breach economic consequence analysis, increases in damages were limited to the 0.2 percent ACE event. The proposed flood pool reallocation results in the inundation of an additional 1,136 acres of land and 19 structures, and would result in damages estimated at $150,170. Additional details are present in the Hydrology and Hydraulics appendix to this report.
Table 3-11: General Frequency Results
Annual Chance of Flood Pool Current Exceedance (percent) Reallocation (DSF)* Conditions (DSF) Difference (DSF) 0.2 29,519 29,267 252.0 0.5 20,440 20,419 21.7 1 15,058 15,126 -68.3 2 10,756 10,864 -107.9 5 6,463 6,573 -110.3 10 4,090 4,180 -90.2 20 2,336 2,398 -61.8 50 785 808 -23.4 80 257 264 -6.8 90 142 145 -3.1 95 87 88 -1.4 99 34 34 -0.1
* DSF = Day second feet and is the volume of water represented by a flow of 1 cubic foot per second for 24 hours (86,400 cubic feet)
Reallocation of storage from the flood pool would increase downstream flood impacts. To estimate the extent of these impacts, the project team used the USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Flood Impact Analysis software (HEC-FIA) to estimate damages to structures, contents, vehicles, and agriculture associated with a 500 year current and proposed events. SWL H&H developed depths grids for each of event and processed the events using HEC-FIA. Unlike the USACE’s Flood Damage Analysis software (HEC-FDA), FIA is event driven and does not perform probabilistic calculations. As a result, uncertainty in the level of impacts is not included when estimating forgone flood risk management benefits for this study.
29
The 2010 National Structure Inventory (NSI) served as the structure inventory, and includes the spatial location of residential, commercial, religious, education, government, agricultural and industrial buildings along with structural and economic data for building. The project team randomly sampled structures using Google Earth to ensure the accuracy of structural foundation height in the NSI dataset. Crop coverage data for year 2016 is from the United States Department Agricultural, and harvest costs are based on Enterprise Crop Budgets from the University of Arkansas Extension Service.
When computing property damages, HEC-FIA assigns each structure a ground elevation based on its location within a digital terrain model, and flooding is computed from depth grids for each flood event. Like HEC-FDA, structures in HEC-FIA have depth-damage functions based on factors including structure type, number of floors, and the presence or absence of a basement. Flood elevations are determined for each structure by comparing corresponding points on depth grids and terrain model. These elevations then indicate, via depth-damage relationships, percentages of replacement value lost due to flood events. Table below 3-12 summarizes damage estimates generated using HEC-FIA.
Table 3-12: Flood Risk Management Impacts
Agriculture Current Property Damage Total Damage
500-Year existing conditions $50,600,000 $7,900,000 $58,500,000
500-Year with reallocation from flood pool $52,350,000 $8,050,000 $60,400,000
Incremental damages - - $1,900,000
Annualized cost (weighted by ACE) - - $6,000
* Annualized using a 3.125 percent discount rate over 50 years for consistency with hydropower benefits.
Increased discharges from the lake could raise risks to downstream communities. Specifically, the project team determined that releases from the lake at levels equal to or greater than 10,500 cubic feet per second would inundate the only bridge connected to Rainbow Island, and as a result, residents on the island could only evacuate by boat, which would significantly increases the risk of life loss during a flood.
FORGONE RECREATION BENEFITS
Reallocating reservoir storage to the conservation pool from flood storage would increase the surface water elevation of the lake. Based on an analysis of the yield and storage curve for Greers Ferry, SWL hydrologists determined that a flood reallocation would raise water levels about 0.8 feet (approximately 9 to 10 inches) on average over the course of a year. During the summer when recreation and municipal water withdrawals are the greatest, the seasonal pool (May through October) would increase by roughly 2 feet with a flood pool reallocation. This increase in water would have negative effects on some of the lakes shoreline recreational sties; and the project team, quantified these impacts and include them when evaluation alternatives. For example, higher water levels could close boat ramps or flood recreation
30
access roads and or trails thereby increasing demands and congestion at other sites, or beach areas would be smaller and less accessible.
Forgone recreation benefits were estimated using several data sources including Unit Day Value estimates of recreation benefits developed by the USACE Institute for Water Resources, shoreline inundation maps developed by SWL GIS staff along with project team hydrologists, and lastly significant input from project office staff at Greers Ferry Lake such as park managers and rangers. Based on the analysis conducted, the study team concluded that although, it is unlikely that overall visitation levels at each site would decline with seasonal increases in lake elevations, the quality of recreation services would likely suffer due to factors such as increased congestion, and fewer accessible amenities. In total, annual recreation benefits would decline by an estimated $586,860. Appendix A contains a detailed explanation of the methods and results.
3.5 ECONOMIC ACCOUNTS: ANALYSIS AND SCREENING OF FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES
National Economic Development (NED) costs include both financial costs to implement, maintain, and operate each alternative, and forgone economic benefits of implementing an alternative. NED financial costs include project capital costs including real estate, and operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitations and replacement (OMRR&R) costs. Forgone benefits in this case consist of hydropower, flood risk management, and recreation benefits. NED used in comparing s final alternatives are based on FY 2016 price levels and interest rate; however, the team will update the NED account to reflect FY 2018 price levels and interest rates prior to report finalization. As shown in Table 3-13, the alternative that minimizes forgone NED costs is Alternative 5 (reallocate storage from conservation pool). Table 3-14 summarizes evaluation of alternatives using NED criteria along with criteria from other accounts including Environmental Quality, Regional Economic Development Benefits, Other Social Effects and Corps planning feasibility criteria (i.e., acceptability, completeness, effectiveness and efficiency).
31
Table 3-13: National Economic Development Costs for Final Array of Alternatives Analysis(1)
Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 3 (conservation (flood pool Cost or Forgone Benefit (2) (FWOP) pool reallocation) reallocation) Energy benefits forgone $0 $117,000 $101,000 Capacity benefits forgone $0 $60,000 $ 57,000 Revenue forgone $0 $51,000 $44,000 Real estate $0 $0 $105,000 Recreation $0 $0 $587,000 Flood risk management $0 $0 $6,000 Capital costs (annualized) $14.0 M $ 285,000 $ 274,000 OMRR&R Costs (3) (annualized) $ 1.0M $ 2.5 M $ 2.5M Total $15.0 M $ 2.75M $ 3.6 M
1. The NED cost includes costs required to implement the alternatives, and includes only costs of reallocated storage and includes OMRR&R costs annually. 2. Figures annualized at 3.125% at 50 years was utilized in calculating impacts, so that the calculations would match those performed by HAC in the hydropower impact analysis. 3. Figures annualized at 3.125% at 50 years was utilized in calculating impacts, so that the calculations would match those performed by HAC in the hydropower impact analysis.
32
Table 3-14: System of Accounts Analysis and Screening of Final Array of Alternatives`
Alterative 3 – No Federal Action Construction of New Dam and Alternative 5 Conservation Alternative. 6 Flood Pool Criteria Reservoir Pool Reallocation Reallocation National Economic Development Account
Approx. $16.5 M (NED cost Approx. $ 3.75 M (NED cost includes cost of reallocated Approx. $ 2.75 M (NED cost includes cost of reallocated storage, storage, not including includes cost of reallocated plus impacts and DYMS) Annual Cost* transmission and treatment) storage)
Annual NED Cost $14M $ 227,000 $235,000
Annual OMRR&R Costs $1.0 M $ 2.5 M $ 2.5 M $ 230,000 $ 974,000 (Hydropower & other Forgone benefits $Unknown (Hydropower) purposes) Regional Economic Development Account
Significant Cost to the Water Regional Costs Users No significant regional costs No significant regional costs Short term employment for building another reservoir; Storage creates yield, yield provides water for households, businesses, Regional Benefits industries. No significant regional benefits No significant regional benefits Environmental Quality Account
Significant and permanent Land Use impacts. No Effect No Effect
Potential exists for erosion or inundation of Prime Farmlands. Permanent and temporary soil disturbance would occur; Surface mines could be impacted. Magnitude impossible to evaluate without specific area identified for Geologic Resources new reservoir. No Effect No Effect
Permanent increase in surface water available for water supply; Positive effects to future Positive effects to future No change in water quality of groundwater levels possible with groundwater levels possible with Water Resources Greers Ferry Lake water; less use from municipalities. less use from municipalities.
33
Table 3-14: System of Accounts Analysis and Screening of Final Array of Alternatives`
Alterative 3 – No Federal Action Construction of New Dam and Alternative 5 Conservation Alternative. 6 Flood Pool Criteria Reservoir Pool Reallocation Reallocation temporary and insignificant adverse Benefits would be significant and Benefits would be significant and impacts to water quality may occur long-term. long-term. during reservoir construction; permanent changes in water quality downstream of reservoir – moderate intensity; No or insignificant adverse impacts to groundwater. Positive effects to future groundwater levels possible with less use from municipalities.
Potential exists for significant and permanent adverse impacts to biological resources (loss of forested habitat and displacement of associated wildlife species; loss of stream habitat and species) Biological Resources from new reservoir construction. No Effect No Effect
Threatened and Endangered Species / State listed Species of Conservation Concern.
Potential exists for significant No effect to aquatic T&E species impacts to Threatened and and critical habitat; Likely no effect Endangered species and State to karst habitat, but further FWS Species of Conservation Concern consultation would be required. from new reservoir construction. Specific impacts cannot be No effect to State Species of determined until location selected. No Effect Conservation Concern.
Potential exists for constructed related impacts. Existing waste No Effect on HTRW, and would Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive cannot be evaluated without not result in the production of No Effect on HTRW, and would not Waste knowing new reservoir location. HTRW. result in the production of HTRW.
Potential adverse effects due to water surface elevation rise and Potential major impacts, dependent resultant bank erosion at higher Cultural Resources on new reservoir location. No Effect elevations.
Possible minor (insignificant) increases in pollutants if lost Possible minor (insignificant) Minor, short term impacts energy production from increases in pollutants if lost energy associated with new reservoir hydropower is replaced by coal production from hydropower is Air Quality construction. or gas fired plants. replaced by coal or gas fired plants.
34
Table 3-14: System of Accounts Analysis and Screening of Final Array of Alternatives`
Alterative 3 – No Federal Action Construction of New Dam and Alternative 5 Conservation Alternative. 6 Flood Pool Criteria Reservoir Pool Reallocation Reallocation
Climate and Climate Change Possible minor effects Possible minor effects Possible minor effects
Minor increase in noise from heavy equipment associated with new Noise reservoir construction. No effect. No effect.
This alternative would have an Prime and Unique unknown impact on prime and This alternative is expected to This alternative is expected to Farmlands unique farmlands. have no negative impacts. have no negative Impacts.
Other Social Effects Account
Negative impacts to landowners at new reservoir site; loss of property taxes; new job creation; new Socioeconomic Resources recreational opportunities Lost hydropower revenue Lost hydropower revenue
Environmental Justice No Change No Effect No Effect
USACE Criteria
Acceptable in regards to Acceptable in regards to Acceptable in regards to Federal laws, regulations, and Federal laws, regulations, and Federal laws, regulations, and Acceptability guidelines guidelines guidelines Provides a complete solution to Provides a complete Provides an incomplete solution to Completeness the identified problem solution to the identified problem the identified problem Provides a less certain solution to Provides an effective solution to Provides a less certain solution to Effectiveness the identified problem the identified problem the identified problem Provides an efficient use of This alternative provides a less Provides a less efficient use of Federal and non-Federal efficient use of non-Federal non-Federal resources, while also resources, while providing a resources, while also providing a providing a less cost-effective cost-effective less cost-effective Efficiency solution to the identified problem solution to the identified problem solution to the identified problem
In accordance with ER 1105-2-100, paragraph 3-8.b(5)(a), the cost of reallocation storage will normally be established as the highest of the benefits or revenues foregone, the replacement cost, or the updated cost of storage in the Federal project. Error! Reference source not found.5 below lists these costs. Therefore, the users will be charged updated cost of storage.
35
Table 3-15: Costs Allocated to Storage
Item Amount ($) Hydropower Benefits Foregone (1) $ 177,000
Hydropower Revenues Foregone $ 51,000
Replacement Cost $ 177,000
Updated Cost of Storage (2) $ 275,000
1. The Energy Foregone is $116,641 and the Capacity Foregone is $ 60,112. Therefore, the hydropower benefits foregone are $176,753 or rounded to $177,000.
2. Figures calculated using interest rate of 3.125% at 50 years for calculating impacts, and thus updated cost of storage for impacts in this section will differ from updated cost of storage for users cost in the next section given the user payments costs are estimated using a 30 year period at a different rate (see: Economic Guidance Memo, EGM 17-01 Federal Interest rate).
3.6 SELECTED PLAN
The selected plan is Alternative 5 (reallocation from the conservation pool), which would not change water levels on the lake; and therefore, would not affect most authorized purposes of the project (i.e., flood risk management, recreation, real estate or fish and wildlife.) Alternative 5 would adversely impact hydropower generation, as would Alternative 6 (flood pool reallocation). Alternative 5 would reduce annualized hydropower benefits by about $177,000, and Alternative 6 would reduce hydropower benefits by nearly $158,000 per annum. While Alternative 6 would affect hydropower less than Alternative 5, the combined impacts of Alternative 6 are greater ($770,000 annually), because the increased lake surface elevation and reduced flood storage would impact recreation, real estate, flood risk, and dam safety risk levels. Impacts of the No Federal Action or Future without Project Condition has the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts and the financial costs of constructing a new reservoir far exceed ether reallocation alternative. The selected plan would require MAWA to pay updated cost of storage on an annual basis, which is more economical from a quantitative and qualitative standpoint when compared to other alternatives. Unlike constructing a new reservoir (i.e., Future without Project Condition) and reallocating storage from the flood pool, the selected plan is the least cost approach from both an economic and environmental perspective.
36
3.7 EVALUATION OF SERIOUS EFFECTS ON OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES AT GREERS FERRY LAKE
The study team concurrently evaluated whether there were serious effects to other authorized project purposes due to both potential water supply storage reallocations discussed in this study, and previous cumulative discretionary water supply storage reallocations at Greers Ferry Lake. This evaluation complies with the Water Supply Act of 1958, which requires U.S. Congressional approval if a reallocation would seriously affect other authorized project purposes.
Policy and Procedures
The August 30, 2007 Memorandum for Water Supply Reallocation Policy by Thomas Waters, Chief, Policy and Policy Compliance Division, Directorate of Civil Works, states that “Congressional approval is required ONLY when authorized project purposes are severely impacted”. This means that recommended reallocations of less than the 15 percent of total storage capacity or 50,000 acre feet could result in the need for congressional authorization. Any recommendation for reallocations above 15 percent of total storage capacity or 50,000 acre-feet may be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as long as authorized project purposes are not severely impacted. The determination of severely impacted is based on project specific criteria.
In 2009, USACE Chief Counsel prepared a legal opinion regarding authority to reallocate storage for Municipal & Industrial Water Supply under the Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. § 390b. Memorandum for the Chief of Engineers, Subject: Authority to Reallocate Storage for Municipal & Industrial Water Supply under the Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. § 390b, Earl H. Stockdale, Chief Counsel, 9 January 2009. An excerpt from that Chief Counsel’s legal opinion reads as follows:
“In modifying a project to include water supply, the Corps must respect the intent of Congress as expressed in the project authorization and associated project documents referred to in law, as well as in the WSA [Water Supply Act]. This requires establishing whether and to what extent Congress intended, at the time of project authorization, for the project to provide for water supply needs. Where a project as originally authorized provided in some way for water supply needs, the Corps must construct and operate the project in accordance with Congressional intent, and the WSA provides a separate authority to make modifications for additional levels of waters supply that were not envisioned in the project authorization. A narrow reading of § 301(d) that would interpret the phrases “seriously affect [project] purposes” or “major structural or operational change” to preclude any accommodation of water supply needs beyond what Congress envisioned under the project authorization is not tenable given the structure, language, and purpose of the WSA” (Chief Counsel’s Memorandum p. 12).
37
The Chief Counsel also wrote a memorandum on the same subject matter in 2012, (Memorandum for the Chief of Engineers, Subject: Authority to Provide for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply from the Buford Dam/Lake Lanier Project, Georgia, Earl H. Stockdale, Chief Counsel, 25 June 2012.) where on page 37 he states as follows:
“Regardless of how the amount of storage is calculated, the amount or percent of storage contracted for under the Water Supply Act is not determinative of whether a proposed action will result in major structural or operational change or seriously affect authorized purposes.”
In the footnote following this statement, the Chief Counsel explains:
“In section 301(d) of the Water Supply Act, the provision in which Congress set forth limitations on the Corps’ authority under the Water Supply Act, Congress chose not to specify any number in connection with those limits. Percentages of costs and benefits associated with Corps reservoir projects are relevant under certain statutory and regulatory provisions, but these provisions are different from, and may not be correlated with, the percent of storage needed to accommodate a particular water supply request.”
It is evident from the excerpts above that the Chief Counsel repeatedly emphasizes the importance of using Congressional intent at the time of project authorization as the baseline in determining whether a particular water supply storage reallocation is permitted by the Water Supply Act of 1958. The Chief Counsel also emphasizes the importance of not creating any number and percentage-based thresholds in making such determinations due to the fact that Congress itself chose not to do so in the 1958 Water Supply Act. With regard to the current reallocations, it is once again important to note that the Chief of Engineers put Congress on notice of water supply storage being an actual and potential purpose for Greers Ferry reservoir that Congress specifically authorized subsequent water supply storage reallocations, and that Congress did not set any numeric limitations on water supply storage reallocations for the reservoir.
Conclusion
The selected plan would be to reallocate storage in the conservation pool from the flood pool (Alternative 3), and the Corps has concluded that reallocating an additional 25,360 acre-feet of storage would not have serious effects to hydropower. Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) would have to make up for lost generation for approximately two days per year due to reduced storage in the flood pool. Taking into account cumulative discretionary reallocations that occurred in the past along with this current reallocation, the result would be an estimated 4.4 percent decrease in energy; and although, SWPA revenues would decline slightly, SWPA would receive $357,000 in credits to the U.S. Treasury to offset lost revenues if the reallocation comes from the conservation pool. The full analysis regarding serious effects to the hydropower purpose is in Appendix E.
38
3.8 UPDATED COST OF STORAGE
The project team updated original costs of reservoir construction as presented in the: “Greers Ferry Project Final Cost Allocation Report” published in November of 1964 shortly after project construction. Original cost at construction midpoint in 1962 were converted to present FY1967 using the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost indices, and from F71967 to current FY2017 price levels using the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS). Land damages were updated using the composite CWCCIS (Table 3-16). While Table 3-16 displays the total updated cost of storage for the Greers Ferry project as a whole, Table 3-17 shows the updated cost of storage for the portion of project storage under consideration for reallocation. Total cost to users of the recommended reallocation would be $5,900,642 or $234,804 annually over a 50-year repayment period at 3.125 percent, excluding OMRR&R costs of $38,879 annually. This is based on the updated cost of storage for the entire project ($518,664,325), multiplied by the percentage of storage reallocated from hydropower to water supply (1.6 percent) as a percent of total usable storage for the project (1,650,500 total acre-feet of usable storage). Note that the cost of reallocated storage to the customer is estimated to total $5,900,642 unadjusted for inflation in future out-years, including annual OMRR&R expenses.
39
Table 3-16: Updated Cost of Storage
Project Original cost Construction CWCCIS Index CWCCIS Index FY2017 Project Item purpose (1964) mid-point ENR Index 1967 a 1967 b 2017 costs Land and Damages Recreation Recreation $79,500 1967 1078 100 829.89 $873,607 Other Joint $3,857,400 1967 1078 100 829.89 $42,413,698 Relocations Replacement-in-kind Flood $0 1967 1078 100 851.79 $0 Other Joint $6,470,400 1967 1078 100 851.79 $74,545,947 Reservoir Recreation Recreation $732,000 1967 1078 100 954.52 $9,450,347 Water Supply Water Supply $0 1967 1078 100 954.52 $0 Other Joint $540,800 1967 1078 100 954.52 $6,981,471 Dam and Spillway Main Dam Joint $19,691,000 1967 1078 100 834.37 $222,221,898 Power Intake Works Power $1,043,500 1967 1078 100 834.37 $11,776,840 Auxiliary Dams Joint $2,029,700 1967 1078 100 834.37 $22,905,942 Fish and Wildlife Flood $18,900 1967 1078 100 817.93 $208,822 Power plant Power $10,079,500 1967 1078 100 761.52 $103,820,339 Roads Joint $60,600 1967 1078 100 851.79 $698,797 Recreational Facilities Recreation $1,590,000 1967 1078 100 802.86 $17,265,705 Buildings $0 Recreation Recreation $249,200 1967 1078 100 802.86 $2,705,714 Other Joint $82,300 1967 1078 100 802.86 $893,663 Equipment Recreation Recreation $87,000 1967 1078 100 802.86 $944,292 Other Joint $88,200 1967 1078 100 802.86 $957,243 Joint Cost Total $388,008,064 Total $46,700,000 $518,664,325
A: Engineering News Record price indices maintained by the Corps Little Rock District. B: CWCCIS indices are taken form the Engineer Manual 1110-2-1304.
40
Error! Reference source not found.Table 3-17: Annual Cost of Storage for Alternatives Analysis*
Parameter Cost ($FY16)
Total storage required (acre-feet) 25,360 Water supply yield (mgd) 20.75 Interest rate 3.125% Repayment period 50 Top of flood control pool 2,844,500 Top of conservation pool 1,943,300 Top of inactive pool 1,194,000 Flood control storage 901,200 Conservation Storage 745,900 Inactive storage 1,194,000 Usable Storage 1,647,100 Storage required as percent of useable storage 1.5% Joint use project cost $388,008,064 Annual O&M $2,448,564 Total cost of storage (capital) $5,974,066 Total Annual cost of storage (O&M) $37,700 Annual cost of storage (capital) $237,726 Total annual cost $275,426
* Figures annualized at 3.125 percent at 50 years so that calculations are consistent with those developed by HAC in the hydropower impact analysis.
41
3.9 USER COSTS
Costs allocated to storage is set to the highest of benefits foregone, revenues foregone, replacement costs, or updated cost of storage. Therefore, the users will be charged the updated cost of storage. However given that these costs are similar, when costs are updated in the final report to FY18 prices and interest, the highest could be either benefits foregone or updated cost of storage. This will not have an effect on the plan selection, just the cost of the storage paid by the sponsor. The total annual financial payment cost to the users for the recommended reallocation would be $320,798 at an interest rate of 2.50 percent over 30 years (Table 3-18).
Table 3-18: Updated Cost of Storage for Mid Arkansas Water Alliance Financial Payments
Parameter Cost ($FY17) Total storage required (acre-feet) 25,360 Water supply yield (mgd) 20.75 Interest rate 2.50% Repayment period 30 Top of flood control pool 2,844,500 Top of conservation pool 1,943,300 Top of inactive pool 1,194,000 Flood control storage 901,200 Conservation Storage 745,900 Inactive storage 1,194,000 Usable Storage 1,647,100 Storage required as percent of useable storage 1.5% Joint use project cost $388,008,064 Annual O&M $2,448,564 Total cost of storage (capital) $5,974,066 Total Annual cost of storage (OM) $37,700 Annual cost of storage (capital) $285,427
Total annual repayment $323,127
*Annual costs calculated using 2.50 percent discount rate at 30 years is the federal interest rate for calculating impacts. Therefore, updated cost of storage for impacts in this section will be slightly different than updated cost of storage for users cost in the next section (see: Economic Guidance Memo, EGM 17- 01 Federal Interest Rate).
42
TEST OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
As a test of financial feasibility, annual cost of storage is compared to cost of the most-likely, least-costly alternative that a sponsor would undertake in the absence of a storage reallocation. Such an alternative should be one that would generate an equivalent amount water in terms of both quality and quantity. In the case of this study’s MAWA, the most likely and least cost alternative would be a single purpose reservoir (i.e., the Future without Project scenario). The estimated and annualized cost (3.125 percent interest rate over 50 years) of a single-purpose reservoir that would yield a comparable amount of water at the same quality is $14.3 million. As shown in Table 4-1, reallocation of storage is significantly less expensive than constructing a new reservoir, and with the exception of water conservation, would result in far fewer environmental impacts than of any other alternative considered.
Table 4-1: Test of Financial Feasibility
Alternative 3 Alternative 5 (Future without Federal (conservation pool Cost or forgone benefit project) reallocation)
Energy benefits forgone $0 $116,641
Capacity benefits forgone $0 $60,112
Revenue forgone $0 $51,102
Real estate $0 $0
Recreation $0 $0
Flood impacts $0 $0
Capital and OMRR&R Costs (annualized)* $15,000,000 $ 2,800,000 **
Total $15,000,000 $ 3,000,000 * Figures annualized at 3.125 percent at 50 years so that calculations are consistent with those developed by HAC in the hydropower impact analysis. Impacts will be updated using the FY18 interest rate, and final calculations and energy prices in the final report.
** FWOP (new reservoir) includes $1.0 million for OMRR&R annually; $2.8 million includes $227,000 for capital and $2.5 million for OMRRR&R (O&M is $38,000 and RR&R is 2.5 million).
43
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS*
This section discusses the physical, biological, cultural, and social resources present in the project area, and probable effects or impacts of a water supply storage reallocation on those resources (Future with Project condition – FWP). The FWP condition assumes a reallocation from either the Conservation Pool or Flood Pool in Greers Ferry Lake. The effects discussed can be either beneficial or adverse, and were considered over a 50-year period of analysis (2018-2067). In addition to the FWP analysis, the impacts of the Future without Project alternative (FWOP) are addressed in this section as well. The FWOP is synonymous with the “No Action Alternative” as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The No Action Alternative is the most likely condition expected to occur in the future in the absence of the proposed action or any action alternatives. The FWOP includes the following assumptions: . No reallocation of water storage will occur from Greers Ferry Lake, or any other Federally-controlled reservoir. . Future water demands will require current project sponsors to construct a new water supply reservoir to meet current and future demands. . The new water supply reservoir would be several thousand acres in size, in order to provide similar amounts of water being evaluated in this study. The Greers Ferry Lake watershed was used as the effects analysis area for NEPA purposes. Section 5.6 provides a description of this watershed.
5.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED PURSUANT TO NEPA
Section 3.11 – Error! Reference source not found. provides a description of all alternatives originally considered for this reallocation request, and reasons why alternatives were either carried forward or dropped from further analysis. These alternatives include: . Alternative 1 (Purchase Wholesale) . Alternative 2 (Groundwater) . Alternative 3 (Construction of New Reservoir by Water Users) (No Federal Action – Future without Project Plan - FWOP) . Alternative 4 (Purchase storage from another reservoir) . Alternative 5 (Reallocation of conservation pool at Greers Ferry Lake) . Alternative 6 (Reallocation of flood pool at Greers Ferry Lake) . Alternative 7 (Local rivers and streams) . Alternative 8 (Reallocation of inactive pool at Greers Ferry Lake) . Alternative 9 (Combination reallocation of conservation and flood pools at Greers Ferry Lake)
44
FINAL ALTERNATIVES
The Final Alternatives for evaluation include the Future without Federal Project (FWOP) condition and the two alternatives that are the Future with Federal Project (FWP) conditions: FWOP condition is Alternative 3 – Construction of New Reservoir by Water Users was determined to be the Future without Project (FWOP), or No Federal Action; and The following alternatives were determined to be the Future with Project (FWP) conditions and were carried forward for further evaluation: Alternatives 5 – Reallocation of Conservation Pool at Greers Ferry Lake; and Alternative 6 – Reallocation of Flood Pool at Greers Ferry Lake. In both the FWOP and FWP scenarios, resource topics that were identified as having a potential to be affected, or those required by NEPA, are analyzed. Impacts are quantified whenever possible. Qualitative descriptions of impacts are explained by accompanying text where used. “Significance” has been analyzed in this document in terms of both context (sensitivity) and intensity (magnitude and duration): Magnitude
. Minor – noticeable impacts to the resource in the project area, but the resource is still mostly functional; . Moderate – the resource is impaired, so that it cannot function normally; . Major – the resource is severely impaired so that it is no longer functional in the project area;
Duration
. Short term – temporary effects caused by the construction and/or implementation of a selected alternative; . Long term – caused by an alternative after the action has been completed and/or after the action is in full and complete operation;
A comparison of impacts of the FWOP alternative with FWP alternatives are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. A detailed discussion of these impacts is presented in the sections following this table.
45
Table 5-1: Comparison of Environmental Effects of FWOP and FWP Alternatives
Alternative Plans Resource Reallocation from Reallocation from Flood No Action (FWOP) Conservation Pool (FWP) Pool (FWP) Significant and permanent No Effect No Effect Land Use impacts. Potential exists for erosion or No Effect Possible increase in shoreline inundation of Prime Farmlands. erosion from 9-inch rise in Permanent and temporary soil surface water elevation. disturbance would occur; Impact would be insignificant. Geologic Resources Surface mines could be impacted. Magnitude impossible to evaluate without specific area identified for new reservoir. Permanent increase in surface Positive effects to future Positive effects to future water available for water supply; groundwater levels possible groundwater levels possible No change in water quality of with less use from with less use from Greers Ferry Lake water; municipalities. Benefits municipalities. Benefits would temporary and insignificant would be significant and be significant and long-term. adverse impacts to water quality long-term. may occur during reservoir construction; permanent Water Resources changes in water quality downstream of reservoir – moderate intensity; No or insignificant adverse impacts to groundwater. Positive effects to future groundwater levels possible with less use from municipalities. Potential exists for significant No Effect Minor impacts to wetlands and permanent adverse impacts may occur due to rise in to biological resources (loss of surface water elevation. forested habitat and Impacts would likely be Biological Resources displacement of associated insignificant and temporary, wildlife species; loss of stream as new terrestrial habitat habitat and species) from new inundated would likely convert reservoir construction. to similar wetland habitat. Potential exists for significant No Effect No effect to aquatic T&E impacts to Threatened and species and critical habitat; Threatened and Endangered species and State Effect to karst habitat is Endangered Species / Species of Conservation unknown, but further FWS State listed Species of Concern from new reservoir consultation would be Conservation Concern. construction. Specific impacts required. cannot be determined until No effect to State Species of location selected. Conservation Concern. Potential exists for spread of No effect from the No effect from the reallocation invasive species from reallocation action itself. action itself. Subsequent Invasive Species construction equipment, new Subsequent effects could effects could occur from roads; Duration would likely be occur from future future construction as a result permanent. The intensity would construction as a result of of available water. Cannot
46
Table 5-1: Comparison of Environmental Effects of FWOP and FWP Alternatives
Alternative Plans Resource Reallocation from Reallocation from Flood No Action (FWOP) Conservation Pool (FWP) Pool (FWP) be dependent on species, but available water. Cannot evaluate intensity without could be significant. evaluate intensity without knowing specific actions; knowing specific actions; duration would likely be duration would likely be permanent. permanent. Potential exists for constructed No Effect on HTRW, and No Effect on HTRW, and Hazardous, Toxic, and related impacts. Existing waste would not result in the would not result in the Radioactive Waste cannot be evaluated without production of HTRW. production of HTRW. knowing new reservoir location. Potential major impacts, No Effect Potential adverse effects due dependent on new reservoir to water surface elevation rise Cultural Resources location. and resultant bank erosion at higher elevations. Negative impacts to landowners Lost hydropower revenue Lost hydropower revenue at new reservoir site; loss of Seasonal flooding of roads property taxes; new job creation; would impact access to some Socioeconomic new recreational opportunities; marinas. These impacts, Resources while seasonal (temporary) could be moderate to significant for marina owners. Environmental Justice No Change No Effect No Effect Increase in water-based No Effect Seasonal adverse impact due recreation with the construction to flooding of roads, resulting Recreation of a new reservoir. in fewer visitors during those times. Transportation Possible new roads and/or No Effect Seasonal inundation of some upgrades to existing public access roads to marinas and roads in the immediate vicinity of parks. Duration is temporary. the lake to accommodate Impacts to existing increased traffic use. Duration transportation infrastructure would be permanent; intensity would be insignificant. unknown until site determined. Air Quality Minor, short term impacts Possible minor (insignificant) Possible minor (insignificant) associated with new reservoir increases in pollutants if lost increases in pollutants if lost construction. energy production from energy production from hydropower is replaced by hydropower is replaced by coal or gas fired plants. coal or gas fired plants. Climate and Climate Possible minor effects Possible minor effects Possible minor effects Change Minor increase in noise from No effect. No effect. Noise heavy equipment associated with new reservoir construction. Potential exists, but without None identified None identified knowing location of new Cumulative Impacts reservoir, cannot determine other past, present or future impacts.
47
5.2 STUDY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Greers Ferry Lake sits in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains in north-central Arkansas. The lake itself is located in Cleburne and Van Buren counties, with portions of Searcy and Stone counties contributing to its watershed. The communities of Greers Ferry and Heber Springs are located upstream of the dam on the lake, while Clinton, Arkansas sits approximately six miles northwest of the lake. Little Rock, Arkansas is 65 miles to the south, and Memphis, Tennessee is 130 miles to the east. The area around Greers Ferry Lake is a popular vacation and retirement area, as evidenced by over 200 subdivisions adjoining Government ownership. Greers Ferry Lake is located in the interior highlands, south of the Ozark Plateau and west of the Mississippi embayment. The area is generally wooded and rugged, with interesting geological formations overlooking the winding Little Red River. The lake has an irregular shape, with numerous arms and coves. The lake is split into two large sections connected by an approximately 3-mile stretch called the Narrows. Prominent scenic topographic features of the area include oddly shaped buttes and ledge outcrops. The terrain is less steep at the upper end of the lake, causing some shallow coves to rapidly dewater with only a moderately lower pool stage. Beyond the lake, the area is principally rural in character. Three major tributaries of the Little Red River comprise the water source for Greers Ferry Lake; Devils Fork, Middle Fork, and the South Fork of the Little Red River all flow into the upper portion of the lake. The lake area contains 40,500 acres of surface water, and 276 miles of shoreline at normal pool elevation.
5.3 LAND USE*
The landscape surrounding Greers Ferry Lake and its watershed is largely rural and in private ownership. Forests and pasture dominate the land uses (77 percent and 12 percent, respectively). Urban areas account for less than three percent of the land use in the Greers Ferry watershed (CAST 2006). Similar land uses are found in areas west and north of Greers Ferry Lake – the most likely areas for any new lake construction, due to the topography. For example, in the Middle White River watershed, located north of the Little Red watershed, land uses were predominantly forest (69%) and pasture/herbaceous (23 percent) in 2006. Urban areas accounted for less than four percent. The only other watershed in proximity to MAWA service areas that has the topography suitable for a new reservoir is the Buffalo River watershed, located northwest of Greers Ferry Lake. CAST (2006) estimates of land use in this watershed was 82 percent forested and 16 percent pasture/herbaceous cover. However, the Buffalo River watershed is the headwaters for the Buffalo River, the first river designated as a National River in the United States. Construction of any impoundments in this watershed is extremely unlikely. South of Greers Ferry Lake, the topography becomes less steep transitioning from the Ozark Mountains to the Arkansas River Valley. In this area, land uses shift slightly towards more pasture and row crop production in the rolling hills. Immediately south of the lake is the Cadron watershed. 2006 estimates for land cover were 50 percent forested, 43 percent pasture and herbaceous land, and
48
less than 5 percent urban. Land cover in the Lake Conway-Point Remove watershed (south and west of the Cadron watershed) was 54 percent forest and 29 percent pasture/herbaceous in 2006 estimates. Urban areas accounted for approximately 7 percent (CAST 2006). FWOP: Construction of a new water supply reservoir would have significant impacts on land use. Several thousand acres of rural property would have to be acquired, resulting in potential displacement of humans and loss of wildlife habitat (discussed further in subsequent sections below). Inundation of acres would likely impact prime and/or statewide important farmland in the area. All impacts would be permanent. FWP: It is assumed that a reallocation of water storage in Greers Ferry Lake would preclude the need for new reservoir construction, therefore the analysis of land use impacts for FWP was restricted to the area immediately surrounding the lake. Reallocation from the Conservation Pool: would not change the operating surface water elevation on Greers Ferry Lake, thus land use surrounding the lake would not change. Reallocation from the Flood Pool: would increase the water elevation by 0.8 of a foot, along with an additional foot of seasonal pool rise from May to October every year. The team evaluated GIS maps and determined the real estate impacts would result in acquisition of approximately 5.63 acres or 120 tracts of land. This would have impacts on land surrounding Greers Ferry Lake with an estimated cost of 2.6M or $105,000 annualized cost for acquisition costs, title and legal fees.
5.4 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES
Geological resources are defined as the topography, geology, minerals, and soils of a given area. Topography describes the physical characteristics of the land such as slope, elevation, and general surface features. The geology of an area includes bedrock materials and mineral deposits. Mining refers to the extraction of resources (e.g. gravel).
TOPOGRAPHY*
Greers Ferry Lake is located in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains in north central Arkansas. The area is generally wooded and rugged, particularly in the areas draining into the Upper Lake. Elevations range from 1,500 feet NGVD to 461 feet at the lake. The topography surrounding Greers Ferry Lake ranges from steep cliffs and bluffs to relatively flat, sloping shorelines. Scenic topographic features include oddly shaped buttes and ledge outcrops in and around the lake and Little Red River.
GEOLOGY*
The Greers Ferry Lake study area is surficially underlain entirely by an outcrop of the Pennsylvanian Atoka Formation. This formation is several thousand feet deep, with a maximum reported thickness of almost 10,000 feet near Perryville, about 50 miles south of the study area. The Atoka Formation consists of alternating sequences of marine, mostly tan to gray, silty sandstones and grayish-black shales (AGS 2017).
49
Beneath the Atoka formation are the Boyd Shale Formation and the Hale Formation, which is the lowermost of the Pennsylvanian formations. The Boyd Shale Formation is a black, carbonaceous, fissile clay shale 175 to 200 feet in thickness with two thin but distinct embedded limestone members, the Brentwood and Kessler limestones. The Brentwood is the lower and thicker of the two. The deeper Hale Formation is up to 300 feet thick and consists of two members. The upper Prairie Grove member is a frequently pitted and fossiliferous limy sandstone or sandy limestone. The lower Cane Hill member is a dark gray silty shale interbedded with siltstone and fine-grained sandstone. The Hale Formation is unconformable with the Mississippian Period strata below (AGS 2017).
MINERALS
According to the Arkansas Geological Survey website, Cleburne and Van Buren counties have 64 sand and gravel pits, shale, and crushed and dimension stone quarries that are either active, intermittent, abandoned or reclaimed (AGS 2017). Three abandoned coal mines are reported in the two counties, with only one in the Greers Ferry watershed. One phosphate rock mine is reported in Van Buren County near Leslie, but not within the Greers Ferry Lake watershed. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality monitors all sites to ensure there are no impacts to the surrounding environment.
SOILS*
Soils in the Greers Ferry Lake study area are derived from in-place weathering of underlying rock strata, except in the active floodplain of the lake, where soils consist of alluvial silts and sands. Soils formed from overburden on sandstone parent material consist of sandy silt and fragments of sandstone and are up to 5 feet thick. Soils formed from shale bedrock are primarily clayey with few rock fragments and range from 4 to 20 feet, depending on active weathering depth. The following are the four predominant soil associations that make up two-thirds of the soils occurring in the Greers Ferry Lake study area (NRCS 2017): . Enders-Steprock Association. Moderately deep to deep soils found on moderate to steep slopes. This association is well drained and consists of gravelly to stony loamy soils that formed in the residuum of shale or interbedded sandstone. The soils are acidic because of the absence of limestone in the underlying bedrock.
. Steprock-Mountainburg Association. Moderately deep soils found on gently sloping to moderately steep slopes. This association contains stony and gravelly loamy soils that formed in colluvium or residuum of sandstone or interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale.
. Steprock-Linker Association. Moderately deep and well-drained soils found on gently sloping to moderately steep slopes. This association contains loamy and gravelly loamy soils that formed in residuum of sandstone or interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale.
50
. Steprock-Mountainburg-Rock Outcrop Association. Moderately deep and shallow soils found on steep to very steep slopes. This association contains stony and loamy soils formed in colluvium or residuum of sandstone, interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale, or rock outcrop. FWOP: Potential exists for long-term to permanent impacts to existing or future mining locations under the FWOP scenario, depending on the location of the new reservoir. Due to the large number of gravel and rock quarries in the vicinity, any impacts would likely be insignificant. Erosion of soils due to land disturbance and removal of vegetation would occur at the dam site, staging area, temporary roads and borrow areas during construction. With the proper implementation of erosion control measures, impacts would be temporary and insignificant. Soil productivity would be permanently impacted at the dam site. Prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance may be temporarily impacted during construction, or permanently impacted by inundation. Construction and operation of a new reservoir would disrupt normal soil and sediment transport in the impounded watercourse, and sediment deposition would occur, mainly within the upper reaches of a new lake. Releases of water from a dam could scour and move existing soils in the channel and floodplain downstream of the dam. Without knowing the specific area for construction of a new reservoir, it is impossible to estimate the magnitude of resource impacts. Duration of impacts would likely be permanent. FWP: Reallocation of the conservation pool would have no impact to geologic resources surrounding Greers Ferry Lake. Reallocation of the flood pool would result in an approximate 9-inch rise in the water surface elevation of Greers Ferry Lake. This slight rise could potentially cause minor bank erosion, however impacts would likely be insignificant. Coordination with the NRCS regarding potential impacts to rare or unique soils (including Prime Farmlands) in the project area revealed that no Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance occur around Greers Ferry Lake. NRCS correspondence is included in Appendix F.
5.5 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources includes surface water and groundwater resources, associated water quality, and floodplains. Surface water includes all lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, impoundments, and wetlands within a defined area or watershed. Subsurface water, commonly referred to as groundwater, is typically found in certain areas known as aquifers. Aquifers are areas with high porosity rock where water can be stored within pore spaces. Water quality describes the chemical and physical composition of water as affected by natural conditions and human activities. Floodplains are relatively flat areas adjacent to rivers, streams, watercourses, bays, or other bodies of water subject to inundations during flood events.
51
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
Greers Ferry Lake sits in the Little Red River watershed of north-central Arkansas, which is identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 11010014. The total area of the Little Red River watershed is 1,147,100 acres, with the northern portion draining to Greers Ferry Lake (732,900 acres), and the remainder draining to the Little Red River below the dam (414,200 acres). Six smaller watersheds (10-digit HUC) contribute water to the lake; Headwaters Middle Fork Little Red River, Archey Creek, South Fork Little Red River, Beach Fork-Little Red River, Outlet Middle Fork Little Red River, and the Greers Ferry Lake watershed (Figure 5-1: ).
Figure 5-1: Little Red River Watershed
SURFACE WATER
Three major tributaries flow into the Upper Lake and drain approximately 64 percent of the Greers Ferry Lake watershed; the South Fork, Middle Fork, and Devils Fork of the Little Red River. The South Fork drains into the western side of the Upper Lake, while the Middle Fork and the Devils Fork drain into the eastern side. Various smaller tributaries also drain into the Upper Lake, including Choctaw Creek, Cove Creek, Bailey Hollow, Thompson Creek, Green Creek, Lazy Creek, Lynn
52
Creek, Dave Creek, and Wagon Branch. No major tributary streams flow into the Lower Lake. Smaller tributaries to the Lower Lake include Salt Creek, Shiloh Creek, Cove Creek, Budd Creek, Rocky Branch, Drip Creek, Aaron Creek, Spring Hollow, Little Peter Creek, and Peter Creek.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
No wild and scenic rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et. seq.) occur in or near the Greers Ferry Lake watershed.
GROUNDWATER*
The Western Interior Plains Confining Unit (WIP) is a group of formations that occurs in the Boston Mountain Plateau and a portion of the Arkansas River Valley, including the area surrounding Greers Ferry Lake (Figure 5-2). These formations are comprised primarily of fractured shale, sandstone, and siltstone rocks of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian age that are characterized by low porosity, permeability, and yields. While there are no formally recognized aquifers, there are numerous shallow, undifferentiated, and saturated rocks of limited extent that are used for domestic and small community supply (Kresse, et al. 2014). For this system, recharge occurs as precipitation that infiltrates the ground in upland areas and percolates to the water table. Groundwater flow paths are defined by small-scale topographic features where flow occurs from elevated areas to valley floors terminating in small stream systems. Groundwater storage in these aquifers is limited primarily to fractures and faults. Typical well yields range from 1 to 5 gallons-per-minute (gpm), and thicker sandstone units in the eastern part of the WIP system commonly yield 5 to 10 gpm. It is not uncommon for wells in the WIP system to go dry during pumping, especially during dry periods. Water levels in the WIP confining system range from near land surface to approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Seasonal fluctuations are about 10 feet, with drawdowns from pumping increasing fluctuations to as much as 45 feet (Kresse, et al. 2014). Wells in the WIP confining unit are generally inadequate for public supply, thus are limited to domestic, small community, and non-irrigation agricultural supply, owing to poor well yields and limited groundwater resources. Since domestic and water supply systems producing less than 50,000 gallons per day are not required to report groundwater use, there is no way to accurately quantify the number of domestic and livestock wells in use in the WIP. As of 2010, water use from 13 wells completed in the Atoka Formation of the WIP confining unit was reported. These wells were primarily used for public supply at parks, schools, stores, and some commercial business (ANRC 2014). Most municipalities in the area around Greers Ferry Lake use the lake as their primary water source. The quality of groundwater in the WIP is highly variable but meets most secondary drinking water standards and is considered suitable for domestic and livestock uses.
53
Figure 5-2. Western Interior Plains Aquifer (taken from the Arkansas State Water Plan, 2014).
A second, smaller aquifer occurs south of Greers Ferry Lake, in the footprint of MAWA’s service area. The Arkansas River Valley alluvial aquifer (Figure 5-3) consists of unconsolidated alluvial deposits underlying some areas of the Arkansas River Valley, which are able to store large volumes of largely unconfined groundwater. Recharge to the aquifer is primarily by downward percolation of precipitation, in addition to leakage from the river. In most places 30 to 60 feet of saturated sand and gravel is present, and the saturated thickness of the aquifer generally increases with distance downstream from Fort Smith. Water levels range from approximately 5 to 30 feet below the ground surface. Wells in the lower part of the Arkansas River Valley alluvial aquifer are capable of yielding 300 to 700 gpm of water (ARNC 2014). Groundwater from the Arkansas River Valley alluvial aquifer is, and historically has been, an important source of irrigation and public supply. Water from this aquifer is generally of good quality and appropriate for most uses, although elevated iron concentrations can require treatment for public supply and other uses. As of 2013, only the cities of Dardanelle and Maumelle are using the Arkansas River Valley alluvial aquifer as a source of public- supply water (Kresse, et al. 2014).
54
Figure 5-3: Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer (taken from the Arkansas State Water Plan, 2014).
WATER QUALITY
The Greers Ferry watershed is relatively pristine, with 77 percent of its area (above the dam) in forest. The upper part of the lake generally has higher levels of nutrients, total suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, and other parameters where the three primary tributaries enter the lake. Potential pollutant loads to Greers Ferry Lake come from various sources, including the following: • Watershed runoff entering the lake through the three major tributaries of the Little Red River—the South Fork, Middle Fork, and Devils Fork. • Watershed runoff draining directly to the lake and its smaller tributaries. These loads reflect adjacent land uses the immediate Upper and Lower Lake watersheds. • Permitted point source discharges to Greers Ferry Lake and tributaries. • Faulty septic systems on adjacent private property. • Boating activities on the lake (fueling, illegal discharge of human waste). The three major tributaries contribute more than 80 percent of the pollutant loading to the lake as the result of land use practices in the watershed. The Arkansas 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies two miles of the South Fork of the Little Red River at the upper end of Greers Ferry Lake as having elevated levels of mercury, thus was placed under a fish consumption
55
advisory (ADEQ 2008). The report also lists a total of 20.8 miles of the Middle Fork Little Red River not meeting established criteria for primary contact and aquatic life due to pathogen indicators (bacteria). Despite some water quality issues in tributary streams, the water quality in Greers Ferry Lake is considered satisfactory for the designated uses of the reservoir. These uses include hydroelectric power generation, water supply, water-based recreation, and flood control. Greers Ferry Lake is not listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listing program for any parameters (ADEQ 2008). FWOP: Water quality in Greers Ferry Lake would not be affected by this alternative. Although still considered drafts, the 2010, 2012, and 2016 Arkansas Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Reports continue to list the impacted sites on the South Fork and Middle Forks of the Little Red River. It is likely that these sites will continue to have pollution issues into the future. All three reports continue to list the lake as satisfactory for the designated uses. This satisfactory rating should continue in the future. Construction of a new reservoir would result in changes to water resources (surface and groundwater) both upstream and downstream of the new dam. A new reservoir would provide more surface water for water supply use, as well as providing increased habitat for aquatic species. Downstream of a reservoir, river dynamics would likely change, particularly alterations in the distribution of runoff caused by the water storage and the exploitation of the reservoir volume for irrigation, production of electricity, or other purposes. These changes may impact the water quality of the streams. Impacts would be permanent and of moderate intensity. Compliance with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act would be necessary with the reservoir construction. MAWA would coordinate with the appropriate agencies to secure permits prior to construction. As a general rule, groundwater levels decrease in areas with diverted rivers and increase in the areas close to, and downstream of, reservoirs, but impacts to groundwater are very site specific, and cannot be adequately addressed without knowing the location of a new reservoir. Until a new reservoir is constructed, more MAWA member utilities closer to the Arkansas River may have to rely on groundwater from the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer. If this occurs, the quantity and quality in this aquiver could be adversely impacted. Once the new reservoir is complete and in service, those MAWA member utilities currently using groundwater will likely shift to surface water. This shift would result in a beneficial effect to groundwater quality and quantities towards the end of the planning period and beyond. FWP: Reallocation from the conservation pool would reduce the amount of water available in the lake for other purposes, such as hydropower generation. Impacts from the loss of available water for hydropower are largely financial, and discussed elsewhere. Reallocation of the flood pool would result in an annual average water surface elevation increase of approximately nine inches (approximately two feet in the summer months). While this increase in surface elevation results in a minor decrease in flood control volume, H&H analyses indicate it would not impact downstream flooding.
56
Reallocation from either pool at Greers Ferry Lake will result in more water storage, and subsequently, more water available for MAWA member utilities. This availability should result in less dependence on groundwater towards the end of the planning period and beyond. This will result in long-term benefits for groundwater quantity and quality. Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act do not apply with either FWP alternative, because the actions do not involve discharge of dredged or fill material.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological resources include plants and animals and the habitats in which they occur. Biological resources are important because: (1) they influence ecosystem functions and values; (2) they have intrinsic value and contribute to the human environment; and (3) they are the subject of a variety of statutory and regulatory requirements.
WETLANDS
Wetlands are complex habitats that are transitional from dry land to open water, and they have soil, water, and plant components. Wetlands are defined as those areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Many common species of waterfowl, fish, birds, mammals, and amphibians also live in wetlands during certain stages of their lives.
The steep shoreline surrounding Greers Ferry Lake limits the transitional environment between shoreline (littoral) and open water (limnetic) habitat, thus restricting wetland formation or sustenance. While some small lacustrine littoral wetlands occur in isolated pockets along the shoreline, the majority of Greers Ferry Lake is classified as a lacustrine limnetic wetland (deep water lake habitat).
FWOP: There would be no impacts to wetland quantity or quality surrounding Greers Ferry Lake with the FWOP condition. However, depending on the location of the new reservoir, there could be small to significant impacts to wetlands with construction of a new reservoir. These impacts could be largely adverse (destruction of existing wetlands), significant, and permanent. A new reservoir may create some small lacustrine littoral wetlands along the shoreline, but they would likely be insignificant.
FWP: A conservation pool reallocation would have no impact to wetland quantity or quality, as the surface water elevation does not change.
A flood pool reallocation would result in an annual average nine-inch rise in water surface elevation (two foot summer pool rise). The few lacustrine littoral wetlands present at Greers Ferry Lake occur at the mouths of major tributaries, where the sloping topography is conducive to their formation. A minor rise in pool elevation could have some minor, but likely insignificant impacts to these areas. However, because of the gradual sloping topography, it is possible that any wetlands impacted by slightly deeper water would be offset by creation of new wetlands, as previously terrestrial habitat becomes seasonally or permanently inundated. Any adverse impacts, if any occur, would likely be insignificant, albeit permanent.
57
VEGETATION
Vegetation around Greers Ferry Lake can be most broadly classified as humid temperate mixed forest. Shortleaf pine-oak-hickory forests are prominent on the mountainous, rocky slopes surrounding the lake. The species composition of these communities varies according to slope and prior disturbance. Drier, south-facing slopes feature post oak (Quercus stellata), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). North-facing slopes have white oak (Quercus alba) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and other species that favor more mesic soils. Southern red oak (Quercus falcata) chinquapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) are also important components of this community. A maple-sycamore-gum association is found on the lower benches and stream valleys.
Lake shoreline areas and lake headwater tributaries have a sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)- dominant forest community. Tree species tolerant of disturbance and periodic flooding compete well in areas adjacent to shorelines. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and river birch (Betula nigra) are often associated with the sycamore vegetative community.
Typical understory vegetation associated with the upland hardwood and shortleaf pine forests includes downy serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), which is found in common association with the white, red and chinquapin oaks and upland hickories. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) is a typical understory tree commonly found in stands of oak, maple, and hickory in most areas. Hawthorn (Crataegus spp) is widely adaptable and can be found in the wet forest flood plains to the exposed, rocky slopes. Sassafras albidum) is similar to the hawthorn in that it has a diverse growth range, but will mostly be found in the areas with rich, moist soil. Southern wax myrtle or bayberry (Myrica cerifera) is a common semi-evergreen shrub found mostly along the stream banks and marsh areas. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) is common along the shoreline and in the limited wetlands adjacent to the lake.
Similar vegetation communities is found in watersheds surrounding the Greers Ferry Lake watershed.
FWOP: There would be no FWOP impacts to the vegetation surrounding Greers Ferry Lake. There will be significant and permanent impacts to terrestrial vegetation by inundation of hundreds to thousands of acres of mostly forested habitat after the watercourse in question was impounded. Areas not forested would likely be herbaceous cover and/or pasture land. As with any ground-disturbance activity, the probability of introducing, spreading, and/or establishing new populations of invasive, terrestrial non-native species, particularly plant species, exists with reservoir construction.
FWP: With either FWP alternative, the existing vegetation immediately adjacent to the lake is adapted to frequent and prolonged flooding. As such, a minor rise in surface elevation is unlikely to adversely impact the species composition. Therefore, there would be no impact to vegetation surrounding Greers Ferry Lake under either FWP alternative.
58
AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality classifies Greers Ferry Lake as a Type “A” water body (larger lakes of several thousand acres in size; watersheds dominated by upland forest; average depth 30 to 60 feet; low primary production/trophic status if in natural unpolluted condition). Low trophic status is mainly due to temperature stratification, which is natural and occurs in many deep reservoirs.
Sport fishing is an important pastime for lake residents and visitors. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) manages the lake for both warm water and cool water species. Native and introduced sport fish popular with area anglers include black bass, sunfish, catfish, walleye, and white and hybrid striped bass. Hybrid striped bass and walleye are stocked in the reservoir and provide a "put and take" fishery. A highly productive and very popular trout fishery has been established in the Little Red River below Greers Ferry Dam by AGFC because of the available discharge of cold, oxygenated water from the dam. Error! Reference source not found. lists fish species documented as occurring in Greers Ferry Lake and its tributaries.
Table 5-2: Fish Species Reported from the Greers Ferry Lake Watershed
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Arkansas saddled darter Etheostoma euzonum Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Banded darter Etheostoma zonale Longnose darter Percina nasuta Bigeye shiner Notropis boops Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Northern studfish Fundulus catenatus Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Ozark madtom Noturus albater Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum Blackside darter Percina maculata Rainbow trout (i) (Little Red River Oncorhynchus mykiss below Greers Ferry Dam) Brown trout (i) (Little Red Salmo trutta Brook trout (i) (Little Red River Salvelinus fontinalis River below Greers Ferry below Greers Ferry Dam) Dam) Hybrid striped bass (i) Morone chrysops × saxatilis Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Blacktail shiner Cyprinella venustus Redfin darter Etheostoma whipplei Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Shadow bass Ambloplites ariommus Brindled madtom Noturus miurus Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Slender madtom Noturus exilis Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Slim minnow Pimephales tenellus Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Chestnut lamprey Icthyomyzon castaneus Speckled darter Etheostoma stigmaeum Common carp Cyprinus carpio Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus
59
Table 5-2: Fish Species Reported from the Greers Ferry Lake Watershed
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Cypress darter Etheostoma proeliare Spotted sunfish Lepomis punctatus Duskystripe shiner Luxilus pilsbryi Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei Flathead catfish Pylodictus olivarus Stippled darter Etheostoma punctulatum Freckled madtom Noturus nocturnus Streamline chub Hybopis dissimilis Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Threadfish shad Dorosoma petenense Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Walleye (i) Stizostedion vitreum Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Warmouth Lepomis gulosu s Goldfish Carassius auratus Wedgespot shiner Notropis greenei Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus White bass Morone chrysops Greenside darter Etheostoma blennoides White crappie Pomoxis annularis Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus Whitetail shiner Cyprinella galactuara Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis Yellowcheek darter Etheostoma moorei Logperch Percina caproides (i) = introduced sport fish.
Aquatic habitats in Greers Ferry Lake include littoral (shoreline), deep-water, and pelagic (open water) areas. Shoreline habitat, while limited, consists of:
. Shallow sloping mud flats, . Moderately sloping gravel and cobble banks, . Sheer vertical limestone cliffs, . Standing timber (permanently flooded); and . Vegetated shorelines.
Standing timber is present in many coves and occurs to a lesser extent along shorelines and points. Shoreline vegetation is mostly black willows, which are abundant in some shallow coves and are tolerant of prolonged inundation. Shoreline habitat is important for many fish species throughout the year, particularly during spawning and post spawning periods. State fisheries biologists have said that the best spawns on Greers Ferry Lake take place during high water years when terrestrial vegetation is flooded for an extended period. Flooded vegetation provides cover to help young fish avoid predators. In addition, flooded vegetation provides needed food sources for young fish. Most recently, spring high water conditions in 2008, 2009, and 2011 proved suitable for spawning conditions, and AGFC biologists documented good populations of young black bass as a result. Natural structures in deep water habitats of the lake is limited to submerged trees, brush, rock piles, as well as variations in topography. Since the impoundment of Greers Ferry Lake in 1964, the few
60
remaining submerged native forests have largely decomposed and provide little structure and forage habitat for fish. In response, the AGFC and USACE, in cooperation with other partners, enhance aquatic habitat by sinking cedar trees throughout the lake for fish cover. As is the case in many reservoirs, water levels at Greers Ferry Lake change due to flood risk management and hydropower generation, and in some years, lake levels are lower than desired for spawning conditions. To compensate for poor spawning years, AGFC constructed the Greers Ferry Nursery Pond. This nursery pond allows biologists to augment native and introduced sport and forage fish populations by providing ideal spawning and rearing habitat. For example, in 2016, AGFC stocked the pond with more than 400,000 threadfin shad, allowing them to grow to suitable forage size, then released them in the lake (AGFC 2017). The nursery pond is also used to rear largemouth bass, crappie, and other sport fish species. Construction of the Greers Ferry Lake dam changed the environment in tail-water areas of the Little Red River downstream of the dam. Specifically, water releases from the dam are too cold to support native smallmouth bass and sunfish in tail-water areas. In response, AGFC began stocking rainbow trout to create a recreational fishery in this new cold water habitat. In the mid-1980s, they added brown trout stockings to increase diversity of trout species available to anglers. Today, the Little Red River below the dam offers excellent trout fishing that supports a thriving tourism industry. FWOP: There would be no FWOP impacts to aquatic resources in and around Greers Ferry Lake. AGFC would continue to manage the lake’s sport fishery to maximize opportunities for anglers. Stocking of rainbow and brown trout in the Little Red River below Greers Ferry Dam would continue.
Assuming the new reservoir is constructed on a perennial stream, the area upstream of the dam will be converted from a lotic (flowing) system to a lentic (standing water) system. This permanent change in aquatic habitat would almost entirely change the aquatic species utilizing the area. Species dependent on flowing water would have to move to suitable habitat, or perish. The intensity of these impacts would be significant, albeit possibly off-setting. The loss of stream species would be off-set with the addition of Lake Species similar to those listed in Error! Reference source not found. above.
Construction activities would likely result in a temporary increase in downstream sediment deposition. Fish and mussels that cannot relocate to avoid this impact are susceptible to mortality. As evidenced below many Corps reservoirs (e.g., Greers Ferry Lake), water discharges have drastically altered native species compositions. Changes in temperature, siltation, etc. would have deleterious impacts to sessile species, such as native mussels. Native warm water fish species may have to relocate, depending on the water temperature below the new dam. These native species may be replaced by cold water species such as trout – as is the case below many Corps lakes. These impacts to native stream species would be permanent and significant.
Construction of the new dam would prevent fish migration upstream and downstream that was accessible under the existing condition.
FWP: After evaluation of Implementation of either FWP alternative the study team along with environmental agencies determined that there would be no impact to aquatic resources in Greers
61
Ferry Lake or surrounding streams because the threatened or endangered species for the project area are located north and south of the reservoir in the rivers. Therefore, any change in water elevation or no change in water elevation, will not have an effect on those areas.
WILDLIFE
The rural landscape surrounding Greers Ferry Lake provides ample habitat for several common species of birds and mammals. Neotropical migrant songbirds are frequently seen during the summer near the lake, where they use a variety of habitats for nesting and brood-rearing. The diversity of bird species lends itself well to bird watching in the area. Hunting is popular in this general area. Important game species include deer, squirrels, turkey, doves, rabbits, and fur bearers. The rugged topography, with resultant pattern of small farms and extensive forest areas, provides excellent habitat for forest and upland game. Error! Reference source not found. provides a partial list of common bird and mammal species known to occur around Greers Ferry Lake.
Table 5-3: Common Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of Greers Ferry Lake
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Birds American kestrel Falco sparverius Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Barred owl Strix varia Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Black vulture Coragyps atratus Ring-neck duck Aythya collaris Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Wood duck Aix sponsa Bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea Canada goose Branta Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus canadensisCanadensis Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe Robin Turdus migratorius Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Barred owl Strix varia Eastern wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Kentucky warbler Geothlypis formosa Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorum
Mammals Black bear Ursus americanus Opossum Didelphis virginiana Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Raccoon Procyon lotor White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus Coyote Canis latrans Red fox Vulpes vulpes Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Woodchuck Marmota monax Beaver Castor Canadensis Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Bobcat Felis rufus
62
FWOP: There would be no FWOP impacts to wildlife resources surrounding Greers Ferry Lake. Construction-related activities are anticipated to impact many wildlife species, if they occur as a resident, migrant or incidental, within or near the new reservoir location. Adverse impacts include habitat removal and/or fragmentation from construction, as well as inundation of terrestrial habitat. Other impacts include habitat avoidance because of increased noise, dust generation, and vibrations. Losses of slow moving species (mammals and herptofauna) are anticipated within the new lake basin. Faster moving species are expected to be able to avoid injury or death by relocating to suitable habitat. Construction related impacts to wildlife species would be temporary and of moderate intensity.
There would be minor positive impacts for migratory waterfowl with the creation of a new reservoir. This reservoir would likely be used as migratory and wintering habitat for many species, such as scaup, ring-neck, mallard, etc. Similar to other reservoirs in north Arkansas, the lake would likely be used by resident wood ducks and Canada geese.
There would be significant, and permanent impacts to wildlife displaced by reservoir construction. The loss of thousands of acres of terrestrial habitat would result in the displacement (and possible decline).
FWP: After evaluation of Implementation of either FWP alternative the study team along with environmental agencies determined that there would be no impact to wildlife resources surrounding Greers Ferry Lake because any change in water elevation or no change in water elevation, will not have an effect on wildlife resources within the project area.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES*
Pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), and the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the District consulted the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on July 29, 2015 and obtained a list of potential threatened and endangered species in the Greers Ferry Lake Project area (Error! Reference source not found. below). The District also consulted the FWS IPaC website to obtain a list of species.
63
Table 5-4: Federally Listed Species for the Greers Ferry Lake Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Yellowcheek darter Etheostoma moorei Endangered Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Threatened Speckled Pocketbook Lampsilis streckeri Endangered Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Protected Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPAC website and Arkansas Ecological Service Office database.
Gray Bat The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is 3 to 4 inches in length and weighs 7 to 16 grams (0.25 to 0.50 ounces). Its fur is gray, but may have a slight reddish cast in the summer. The gray bat is the only Myotis with the wing membrane attached to the ankle instead of the base of the toe, and the only bat in its range with dorsal (back) hair that is uniform in color from base to tip. Gray bats roost almost exclusively in limestone karst caves throughout the year. Colonies occupy a home range that often contains several roosting caves scattered along as much as 43 miles of river or lake shoreline. Individuals forage up to 12 miles from their roosts. Winter roosts are in deep vertical caves with domed halls where temperatures range from 42 to 51 degrees. The species selects hibernation sites where there are multiple entrances and good air flow. Summer cave temperatures range from 57 to 75 degrees, trap warm air, provide restricted rooms or domed ceilings, and are nearly always located within a mile of a river or reservoir. Maternity caves often have a stream flowing through them. There are occasional reports of gray bats roosting in storm sewers, mines, and buildings. Forested areas along the banks of streams and lakes provide important protection for adults and young. Young often feed and take shelter in forest areas near the entrance to cave roosts. They do not feed in areas along rivers or reservoirs where the forest has been cleared (USFWS 2017). Gray bats are likely to forage near lake tributary streams and wooded lake shores, but its use of specific lakeshore habitats is unknown.
Northern Long-eared Bat
The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium-sized bat about 3 to 3.7 inches in length with a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. As its name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its long ears, particularly as compared to other bats in its genus, Myotis, which are actually bats noted for their small ears (Myotis means mouse-eared). Northern long-eared bats arrive at the hibernacula in August or September, enter hibernation in October and November, and leave in March or April. During summer, bats typically roost
64
individually or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags, or in caves and mines, switching roosts every 2 to 3 days. They are not partial to certain roost trees, but often select trees that retain bark and form suitable cavities, such as black oak, northern red oak, silver maple, black locust, American beech, sugar maple, sourwood, and shortleaf pine. Bats have also been observed roosting in buildings, barns, park pavilions, sheds, cabins, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, and in human made bat houses. Bats roost more often on upper and middle slopes, and migrate between 35 to 55 miles between summer roosts and winter hibernaculum. They commonly overwinter in caves and abandoned mines, which have large passages and entrances and relatively constant cool temperatures, high humidity, and little or no air currents. They have been found hibernating in abandoned railroad tunnels, storm sewer entrances, hydro- electric dam facilities, old aqueducts, and dry wells. Bats may use the same hibernaculum site for multiple years. The bat has a diverse diet of insects such as moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles (USFWS 2017). Northern Long-eared bats are likely to forage near lake tributary streams and wooded lake shores, but its use of specific lakeshore habitats is unknown.
Indiana Bat
Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) are small, weighing only one-quarter of an ounce, with a wingspan of 9 to 11 inches. Their fur is dark-brown to black. Indiana bats live in forested wetlands and riparian habitats such as hardwood and mixed forest woodlands. In the summer and fall, colonies roost in dead or dying trees, or in tree cavities exposed to direct sunlight on wooded or semi-wooded areas near the hibernacula. Roost tree species include elm, oak, beech, hickory, maple, ash, sassafras, birch, sycamore, locust, cottonwood, and pine, especially when these trees have exfoliating bark. Indiana bats use the same roost sites in successive summers. Indiana bats hibernate in the coldest (40 to 46 degrees) parts of limestone caves with pools and shallow passageways. The bats typically prey on flying insects, and forage along river and lake shorelines, in the crowns of trees in floodplains, and in upland forest. They forage in riparian areas, upland forests, and above ponds and fields. The foraging habitat for an Indiana bat includes an airspace 6-100 feet above a stream and a linear distance of 0.5 mile. As with other bat species, Indiana bats are likely to forage near lake tributary streams and wooded lake shores, but its use of specific lakeshore habitats is unknown.
Yellowcheek Darter
The yellowcheek darter is a small and laterally-compressed fish that attains a maximum standard length of about 6.4 cm (2.5 in), and has a moderately sharp snout, deep body, and deep caudal peduncle. The back and sides are grayish brown, often with darker brown saddles and lateral bars. Breeding males are brightly colored with a bright blue or brilliant turquoise throat and breast and a light-green belly, while breeding females possess orange and red-orange spots but are not brightly colored (Robison and Buchanan 1988).
65
The yellowcheek darter inhabits high-gradient headwater tributaries with clear water, permanent flow, moderate to strong riffles, and gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Prey items consumed by the yellowcheek darter include blackfly larvae, stoneflies, mayflies and other aquatic insects. The yellowcheek darter only occurs in the upper Little Red River drainage above Greers Ferry Lake in Cleburne, Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren counties, Arkansas. Remaining populations occur in the South Fork, Middle Fork, Archey Fork, and Devils Fork (including Turkey and Beech Fork segments) tributaries of the Little Red River. Major threats to the yellowcheek darter are similar to threats to the speckled pocketbook mussel. Both species are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters or man-made disturbances within their very small range. The FWS has designated the entire range of the yellowcheek darter (approximately 102 stream miles) as critical habitat. According to the FWS IPAC website (FWS 2017), Greers Ferry Lake is outside the critical habitat zone for this species.
Pink Mucket
The FWS recovery plan for the pink mucket indicates its range is primarily in the Ohio, Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages, with occasional records from the Mississippi River drainage. A status review of mussels in Arkansas by Harris, et.al. (2009) reveals most pink mucket pearly mussel populations occur in the Ouachita Mountain ecoregion of west Arkansas. Three live pearly mussels were found at two sites in the White River. It is not known to occur in any Little Red River tributaries above Greers Ferry Lake. The pink mucket is a yellow-brown mussel with a rounded, thick and inflated smooth shell. This mussel can grow to an adult length of 3 to 5 inches and can live up to 50 years. The pink mucket is found in mud and sand and in shallow riffles and shoals swept free of silt in major rivers and tributaries. As with other mussels, pink mucket are sensitive to water quality and sediment. The pink mucket was also one of the mussels in Arkansas that was commercially harvested for use in the button and pearl industry.
Rabbitsfoot
Rabbitsfoot mussels can reach up to 6 inches in length. It is primarily an inhabitant of medium to large streams and rivers. It is widely distributed occurring in 13 of 15 states within its historical range. The majority of stable and reproducing populations left within its historical range occur in Arkansas. It usually occurs in shallow areas along the bank and adjacent shoals. Specimens may also occupy deep water runs. Bottom substrates generally include gravel with sand. This species seldom burrows but lies on its side instead. It uses shiners, or minnow species, as its host fish. A small, stable population of rabbitsfoot mussels exists in the lower section of the Middle Fork Little Red River above Greers Ferry Lake. The FWS designated 14.5 miles of the Middle Fork Little Red River as critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot mussel. This designated habitat begins at the confluence of Little Tick Creek north of Shirley, Arkansas, downstream to Greers Ferry Lake where inundation begins. Primary threats to the species are hazardous material spills within the Middle Fork Little Red River watershed, channelization projects, and turbidity and pollution from gravel mining, and poor land use practices.
66
Speckled Pocketbook
The speckled pocketbook is a medium-sized (approx. 3 inches in length) freshwater mussel with a thin, dark-yellow or brown shell with chevron-like spots, and chain-like rays. The speckled pocketbook only occurs in the Little Red River watershed in north central Arkansas. The current known range includes the Middle Fork of the Little Red River from the influence of Greers Ferry Reservoir upstream to the confluence of Little Red Creek (approximately 62 river miles (rm)), the South Fork Little Red River from Arkansas Highway 95 upstream to near the western boundary of Gulf Mountain Wildlife Management Area and the Ozark National Forest (approximately 14 rm), the Archey Fork Little Red River from approximately one river mile upstream of U.S. Highway 65 upstream to the confluence with Castleberry Creek (approximately 16 rm), lower Turkey Fork (approximately 2 rm), Beech Fork Little Red River (approximately 11 rm), and Big Creek (approximately 10 rm) (USFWS 2007). Threats to this species include poor land use practices including unrestricted cattle access to streams, eroding stream banks, gravel mining, and activities associated with exploration and development of natural gas reserves in the Fayetteville Shale formation. Other threats include dewatering or decreased base flows, habitat fragmentation, increased sedimentation, pollution runoff, and chemical spills (USFWS 2007). Recovery strategies include protection of existing populations, and restoration of historic habitat and reestablishment of individuals in restored habitat. Without restoration, the species is vulnerable to extinction from a natural disaster or man-made impact on the one short stretch of river it inhabits (USFWS, 1991).
Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle is one of America’s great conservation success stories. On June 28, 2007 the Department of Interior removed the bald eagle from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species. The number of nesting pairs in the lower 48 United States increased 10-fold, from less than 450 in the early 1960s, to more than 4,500 adult bald eagle nesting pairs in the 1990s. In the Southeast, for example, there were about 980 breeding pairs in 1993, up from about 400 in 1981. Bald eagles are a common occurrence around Greers Ferry Lake. While no longer a listed species, the bald eagle remains a protected species under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). FWOP: There would be no FWOP impacts to threatened or endangered species in Greers Ferry Lake with implementation of this alternative. Impacts to listed species and/or critical habitat is possible with construction of a new reservoir. Duration and intensity of impacts would be contingent on reservoir location. Consultation with the USFWS would be required prior to construction to determine impacts. FWP: Reallocation of the conservation pool would have no impact to any threatened or endangered species in and around Greers Ferry Lake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with this determination. Agency coordination is included in Appendix F.
67
Reallocation of the flood pool could adversely impact hibernacula for bat species. However, there are no known caves in the immediate vicinity of Greers Ferry Lake, but if any do occur, it is possible that a rise in surface elevation with a flood pool reallocation could adversely impact hibernacula for bat species. Further consultation (possibly formal) with the FWS would have to occur with implementation of this alternative. There would be no impacts to any listed aquatic species, as they are situated several river miles upstream of the lake. While critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot mussel exists immediately upstream of the lake in the Middle Fork Little Red River, an analysis of elevations was conducted using available Lidar imagery. At the convergence of river and lake habitat, there is a steep elevation increase (steep riffle-run habitat). The minor nine-inch rise in water surface elevation would not impact riffle-pool habitat upstream. The USFWS has concurred with this assessment.
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission database lists 55 Species of Conservation Concern occurring within 5 miles of the Corps of Engineers boundary surrounding Greers Ferry Lake. Of these, only seven species are known to occur within 100 feet of the COE boundary (Error! Reference source not found. below). Species of Conservation Concern are native plants and animals that are at-risk due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, restricted distribution, and/or other factors. While the listing as a Species of Concern is based on Arkansas’s status ranking, and is not a statutory or regulatory designation under federal, state or local law, they were taken into consideration during evaluation of alternative impacts to biological resources.
Table 5-5: Species of Conservation Concern in the Vicinity of Greers Ferry Lake
Federal State Global State Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Rank Rank
Animals-Invertebrates Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe - INV G4 S3 Cicindela hirticollis beach-dune tiger beetle - INV G5 S2S3 Cyprogenia aberti Ozark fanshell - INV G2G3Q S3 Fusconaia ozarkensis Ozark pigtoe - INV G3G4 S3 Lampsilis streckeri speckled pocketbook LE SE G1Q S1 Pleurobema rubrum pyramid Pigtoe - INV G2G3 S2 Pleurobema sintoxia round Pigtoe - INV G4G5 S3 Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell - INV G3G4 S3 Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rabbitsfoot LT SE G3G4T3 S3 Simpsonaias ambigua salamander Mussel - INV G3 S1 Toxolasma lividum purple Lilliput - INV G3Q S3 Toxolasma parvum Lilliput - INV G5 S3 Uniomerus tetralasmus Pondhorn - INV G5 S2 Venustaconcha pleasii bleedingtooth Mussel - INV G3G4 S3 Villosa iris Rainbow - INV G5Q S3
68
Federal State Global State Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Rank Rank Villosa lienosa little spectaclecase - INV G5 S3 Animals-Vertebrates Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned Hawk - INV G5 S3 Cyprinella spiloptera spotfin shiner - INV G5 S1? Etheostoma autumnale autumn darter - INV G4 S3 * Etheostoma moorei yellowcheek darter LE SE G1 S1 * Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle - INV G5 S3B,S4N Lithobates areolatus crawfish Frog - INV G4 S2 * Myotis lucifugus little brown bat - INV G3 S1 * Myotis septentrionalis northern long-eared bat LT SE G1G2 S1S2 Ophisaurus attenuates slender glass lizard - INV G5 S3 * Percina nasuta longnose darter - INV G3 S3 * Scaphiopus hurterii Hurter's Spadefoot - INV G5 S2 Plants-Vascular Asplenium pinnatifidum lobed spleenwort - INV G4 S3 * Callirhoe bushii Bush’s poppy-mallow - INV G3 S3 * Carex careyana Carey’s sedge - INV G4G5 S3 * Carex hirtifolia hairy sedge - INV G5 S3 * Carex normalis spreading oval sedge - INV G5 S1 * Carex radiata eastern star sedge - INV G5 S1 * Carex sparganioides bur-reed sedge - INV G5 S3 * Caulophyllum thalictroides blue cohosh - INV G5 S2 * Claytonia arkansana Ozark spring-beauty - INV G1G3Q S2 Cuscuta coryli hazel dodder - INV G5? SU * Diphasiastrum digitatum southern running-pine - INV G5 S1S2 Dryopteris x leedsii Leed’s wood fern - INV GNA S1 Eriocaulon koernickianum small-head pipewort - SE G2 S2 Heuchera villosa var. arkansana Arkansas alumroot - INV G5T3Q S3 Isoetes engelmannii Engelmann’s quillwort - INV G4 S1 * Nemastylis nuttallii Nuttall’s pleat-leaf - INV G4 S2 Paronychia virginica yellow nailwort - INV G4 S2 * Philadelphus hirsutus hairy mock orange - INV G5 S2S3 Primula frenchii French’s shooting-star - ST G3 S2 * Selaginella arenicola ssp. riddellii Riddell’s spike-moss - INV G4T4 S3 Silene ovata ovate-leaf catchfly - ST G3 S3 * Solidago ptarmicoides white flat-top goldenrod - INV G5 S1S2 * Symphyotrichum sericeum silvery aster - INV G5 S2 * Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort - INV G3 S3 * Trichomanes boschianum Appalachian filmy fern - ST G4 S2S3 Utricularia subulata Zigzag bladderwort - INV G5 S2 Viola canadensis var. canadensis Canadian white violet - INV G5T5 S2 Special Elements-Natural Communities
69
Central Interior Highlands & Appalachian Sinkhole & Depressional Pond - INV GNR SNR Special Elements-Other Geological feature - INV GNR SNR -- - These elements have been recorded within approximately 100 feet of the Greers Ferry Lake Corps Fee line Boundary * - These elements have been recorded within a one-mile radius of the Greers Lake Ferry Corps Fee Line Boundary - These elements have been recorded within a five-mile radius of the Greers Ferry Lake Corps Fee Line Boundary
FEDERAL STATUS CODES LE = Listed Endangered; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed this species as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
STATE STATUS CODES INV = Inventory Element; The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission is currently conducting active inventory work on these elements. Available data suggests these elements are of conservation concern. These elements may include outstanding examples of Natural Communities, colonial bird nesting sites, outstanding scenic and geologic features as well as plants and animals, which, according to current information, may be rare, peripheral, or of an undetermined status in the state. The ANHC is gathering detailed location information on these elements.
GLOBAL RANKS G3 = Vulnerable globally. At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = Apparently secure globally. Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure globally. Common, widespread and abundant.
T-RANKS= T subranks are given to global ranks when a subspecies, variety, or race is considered at the state level. The subrank is made up of a "T" plus a number or letter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, H, U, X) with the same ranking rules as a full species.
STATE RANKS S1 = Critically imperiled in the state due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Imperiled in the state due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.
GENERAL RANKING NOTES Q = A "Q" in the global rank indicates the element's taxonomic classification as a species is a matter of conjecture among scientists.
Source: Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
FWOP: There would be no impacts to state species of conservation concern around Greers Ferry Lake with implementation of this alternative. Impacts to species and/or habitat is possible with construction of a new reservoir, contingent on location. Impacts would be similar to those listed in Section 7.7.4., if species are present. FWP: A conservation pool reallocation would not affect any species of conservation concern or their habitats around Greers Ferry Lake because with the reallocation from the conservation pool the water level will not change. With a flood pool reallocation, an annual average nine inch rise in water surface elevation (two foot summer pool rise), any impact to species of conservation concern would be those immediately adjacent to Greers Ferry Lake. According to the ANHC, seven species are known to occur within 100-feet of the COE boundary. A slight potential exists for the little brown bat if any hibernaculum were impacted by the rise in water elevation. The longnose darter is highly adaptable to habitat
70
conditions, utilizing riffle habitat during spawning season and slower moving water the rest of the year (including shallow lake areas immediately adjacent to the mouths of tributary streams). Due to its adaptability, there would be no adverse effect to this species by a flood pool reallocation. Similarly, the remaining five plant species in close proximity to COE property are unlikely to be impacted by a flood pool reallocation. These species typically inhabit either spring and/or seep habitats at higher elevations, or in dry, woodland habitats.
5.1.14.1 Invasive Species
Executive order 13112 defines an invasive species as any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem. Invasive species damage the habitats that native plants and animals need to survive, and they hurt economies and threaten human well-being. Common invasive species potentially found in the vicinity of Greers Ferry Lake include zebra mussels, emerald ash borers, privets, Japanese honeysuckle, tall fescue, and non-native lespedeza. FWOP: Construction equipment necessary for a new water supply reservoir could introduce invasive species by transporting seeds, eggs, or spores of those species. FWP: The reallocation of water from either pool (conservation or flood) would not in itself result in the importation or propagation of invasive species around Greers Ferry Lake. Any future residential and industrial growth as the result of additional water supplies would have the potential to introduce invasive species, however without knowing specific information about those activities, it is impossible to evaluate the intensity and duration.
HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES (HTRW)*
A review of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Hazardous Waste website and consultation with ADEQ staff indicates that there are no hazardous wastes or fuels, or any Arkansas Remedial Action Trust Fund Act (RAFTA) cleanup sites in the project area that would affect Greers Ferry Lake. FWOP: There would be no impacts from any hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste to Greers Ferry Lake with implementation of this alternative. Construction of a new reservoir would require project sponsors to identify and remove any hazardous, toxic or radioactive wastes prior to constructing a dam. Without knowing the exact location of reservoir construction, potential impacts cannot be evaluated. Possible hazardous wastes could be generated during construction activities by heavy equipment. Existing state and federal laws requiring best management practices should be sufficient to prevent these wastes from entering the environment. FWP: With either FWP alternative, the proposed water storage reallocation does not involve the construction of any improvements or the disturbance of any of any potential recognized environmental condition (REC) sites, thus there would be no release of hazardous waste into the environment.
71
CULTURAL RESOURCES*
This section discusses cultural resources in relation to the No Action and Proposed Action (Tentative Selected Plan-TSP), which is defined as the area of potential effect (APE) within and adjacent to the footprint of the TSP, i.e., the current footprint of Greers Ferry Lake and associated downstream river channels. Due to no horizontal or vertical direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources from the TSP, the records search was limited to just the footprint of Greers Ferry Lake and associated fee area. Cultural resources consist of artifacts, archaeological sites, buildings, structures, objects (BSO’s) and districts. Archaeological sites may be prehistoric or historic in age, or a combination of both, while districts may be only prehistoric, or historic in age. Historic properties are cultural resources eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
CULTURAL HISTORY
Prehistoric The general location of Greers Ferry Lake is rich with prehistoric and historic occupation. Prehistoric Native American occupation, prior to European settlement, can be documented chronologically through five periods (Rodriguez et al. 2017): . Paleo-Indian Period – 13,000 – 8,000 B.C. . Archaic Period – 7,500 – 600 B.C. . Woodland Period – 600 B.C. - A.D. 900 . Mississippian Period – A.D. 900 – 1541 . Protohistoric Period – A.D. 1541 – 1686
Historic Historic use of the area can be divided into six general periods: 1. European Exploration: Although intense European colonization did not begin in Arkansas until the end of the seventeenth century, a protohistoric period was initiated by the arrival of the De Soto expedition in 1541. The De Soto expedition landed in Florida in 1539 and explored the lands bordering the Gulf of Mexico. During the next four years, the expedition traveled over parts of present-day Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. After this initial, brief Spanish contact, 140 years passed before Europeans returned to the region. Although the Spanish claimed the territory explored by De Soto, they did not attempt colonization until they were threatened by French expeditions in the seventeenth century. In 1684, the French attempted to establish a colony at the mouth of the Mississippi River. In 1686 the French established a trading post called Aux Arcs or the Poste de Akansea (afterward Arkansas Post). During the period when the French occupied Louisiana (1686-1763), the only immigration to the general area was undertaken by the French traveling from Canada or Louisiana. The
72
Spanish Colonial Period lasted from 1763 to 1803 when the Louisiana territory was transferred to the United States (Weinstein 2017).
2. Territorial Period: The territorial period lasted from 1803 to 1836. The newly arrived American administration brought many changes to Louisiana. The portion of the Louisiana territory that comprised the present state of Arkansas became part of the Missouri territory in 1812 when Louisiana became a state. The settlement at Arkansas Post was matched by similar communities at Little Rock, Washington, Helena, Ecore a Fabre (now Camden), Cadron (near present Conway), and Hopefield (near West Memphis). To help safeguard the southwestern frontier, a detachment of U.S. troops built Fort Smith on the Arkansas River at a place called Belle Point. Arkansas became a separate territory in 1819 after Missouri had applied for and been granted statehood. It was not until the introduction of the steamboats to the Mississippi River and its tributaries and the construction of federally funded military or post roads that the Arkansas Territory began to open up. The passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, gave the executive branch the authority to negotiate land-exchange treaties with native nations. Within the decade, the act was to lead to the removal of approximately 60,000 Indians to the “Indian Territory” located within the western portions of the Arkansas Territory and the exchange of nearly 100 million acres of land for 68 million dollars and 32 million acres with the Arkansas Territory (Weinstein 2017).
3. Early Statehood Period: Arkansas Territory achieved statehood on 15 June 1836. Between this date and the outbreak of the Civil War, the population increased by nearly 860 percent. The antebellum identity of Arkansas was based on four major themes: the rural nature of the population, the agricultural economy, the system of slave labor, and a Southern political orientation. The landscape of antebellum Arkansas was dominated by two major agricultural units-the small, self-sufficient farm and the plantation. The third major component of Arkansas’s prewar identity was slavery, which provided the chief source of labor for the large farms and plantations (Weinstein 2017).
4. The Civil War: The Civil War period was from 1861 to 1865. Arkansas seceded from the Union on 6 May 1861. The act of session had not been a foregone conclusion. The state had a strong Unionist following and at the convention held on 4 March 1861 the Unionists had won. Once fighting had begun at Fort Sumter, however, the secessionists were able to secure Arkansas’ withdrawal from the Union. The war created much disunity in the state. One of the most important battles in Arkansas took place at Pea Ridge in northwestern Arkansas on 6 March 1862. The beginning of 1863 saw the capture of Confederate fortifications at Arkansas Post and the fall of Little Rock nine months later. By the end of the war, Confederate forces held on only in the southwestern corner of the state (Weinstein 2017).
5. Reconstruction and the Late Nineteenth Century: During reconstruction there was a labor shortage and as a result planters used sharecropping in an attempt to overcome this as well as a wage system. Regardless of the labor system employed following the Civil War, many African-American laborers, though no longer held in legal bondage, found their economic circumstances little improved. With the end of reconstruction and a return to a normal
73
relationship with the nation, Arkansans discovered that the rest of America had changed. The last quarter of the nineteenth century reflects Arkansas’ attempt to catch up with mainstream America (Weinstein 2017).
6. Flood Control and River Development: The aftermath of the devastation of the Flood of 1927 was to bring national attention to the problem of flooding in the Mississippi River and its tributaries including the Arkansas River. The Flood Act of 1928 was based on the plans of Chief of Engineers, Major General Edgar Jadwin, and included plans for flood control on the Mississippi from the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans. The Jadwin Plan called for the raising and strengthening levees and the creation of spillways, but it did not call for the creation of flood control reservoirs. The Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized the building of more than 300 flood control reservoirs with many of these being multipurpose in nature. Various subsequent flood control acts lead to the development of several dams and reservoirs in the Little Rock District including Clearwater, Blue Mountain, Bull Shoals, and Greers Ferry. The passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act on 24 July 1946 authorized the creation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) at the time known as the Arkansas-Verdigris Waterway. Construction of the navigation system began in 1958 and was completed as far as Little Rock by January 1969 and to Tulsa by December 1970 (Weinstein 2017).
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Cultural resources affected by federally funded or federally-permitted projects are subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. Sections 470 through 470x-6) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations require federal agencies to take into account the impact of federal undertakings on significant cultural resources (historic properties). Historic properties are cultural resources that have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Section 106 process is carried out by the federal agency in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO). The Section 106 process consists of identifying cultural resources through records searches and field surveys, evaluating cultural resources to determine if they are historic properties using NRHP eligibility criteria (the federal agency makes the determination with concurrence from SHPO), assessing whether the effects of the undertaking on historic properties will be adverse, and consulting with the SHPO regarding these effects and any actions that might be taken to treat or mitigate them. The NRHP eligibility criteria (36 CFR 60.4) state that: the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, and BSO’s of state and local importance that possess aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and that: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
74
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, BSO’s must be at least 50 years old, except in exceptional circumstances (Criteria Consideration G). Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, as amended, provides for properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans (traditional cultural properties) to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS AT GREERS FERRY LAKE
A review of the Arkansas Archeological Survey’s (AAS) Automated Management of Archeological Sites Data in Arkansas (AMASDA) Database and other sources revealed several prior terrestrial cultural resources surveys and test investigations within the Greers Ferry Lake fee area (Coble 1994; Jones 1979; Klinger 2009; Klinger and Smith 1992; McCurkan 1983; McGimsey 1959; Wilks 2011). Although the review identified previous surveys within or transecting the fee area, it is important to note that the majority of the Greers Ferry Lake fee area has not been culturally surveyed, or what has been surveyed previously is of such an age that the methodology used during these surveys no longer follows current accepted standards. Currently, 186 known archaeological sites have been identified within the fee area with approximately 73 of these known sites currently inundated by the lake, while 113 sites have been identified elsewhere in the fee area. The majority of known sites have never been evaluated for NRHP eligibility and consulted on with the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officer’s (THPO). Until such NRHP evaluations and consultations occur, known sites that are unevaluated should be considered eligible and avoided.
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OBJECTS (BSO) INVENTORIES AT GREERS FERRY LAKE
A review of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) National Register and Survey Database revealed several Buildings, Structures, Objects (BSOs) recorded, evaluated and listed on the NRHP within the Greers Ferry Lake fee area. Currently, no comprehensive inventory and NRHP evaluation of all the BSOs within the Greers Ferry Lake fee area has ever been done. Until this is done, and it is determined what BSOs are eligible and which ones are not, effects to all BSOs require consideration on a case by case basis. FWOP: Under the FWOP condition, there will be no horizontal or vertical impact to cultural resources at Greers Ferry or downstream river channels, and as a result there is no potential to cause effects (36 CFR 800.3 (a)(1)) to cultural resources. A new reservoir could result in significant and permanent impacts to cultural resources, due to the construction of the reservoir and any ground-disturbing activities around the lake (such as boat ramps, parks, etc.), and the pump stations and pipelines necessary for water distribution. Without knowing the specific construction site, it is impossible to assess potential impacts to historic properties or archeological sites.
75
FWP: Reallocation of the conservation pool would have no horizontal or vertical impact to cultural resources at Greers Ferry or downstream river channels, and as a result there is no potential to cause effects (36 CFR 800.3 (a)(1)) to cultural resources.
With the flood pool reallocation, the rise in water surface elevation has the potential to create wave- induced erosion to previously unaffected areas of the shoreline. Because of this possible erosion, there is the potential for an adverse effect to cultural resources. A cultural resources survey would be needed to determine the likelihood of such impacts.
SOCIOECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE*
Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly population, demographics, and economic development. Demographics entail population characteristics and include data pertaining to race, gender, income, housing, poverty status, and educational attainment. Economic development or activity typically includes employment, wages, business patterns, an area’s industrial base, and its economic growth. The area of analysis includes counties adjacent to Greers Ferry Lake, and where MAWA water providers operate water systems (Cleburne, Conway, Faulkner, Lonoke, and Pulaski counties).
POPULATION
All counties within the project area showed continued population growth for the years 1990-2010 (Error! Reference source not found. below). The state of Arkansas indicated a growth rate of approximately 14% for the years 1990 through 2000 and a growth rate of approximately 11% for years 2000 through 2010. Although all counties show increased growth, the counties of Faulkner and Lonoke counties indicate growth rates outpacing the state growth rate of 11% for the State Arkansas for the years of 2000-2010. The population of Faulkner country increased by 53,231 persons from the year 1990-2010. Pulaski County had the slowest growth rate, yet still showed an increase of 33,088 persons for the years of 1990-2010. All data is based on the 2010 census.
Table 5-6: State and County Population Data
Percent 2010 Population 1990 2000 2010 Percent Change Region Change Density (persons Population Population Population (1990-2000) (2000-2010) per square mile)
Arkansas 2,350,725 2,673,400 2,966,369 13.7% 11.0% 56 Cleburne, AR 19,411 24,046 25,969 23.9% 8.0% 43 Conway, AR 19,151 20,336 21,271 6.2% 4.6% 37 Faulkner, AR 60,006 86,014 113,237 43.3% 31.7% 180 Lonoke, AR 39,268 52,828 68,356 34.5% 29.4% 88 Pulaski, AR 349,660 361,474 382,748 3.4% 5.9% 483
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
76
The 2010 census indicated the unemployment rate within the study area is below the U.S. and State levels for the United States (7.9 percent) and the State of Arkansas (7.8 percent). A snapshot from the 2010 census of total persons below the $10,000 total household income threshold indicated the State of Arkansas slightly higher than the United States by approximately 2.7 percent. The study area had a range of 13.2 percent (Conway County) to 6.8 percent (Lonoke County). The percent of persons below poverty category from the 2010 census indicated all counties within the study area fall below the state reported rate of 18 percent. However, only Lonoke County (12.6 percent) fell below the United States rate of 13.8 percent. All counties and the State of Arkansas fell below the reported Median Family Income of $62,952 reported for the United States for the 2010 census year. The highest reported median income for the study area is Faulkner County ($60,595), and the lowest is Cleburne County ($44,863) (See Error! Reference source not found.).
Table 5-7: Country, State, and County Income and Unemployment Rates
Percent Income and Benefits Percent Persons below Unemployed Total Households Poverty Median Family Region 2010 <$10,000/year All Persons (2010) Income (2010) United States 7.9% 7.2% 13.8% $62,982 Arkansas 7.8% 9.9% 18.0% $48,491 Cleburne, AR 7.3% 8.4% 17.4% $44,863 Conway, AR 6.5% 13.2% 17.0% $48,116 Faulkner, AR 7.0% 9.0% 15.3% $60,595 Lonoke, AR 7.5% 6.8% 12.6% $57,736 Pulaski, AR 7.3% 8.8% 16.4% $57,863
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, addresses potential disproportionate human health and environmental impacts that a project may have on minority or low-income communities. The impetus behind environmental justice is to ensure that all communities, including minority, low-income or federally recognized tribes, live in a safe and healthful environment and that no group of people including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative consequences resulting from the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. The goal of fair treatment is not to shift risks among populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects and identify alternatives that may mitigate these effects. Thus, the environmental effects of the Project on minority and low-income communities or Native American populations must be disclosed, and agencies must evaluate projects to ensure that they do not disproportionally impact any such community. If such impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented.
77
To determine whether a project has a disproportionate effect on potential environmental justice communities (i.e., minority or low income population), the demographics of an affected population within the vicinity of the Project must be considered in the context of the overall region. Guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) states that “minority populations should be identified where either: (1) the minority population of the affected areas exceeds 50 percent, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (CEQ 1997). Error! Reference source not found. below displays Census data summarizing racial, ethnic and poverty characteristics of counties currently using Greers Ferry Lake as a water source (Cleburne County and MAWA service area counties). The purpose is to analyze whether the demographics of the affected area differ in the context of the broader region; and if so, do differences meet CEQ criteria for an Environmental Justice community. Error! Reference source not found. below also displays the percent of population under the age of 18 in the analysis area. The purpose of the data is to assess whether the project disproportionally affects the health or safety risks to children as specified by EO 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (1997).
Table 5-8: Racial Composition and Poverty Indictors Other or Percent Native two of Pop. Percent Black or Native Hawaiian Hispanic or Below of Pop. 2016 African American or Pacific or more Poverty Under Population White American or Indian Asian Islander Latino races Line age 18 United States 323,127,513 76.9% 13.3% 1.3% 5.7% 0.2% 17.8% 2.6% 12.7% 22.8% Arkansas 2,988,248 79.4% 15.7% 1.0% 1.6% 0.3% 7.3% 2.0% 17.2% 23.6% Cleburne County 25,264 96.8% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% - 2.3% 1.6% 15.6% 22.8% Conway County 20,937 84.9% 11.6% 0.7% 0.5% - 3.9% 2.3% 17.8% 22.9% Faulkner County 122,227 84.3% 11.7% 0.7% 1.2% 0.1% 4.0% 2.0% 14.8% 23.4% Lonoke County 72,228 90.2% 6.1% 0.7% 1.0% 0.1% 4.4% 2.0% 11.9% 22.8% Pulaski County 393,250 58.1% 36.9% 0.5% 2.3% - 6.1% 2.2% 19.4% 23.6%
FWOP: Under the FWOP condition, MAWA would have to construct a new water supply reservoir to meet future water demands. Based on the information presented in Error! Reference source not found., only Pulaski County has a minority population (Black or African American) that exceeds population percentages for the state of Arkansas and the United States (i.e. larger regions). However, it is unlikely that a new reservoir would be constructed in Pulaski County due to a lack of topographic relief, therefore the construction would not adversely or disproportionally impact minority or low income populations, or children. Areas currently serviced by MAWA members would continue to be served by the new water source, including minority and low income populations. Any rate increase
78
resulting from lake construction would be spread across all MAWA service areas and customers in an equitable manner, thus would not adversely or disproportionally impact minority or low income populations, or children. FWP: Implementation of either FWP alternative would ensure that MAWA service members would have adequate water supply to meet the future demands of its customers. The increased water supply would be accessible to all MAWA customers (as is the current condition) without regard to race or income. Any rate increases resulting from increased cost of water storage would be spread across all MAWA service areas and customers in an equitable manner, thus neither FWP alternative would adversely or disproportionally impact minority or low income populations, or children.
RECREATION
Greers Ferry Lake supports a variety of recreational activities, including camping, boating, fishing, swimming, hiking, and visitor attractions like the dam and visitors center. 3 The lake receives over seven million visitors annually (Error! Reference source not found.). There are a variety of recreational areas around Greers Ferry Lake that are managed by the Corps, except for Fairfield Bay Park and Sandy Beach, which are leased to the city of Fairfield Bay, and the city of Heber Springs, respectively (Error! Reference source not found.). Paved access roads wind through 11 developed parks with 1,201 campsites. Other facilities include swimming beaches, hiking trails, boat launching ramps, sanitary dump stations, and picnic shelters. Several parks contain year-around commercial marinas, which offer grocery items, fuel, boat rental and storage, fishing guides and other supplies and related services.
Table 5-9: Greers Ferry 2012 Visitation Data
Visitor Type Number of visitors Picnickers 1,038,753 Campers 61,928 Swimmers 2,764,352 Water Skiers 376,300 Boaters 1,480,971 Sightseers 930,013 Fishermen 987,958 Other 4,257,272 Visits total 7,391,579
3 Statistics for Greers Ferry Lake including visitation and economic figures are taken from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Corps Lakes Gateway” website at: http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/visitors/visitors.cfm
79
Table 5-10: Recreation Facilities at Greers Ferry Lake
Facilities Number of sites Recreation Areas 29 Picnic Sites 115 Camping Sites 1,201 Playgrounds 9 Swimming Areas 15 Number of Trails 5 Boat Ramps 27 Marina Slips 3,775
Over seventy five percent of visitors in 2012 engaged in some sort of water sports (swimming, boating, skiing and fishing). The lake is a popular destination for anglers seeking largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass, crappie, bream, hybrid striped bass, walleye, and catfish. Hunting is also a popular sport in the Greers Ferry Lake vicinity. A mixture of hardwood and pine forests provide habitat for many different species of wildlife. Sportsmen and women can find many remote areas where they can hunt various types of upland game animals such as white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, rabbits and squirrels. Recreation at the lake has a substantial impact on local economies based on surveys of visitor spending and attendance at Corps projects. Based on 2012 data, the roughly 7.4 million people that visited Greers Ferry Lake spent over $240 million in local economies within 30 miles of the lake. This spending generated $113.9 million in business sales revenue, and supported about 2,200 full and part time jobs with $43.8 million in labor income. FWOP: Implementation of the FWOP alternative could increase water-based recreational opportunities and resultant economic impact, contingent on authorized uses of the new water supply reservoir. Possible recreation activities on and around the lake would be similar those at Greers Ferry Lake. While an estimate of visitor numbers and dollars generated thru recreation cannot be estimated, any recreation and economic impacts would be positive, and permanent. FWP: Reallocation from the conservation pool will have no impacts to recreational opportunities at Greers Ferry Lake due to the fact that the water level will not change. Reallocation from the flood pool will result in an annual average 9-10 inch rise in water surface elevation, impacting several recreation areas around the lake (reduced size of swim beaches, seasonal or permanent inundation of access roads, etc.). As a result, there would be an annual loss of $586,860. in recreation-related benefits. This economic impact is based on an analysis of unit-day-values (UDV). See Appendix A for UDV calculations.
80
TRANSPORTATION
The primary transportation system at Greers Ferry Lake serves visitors and workers driving to and from recreation and service areas. The road system, maintained by counties and the state, is primarily a low-standard paved road, although some roads are unpaved. FWOP: Construction of a new reservoir may require the need for new roads and/or upgrades to existing public roads in the immediate vicinity of the lake to accommodate increased traffic use. New roads would likely be low-standard paved roads, constructed and maintained by the county and/or the state. Should recreational opportunities be allowed, additional roads and parking would be required. FWP: Reallocation from the conservation pool will have no impacts to the transportation system around Greers Ferry Lake due to the fact that the water level will not change. Reallocation from the flood pool would result in seasonal and/or permanent flooding of some roads, campsites, and parking in some of the parks around the lake. This impact would result in fewer visitors to the parks, which impacts annual visitor numbers and economic impact (discussed in previous section). This loss of recreation opportunity would be long-term unless new roads and campsites could be constructed. A rise in water surface elevation would also increase the frequency of road closure to Fairfield Bay Marina due to high water. Impacts to existing transportation infrastructure would be insignificant.
AIR QUALITY*
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility for regulating air quality nationwide. The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as amended, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for wide-spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards classified as either “primary” or “secondary.” Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of at-risk populations such as people with pre-existing heart or lung diseases (such as asthmatics), children, and older adults. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter less
than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). If the concentration of one or more criteria pollutants in a geographic area is found to exceed the regulated “threshold” level for one or more of the NAAQS, the area may be classified as a non-attainment area. Areas with concentrations of criteria pollutants that are below the levels established by the NAAQS are considered either attainment or unclassifiable areas. According to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the entire state of Arkansas is in compliance with all EPA ambient air quality standards. Only ozone concentrations occasionally approach the limit of the standard. The Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act of 1977
81
(CAA), as amended, states that all Federal actions must conform to appropriate State Implementation Plans (SIPs). This rule took effect on January 31, 1994, and at present applies only to Federal actions in non-attainment areas (those not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutants in the CAA). The state of Arkansas, including the Greers Ferry Lake area, is considered an attainment area and is therefore exempt from the Conformity Rule of the CAA. The study area is located within the Northwest Arkansas Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR §81.140). The area is classified as being in attainment for all NAAQS. The Current Air Data Air Quality Index Summary Report for Harrison, Arkansas (located north of Greers Ferry Lake and has similar land uses) reported 349 good days and 16 moderate days of air quality in 2016. Greers Ferry Lake is located in the Ozark Mountains, remote from heavy smoke-producing industry or large mining operations. The air is very clean and smog is virtually unknown in this region. Pollution sources in the vicinity of the lake include automobile emissions and local industries. Automobile traffic in the region is typical of rural areas and is not considered to be a significant source of pollutants. Automobile traffic in the project area is much greater during the summer recreational season, and minor degradation of air quality may occur during this period. FWOP: The construction of a new reservoir would have minimal to no impact on air quality. FWP: Implementation of either FWP alternative could have minor impacts on air quality, since hydroelectric generating capacity would decline, and thus presumably would need to be offset by another source of energy. Offsetting lost hydropower with coal fired generation would result in minor increases in emissions of greenhouse gas and other emissions. Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) did not provide an estimate of dependable capacity loss or annual peaking energy loss for this reallocation request of 25,360 acre-feet from Greers Ferry Lake during scoping in 2015. SWPA did, however, estimate in July of 2015 that a similar reallocation request of 42,000 acre-feet from Beaver Lake (also in the White River drainage) would result in a dependable capacity loss of about 3.4 megawatts (3,400 kilowatts), and an annual peaking energy loss of about 8,300 megawatt-hours (8.3 million kilowatt-hours). Utilizing the estimates for Beaver Lake and correcting for the difference in acre-feet at each lake, the reallocation of 25,360 acre-feet from Greers Ferry Lake would result in a dependable capacity loss of about 2.05 megawatts (2,050 kilowatts), and an annual peaking energy loss of about 5,012 megawatt- hours (5.01 million kilowatt-hours). Assuming the same mix of generation types for the Energy Information Administration’s Midwestern region, which includes Arkansas (Error! Reference source not found.), reallocating storage from the conservation pool would increase releases of Sulfur Dioxide by 16.4 tons per year, Nitrous Oxide by 10.25 tons annually, and Carbon Dioxide by 3,549 tons. When compared to total annual emissions in Arkansas from power generation on percent basis, the increase would be inconsequential (0.02 percent, 0.03 percent, and 0.01 percent, respectively) (
82
Table 5-14: Increase in Emissions from Combustion Power Generation
). Any changes in the air quality by implementation of any alternative would be insignificant, and fall within the range of natural variation discussed by the USGCRP for the Southeast Region (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southeast).
Table 5-11: Estimated Average Power Generation Emissions by U.S. Region (pounds per kilowatt hour)
Region Sulfur Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Carbon Dioxide New England 0.007 0.002 0.691 New York and New 0.005 0.002 1.014 J Midwest 0.008 0.005 1.731 South Atlantic 0.007 0.004 1.429 West 0.001 0.000 1.002 Northwest 0.000 0.001 0.244 U.S. 0.006 0.004 1.276
Source: Energy Information Agency, “2015 Annual Outlook for U.S. Electric Power”
Table 5-12: Increase in Emissions from Combustion Power Generation
Carbon Sulfur Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Dioxide
Annual emissions in Arkansas (tons per year)* 84,823 44,434 28,283,302 Increased Emissions due to Reallocation from Conservation Pool (tons per year) 16.4 10.25 3,549 Increased Emissions due to Reallocation from Conservation Pool (percent) 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% * Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (E- GRID)`
CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE*
LOCAL CLIMATE
The climate in north central Arkansas is classified as “humid subtropical” and is characterized by relatively high temperatures and evenly distributed precipitation throughout the year. The average
83
annual temperature in Heber Springs, Arkansas is 59.3 degrees. While the warmest month, on average, is July with an average temperature of 79.7 degrees, daytime summer temperatures can exceed 90 degrees on occasion. Similarly, January is the coolest month, with an average temperature of 37.3 degrees. Daily lows in the 20’s is not uncommon, however. The area around Greers Ferry Lake receives approximately 51 inches of rain, with November and August typically recording the most and least, respectively. The months in late spring and late fall to early winter are generally the wettest. Summer precipitation primarily occurs during rainstorms, where locally high rainfall amounts can occur over a short period of time. During the fall, winter, and early spring, precipitation events are usually less intense and of longer duration. The area averages approximately 2 inches of snow per year, most of which occurs in February (Weatherbase 2017).
CLIMATE CHANGE
*The following climate change information is expected to occur regardless of the alternative selected. Climate change has become a concern due to potential environmental effects, particularly related to water resources. Analysis of climate data from as long ago as 1880, show that the Earth’s surface temperature has increased by more than 1.4°F over the past 100 years, with much of the increase taking place over the past 35 years (National Research Council 2012). Warming temperatures are often attributed to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, which increased 80 percent between 1970 and 2004 (IPCC 2007). To model future climate change, scientists utilize various general circulation models (GCM). Climate change analysis becomes more complex for the future than the past because there is not one time- series of climate, but rather many future projections from different GCMs run with a range of carbon dioxide emissions scenarios (IPPC 2007). It is important not to analyze only one GCM for any given emission scenario, but rather to use ensemble analysis to combine the analyses of multiple GCMs and quantify the range of possibilities for future climates under different emissions scenarios. Human population growth and related GHG emissions and changes in land cover have been modeled under various scenario in order to project future trends for global temperature and precipitation.
Predicted GHG Emissions Changes
In May 2008, the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) completed a GHG emissions inventory and reference case projection to assist in understanding past, current, and possible future GHG emissions in Arkansas (CCS 2008). The report found that GHG emissions are rising faster than those of the nation as a whole. As is common in many states, the electricity and transportation sectors have the largest emissions, and their emissions are expected to continue to grow faster than in other sectors. The study found that from 2005 to 2025, emissions associated with electricity generation to meet both in-state and out-of-state demand are projected to be the largest contributor to future emissions growth, followed by emissions associated with the transportation sector. Other sources of emissions growth include the residential, commercial, and industrial fuel use sectors, the transmission and distribution
84
of natural gas, and the increasing use of hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances in refrigeration, air conditioning, and other applications. In 2008, Arkansas completed a Climate Action Plan with assistance from the CCS. Arkansas’ plan focuses exclusively on the reduction of GHG, including a comprehensive set of sector-based policies and measures. Its design is consistent with the national climate proposal passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, but includes more specific listings and provisions for specific sector based policies and measures, and was less specific on the design of national market based mechanisms.
Predicted Temperature Changes
The U.S. Global Change Research Program summarized information regarding climate change and its potential effects in regional assessments (USGCRP 2009). Arkansas is part of the Southeast Region, which encompasses a range of natural systems, from the Appalachian Mountains to coastal plains and the Caribbean. The geographic distribution of impacts and vulnerabilities is uneven due to the different systems. Extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and heavy rainfall events are projected to occur more frequently. Temperatures across the Southeast Region are expected to increase during this century, with shorter-term (year-to-year and decade-to-decade) fluctuations due to natural climate variability (Carter et.al. 2014). Consequences of warming may include significant increases in the number of hot days (95 degrees or more), and decreases in days with freezing temperatures. The U.S. Global Change Research Program predicts that average annual temperatures in the Southeast Region will rise 4 to 8 degrees depending upon the sub-region. Increases in the interior states in the Southeast Region will be more moderate, ranging from 1 to 2 degrees. Figure 5-5-44 below plots average annual temperature from 1895 through 2016 for north central Arkansas Climate Division 2 (NOAA 2016). Data appear to exhibit a cycle of change, where temperatures in the first half of the 20th century were warmer than the second half, but appear to be warming again in the early 21st century.
85
Figure 5-5-4: Long-term Temperature Variability in Arkansas (1895 through 2016)
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Predicted Precipitation Changes
Global predictions for precipitation changes into the future point to an overall decrease. Projections of future precipitation are much less certain than projected temperature increases. Given that the Southeast is in a transition zone between projected wetter conditions to the north and drier conditions to the southwest, many projections show only small changes, if any, relative to natural variations. For Arkansas’ Climate Division 2, there does appear to be a very minor positive (i.e. wetter) trend in precipitation (Figure 5-5-5 below).
86
Figure 5-5-5: Long-term Precipitation Variability in Arkansas (1895 through 2016)
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “State of the Climate”
Droughts
Although climate change is likely to increase the risk of flooding, droughts are also likely to become more severe, because periods without rain will be longer and very hot days will be more frequent. Droughts pose challenges for water management and river transportation. If the spring is unexpectedly dry, reservoirs may have too little water during the summer, resulting in reduced hydropower generation. If droughts become more severe, restrictions in withdrawals for water supply could occur. Although precipitation in north central Arkansas occurs year round, the region and the state as a whole is prone to occasional drought. Figure 5-5-66 below displays time series plots of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI is based on deviations of precipitation and temperature from normal conditions, and takes into account the time that drought conditions last. With a scale of positive and negative 4, values less than zero indicate drought conditions with a negative 2 indicating moderate drought, a negative 3 severe drought, and a negative 4 extreme drought. Figure 10 shows time series plots of PDSI values for north central Arkansas. The highest negative drought indices occurred in 1902, 1954, 1963, 1981-82, 1999-2000, and 2012. The drought of 1953 through 1956 was the most intense over a 5-year period. The most recent drought took place from 2010 through 2013.
87
Figure 5-5-6: Long-term Variability in the Palmer Drought Severity Index, Arkansas (1895 through 2016)
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Climate Center.
HABITAT CHANGE
Terrestrial Habitats
Higher temperatures and changes in rainfall are unlikely to substantially reduce forest cover in Arkansas, although the composition of those forests may change. Habitats that are drought-tolerant (e.g. glades and barrens, dry upland forests, and open woodlands/savannas) could fare better under future projected climate scenarios. These conditions are projected to cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, thus potentially expanding these communities and improving habitat conditions for association of species of greatest conservation need (AGFC 2015). Changing climate conditions may cause existing tree species to expand northward and be replaced by species from the south. Mesic forests would be more at risk to compositional changes due to drier conditions (AGFC 2015). Some of the species associated with these forests, such as sugar maple, would be expected to decrease (Brandt et al. 2014). The dominance in these communities would shift to more tolerant species, such as sweetgum, white oak, and red maple. Forests in general would experience a reduction in forest productivity, in basal area and canopy cover if trees are stressed by higher temperatures and more droughts. Climate change is also likely to increase the damage from insects and diseases. But longer growing seasons and increased carbon dioxide concentrations could more than offset the losses from those factors (EPA 2016a).
88
With overall warmer temperatures, conditions would be favorable for more non-native plant species from sub-tropical regions to invade communities (AGFC 2015). This would be especially true in areas where native species decline. Invasive non-native species would be an increased threat to all terrestrial habitats. Aquatic Habitats
Aquatic systems could see substantial impacts from a changing climate. A reduction in available water, either due to decreased precipitation or increased evapotranspiration, would result in reduced stream flows and altered hydrology under the scenario in which there is a slight decrease in precipitation (AGFC 2015). Under the increase in precipitation scenarios, there would be at a minimum a temporary increase in aquatic habitat where conditions allow. Warmer air temperatures would result in increased water temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen. Warmer temperatures can also increase the frequency of algal blooms, which can be harmful and further reduce dissolved oxygen. Summer droughts may amplify these effects, while periods of extreme rainfall can increase the impacts of pollution on streams, such as increased sedimentation, turbidity, nutrient loading and agricultural run-off (EPA 2016a). FWOP: The construction of a new reservoir would adversely impact climate change by reducing the amount of carbon sequestering terrestrial vegetation (see Section 7.7.2). The amount of carbon stored in forests varies greatly depending on location (latitude) and species. Oak-hickory forests (typical forest type in the study area) can store anywhere between 110,000 – 140,000 pounds of carbon per acre. Of this, approximately 60 percent is stored in the soil and leaf litter, with the remainder in the trees. Assuming a worst case scenario (100 percent actively growing forest), the construction of a 10,000 acre reservoir would result in the loss of approximately 700,000 tons of sequestered carbon – and the ability to sequester more in the future as trees mature (NAU 2017). In 2015, forests in the United States were sequestering an estimated 666.2 million metric tons of carbon (MMT CO2 Eq.). The loss of 10,000 acres of actively growing forest would equate to the loss of approximately 0.1% of the current carbon sequestering ability of U.S. forests (EPA 2017). Without knowing the specific site of a new reservoir, or its size, it is impossible to estimate any level of impact (for example, how many acres of trees, shrubs, grasslands, etc. would be converted to open water). Suffice to say that any reservoir location would likely have a mixture of terrestrial vegetation types and conditions. Actively growing forests (with fertile soils) sequesters more carbon than other vegetation types. Therefore it’s likely that construction of a reservoir would result in less than the 0.1 percent loss of carbon sequestering ability. Considering current stable or increasing acreages of forests (EPA 2017), this small loss – while permanent at the site, is likely insignificant – and more likely unmeasurable across a larger region. FWP: Implementation of either FWP alternative could have minor impacts to climate change, since hydroelectric generating capacity would decline, and thus presumably would need to be offset by another source of energy. Offsetting lost hydropower with coal fired generation would result in minor increases in emissions of greenhouse gas and other emissions. Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) did not provide an estimate of dependable capacity loss or annual peaking energy loss for this reallocation request of 25,360 acre-feet from Greers Ferry Lake during scoping in 2015. SWPA did, however, estimate in July of 2015 that a similar reallocation
89
request of 42,000 acre-feet from Beaver Lake (also in the White River drainage) would result in a dependable capacity loss of about 3.4 megawatts (3,400 kilowatts), and an annual peaking energy loss of about 8,300 megawatt-hours (8.3 million kilowatt-hours). Using estimates for Beaver Lake and correcting for the difference in acre-feet at each lake, the reallocation of 25,360 acre-feet from Greers Ferry Lake would result in a dependable capacity loss of about 2.05 megawatts (2,050 kilowatts), and an annual peaking energy loss of about 5,012 megawatt- hours (5.01 million kilowatt-hours). Assuming the same mix of generation types for the Energy Information Administration’s Midwestern region, which includes Arkansas (Error! Reference source not found.), reallocating storage from the conservation pool would increase releases of Sulfur Dioxide by 16.4 tons per year, Nitrous Oxide by 10.25 tons annually, and Carbon Dioxide by 3,549 tons. When compared to total annual emissions in Arkansas from power generation on percent basis, the increase would be inconsequential (0.02 percent, 0.03 percent, and 0.01 percent, respectively) (
90
Table 5-14: Increase in Emissions from Combustion Power Generation
).
Table 5-13: Estimated Average Power Generation Emissions by U.S. Region (pounds per kilowatt hour)
Region Sulfur Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Carbon Dioxide New England 0.007 0.002 0.691 New York and New 0.005 0.002 1.014 Midwest 0.008 0.005 1.731 South Atlantic 0.007 0.004 1.429 West 0.001 0.000 1.002 Northwest 0.000 0.001 0.244 U.S. 0.006 0.004 1.276
Source: Energy Information Agency, “2015 Annual Outlook for U.S. Electric Power”
91
Table 5-14: Increase in Emissions from Combustion Power Generation
Sulfur Nitrous Carbon Dioxide Oxide Dioxide 28,283,30 Annual emissions in Arkansas (tons per year)* 84,823 44,434 2 Increased Emissions due to Reallocation from Conservation Pool (tons per year) 16.4 10.25 3,549 Increased Emissions due to Reallocation from Conservation Pool (percent) 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% * Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (E- GRID)
NOISE
Noise levels in and around the Greers Ferry Lake Project are typical of those normally found in areas where water recreation takes place (i.e., noises from boats, jet skis and other recreational vehicles and equipment). Levels at Greers Ferry Lake are not excessive. FWOP: Minor changes in noise level may occur under the FWOP alternative during reservoir construction and recreational use. Increased noise level is anticipated to be minor, and occur only during summer months. FWP: With either FWP alternative, there will be no FWP induced change in noise levels around Greers Ferry Lake. Minor changes may occur, similar to those experienced under the FWOP alternative.
92
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Table 5-15 summarizes the status of environmental compliance laws.
Table 5-15: Status of Environmental Compliance
Plan Policies Compliance Rationale for Compliance Public Laws Section 5.9 – No effect from Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, 1974, as amended Compliant TSP. Section 5.9 – No effect from Archeological Resources Protection Act, 1979, as amended Compliant TSP. Section 5.13; no discharge of dredge or disposal with FWP; FWOP will comply prior to Clean Air Act, 1977, as amended Compliant implementation. Section 5.13; no discharge of dredge or disposal with FWP; FWOP will comply prior to Clean Water Act, 1972, as amended Compliant implementation. Section 5.7 - Coordination on- going with FWS – no effect with TSP; FWS will provide CAR during agency/public Endangered Species Act, 1973, as amended On-going comment period. Section 5.5; no Prime Farmlands around GF Lake – Farmland Protection Policy Act Compliant NRCS concurs. Section 5.7 - Coordination on- going with FWS – no effect with TSP; FWS will provide CAR during agency/public Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 1958, as amended* On-going comment period. Section 5.7 – FWOP would have positive effect; FWP Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 1918, as amended Compliant would have no effect. Will be complete once report National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, as amended On-going is finalized. Section 5.9 – No effect from National Historic Preservation Act, 1966, as amended Compliant TSP. Section 5.9 – No effect from Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990 Not Applicable TSP.
Rivers and Harbors Act, 1899 Compliant Section 5.6 – no W&S Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended Compliant in project area.
93
Executive Orders Section 5.10 – no impacts Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) Compliant from any alternative.
Flood Plain Management (E.O. 11988) Compliant Section 5.7 – FWOP has potential for wetland impact; FWP – minor or no impact to Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) Compliant wetlands (none from TSP). Section 5.10 – no impacts Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks (E.O. 13045) Compliant from any alternative. Section 5.7 – FWOP has potential for spread of invasive species; FWP alternatives will Invasive Species (E.O. 13112) Compliant not impact vegetation Section 5.7 – FWOP would have positive effect; FWP Migratory Birds (E.O. 13186) Compliant would have no effect.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define a cumulative impact as an effect which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions CFR Section 1508.7. Relatively minor individual impacts may collectively result in significant cumulative impacts over a period of time. The initial step of the cumulative impacts analysis uses information from the evaluation of direct and indirect impacts in the selection of environmental resources that should be evaluated for cumulative impacts. A proposed action would not contribute to a cumulative impact if it would not have a direct or indirect effect on the resource. Similarly, CEQ guidance recommends narrowing the focus of cumulative impacts analysis to important issues of national, regional, or local significance. The resources considered for cumulative impacts assessment include: climate change, groundwater, aquatic habitat, socioeconomics, and T&E species; and recreation resources. Past Projects in the Region 1970 – 71 – Two discretionary reallocations from the conservation pool for 1,125 ac-ft (from hydropower to water supply). 2005 – 2010 – Eight reallocations (7 discretionary; 1 Congressional) totaling 32,725.57 ac-ft from the flood pool to water supply (Table 2.2).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects
94
Beaver Lake Reallocation – USACE is currently studying the potential for a conservation pool reallocation at Beaver Lake in NW Arkansas (from hydropower to water supply) to meet the immediate need for additional water supply storage to current population growth and growth projected over the course of the next fifty (50) years. Dam Removal – Middle Fork Little Red River – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and other groups are proposing to remove a low- head dam on the Middle Fork, upstream of Greers Ferry Lake. The Little Rock District COE is currently updating the Greers Ferry Lake Master Plan, which provides direction for the management of USACE properties surrounding the lake.
Present Project The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address future water supply needs for the central Arkansas region. Increased demand is due to population growth, which is driving the need for additional water. This Proposed Action would reallocate approximately 25,360 acre-feet of storage from the conservation pool in Greers Ferry Lake (from hydropower to water supply). The proposed reallocation would not require any construction or modifications to the dam. Cumulative impacts resulting from past, present and future activities would occur to the following resources as discussed by section. Table 5-16 provides a summary of the potential cumulative impacts of the TSP and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects within the region.
Table 5-16: Summary of Potential Cumulative Impacts of the TSP and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects within the Region Little Red RiverLittle Reallocations Conservation Conservation Plan revision reallocations removal dam Greers Ferry Ferry Greers Ferry Greers Reallocation Beaver Lake Lake MasterLake reallocation Middle Fork Past Flood Proposed Resources Pool Pool Past
Climate Change ↓ * * ↓ - -
Air Quality ↓ * * ↓ - -
Groundwater ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ - -
Socioeconomics ↓ ↓ - ↓ - - - Status quo; ↑ Beneficial impacts; ↓ Negative impacts; * Unknown
CLIMATE CHANGE
The Proposed Action could have minor impacts to climate change, since hydroelectric generating capacity would decline, and thus presumably would need to be offset by another source of energy.
95
Offsetting lost hydropower with coal fired generation would result in minor increases in emissions of greenhouse gas and other emissions. The proposed conservation pool reallocation at Beaver Lake would have impacts similar to those above. When considered together, the two proposed reallocations have the potential to have minor, but insignificant cumulative impacts to climate change. It is likely that any change would fall within the range of natural variation discussed by the USGCRP for the Southeast Region (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southeast).
AIR QUALITY
The Proposed Action has the potential to have minor, but insignificant impacts to air quality. Very minor increases in sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide could occur if lost hydropower is replaced by coal-fired plants. However, these increases would likely be unmeasurable. The proposed conservation pool reallocation at Beaver Lake would have impacts similar to those above. When considered together, the two proposed reallocations have the potential to have minor, but insignificant cumulative impacts to air quality. It is likely that any increase in emissions would be unmeasurable.
GROUND WATER
The Proposed Action will provide additional surface water to users in central Arkansas. With the availability of this water source, there will be less dependence on ground water for municipal and industrial needs. This reduced reliance on ground water aligns with the goals of Arkansas’ State Water Plan, as many aquifers are currently being overused and unable to recharge at a sustainable rate. The other past and future water reallocations have beneficial impacts similar to those listed above. When considered together, the actions considered above will have beneficial cumulative impacts to ground water resources in Arkansas.
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
The Proposed Action would have minor economic impacts to hydropower. Section 3.14.3 provides an analysis of these impacts, as well as all past reallocations at Greers Ferry Lake. The Hydropower Analysis Center (HAC) determined the cumulative impact to hydropower would be an estimated 4.4 percent decrease in energy; and although, SWPA revenues would decline slightly, SWPA would receive $357,000 in credits to the U.S. Treasury to offset lost revenues. The HAC also conducted an assessment of hydropower impacts from the proposed Beaver Lake reallocation. Results of their analysis is similar to those listed above. While minor impacts to revenue would occur, SWPA would receive credits to the U.S. Treasury to offset lost revenues. When considered together, the actions discussed above will have minor adverse cumulative impacts to hydropower. These impacts would be offset by credits to the U.S. Treasury.
96
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT OFFSET THESE IMPACTS
Avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts to natural, cultural, and other environmental resources were integrated into the proposed action to the greatest extent possible and practicable. As a result, there are no significant adverse impacts anticipated by the Proposed Action.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project’s short-term impacts on the environment and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing one development option reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that giving over a parcel of land or other resource to a certain use often eliminates the possibility of other uses being performed at that site. Under the Proposed Action, there would be no short-term effects. In the long-term, the proposed reallocation would provide an important water supply need. The Proposed Action would not result in any impacts that would reduce environmental productivity or narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are used on a long-term or permanent basis. This includes the use of non-renewable resources such as metal and fuel. These resources are irretrievable in that they would be used for a project when they could have been used for other purposes. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. In addition, the unavoidable destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that particular environment is also considered an irreversible commitment of resources. FWOP: Construction of a new reservoir would result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of some resources, such as land use, and physical, biological and cultural resources. FWP: Neither action alternative would result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
Reallocation from the conservation pool has no effects on geological resources, water resources, biological resources, HTRW, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources, environmental justice, or cumulative effects. While there is an effect to hydropower generation, the team analyzed this impact and determined that it would not result in a serious effect to the hydropower purpose. Reallocation from the flood pool has no effects on geological resources, water resources, biological resources, HTRW, noise, socioeconomic resources, or environmental justice. However, a flood pool reallocation does have effects to flood risk management, recreation and real estate purposes at Greers
97
Ferry Lake. Along with increased life loss downstream, potential effects to cultural resources with a water level rise resulting in bank erosion and lost hydropower generation. Although the environmental impacts are similar between the conservation pool alternative and the flood pool, the flood pool alternative requires additional storage and costs for DYMS and has potential effects on cultural resources. Further, due to the numerous impacts to other authorized purposes with the flood pool reallocation alternative, using the conservation pool at Greers Ferry Lake to reallocate from the hydropower purpose to the water supply purpose is the most suitable plan.
CONCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The FWOP alternative has the potential to have significant and permanent impacts to the human environment in the area. Neither action alternative identified in this report/EA would have significant impacts on the human environment. The proposed action, reallocation of water supply from the conservation pool, would have the least effect on the environmental and socioeconomic resources in the area. Hydropower generation would be affected by this reallocation, but the impact to the hydropower purpose would not be significant, and it would be compensated through appropriate methods as listed.
98
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, REVIEW, AND CONSULTATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
On June 30, 2015, SWL sent out a Scoping Letter to interested parties, including state and federal agencies, local communities and conservation districts, water municipalities, and area marinas, to help identify concerns and issues that might be addressed, and bring them to USACE attention. On July 19, 2015, a similar Scoping letter was sent to potentially interested Tribes, requesting information and comments. These letters also inquired whether the Tribe would like to participate as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. A copy of these Scoping letters and a complete list of agencies and Tribes contacted, can be found in Appendix F.
INSTITUTIONAL INVOLVEMENT
STUDY TEAM
The following individuals were primarily responsible for the preparation of this report: . Glenn Proffitt – Project Manager . Tacy Jensen – Study Manager/Lead Planner . Stuart Norvell/Russ Wallace – Economist . Nathaniel Keen – Civil Engineering and Engineering Lead . Craig Hilburn – Biologist and NEPA lead . Seth Sampson – Cultural Resources . Martin Regner – Cost Engineering . Jeremy Johnson – Real Estate
AGENCY COORDINATION
Coordination was completed with tribes, local, state, federal agencies and other interested parties for this study. Responses were received from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Arkansas Geological Survey, Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Southwestern Power Administration, and the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Most environmental agency comments and concerns focused on impacts to the karst region and endangered species with a water level raise. Southwestern Power Administration voiced concerns over the reallocation. All other comments were supportive. A copy of the coordination list, all scoping letters, and responses are located in Appendix F.
99
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis conducted during the course of study to-date indicate that Reallocation of Storage in Greers Ferry Lake’s Conservation Pool from the Hydropower Purpose to Water Supply Storage, is the most technically feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally sound alternative of those evaluated. The detailed evaluation, comparison and screening analysis conducted indicates that this alternative should be adopted as the Recommended Plan. This plan consists of reallocation of 25,360 acre-feet of storage from existing hydropower purpose to supplement three existing water entities water supply storage, and would benefit the three water utilities and its partner water agencies, as well as all residents within the service area benefitting from this action. A Supplemental Water Supply Agreement will be prepared for Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA) to include the obligations related to the reallocation.
100
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the USACE allow the reallocation of 25,360 acre-feet of storage in Greers Ferry Lake, from existing hydropower storage, to water supply storage, for the long-term benefit of Mid-Arkansas Water Alliance (MAWA) and their service areas. I have determined that it is within the discretionary authority of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Civil Works (ASA-CW) to approve this proposed action. The Recommended Plan does not include any mitigation or modifications which would affect the purposes for which the project was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, nor would it involve major structural or operational changes. A draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is provided earlier in this report. If approved, MAWA would reimburse the Federal Treasury for the capitalized cost of storage in the amount of $285,427 per annum, and would pay a proportional share (1.50 percent) of joint annual OMRR&R costs for reservoir operations. Due to impacts to hydroelectric power generation, a credit to the accounting records for Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) in accordance with ER- 1105-2-100, Appendix E-57d(3) would also be required. Similarly, MAWA would have to enter into a supplemental water supply storage agreement with the Corps. Draft agreements have been prepared and accompany this storage reallocation report under separate cover.
Robert G. Dixon Colonel, US Army District Engineer
101
REFERENCES ADEQ, 2008. 2008 Integrated Water Quality and Monitoring Report. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Little Rock, AR.
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). 2015. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Little Rock, AR. 1984 pp. Available at: http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/strategy_2015.html.
AGFC 2017. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission press release: “High Water and Habitat come together for Greers Ferry fish”. Website: https://www.agfc.com/en/news/2017/05/17/high-water- and-habitat-come-together-for-greers-ferry-fish/ (Accessed July 17, 2017).
Arkansas Geological Survey (AGS). 2017. Arkansas Geological Survey, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Brandt, L., H. He, L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson III, P. Butler, S. Handler, M. Janowiak, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, M. Albrecht, R. Blume-Weaver, P. Deizman, J. DePuy, W.D. Dijak, G. Dinkel, S. Fei, D.T. Jones-Farrand, M. Leahy, S. Matthews, P. Nelson, B. Oberle, J. Perez, M. Peters, A. Prasad, J.E. Schneiderman, J. Shuey, A.B. Smith, C. Studyvin, J.M. Tirpak, J.W.Walk, W.J. Wang, L. Watts, D. Weigel, S. Westin. 2014. Central Hardwoods ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the Central Hardwoods Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-124. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 254 p.
AWIS 2017. Arkansas Watershed Information System. Arkansas Automated Reporting and Mapping System. Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies. University of Arkansas. Website: http://watersheds.cast.uark.edu/index.php (Accessed June 29, 2017).
Carter, L. M., J. W. Jones, L. Berry, V. Burkett, J. F. Murley, J. Obeysekera, P. J. Schramm, and D. Wear, 2014: Ch. 17: Southeast and the Caribbean. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 396-417. doi:10.7930/J0N-P22CB.
CAST 2006. Land Use Information Reports. Arkansas Automated Reporting and Mapping System. Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies. University of Arkansas. Website: http://watersheds.cast.uark.edu/ reports/pdf/1101001409 (Accessed July 12, 2017).
Center for Climate Strategies (CCS). 2008. Draft Arkansas Greenhouse Gas 31 Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990-2025. Prepared for the 32 Arkansas Governor’s Commission on Global Warming. Available at: 33 http://www.arclimatechage.us/Inventory_Forecast_Report.cfm.
Coble, D. 1994. Highway 95-North, Cultural Survey (Greers Ferry Lake). Prepared by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas. EPA, 2016. Air Quality Index Report. Environmental Protection Agency. Website: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-quality-index-report. (Accessed April 5, 2017).
102
EPA, 2017. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990 – 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report EPA 430-P-17-001. Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990- 2015 (Accessed October 13, 2017).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016a. What Climate Change Means for Arkansas. EPA 430-F-16-006. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 09/documents/climate- change-ar.pdf.
HDR and Freese and Nichols, Inc. “Unified Costing Model User’s Guide.” Prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, May 2013.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 104. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synt hesis_report.htm.
Jones, R. 1979. An Archeological Survey of Three Proposed Cable Crossings, Greers Ferry Lake, Cleburne County, Arkansas. Prepared by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey. Report prepared for Southwestern Bell. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Klinger, T.C. 2009. Chesapeake Energy-Shirley-Fairfield Bay (Field Review of 3VB023, 3VB047, 3VB058, and 3VB059) Van Buren County, Arkansas. Prepared by Historic Preservation Associates. Report prepared for Chesapeake Energy. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Klinger, T.C., and J.W. Smith 1992. A Cultural Resources Survey along the Proposed Faulkner- Cleburne Water District Transmission Line between Greers Ferry Lake and the City of Mayflower within the Ozark-Arkansas-Ouachita Region Cleburne and Faulkner Counties, Arkansas. Prepared by Historic Preservation Associates. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Kresse, T.M., Hays, P.D., Merriman, K.R., Gillip, J.A., Fugitt, D.T., Spellman, J.L., Nottmeier, A.M., Westerman, D.A., Blackstock, J.M., and Battreal, J.L., 2014, Aquifers of Arkansas—Protection, management, and hydrologic and geochemical characteristics of groundwater resources in Arkansas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5149, 334 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145149.
McClurkan, B.B. 1983. Archeological Investigation of AHTD Job#5733; Relocation of State Highway 25 in Cleburne County, Arkansas. Prepared by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
103
McGimsey, C.R. 1959. An Archeological Survey of the Greers Ferry Reservoir in North-Central Arkansas. Prepared by the University of Arkansas and National Park Service. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
National Research Council. 2012. Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and 19 Choices; answers to common questions about the science of climate change. 20 36 pp. NatureServe 2016. NatureServe Network. Arlington, VA. Website: http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lesquerella+filiformis#http:// www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lesquerella+filiformis (Accessed August 15, 2016).
NAU, 2017. Northern Arizona University. Carbon Storage and Accumulation in U.S. Forests. Website: http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio226/class/ecosyst/USFScarb.htm (Accessed October 12, 2017).
NOAA, 2016. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “State of the Climate: Global Analysis for May 2017. Website: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time- series/us/3/2/tavg/ytd/12/1895- 2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1900&lastbaseyear=2016&trend=true&trend_base=10&first trendyear=1900&lasttrendyear=2016 (Accessed July 6, 2017).
NRCS 2017. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (Accessed August 10, 2017).
Rodriquez, D., J.E. Gilliland, A. Tremblay, S. Carpenter, P. Thomason, V. Myers, and M. Handly. 2017. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tract No. 702-2 and Tract No. 703, Crawford County, Arkansas for the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
USFWS 2007. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office. Speckled pocketbook (Lampsilis streckeri Frierson 1927) 5-year review: summary and evaluation 15 pp.
USFWS 2017. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office. Website: https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/Species/species-info.html (Accessed March 31, 2017).
USGCRP 2009. U.S. Global Change Research Program, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, January 2009. Website: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global- climate-change-impacts-united-states.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Ground Water Atlas of the United States–Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, HA 730-F. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_f/F-text7.html (Accessed July 29, 2017).
104
Weatherbase 2017. Weatherbase. Website: http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather- summary.php3?s=879230&cityname=Heber+Springs%2C+Arkansas%2C+United+States+of+A merica&units= (Accessed June 28, 2017).
Weinstein, R. (Editor) 2017. A Section 110 Cultural Resources Survey within Little Rock District Lands (Working Title). Sections of working draft submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas by Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA.
Wilks, D. 2011. Midway Branch Str. & Apprs., Cultural Survey (Greers Ferry Lake). Prepared by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District Office-Federal Office Building, Little Rock, Arkansas.
105