Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma, Furnished with Your Letter Dated 21 September 1973
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT HUOO LAKE KIAMICHI RIVER, OKLAHOMA Prepared by TULSA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENC,INKERS TULSA, OKLAHOMA February 1974 Statement of Findings Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River Basin, Oklahoma As Acting District Engineer, Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers, it is my duty in the role of responsible Federal Official to evaluate project data presented in the environmental statement, draw conclusions, and make recommendations to my higher authority. The overall public interest has been given the utmost consideration and personal concern in my review and evaluation of the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the public, relative to the various alternatives in accomplishing the purposes of flood con trol, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Therefore, I have both a professional and personal concern in drawing the soundest possible conclusions from the studies, observations, and consultations made in the investigation of Hugo Lake. Project formulation studies for Hugo Lake occurred prior to the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act. During those studies public meetings, informal meetings, and workshops were conducted within the project area to determine public preferences, opinions, needs, and objectives. All project-related information derived from these meetings was carefully evaluated during plan formulation and was incorporated into the planning ana development of Hugo Lake for the total public interest. The construction of the project was 83 percent complete on 31 October 1973. A draft environmental statement was completed and released for review by other agencies, groups, and individuals on 21 September 1973. The final statement was then prepared utilizing comments received on the draft statement, technical assistance from the University of Oklahoma, and additional environmental studies by the Corps of Engineers. All correspondence received on the draft has been considered in the final environmental statement. All reasonable alternatives were considered or reconsidered in the preparation of the statement. The ones which merited the most serious consideration were the authorized (under construction) project, a dry lake at the authorized damsite, and abandonment of the project. These alternatives were assessed by a multidisciplined professional group. Each alternative was studied with regard to impacts on the natural environment, social well being, and economics, including regional and national development and engineering feasibility. Detailed studies of the alternatives revealed that only the authorized project xjould fulfill all of the project purposes. The dry lake plan would provide about the same degree of flood protection, buc would not provide water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation benefits. The cost involved to abandon the project and the benefits that would be foregone indicate that the alternative to abandon the project is not feasible. Other factors bearing on my review include the under construction status of the project vr>cn the ”"’tiw>.l Environmental Policy Act became effective and the alternatives studied prior to the Act. I have given careful consideration to the plan to mitigate wildlife losses. The plan to establish a National Wildlife Refuge and a State Game Management area is well conceived and in consonance with national objectives. Other recommendations of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife concerning fisheries management have been included in develop ment plans. I therefore conclude that although some alternatives would.have more favorable impacts in some areas, Hugo Lake will most adequately fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of the present and future generations of Americans. After consideration of the data contained in the environmental statement, I find that in the proposed action, when adverse effects are found to be involved, those effects are either ameliorated or substantially outweighed by other considerations of national policy; that the recommended action is consonant with national policy, statutes, and administrative directives; and that on balance the total public interest is best served by construction and operation of Hugo Lake. 20 Mar 74______ W. C. TOMSEN Lieutenant Colonel, CE Acting District Engineer Approved. DATE HARRY A/GRIFFITH M Brigadier General, USA Division Engineer I concur in the preceding Statement of Findings for Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River Basin, Oklahoma. 9AXE J. W. MOPRIS ,/Major General, USA Director of Civil Works Summary Sheet Hugo Lake, Klamichl River, Oklahoma ( ) Draft. ( x ) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office. US Army Engineer District, Tulsa, Oklahoma Colonel John G. Driskill, District Engineer PO Box 61, Tulsa, OK 7A102 Telephone - 918-581-7311 1. Name of Action; Construction and operation of Hugo Lake, Oklahoma. ( X ) Administrative. ( ) Legislative 2. Description of action. The project is located in Choctaw County just west of the town of Sawyer, Oklahoma, on the Klamichl River at river mile 17.6. The action consists of construction and operation of a lake for flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife management. Construction was 7A7. complete as of 1 January 1973. 3. Environmental Impacts. a. Completion of the proposed project will significantly reduce annual flood damages and will provide for water supply, water quality control', recreation, and fish and wildlife management. The high quality water supply will meet the 50-year water needs of the Hugo-Antlers area. Expanding industrial development and rising population trends in metropolitan areas outside the Klamichl River basin, but within reasonable water transmission distance emphasize the need for additional water supply. Prolonged drought periods in the project area show the need for providing conservation storage of surface runoff to meet the demands for water supply and water quality control. Low-flow augmentation will enhance the downstream environmental setting by providing a more stable and constant flow of higher quality water. The lake would provide a recreational resource situated in scenic surroundings and readily available to growing urban areas. The project will result, in an Increased fishery while approximately 13,250 acres of land and the vegetation it supports will be inundated. Additional changes will occur from project construction, operation, and human disturbance. b. Adverse environmental effects. The conservation pool will permanently inundate 13,250 acres of land, Including approximately 35 miles of Klamichl River. This land and stream provided habitat for fish and wildlife. An additional 21,2A0 acres wili be periodically Inundated during flood time. The project has displaced 68 families. Three state highways, several county roads, pipelines, powerlines, telephone lines, and approximately 100 graves are being relocated. The composition of plant and animal-species In the project area will scars^nois^ a,T,e8f t °J construction of the lake. Construction effects” l8e* a”d air pollution Coring construction are other adverse A. Alternatives. Dry lake (flood control operation only) and abandon the project. 5. Comments requested. Environmental Protection Agency Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Federal Highway Administration Forest Service Advisory Council on Historic Preservation US Department of Commerce Public Health Service, HEW Soil Conservation Service Office of Community Affairs and Planning (Oklahoma Clearinghouse) Oklahoma Historical Society ' Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Inc. Sierra Club, Oklahoma Chapter Izaak Walton League, Oklahoma Chapter Mrs. Connie Taylor Tulsa Audubon Society News Media will also be advised of the availability of the draft for review by any interested groups or individuals upon request. 6. Draft statement to CE£. 13 October 1971. Final Statement to CEO . SECTION 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Paragraph Title Page 1 General 1-3 2 Description 1-3 3 Economics 1-8 A Operation and Maintenance 1-8 a. Maintenance of Project with Related 1-S Structures and Facilities b. Disposal of Sewage and Solid Waste 1-8 (1) Disposal of Sewage 1-8 (2) Disposal of Solid Waste 1-8 c. Insect and Undesirable Vegetation 1-8 Control (1) Insect Control 1-8 (2) Control of Undesirable Vegetation 1-8 d. Forestry and Wildlife Management 1-8 ( 1) Forest Management 1-9 (2) Wildlife Management 1-9 e. Recreation Management 1-10 f. Management of Land Resources and 1-13 Facilities (1) Land Management Plans 1-13 (2) Management of Leases, Easements, and 1-13 Other Outgrants g. Erosion Control 1-13 TABLES Table Title rage 1-1 Pertinent Data 1-3 1”2 Pertinent Data for Stage Development of Kiamichi River Basin 1-6 PLATES Plate Title 1“1 Hugo Lake - Public Use Plan 1-7 SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. General. This environmental statement covers the construction and operation of the multiple-purpose Hugo Lake, the key unit in a three- reservoir system authorized for the Kiamichi River. The other two reservoirs Clayton and Tuskahoma, are dealt with in this report only to the extent that they willinfluence the operation of Hugo Lake. TABLE 1-1 PERTINENT DATA Elevation Area Storage Feature (feet. MSL) (acres) (acre-feet Top of Dam 452.5 Top flood control pool 437.5 34,490 966,500 Top conservation pool 404.5 13,250 157,300 Top inactive pool 390.0 4,500 30,400 Flood control storage 404.5-437.5 Initial conditions 809,200 After 100 years sediment 808,300