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 Conservation storage 390.0-404.5 Initial conditions 126,900 After 100 years sediment 121,500 Inactive storage Initial conditions 30,400 After 100 years sediment 6,900 50-year pool 437.5 34,490 966,500 10-year drawdown pool 394.0 6,680 52,600

2. Description. Hugo Lake Is located on the lower Kiamichi River in Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties of southeastern Oklahoma. The damslte is located at river mile 17.6 on the Kiamichi River in Choctaw County, Oklahoma, adjoining the town of Sawyer. (See map plate 1-1.)

The lake was authorized for construction by Public Law 526, 79th Congress, 1946, and modified by Public Law 87-874, Senate Document 145, 87th Congress, 2d Session as a multipurpose project including flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Storage for water quality control was added as a project purpose under Public Law 87—88 and was approved by appropriate Congressional Committees 6 October 1969. iFS L Pr^ eC£SJfUn?ed f°r advance engineering and design before fiscal year 1966, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (Public Law 89-72) does ialtialvrecreation facility development; therefore, those costs will be borne by the Federal Government. Hugo Lake is planned to be operated in conjunction with Clayton and Tuskahoma Lakes which would "jnatructad at a later date at upstream sites. Clayton and Tuskahoma wouid be on Jackfork Creek (river mile 2.8) and Kiamichi River (river mile J1 ^ sP®ct}-vely* The most desirable plan of the water resource development lor the Kiamichi River System is to construct Hugo Lake first (stage I). Clayton Lake second (stage II), and Tuskahoma Lake third (stage III).

° f,5h° pro-!ect buildings and access roads uas started in November 9755. ^ The project was 83 percentPreSertJy complete SChe downstream of the embankment, were completed in ember lifiR8' ,C°nStructlon of the embankment and spillway was started in Sept- cnnnf !% 8 Tt * e;\se,ntlally complete. Relocation of Oklahoma Highways 93 is a H f 3? Julv^l973 1“ uUnd?r COntraCt and was 48 Percent complete The rol , * Peering of the lake area was completed in April 1972 The !°; of Powerlines and telephone facilities is essentially complete rove^berri97*» °rH fVC OPinen,: °f pubUc‘use areas* stage I, was awarded in Lovembcr 197, and for stage II in June 1973. As of 1 September 1973 reloca­ tion has been accomplished on 92 graves and 4 more will be relocated]

Hugo Lake will be operated for maximum flood control benefits on the Kiamichi River below the damsite. The lake will also be operated as part of a system for maximum benefits on the Red River to Fulton, Arkansas, with major benefits accruing downstream from Fulton.

The Hugo Lake project consists of an earthen embankment, two controlled conduit-type outlets, a gravity-type gated spillway, and supporting facilities. The rolled earthfill embankment is about 11,000 feet long with a maximum height of 105 feet above the streambed. The top of the dam, elevation 452,5*is 32 feet wide with a 24-foot-wide double bituminous-surfaced roadway and 4-foot-wide single bituminous—surfaced shoulders. The outlets through the dam consist of one 48—inch water supply line for future municipal and industrial water supply and one 48—inch low-flow line provided for minimum downstream flow requirements. Both outlets have intake inverts at elevation 368.25. The spillway is the controlled valley-type with a gross length of 290 feet. Spillway discharge is controlled by six 40- by 50-foot tainter gates. The stilling basin consists of a horizontal apron 77.5 feet long, 290.0 feet wide with bottom at elevation 350.00. Access to the dan is provided by a short connection to Oklahoma Highway 70 at each end of the dam. Seven public-use areas have been selected for recreational development, six above the dam and one below. Total acreage for public use is about A,913 acres. The facilities in the public-use areas will include roads, parking areas, boat launching ramps, signs, markers, picnic and camping units, playgrounds, beaches, bicycle and hiking trails, and water and sanitary facilities. The lake will be open to boating, skiing, fishing, swimming, and other water sports. It is proposed that about 14,400 acres of project land and water be made available to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for the establishment of a national wildlife refuge primarily for waterfowl. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation proposes to manage about 3,800 acres of the project for hunting. The lake will provide a dependable water supply for the 50-year needs of the Hugo-Antlers area.

Based on storage—yield studies, the recommended water supply storage from Hugo alone will be 121,500 acre-feet after 100-years of sediment and will provide a dependable yield of 148 m.g.d. for water quality control and municipal and industrial use through a 50-year drought, which has a 2 percent chance of occurring in any given year, on the average. Stage II with Hugo and the authorized Clayton Lake operational and reallocation of conservation storage in Hugo Lake to 201,000 acre-feet would provide a dependable yield of 230 m.g.d. for water quality control and municipal and industrial use. Stage III with both authorized Clayton and Tuskahoma Lakes operational, and the storage in Hugo Lake reallocated to provide 335,200 acre-feet of conservation storage, would provide a dependable yield of 335 m.g.d. for water quality control and municipal and industrial use through a 50-year drought. The central Oklahoma area is expected to obtain water which is in excess of the estimated needs of the Hugo-Antlers area for its future needs from this Kiamichi River Basin. Table 1-2 shows the storages and water supply yields in Hugo Lake for the three stages of development in the basin. Storage allocations in Hugo Lake would be changed with Stage II and again with Stage III, each time allowing a portion of the flood control storage to be reallocated to conservation storage as shown in table 1-2. TABLE 1-2

PERTINENT DATA FOR STAGE DEVELOPMENT OF KIAMICHI RIVER BASIN

Feature Stage I Stage II Stage III Initial operation, year 1970 1980 2000 Location Stream Kiamichi Kiamichi Kiamichi River mile 17.6 17.6 17.6 Drainage area, square miles 1,709 (1)1,709 (2)1,709 Elevations, feet, m.s.l. Top of dam 457.0 457.0 457.0 Top of flood control pool 437.5 437.5 437.5 Top of conservation pool 404.5 409.5 416.5 Top of inactive pool 390.0 390.0 390.0 Storage, acre-feet Flood control 809,200 735,000 600,900 Conservation 126,900 201,100 335,200 Inactive 30,400 30,400 30,400

Water supply yield, m.g.d. 148 230 335 Spillway Type Controlled Controlled Controlled Number and size of gates Four AO'xSO1 Four 40 ^SO* Four 40'x50’ Crest elevation, feet, m.s.l. 387.5 387.5 387.5

(1) uncontrolled area below Clayton Darasite Is 1,434 square miles.

(2) Uncontrolled area below Clayton Dam and Tuskahoma Damsites is 1,087 square miles.

3. Economics, The estimated annual benefits expected from Hugo Lake are $3,133,000 and the annual charges are estimated at $1,506,000 resulting in a 2,1 benefit to cost ratio, based on prices of July 1971,

A , Operation and Maintenance.

a. Maintenance of project with related structures and facilities. Maintenance of Hugo Lalce with related structures and facilities will be performed in accordance with the Maintenance Manual for Hugo Lake. The manual provides for the inspection and maintenance of the earth dam, concrete spillway, and control works, crane and hoists, buildings and grounds, water supply and sewage systems, standby generating unit, radio communication system, and various types of vehicles and equipment for administration and maintenance of the project. The manual provides an inspection check list, including maintenance to be performed, and supplemental information concerning principles relative to maintenance practices and methods of repairing and maintaining equipment.

b. Disposal of sewage and solid waste.

(1) Disposal of sewage. Sewage removed from vault toilets at Hugo Lake will be disposed of by commercial contractors in a State-approved sewage treatment facility located in the area. Effluents from the project office buildings and Overlook No. 1 flow into septic tank and tile field systems. No sewage disposal problems are anticipated at Hugo Lake.

(2) Disposal of solid waste. Disposal of solid waste generated on project lands will be handled by commercial contractors who will dispose of the waste in a sanitary landfill located on project lands.

c. Insect and undesirable vegetation control.

(1) Insect control. Mosquitoes, ticks, and flies may be a nuisance at the Hugo Lake project. Should the need for control measures arise, any chemical used will be registered with, and approved by, the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) Control of undesirable vegetation. The vegetation controls used at the project will consist primarily of mowing grass and trimming shrubbery around the project buildings and brush-hog mowing along roadway shoulders. Additional vegetative controls in areas inaccessible to mowing machines, will be accomplished by the use of weedhooks and chemicals.

d . Forestry and wildlife management. (1) Forest management. The objectives of the management program are to increase the value of all project lands for recreation and wildlife and to maintain the existing forest in a healthy, natural condition. To provide natural forest conditions cultural practices of thinning, pruning, and release-cutting for stand improvement, as applied to commercial forests, will not be used. No attempt will be made to regiment trees into mechan­ ical conformity with spacing, size arrangement, quality or species. Vege­ tation living or dead will not be removed from the forest areas unless dictated by necessity. Causes for removal would be diseased or insect- infested trees; fire hazard reductions, and safety precautions such as the removal of dangerous dead trees or limbs from places where human life or property is endangered; removal to prevent encroachment of the forest on natural meadows or open spaces; or to provide openings or clearings if they do not exist, to promote reproduction of food and low-growing cover such as grass, weeds, stubble, and dense thickets used for loafing, nesting, and protection of wildlife from predators.

(2) Wildlife management.

a. General. Resident fish and wildlife belongs to the State of Oklahoma regardless of land ownership. The state, through the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, has the authority and responsibility to preserve and manage all resident fish and wildlife. Both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation are responsible for the Conservation and management of all migratory animals. The Corps of Engineers, as a landowner, has the responsibility to restore and improve the fish and wildlife at Hugo Lake through habitat development and wise use of land. Appropriate land and water areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army will be made available to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife by agreement under the terms of a General Plan approved jointly by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.

As appropriate, areas not managed through license or other formal agreements will be managed by the Corps of Engineers through implementation of a fish and wildlife management plan.

b . Department of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife plans for the establishment of a national wildlife refuge primarily directed to enhance waterfowl. A live tree feeding area in addition to diversified agricultural crop plantings will be managed for wildlife. Programs for other species will also be developed.

c. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. The project area to be made available to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation for wildlife management will provide public hunting for quail, dove, deer, squir­ rel, and rabbit. Game in this area will be managed using the Law of Inter- spersion. All efforts will be toward establishing edge effects. Methods such as strip-harvesting food plots, clearing and thinning sub-climax timbers and grass stands and plowing fire-trails will be implemented to increase and improve wildlife habitat. d. Planned Wildlife management by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps will manage wildlife on all project lands not licensed to another wildlife agency as appropriate. Practices recommended are designed to benefit all species of wildlife. However, emphasis has been placed on game species and songbirds.

The boundary of project lands will be marked so that the public can dis­ tinguish between private and public property. Fences will be constructed on Government lands where required to regulate livestock grazing. Any grazing or agricultural use will be an interim or corailary in wildlife management to compliment the objectives.

Invasion of grasslands by woody species may be controlled by mechanical means as required by individual management units to improve wildlife habitat.

Disking will be done to control woody growths and to encourage annuals utilized by quail, rabbits, and songbirds. Disking will be in strips along forest margins or in large areas of dense vegetation.

Habitat plantings will be planted in strips at preselected sites with special attention being given to field margins, fence rows, and large open fields.

Public hunting maps will be prepared for Hugo Lake. These maps will indicate areas open to hunting and will provide general hunting information.

Recreation, areas will also be managed to attract wildlife for the public to see. Mowing will be held to a minimum to permit natural cover to develop. Plantings will be in accordance with the project master plan. Nature trails will be constructed to compliment recreation areas and to further encourage wildlife usage. Hunting will be prohibited in all developed recreation areas. e. Recreation management. Six public-use areas around the lake and one area below the dam have been selected to accommodate the estimated optimum visitation capability. The public use areas Include the following: (1) Rattan Landing. This area is bounded on the north by Oklahoma State Highway 3 and 7 and is located on the left bank of the Kiamichi River. This area contains 60 acres delineated for development as. a public-use area and is in the upper end of the planned Federal wildlife refuge.

(2) Frazier Point. Access to this scenic wooded area on the Frazier Creek arm of the lake will be from the relocated Oklahoma State Highway 93. The terrain in this area changes from a steep rocky slope along the southern and eastern boundaries to a flat flood plain near the banks along Frazier Creek. This area is within the area designated as a Federal wildlife refuge and the 285 acres delineated within this area for public use will function as an Integral part of this refuge. (3) Sawyer Bluff. Access to this area will be from the left abutment access road. The terrain is characterized by very sharp dropoffs which expose layers of limestone. These dropoffs produce plateaus which will provide the Visitor with an excellent vantage point from which to view the lake. This area contains 280 acres that will be utilized as a day- use area and will contain the overlook and comfort station.

(4) Twin Coves (Wilson Point. Virgil Point. and group camping area).

a. Wilson Point. Access to this area will be from Oklahoma State Highway 147 (gravel). The terrain in this area is rolling and the landscape is dotted with farm ponds and small lakes. Of special interest in this area are the artesian wells, located just west of Oklahoma State Highway 147, which have been providing a constant flow of drinking water for many years. This area contains 476 acres that will be developed as a day-use area in conjunction with Virgil Point (all camping) and the group camping area.

b. Virgil Point. Access to this camping area will be from Oklahoma State Highway 147 (gravel) via a short section of graveled county road. The terrain is rolling, with some eroded areas along the western slopes of this designated area. This area contains 481 acres that will be developed as a camping area in conjunction with Wilson Point and the group camping area.

c. Group camping area. Access to this area will be from Oklahoma State Highway 147, via 1-3/4 miles of county road connecting with a short section of gravel public-use road that will be constructed to link sections of an existing county road. The south shoreline has a gentle slope, and the soil contains enough sand to provide an excellent natural swimming beach. This area contains 213 acres designated for development as group camping areas.

(5) Salt Creek Cove. Access to this area will be from Oklahoma State Highway 93, via three-fourths mile of county road. The terrain is rolling, with a few steep slopes where layers of limestone have outcropped. This area contains 418 acres designated for public-use development.

(6) Kiamlchi Park. Access to this 2,662-acre public-use area will be from US Highway 70, then three-fourths mile of county road. The terrain is rolling, with several steep slopes which were created by erosion and exposed layers of limestone. Rock outcroppings are common throughout the entire area. This large area is divided by a small scenic creek. The terrain and tree cover east of the creek (except for an area set aside for primitive camping) are conducive to development of a day-use area.

(7) Bridge View. This area gives access to both sides of the stilling basin. Access to the west bank will be from US Highway 70, through the existing overlook area. Access to the east bank will be from the left abutnent access road. The steps and fishing berms for this area were constructed as part of the embankment and spillway and are existing. This area contains 38 acres below the dam delineated for public use. Initial public use development Includes roads, parking areas, drainage structures, low water crossings, four double boat ramps, two single boat ramps, three single boat ramps with maneuvering area, eight boat docks, 16 buoys, water supply, five waterborne toilets with showers, six water­ borne toilets, 13 masonry vault toilets, 26 wood vault toilets, five changehouses with shower, two trallor sanitary stations with vault, one trailor sanitary station waterborne, two marine sanitary dump stations, a sewage treatment system, an electrical system, 179 camping pulloff units, 153 picnic tables with pad, 165 pedestal fireplaces, 25 fireplts, 125 refuse cans, 10 group shelters, 11 individual shelters, bicycle trails, foot trails, paved walks, fishing walk, fence, rock hank, landscaping, playground and equipment.

Future public use development includes additional roads, parking areas, two waterborne toilets with showers, one waterborne toilet, six masonry vault toilets, 10 wood vault toilets, four changehouses with showers, one trailor sanitary station with vault, 121 camping pulloff units, 73 picnic tables with pads, 73 pedestal fireplaces, 40 refuse cans, additional trails, paved walks, and landscaping.

The water supply system for the Rattan Public Use Area is designed to serve water hydrant outlets. The source of water supply will be the Rattan Rural Water District. The system will consist of the distribution systems and three water hydrants. The distribution system will be poly­ vinyl chloride pipe.

The sewage will be removed from the vault toilets and will be disposed of in a centrally located aerated waste disposal lagoon.

In the Wilson Point, Salt Creek Cove, and Virgil Point public-use areas the water supply system was designed to serve as a water supply for water­ borne toilets and showers, showers for swimming areas and future distribution systems, and hydrants. The water supply system will consist of lake intake pump installations, water treatment plants, water distribution lines, and water hydrant outlets. The water treatment plants will consist of a water treating unit, a backwash and water storage tank, a pressure booster pump, a pneumatic pressure tank, and a polyvinyl chloride pipe distribution system.

The sewage disposal for most areas was designed to serve a waterborne toilet. In these areas the system will consist of a septic tank, a duplex sewer pump, and dual oxidation ponds designed for total retention of sewage effluent. Additional sewage from vault toilets will be disposed of in a centrally located aerator waste disposal system. The septic tank sludge will also be placed in these lagoons. The oxidation ponds will be operated at a depth between 3 and 4-1/2 feet. Water will be hauled to maintain the water level in the ponds, but a water supply system will be provided to furnish water if the hauling requirements become too great. Additional land is available in the event that future recreation growth requires expansion of various sanitary lagoons. f. Management of land resources and facilities.

(1) Land management plans. A total resource management program involving forest management, wildlife management (habitat manipulation and cooperative game management with the state wildlife agency), erosion control, management and surveillance of general outgrants, and pollution control is under development. (2) Management of leases, easements, and other outgrants. All project land will be allocated in accordance with general legislative authority and/or specific authority granted in the project authorization. Agricultural use of project land is in no case an authorized purpose but an interim or corollary use to maximize land productivity and/or to maintain open park-like areas consistent with the authorized purposes. Accordingly, no land will be allocated for agricultural use. However, land may be used for agriculture on an interim or corollary basis when such use does not conflict with use for authorized purposes. Interim agriculture will be permitted where it is determined not to be detrimental to operational use, recreation use, or wildlife habitat. At Hugo Lake no land has been allocated for agricultural leases. There may be grazing leases. Such leases would be inspected to assure compliance with the terms and condition o£ the lease.

Most of the mineral rights at Hugo Lake are owned in fee. Precautions will be taken in the leasing program to insure environmental protection to the greatest extent practicable. Drilling will not be permitted in public-use areas or near major structures. Stone and other hard minerals were acquired.

Easements exist for electric lines, telephone lines, county roads, waterlines and related structures, etc., and one proposed lease for a commercial concession is located at Kiamichi Park.

As currently planned, private boathouses and other privately owned floating structures will not be allowed at Hugo Lake.

g. Erosion control. Fluctuation in the surface elevation resulting from flood control operation of Hugo Lake will cause some shoreline erosion and mortality of shoreline vegetation. The shoreline supports trees, grasses, and forbs which help to stabilize the slopes and additional water-tolerant grasses and other erosion-retarding ground covers will be established in the public-use areas. Erosion in the vicinity just below the dam will be prevented by stone protection. Erosion further downstream does not appear to be significant. SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT

Paragraph Title Page

1 The Basin 2-4

2 The River 2-8

3 The Flora 2-10 4 The Fauna 2-19 a. Mussels of the Kiamichi River Basin 2-19

b. Fishes of the Kiamichi Fdver Basin 2-25

(1) Distribution of Fishes Uithin the River 2-29

(2) Relative and Absolute Abundance of 2 - .3 1 Fishes

(3) Species Diversity of Fishes 2-33

(4) Similarity Between River Segments 2-35

c. Herpetofauna of the Kiamichi River Basin 2-36

(1) Amphibians 2— 36

(2) Reptiles 2 - 3 6

d. Birds of the Kiamichi River Basin 2-43

e. Mammals of the Kiamichi River Basin 2-62

5 The Archeological and Historical Cultures 2-69

6 The Economy 2-71 TABLES

Table Title Page

2-1 Water Analyses 2-11

2-2 .Importance Values for Trees From Three Upland 2-12 Forest Associations That Occur in the. Kiamichi River Drainage Area (Rice & Penfound, 1959) SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT (CONT)

TABLES (CONT)

Table Title Page

2-3 Relative Basal Area of Tree Species in Three 2- 17 Bottom Land Forest Stands, and in a Generalized Bottom Land Forest in the Vicinity of Hugo Lake. Data for the Generalized Forest are Based on Basal Areas in the Three Stands

2-4 Mussels of the Kiamichi River Basin 2*^x

2-5 Fishes of the Kiamichi River Basin 2- 26

2-6 Fish Species Limited to Either Upper or Lover 2-29 Portion of the Kiamichi River

2-7 Relative and Absolute Abundances of Fish 2 -3 2 Categories in Each Stream Segment

2-8 Species Diversity of Each Fish Category 2-34 in Upper and Lower Stream Segments

2-9 Similarity Between Upper and Lower Stream 2 -3 5 Segments for Each Category of Fish

2-10 Habitat Associations of the Kiamichi River 2 -3 7 Basin Herpetofauna

2-11 Birds Species Which Have Been Reported from 2 -4 5 the Six Counties Associated with the Kiamichi River Basin

2-12 Birds Which Are Probably Found in the Kiamichi 2 -55 River Basin Region

2-13 Mammals of the Kiauichi River Basin 2-65

2-14 State and Hugo Area Population (1950-1970) 2-71

2-15 Principal Cities Population (1960-1970) 2 -7 2

2-16 Comparative Age Frequency of Population 2 -7 3 State and Hugo Study Area (1970)

2-17 Hugo Lake Study Area Employment* Unemployment, 2 -74 and Labor Force SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT (CONT) TABLES (CONT) Table Title Page

2-18 Personal and Per Capita Income 2-75 Oklahoma and Study Area (1960-1970)

2-19 Land Area and Agriculture Resources 2-76 (1964 Federal Census)

2-20 Livestock and Chickens on Farms 2- 76 (January 1, 1968) 2-21 Value of Mineral Production in Study Area 2-77 (1968-1969) 2-22 Manufacturing Employment Statistics and Value 2-78 Added by Manufacture Hugo Study Area (1963-1967)

2-23 Wholesale Trade in Study Area (1963 & 1967) 2 - 7 9

2-24 Retail Trade in Study Area (1963 & 1967) 2 - 7 9 2-25 Existing or Authorized Lake Resources 2-.80 Within 50 Miles of Hugo Lake FIGURES Figure Title Page

2-1 Generalized soil map of the Kiamichi River Basin 2-6

2-2 Region Map Showing Location of Drainage Area 2 - 3 0 and Designation of Stream Sections SECTION 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT T1IE PROJECT

1. The Basin. Hugo Lake in the Kiamichi River Basin is located in Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties, Oklahoma, with the dam located in Choctaw County. The basin has a drainage area of 1,830 square miles, with 1,709 square miles above Hugo damsite. The Kiamichi River Basin is crescent shaped. The river originates in southeastern LeFlore County, flows west and southwest across western Pushmataha County, and then turns southeast across Choctaw County to Red River. Length of the basin is 110 miles and the width varies from 5 to 30 miles.

The northern two-thirds of the Kiamichi River Basin lies in the Ouachita Mountains physiographic province, an arcuate belt of northward thrusted rock. The arcuate belt is convex toward the northwest and the basin generally follows this lineatlon. Terrain in this part of the basin is expressed as a series of thrust faulted sandstone ridges separated by valleys underlain by shale. The southern one-third of the basin is in the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province, a belt of younger rocks that buries the older ridges and valleys and forms the southern boundary of the Ouachita Mountains. Rocks of the Gulf Coastal Plain dip gently southward. In Oklahoma, the plain consists of about 90 percent flat uplands, dissected by erosion. The topography is rolling to gently rolling, with the hills capped by rock more resistant to erosion. Where limestone units occur they often form north facing escarpments. In Oklahoma, the boundary between the Ouachita Mountains and Gulf Coastal Plain roughly coincides with the location of State Highways 3 and 7 between Atoka and Broken Bow.

The Kiamichi River is a mature stream with a succession of widely contrasting segments, alternating from a wide valley to steep gorges having banks 80 to 90 feet high. Slope of the channel is about 2 feet per mile between its point of discharge into Red River and Antlers, Oklahoma, but increases to over 100 feet per mile near its upstream extremity in LeFlore County. The river parallels the lineatlon of the mountain ridges from its source to Moyers, Oklahoma, but southward to its confluence with Red River it is a superimposed stream, flowing without regard to present rock dip. Major tributaries of the river have channel slopes of 7 to 10 feet per mile and drain large areas. North of Moyers, Oklahoma, trihutary streams enter the river at right angles forming a trellis drainage pattern. South of Moyers, where the Kiamichi River cuts across Ouachita structures and Gulf Coastal dips, the stream pattern is dendritic, characterized by irregular branching in all directions with the tributaries joining the main stream at all angles.

Surface rocks in the part of the basin traversing the Ouachita Mountains belong to the Stanley and Jackfork groups of Mississippian age. The Stanley group is primarily shale and forms the flat floor of the Kiamichi River Valley. Jackfork group consists of alternating layers of sandstone and shale with sandstone being the predominant rock type. Sandstones of the Jackfork form the steeper slopes and higher parts of the mountains.

In the basin area in the Gulf Coastal Plains the surface rocks belong, in ascending order, to the Trinity, Fredericksburg, and Washita groups of Cretaceous Age. These groups outcrop in east-west bands across the basin. The Trinity group underlies most of Hugo Lake and the Fredericksburg and Washita groups outcrop near the dam axis. Good exposures of the Trinity group are not common in the basin because the surface unit of this group is the Paluxy sand which is soft and loosely cemented. The Paluxy sand is interbedded with clay and occasionally contains lenses of gravel and limestone. The Fredericksburg group is represented by the Goodland limestone, the foundation rock for the spillway. Goodland limestone is moderately soft to moderately hard, massively bedded, chalky, and fosslliferous. It is 36 feet thick at the site. Klamichi shale of the Washita group overlies this limestone west of the spillway axis and south of the spillway axis on the east side of the Klamichi River. Moderately soft shales with thin limestone seams characterize this unit in Choctaw County.

Marine fossils are generally numerous in the limestones of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Parts of the Paluxy sand contain fairly abundant amounts of carbonized, silicified, and pyritized wood. In the Ouachita Mountains fossils are scarce. Stanley shale is practically devoid of organic remains. Sandstones of the Jackfork group rarely contain fossils other than burrows, probably produced by worms. Fossil types which occur within the confines of the reservoir are found over a wide area of southeastern Oklahoma.

Flood plain alluvium at the site averages 30 feet in thickness and consists of silts, clays, and silty to clayey sands. Generally, the alluvium increases in coarseness with depth. The Klamichi River is entrenched in the flood plain and bedrock is exposed in the present streambed. Residual soil covering is thin on the abutments.

General soil associations, as they occur in the basin, are given in figure 2-1. These associations are named for the two or three major soil series which determine and typify the landscape.

The alluvial soil of the bottom land is the Atkins-Pope (AP) association. This alluvium involves the Atkins soils which are gray clay loams of the level, poorly drained bottoms. Pope soils are found on the well—drained natural level positions in the same bottoms and are somewhat browner loams. Most of these bottom lands are used for pasture, though some hay crops are produced on the poorly drained areas and the well-drained areas and the well-drained soils are often used for oats and com.

The Hector-Pottsvllle (HP) association is the predominate soils combination of the upper river basin, including the Lithosols of the Red and Yellow Podzolic region. This association is usually thinly developed on stoney mountain slopes (often up to 60 percent slope over banded sandstones and shales). The surface drainage is always rapid with relatively slow internal or subsurface drainage. These soils are highly productive for timber characteristic species such as oak, hickory, and pine.

The Enders-Conway-Hector (EOT) association is another of the Red and Yellow Podzolic soils developed from acid shales that are common to this area. This association is found in the valleys on low elevations of the basin representing areas which are usually well-drained on the surface with medium internal drainage. Most species of native oak and hickory along with short-leaf pine will produce naturally on this soil association.

The Kirvin-Cuthbert-Bowie (KCB) is a deep soil developed over reddish sandy clays on gentle slopes. The Cuthbert is a shallow soil found on gray and brown bedded sandy clays on steeper slopes, while the deep Bowie soils, which are developed on gentle slopes, have sandier, more yellowish parent materials. When cleared, these soils are used mostly for corn, oats, peanuts, and pasture.

The Parsons-Dennis-Bates association (PDB) includes the Parsons which are clay pan soils of the nearly level plains and valley floors developed in acid clay shales. Dennis is the common soil found on gentle to moderate slopes over acid sandy shales. Bates is a deep soil of gentle slopes on sandstone and sandy shale. A large part of this association is used for pasture and native hay.

The major aquifer in Choctaw County is the Paluxy sand. Well yields range from a few gallons per minute to more than 400 gallons per ninute. The greater quantities of water are generally obtained down dip from the dissected outcrop area of this sand. The sand contains fresh water to a depth of several hundred feet and supplies water for municipal, industrial, and some irrigation uses. Most of the water is of the sodium bicarbonate type. Total mineral concentration ranges from 130 to 1,240 parts per million.

Mineral production in Choctaw County is generally limited to sand, gravel, and stone for local use. Goodland limestone is produced along its outcrop for use in roads and concrete. Sand and gravel are available from the alluviun of many of the streams in the county. The watershed above the project site lies in the southeast c o m e r of Oklahoma. This is a region of mild winters and comparatively long summers. The summer rains occur as thunderstorms of short duration but with Intense rainfall. The average annual precipitation over the watershed above the damsite is about 48 inches. The maximum annual precipitation was about 73 inches in 1957 and the minimum was about 33 inches in 1956. Approximately 57 percent of the normal annual precipitation occurs during the growing seasons, April through September. The average annual snowfall is small, generally not enough to contribute to flooding.

The average temperature for the region of the Hugo damsite is approximately 63 degrees Fahrenheit. A maximum temperature of 110 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded at Hugo in 1954, and a minimum of minus 14 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded at Clayton in 1951.

The prevailing wind direction is from a south-southeasterly direction. The greatest wind movement occurs during the spring months. A velocity of 45 miles per hour is the highest wind velocity that can be expected for a duration of 1 hour or more.

It has been estimated that the average annual evaporation loss of water from Hugo Lake will be greater than the average annual gain by precipitation falling directly upon the lake surface during dry seasons. During periods of moderate evaporation and rainfall, the lake water loss by evaporation will approximately equal the gain by direct precipitation upon the lake. The land-pan evaporation in the basin is approximately 67.5 inches annually. This is based on evaporation data from Eufaula Dam, Oklahoma; Ulster Dam, Oklahoma; and Denison Dam, Texas.

Farming and lumbering are the principal occupations within the basin. The production of crops is confined essentially to the lower portion of the overflow area. Host of the uncultivated areas have fair grass coverage and are used for grazing cattle. The major part of the extensive timber acreage in the basin consists of pine trees, with a lesser number of oak, gum, hickory, and other species. Industrial establishments in the area are few in number, and include sawmills and other timber related lnduatries, cotton gins, compresses, cottonseed oil mills, and ice plants.

The entire Kiamichi River Basin is well serviced by railroads, highways, pipelines, and electrical transmission lines.

2. The River. The Kiamichi River, a major tributary of the Red River, is approximately 170 miles long. The river follows a meandering course. It enters the Red River at mile 607.1 after flowing through a succession of widely contrasting reaches, alternating from comparatively wide valleys to steep gorges having banks from 80 to 90 feet high. The channel is shallc-* and poorly defined in the upper reaches above Tuskahoma damsite. The channel depth between the Tuskahoma damsite and the Jackfork Creek confluence varies from 10 to 20 feet. From Jackfork Creek and Buck Creek the channel depth varies from 20 to 30 feet. In the lower reaches of the basin, the channel is U-shaped, averaging approximately 30 feet deep with a top width of 300 feet. The channel slope varies from 1.5 feet per mile near the mouth to over 100 feet per mile in the upper reaches. The channel capacity is about 7,000 c.f.s. below the Tuskahoma damsite in the upper reaches and about 20,000 c.f.s. in the lower reaches.

The Kiamichi River is considered to be a light sediment-bearing stream. Suspended sediment samples taken at the Belzoni, Oklahoma, gaging station were of a concentration that indicated 22 acre-feet of suspended sediment would be carried from each square mile of drainage area in a 100-year period. On the basis of 1,706 square miles above the Hugo damsite, excluding the upstream dams, Clayton and Tuskahoma, and adjusting for bedload, the above data indicates approximately 30,000 acre-feet of sediment will be deposited in the Hugo Lake during a 100-year period.

The flood problem on the lower portion of the Kiamichl River results from heavy and frequent storm rainfall, especially in the rugged terrain of the upper reaches where runoff is very rapid and the channel capacity is inadequate. Hydrology studies indicate that an average of three floods greater than 20,000 c.f.s. may be expected to occur in the basin every year, with major flooding every 2 years. During the period from 1927 to 1958, 10 major floods have occurred, producing discharges varying from 51,200 to 71,400 c.f.s. at the felzoni gage. The river has a capacity of about 20,000 c.f.s. in the lower reaches. The record for the Kiamichi River is the longest record of unregulated streamflow in Oklahoma. Flow discharge at the Belzoni stream gaging station, which is located at mile 47.7 and has a drainage area of 1,423 square miles, indicates an average flow of 1,700 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) with a maximum of 71,400 c.f.s. on 18 February 1938, and a minimum of no flow. No-flow conditions were recorded in 1930, 1932, 1934, 1940, 1952, 1954, and 1956. No gaging station is located at the damsite considered in this study, so it was necessary to estimate flows at the damsite.

The storm of January 1949 produced a flood volume of 566,500 acre-feet past the Belzoni gage, which is equivalent to 7.46 inches of runoff from the contributing area. This flood resulted in the highest estimated peak discharge at Hugo and Tuskahoma damsites of 70,700 and 31,000 c.f.s., respectively. The storm of May 1943 produced the fifth largest flood of record at the Belzoni gage, but resulted in the estimated flood of record at the Clayton damsite. Low flows on the major tributaries and on the main stream of the Kiamichi River usually extend from July through November, with no flows at infrequent intervals, occurring usually during August, September, or October. a. Water Quality. A summary of the chemical analyses of water samples from the Kiamichi River near the Hugo damsite is shown in table 2-1. These tests show that the Kiamichi River is relatively uncontaminated by municipal and industrial waste. The water to be impounded is of high quality and is suitable for municipal and industrial uses. All chemical constituents, except iron, are below the limiting concentration of Public Health Service Prinking Water Standards. Water analyses readings for iron from the Kiamichi River range from 5 mg/1, for a sample taken at the Highway 93 bridge on 20 September 1972, to 0.5 mg/1, for a sample taken at the Belzoni gage on 20 March 1972, with a 0.3 mg/1 limit suggested in the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. Water color of the Kiamichi River is in excess of the suggested limit of 15 units as proposed by the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. The iron and water color water quality parameters probably exceeded the suggested Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards due to highway relocations and/or construction activities in the immediate sampling areas.

3. The Flora. Lands acquired for the Hugo Lake are 37,973 acres in fee title and 3,430 acres in flovage easement. The land use of the acquired land was as follows: woods pasture, 19,900 acres; improved pasture, 16,660 acres; open pasture, 3,100 acres; cropland, 1,690 acres; and homesites, urban and rural, 53 acres.

According to an "Analysis of the Diology of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma," Oklahoma Biological Survey, 1972, the most useful description of the vegetation of the basin is provided by Duck and Fletcher (1943), although a number of earlier and later investigations have contributed more detailed analyses of specific forest stands located in or near the watershed. Rice and Penfound (1959), sampled 18 stands throughout the area (table 2-2 is a synthesis of their data); Palmer (1928), described mountainside vegetation just outside of the upper end of the watershed and included a list of the woody species of the area; Ortenberger (1928), made cursory but useful examinations of upland and lowland stands in the same general area but within the watershed; and Little and Olmsted (1931), described a white oak forest on Kiamichi Mountain not far from the Ortenberger study.

The upland vegetation of the watershed is predominantly oak-pine forest, with oak-hickory forest in the north and south, and oak forest in the south. There are agriculturally valuable areas of tall grass prairie in the north and south also, but these are relatively insignificant in terms of land area. TABLE 2-1

HATER ANALYSES

fl) (1) 1.5 mi below (2) Hwy 7 Hwy 7 Hwv 7 Hwy 7 Damsite Damsite Hwys 367 Hwy 70 Hwy 93 Damsite Public Item 29-30 Mar 29-30 Mar 19-20 Sep 19-20 Sep Heslth Hal t 8 Mov 62 4 Jan 63 19 Jul 63 11 Sap 63 20 Feb 64 9 Jun 65 72 72 72 72 Standards • . - Specific Conductance Umnoa/cic 57.0 6s.o 56.0 GO.O 122.0 123.0 75.0 87.0 Dissolved solids -180° C mg/l 41.0 44.0 52.0 48.0 - - 80.0 96.0 460 260 500.0 Total solids n:p/t - - - 125 96 • • • * * Resistivity (from specific conductance) ohms'cc . . . . 8,200 8,130 - - - - - Resistivity (fr total . . • - dissolved solids) ohms/cc 5,000 6,500 Iron - Fe mg/l - - - - 1.2 1.0 0..* 0.73 5.0 0.7 0.3 Silica - S102 mg/l 14.0 11.0 11.0 8.4 14.0 15.0 10.C - * * • Calcium - Ca mg/l 4.8 5.2 4.0 3.2 10.0 10.0 4.1 7.1 27 26 * Chloride - Cl mg/l 5.6 6.6 4.4 6.0 22.0 19.0 5.5 6.5 170 62 250.0 Magnesium - Mg mg/l 1.0 0.7 1.9 2.4 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.07 8.8 6.6 • Manganese - Mn mg/l - - - - - 0.04 0.14 2.4 1.0 • Copper - Cu og/1 - - - - - * 0.05 -0.05 - • 1.0 Chronlum - Cr mg/l ------0.05 -0.05 - “ * Zinc - Zn mg/l . • . • - - 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.09 5.0 Sodium + Potassium NafK mg/l 6.0 5.0 3.0 5.3 20.0 16.0 8.8 10.6 - - - Asnonia Nitrogen as N mg/l - * - - * - 0.7 -0.5 2.1 1.1 - KJeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/l ------0.5 -0.5 2.8 2.8 • Nitrate Nitrogen as N mg/l - - - - - .0.05 0.16 0.04 0.02 10.0 Total ttiosphorus as P mg/1 ------0.05 0.12 0.09 0.06 “ Riosphate as PO4 mg/l - - - - -0.01 0.01 0.09 0.02 - Bicarbonate - HCO3 mg/l 18.0 16.0 16.0 20.0 43.0 43.0 - - 59.0 93.0 - Sulphate - SO4 mg/l - - - - 13.0 6.9 11.9 11.5 19.0 6.8 250 pH units - 7.4 7.1 7.5 7.7 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.5 7.34(6) 7.95(6) - Color PtCo Units . 73 67 275 105 15 Turbidity JTU’s ------68 50 85 30 - Temperature (6) Degree ------21°C 20°C 28.58°C 29.15°C • Dis harge (5) c£s 427 392 30 4.9 - * • - * • Dissolved Oxygen 02 (6) mg/l ------8.1 8.7 7.6 7.7 * B.0.D.5 (3) mg/l - • - - - - 2.0 3.0 11.0 11 • C.O.D. (4) mg/l - - - - - 2.0 7.0 29.0 21.0 * Total alkalinity mg/l - - 20.0 30.0 * • * Volatile Suspended Solids - 550° C mg/l - - - - - 14 5 - Volatile Dissolved Solids - 550° C mg/l ------93 92 -

(1) Belsoni paging station at State Highway 7 Bridge (2) Standard methods, APOA, 135th Edition, 1371; suggested limits for drinking water (3) Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day incubation period (4) Chemical Oxygen Demand (5) Discharge la natural flow of river (6) Average of 7 readings in 24-hour period TABLE 2-2

IMPORTANCE VALUES FOR TREES FROM THREE UPLAND FOREST ASSOCIATIONS THAT OCCUR IN THE KIAMICHI RIVER DRAINAGE AREA (RICE & PEN FOUND, 1959)

OAK--PINE OAK-HICKORY POST OAK-BLACKJACK

Generally Generally Level Level Level North­ South­ to to to Tree species facing slopes facing slopes Rolling Rolling Rolling Quercus stellata 15.9 36.2 25.6 42.7 36.3

Carya tomentosa 16.0 3.9 7.1 4.9 6.2 Carya texana 3.6 5.5 3.4 11.5 3.9 Quercus marlland!ca 7.6 17.0 4.7 28.4 9.0

Quercus velutina 8.1 0.9 1.9 5.8 0.1

Pinus echinata 16.3 31.8 41.8

Quercus shumardii 8.8 0.1

Ulmus alata 1.3 0.5 3.1 2.1 10.6

Quercus alba 13.7 1.9 0.5

Nyssa sylvatica 1.8 0.4 1.1

C^iercus falcata 0.4 1.8 3.8 10.3

Acer rubrum 1.4

Quercus rubra 0.2 1.0

Ostrya vlrglnlana 1.8 0.1 OAK-■PI1IE OAK-HICKORY POST OAK-BLACKJACK

Generally Generally Level Level Level North­ South- to to to Tree species facing slopes facinp slopes Rolling Rolling Rolling

Acer saccharum 0.5

Robina pseudoacacia 1.2

Trunus serotina 0.6

Liquidambar styraciflua 0.3

Tilia araericana 0.1

Cornus florida 0.9 0.1

Juplans nipra 0.2

Primus nexicana 0.3 0.1

Celtis laevigata 0.1 0.6

Juniperus virginiana 7.8

Platanus occidentalis 0.1

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1.1 0.8 0.6

Ouercus phellos 13.9

Maclura pomifera 2.8

Ulmus araericana 1.8

Fraxinus araericana 1.9 OAK-PINE OAK-HICKORY POST OAK-BLACKJACK

Generally Generally Level Level Level North- South­ to to to Tree species facing slopes facinp slopes Rolling Rolling Rolling

Quercus nigra 0.1

Carya cordiformis 0.2

Diospryos virginiana 0.1

Ultnus crassifolia 0.5

Sassafras alhidum 0.1

Carya illinoensis 0.1 In oak—pine forest stands the leading dominant is usually either shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) or post oak (Ouercus stellata), while other dominants include blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), white oak (0. alba), mockemut hickory (Capra tomentosa), black hickory (C. texanaT, black oak (0. velutina), and Shumard’s oak ((). shumardii) (Risser and Rice 1971a, b). The relative importance of dominant species in oak-pine forest varies among individual stands, apparently in response to variations in soil moisture regiments. On slopes that are more or less northerly in aspect, dominance is about equally distributed among the oaks, hickories, and pine, but on drier south-facing slopes dominance is concentrated in the less mesic oak species and in pine. On intermediate sites, with rolling to level topography, pine often predominates (table 2-3). The oak-pine association covers about 80 percent of the watershed. In the understory of the oak-pine forest the more common plants are gooseberry (Grossularla sp.), Madder nut (Staphylea trifolia), spice bush (Lindera benzoin), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), huckleberry (Vaccinium vacillans), coral berry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), May apple (Podophyllum peltatum), bloodroot (Sanquinaria canadensis). sumac (Rhus sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), green- briar (Snilax sp.), and other species grow beneath the trees along the margins of the woods and semiopen areas.

The dominant species of the oak-hickory forest of this area are blackjack oak (Ouercus marilandica), post oak (0. stellata), white oak (0. alba), chinquapin oak ((J. muhlenbergil), black oak (0. velutina), red oak rubra), black hickory (Carya texana), mockemut hickory (C. tomentosa), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and basswood (Tilla florldana). Important subdominates and other trees usually present include northern red oak (Quercus borealis), southern red oak (0. falcata), winged elm (Ulmus alata), hackberry (Celtls laevigata), sycamore (Platanus occldentalls), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicaY,' black oak (Ouercus velutina), red maple (Acer rubrum), bitteraut hickory (Carya cordlformis). shell-bark hickory (C. ovata), American elm (Ulmus amerlcana), slippery elm (U. rubraT. black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), dogwood (Comus florida), ironwood (Ostrya virglnlana), redbud (Cercls canadensis), chittam wood (Bumelia lanuginosa). and hawthorn (Crataegus sp.). The understory of shrubs, vines, forbes, and grasses are Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), fragrant sumac (Rhus aronatica), coralberrv (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), dwarf sumac (F. copallina), smooth sumac (JR. glabra), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), sensitive briar (Schrankla uncinata), blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), blue phlox (Phlox divaricata), wild petunia (Ruellia strepens), slender leaf betony (stachys tenuifolia), spiderwort (Tradescantia bracteata), dead nettle (Lamlum purpureum), slimleaf milkweed (Asclepias stenophyllaT, lady's thumb (Polygonum perslcarla), tall bellflower (Campanula americana)~T smooth yellow violet (Viola pensylvanica), wild rye (Elymus virg i n i c u s ) broadleaf spikegrass (Uniola latlfolla), little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), switchgrass (Pan!curt vlrgatum), fall panlcum (P. dlchotomlflorum), chess (Bromus secalinus), lacegrass (Eragrostis caplllarls). plains lovegrass (E. intermedia), windmill grass (Chloris verticillata), silver bluestem (Andropogon saccharoides), buffalo bur (Solanum rostratum), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and others. kiamichi river ‘'ct'jc-ii forest stands tange from southern stands which are characteristic of nature flood plain forest, to northern stands which are less clearly distinguishable from upland forest in the same area.

Ortenburger (1928) sampled lowlands along the northern Kiamichi and found shortleaf pina to be one of the most abundant tree species. His list of tree species included (in order of abundance) shortleaf pine, blue beech sweetgum, hickory, ironwood, white oak, holly, black gum, fringe tree, red maple, witch-hazel, water oak, American elm, sycamore, river birch, winged elm, red cedar, redbud, and basswood.

Along the southern Kiamichi River in the vicinity of Hugo Lake, flood plain forests ave generally characterized by the dominance of silver maple and ash and the presence of hackberry, sycamore, winged elm, blackwillow, American elm, blue beech, water oak, mockemut hickory, box elder, basswood, water elm, and others (table 2-3).

There are no endemic species in the basin. There are no virgin forests within the project. The forest within the project area is second growth. The better timber has been harvested, and the area has been grazed and burned over. TABLE 2-3 RELATIVE BASAL AREA OF TREE SPECIES IN THREE BOTTOM LAND FOREST STANDS, AND IN A GENERALIZED BOTTOM LAND FOREST IN THE VICINITY OF HUGO LAKE. DATA FOR THE GENERALIZED FOREST ARE BASED ON BASAL AREAS IN THE THREE STANDS.

Generalized Bottom land stand Bottom land stand Bottom land stand Bottom land within North of Tree Species Below Forest Lake Lake Lake

Acer saccharinum 28.1 40.0 34.0 5.1 Fraxinus spp. 22.4 21.5 23.6 22.1 Celtis spp. 13.0 8.5 8.5 24.2

Platanus occldentalis 7.3 8.5 9.4 3.2 Ulmus alata 4.2 3.1 5.7 4.3 Salix nigra 3.9 6.2 1.0 4.2 Ulmus americana 2.72 1.5 4.7 2.1 Carpinus caroliniana 2.4 8.3 Quercus nigra 2.1 3.0 0.9 2.1 Carya tomentosa 1.8 0.9 5.3 Acer negundo 1.5 2.3 2.1 Tilia spp. 1.5 0.7 0.9 3.2 Planera aquaetlea 0.9 3.2 Populus deltoides 0.9 2.4 Generalized Bottom land stand Bottom land stand Bottom land stand Bottom land within North of Below Tree Species Forest Lake Lake Lake

Morus rubra 0.9 1.0 2.1

Ulmus rubra 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.1

Carya illinoensis 0.9 3.2

Quercus muchlenbergii 0.9 2.8

Quercus shumardii 0.9 2.8

Julians nigra 0.6 1.9

Bumelia lanuginosa 0.6 2.0

Quercus phellos 0.3 0.8

Quercus velutina 0.3 1.0

Liquidambar styraciflua 0.3 1.1

Betula nigra 0.3 0.8

Quercus macrocarpa 0.3 1.1

TOTALS (sq ft/acre) 62.5 68.4 55.8 63.3 A. The Fauna.

a. Mussels of the K1amichi River Basin. Knowledge of the mussels (freshwater clams) can be applied to a broad spectrum of biological Interactions, including the response of biological organisms to water quality characteristics. The sedentary nature of most species, concomitant with the sensitivity of the majority of forms to environmental parameters, contribute to the rationale of this group being designated as potential key-organisms to environmental change. Occurrences of nearly all species of mussels are influenced by variations in lake and stream environments, both natural and man-created. Within the State, the distributions of many forms coincide with physiographic regions and associated climatic variables. Secondarily, the distribution of certain species of mussels have been affected by construction of impoundments and particularly from slltation that has resulted from Intensive landuse, i.e., agricultural and industrial and municipal developments.

The Oklahoma mussel fauna is represented by 30 recorded genera and 50 species. A total of 2A species (AA percent of the presently collected fauna) has been collected from the Kiamlchi River drainage (table 2-A). Comments are included on the apparent level of abundance, and habitats normally occupied by each species.

A total of 20 species of mussels are widely distributed throughout the Kiamichi Fiver drainage. This group composes 83 percent of the molluscan fauna. Approximately 55 percent of this group are also common, occurring at many localities in large numbers.

Several species of mussels are sufficiently rare, or limited in their occurrence within the Kiamichi River drainage to warrant special discussion.

This group comprises approximately 17 percent of the known fauna of the area. The Arkansas mussel (Arkansla wheelerl) is known in Oklahoma only from the Kiamichi River. This nay be the last remaining river in which this species is found. This species was first recorded in 1967, and probably represents the western extension of this Ouachita upland inhabitant. Similarly the mucketand the hickory nut mussels are widely distributed through the eastern United States, but reach their western limits in southeastern Oklahoma. The paper-shell mussel is a rare species which enters southeastern Oklahoma. Isely (1925) recorded it from the Kiamichi River and one specimen from Gates Creek. This species has also been recorded from Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, and Kentucky, but in low numbers. Preservation of this species appears to depend upon stabilization of upstream habitats and the prevention of excessive slltation within these areas. The list of mussels indicates several species to he localized and occasional in the Kiamichi River drainage (table 2-4). These species are widely distributed and generally abundant in areas outside the basin, although their common occurrence in the Kiamichi River Watershed is not expected. Species in this group include the floater, deer tail, paper-shell and the pocketbook. * TABLE 2-4

MUSSELS OF THE KIAMICHI RIVER BASIN Occurrence

C - Common: Generally abundant throughout the watershed, occurring at many localities in large numbers.

0 - Occasional: Occurs at several localities in small numbers.

R - Rare: Highly localized, restricted in range and abundance. Habitat S “ Stream

P - Pool

Distribution

W « Widespread

L • Limited

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat Distribution Comments

Floater Anodonta grandis C S W Usually found in fast flowing rivers with muddy substrates. Floater Anodonta Imbecilis 0 P W Restricted primarily to lowland and mud bottomed swamps, marshes, ponds, and sluggish backwaters mostly in shallow water. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat Distribution Comments Mueket Actinonaias carinata R S L Western limit of distribution; found in clear water, mostly on sand-gravel bars.

Deer Toe Trundlla truncata ■ 0 S • W Rocky or hard sandy bottoms with moderate to swift current; a large river species. Fawn's Foot Truncilla donaciformis C S w Rocky or hard sandy bottoms in swift streams Gates Creek of Kiami chi drainage. Paper-shell Leptodea fragilis C P & S w Pond-like backwaters with mud substrates. Paper-shell Potamilus laevissimus 0 P u Sandy bottom and mud with quiet water. Larva depends largely upon the freshwater drum for its host.

Purple-shell Proctera purpurata C P w Deep water, with mud/sand substrates; present in lower Kiamichi River.

Yellow Sand- Lampsilies anodonoides C P & S w Normally associated with shell mud or rock bottomed sub­ strates in shallow water.

Fat Mucket Lampsilies radiata 0 S w Varied habitat, mostly bedrock bottom. Main host of larva is the bluegill sunfish; confined to the upper Kiamichi River area. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat Distribution Comments

Pocketbook Lampsilies ovata 0 S W Moderate current over gravel and sand bottomed substrates.

Kidney-shell Ptychorbranchus 0 S W Small to moderate-sized fasciolarls streams, flowing over sand and gravel substrates; upper Kiamlchi.

Paper-shell Leptcdea leptodon r. S L Hard substrates in moderately swift streams.

Buck Horn Tritc;;oaia verrucosa 0 S W Habitat variable but seems to prefer small streams with sand bottoms; rarely numerically dominant.

Maple leaf Quadrula quadrula c P & S W Prefers deep water and muddy sandy bottoms; rare in high gradient streams and headwaters

Warty-back Quadrula pustulosa c P & S W Deeper water areas in mouths of large streams.

Pig-toe Fusconaia flava c S W Small streams with rock or hard sand and gravel substrates

Three-horned Obliquaria reflexa c S W Downstream, big river species warty back in sluggish water areas.

Pimple-back Vlllosa lienosa 0 S W Habitat variable, often with swift streams containing gravel substrates. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat Distribution Comments

Blue Point Amblema plicata C S W Running water habitat of small streams; upper areas of Kiamichi River.

Lilliput Toxolasma parva C P & S , w Muddy bottomed backwater areas.

Arkansia wheeleri R S L Gravel bottom in moderately swift streams; known only in Oklahoma from the Kiamichi River.

Hickory-nut Obovaria castanea R S L Gravel and sandy bottoms in clear water areas; western limit of distribution.

Washboard Megalonaias gigantea 0 P & S W Downstream areas of large rivers. b. Fishes of the Klamlchl River Basin. As a group, fishes are tolerant and adaptable organisms that can survive considerable habitat abuse, but the ecological tolerances of the many different species of fishes vary tremendously. The presence of fish Indicates only slightly the condition of a stream, but a knowledge of the assemblance of species and their numerical relationships provide an excellent biological spectnsn of the stream system. When such information is available over an extended period of time, fishes adequately serve as sensitive indicators of the quality of the aquatic ecosystem.

Approximately 85 species of fishes inhabit the Kiamichi River and its tributary streams (table 2-5). Their apparent level of abundance is indicated, and the habitats normally occupied by each species are designated.

A total of 12 species are abundant throughout the Kiamichi River Basin, occurring at many localities. This group comprises 14 percent of the fish fauna and includes the following species: spotted gar, stoneroller minnow, bigeye shiner, ribbon shiner, Kiamichi shiner, redfin shiner, mimic shiner, brook, silversides, green sunfish, bluegill sunfish, longear sunfish, and the orangethroat darter.

The occurrence of approximately 41 percent of the fishes within the Kiamichi River system is considered to be rare, i.e., they are highly localized, restricted to specific habitats, in relatively low population numbers. However, most of these species are found outside the Kiamichi River Basin and are often common in other areas. This category includes the following species:

Chestnut lamprey Duskystripe shiner Brook lamprey Ozark minnow Shovelnose sturgeon Suckermouth minnow Paddle fish Redbelly dace Alligator gar Creek chub American eel Creek chubsucker Threadfin shad Largemouth buffalo River herring Blue catfish Goldeye Pirate perch Golden shiner Blackspotted topminnow Pallid shiner Banded pygmy sunfish Blackspot shiner Smallmouth bass Ghost shiner Black crappie Bluntface shiner Slough darter Red shiner Goldstripe darter Colorless shiner Blackside darter

Several species of fishes have declined in numbers throughout their range, during time. This particular group composes approximately 7 percent of the fish fauna, and includes: The chestnut lamprey, shovelnose sturgeon, paddle fish, alligator gar, American eel, and the colorless shiner. Establishment of a mainstream lake on the Kiamichi River is expected to have little if any impact upon the relative abundance of these species within the river basin. TABLE 2-5

FISHES OF THE KIAMIC11I RIVER BASIN

Occurrence

C - Common: Abundant throughout the area, occurring at many localities.

0 - Occasional: Not widespread throughout the area, occurring in selective localities in small numbers.

R « Rare: Highly localized, restricted to specific habitats.

Habitat

M « Mainstream

L ■ Lake

T - Tributary

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat

Chestnut lamprey Ichthvomvzon castaneus R M,T Brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon gagei R M,T Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus R M,L Paddlefish Polyodon spathula R M,L Spotted gar Leplsosteus oculatus C M,L Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 0 M,L Shortnose gar Leplsosteus platostomus 0 M,L Alligator gar Lepisosteus spatula R M,L American eel Anguilla rostrata R M,T Gizzard shad Dorosoraa cepedianum 0 M,L Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense R L River herring Alosa chrysochloris R M Goldeye Hiodon alosoides R M,L Grass pickerel Esox americanus 0 M Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum C T Carp Cyprinus carpio 0 L ,M Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas R L,M Pallid shiner Notropis amnis R T,M Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides R . T,M Bigeye shiner Notropis boops C T,M Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani R H Blackspot shiner Notropis atrocaudalis R T Bluntface shiner Notropis camurus R T Pugnose shiner Notropis emiliae 0 T Ribbon shiner Notropis fumeus C T,M Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat

Red shiner Notropis lutrensis R T Kiaraichi shiner Notropis ortenburgeri C T Colorless shiner Notropis perpallidus R M Duskystripe shiner Notropis pilsbrvi R T Sand shiner Notropis stranineus R T Redfin shiner Notropis umbratilis C T Blacktail shiner Notropis ventistus 0 T Mimic shiner Notronis volucellus C M Steelcclor shiner Notropis whipplei 0 T Ozark minnow Dior.da nubila R T Suckennouth minnow Phenocobius mirabilis R T Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus 0 T Bullhead minnow Pimsphales vigilax 0 T Redbelly dace Phoxinus ervthrogaster R T Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus R T River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 0 M Creek chubsucker Erimvzon oblongus R M,T Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 0 M River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum 0 M,T Golden redhorse Moxostoma ervthrurun 0 M,T Smallnouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 0 M,L Black buffalo Ictiobus niper 0 M,L Largenoutb buffalo Ictiobus cvprinellus R M,L Blue catfish Ictalurus furcntus R M,L Black bullhead Ictalurus melas 0 M,T Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis 0 M,T Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 0 M Flathead catfish Fylodictis olivnris 0 M,L Tadpole nadton !io turns pyrinus 0 T Freckled nadtora Noturus noctumus 0 T Pirate perch Aphrecioderun sayanus R L Blackstripe top Fundulus noiatus 0 T minnow

Blackspotted top Fundulus olivaceus R T minnow

Mosquitofish Gambusin affinis 0 T,M,L Brook silversides Labidosthes sicculus C t .m .l White bass Morone crysops 0 M Banded pvgray sunfish Elassoma zonatum R L Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus C T»L Wamouth Lepomis gulosus 0 T#L Orangespotted Lepomis humilis R T Sunfish Bluegill Lepomis nacrochirus C L,T Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis C T,L Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0 L,T Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat

Smallroouth bass Micropterus dolomieui R T Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus 0 T,L Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0 L»T White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0 L,M,T Black crappie Pomoxis nipromaculatus R L.T Slough darter Etheostoma gracile R T.L Goldstripe darter Etheostoma parvipinne R T Bluntnose darter Etheostoma chlorosomum 0 T.L Orangethroat darter Etheostoma spectabile C T Redfin darter Etheostoma whipplei 0 T Logperch Percina caprodes 0 T,M Channel darter Percina copelandi 0 T Dusky darter Percina sclera 0 T Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala 0 T Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 0 L,M Faunal assemblage of fish species and their numerical relationships between river segments were analyzed prior to impoundment of the Kiaraichi River. Fishes were classified into functional fish categories, e.g., sport fish, pan fish, coarse fish, and forage fish. As a category, sport fish are those species which are sought after and compose the majority of the sport fisherman’s creel. This group Includes those species designated as game fishes by the State of Oklahoma: black basses, crappies, channel catfish, and white bass. Sunflshes, bullheads, and the pickerel are classified as pan fishes. The coarse fish category is represented by nongame and commercial species, e.g., buffalo, carp, carpsuckers, drum, redhorse, and gizzard shad. The remaining fishes, including minnows, darters, and species with small adult forms are classified as forage fish. The Kiamichi River was divided into upper and lower regions (figure 2-2). The upper segment Included the river and its tributaries which enter from the mouth of Jackfork Creek upstream to its source. The lower segment included the remainder of the river and branch streams to confluence with the Red River. From these data, associations among fish categories and between river segments were performed (table 2-6).

(1) Distribution of fishes within the river. Species of sport fish were found not to be limited to either the upper or lower river segments, but rather dispersed throughout the river. In contrast, certain species from the pan, coarse, and forage fish categories were found to be limited. In reference to pan fish, the orangespotted sunfish was found not to inhabit the upper stream segment, whereas the yellow bullhead and the

TABLE 2-6

FISl! SPECIES LIMITED TO EITHER UPPER OR LOWER PORTION OF THE KIAMICHI RIVER

Portion of Stream Category Upper Lower

Sport None None

Pan Yellow bullhead Orangespotted sunfish

Grass pickerel

Coarse Spotted sucker River redhorse

Hog sucker Golden redhorse Forage Pugnose shiner Freckled madtom

Emerald shiner Slenderhead darter Threadfin shad Pallid shiner Colorless shiner

TOTAL 6 8 grass pickerel were found to be absent from the lower division of the river. The absence of these two species from the lower segment of the river may reflect inadequacies of collecting techniques in large rivers, for it is probable that both the yellow bullhead and the grass pickerel inhabit the lower river segment but in relatively low numbers.

Only two species of coarse fish, the spotted sucker and the hogsucker were found to be limited to the upper Kiamichi River drainage. Both of these species abound in areas of high stream gradient, clear water and gravely substrates, and are thus relatively intolerant of habitats of differing parameters. Data reflected two species of suckers, the river redhorse and the golden redhorse to be confined to the lower segment of the river. These two species reside in deep pools common to the lower segment of the Kiamichi River, but frequent the shallow water riffle areas of upstream environments during the reproductive season. These two species probably exploit most areas of the Kiamichi River, although their occurrence within the upper reaches of the Kiamichi River can be expected to be seasonal and of a short-term duration.

Seven species of forage fish were found to be limited to either the upper or lower segment of the river. The pugnose shiner and the emerald shiner occupied the upper river segment. Forage fish species unique to the lower segment of the Kiamichi River included the freckled madtora, slenderhead darter, threadfin shad, pallid shiner, and the colorless shiner. It is probable that the emerald shiner may be an occasional inhabitant of the lower segment, as this species is widespread and inhabits a variety of habitats throughout its range. Intensive collecting may also reveal the freckled raadtom and the slenderhead darter as inhabitants of the upper stream segment of the Kiamichi River system.

Under preimpoundment conditions, the lower segment of the Kiamichi River and its branch streams appear to be the most environmentally complex and also possess the most unique fauna.

(2) Relative and absolute abundance of fishes. Computations of the relative and absolute abundance of each fish category in both the upper and lower segments of the Kiamichi River, under preimpoundment conditions, are presented in table 2-7. Significant differences were revealed for both the relative and absolute abundance values anong the four fish categories; .although, the compositional trends of fish species were comparable between river segments. Populations of both sport and coarse fish categories were noticeably low in both the upper and lower river segments, as compared to the populations of pan and forage fish species. The empirical values recorded for both the snort and coarse fish categories may be unrealistic, reflecting the inadequacies of field assessments of large rivers. This feature is particularly relevant to the lower segment of the Kiamichi River. The relationships revealed among the fish categories, however, are not unrealistic, and a balanced fish population is predicted. TABLE 2-7

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE ABUNDANCES OF FISH CATEGORIES IN EACH STREAM SEGMENT

Portion of Stream

Category uPPer_____ Lover # individuals mean # per Z # individuals mean # per Z of fish in sample sample point in sample sample point

Sport 4 0.7 0.1 3 1.0 0.1

Pan 241 40.2 3.2 85 28.3 0.1

Coarse 1 0.2 0.1 3 1.0 0.1

Forage 7350 1225.0 96.8 4701 1567.0 98.8

TOTAL 7596 1266.1 4792 1597.3 Abundance values for pan fish were found to be highest in the upper segment of the river. These values can be attributed primarily to the longear sunfish, a species of upland streams. The bluegill sunfish was the second most abundant centrarchid in the Kiaiaichi River, especially in the lower segment where pool-like conditions existed.

The forage fish category was the dominant species group for relative and absolute abundance values in both the upper and lower river segments. Within the upper segment of the river, the redfin shiner was the dominant species, composing 29.A percent of the total forage fish category. This species also inhabits the lower segment but comprised only 5.1 percent of the relative abundance of forage species. The bigeye shiner was also highly abundant in the upper segment, representing 23 percent of the total forage fish assemblage. The relative abundance of this species was similar to the value calculated for the redfin shiner in the lower segment of the Kianichi River. Specimens of the brook silversides are common in the Kiamichi River system, but especially in the upper segment. In this area, the brook silversides composed 15.4 percent of the forage fish population. Percent relative abundance of this species was calculated to be 5.4 percent, however, in the lower segment.

High population densities of the mimic shiner and the ribbon shiner were observed in the lower segment of the river. Both species abound in habitats of large relatively deep pools of upland streams with rocky to gravely substrates. Such conditions prevail presently in the lower reaches of the river and undoubtedly contribute to the success of these two species. Collectively, the mimic and ribbon shiners contributed approximately 66 percent of the total collected forage fish fauna in the lower Kiamichi River.

For several species of forage fish, e.g., the blackspotted topminnow, mosquitofish, johnny darter, and the logperch, the relative abundance composition was similar in both the upper and lower segments of the river, although the calculated values were usually less than 27. of the total species assemblage within each area.

The Kianichi shiner, was common (12.2 percent) in the upper segment of the river in snail pools with gravel substrates, but was noticeably absent (0.2 percent) in the lower area of the Kiamichi River.

(3) Species diversity of fishes. Species diversity values (expressed as the Shannon index which includes the number of species and the distribution of individuals per species) were computed for each fish category in both the upper and lower segments of the stream (table 2-8). With the exception of forage fish, diversity values were usually lowest in the upper segment of the river. A slightly higher diversity index was computed for forage fish in the upper as compared to the lower segment of the Kiamichi River. This feature relates to the more equitable distribution of the bigeye shiner, redfin shiner, Kiamichi shiner and brook silversides in the upper reaches. Although there is a slightly larger number of species in the lower segment of the river (22 compared to 19 species in the upper segment), two species, the mimic and ribbon shiners, are significantly dominant in the distribution of individuals per species within the area. j

No differences were noted in species diversity of sport fishes between the two river segments. In actuality, a greater number of species of sport fish probably inhabit the lower segment of the river. Because of

TABLE 2-8

SPECIES DIVERSITY OF EACH FISH CATEGORY IN UPPER AND LOWER STREAM SEGMENTS

Portion of Stream

Category Upper Lower

Sport 0.01 0.01

Pan 0.88 1.12

Coarse 0.01 0.55

Forage 1.86 1.81

s Diversity (d) is calculated as d ■ ^ (Pj log gP.), where s is the number i-1 of species and is the relative density of the ltll species in each category. the difficulty of sampling large rivers, this probable difference was not evident, however, in the data.

Species diversity indices for both the pan and coarse fish categories were lowest in the upper river segment and highest in the lower area of the river. For pan fishes, this relationship was influenced primarily by the dominance of the longear sunfish in the upper river areas, and the more equitable distribution of longear, bluegill and green sunfishes in the lower segment. Similarly, the presence of redhorse suckers in the lower segment compared to their absence in the headwaters of the stream contribute to the greater diversity index computed for coarse fishes in the lower section of the Kiamichi River.

(4) Similarity between river segments. In table 2-9, similarity values between river segments, based on the relative abundance of fish species, are presented. The greatest dissimilarity between the two stream segments is evident when the relative abundance of coarse and forage fish species is compared.

TABLE 2-9

SIMILARITY BETWEEN UPPER AND LOWER STREAM SEGMEITTS FOR EACH CATEGORY OF FISH

Similarity between Upper and Category Lower Stream Portions

Sport 1.00

Pan 0.59

Coarse 0.00

Forage. 0.33

z w Similarity (S) is based on the following formula, S ■ a+b where £ and b^ are the sum of the relative densities at the two stream portions being compared and w is the amount of relative density common to both categories. c. Herpetofauna of the Kiamichi River Basin. The herpetofauna of the Kianichi River Watershed is represented by a varietv of both amphibians and reptiles. The two orders of the Amphibia (Caudata and Anura) are represented by seven families for which 16 species and subspecies have been recorded, though others are to be expected. The three orders of Reptilia (Chelonia, Lacertilia, Serpentes) are represented by nine families for which 46 species are recorded, but others can also be expected.

The following lists of amphibians and reptiles (table 2-10) indicate those forms for which there are records of collections and those forms which are known to occur in adjacent or surrounding areas and could be expected to appear within the Kiamichi River Watershed.

There are 55 species and subspecies of amphibians and 158 species and subspecies of reptiles known for the state of Oklahoma. Thus 29% of the forms of amphibians and 45% of the forms of reptiles known for Oklahoma are recorded for this area.

(1) Amphibians. The amphibians recorded in the Kianichi River Watershed represent species characteristic of eastern, western, and southeastern elements. For some forms, two or three subspecies of the same species have been recorded within or in areas adjacent to the Kiamichi River area.

(2) Reptiles. Like the amphibians, the reptiles recorded for the Kiamichi River Watershed are represented by wide ranging species and subspecies as well as those forms which are characteristic of western, eastern and southeastern faunistic elements. Racial or subspecies boundaries for certain species sometimes meet in areas closely adjacent to the area under consideration.

In order to designate those species which would be most closely associated with aquatic and shoreline habitats, and thus the Kiamichi River, its tributaries and Hugo Lake, the following symbols are used to indicate general habitat associations (table 2-10).

A - water restricted forms, some species having limited activity on adjacent shorelines. S - shoreline forms, with some aquatic activity. L - lowland forms and those forms inhabiting seepage areas or marshy areas. U - upland forms and forest forms, not restricted by water. W - wide ranging forms, both lowland and highland. TABLE 2-10

HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE KIAMICHI RIVER BASIN HERPETOFAUNA (See text for symbol explanation.)

Recorded Expected

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum - L Ambystoma maculaturn - L (Eastern Tiger Salamander) (Spotted Salamander)

Diemictylus viridescens louisianensis - L & A Ambystoma texanum - L (Central Newt) (Small-mouthed Salamander)

Plethodon cinereus serratus - U Ambystoma opacum - L (Ouachita Red-backed Salamander) (Marbled Salamander)

Plethodon ouachitae - U (endemic) Ambystoma talpoideum - L (Rich Mountain Salamander) (Mole Salamander)

Desmognathus fuscus brimleyorum - L Plethodon glutlnosus - W (Central Dusky Salamander) (Slimy Salamander)

Eurycea multipllcata multiplicata - L Amphiuma means tridactylum - A (Many-ribbed Salamander) (Three-toed Amphiuma)

Siren intermedia Nettingi - A Necturus maculosus louisianensis - A (Western Lesser Siren) (Red River Waterdog)

Frogs and Toads

Acris crepitans blanchardi - S Pseudacris streckeri - L (Blanchard's Cricket Frog) (Strecker's Chorus Frog)

Pseudacris trlserlata feriarum - W Hyla cinerea - L (Upland Chorus Frog) (Green Treefrog)

Hyla versicolor - W Hyla crucifer - L Two subspecies meet in the area. (Spring Peeper) H. v. versicolor (Eastern Gray Treefrog) Recorded Expected

Hyle versicolor - W (cont) H. v. chrysoscelis (Southern Gray Treefroe)

Bufo americanus charlesmithl - L Gastrophryne olivacea olivacea - W (Dwarf American Toad) (Great Plains Narrow-mouthed Toad)

Bufo voodhousei - L Gastrophryne carolinensis carolinensis - W Two subspecies may come together in (Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad) this area, with a third close by. B. w. woodhousei (Rocky Mountain Toad) B. w. fowleri (Fowler's Toad) B. w. velatus (East Texas Toad)

Rana areolata areolata - L Scaphiopus bombifrons - L (Crawfish Frog) (Plain Spadefoot)

Rana clamitans - S Two subspecies in region possible. R. c. melenota (Green Frog) most likely R. c. clamaitans (Bronze Frog) possible intergrate

Rana catesbeiana - S & A (Bullfrog)

Rana pipiens berlandieri - S (Rio Grande Leopard Frog)

Turtles

Macroclemys tennincki - A Kinostemon sub rub rum hippocrepis - A (Alligator Snapping Turtle) (Mississippi Mud Turtle)

Chelydra serpentina serpentina - A Graptemys pseudogeographica ouachitensis - A (Common Snapping Turtle) (Ouachita Map Turtle)

Stemothaerus odoratus - A Graptemys kohni - A (Stinkpot) (Mississippi Map Turtle)

a Recorded Expected

Turdes (Coot) -

Stemothaerus carinatus - A Chrysetrys picta dorsalis - A (Razor-backed Musk Turtle) (Southern Painted Turtle)

Pseudeniys florldana hoyl - A Pseudemys concinna hieroglyphica - A (Missouri Slider) (Slider)

Pseudemys scripta elegans - A Deirochelys reticularia miarla - A (Red-eared Turtle) (Western Chicken Turtle)

Terrapene Carolina triunguis - W (Three-toed Box Turtle)

Terrapene ornata o m a t a - A (Ornate Box Turtle)

Trionyx spinlfer etnoryl - A (Texas Softshell Turtle)

Trionyx muticus muticus - A (Midland Smooth Softshell Turtle)

Lizards

Anolis carolinensis carolinensis - U Ophlsaurus attenuatus attenuatus - L (Green (Carolina) Anole) (Western Slender Glass Lizard)

Crotaphytus collaris collaris - U (Eastern Collared Lizard)

Phrynosooa cornutum - U (Texas Horned Lizard)

Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus - W (Northern Fence Lizard) Recorded Expected

Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis - U (Southern Coal Sklnk)

Eumeces fasciatus - U (Five-lined Skink)

Eumeces laticeps - U (Broad-headed Skink)

Lygosoma laterale - W (Ground Skink)

Cnemidophorus sexlineatus viridis - U & S (Prairie Lined Racerunner)

Snakes

Natrix rhombifera rhombifera - S Natrix erythrogaster flavigaster - S (Diamond-backed Water Snake) (Yellow-bellied Water Snake)

Natrix erythrogaster transversa - S Natrix grahami - S (Blotched Water Snake) (Graham's Water Snake)

Natrix sipedon pluerails - S Coluber constrictor priapus - W (Midland Water Snake) (Southern Black Racer)

Natrix sipedon confluens - S Elaphe guttata emoryi - W (Broad-banded Water Snake) (Great Plains Rat Snake)

Natrix rigida sinicola - S Cemophora coccinea copei - U (Western Glossy Water Snake) (Scarlet Snake)

Storeria dekayi - W Probably intergrades between S, d. texana (Texas Brown Snake) and S. d. wrightorum (Midland Brown Snake)

Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis - W (Red-sided Garter Snake) Recorded Expected Snakes

Thamnophis sauritus proximus - S (Western Ribbon Snake) Virginia striatula - U (Rough Earth Snake) Virginia valeriae elegans - U (Western Earth Snake)

Heterodon platyrhinos platyrhlnos - W (Eastern Hognose Snake) Diadophis puactatus amyl - U (Prairie Rlngneck Snake) Carphophis amoenus vermis — L (Western Worm Snake)

Coluber constrictor flaviventris - W (Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer)

Hasticophis flagellum flagellum - w (Eastern Coachwhlp)

Opheodrys aestivus malalis - W (Western Rough Green Snake)

Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta - W (Black Rat Snake)

Lampropeltis getulus holbrooki - W (Speckled King Snake) Lampropeltis dollata - W Three subspecies meet close to this area and may intergrade. Recorded Expected

Lampropeltis doliota - W L. d. amaura (louisiana Milk Snake) L. d. syspila (Red Milk Snake) L. d. gentills (Western Milk Snake)

Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster - W

(Prairie King Snake)

Sonora episcopa episcopa - U (Great Plains Ground Snake)

Tantilla gracilis - U Two subspecies come close together in this area. T. g. gracilis (Slender Flat-headed Snake) T. g. hallovelli (Northern Flat-headed Snake)

Agkistrodon contortrix mokeson - W (Northern Copperhead)

Agkistrodon pivcivorous leucostoma - S (Western Cottonmouth)

Sistrurus miliarius streckeri - L (Western Pigmy Rattlesnake)

Crotalus horridus - U Show characteristics of two subspecies. C. h. horridus (Timber Rattlesnake) C. h. atticaudatus (Canebrake Rattlesnake)

Crotalus atrox - U (Western Diamondback Rattlesnake)

Alligator mississipiensi8 - A (Alligator) Possible introduction. d. Birds of the Kiamichi River Basin. In Oklahoma there is a transition zone of approximately 100 miles between the deciduous forests characteristic of much of eastern North American and the grasslands of the Great Plains. The latter extends eastward and covers the western one-half of the state (Blair and Hubbell, 1938; Duck and Fletcher, 1943). As a result, many species of birds reach the eastern or western limits of their ranges within the borders of Oklahoma. Some wide-ranging avian species occur in areas on both sides of the ecotone separating these two major biotic communities. For Oklahoma, 394 species are represented by specimens (Sutton 1967) and, including sight and specimen records, 371 extant avian species have been observed five or more times within the state (Schnell, 1971).

In or near the basin, 160 species have been reported in the literature, over 40% of the 371 species known by five or more records for Oklahoma (Schnell, 1971). A list of these species is included in table 2-11, along with an indication as to the Oklahoma status of each and the habitats in which they are most often found.

The red-cockaded woodpecker and brownheaded nuthatch are found in Oklahoma only in the pinelands of the southeastern part of the state (Sutton, 1967). The suitable pinelands in Oklahoma for these species are restricted to the Ouachita Mountains. In addition, other typically southeastern avian forms such as the pine warbler, extend in range only slightly beyond the northern and eastern edges of the Kiamichi River basin.

The status is given relative to the species' occurrence throughout the state and, as a result, for some species it may not be totally accurate for the Kiamichi River basin. For example, the greater prairie chicken is listed as a permanent resident; while once a resident of this region, the current southern extension of its range does not extend into southeastern Oklahoma. Because of the complicated nature of bird movements and avian population dynamics, attempts to condense information concerning status into only a few categories obviously will lead to some distortion in representing the true complexities involved. However, taking into account these limitations, the status designation should aid in evaluating the potential effect of proposed environmental changes on various avian species.

Pitelka (1941) has pointed out that in North America, avian habitat preferences reflect the basic structure of the dominant vegetation, rather than the species composition of individual plant species associations. Therefore, for this analysis habitat types frequented by birds were divided into four broad categories based primarily on the physical appearance of the area: (1) water, shore, and marsh; (2) open; (3) semiopen; and (4) forest. The first category refers to preferences for habitats that are significantly affected by the presence of water. The second division open refers to grasslands, pastures, and plowed fields, while the semi­ open category includes overgrown fields with some woody vegetation. typical types of residential areas, and other areas where trees or small tree stands are interspersed with open areas. The forest division refers to nfhSUJ ?h!rB treCS 3re the Predominant vegetation. All four categories ot habitat types are represented in the Kiamichi River basin.

^ c S UndK ^ Car^ert.(19f,7) riurinfT his extensive study of the ecology of nesting birds of the McCurtain Game Preserve southeast of the Kiamichi ver basin, habitat preferences of many bird species are fairly broad and extend over several habitat types. Also, classification of bird habitats is somewhat arbitrary, and problems are encountered in placing certain species, such as those that inhabit very moist forests, into the categories included in table 2-12. Such a classification should, however, be useful in assessing and determining which species will be most affected by the Hugo Lake project.

River hltiT J06 species of birds which probably occur in the Kiamichi River basin. A list of these tentative species'* is included in table Wlth the appropriate information on status and habitat types. The species in this compilation were included on the basis of: (a) their known status in other counties in southeastern Oklahoma and adjacent areas of Arkansas; (b) a general knowledge of distributions of birds in central orth America; and (c) information on avian nigratory movements through central United States. Taking into account the bird species listed in .a .kS c 311(1 2-12» about of the species occurring with some regularity in the State are found in the Kiamichi River Basin. 7 TABLE 2-11

BIRDS SPECIES WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED FROM THE SIX COUNTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE KIAMICHI RIVER BASIN

The list is based primarily on Sutton (1967), and habitual designations. Status abbreviations refer to the following:

Sp— Spring T— Transient S-— Summer V— Visitant F--Fall R— Resident W--Winter A— Accidental P--Permanent (I)-Irregular (R)-Rare

Habitat Type Water, Shore Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Common Loon Gavia inrue r T-WV X

Eared Grebe Podiceps caspicus T X

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus T X

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga (I)SV, (I) FV X

Green Heron Butorides virescens T,SR X

Little Blue Heron Florida caerulea T.SR X

Common Egret Casmerodius albus SR X

Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula SR X

Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea SR X

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis SR X Habitat Type Water, Shore Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen - U i l E a L

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus T,SR X

Wood Ibis Mycteria americana SV,FV X

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus SPV.SV X

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi T,SV X

White Ibis Eudocimus albus SV X

Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja SV,FV X

Whistling Swan Olor columbianus T,WV X

Snow Goose Chen hyperborea T,WV X

Blue Goose Chen caerulescens T,WV X

Wood Duck Aix sponsa T,SR X

Redhead Aythya americana T,WV X

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus T,WV X

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus PR X

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus T,SR X

Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus T,WR X

Osprey Pandion haliaetus T X

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus T,WV X

Pigeon Hawk Falco columbarius T,WV X X Habitat Type Water, Shore Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Sparrow Hawk Falco sparverius PR X

Greater Prairie Chicken Tympanuchus cupido PR X

Bobwhite Colinus virginianus PR 4*V X

King Rail Rallus elegans T,SR X

Sora Porzana Carolina T X

Common Gallinule Gallinula chloropus T,SR X

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus T X

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T X

American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica T X

Black-bellied Plover Squatarola squatarola T X

American Woodcock Philohela minor T,SV X

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus T X

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia T X

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus T X

Greater Yellowlegs Tetanus melanoleucus T X

Baird's Sandpiper Erolia bairdii T X

Least Sandpiper Erolia minutilla T,WV X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Western Sandpiper Ereunetes mauri T X

Hudson!an Godwit Limesa haemastica T X

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana T,SR X

Wilson's Phalarope Steganopus tricolor T X

Forster's T e m Sterna forsteri T,SR X

Least Tern Sterna albifrons T,SR X

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia T,SV X

Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura T,SR X X

Yellow-billed Cucoo Coccyzus americanus T,SR X X

Roadrunner Geococcyx califomianus PR X X

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca (I)FV, (I)UV X X

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis T,SR X

Yellow-shafted Flicker Colaptes auratus PR X

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus PR X

Red-bellied Woodpecker Centurus carolinus PR X

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus PR X

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius T,WR X X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Hairy Woodpecker Dendrocopos villosus PR X X Downy Woodpecker Dendrocopos pubescens PR X X

Hed-cockaded Woodpecker Dendrocopos borealis PR X Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus T,SR X X

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis T,SR X X Scissor-tailed Fly­ catcher Muscivora forficata T,SR X

Eastern Phoebe Sayomis phoebe T,SR X

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens T,SR X

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus T,(I)SV X Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris PR X

Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor T X

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia T,SV X Bough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis T,SR X

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica T,SR X

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota T,SR X

Purple Martin Progne subis T,SR X X

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata PR X X ——— ------Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen White-necked Raven Corvus cryptoleucus T,SR X fish Crow Corvus ossifragus V X Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis PR X X Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor PR X X White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis PR X Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis T,WV X Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla PR X Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii PR X Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos PR X Catbird Dumetella carolinensis T,SR X Robin Turdus migratorius PR X Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina T,SR X Hermit Thrush Hylocichla guttata T,SR X Swainson's Thrush Hylocichla ustulata T X Gray-cheeked Thrush Hylocichla minima T X Veery Hylocichla fuscescens T X Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis PR X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name___ Status _____& Marsh Open Semiopen _Forest Blue-gray Qiatcatcher Polioptila caerulea T,SR X Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa T,WR X Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula T,WV X Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii T,WV X X

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus PR X X Starling Stuxnus vulgaris PR X X White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus T,SR X

. Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons T,SR X Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus T,SR X Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus T X X Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia T,SR X Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea T,SR X Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera T X Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus T,SR X Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina T X Parula Warbler Parula americana T,SR X Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia T X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens T X

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica caerulea T,SR X

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendorica dominica SR X

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica T X

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus PR X

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor T,SR X

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus T,SR X

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla T,SR X

Kentucky Warbler Oporomis formosus T,SR X X

Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas T,SR X

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens T,SR X X

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina T ,SR X

American Redstart Setophaga ruticille T,SR X

House Sparrow Passer domesticus PR X X

Eastern Meadowlark Stumella magna PR X

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus PR X X

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius T,SR X X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula T,SR X X

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus T,WR X X

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus T,WV X

Boat-tailed Crackle Cassidix mexicanus PR X X

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula T,SR X X

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater T,SR X X

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea T,SR X

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra T,SR X

Cardinal Richmondena cardinalis PR X X

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea T ,SR X

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea T,SR X X

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris T,SR X X

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus T,WV X X

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra (I)WV X X

Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythropthalmus T,WR X

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis T,WV X

Grasshopper Sparrow Amnodramus savannarum T,SR X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

LeConte's Sparrow Passerherbulus caudacutus T,WV X

Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta T x X

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus T.WV X

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus T,SR X

Rufous-crowned Sparrow Aimophila ruficeps PR X

Slate-colored Junco Junco hyemalis T,WV X

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina T,SR X X

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida T X

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla PR X X

White-throated Sparrow Zcnotrichia albicollis T,WR X

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca T,WR X X

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana T,WV X X

Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus WR X TABLE 2-12

Birds which are probably found in the Kiamichi River Basin Region, but for which there are no published records. Compilations are based in part on Sutton (1967), Robbins and Van Velzen (1969), and various issues of Audubon Field Notes.

Sp— Spring T— Transient S--Summer V— Visitant F--Fall R— Resident W— Winter A— Accidental P-— Permanent (I)-Irregular (R)-Rare

Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus T,WV X

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps T,SR X

White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynochos T X

Olivaceous Cormorant Phalacrocorax olivaceus SV,FV X

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias PR X Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis SR X

Louisiana Heron Hydranassa tricolor (R)SV,(R)FV X

Canada Goose Branta canadensis T,WR X

White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons T,(I)WV X

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos T,WR X

Black Duck Anas rubripes T,WV X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Gadwall Anas strepera T,WV X

Pintail Anas acuta T,WV X

Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis T,WV X

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors T.WV X

Shoveler Anas clypeata T,WV X

American Widgeon Mareca americana T ,WV X

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris T,WV X

Canvasback Aythya valisineria T,WV X

Greater Scaup Aythya marila T,WV X

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis T,WV X

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula T,WV X

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola T,WV X

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis T,WV X

Common Merganser Mergus merganser T,WR X

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator T ,WV X

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura T,SR X X

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus PR X X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Goshawk Accipiter gentilis WV X

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus T,WR X

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii FR X

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis PR X

Harlan's Hawk Buteo harlani WR X

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni T,SR X

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos PR X

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus UR X X

Turkey Meleagris gallopavo PR X X

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola T,SR X

Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica SR X

American Coot Fulica americana PR X

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus T,SR X

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus PR X

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres T X

Common Snipe Capella gallinago T»WR X

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria T X Habitat Type Water, Shore Common Name Scientific Name Status & Harsh Open Semiopen Forest

Lesser Yellowlegs Totanus flavipes T X

Pectoral Sandpiper Erolia melanotos T X

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus T X

Stilt Sandpiper Micropalama himantopus T X

Semipalmated Sandpiper Ereunetes pusillus T X

Herring Gull Larus argentatus T,WV X

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis T,WV X

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan T X

Bonaparte's Gull Larus Philadelphia T,WV X

Rock Dove Columba livia PR X X

B a m Owl Tuto alba PR X

Screech Owl Otus asio PR X

Great H o m e d Owl Bubo virginianus PR X

Barred Owl Strix varia PR X

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus T.WV X X

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus T,SR X

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor T,SR X X Habitat Type Water, Shore Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica T,SR X X

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris T,SR X

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon T,SR X

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus T,SR X X

Traill's Flycatcher Empidonax traillii T X X

Eastern Wood Fewee Contopus virens T,SR X

Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis T X X

Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos PR X X

Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris T,WV X

House Wren Troglodytes aedon T,SR X

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes T,WV X

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovidanas PR X X

Long-billed Marsh Wren Talmatodytes palustris T,WR X

Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorns platensis T X

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum PR X

Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta T,WV X

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum T,WV X Habitat Type Water, Shore Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus T,SR X

Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii SR X

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus T,SR X

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata T X X

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla T X X

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia T,SR X

Myrtle Warbler Dendroica coronata T,WR X

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca T X X

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata T X

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum I X X

Northern Waterthrush Sciurus noveboracensis T X

Mourning Warbler Oporomis Philadelphia T X

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilia T X

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis T X

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus T X

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus T X

Dickcissel Spiza americana T,SR X Habitat Type Water, Shore, Common Name Scientific Name Status & Marsh Open Semiopen Forest

Evening Grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina (I)WV X X

Pine Siskin Spinus pinus T,WV X X

American Goldfinch Spinus tristis PR X

White-winged Crossbill Lcxla leucoptera (I)V X

Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis T,WR X

Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula I.WR X

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys T,WR X

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii T ,WV X X

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia T,WR X X

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus T,WV X e. Manuals of the K1amichi River Basin, Approximately 51 species of mammals Inhabit the Klamlchl River basin (table 2-13). This table Indicates the apparent level of abundance and the habitats normally occupied by each species.

Like the birds discussed In the previous section, occurrences of most species of mammals are limited by variations In the environment, both natural and man-created. Within the Klamlchl River drainage, the distributions of many mammalian species are strongly influenced by natural physiographic provinces within the area and resulting ecotones. These physiographic areas include the Ouachita, Mississippi and Osage-Savanna Biotic Provinces as described by Blair and Hubbell (1938).

Thirty-six mammalian species of the Klamlchl River Basin are found in all the Biotic Provinces noted above. This group comprises 70 percent of the mammalian fauna and includes the following species:

Blarina brevicauda - shorttall shrew

Canls latrans - coyote

Castor canadensis - beaver

Cryptotls parva - least shrew

Dasypus novemclnctus - armadillo

Mdelphls marsuplalis - opossum

Geomys bursarius - plains pocket gopher

Glaucomys volans - southern flying squirrel

Laslurus borealis - red bat

Lynx rufus - bobcat

Mephitis mephitis - striped skunk

Microtua plnetorum - pine vole Hus muscuius - house mouse

Mustela vison - mink

Neotoma floridana - eastern woodrat

Nycticeius humerails - evening bat

Odocoileus virgin!anus - white-tailed deer

Oryzomys palustris - rice rat

Perognathes hispidus - hispid pocket mouse

Peromyscus gossypinus - cotton mouse

Peromyscus leucopus - white-footed mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus - deer mouse

Procyon lotor - raccoon

Rattus norvegicus - norway rat

Rattus rattus - black rat

Reithrodontomys fulvescens - golden harvest mouse

Reithrodontomys humulis - eastern harvest mouse

Scalopus aquaticus - eastern mole

Sciurus carolinensis - gray squirrel

Sciurus niger - fox squirrel

Sigmodon hispidus - hispid cotton rat

Spilogale putorius - spotted skunk

Sylvilagus aquaticus - swamp rabbit

Sylvilagus floridanus - cotton-tail rabbit

Urocyon cinereoargenteus - gray fox

Vulpes fulva - red fox Several species of mammals are rare or limited in their occurrence, within the Kiamichi River Basin. Of these, six species, comprising 11 percent of the mammalian fauna, are widespread in distribution and common elsewhere. These include the following species:

Blarina brevlcauda - shorttail shrew

Ochrotorays nuttalli - golden mouse

Oryzomys palustris - rice rat

Reithrodontomys humulls - eastern harvest mouse

Spllogale putorius - spotted skunk

Ursus amerlcanus - black bear

The following species of naramals are rare or limited in their occurrence in the Kiamichi River Basin and are also limited in their distribution and occurrence elsewhere, particularly in Oklahoma, but are not considered to be threatened species:

Notiosorex crawfordi - gray shrew

Marmota monax - woodchuck

Taralas striatus - eastern chipmunk

Certain species merit attention because they have declined substantially in range and abundance both in and out of the Kiamichi River Basin through historic time, and thus are truly threatened species. This group includes the following species:

Fells concolor - mountain lion

Ursus amerlcanus - black bear

Canis rufus - red wolf

Lutra canadensis - river otter

Myotls sodalis - Indiana bat

Of these, the red wolf and the river otter are no longer present in the basin. Consequently, the establishment of a mainstream reservoir is expected to have little if any impact upon their occurrence within the Kiamichi River Basin. TABLE 2-13

Mammals of Che Kiamichl River Basin

OCCURRENCE

C «* Common: generally abundant throughout the basin, occurring in many localities

0 - Occasional: Occurs at several localities in small numbers

R - Restricted in range, or highly localized

HABITAT G “ Grassland

UF * Upland forest LF * Lowland forest

U * Ubiquitous in habitat

HABITAT SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE G UF LF u

MARSUPIALIA

Didelphis marsupialis Opossum C X X

INSECTIVORA

Blarina brevicauda Shorttail shrew C X

Crypt otis pa.rva Least shrew C X

Notiosorex crawfordi Gray shrew R X

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole C X

CHIROPTERA

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat C X Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat R ?

Lasiurus borealis Red bat C X X

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat R X HABITAT SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE G UF LF u

CHIROPTERA (CONT)

Nycticeius humerails Evening bat C ?

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrel C X

Plecotus rafinesquei Eastern big-eared bat R X

Plecotus tovnsendi Western big-eared bat R X

Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican freetail bat 0 X

EDENTATA

Dasypus novemcinctus Armadillo C X

CARNIVORA

Canis latrans Coyote C X

Lynx rufus Bobcat C X X

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk C X

Hus tela vison Mink 0 X

Procyon lotor Raccoon c X X

Spilogale putorius Spotted skunk R X

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox c X

Uisus americanus Black bear R X X

Vulpes fulva Red fox 0 X X

RODENTIA

Castor canadensis Beaver 0 X

Geonrys bursarius Plains pocket gopher C X X

Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel c X X HABITAT SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE G UF LF U

RODENTIA (CONT)

Marmota monax Woodchuck R X

Microtus pinetorum Pine vole R X X

Mus muscuius House mouse C ?

Neotoma floridana Eastern Woodrat C X X

Ochrotomys nuttali Golden mouse 0 X

Oryzomys palustris Rice rat 0 X

Perognathus hispidus Hispid pocket mouse R X

Peromyscus boylei Brush mouse C X

Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton mouse C X

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse C X X

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse C X

Rattus norvegicus Norway rat C ?

Rattus rattus Black rat c ?

Reithrodontomys fulvescens Golden harvest mouse c X X X

Beithrodontomys humulis Eastern harvest mouse R X

Sciurus carolinensis Gray squirrel C X

Sciurus niger Fox squirrel C X X

Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat C X

Citellus tridecemlineatus 13-lined ground squirrel R X

lamias striatus • Eastern chipmunk 0 X HABITAT SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE G UF LF U LAGOMORPHA

Lepus califomicus Black-tail jackrabbit R X

Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp rabbit C X

Sylvilagus floridanus Cottontail rabbit C X ARTIODACTYLA

Odocoileus virginianus Whitetail deer C X 5. The Archeological and Historical Cultures. Over the years periodic archeological work in southeast Oklahoma, northeast Texas, and southeast Arkansas has led to the development of a general culture historical framework for the entire Hugo Lake area.

The culture chronology for the Hugo Lake area begins with the late Paleo- Indian period. This is suggested by the occasional local occurrence of large spear points of early types, and the Hill site at Hugo, which was excavated in 1971, containing dart point types relating to a late Paleo or early Archaic stage of development.

It Is possible that the Paleo-Indian period is followed by a long Archaic period. During this period it is believed that mobile hunting-gathering peoples utilized the area. The date for this archaic period is uncertain, but it has been suggested that it begins around 8000 B.C. and extends up in the period between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 1.

The Archaic is followed by a very brief period, referred to as Early Ceramic and Pre-Caddo "Formative". This was a period of ceramic manufacture, horticulture, and a more sedentary way of life. This period was followed by Caddoan period of Mississippian tradition which probably had its beginnings around A.D. 700. The period has been divided into a variety of cultural, temporal, and geographic subunits. The two best known temporal divisions are the Gibson and Fulton Aspects. A sedentary form of life based on intensive horticulture dominated during both aspects. In the Gibson period life was accompanied by the development of fairly complex social' and religious patterns. This is indicated by the production of the many well-crafted, non-utilitarian artifacts and by the building of large burial and temple mounds. During the later Fulton Aspect the material signs of the complex social life, and the complexity itself, tend to disappear.

The final cultural period of the area is the era which begins in the mid 1500's. It is in this period that initial contracts between the indigenous population of the area and the newly arrived European explorers and traders were made, while in its later stages the area was settled by Choctaw and Anglo peoples.

Hints of the local cultural patterns are available for only two sites in the immediate Hugo Lake area. The first of these is the George Smith site. This site produced artifacts and burials from the Archaic period. The second Is the Hugo damslte. The brief testing of this site yielded artifacts, burials, and pits which represented a fairly significant Gibson aspect component and a small quantity of material from a minor Archaic component. The main archeological survey of the Hugo Lake was conducted during the summer of 1960. The work was done by Dr. Sherman Lawton of the University of Oklahoma.

A list of 94 prehistoric sites was recorded as a result of this survey (Lawton 1960). A majority of these sites appear to have been temporary camping stations as well as working stations. Some of the sites seemed to have been favored as occupation areas( and these sites did contain relatively greater quantities of cultural debris. A majority of the sites in the project area are located in what will be the main lake area. The 1960 survey was concentrated in this locale. The Initial survey listed a series of 15 sites as recommended for archeological excavations.

During the survey, it was found that quarry operations had exposed an occupational site littered with debris consisting of tools, flakes, faunal debris, fragments of human skeletons. A study of this site did show that the main occupation was by Archaic peoples but there had been minor inhabitations by later, pottery-making groups.

During 1967, a reevaluation survey was made of the Hugo Reservoir site. In this survey an effort was made to determine the areal extent and potential depth of each of the visited sites. Exposures of soil profile were examined and when possible small test pits were dug to aid in discovering the depth and nature of the cultural deposits.

The reevaluation survey recommended 12 sites for excavation. This list includes those sites at which materials were in such quantity that excavation would be merited as well as sites which are believed to represent a complete spectrum of the cultural prehistory for this particular locale.

During 1970 and 1971, the River Basin Survey of the Oklahoma University Research Institute tested or excavated 14 prehistoric sites from a total of 123 known sites. The excavation in 1971 resulted in the publication of Archeological Site Report No. 23, Oklahoma River Basin Survey. A r^evaluation of the previous work was included in the report. In the /inal evaluation a cultural sequence was established for this portion of the Kiamichi Basin based on six major archeological sites representing seven separate cultural components ranging in time from approximately 8200 B.C. to the middle 1800’s of the Choctaw immigration.

The National Register of Historical Places does not list any registered sites in the project area. 6. The Economy. The area under consideration consists of Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties in Southeast Oklahoma. The residents of the counties rely upon agriculture and forest-oriented industries for the primary source of their income, and many are recipients of various types of welfare payments.

The agriculture land in the area is not productive enough to support a large population. The number of people employed in agriculture has declined since 1920. Cattle ranching in the area has not declined.

No large concentrations of population exist in the study area. The majority of the residents live either in small communities or in rural areas. Choctaw County has six principal cities, the largest of which is Hugo. Pushmataha County has three principal cities with Antlers listed as the largest. The two-county area is sparsely populated with final 1970 census figures showing a total of 24,526 people. This is an 0.8 percent loss of 199 from the 1960 population of 24,725 people and a loss of 7,880 from the 1965 population of 32,406 as shown in Table 2-14 by counties. In the same period the state of Oklahoma population gained 9.9 percent. The principal study area cities, population, and percent change from 1960 to 1970 are shown in Table 2-15. This data shows that 35.8 percent of the population in the study area lived in nine principal cities during 1960 and that 49.2 percent of the population were city dwellers in 1970.

TABLE 2-14 State and Hugo Area Population (1950-1970)

Year Year Year % Change State-County 1950 1960 1970 1960-1970 Oklahoma total ■ 2,233,351 2,328,284 2,559,229 9.9 Choctaw County 20,405 15,637 15,141 -3.2 Pushmataha County 12.001 9.088 9.385 3.1

Two-county total 32,406 24,725 24,526 -.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census Population Data 1970 PC(VI)-38, Oklahoma TABLE 2-15

Principal Cities Population (1960-1970)

Percent Citv 1960 1970 Change

Hugo 6,287 6,535 4.5 Boswell 753 755 0.3 Fort Towson 474 430 -9.2 Soper 309 322 4.0 Grant 286 273 -4.5 Swink 86 83 2.2 Antlers 2,085 2,685 22.0 Clayton 615 718 14.3 Albion 161 136 13.4 Total 11,056 12,042 8.2

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census - PC(VI) - 38 Oklahoma

During 1970, 49.1% of the population lived in the nine principal cities. Eoth Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties experienced a iignificant population decrease between 1940 and 1960. This reduction in population is probably due to the loss in farm population. The increase in employment of commodity-producing industries have caused an increase in the principal cities' population. Table 2-16 shows an age frequency in the 20-44 age bracket much lower in the study area than for the state of Oklahoma. This younger age group in both counties decreased while the number of older people increased. This is a loss to the productive portion of the work force and an increase in the group supported by social security, old age pension, and other groups of welfare programs. TABLE 2-16

Comparative Ape Frequency of Population State and Hupo Study Area (1970)

Percent Oklahoma Percent Hugo Study Area of Total State of Total

Under 5 years 1,800 7.3 198,198 7.7 5-9 years 2,321 9.5 238,051 9.3 10-14 years 2,523 10.2 253,506 9.9 15-19 years 2,138 8.7 241,759 9.4 20-24 years 1,162 4.7 207,771 8.1 25-34 years 2,137 8.7 302,982 11.9 35-44 years 2,281 9.3 282,615 11.1 45-54 years 2,616 10.7 281,,46 11.0 55-59 years 1,601 6.6 131,291 5.6 60-74 years 4,301 17.5 304,665 12.0 75 and over 6.8 116.645 4.5

Total (all ages) 24,526 100.0 2,559,229 100.0

Source: TV (V2) - 38, Oklahoma 1970 Census of Population - General Population Characteristics.

Historical employment figures for the study area are exhibited in Table 2-17, Study Area Employment, Unemployment, and Labor Force for 1967-1970. The total study area employment pained from 6,250 in 1967 to 7,020 in 1970. Slight losses occurred in the agriculture employment and nonagricultural employment. The sectors under wage and salary, manufacturing, and nonmanufacturing registered gains. These gains can be attributed to the rising wage scales of manufacturing and other industrial workers. A comparison of unemployment rates for the two-county study area with national and state figures for June 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970 is shown in the following tabulation:

Comparative Unemployment Rates

June 1967 June 1968 June 1969 June 1970

National Rate 4.6 4.5 4.1 5.6

State of Oklahoma 4.2 4.3 4.1 5.1

2-County Area. 7.7 6.7 5.0 6.7 (Average for year) TABLE 2-17

Hugo Lake Stxidy Area Employment Unemployment, and Labor Force

Item 1967 1968 1965 1970

Total civilian labor force 6,800 6,720 7,080 7,550 Unemployment 550 470 380 530 Unemployment rate % 7.7 6.7 5.0 6.7 Employment 6,250 6,250 6,700 7,020 Agriculture 2,090 2,070 2,050 2,030 Konagriculture 4,160 4,180 4,650 4,990 Domestic, self-employed & unpaid family workers 920 900 880 860 Wage and Salary 3,240 3,280 3,770 4,130 Manufacturing* 440 440 460 470 Honmanufacturing 2,600 2,840 3,310 3,660

Source: Oklahoma Labor Force Estimates Total Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment Data for State, Counties and Metropolitan Areas, June 1967-1970 Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.

*Data available for Choctaw County only.

Total personal income is current income received by residents from all sources. It is measured before deduction of income and other personal taxes, but after deduction of personal contributions to social security, government retirement and other insurance programs. Per capita income is total income divided by mid-year (July 1) population and is an indication of living standards or economic welfare levels. However, comparisons of year-to-year change in per capita income may be misinterpreted unless variation in corresponding population changes are also reviewed. In Oklahoma from 1960-1970 total personal income increased 97.6 percent and per capita income increased 83.9 percent. In the Hugo area for the same period, total personal income increased 113.2 percent and per capita income increased 114.3 percent. Total personal income, per capita income, and changes for Oklahoma are shown in Table 2-18. TABLE 2-18

Personal and Per Capita Income Oklahoma and Studv Area (1960-1970)

------IW 137(5 \ Change 1960-70 State Total Per Total Per Total Per and Personal Capita Personal Capita Personal Capita County Income Income Income Income Income Income $ $ $ $ $ $

State of Oklahoma 4,296,989 1,845 8,489,723 3,394 97.6 8 3 . 9 Choctaw County 13,178 842 29,438 1,967 123.0 133.6 Pushmataha County 6,567 722 12.674 Ii22« 92.9 91.9 2-County Total 19,745 782 42,112 1,676 113.2 114.3

Source: Personal Income in Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma, Bureau for Business and Economic Research, January 1971.

A majority of the rural land in the two-county study area is devoted to general farminp, and ranching. There are 1,683 farms in the area averapinp about 412 acres in size with about 673,650 acres in all farms accordinp to the 1969 Bureau of Census apriculture data. The average value of land and buildings per farm was about $45,350. Livestock on farms January 1, 1968, amounted to 77,000 head of all cattle and calves (1,150 milk cows), 6,500 pips and hogs, and 36,200 chickens, plus additional horses and sheep. Crops harvested in 1968 included 39,100 acres of hay, 300 acres of wheat, 1,100 acres of sorghum, 600 acres of soybeans, and 2,820 acres of peanuts. Some fruits and vegetables also were grown. Apriculture data by counties are shown in tables 2-1° and 2-20. TABLE 2-19

LAMP AREA AND ACRICHLTURF RESOURCES (19(>9 Federal Census)

Avg. Avg Value Number Acres Size Acres of of Land & County Acres of of in of Farm Crop land Buildings Land Area Farris Farms Acres Harvested Per Farm.S

Choctaw 497,920 960 313,290 326.3 25,050 47,231 Pushmataha 908.800 723 360.362 498.4 15.289 43.469

Total 1,406,720 1,683 673,652 (412.3) 40,339 (45,350)

Source: Bureau of Census, Census of Agriculture, Oklahoma 1969.

TAB TABLE 2-20

Livestock and Chickens on Farms (January 1, 1968)

All Cattle MiBc Pigs and Chickens Countv and Calve8 Cows Hogs (1)

Choctaw 44,000 750 2,300 22,300 Pushmataha 33.000 400 4.200 13.900

Total 77,000 1,150 6,500 36,200

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture and the Oklahoma Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Annual Report, 1968.

(1) All chicken in farm flock except commercial broilers.

Minerals produced in the study area belong to the non-metallic category. These include stone, sand, gravel. The principal types of minerals and the value of mineral production in the two-county study area are listed in table 2-21. Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties are not known for gas and oil production. A few wells have been drilled in the study area since 1953. Fifteen wells were drilled in Choctaw County during this period; however, all of them were dry. A total of 18 wells have been drilled in Pushmataha County since 1953 and all but one were dry holes. The only productive well drilled was a gas well which was completed in 1961. (USGS, Norman, Okla.)

TABLE 2-21

Value of Mineral Production in Study Area (1968-1969)

Minerals Produced in Countv 1968 1969 1969 in Order of Value ($1,000) ($1,000)

Choctaw 272 546 Stone, sand and gravel

Pushmataha 11 38 Sand and gravel

Total 283 584

Sources USDI Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbook - 1969 - The Mineral Industry of Oklahoma

Manufacturing activities in the two-countv study area have been modest during most of the past half-century. As shown in table 2-22, the number of manufacturing establishments went down from 33 in 1963 to 30 in 1967. The value added by manufacture also went down from $3.9 million in 1963 to $3.1 million in 1967. Manufacturing activities are probably lagging in the area because of lack of housing for worker, lack of a balanced supply of goods and services, and a relatively untrained labor pool.

% TABLE 2-22

Manufacturing Employment Statistics and Value Added by Manufacture Hugo Study Area (1963-1967)

Establishments All Employees Value added by Year and W.20 Empls Manufacture County Total or more Payroll Humber Humber Number Millions $ Millions $ (1,000) 1963: Choctaw 21 6 .5 1.4 3.3 Pushmataha (1) 12 (2) .09 .1 Total 33 (non-add) (non-add) 1.49 3.4

1967: Choctaw 16 4 .4 1.3 2.6 Pushmataha 14 - (2) .1 .5 Total 30 (non-add) (non-add) 1.4 3.1

Source: 1967 Census of Manufactures US Department of Commerce

(1) For 1967, over 30% of the data for this line was estimated. (2) Less than $50 thousand (or under 50 employees)

The number of wholesale trade establishments went down from 23 in 1963 to 22 in 1967. But sales went up from $8,701,000 in 1963 to $10,025,000 in 1967. The payroll for the entire year increased from $219,000 in 1963 to $298,000 in 1967. Both sales and payrolls increased in 1967 while the number of establishments decreased slightly. This data is shown in table 2-23. TABLE 2-23

WHOLESALE TRADE IN STUDY AREA (1963 & 1967)

Payroll Year and Establishments Sales Entire Year County Numbers ($1,000) ($1,000)

1963: Choctaw 15 7,037 166 Pushmataha 8 1.664 53 Total 23 8,701 219

1967: Choctaw 14 8,883 206 Pushmataha 8 l r142 92 Total 22 10,025 298

Source: US Department of Commerce, Census of Business, 1963, and 1967, Wholesale Trade, Oklahoma

Retail establishments in the study area Increased from 271 In 1963 to 321 in 1967 as shown by table 2-24, and sales increased from $19,411,000 in 1963 to $23,610,000 in 1967. The payroll for the same period increased from $1,332,000 to $1,581,000.

TABLE 2-24

RETAIL TRADE IN STUDY AREA (1963 & 1967)

Year and Establishments Sales Entire Year County Numbers ($1,000) (SI.000)

1963: Choctaw 163 11,630 894 Pushmataha 108 7.781 488 Total 19, All 1,382

1967: Choctaw 190 15,383 1,046 Pushmataha 131 8.227 535 Total 321 23,610 1,581

Source: US Department of Commerce, Census of Business, 1963 and 1967, Retail, Oklahoma. The cultural pattern of the two-county study area Is geared to small towns and rural communities with schools, churches, stores, and other services readily available. The largest city in the area is Hugo, Oklahoma, with a 1970 population of 6,585, up 4.5 percent since I960. Many area residents travel to Tulsa, Oklahoma; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Dallas, Texas, for larger city-type recreation and services not available in the smaller towns in the study area. The area competes with Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Dallas, Texas; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Shreveport, Louisiana, for labor as the higher wage rates in these cities attract many southeast Oklahoma youth. The region studied is considered by many as the nost scenic and picturesque in Oklahoma. It is characterized by mild winter and comparative long summers with relatively high temperature. The two-county area has the potential of becoming a recreation and vacation land and has an excellent potential for small and medium-sized firms. Existing lake resources within 50 miles of Hugo Lake are given in table 2-25.

TABLE 2-25

EXISTING OR AUTHORIZED LAKE RESOURCES WITHIN 50 MILES OF HUGO LAKE

Normal Lake Name of Lake Stream Name Status of Lake Surface Acres

Pine Creek Lake Little River Operation 3,800

Boswell Lake Boggy Creek Authorized 52,000

Pat Mayse Lake Sanders Creek Operation 5,990

Big Pine Lake Big Pine Creek Authorized 4,640

Lukfata Lake Glover Creek Authorized 3,830

Cooper Lake South Sulphur River Operation 9,440

Broken Bow Lake Mountain Fork River Operation 14,200

% Tuskahoma Lake Kiamichi River Authorized 11,600

Clayton Lake Kiamichi River Authorized 8,900 The economy of the two-county area will undergo significant changes with the development of Hugo Lake. Long-range projections of the population in the area indicate continuous increases until year 2050. These gains will increase the two-county area population to approximately 39,390 persons which is nearly 15,000 above the level during 1960. The most significant gains are expected to occur in Choctaw County where the major portion of the lake is located.

Due to its proximity to the lake, Choctaw County will experience the largest short-term gains in people. Its more diverse economy will also provide it ( with the means to retain the greatest number of people over the long-run.

Pushmataha County will experience lesser gains in population both in the short and long-term periods. This is due to its distance from the dam site and its less well-developed economy.

Employment in the two-county area has experienced immediate benefits from the start of work on the project. Commodity producing industries have experienced slight short-term increases due to the effects of construction activities. Employment in manufacturing activities has increased due primar­ ily to a rise in employment in apparel, and in firms manufacturing mis­ cellaneous nondurable goods. Mining employment has increased temporarily due to the demand for sand, stone, and gravel by the project. The most extensive employment gains were among the noncommodity-producing activities, particularly construction and government. After project completion, construc­ tion employment should declind slightly while government employment should rise slightly.

Employment in Choctaw County is projected to stabilize in 1975 as construction employment declines. However, this should be a temporary slow down as gains in manufacturing and government employment will offset this loss within five years. The pattern of employment in Pushmataha County will follow that of Choctaw County except that a slight increase will occur between 1970-1980. This is due to the fact that, since fewer construction and supporting service workers locate in that county, the completion of the project will result in a smaller out migration of such workers from that county.

The development of the lake near Hugo, Oklahoma will have a significant effect on the level of income in the area. This effect is most noticeable in changes i which occur in per capita incomes.

The largest change in per capita incomes is in Choctaw County beginning immediately upon commencement of work. Pushmataha County will also benefit considerably. Per capita income has increased at first but should level out in 1975 upon completion of the Hugo Project. Little change will be noted during the fillup period. Some gains will be registered in this county throughout the ensuing years, resulting in a projected per capita income level of $3,356 per year by 2020. Pushmataha County has had a rise in annual per capita income as a result of the addition of construction workers to the labor force. Following completion of the project, gains in income should be fractional through 1980, but could accelerate rapidly thereafter and reach $2,742 per year by 2020.

Industrial development in the two-county area did not experience unusual increases with the beginning of construction. The construction phase has had little short-term effects on industrial activities, but in the long- run, manufacturing output will experience significant gains if the exper­ ience in similar areas elsewhere is repeated here. I

Manufacturing in Choctaw County will increase rapidly and the value added by these operators will reach a projected $9,230,000 by 1980. These gains will be due to increases in the production of apparel, lumber, and wood products, and "other" durable goods industries.

Manufacturing activity in Pushmataha County is not projected to realize the same rapid growth as that which characterizes Choctaw County. By 1980 value added by manufacturing in Pushmataha County is expected to reach $500,000. The forecast for the 70 years following 1980 is for continued gains which could raise the County to more than $2 million at the end of the period. SECTION 3 - THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Paragraph Title Page

1 General 3-4

2 Impact on Streamflow 3 - 4

3 Impact on Diversity and Stability of the 3- 14 Ecosystem

4 Impact on Nutrients and Primary Productivity 3- 15

5 Impact on the Archeological and Historical 3- 16 Culture

6 Impact on the Flora 3- 16

7 Impact on the Fauna of the Kiamichi River Basin - 26

a. Impact on Mussels 3- 26 b. Impact on Herpetofauna 3- 26 c. Impact on Fishes 3- 29 d. Impact on Birds 3- 32 e. Impact on Mammals 3-36

8 Socio-Economic Impacts 3-37

a. Flood Control 3— '40 b. Water Supply 3-41 c. Water Quality 3- 41 d. Recreation 3-42 (1) Fishing 3-43 (2) Hunting 3-44

9 Operation and Maintenance Activities 3-45

a. Reservoir. Regulation and FloodControl 3-.45' b. Maintenance of Project with Related 3- 45 Structures

(1) Sewage Disposal 3- 45

(2) Disposal of Solid Waste 3-46

c. Insect and UndesirableVegetation Control ir

(1) Insect Control 3-> 46

(2) Control of Undesirable Vegetation Growth 46 Paragraph Title Page

d. Forestry and Wildlife Management 3-46

(1) Forest Management 3-46

(2) Wildlife Management 3-46

e. Recreation Management 3-47

(1) Fnforcement of Regulations 3-47

(2) Operation and Maintenance of Recreation 3-47 Areas

(3) Development and Expansion of Recreation 3-47 Areas

f. Management of Land Resources and Facilities -47

(1) Management of Leases, Easements, and Other -47 Outgrants

(2) Construction and Maintenance of Project 3-48 Roads

TABLES

Table Title Page

3-1 Annual Runoff Data 3-5

3-2 Estimated Monthly and Annual Flows in Acre-Feet 3-6

3-2* Monthly Distribution of Average Annual Water 3-7 Supply Demand 3*3 Estimated Pan Evaporation and Rainfall, and Lake 3-8 Gain or Loss (Tnches)

3-4 Estimated Number and Magnitude of Floods on the 3-9 Red River with the Authorized Reservoirs

3-5 Major Storms - January ]926 Through September 1963 3-ll

3~b Dumber and Magnitude of Storms - January 1936 .3-12 Through October 1963

3-7 Number and Magnitude of Floods at Belzoni Gage 3-13 Tabl? Title Page

3-8 F»elative Abundance of Woody Species in a Hugo 3-18 Lake Shoreline Community

3-9 Flood Tolerance of 41 Woody Species 3-19

3-10 Probablility, Extent, and Duration of Flooding at 3-21 Various Shoreline Elevations on Hugo Reservoir (From USA Corps of Engineers, 1965)

3-11 Water Depths in Hugo Lake 3-22

3-12 Average Maximum Depths Attained by Some 3-23 Representative Macrophytes

3-13 Typical Aquatic Plant Communities of Eastern 3-24 Oklahoma

3-14 Clam Responses to Impoundment of the Kiaralchi 3- 27 River

3-15 Postulated Effects of Impoundment of the Vi ami. chi 3-30 River on the. llcrpetofaunn

3-16 ’Inrmni Occupation in Particular Habitat Types 3- 37 SECTION 3 - THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. General. Impoundment of Kianichi River by Hugo Dam and subsequent operation and maintenance of the project will have beneficial as well as adverse impacts on man’s environment. Impacts determined during early project planning and those brought to light by more recent environmental studies are included.

2. Impact on Streamflow. Streamflow below Hugo Lake will be subject to man's judgment rather than to nature's forces following construction of Hugo Dam. Simplified, the basic purpose of a lake is to store excess water when the streamflow exceeds the amount needed or desired, and to release the water impounded at desired rates. The changes in flow and use patterns are usually beneficial; however, there are times when their benefits have adverse effects on other constituents in the ecosystem. Streamflow records for 34 years are available from the Belzoni, Oklahoma, gaging station on Kiamlchi River and for 4 years from the Miller, Oklahoma, gaging station on Tenmile Creek. Streamflow at the Hugo Damsite was estimated for the period January 1926 — December 1958, using the available gage records in conjunction with rainfall data. Annual runoff data are shown in table 3-1. TABLE 3-1

ANNUAL RUNOFF DATA

Complete Average Drainage Water yrs Annual Runoff in Acre-Feet Annual Area of Record Runoff Station Stream sq mi (1) Maximum Minimum Mean in inches

Arthur City, Texas Red River 44,531 33 (1) 15,570,000 1,792,000 6,195,000 2.61

Miller, Oklahoma Tenmile Cr 68 7 (2) 129,500 14,440 58,700 19.18

Belzoni, Oklahoma Kiamichi R 1,423 38 (1) 3,045,000 373,300 1,259,000 17.05

Index, Arkansas Red River 48,030 27 (1) 18,330,000 3,503,000 9,030,000 3.74

Fulton, Arkansas Red River 52,380 21 (2) 30,280,000 5,991,000 14,120,000 5.14

(1) Through 1963 water year. (2) Through 1962 water year. VAH.K 3-2

ESTIMATED MQKTItf.Y AID ANIJUU FLOWS IS ACRE-FEET KIAiXIC'HI j .IVER AT HUGO DAMSITE

Year Ja n u a ry February Ilarrh A j r l l tliy Ji ic :. 0 vi! j A u /tu t Eeptcii3n';r 0C*3O1m.’«* ■' c r A:.:. : /l

V'/;n 3 '2 ,5 ^ 0 72,370 <5,700 130,7'3) 19-6,950 9 ,2 7 0 6.5,7 jo 21,336 7,630 C2,7oo 67,760 i'. - , y/-‘ J • -v > J f 1 ; :-7 91/100, : r o ' : 757,1 0 115,660 11‘ 0 V.’.jOO 73,120 10,1-3'J ■ CC.Y10 10,l.-.i0 735;170 2 , l - - ,i '3 0 r 6 i ,l j O 5 ,‘,510 MO 672, 803 1 1 0 .7 '/, 317,900 21 ,5 2 0 5,150 1,520 o n 2 7 ,5 0 1 , ->? L-PJ) 2 / ’, j/O 1 jYjO'.'o 130,320 5 0 ,CIO' 5 5 -',r;0 75,730 1 7 / / . 0 360 30,100 79,910 76,750 I :9- . T' O 1 ,3 .1 .3 :o 19}0 3 7 7 ,5 :0 1 3 5 .‘-'10 107,070 31,950 661,090 15,370 790 CIO 19,110 100,500 23/350 1 0 9 / CO l,>3i 5 ,500 2 /y ,7 2 0 V‘0 ,0 ‘0 5C ,r;.o 26.510 12,670 3,700 2 ,2 7 0 ICO 77,350 3 7 ,-2 0 96,710 7 5 1 ./> : 19V? 1 /7 ,6 JO 7ro/>.3o oo,v<0 7 5 ,7 (0 119.260 1 6 ;, 050 255,070 6 ,060 670 5 CO 770 n v n o 2,05 9 /MO W33 137,500 C'7,77o 2 5 1 ,6 (0 2 1 6 ,7 .0 235,700 10,1.90 1,270 31, if » 27,720 20.6.60 11,330 26,530 1 ,0 3 5 ,?0u 19 }7 io o ,? 7 o 3 6 / 0 0 2t»i,77n 550 102.710 6 ,370 170 0 51,700 21,660 99,210 71.330 > : . '. / :o 1735 177.500 77.730 7 0 7 ,,oo 191.220 807,770 722,130 15,020 5,210 2 ,0 9 0 7,870 t o ,6 )0 260,910 2 , : - ; . MO 1 m 3 17,270 11,050 10,710 10,570 2 1 , (’OO 17,050 700 0 £Co ,170 173,060 67,1 >0 172,750 ■/ 5 ,0 :0 17)1’ 51r>,070 5‘*,010 1 1 7 ,7 /1 I**7,030 77 ,(-50 113,160 1 , ;U0 53,2-90 17,500 26,770 ICv./'/ oO I j/M lO 3,71.1 /,V> 1 ) 3 ' 3 0 0 ,3 .') 62 3, > lo 237,510 : 262,700 i'-3 .o % ' 110,220 3 0 ,MO 2 ,760 570 0 1 ,770 j / 9 . 0 1 » I7.7!..t 2 2 7 ,j y , 7 l,''> o 3 u . - o o 67,7110 56,V>0 0 ,2 0 0 <••«) 0 0 • 'j :■■/:•/ ..'0 l"A3 5 ,7 0 26,050 IJ.O'tO l/',,7 7 0 2 72 ,t/.o 71 ,',00 1 .6 - - o (.,010 7 ,930 56.0 6.0, *,0 3 '• v : >) .'2 :, ''i> 1 > 1 3 V") r 5‘H) • > ,0 : 0 5'!*,' .’7o 1.-7,210 97,120 7,<;;o 5,210 i , ;i,o 11 3 ,c7o 1 3'!,8 iO IV , 1" 0 i , j 0 1 A.? ■ \n o : 107,070 : 13 yV '.7 7 o 159,120 <0.330 1: {1,700 7,710 16, C.10 1 0 ,7 j0 /./:0 1 . 1 - . '..0 1 3 : 27,.*oo : 1 / V 5 0 3 .9 .7 6 0 37,570 3,620 1(00 lCo n . v c 1 ,0 .’0 ‘ * • ** * 1 '77 317,‘>70 : 373,1.50 : > 2 1 0 .-/0 7:.'*', 220 1.32, V'O 2,l*;o 930 3,0fO 3,2 6 c 4 ;,v ;o .\.:i'.: -j 1 " 5 '>•-■,171 : .> 3,320 : 173,310 / > V : 0 7lO,I(K) !6 n , ( / j 1 1 2 ,'" 0 S)C,210 213,570 116,170 v ‘ v , y .u , 0 37,1,10 : 7>'5,170 : 3-6.710 2 -3 ,5 9 0 3 7 (,0 7 0 1(56,1**0 5 ,250 730 • 2 ,260 660 5 9 2 . 3 5-n 52,550 : lit, *30 : 11* , 360 727,320 jl.*, 6, |7 0 : o l , 3 6 0 5 205,720 79,2.10 319,930 16,610 2 0 6 ,CO 2,090 720 500 3 ,1 /0 J> VV J • j ' ’-> 7 7< ■•■.5i’O : 370,030 : 2 3 V 'tD 176,750 310,310 i ; o , o i o 9,930 6,300 31,710 7F.520 1 2 ,7 '0 .^1 - V 1 v'-; 70 ,-,1:0 : 771,050 : 7*, 03? 35 ,9 "0 26.5,570 '*(■,550 513,720 237,130 717,220 l j , 9 J 0 5 . 5-0 7.3'3 1' j i * 0 rm 7 7, .;vo : 77'',010 ; li o ,5 f o 1-30,9**0 7 0 ,0 ' 0 777,370 7.130 10,790 37,5-'.y CO . i 3 9 l,?-:..?' 3 7i ,750 • 0 7 ,0 2 ) 1 • 1 , - j / / : : 2 0 > ,rj0 3 - 1.910 5 i,o > ‘n 19,o7o j . '30 270 1 ,6 (0 ^00 2 7 / - 3 *’ J- « s vJ ,7X0 i <73 : <5.750 : 2 7 '.,J!.0 C l ) . 750 370,770 5.(>,'0 2 8 ',, i >0 Jl.S '/O 2 ,',2 0 ('.(•) 2 ,;,7 0 S / i 3 1 .6 7 6 , : 7.1,: 70 1 5 / r*.-;,. '>*» • 1 2 ,5 (0 ' / ’,3 ''0 2 .7 ,: 30 2,:v.o 260 0 if 0 123,710 1< , •. >0 11l,7Y o V***1V 11 *• -• • * t # ; t J / m n 5 1 '’j } f J n .,7 ,;o <0, >30 3 ,7 ".; • ' *0 10, a 0 2.tC, (,)';(. 2 0 ,-','0 1,750 1.7.-:- X « O' c.' 1 /V. ;:,7. J'.O 7 j2 ,.'7 0 ./•/•/J 26.360 33,320 9 ,n .o 0 3 :,> 'o 1 7 ,7 -0 1 n o . 5-70 : : 177,000 12.6,;-00 11.7, .r.-o 2V -, 600 1 "55 51,150 25,'.'<'0 2 3 ,H 0 3 0 .n o i c o .c r o 'j i» 0 J A- 1 / / . ; . ; M : l-.'/0 217.100 : H O ; 101 : 123, V7-0 (0,050 5.10,170 2 3 ,6 (X- 1557'. 33,000 12,020 i.51y1 JW 9 , 1 0 J 1,6; 1 ,7 :1 i'*»l lO .V tO : 136,730 : JTO/f.K) 1)2 ,710 ...'7,020 1+0 jVtvJ 5 0 ,-6 0 16,960 57 ,130 6 1 ,0 (0 2'1,210 21 C,vi;} v ;- - .7 'V > 155,050 : 133,730 : I;-,, 2. 7 ,700 l ' , 5' 0 67,350 2 ,6 1 0 670 17,.I/O 197,770 I I I .0 3 0 > 1/lV o l,:::.'/..o 1963 ?7,07C : 10,2:33 : 1-17,3‘>0 127,100 10.020 3,070 12,270 2 ,500 10o 0 50 05O 363,MO 1?67 500 : 1.3,7*60 : 157,530 195,270 59,710 3,9-50 Co0 72,660 166,790 2 1 ,7 1 0 158,210 S v j j u S l J :C5,M O tfcan 160,370 177,570 : 171,230 257,550 250,160 117,02:0 56,900 19,170 70,050 70,790 77,010 117,370 1,7* 5 .2 :0 • • » « • Estimated monthly and annual flows at the Hugo Damsite are shown in table 3-2 for the period January 1926 through September 1963. The lake elevation - area and elevation - capacity curves are shown on plate 1 of appendix C. Hydrographs of daily flows are shown on plates 2, 3, and 4 of appendix C and a flow duration curve is shown on plate 4.

The flow duration curve was developed from the flow data to provide a concise picture of flow conditions. From this curve the percentage of time that any discharge in cfs (cubic feet per second) was equalled or exceeded can be determined.

The natural flows of the Kiamichi River range from a peak flow of 71,400 cfs to no flow at certain tines of the year. With the Hugo project damaging high flows, that would have occurred naturally, will be rescheduled by the dam and released at a nondamaging rate.

The downstream water supply and water quality release schedule for Hugo Lake is presented in table 3-2a. From this it can be seen that periods of no flow will be practically nonexistant. The months of June, July, August, and September are tines of stress for most aquatic organisms in a stream type environment. Kith the project increased water releases will be made during these times of stress thereby providing suitable downstream flows for fish, wildlife, and stream enhancement.

TABLE 3-2a

MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY DEMAND

58 m.g. d. 90 m.g.d. 148 m.g.d. municipal and industrial water quality control total tionthly Percent of Monthly rate Percent of Monthly rate rate Month annual demand (m.g.d.) annual demand (m.g.d.) (m.g.d.)

January 8 .0 54.6 0 0 54.6 February 6.5 49.1 2 .8 32.9 82.0 March 7.0 47.8 3.7 39.2 87.0 April 7.0 49.4 7.4 81.0 130.4 May 9.0 61.5 1 0 .2 108.1 169.6 June 1 0 .0 70.6 16.7 182.9 253.5 July 10.5 71.7 17.6 186.5 258.2 August 1 0 .0 68.3 17.6 186.5 254.8 September 8 .0 56.5 12.9 141.3 197.8 October 8 .0 54.6 7.4 78.4 133.0 November 8 .0 56.5 3.7 40.5 97.0 December 8 .0 54.6 0 0 54.6 TABLE 3-3

ESTIMATED PAN EVAPORATION AND RATNFALL, AND LAKE GAIN OR LOSS (INCHES)

Pan Evaporation Rainfall Lake Gain or Loss (1) Drought Moderate Drought Moderate Drought Moderate Month Average Period Period Average Period Period Period Period

January 2.35 2.53 2.33 3.54 2.49 3.68 + 0.72 + 2.05

February 3.18 3.94 3.08 3.31 2.66 3.40 - 0.10 + 1.24

March 5.31 5.93 5.23 3.83 2.42 4.02 - 1.73 + 0.36

April 6.69 7.22 6.62 5.15 3.02 5.44 - 2.03 + 0.81

May 7.94 7.81 7.96 5.94 5.65 5.98 + 0.18 + 0.41

June 8.81 9.66 8.69 4.34 1.50 4.73 - 5.26 - 1.35

July 9.62 ' 11.81 9.32 3.65 1.29 3.97 - 6.98 - 2.55

August 9.38 11.32 9.12 4.12 4.23 4.10 - 3.69 - 2.28

September 7.14 9.02 6.88 3.59 3.91 3.55 - 2.40 - 1.27

October 5.27 6.26 5.14 3.44 6.60 3.01 + 2.22 - 0.59

November 3.32 4.00 3.23 3.50 1.83 3.73 - 0.97 + 1.47

December 2.46 2.88 2.40 3.25 1.77 3.45 - 0.25 + 1.77

Total 71.47 82.38 70.00 47.66 37.37 49.06 -20.29 + 0.07

(1) Net gain, + ; or loss, - ; After adjusting for evaporation and rainfall on the lake. TABLE 3-4 ESTIMATED NUMBER AND MAGNITUDE OF FLOODS ON THE RED RIVER WITH THE AUTHORIZED RESERVOIRS (January 1937 - December 1964)

Excluding Hugo Includi Peak Stage Number Accumulated Number Accumulated Feet Above of Number of of Number of Operating Stage Occurrences Occurrences Occurrences Occurrences Fulton, Ark£insas

6.1 1 1 0 0 5.0 1 2 0 0 4.0-4.9 0 2 1 1 3.0-3.9 1 3 1 2 2.0-2.9 6 9 0 2 1.0-1.9 2 11 1 3 .0-0.9 1 12 4 7 Index, Arkiinsas

4.8 1 1 0 0 2.0-2.9 1 2 1 1 1.0-1.9 0 2 1 2 .0-0.9 2 4 0 2 During periods of moderate evaporation and rainfall, the lake storage loss by evaporation will approximately equal the gain by direct precipitation upon the lake. However, the average annual loss of water by evaporation from the lake will be slightly greater than the average annual gain by precipitation falling directly upon the lake. A study of the records, 1926-1963, indicates that during the periods 1938-1939 and February 1954 through January 1957 there was abnormally high evaporation losses while the rainfall average was below normal. The data in table 3-3 shows the net effect of evaporation from rainfall on the lake for the above mentioned drought periods and for intermediate evaporation periods.

Hugo Lake will be operated for maximun flood control on Kiamichi River downstream of the damsite with major flood benefits on the Red River. The initial water storages would be reallocated after completion of Clayton and Tuskahona Lakes. Hugo Lake would have controlled all the floods of record from the damsite to the mouth of the Kiamichi River. The estimated and recorded magnitude of floods at the Fulton and Index gages with and without the operation of Hugo Lake are shown in table 3-4.

The emptying time for the maximum flood of record, April-June 1957, would have been 41 days. The flood control storage could be emptied in approximately 21 days, assuming channel capacity outflow of 20,000 cfs and no inflow during the emptying time. The pool elevation operational hydrographs for the period January 1937 through December 1964 are shown on plates 5, 6, and 7 in appendix C. Operational hydrographs for the January - March 1938, February - April 1945, and the April - June 1957 floods are shown in plates 8, 9, and 10, respectively. The results of the reservoir operations on these floods at Fulton gage are shown on plates 11, 12, and 13. The pool elevation probability and duration curves are shown on plate 14 of appendix C.

Floods on the lower reaches of the Kiamichi River are generally caused by prolonged storms of moderate to heavy rainfall of from 3 to 6 days duration. Floods on the tributaries and upper reaches of the Kiamichi River are usually caused by brief storms of intense rainfall. Data on the number and magnitude of storms averaging 4 inches or more over the Kiamichi River Basin above the Hugo Damsite during the period of January 1926 through September 1963 are shown in tables 3-5 and 3-6. TABLE 3-5

MAJOR STORMS JANUARY 1926 THROUGH SZFTH SER 1963

R a i n f a l l R a i n f a l l Date of Storm Date of Storm ( in c h e s ) (in c h e s )

Aug 16-28, 1926 5 .6 3 Apr 30-May 3, 1944 4 .3 0 Apr 11-15, 192? 4 *4 3 Feb 19-21, 1945 4 .4 5 Apr 18-21, 1927 4 ,0 4 Jun 7-12, 1945 3 .1 5 Jul 13-15, 192? 5 .0 7 Jim 16-17, 1945 4 .2 8 Dec 12-14, 1927 4 .9 1 Sep 25-30, 1945 8 .0 4 Aor 4-6, 1928 6 .1 0 Nov 2-7, 1946 1 0 .1 0 Apr 20-23, 1928 4 .0 7 Dec 3-12, 19a6 6 .1 0 May 12-15, 1929 4 -9 7 Jan 23-27, 1949 9 .3 4 May 2 - 7 , 1930 4 .6 1 Apr 30-May 4, 1949 4 .0 0 Oct 21-23, 1931 5 .2 3 Jul 3-6, 1950 4 .3 1 Feb 13-17, 1932 5-39 Sep 14-17, 1950 4 .9 0 Jun 25-30, 1932 5 .9 8 Jun 9-12, 1951 4 .3 0 Sep 2-3, 1934 5-69 Apr 23-24, 1953 4 .2 0 Nov 19-22, 1934 4 .7 5 Jul 20-21, 1953 6 .9 0 May 4-6, 1935 6 .0 0 Sep 23-24, 1955 4 .9 0 May 15-20, 1935 5 .6 9 Apr 23-27, 1957 5 .9 7 Jun 13-21, 1935 1 0 .2 0 Nay 20-25, 1957 4 .9 0 Dec 5-7, 1935 4 *3 4 Sen 21-22, 1957 6 .2 0 Sep 26-23, 1936 6 .8 5 Apr 50-May 3, 1958 5 .2 0 Aug 21-23, 1937 4 .2 9 Oct 1-6, 1959 5-33 Jan 20-24, 193? 5 .5 5 May 18-20, i960 7 .0 1 Feb 14-13, 1933 7 *7 6 Jul 23-25, I960 5 .4 1 Mar 2.6-3C, 193? 4 .5 8 ' Sen 11-14, I960 4 .1 6 Apr 16-17, 1939 4 .4 0 Dec 5-13, I960 5 .9 0 Apr 14-18, 1941 5 .2 0 Kay 4-8, 1961 4 .7 4 Apr 6-9, 1942 5 .3 0 Jul 13-17, 1961 4 .1 4 May 9 - 1 0 , 1943 7 .4 7 TABLE 3-6

Number and Magnitude of Storms January 1926 through October 1963

Average Rainfall Number of Accumulated Number (inches) Occurrences of Occurrences

10.20 1 1 10.10 1 2 9.34 1 3 8.50 - 8.99 0 3 8.00 - 8.49 2 5 7.50 - 7.99 1 6 7.00 - 7.49 2 8 6.50 - 6.99 2 10 6.00 - 6.49 4 14 5.50 - 5.99 7 21 5.00 - 5.49 8 29 4.50 - 4.99 9 38 4.00 - 4.49 15 53 TABLE 3-7

NUMBER AND MAGNITUDE OF FLOODS AT BELZONI GAGE

Number Accumulated Feet Above Bankfull of Number of Stage Occurrences occurrences

16.0 1 1 14.0-15.9 3 4 12.0-13.9 11 15 10.0-11.9 4 19 8.0- 9.9 14 33 6.0- 7.9 9 42 4.0- 5.9 11 53 2.0- 3.9 15 68 0.0- 1.9 16 84 The historic highest known stage at Belzoni was 44.2 feet in 1915, or about 16.2 feet above flood stage. This information was furnished by local residents. The estimated number and magnitude of floods for the period, January 1934 through September 1963, at the Belzoni gage are shown in table 3-7.

The Kiamichi River carries a relatively light sediment load. Very little sheet erosion has occurred as the majority of the basin is in forest or grasslands. The banks and beds of the stream and its tributaries are stable and carry little sediment. A minimum sediment rate of 0.25 acre— feet per square mile per year is considered to be applicable for use in areas where sediment load is a ninor problem. The authorized Clayton and Tuskahona Reservoirs would intercept a portion of the sediment load above Hugo Reservoir. A 100-year inactive storage of 30,400 acre-feet in Hugo Lake was adopted for design purposes. If the upstream reservoirs are not constructed, the total sediment deposits over a 100-year period would be 42,700 acre-feet.

3. Impact on Diversity and Stability of the Ecosystem. An ecosystem is a natural unit composed of interacting living (biotic) and nonliving (abiotic) components. The structure of the system, which refers to its composition in terms of the distribution and abundance of the biotic and abiotic elements, determines to a large extent how the system functions. Function refers to the cycling of materials within the system and the flow of energy through the system. By functioning over a period of time, ecosystems increase the complexity of their structure and therefore increase the diversity of pathways (foodchains) through which materials can cycle and energy can flow. These adjustments in structure and function occur until the system reaches a self-adjusting steady state. All ecosystems undergo this series of adjustments (serai stages) until a climax community is established unless ecological succession is interrupted by natural or manmade disturbances. The stability of an ecosystem in a steady state may refer to the ability of the system to maintain the existing steady state in the presence of a disturbance, such as pollution; or stability may refer to the ability of the system to re-establish equilibrium in some other state or condition after a disturbance, such as a forest fire, destroys the existing equilibrium. The latter representation of the stability of a system is identical with the ability of the system to survive or perpetuate itself (Ashby, 1966), It is recognized that construction of Hugo Dam will temporarily upset the Kiamichi River Basin to some degree in the immediate vicinity of the project. Because a major new type of aquatic habitat will be created in the basin, the total species diversity in Hugo Lake immediately after impoundment will be less than the diversity of the same area before impoundment. As lentic species invade the new habitat and as some lotic species adapt to the shoreline areas of the lake, species diversity will increase. Odum (1971) states that "wave action along rocky and sandy shores . . . may virtually duplicate stream conditions . . and stream animals may be found in wave tossed portion of lakes." In time, the addition of the major lentic habitat should result in the total species diversity of the Kiamlchi River Basin exceeding that which currently exists.

A. Impact on Nutrients and Primary Productivity. The retention of nutrients by impoundments varies considerably, with the degree of retention usually being inversely proportional to the outlet depth and to inflow/storage ratio. Published annual retention values for phosphorus range from 89-93 percent for Lake Tahoe, Nevada, (Ludwig, et al., 196A) to 38 percent for Lake Keystone, Oklahoma, (F.ley, 1970). Retention of nitrates and phosphates by Pine Creek Lake on Little River and Broken Bow Lake on the Mountain Fork River during August 1971 were of the same order of magnitude as average annual retention of those nutrients by Lake Keystone. Based on Inflow/storage ratio greater than 10, the retention of nutrients in Hugo Lake is expected to be less than 40 percent of the total nutrient inflow.

Nutrient concentration in Kiamlchi River during April 1972 were indicative of a moderately fertile stream. The average concentrations of phosphates were - 0.01 mg PO^ - P liter”* at Highways 3 and 7 bridge and 0.01 mg P0^ - P liter"* at Highway 70 bridge. The average concentrations of nitrates were 0.05 mg NO3 - N liter"* at Highways 3 and 7 and 0.16 mg NO3 - N liter"* at Highway 70 bridge.

The environmental impact of impoundment and subsequent nutrient retention will be to enhance the potential for higher productivity in the reservoir while lowering the nutrient levels and consequently the potential for aquatic productivity immediately downstream. The inhibition of downstream aquatic productivity by retention of nutrients in the lake probably will decrease downstream as surface runoff enriches the nutrient level.

Productivity in lakes in general is inversely proportional to depth and directly proportional to the available nutrients. Predicted nutrient levels indicate that Hugo Lake will be a fairly productive lake. The inflow/storage ratio probably will prevent relatively rapid nutrient accumulation (eutrophication) This will be detrimental to short-term productivity of the lake by retarding the approach of senescence. Lakes, like all ecosystems, have the highest rate of net productivity during their youth. By imposing a more or less fegular but acute physical perturbation, such as planned major water level fluctuation, the ecosystem can be maintained at some intermediate compromise between youth and maturity (Odum, 1971). This ecological principle of pulse stabilization which indicates that Hugo Lake probably could be maintained in a relatively high state of productivity also assures that Hugo Lake will have an adverse impact on natural terrestrial productivity in the lower Kiamlchi River Basin. Disastrous floods, which Hugo Lake will prevent, tend to "pulse stabilize" the downstream terrestrial bottomland plant community and promote a higher long-term rate of production by maintaining at least part of the system in a state short of maturity and by depositing nutrients leached from upstream areas. However, as protection from floodwaters is provided, artificial energy subsidies provided by man in the form of selective harvests, cultivation, seeding, fertilization, etc., could result in an increase in the net production of the lower Kiamichi River ecosystem if agriculture increases. It is likely; however, that urbanization will increase more than agriculture, and that downstream terrestrial biological productivity will decrease.

After considering the Kiamichi River Basin ecosystem as a whole, it is believed that the positive impacts of Hugo Lake on aquatic primary productivity outweigh the negative impacts, but that adverse impacts on terrestrial primary productivity probably exceed beneficial impacts.

5. Impact on the Archeological and Historical Culture, During 1970 and 1971, the River Basin Survey of the Oklahoma Pesearch Institute tested or excavated 14 prehistoric sites from a total of 123 known sites. Due to impoundment of the lake 22 sites will be inundated. Construction activities in the Hugo project area destroyed a number of unrecorded archeological sites and some recorded sites including three in the damsite area. Erosion along the shoreline of the lake will destroy about 41 recorded sites. The major damage will be done near the conservation pool elevation although some damage nay occur periodically with lake level fluctuations. Changes in land-use such as recreational use, increased development, and the presence of an increased number of people walking over the area will adversely affect the sites subject to erosion within the flood pool and the remaining sites in the immediate vicinity of the project. Approximately eight sites will not be affected due to their distance from the project.

6 . Impact on the Flora. The impact of the Hugo Lake on vegetation will be the greatest in the vicinity of the shoreline of the impoundment and in the downstream reach of the river. In the flood pool basin, vegetation will be subject to a fluctuating water level and consequent periodic inundation. Below the dam, the absence of flooding is expected to result in changes in the utilization of the land and the succession of flood plain forests. Of the 41,403 acres (fee and easement) acquired for the project, 6,600 acres were cleared between elevations 405.5 feet, except in the public-use areas which were cleared to elevation 404.5, and 389.0 feet (3 feet above conservation pool, 5 feet below 10 year drawdown). The conservation pool at elevation 404.5 feet will inundate 13,250 acres, tfith an additional 21,240 acres subject to periodic inundation at the top of the flood pool, elevation 437.5 feet.

The character of shoreline vegetation from the top of the conservation pool to the top of the flood pool, a total of 21,240 acres, may be altered as a result of periodic fluctuation of the water level in the reservoir. The nature and extent of changes will be related to the frequency, duration, and season of inundation. During the growing season, only willows (Salix spp.) can tolerate complete submergence of their foliage for more than a few days (Putnam, 1951), but many tree species can survive for 2 or 3 years in continuously flooded soil, e.g., buttonbush, cottonwood, silver maple, american elm, hackbcrry, burr oak, and ash (Green, 1947).

The tree species of an upland forest stand destined to become part of the shoreline community on Hugo Lake are listed in order of relative- abundance in table 3-8. The most abundant species are post oak, winged elm, hawthorns, hackberry, mockemut hickory and black hickory. Shortleaf pine, not present in this particular stand, is an important upland tree on the northeastern perimeter of the reservoir, and will be important in the shoreline vegetation when the reservoir fills to conservation pool level.

Table 3-9 is a list of 41 tree species for which flood tolerance data are available; these or similar species are among those known or expected to occur in the zone of periodic inundation.

The table indicates that only one of the species listed is killed by fewer than 21 days of flooding during the growing season. According to table 3-10, which gives estimates for the probable duration and extent of inundation during a 50-year period, only about 30 percent of the flood water zone will be inundated for as long as 20 days. The reference is to complete inundation, however, and not merely flooded soil conditions; flooded soil at the top of the flood control pool would mean that shore­ line vegetation at the conservation pool level would be standing in 30 feet of water. But in fact, according to table 3-9, a tree 30 feet high and growing from a point 3 feet above conservation pool level, would be completely inundated for no more than 1 day, and 1 day of even complete inundation probably would not be fatal. This suggests that at least the larger (seed) trees will survive even the 50-vear floods, thus enabling the dominant vegetation in the floodwater zone to reproduce itself during the intervals between the most severe floods. The proceeding discussion applies only to flooding that occurs during the growing season, since inundation during periods of dormancy is expected to have little or no effect (Putnam, 1951) on survival of mature trees, though it might be detrimental to seedlings and small trees without extensive root systems. TABLE 3-3

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF WOODY SPECIES IN A HUGO LAKE SHORELINE COMMUNITY

Rel Relative Abundance Species (Percent Composition)

Quercus stellate (Post oak) 27.3 Cratepus spathulata (Littlehip Hawthorn) 16.8 Ulraus alata (Winped elm) 15.5 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) 7.7 Carva texana (Black hickory) 5.1 Maclura ponifera (Osape oranpe) 4.4 Fraxinus spp. (Ash) 2.4 Quercus narilandica (Blackjack oak) 2.4 Quercus muehlenberpii (Chinquapin oak) 2.4 Quercus phellos (Willow oak) 2.0 Bumelia lanupinosa (Chittara wood) 2.0 Sapindus drunmondii (V'estem soapberry 1.7 Juniperus virpiniana (Eastern red cedar) 1.3 Viburnam rufidulun (Rusty blackhaw) 1.0 Quercus alba (Uiite oak) 0.7 Robinia pseudoacacia (Black locust) 0.3 Tilia spp. (Basswood) 0.3 Quercus falcata (Southern red oak) 0.3 Crate^us viridus (Creen hawthorn) 1.0 Betula nipra (River birch) 0.3 Ilex decidua (Deciduous holly) 0.3 Quercus velutina (Black oak) 0.3 TABLE 3-9

FLOOD TOLERANCE OF 41 WOODY SPECIES (These or similar species are known or expected to occur in the vicinity of Hup,o Lake)

Number days flooding per growing season to kill species (185-day growing season)1

Prunus serotina (Black cherry) 25 Comus florida (Flowering dogwood) 21 Ostrya virginiana (Ironwood) 21 Sassafras albldium (Sassafras) 10 Ilex opaca (American holly) 31 Juniperus virginiana (Eastern redcedar) 45 Carya ovata (Shagbark hickory) 41 Pinus taeda (Loblolly pine) 30 Quercus nigra (Water oak) 44 Catalpa speciosa (Northern catalpa) 44 Carya tomentosa (Mockemut hickory) 37 Carpinus caroliniana (Blue beech) 48 Betula nigra (River birch) 64 Tlatanus occidentalis (sycamore) 57 Ulraus alata (Winded elm) 46 U. anericana (Anerican eln) 72 Celtis laevigata (Sugar hackberry) 46 Nyssa sylvatica (Black gun) 48 Gleditsia triacanthos (Honey locust) 64 Diospvros virginiana (Persimon) 67 Quercus phellos (Willow oak) 77 Crataegus spn (Hawthorn) 68 Liguidanbar styracaflua (Sweetgum) 80 Populus deltoides (Eastern cottonwood) 64 Ilex decidua (Deciduous holly) 68 Acer rubrum (Red naple) 75 Fraxinus spp. (Ash) 77 Cephalanthus occidentalis (Buttonhush) 98 Salix nigra (Black willow) 109 Planera aquatica (Water eln) 100

Humber of years survived with constant flooding^

Celtis occidentalis (Common hackberry) 3 Quercus macrocurpa (Burr oak) 3 Acer saccharinun (Silver maple) 3 Approximate period of survival under flooded conditions3 (days)

Quercus marilandica (Blackiack oak) 30 stellata (Post oak) 42 Robinia pseudoacacia (Rlack locust) 21 Acer nepundo (Boxelder) 30 Cercics canadensis (Eastern redbud) 21 Cornus drummondi (Rouphleaf dopwood) 42 Fraxinus pennsvlvanica (Red ash) 180 Morus rubra (Red mulberry) 42 lllall and Smith, 1955

^Green, 1947

3DeGrunchy, 1952 TABLE 3-10

PROBABILITY, EXTENT, AND DURATION OF FLOODING AT VARIOUS SHORELINE ELEVATIONS ON HUGO RESERVOTR (FROM USA CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1965)

Area Probable inundat ed Time to maximum Area inundated abev c empty to conti mious for period shown Pool cl eracion t o;'.sei vac i.on conservation inundation in previous (feet above pool pool level in 50 yrs column F lenueney MSL) (acres) (days) (days) (acres)

Once in 50 yrs A37.5 212 AO 20 l 580 Once in AO yrs ' 436.A 20660 19 2 950

Once In 30 yrs 434.6 19710 18 5 1670

Once i". 20 yrs 431.5 18040 15 8 2830

Once in 10 yrs 426.5 15210 12 12 3190

Once in 5 yrs 421.1 12020 8 16 5330

Cnee in 2 yrs 414.0 6690 4 20 6690 With or without the effects of inundation, there is a possibility that the only significant changes in shoreline vegetation will occur within a very few feet of the top of the conservation pool (cf. Green, 1947). That this will be the case with Hugo Lake is suggested by the stability of the shoreline vegetation of established reservoirs in eastern Oklahoma, although shoreline vegetation can be expected to vary considerably with the slope, soil type, and rockiness of the shore. Typical wetland trees such as willows, cottonwoods, and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) will probably invade areas of gently sloping shoreline within 5-10 years, but they are less likely to become established on steeper, drier shores. On rocky shores, where the wave action tends to erode away the soil, vegetation will be sparse or absent.

Any exposed soil surface will be expected to undergo a certain vegetational sequence during the process of revegetation. In the northern forested region where pines are dominant, roadside cuts and exposed ground is frequently invaded by numerous small shortleaf pines (Pinus echinata). These pines will eventually be replaced by hardwoods, such as oaks and hickories. In mesic situations the terminal hardwoods include those of the eastern deciduous forest (Risser and Rice, 1971).

In the areas not immediately reseeded by pines, there are usually several successional stages (Odum 3960, Oosting 1942, Perino and Risser 1972, Shantz and Oosting 1970). The first year or tvo is characterized by weedy species such as crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), ragweeds (Ambrosia spp), horscweed (Conyza candensis), sunflower (Heliauthus annua) and brome grass (Bromus japonicus). The second stage is usually dominated by broom- sedge (Andropogon virginicus) and may persist for several years. The third stage includes the invasion by trees such as persimmon (Diosyros virginiana), elms (Ulmus spp.), the shortleaf pines (Pinus echinata) and finally the climax hardwoods.

The relatively smooth topography of the project site will permit the existence of many acres of shallow water suitable for the growth of aquatic macrophytes. Table 3-11 is based on elevation-area-capacity tables (US Corps of Engineers 1965) and gives estimates for the extent of saallow water at various depths.

TABLE 3-11

WATER DEPTHS IN HUGO LAKE (Data is based on elevation-area-capacitv tables from the Corps of Engineers 1965)

Water Depth Acres % of Conservation Pool

0.0 - 2.5 1,530 12 2.5 - 4.5 1,220 9 4.5 - 8.0 2,276 17 Over 8.0 8,224 62

Total 13,250 100 TABLE 3-12

AVERAGE MAXIMUM DEPTHS ATTAINED BY SOME REPRESENTATIVE MACROPHYTES

Species Depth

Cattail (Typha domingensis) 2 .2 Water willow (Justicia americana) 3.8 Pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus) 4.2 Mud plantain (Heteranthera dubia) 4.2 Coontail (Ceratophvllum demersum)

This indicates that about 38 percent of the conservation pool is less than 8 feet deep. In Oklahoma lakes the average maximum depths attained by some representative aquatic macrophytes are 8 feet, all of which are important in the eastern part of the state (Penfound, 1953), are listed in table 3-12. Typical aquatic plant communities of eastern Oklahoma are listed in table 3-13.

Macrophytes are important in the food webs of aquatic ecosystems and they provide support shelter, and oxygen to other organisms. They also have a potential for nusiance (Boyd, 1971). The considerable extent of shallow water in Hugo Lake suggests that macrophyte populations could in time reach nusiance proportions, although they may be kept in check by a combination of low nutrients, wave action, and water level fluctuations. If the bottom grade is 3:1 or greater, macrophytes are normally not a problem. Under natural conditions, physical instability due to fluctuation of water levels and to current and wave action is one of the most important factors limiting macrophyte populations.

Their total elimination may have adverse affects on waterfowl and fish populations. Waterfowl use areas of aquatic weeds for cover, nesting, and feeding grounds; in fact, the elimination of such areas by water level fluctuation is the most important factor in preventing the development of waterfowl feeding grounds (Martin and Uhler, 1939). Macrophytes provide spawning and feeding grounds for fishes, which feed on plant material as well as on insects associated with the macrophytes. TABLE 3-13

TYPICAL AQUATIC PLANT COMMUNITIES OF EASTERN OKLAHOMA (Adapted from Penfound, 1953)

Recession zone

Rush (Juncus nodatus) Water willow (Justlcla americana) Cut-grass - Lizzard's Tail (I.eersia-Saururus) Smartweed (Polygonum cossineun) Smartweed P_. lapathlfoliun) Cattail (Tvpha doningensls) Southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea) Duckweed - Big duckweed (Lenna-Spirodela) American lotus (Nelumho luteal Water lilies (Nuphar-Nynnhaea) Water primrose (Jussi me a repens)

Submerged

Fanwort (Cabonba caroliniana) Coontail (C-r: at ophyj.lum darner sun) Stonewort Tchara contraria) Mud Plantain (Heteranthera dubia) Pendweeci (Potamogeton nodosus) Pondweed (?. pectir.atus)

Some forage fish including ninnov;s# carp, and goldfish, spawn directly on water plants.

The absence of periodic flooding in the floodplain below the dan is expected to result in changes in the composition of the forest there. The disturbance brought about in flood plain forest soils by periodic flooding, siltation, and seasonal drought, is responsible for preventing the successful invasion of more nesic species (Curtis, 1959). In the absence of flooding, it seems probable that the silver maple- ash-hackberry forest in the lower reach of the liver will eventually be replaced by more nesic forests dominated by oaks and hickories. The time required for this change will be determined primarily by the life spans of the flood plain trees now occupying the area and can be expected to occur slowly over the next 2 decades or so.

The absence of flooding below the dam will also encourage some changes in land use in the floodplain. It is probable that more of the floodplain forest, which covers about half of the 5,000 acres of floodplain below the dam, will be cleared for cultivation and grazing, further reducing the availability of forest habitat in the area of the lake. A list of rare plants for the area is given below. Species requiring a flood plain or lower slope habitat are narked with an asterisk.

With one exception, the plants listed are connon elsewhere but are rare in eastern Oklahona because they all reach the western limit of their respective ranges in southeastern Oklahoma. The exception is Nutmeg Hickory, which is found in scattered locations throughout the southeastern United States and is nowhere considered conmon.

None of the species listed would be eliminated by construction of a lake but suitable habitat for several would be reduced.

* Kystrix patula bottle-brush grass Veratrum woodli false hellebore Tipularia discolor craneflyorchid * ^arva nyrlsticaeformls nutmeg hickory Ouercus incana bluejack oak * Quercus lyrata overcup oak Magnolia acuminata cucumber tree * Magnolia trlpetala umbrella magnolia Lesouerella angustifolia bladderpoA Leavenworthia aurea golden yelloweye * Itea virginica sweetspire Ribes cynosbati pasture gooseberry Ervngium integrifolium eryngo Lyonia ligustrina Ke^TTuckleherry * Halesia Carolina Carolina silverbell Monotropa hypopitvs Indianpipe * Bartonla paniculata slim bartonia Gentlana saponaria bottle gentian Gratiola brevifolla sticky hedgehyssop Penstemon murrayanus cupleaf penstemon Hellanthus sllphioides colonial sunflower Rudheckia maxina great coneflower Rudbeckla missourlensis Missouri coneflower 7. Impact on the Fauna of the Klamichl River Basin. Studies involving benthic macroinvertebrates in the Tennessee Valley region have generally indicated that the benthic fauna may be limited by siltation, rheotactile deprivation, water level fluctuation, increased hydrostatic pressure, light and oxygen deficiency. Impoundments determine the limits of the above named parameters, and thus the effects of such features on the faunal assemblages of river systems.

a. Impact on Mussels. Like most biological components of complex ecological communities, the responses of mussel species to alterations in environmental parameters are varied. Some species are plastic and tolerant of environmental change; whereas, others appear intolerant to alteration. Both responses will undoubtedly be evident with the molluscan fauna of the Kiamichi River drainage, following construction of Hugo Lake. Two species (blue point, and the pig-toe,) are expected to become markedly reduced subsequent to impoundment of the river. Under preimpoundment conditions these species were found to be common in the river in most habitats except those of shifting sand bottoms and deep water. Both species occur in water no more than 3 inches deep, to pools from A to 5 feet deep in flowing water over rock or hard sand and gravel substrates. Subsequent to impoundment by Kentucky Dam on the Tennessee River (Isom, 1969), populations of two closely related species, Pusconala ebenus and Pleurobema cordatum, which occupy similar habitats, were reduced by more than half. Although circumstantial, it is probable that the relative abundance for both the blue point and the pig-toe will decline in the Kiamichi River similarly to the trend noted for related molluscan species in the Tennessee River.

The most significant changes in composition and distribution of mussel populations following impoundment of the river, is expected to be the invasion of postirapoundment habitats by lake-dwelling species of the families Anodontinae and Lampsilinac and the progressive loss of riverine naiads (Unioninae) in the lake. Species which likely will excell in postimpoundment habitats include the floaters, yellow sand shell, fat mucket, pocketbook, and the purple shell. Although most riverine Unioninae species become decimated following impoundment, exceptions are likely for the maple leaf, and the washboard. Both of these species have been recorded as inhabiting postimpoundment mud-sand shallows of the Kentucky Reservoir (Bates, 1962; Isom, 1969).

The cumulative effects of Hugo Lake on the molluscan fauna of the Kiamichi River drainage will likely reflect a decline in species diversity. Correspondingly, certain species will increase numerically, while population numbers of riverine species will undoubtedly decline or be eliminated. The postimpoundment status of the clams is summarized in table 3-14.

b. Impact on Herpetofauna. Flooding of lowland and shoreland areas would critically affect the habitats of the many-ribbed salamanders and centeral dusky salamanders, and the fluctuating water levels, characteristic of lakes in southern Oklahoma, would also be detrimental to the presence of those specif 3 since their ability to adapt to shifting shoreline is doubtful. No other species should markedly decrease. TABLE 3-14

CLAM RESPONSES TO IMPOUNDMENT OF THE KIAMICHI RIVER

Species Expected Species Expected Species Expected Species Expected to to to be to 'Increase Decrease Eliminated Invade

. Washboard, Fawn's foot, Mucket, Deer toe, Megalonaias gieantea Truncilla donaciform!3 Actinonaias carinate Truncilla truncata

Floater, Far mucket, Pape r-shoLI, Paper-shell, Anodonta grandis T-em.psiJ lea rediata Leptodea leptodon Potanii.lus laevissimus

Paper-shell, Kidney-shell, Arkansas naiad, Leptodea fragilis P t v ch o rb r a nch u s Arkansia wheeleri fascinl aris

Purple-shell, Euckhorn, Hickory-nut, Proptera purpurata Tr i tn.’c-n - a ve: rucosa Ohovaria castanea

Yellow sand-shell, Fig toe, Lampsllles anodontoldes Fusconaia flnva

Pocketbook, Pimple back, Lampsilies ovata Villoma 1 innosa

Maple leaf, Blue point. Quadrul a tjuadruln AnihliMii-a r>l_icatH

Warty back, Quadrula pustulosa

Three-hornec! Warty back, Gbliouaria refloxa

Li.ll Iput, Toxolasma parva Increased availability of aquatic habitats and associated shoreline habitats should increase the. number and variety of habitat niches. The amphibians which would be expected to increase in abundance would be Blanchard's cricket frog, bullfrog, Rio Grande leopard frog, perhaps dramatically, and possibly the western lesser siren.

The impoundment will form a habitat which should initiate increases in the numbers of turtles such as: stinkpot, Missouri slider, red-eared turtle, Texas softshell turtle, and midland smooth softshell turtle, and certain snakes such as blotched water snake, diamond-backed water snake, western ribbon snake, and to a lesser extent the midland water snake, broad- banded water snake, western glossy water snake, and the red-sided garter snake.

Of particular significance is the potential for a noticeable increase in the abundance of the western cottonmouth especially in backwaters and sloughs.

The impounded waters will offer a habitat into which the Red River waterdog (not recorded, but expected) could move and flourish, and possible, but not probable, the three-toed amphiuma which inhabits shallow grassy lakes and sloughs to the southeast.

Graham's water snake (not recorded, but expected) may move into the small, shallow, clear tributaries, while the Mississippi mud turtle (expected, but not recorded) once in the reservoir should flourish, as well as the expected Ouachita map turtle, Mississippi map turtle, slider, western chicken turtle, and possibly southern painted turtle.

The abundance of the western diamondback rattlesnake, the timber rattleshake, the western pigmy rattlesnake and the northern copperhead should not be affected except to crowd them from the impounded area to higher ground.

If the impoundment produces seepage areas which are continually wet or damp, the many-ribbed salamanders and slimy salamanders (expected) could flourish, as well as the eastern and Great Plains narrow-mouthed toads (expected). Where marshy areas with cattail growth develop, the green tree frog (expected) would flourish.

Of significance is the potential habitat for the alligator. Though there is no authentic evidence for the natural occurrence of this species in Oklahona, populations exist close to the southeastern comer of the state. It is not likely to spread in a natural way, but if released by man (outgrown pets, etc.) it could probably survive and perhaps reproduce. Sinilar actions, i.e., casual release or escape of pets, intentional introduction, could account for new species of aquatic or semiaquatic forms appearing in the lake. If the Hugo Lake war not constructed, it is not likely that significant changes in the herpetofauna would occur, other than the possible appearance or recording in the area of those species that are listed as expected. It can be postulated that 25 percent of the recorded species of amphibians and 28 percent of the recorded species of reptiles are likely to increase in numbers as a direct effect of the impoundment. It can also be postulated that, due to discovery of forms not recorded, or by invasion of new species as a result of the Impoundment, the number of species of amphibians and reptiles could increase approximately 37 percent and 13 percent respectively, for the Kiamichi River area. Postulated Effects of Impoundment of the Kiamichi River on the Herpetofaur.a are shown in table 3-15.

The only threatened herpetofauna in the area is the species that could be considered endemic to the region of the Kiamichi River drainage. This is the rich mountain salamander (Plethodon ouachitae) which is limited in Its known range to wooded slopes and the crest of Rich Mountain and vicinity in the Ouachita Mountains of western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. The impoundment of the Kiamichi River should produce no effect upon the habitat of this species, though it is considered a rare species due to the nature of its limited range. Ho other species occurring within this area are considered endangered at this time. c. Impact on Fishes. Fishes, as a group, exhibit a wide range of responses to the transition from a stream to a lake. Fishes characteristic of streams are reduced and often replaced by those inhabitants of deep, soft-bottomed pools.

The relative abundance of fish species in Hugo Lake will undoubtedly undergo alteration from that now existing in the Kiamichi River system. Predicted responses of fish populations, among each fish-category, are presented below:. Although the black basses are not plentiful presently within the Kiamichi River, their ability to abound in lake-like conditions will result in a significant increase in both their relative and absolute abundance. This change will involve primarily the largenouth bass, and the spotted bass, with the largemouth becoming the dominant species within the lake. Although the largenouth will inhabit the head-waters, the spotted bass will likely be.cone the dominant species in ecotonal areas. It is probable that both species will decline within the tail-waters of Hugo Lake.

Abundance of both black crappie and the white crappie will increase significantly within the lake. The white crappie likely will become dominant.

Within the lake, the channel catfish will become a significant fishery. This condition may be somewhat reduced after a period of 10 years, although the standing crop of channel catfish will undoubtedly remain higher than during preimpoundment conditions.

The bluegill sunfish will undoubtedly dominate the pan fishes in the Hugo Lake. Presently, however, the longear sunfish is the most abundant. Initially, the longear may remain the dominant species following impoundment but will gradually be displaced by the bluegill. TABLE 3-15

POSTULATED EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDMENT OF THE KIAMICH1 RIVER ON THE HERPETOFAUNA

Species that Significant Species might Species Eliminated Species Increasing Species as Possible (to man's Welfare) Survive if Locallv in Number Invaders Unaffected Introduced

Many-ribbed salamander Western lesser siren Red River waterdog Northern copperhead Alligator Central dusky salamander Blanchard's cricket frog Three-toed amphiuma # Western pigmy rattle­ Bullfrog Slimy salamander snake Rio Grande leopard frog Great Plains narrow­ Western diamondback Stinkpot mouthed toad rattlesnake Missouri slider Eastern narrow-mouthed Red-eared turtle toad Texas softshell turtle Green treefrog Midland smooth softshell Mississippi mud turtle turtle Ouachita map turtle Blotched water snake Mississippi map turtle Diamond-backed water Slider snake Western chicken turtle Midland water snake Graham's water snake Broad-banded water snake Western glossy water snake Red-sided garter snake Western ribbon snake Western cottonmouth *

* Significant to human u:ilization. # If proper shallow, marshy habitat develops. It is expected that the green sunfish and the orangespotted sunfish will decline in relative abundance within the lake; although the green sunfish may be slightly more successful in areas above the lake.

Another lake adapted species, the redear sunfish may establish dense populations within the lake, although it will be subordinate to the bluegill. A similar trend may also develop with the warmouth.

Bullhead catfishes, namely the yellow bullhead and the black bullhead, were relatively rare in the Kiamichi River, but are expected to increase significantly within the lake. This trend will likely be of a short-term duration, with both species being seriously reduced after a period of approximately 5 years.

The grass pickerel is expected to increase slightly in absolute abundance within the lake but their relative contribution to the total assemblage of pan fishes is expected to decrease.

Marked changes should occur with coarse fish species following impoundment of the river. Noticeable, will be the abundance of the gizzard shad. This prolific species, in all probability, will become the dominant species in Hugo Lake. Other related species, e. g., the river herring and the goldeye are not expected to become abundant within the lake, and will likely be eliminated.

Following an initial increase in population density, the redhorse suckers should gradually decline and be insignificant to the impoundment population. The spotted sucker will probably become well established and abundant within the lake, after a period of approximately 5 years.

Species of buffalo (smallmouth, black, and largemouth), were in relatively low numbers under preimpoundment conditions, but are expected to become very abundant within the lake. Presumably, the smallmouth buffalo will become the dominant species of this group.

The river carpsucker and the freshwater drum are surely to become highly abundant in Hugo Lake, as both of these species are common in impoundments throughout Oklahoma. A similar trend will also be evident for the carp.

Gars should prosper within the new lake, especially the spotted gar and the longnose gar. It is difficult to predict which of these two species will become dominant, although the spotted gar was more abundant under preimpoundment conditions and may, therefore have a selective advantage over the long-nose gar.

Most of the riverine species of minnows and darters will likely decline in both absolute and relative abundance within the lake. Some, however, are expected to increase or maintain populations, e. g., the golden shiner, the bigeye shiner, bluntnose minnow, blackband topminnow, mosquito fish, and the log perch. The forage fish fauna is expected to be dominated by the threadfin shad, and the brook silversides, with the threadfin shad becoming most abundant.

The impact on fishes will not be limited to the immediate vicinity of the lake, but will include fish inhabitants in both the upstream and downstream segments of the river. Of these three regions, the least affected will be the upstream area. In general, with the transition from a stream to a lake environment, fishes characteristic of streams are reduced and often replaced by those fish inhabitants of deep, soft-bottomed pools. The existence of the lake will enhance the establishment of dense populations of sport fishes, particularly largemouth bass, spotted bass, black and white crappies, white bass and the larger species of cat fishes. Species diversity of sport fish is expected to increase. Dense populations of pan fishes are also expected within the lake, but to be. eliminated in the tail waters of the downstream area. Species diversity of pan fish is assumed to increase initially but to decline over time. The bluegill is expected to obtain dominanc- within the lake. Species of coarse fish are likely to increase significantly within all areas but especially within the reservoir and the downstream area. Species diversity of this group will undoubtedly increase, with the gizzard shad and carpsucker obtaining dominance. Relative and absolute abundance of forage species to remain high, as influenced by threadfin shad and brook silversides. Diversity for this group is expected to decline, for certain riverine species of minnows and darters will likely be reduced or replaced in both the lake and in its tail waters.

For the State of Oklahoma, three fishes are included on the list of threatened species as compiled by the American Fisheries Society. Included are the leopard darter, Perclna pantherlna; the Arkansas darter, Etheostoma cragini; and the shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchns platorynchus. Of these species, only the shovelnose sturgeon has been collected from the Kiamichi River system. The last record of this species within the Kiamichi River, however, was recorded in 1932. It seems reasonable to assume that this species no longer remains a member of the river populations, and the establishments of a main-stream lake should not affect the status of this species within the Kiamichi River basin.

d. Impact on Birds. If the Hugo Lake were not constructed and overall lar.-’ use practices remained essentially the same, there probably would not be a marked change in the avifauna of the region. However, the lake's presence will alter significantly the number of individuals of some bird species in the basin, although there is little indication that new species will enter the region as a direct result of the project or that it will result in the complete elimination of any species from the basin.

Several of the alterations in habitat resulting from the creation of Hugo Lake will substantially affect bird distributions and numbers. First, approximately 37,973 acres have been purchased with 3,430 acres acquired in flowagc easement for the project and land use practices throughout much of the area are expected to change. The top flood control pool will inundate 34,490 acres, resulting in a reduction in nesting habitat for a number of species. iigratory bird species would be less affected by these changes, since other similar areas exist in some places adjacent to the lake and the fact that they utilize the area for a relatively short period of time. Because of territoriality and the extensive food requirements associated with nesting, plus the fact that suitable and similar nesting areas close to the lake probably already have near optimum numbers of breeding birds, the populations of a number of breeding birds species that live in open and semiopen areas will be reduced in the basin. Second, habitats below the dam may be substantially altered over a period of years from what one would have expected if the dam were not built, primarily because of the reduced frequency of periodic flooding and changes in farming practices with reduced flooding danger. Changes in flood plain in the area below the dam could change the status of some bird species in this particular area. Third, the presence of a large body of water in the Kiamichi River basin should greatly increase the number of many types of water birds, as well as some that would be found along the edges of lakes. Lands currently classified as pasture and woods-pasture make up the major portion of this area. The land within this pool will be the most drastically changed by the project, and there will be a decrease in the number of avian species associated with open and semiopen habitats (see tables 2-11 and 2-12.) Thus, eastern meadowlark and horned lark will definitely decrease in numbers, as will the wintering marsh hawk, red-tailed hawk, sparrow hawk, as well as resident and summer resident species such as the bobwhite, mourning dove, yellow-billed cuckoo, roadrunner, eastern kingbird, western kingbird, scissor- tailed flycatcher, great crested flycatcher, many of the small flycatchers, blue jay, Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse, most wren species, mockingbird, catbird, brown thrasher, loggerhead shrike, some warbler species, oriole, cowbird, blue grosbeak, bunting, towhee, and a number of species of sparrows. In addition some species classified as showing a perference for woodlands may be affected. For example, the warbling vireo and several other vireo species frequent river bottom lands where there are a substantial number of trees and brush. Some other species which may be affected in this way are the blue-gray gnatcatcher, prothonotary warbler, parula warbler, yellow-throated warbler, Louisiana and northern waterthrush, hooded warbler, American redstart, yellow-brested chat, and scarlet tanager.

Changes in the bird fauna present below the damsite will not be immediate, but rather are likely to appear 10 to 20 years after completion of the lake, as a result of changes in vegetation and land use practices resulting directly from the construction of the impoundment. The area below the dam is more open and more extensively famed than that above. In some places along the river, it is anticipated that the forest understory will increase because of the greatly reduced chance of flooding. For the same reason, in other areas below the dam, additional lands will probably be put into field crops and in general the area will be more intensively farmed. It is probable that the amounts of wooded pasture and timber will be reduced as a result of these changing agricultural practices. In general these, changes should result in an increase in populations of birds inhabiting open areas - such-as eastern meadowlark, horned lark, and marsh hawk - and a slight decrease in those species associated with semiopen habitats (many of which are listed above in the discussion of the area to be inundated by the flood pool). Some of the changes due directly to the creation of a large body of water are also predictable. For instance, the region will have a significantly larger number of migrating and winter resident waterfowl. Blue and snow geese will use the lake, as well as some Canada and white-fronted geese. A moderate to large population of mallards can be expected as well as small numbers of other duck species. Migrating marsh and pond ducks, such as the pintail, gadwall, American widgeon, shoveller, blue-winged teal, and green-winged teal will probably utilize the Kiamichi River basin more than in the past. In addition diving forms, such as the canvasback, redhead, ring-necked ducks, and greater scaup, which are seen only infrequently along rivers will make use of the impoundment. Bufflehead and a few common golden-eye should be found during migration and parts of the winter.

Substantial winter populations of the common merganser will probably make regular use of the impoundment; this is dependent on the ready availability of food fish such as shad. The common loon, pied-billed grebe, horned grebe, and eared grebe, which are only infrequent visitors to the basin presently, will undoubtedly be observable on the Hugo Lake periodically; in fact, the grebe species will probably be found on the lake throughout the winter. Large numbers of American coot winter on impoundments throughout the state and should be found in substantial numbers on this lake. Very few coots utilize the basin at present. The numbers of waterfowl to utilize the area will depend to a significant degree on the management procedures to be incorporated on the National Wildlife Refuge to be administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Grain crops raised on part of these areas will need to be managed to ensure that significant crop depredations do not occur as a result of ducks and geese in the surrounding farm lands; appropriate planning of such crops can also lead to significantly higher utilization of Hugo Lake by waterfowl. Wood ducks may increase in numbers and breed near the edges of the lake, but whether or not this will be in significant numbers will depend on the extent to which (in time and height) water levels fluctuate and if management practices provide for the nest boxes and appropriate habitat management.

A uu lar cf other aquatic birds should use the area after completion of the cam. White pelicans will probably be seen with some regularity on Hugo Lake, and double-crested and olivaceous cormorants are likely to be found at various times in the region. There is an increased likelihood that bald eagles will winter near the lake and the possibility that ospreys may periodically be found. The various gull and tern species listed in tables 2-11 and 2-12 will probably increase in the area as a result of the dan, and common crow numbers are predicted to increase moderately.

As has occurred at a number of the other lakes constructed throughout the State c-x Oklahoma, there is a relatively high probability that a colony of herons will be established in the Hugo Lake region. Such a colony would contain a "ixture of heron species, but would probably be predominantly little blue herons. Depending on the degree of water fluctuation and "raudflat" areas that will be exposed at various times of the year, a significantly larger proportion of shorebirds than before should stop in the area during migration. Also, habitats for the common snipe may be enhanced in the region bv the addition of the lake and appropriate management procedures.

Habitat changes near the edge of the lake will also affect several other . avian species if any trees are hilled as a result of rising water levels.. There will be increases in suitable feeding and nesting sites for a number of woodpecker species such as the yellow-shafted flicker, red- bellied woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, and downy and hairy wood­ peckers for at least the next 20 years. It is also expected that the number of nest sites and numbers of individuals of eastern bluebirds and eastern kingbird may also increase to a certain extent as a result of the availability of dead trees. Changes along the edges of the lake should also result in the area being able to support a number of additiona pairs of belted kingfishers.

There will probably be an increase in the number of migrating swallows to use the area, as well as in nesting for such species as the tree swallow.

Species of marsh birds such as red-winged blackbird, marsh wren, and rail should increase in numbers and brood successfully, the breeding success being dependent on the policies instituted for maintaining water levels in the lake. One of the results of constructing the lake is that there will be an increase in human activity and the construction of additional buildings and parks along the edge of the ]ak«-. This will significantly increase the numbers of house sparrow, starling, reel', dove, grackles, and other birds that are often found in close assecintion with nan.

It is judged that t'v imn-cindnort will not affect the avifauna of the pine-oak areas that occur in the upper two-thirds of the Riamichi River basin. It is in th : nm. v’-.r ra opocies arc found that are restricted to font!.eastern oil ahem, <• n dr as .ho red-cockaded woodpecker, brown-headed nuthatch, and the p ■v’blrr ''the latter is less restricted). These species are found In adit rout st.ir.en, but further major modifications above the lab/, could sirv.f •: virty affect the populations of these unique

*-

In sumary, the major chances in the avifauna as a result of the construction of the Hugo bake will be an overall reduction in suitable habitat for breeding and wintering species characteristic of open and seniopen habitats with a concomitant ine-ease In utilization of the region by migratory water and shore birds. Below the dam, increases are expected in some birds inhabiting open areas; there i/ill probably be decreases in those characteristic of seniopen regions, bird populations are not expected to be affected above the lake. The Hugo Lake will not have an appreciable affect on any threatened bird species. The peregrine falcon migrates through the area, but the proposed land use modifications are nut 111ely to be significantly relative to this species. The greater prairie thicken ha? occurred in td-e region in the past, but is now restricted for the most part in the state to northeastern Oklahoma. It has successfully been reintroduced at. several locations in the state, and it is possible that sc~v of the Ian is covered by the lake might have been suitable if mint, rod v-icMs were -A tempted, however, the birds are not known from the area at pie vent and conclusions concerning the adequacy of habitats for a reintrednetior; won I d require additional study. Both the golden eagle and the laid eagle i.uv he iu.iad in the area, but are not likely to be adversely affected by the ]reject.

e* Impact on Mammals. Many of the mammal species occurring within the Kianichi River basin a re apen eeuntv; ferns of upland forest and grassland, or are relatively common throughout the basin (table 2-13). However, some of the lowland forms arc vel itively rare and are restricted to mesic habitats. These cni: als would be displace d by impoundment and flooding of the bottom lard. The species of mammals expected to be adversely affected by the. impoundment are listed below. Also supplied is a statement of reason:

shortfall shrew - depletion of 5owlend forest habitat flying squirrel - depletion of lowland forest habitat red bat - depletion, of lowland forest habitat pine vole - depletion of lowland forest habitat eastern at •• do ,>!«•■cion of lowland forest habitat gray -hrt-w - rfcplctii. „ of lowland forest habitat g-'lden mouse - depletior of lowland forest habitat r-L.r. u.; - depletion of lowland fomat habitat brush .reuse ~ inundation of roc’' ledges along river cot ten mouse - depiction of low'-nd forest habitat gray souirrol - depiction of lowland forest habitat swamp rabbit - dogl 'on of lowland forest bal itat. and inundation of flood pi,.in white-tail deer - depletion of winter habitat >.cb bear - dep.it tiers a* 1 y ’1 nr d forest habitat and human development of i. v. „ following impour d-. >ent ihrcc marnalian spc-cics of th? Hi ami chi River basin .should be positively affec-cl by impoundment, These ap» e'es nay he exp* cted to increase in abundc . :a after the inpouudnent is formed. These are beaver, min!:, and raccoon.

An additional two species not now Inm-n to occur in the Kiamichi River basin (which de -cur geographictl ly r.enrby) might be peritively affe-tud by the eundr and become r n<- *•< -ament part of the mammalian fauna of the region. These ar. muskrat and n ,\ i,i, Mammal species other than those previously cited will likely be plastic in their responses to establishment of a mainstream lake, but would be displaced as forest floor cover and food resources would be reduced.

In sunnary, impoundment of the Kianichi River by the Hugo Dam may be expected to have the following effect on the mammalian fauna of the impoundment area: Thirty-five species will not be affected either positively or negatively, fourteen species will be negatively or adversely affected, primarily through depletion of lowland habitats and three species will be positively affected. The mammalian fauna may be increased by an additional two species through the creation of a favorable habitat not now present in the Kiamichi River basin.

Species diversity of mammalian forms should not change appreciably within the basin subsequent to impounding of the Kiamichi River. The relative abundance of species will likely reflect changes, both increases and decreases. Such responses will be directly related to the type and amount of habitat altered and the adaptation ability of particular species. A very general breakdown of mammal occupation in certain habitat types is shown in table 3-16. TABLE 3-16 MAMMAL OCCUPATION IN PARTICULAR HABITAT TYPES

Habitat Type Mammals Inhabiting Area

Water edge 10

Cave 19

Grassland 24

Woodland 23

Grassland - woodland 24

Socio-Economic Impacts. About 68 families have been relocated by the acquisition of lands. Land acquired for the project consists of cropland, open and improved pasture, and wood pasture. A portion of the townsite of Sawyer, Oklahoma, is affected. Approximately 4 percent of the area is cropland, 40 percent is improved pasture and the remainder is open and woods pasture. The soil varies from deep silt loam and silt clay loam to sandy loam with some rock, outcroppings. The conservation pool will remove 13,250 acres from production. Approximately 100 acres of this land were in crops while the remainder was pasture, woodland, and mixed pasture and woodland. Another 21,240 acres are included in the flood pool, some of which will be developed for recreation uses and all of it will be administered in the interest of xesource conservation and management. Perimeter lands above the flood pool in fee title are 3,483 acres. The Hugo project is estimated to cost $35,000,000, based on July 1972 price levels. This amount includes $8,350,000, the cost of lands and damages.

The economy of the area affected by the project is expected to increase and result in a higher standard of living. Construction of Hugo Lake would minimize the anxiety of the flood plain residents by reducing the dangers accompanying flood and the threat of epidemics that follows.

Residents in the project area will be affected both directly and indirectly by the creation of the lake. Not the least among these effects are those of social change.

Direct effects are those caused by inundation of existing segments of the production, communication, and power components of the human system. Indirect effects are those that result from interactions of the hydrologic system and force secondary changes in the human system complex.

The initial effects of a lake in a populated area is psychological stress. Uncertainty seems to be the earliest factor of this stress. It arises from inperfectiveness in planning and in knowledge relative to data of the first filling and delineation of the future shoreline. These imperfections are compounded by faults in the dissemination of information and in creation of understanding among affected people relative to the whole scheme.

As the water rises behind the dam, human stress nay begin when flooding obliterates homes, land resources, roads, communication routes, and other familiar landmarks. For most people, this stress really peaks when relocation begins. Usually the v.ove is to unfamiliar ground, in some situations already inhabited by a host population with its own established social and economic err, if cat ions.

Stress on resettled people is minimized if they are permitted to participate in plans for their renoval, as well as in decisions as to where and how they will be relocated. Stress may also be minimized if the affected persons participate in working out indemnification schedules for property and crops lost, for stress, and for relocation at new sites.

Stress is likely to continue for several years as adjustment is made from the familiar to the unfamiliar location and often new way of life, however , if the relocated ar.d host people have an opportunity to participate in all stages of planning, the results could be an improvement in the environmental outlook of the region. An adequate labor force may produce a large influx of workers to adversely affect community cohesion in the project area. The children of the new labor force could cause the schools in the work area to become overburdened.

The movement of heavy equipment in the project area may cause occasional traffic tie-ups.

In the past dust and noise pollution have been a problem in the project areas. These have been reduced to a minimum by requiring dust and noise devises on construction equipment.

Mineral production has not been important to the economy of either Choctaw or Fushmataha Counties in the past two decades. Neither county is richly endowed with mineral deposits which are in great demands; therefore, minerals, as a basis for economic growth, have not provided the impetus for expansion. A total of 12 dry oil exploration holes have been drilled in the entire nine townships which the project area affects. At present, only five small insignificant lease blocks ar<» located in the area. It is probable that sharp increases in sand, gravel, and stone production will result from construction of the lake; however, this greatly accelerated production will be short-lived but will continue at a reduced level during the life of the project. This, coupled with the lack of high-value mineral deposits, indicates that future production of minerals, at least through 1980, will not differ significantly from that of the past.

Transportation facilities comprise some of the area's strongest assets and therefore, may be used to attract future development. The Hugo Lake area is served by nearly all types of transportation facilities. US 70, a major east-west traffic route, serves as the southern boundary of the project area. Oklahoma Highway 93 bisects the area in a north-south direction from the point of its intersection with Highway 70 to its intersection with Oklahoma Highway 7 on the northern boundary of the project area. Oklahoma Highway 7 and 3 cross the project area in a southeasterly direction from Antlers to Rattan. The east side of the project area is served by Oklahoma Highway 147. The area is also served by numerous state and county roads which are normally in good condition.

Construction and improvement of a major transportation route, the Indian Nations Turnpike, has recently been completed which serves the city of Hugo and the surrounding area. With the opening of this four-lane major highway, the Hugo Lake area is within easy access of the Interstate Highway Systems of Oklahoma. These major highways and transportation routes improve the accessibility of the project area to a large recreation and tourist market. All relocations for Hugo Lake are at Government expense under relocation agreements with the owners. Under terms of the agreements, the Government designs and constructs the required relocations and the. counties are reimbursed for any cost expended regarding the relocations. There are no formal cemeteries in the project area; however, approximately 90 graves have been relocated which is estimated to be about 90 percent of the total graves. There are no state or Federal refuges or parks in the project area. The economy of the two-county area affected by the project is expected to increase and result in a higher standard of living. Roth Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties experienced significant economic decreases between 1940 and 1960. These declines were due primarily to sharp losses in the farm population which were not completely offset by increases in the urbanized population. Since I960, the farm population in both counties has continued to decline but increases in the employment in commodity-producing industries, particularly manufacturing, have caused urban population to rise. This, in turn, has caused a reversal in the downtrend in population.

Economic effects that can be expected to occur can generally be classified as those occurring during the construction phase and those resulting from the operation and maintenance phase after the lake, is constructed. The primary effects during the construction phase is the economic activity created by wage and salary payment to individuals working on the site. Much of this money, which is new income to the area, passes through the local economy by the purchase of goods and services.

During the operation phase, regular long-term allocations of dollars are paid into the area in the form of wages and salaries to persons employed on the site and periodic expenditures for locally acquired goods and services.

Impacts of each project purpose to the region are discussed below.

a. Flood Control. Economic impacts as a result of the project include benefits for flood control and induced lake area benefits. Downstream from Hugo Lake, the flood plain of the Kiamichi River, livestock, crops, agriculture products ar.d equipment, structures, lands, and wildlife habitat will receive varying degrees of flood protection as project effects diminish with, distance downstream from the dan. Preventing the possible loss of human lives by flood control is recognized as improving the social and physical well-being of downstream flood plain residents. The addition of Clayton Reservoir (stage II) and Tuskahona Reservoir (stage III) on the upper Kiamichi P„iver would cause further reduction of flooding on the Kiamichi River. The provision of flood control immediately creates a psychological .climate favorable to the development of a valley. The possibility of economic development in the Kiamichi River flood plain is rather remote in view of the present frequency of flooding. Hydrology siuii'*s indicate an average of three floods may be expected in the Kiamichi River basin every year, with major flooding every two years. LTiile projects are built to prevent flood damage to crops and structures within the flood plain, growth within that area and nearhy areas inevitably follow. This causes many farmers to change to the planting of crops with a higher expected income as well as changing wooded or waste land to a higher agricultural use. In any event, flood control eliminates one of the many hazards to the farmer and permits more latitude In planting time, crop select!'’", use of fertilizers, and general management. Flood protection Includ increased utilization of lands and increased pressures on the natural flora and fauna of the area; however, in the case of Hugo Lake urbanization is expected to increase with the project. Flood protection will have heth positive and negative benefits on the productivity of the downstream flood plain. Floodwaters remove floatable organic matter, fine top soil particles, and active soil bacteria from the flood plain which are beneficial to plant life. Flood protection will reduce such removal in the downstream flood plains. Conversely, nutrients leached from upstream areas normally carried by floodwaters will be prevented from reaching the downstream flood plains under flood protected conditions.

b. Water Supply. Providing a reliable water supply for municipal and industrial" use will fiave a favorable impact on the area from an economic and social well-being standpoint.

Hugo Lake is located in an area that has the highest rainfall in Oklahoma. Because of the abundant rainfall, this area has more surface \fater available in the tributaries of the Red River than could be used locally and therefore is important as a source of water supply for central and southeast Oklahoma and northern Texas. The US Public Health Service made a water resources study of southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas.* This survey, dated July 1962, indicated that the most logical source of good quality water for meeting project requirements for the Central Oklahoma area and the Ilugo-Antlers area are the authorized Boswell Reservoir on Boggy Creel; and Hugo, Clayton, and Tuskahoma Reservoirs on Kiamichi River basin. The study also indicates that the local Hugo-Antlers area would need 148 mgd, and the central Oklahoma area would need 516 mgd additional water for municipal, industrial, and quality control uses by the year 2020. By 2060, the total water needs for the central Oklahoma area would exceed 2,200 mgd. The total local water needs for the Hugo-Antlers area would reach a maximum of 210 mgd in year 2050. The Public Health Service report recommends construction of three reservoirs at different time stages to yield 35 mgd from Hugo Reservoir in 1970, 160 mgd from Clayton in 1980, and 200 mgd from Tuskahoma Reservoir in 2000. The cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas, have also expressed interest in obtaining water from the Kiamichi River basin. Local interest have requested consideration of a water supply canal, extending from southeastern Oklahoma to central Oklahoma for the purpose of furnishing water for water supply for domestic, municipal and industrial uses in central Oklahoma. The Kiamichi P.iver basin can yield more water than the three-lake system will provide, and if future needs dictate, additional lakes could be-considered.

c. Hater Quality. Water of high quality is a natural undeveloped resource of the Kiamichi River basin. Without the conservation and utilization of the resources, all prediction and forecast of major economic gains cannot be realized to their full extent. Water to be impounded in the lake is of excellent quality and suitable for general municipal and industrial purposes. Principal demands for water quality by water-using industries expected in the Hugo-Antlers area are pulp and paper, and food and kindred products production. To meet the minimum quantity of water for the anticipated growth in the area, a total of 58 mgd will be needed for municipal and industrial use by the year 2020. Of this amount 3 mgd would be provided from existing sources, leaving a net demand for 55 mgd of water from the lake. An additional 90 mgd will be needed for maintenance of the stream for its future needs. The Oklahoma City area is expected to obtain water from the Kiamichi River basin which is in excess of the estimated needs of the Hugo-Antlers area. The provision of a dependable supply of good qaulity water tends to encourage continued growth of an area in terns of population and industry. Hugo Lake is expected to beneficially affect the stream below the dan by reducing the concentration of dissolved solids and suspended solids and maintaining adequate water quality during drought periods. At certain tines of the year, negative stream impacts include slight reduction in temperature and oxygen and a reduction in nutrient concentration. Hater quality in Hugo Lake is expected to be excellent. Analyses, of the water samples indicated that the iron content exceeded the limits as suggested by the US Public Health Service. Also, the average color of Hugo Lake may exceed the suggested limit of Public Health Service. A minor problem in the first few years after impoundment will be oxygen depletion caused by the decomposition of inundated vegetation. This decomposition will decrease in intensity after the first few years of impoundment. Hater releases downstream could in part be used to relieve pollution loads caused by mismanagement,, accident, or abuse. In addition, during periods of low flow, releases will be made to relieve the natural pollution problems of stagnant pools, dead leaves, and trash.

Hugo Lake is expected to benefically affect water quality in the Kianichi and Red River basins by reducing the concentration of dissolved solids and suspended solids and maintaining flows during drought periods. At certain times of the year, negative stream impacts include slight reductions in temperature and oxygen and a reduction in nutrient concentrations.

d. Recreation. The providing of recreational facilities for water- oriented activities will have a favorable impact on the area from both an economical and social well-being standpoint.

The reservoir includes a conservation pool to provide multipurpose benefits. Tills provides a setting for water-oriented recreation, which in turn contributes botli to the well-being, of the people and the economy of the area. Retail and service establishments spring up in areas favorable to the pursuit of water-oriented sports. Thus, a lake can, and has, provided healthy outdoor recreation to millions of people and new jobs, better income and a new way of life for thousands of people. The continuing increase in attendance at existing lakes in the region is indicative of the growing interest in water- orie..ted recreation.

The lake is accessible from population centers by good roads. The climate is favorable for recreational activities, with short winters and long summers.

Recreational resources of the area consist of scenic forested hills and the opportunity for hunting and fishing. Ho established facilities available to the pui-.lie are located along the river near the Hugo Lake project.

The principal recreational resources of Hugo Lake would be the 13,250 acre lake at conservation pool elevation 404.5 and the useable land bordering the lake. The expanse of water and useable shoreline are favorable for such water-oriented activities as boating, swimming, picnicking, camping, and hunting. The recreational potential of the lake could be used by developing six public-use areas upstream from the dan and one area downstream. The proposed recreational facilities would draw visitors from a 50-mile radius of the project. The initial visitation is estimated to be 510,000; the optiun visitation, 900,000 and the average annual visitation, 826,000.

Such an annual influx of people will be beneficial to the area’s economy because of the need to furnish visitors with supplies and services. The largest group using the lake will be individuals or groups visiting for one day, or a weekend. The proximity to Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Fort Worth make it a convenient and easily reached facility for short-term use.

The recreational visitation will have a negative impact on the natural environment. The conceptual plan for development and management of the environmental resources associated with the project is to preserve the shoreline lands in their natural state insofar as practicable. Appropriate facility development will be confined to approved recreation areas and remaining lands will be managed in the interest of enhancing wildlife and scenic resources of the project.

For those individuals who enjoy lake environment for living, camping, hunting, fishing, canoeing, and recreation, the area will be enhanced by the project. For those \;ho enjoy the seasonally limited stream fishing and big game hunting, the immediate are.a of the project will be degraded. The stream- oriented recreational uses that do currently take place in the basin vrould be continued above the lake and in the downstream areas where the water quality of the"stream will be enhanced,

(1) Fishing. The H5? rish and Wildlife Service includes the following comments about the Hugo Dan "Project:

a. Without the project: (1) The quality of fish habitat in the Kiamichi River ranges from moderate to excellent, depending on water conditions. Fishing is best during spring and early summer and declines as the summer progresses.

(2) Public access to the Kiamichi River in the project area is restricted. Fishing is done only in areas where roads cross the stream.

(3) The project area supports a total of 14,600 fisherman-days annually.

(4) Commercial fishing is insignificant.

(5) A significant portion (about 35 miles) of an outstanding v/arm water fishing stream will be inundated. b. Uith the project:

(1) Initially the lake will support good populations of sport fish, but over the long term it will prove more favorable for the production of nongame fish.

(2) The area of project influence will support about 68,000 sport fisheman-days annually.

(3) A commercial food catch of 128,000 pounds will be harvested annually.

(4 Planned releases and flood flow will provide very desirable fishing in the stilling basin area of the Hugo Ham and water quality should improve.

The Corps is taking the following actions in the interest of these resources:

a. To maintain the aesthetic value of the stream and to aid in the propagation of fish and wildlife, a minimum instantaneous flow of 20 second- feet is planned as an interim use of the conservation pool during the months of December and January. Greater average flows are planned the other months of the year with 15 second-feet considered the satisfactory minimum.

b. Seining areas were established to increase commercial fish harvest. Reservoir clearing was coordinated with the Oklahoma Department of Uildlife Conservation and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Uildlife.

c. Suitable all-weather facilities will he developed to provide fishermen access to the stilling basin area.

d. n boat-1aunching ramp will be provided as part of the proposed access area downstream from the dam.

e. The project area will be zoned to insure that certain areas are available for fishing and hunting without undue conflict with uses by other forms of recreation end to promote safety on the lake.

f. Approximately 3,800 .acres of the project area will be made available to the Oklahoma Department of Uildlife Conservation for wildlife management.

g. To enhance waterfowl, about 14,400 acres of project land and water are being made available to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Uildlife for the establishment of a national wildlife refuge.

(2) Hunting. Project construction and operation will result in permanent inundation of about 13,250 acres^ of moderate to excellent wildlife habitat. The flomd pool area will periodically affect terrestrial wildlife species. An additional area of about 3,200 acres in public use areas will be closed to hunting. The value of 5,000 acres of good quality wildlife habitat in the downstream flood plain will be lowered by land use changes resulting from increased flood protection by Hugo Lake. Evaluation of the proposed Hugo Dam and Lake by the Fish and Wildlife Service predicts that the area without the impoundment will support huntable populations of deer, fox squirrel, cottontail and swamp rabbits, bobwhite, dove, ducks, crow, raccoon, opossum, ^ray fox, and coyote.

Deer hunting will be reduced as the result of the loss of vital winter habitat in the Kiamichi River bottoms. A direct loss will result from habitat inundation in the project area. Further habitats will be eliminated because of land-use changes such as clearing for crop production in the areas downstream. This will cause the deer hunting potential to be reduced 600 man-days annually. Since food-producing trees will be removed, squirrel populations will decline. On the other hand, cottontail, bobwhite, and dove populations are expected to increase with the conversion of timbered areas to croplands.

A large number of waterfowl will use the lake for resting during the spring and fall migrations. Waterfowl will feed in the seasonally flooded bottomland areas of the Kiamichi River basin. Waterfowl hunting will remain the same as without the project, 1,600 man-days annually. Project lands will be open to public hunting except for developed public use areas and areas reserved for project operation. The project zoning will be coordinated with interested agencies to reduce conflict and provide the best uses of project resources.

9. Operation and Maintenance Activities.

a. Reservoir Regulation and Flood Control. The effects of wave action on the shoreline during flood water storage will result in some erosion. Also, many hardwoods and other shoreline vegetation will die as a result of inundation. The most important factor in the mortality rate of the trees that are flooded is the time of the year that the floods occur. The mortality rate for deciduous trees flooded during the dormant season is much lower than for the sane species of trees flooded during the growing season. (Yeager, 1949; Green, 1947; Hall and Smith, 1955). In order to mitigate the aesthetically displeasing appearance of these impacts, more water tolerant species of trees will be planted to replace the intolerant species which will die as a result of inundation. Erosion protection from wave wash will be implemented through the establishment (where possible) of water tolerant grasses and other erosion-retarding ground cover along the shoreline. Erosion of the river banks immediately below the dam will be checked by the placement of rock revetments along the banks. When discharges are made at the rate of 20,000 cfs or less all the water remains within the banks and no downstream lowlands are flooded.

b . Maintenance of Project with Related Structures.

(1) Sewage Disposal. The adverse impacts associated with the operation of any waste treatment facility on project lands for disposal of septic tank and vault type waste results in the exclusive use of a portion of the project lands. Trees, shrubs, and other desirable vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the facility were removed for construction. Also a small amount of earthwork was required. However, these impacts will be mitigated to some extent by reseeding and planting desirable shrubs and other vegetation around the facility. This will help re-establish the natural aesthetic quality of the area, State and Federal pollution laws will be strictly observed in the operation of the waste facility.

(2) Disposal of Solid Waste. Refuse disposed of in a sanitary landfill and covered witfi each use results in the elimination of insect and rodent infestations, blowing paper, and odors. The primary advantage of this system is that it insures the disposal of solid waste in an acceptable manner.

c. Insect and Undesirable Vegetation Control.

(1) Insect Control. As stated previously in this statement, no insect control problems are anticipated at the project. Any control measures taken will result in beneficial impacts to the quality of the environment surrounding the lake and enhance visitor pleasure. In the event that chemical controls become necessary, all precautions will be taken in accordance with label instructions and any chemical used will be registered and approved by the Environmental rrotection Agency,

(2) Control of Undesirable Vegetation Growth. The impacts of any control measures taken will be beneficial to the aesthetic quality of the environment of the project and enhance visitor pleasure. Brush and other terrestrial vegetation is controlled by mowing and brush-hogging where practicable. The aesthetic value of a brush-hogged area may be temporarily reduced. However, the new growth that succeeds brush-bogging provides food for numerous species of v/il'diife if the area being cleared is not too large, and adequate "edge effect" areas are created. Herbicides are used in a limited amount where convene tonal equipment is restricted. All precautions are taken in accordance with label instructions and any chemical used must be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

d. Forestry and Wildlife Management.

(1) Forest Management. The preparation of a total resource management plan (which 'will include a forest management plan) Is scheduled for the near future. Some tree planting and similar landscaping will be carried out in the public use areas with the aid of the District's tree spade. The Impacts of these plantings will be to provide beneficial effects such as beautification, erosion control, traffic control when used as harriers, and certain species of frees and shrubs will provide wildlife food and cover.

(2) Uildlife Management. The effects of the wildlife management program are beneficial in providing wildlife food and habitat. The wildlife management area provides a suitable area for public hunting and fishing as a result of the intensive management practices to be carried out. e. Recreation Management.

(1) Enforcement of Regulations. As of June 1972, designated rangers and reservoir managers have citation authority as specified in the Flood Control Act of 1970, PL 91-611 (84 Stat 1818), Under this program individuals are cited for flagrant violations of applicable provisions of Chapter III, Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations. Maximum use of oral and written warnings are used in minor cases. Where individuals are cited, the prosecution is in the Federal System of Courts.

The basic advantage of this system is that it gives a tool which can be used to insure compliance with the regulations. Also, it provides a method by which persistent violators may be dealt with. Other advantages of this program are cleaner and safer public use areas, increased visitor pleasures, and a deterent against destruction of public property (facilities and resources). (2) Operation and Maintenance of Recreation Areas. The Corps is responsible for the operation and maintenance of all developed public use areas at the project. The overall impacts of the recreation management activities are cleaner and safer public use areas, increased visitor pleasure and, with the enforcement of regulations, a deterent against destruction of public property (facilities and resources). (3) Development and Expansion of Recreation Areas. Presently construction and development of new public use areas is under contract. In the future new facilities will be added and areas will be upgraded as demand increases and as funds are available. Activities which can be expected in this field are minor landscaping (planting shrubs by trash cans, etc.,) improvements on campsite facilities (provide charcoalers, lantern hangers, etc.,) and maintenance measures (paint toilets and trash cans, etc.,). These activities will entail some disturbance to the environment; however, the development will be planned whenever possible to complement existing vegetation, replace lost or damaged plants, and to enhance the appearance of the related area.

f. Management of Land Resources and Facilities.

(1) Management of Leases, Easements, and Other Outgrants.

a. erasing Leases. Adverse impacts of the grazing lease program are as follows:

1 Llien the low-lying portion of leases are flooded, desirable native bluestem grass complexes are killed or weakened to the extent that broomsedges, switch grasses and three awns become the predominant vegetation. This change in vegetation results in preferential grazing of the remaining upland grasses and results in overgrazing and degradation of the entire lease area. 2 In some instances, establishment of pasture grasses eliminates desirable wildlife habitat. These inequities of the grazing program are nitigated to varying degrees or entirely eliminated through a natural grazing unit system as described in the section on alternatives of this statement. Beneficial effects of the grazing program include the following:

_1 The utilization of a renewable natural resource.

_2 Use of grazing as a wildlife management tool.

_3 Additional income to the counties involved throught the return of 75 percent of lease fees to the counties.

b. General Outgrants. Temporary adverse impacts, such as erosion and safety hazards are caused by the outgrant program. These effects primarily occur during construction phases. It is felt that the positive impacts such as rural electric service, telephone service, etc., far outweigh any adverse impacts. Adverse impacts generated by this type of program are mitigated by such measures as are described in the alternative section of this statement.

c. Project Management and Maintenance Activities.

(1) Erosion Control. The impacts resulting from erosion control activities at the project will be an improved environment around the lake, both aesthetically and physically. Other beneficial impacts will be reduced turbidity of the lake water and the resulting reduced siltation will provide improved habitat for fish.

(2) Construction and Maintenance of Project Roads. The majority of the roads serving the project are hard-surfaced which reduces their maintenance requirements. The surfacing of the roads has also prevented traffic-generated dust problems in the public use areas and will make their use by the visiting public more pleasant. The roads will be maintained as needed and funded. 10. Secondary Long-Term Impacts.

The establishment of the lake in this area would create a number of secondary impacts which, in the long run, will have a definite effect on the area. The principal development will be that of a growing tourist clientele for firms in the area. By 1980 more than 800 thousand visitors can be expected annually.

This influx of visitors and increase in population may have some effect on the crime rate of the area. As a result local governmental bodies will require additional law enforcement officials and facilities.

A secondary impact attributable to the lake is the rise which occurs in land values. Properties adjacent to the lake receive the greatest increases in values although nearly all property in the area will benefit price wise from the project.

As a result of net gains attributable to the impact of the lake on popula­ tion and manufacturing, total projected electricity consumption will increase. The presence of the lake is expected to create a demand for 50.8 million kilowatt hours of electricity by 2050. This would not occur without the lake. Financial institutions in the area will benefit from the lake. The initial impact on demand deposits will come about as a result of the con­ struction phase. As the benefits of the lake become more widespread, they will create additional new deposits.

The market for loans will increase rapidly during the construction phase. The rising population will expand the loan market above that projected for the area without the lake. Thus the lake will accelerate the rate of money turnover in the area.

The lake will have a dramatic effect on the transportation segment of the area's economy. The project has increased the amount of rail and truck shipments to the area during the construction phase of the project. Follow­ ing construction and fillup, the growth generated by the project will place even greater demands on the trucking industry for shipments of goods to the area.

The lake will have an impact on governmental activities in the two-county area due to the removal of approximately 41,000 acres from the area's tax base. The reductions in the tax base will be short in duration but will tend to reduce county funds.

However, after the construction period, increases in the number of houses, office buildings, recreation-oriented businesses, and investments in indust­ rial plants will begin to yield more taxes on the reduced area until the tax base exceeds that of the preconstruction period. SECTION 4 - ANY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED

Paragraph Title F_aSe

1 General 4-2

2 Relocation 4-2

3 Archeology A- 2

4 Diversity and Stability 4-2

5 Fish 4- 2

6 Wildlife 4-3

7 Construction Activity 4- 3 SECTION 4

ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED

1. General* Tl.e completed project will have several adverse impacts on man and his environment. During the planning stage, steps were taken where possible to prevent or mitigate adverse effects.

The project land-use will be changed primarily from rural homesites and agriculture to public lands. About 13,250 acres will be inundated by the conservation pool, an additional 21,240 acres will be periodically inundated by the flood pool. The construction and operation of the Hugo Dam and Lake will inundate about 35 miles of the Kiamichi River.

2. Relocation. The project required the relocation of 68 families.

No formal cemeteries existed in the project area; however, approximately 100 graves were relocated to existing cemeteries outside the project area.

Fifty-five miles of power transmission lines owned by two companies were abandoned or relocated; five miles of gas pipeline were affected; and about 33 miles of telephone lines operated by’ the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company were abandoned or relocated.

Construction of the project required relocation of 7.8 miles of Oklahoma Highways 3 and 7, 93, and 147. About 5 miles of county roads in Choctaw County were closed, vacated and abandoned, and 12 mile.* are under subordination agreement. County road losses are being replaced by three relocations, totaling 0.75 miles.

3. Archeology. Adverse effects of the project upon the archeological resources are a combination of inundation, loss of salvage activities, decay of organic material in sites not excavated, erosion by lake fluctuation, and subsequent human activities. The greatest adverse effects on unexcavated sites near conservation pool elevation are wave action, vandalism, and human traffic around the lake's shore.

4. Diversity and stability. The impoundment of Hugo Lake will temporarily upset the stability of the ecosystem of the Kiamichi River Basin to some degree. This will be caused by the creation of a new type of aquatic habitat in the basin. The total species diversity in Hugo Lake immediately after impoundment probably will be less than the diversity of the same area before impoundment.

5. Fish. About 35 miles of moderate to excellent stream fishing will be replaced with lake fishing. Fish populations in the lake area will be changed from those in the river. Species composition of fishes upstream and downstream of the impoundment probably will be affected, but the total diversity of stream-type species in the Kiamichi River is expected to remain the same. 6. Wildlife. The inundation of 13,250 acres in the conservation pool and flooding of the additional 21,240 acres in the flood pool will have an adverse effect on wildlife. The available habitat downstream of the project will decrease at an accelerated rate due to land use changes resulting from flood protection.

Terrestrial biological productivity in the downstream flood plain will be decreased by the project through nutrient retention and land use changes.

7. Construction activity. Some tcnporary adverse effects have resulted during construction because of noise and dust pollution. These problems have been reduced to an acceptable level by requiring dust and noise prevention measures during construction.

Construction scars will have an adverse effect from an appearance standpoint. Proper landscaping is being applied to the construction of the project to reduce this adverse effect.

Some physchological stress may develop as landmarks and communication routes disappear. Anxiety nay arise from the uncertainties of relocation and adjustments to new or different life styles for some.

Community cohesion in the surrounding area may be affected by the influx of new workers. Due to this, school systems may become overburdened initially but should stabilize after completion of the project. SECTION 5 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE TROrOSED ACTION

Paragraph Title Page

1 Alternatives Studied Before Authorization of 5-3 Hugo Lake 2 Fostauthorization Studies Prior to Passage of the 5-3 National Environmental Policy Act

n. Top of Dam 5-5 b. Flood Control Storage 5-5 c. Conservation 5-5 d. Sedimentation 5-6 e. Spillway 5-6

3 Alternatives Studied Since the Passage of the 5-6 Environmental Policy Act

a. Alternative A - Approved Hugo Lake 5* 6 b. Alternative B - Dry Lake 5-8 c. Alternative C -A bandon theP roject 5-8

4 Alternatives to the Proposed Operation and 5-11 Maintenance Activities

a. Reservoir Regulation and Flood Control 5-11 b. Alternatives to the Maintenance of the 5-11 Project and Related Structures (l) Alternatives for Disposal of Sewage 5-11 (?) Alternatives for Disposal of Solid Wastes 5-12 c. Alternatives to Insect and Undesirable 5-12 Vegetation Control (1) Alternatives to Tnsect Control 5-12 (2) Alternatives for Control of Undesirable 5-13 Vegetation (a) Aquatic Vegetation Control 5-13 (b) Terrestrial Vegetation Control 5-13 d. Alternatives to Forestry and Wildlife 5-13 Managerent (1) Alternatives to Forestry’ Management 5-13 (2) Alternatives to Fish and Management 5-14 e. Alternatives for the Enforcement of 5-15 Regulations (1) No F.nforcen>ent 5-15 (2) Requesting Compliances -5-15 (3) Citation Authority Program 5-.16 •f. Alternatives to Management and Land Resources 5-16 and Facilities SECTION 5 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Paragraph Title Page

(1) Alternatives to General Outgrants 5- 16 (2) Easements and Right-of-ways 5-.17 (3) Commercial Concession 5-17 g. Alternatives to Project Management and 5-17 Maintenance Activities (1) Alternatives to the Erosion Control 5-17 a. No Erosion Control 5-.18 b. Anticipatory System 5-18

TABLES

Table Title Page

5-1 Pertinent Data For Plans Studied 5-4

5-2 Comparison of Document and Approved Project Plan 5-5

5-3 Comparison of Costs and Benefits of Alternates 5-7 SECTION 5 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. Alternatives Studied Before Authorization of Hugo Lake. Hugo Lake is one element of the development of the Red River Rasin. Several studies and reports have been made since 1936 concerning the water resource problems and needs of the basin from which development plans hhs evolved. A list of the reports covering the Red River Basin are briefly discussed below;

House Document No. 378, 74th Congress, 2d Session, 1936. This report was on the general plan of improvement of the Red River for navigation, power, flood control, and irrigation. A lake at the Hugo site was discussed; however, it was not feasible at that time.

House Document No. 602, 79th Congress, 2d Session, printed 1946. This survey is a review report on the Red River and tributaries downstream from the Denison Dam. In this report, the Chief of Engineers recommended the construction of Boswell, Hugo, and Millwood Reservoirs and other improvement downstream from Fulton, Arkansas.

House Document No. 488, 83d Congress, 2d Session, printed 1954. This is a review report on the R>d River and tributaries, including the Kianichi River. The report disclosed no justification for changes in the approved general plan in respect to the Kianichi River, on which the authorized Hugo Lake is to be constructed.

Senate'Document No. 145, 87th Congress, 2d Session, published in 1961. This survey report presented studies made to determine the most feasible plan for flood control, x/ater supply, and other conservation storages in the Kianichi River Basin. This enactment is a modification of House Document No. 602, 79th Congress, 2d Session, 1946.

2. Postauthorization Studies Prior tc> Passage of the National Environmental Policy Act. Studies made since authorization oT~Hugo Lake but before passage of the’National Environmental Policy Act are summarized below;

Additional studies made to refine the project plan include development of hydraulic, hydrologic, and meterological data; topographic survey, surface and subsurface soils investigations; recreation and fish and wildlife studies; and reevaluation of scope of development, economic data, and cost estimates. The project document preposed construction of Hugo Reservoir as a multi-purpose project including flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The project document plan recommended Hugo Peservoir be operated in conjunction xjith Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs which xrauld be constructed at a Inter date. The most desirable plan was to construct Hugo Lake, with Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs to be built about 1980 and 2000, respectively, when the xjater supply is needed in those reservoirs. As these upstream reservoirs are completed, a part of the flood control storage in Hugo Lake x«>uld be transferred, and the vacated storage in Hugo Reservoir reallocated to water supply. Table 5-1 summarized the pertinent data based on changes in design made to refine the project plan. It compares those changes to similar features reported in the project document plan at the time of project authorization. The table also shows the change in estimated overall project construction costs.

TABLE 5-1

PERTIHEET DATA ROB PIAHS STUDIED

Item Plan A Plan B Plan C $ $ $ Cost (1) $30,500,000 $32,500,000 $40,000,000

Conservation Storage (acre-feet) (2) 126,900 175,000 419,000

Benefit-to-cost 1.84 1.90 1.76

Total Water Supply & Water Quality Control (m.g.d.) (2) 148 210 450

Total Water Suoply & Water Quality (m.g.d.) (3) 675 720 810

(1) Comparative cost based on preliminary estimates, Novenber 1965. (2) Uith only Hugo Reservoir in operation. (3) Kiamichi River three reservoir stem.

Plan A^- Plan is the project that would initially provide the local water supply needs for a 50-vear plan. All plans considered the Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs.

Plan _B - A project which would initially provide the local water supply n~eds for 100 years.

Plan C - Tlan C is a project which would provide a yield more nearly approaching the maximum potential of the stream.

Plan A was selected as the recommended plan over plan B and plan C. The reasons for the choice are discussed below:

a. Plan A provides for the immediate needs of the local area for water supply and for required flood control on the Kiamichi and Red - Rivers. b. Under plan B the cost of water supply to the users would be twice that for plan A. The construction of Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs would not require Hug.o Lake to supply a 100-year local water supply need. The three-lake system would supply this need at a lower cost.

c. Tlan C more nearly develops the maxinun potential of the yield of the basin in conjunction with Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs. However, when this maximum yield is needed, other good potential reservoir sites in the basin are available to furnish the additional storage. The cost of this additional storage would be less in the future because of the large initial investment and accunnulated interest charges for plan C.

The major differences between the project document plan and the recommended project plan are shown in,table 5-2.

TABLE 5-2

COMPARISON OF DOCUMETTT ANT) APPROVER PROJECT PLAN

Project Recommended Feature Document Plan Prelect Plan

Top of dam, elevation, feet 453.0 452.5

Storage, acre-feet Flood control 809,500 809,500 Conservation 20,000 157,300 Inactive 20,000 30,400

Spillway Design discharge, c.f.s. 312,000 268,300 Crest length (gross), ft 2C0 290 Crest gates, number & size 6 - 40f x 35’ 6 - 40* x 50’ Sluices, number and size 5 - 6.5’ x 9’ None

The reasons for the indicated changes in table 5-2 are discussed below:

a. Top of Ban. The top of dam was lowered to produce a more efficient spillwayand to obtain the most economical project plan.

b. Flood Control Storage. The flood control storage would not change. c. Conservation. The conservation storage was increased to include water quality control of 90 m.g,.d. as a project purpose and to provide for the increase in the estimated 50-year water supply needs for municipal and industrial use from 35 to 53 n.g.d. d. Sedf.meritation. Sedimentation storage has been increased to meet 100-year needs, which includes Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs.

e. Spillway. Studies have shown that the use of the six AO- by 50-foot gates is the most economical plan. The low weir crest eliminates the sluices.

In cooperation with the Fort Worth Regional Office of the Federal Power Commission, studies were made to determine the power potential of the Hugo project and it was determined that hydroelectric power development was not feasible.

3. Alternatives Studied Since the Passage of the Environmental Policy Act. Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, evaluations have been made on a comparable basis of plans covering the recommended Hugo Lake, a dry lake, and abandon the project. Other alternatives considered include: upstream retention dams, levees, and flood plain management.

In earlier planning studies upstream retention dams as an alternative to Hugo Lake for flood control were considered but would not provide the flexibility of control nor the degree of flood protection provided by Hugo Lake. Due to the locations and number of upstream retention dams required, the impact on the natural environment would be spread ever a larger part of the basin than that caused by the Hugo Lake project.

A levee plan was considered for protection of the lower flood plain. The alternation of the flow characteristics and the required clearing of bottom lands over the lower portion of the Kiamichi River would undoubtedly degrade the natural environment. The benefit of water supply would be lost. Considering funds already expended on Hugo Lake and the cost of the levee and the project objectives, it would not provide, a lavee plan is not a feasible alternative.

Certain flood plain management measures such as flood plain zoning, flood insurance, permanent or temporary evacuation, early warning, and fl-odproofing must be implemented by local and state governments. However the basic nature of such measures renders them ineffective as streamflow regulators. Along the Kiamichi such measures would be prohibitively expensive due to the frequent and high stages of the overflows. Considering that Hugo dam is about 74 percent complete, there is little or no realism in considering such measures as feasible alternatives at this time. A discussion of the investigated alternatives follows:

a. Alternative A - Approved Hugo Lake. A description of the approved plan for Hugo Lake is presented in section 1. Pertinent data for the plan are shewn in table 1-1. Economic cost and benefits for the plans studied are found in table 5-1. The major differences between the project document plan and the plan under construction are shown in table 5-2. Economic cysts and benefits for the plan under construction are found in table 5-3. TABLE 5-3

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATES

Authorized Dry Item Prolect Lake Abandon $ $ $ Project cost (capitalized @ 3-1/82) 43,260,000 33,280,000 32,639,000

Benefits (capitalized @ 3-1/82) Flood control 40,446,000 40,446,000 - Water supply 8,272,000 - - Water quality control 14,469,000 - - Recreation 26,557,000 - - Fish & Wildlife 916,000 - - Subtotal 90,660,000 40,446,000 -0- Redevelopment 1,984,000 1,514,000 1,338,000

Total-Benefits with redevelopment 92,644,000 41,960,000 1,338,000

Excess benefits over cost w/o redevelopment benefits 47,040,000 7,166,000 -32,639,000 Excess benefits over cost v/redevelopment benefits 49,024,000 8,680,000 -31,301,000

Benefit-cost ratio w/redevelopment benefits 2.1 1.3 0.04

Total Alternative A benefits foregone including redevelopment benefits - 50,684,000 91,306,000

Total Alternative A excess benefits foregone including redevelopment benefits - 40,344,000 80,325,000

(1) Includes first cost, interest during construction and capitalized operation, maintenance and replacement based on August 1972 cost estimates. b. Alternative B - Urv Lake. The objective of the dry lake alternative would be to provide the same decree of flood protection as the authorized project and leave the river above the Hugo damsite free from a permanent impoundment. Under this plan, damage to the natural environment would he less than with a permanent lake and the river could at tines be used for stream fishing and camping. A dry lake would impound floodwater behind the dam and discharge the stored floodwater at a nondamaging rate not to exceed channel capacity of 20,000 c.f.s.

The dry lake would have undesirable effects on the flora and fauna, and the aesthetics in the project area because of periodic fluctuation of water levels. An ecosystem continually subjected to major prolonged changes from aquatic to terrestrial conditions is unlikely to ever develop the diversity, or aesthetically pleasing appearance of either an aquatic or terrestrial system.

There has been very little research done in the area of fluctuating lakes and their effects on inundated vegetation. Hall and Smith (1955) (William L. Louchs, 1970) reported that during an 8-year study (1944-1952) that all species of trees on Kentucky Reservoir were killed when 54 percent of the growing season was flooded. They also reported that the normal forest showed little effect at elevations flooded less than 16 percent of the growing season.

The dam at the Hugo project is an earthfilled embankment with a gravity-type gated spillway containing two 48-inch controlled conduit-type outlets. One outlet is a water supply line for municipal and industrial water supply. The other outlet is a low flow pipe to provide minimum downstream flow requirements. Until such tine that municipal and industrial water is taken from Hugo Lake both outlets could function to help control water elevations of the lake. The capacity of each outlet would vary from 187 c.f.s. at elevation 390 to 403 c.f.s. at elevation 437.5, bottom of conservation pool and top at flood pool, respectively.

Flow discharge at the Belzcni station indicates an average flow of 1,700 c.f.s. with a maximum of 71,400 c.f.s. During the period from 1927 to 1968 ten major floods have occurred producing discharge varying from 51,200 c.f.s. to 71,400 c.f^s. at the Belzoni gage. It has been estimated that the emptying time for the maximum flood of record, April-June 1957 is 41 days. The flood control storage of 809,200 acre-feet could be emptied in approximately 25 days assuming channel capacity of 20,000 c.f.s. and no inflow during this period.

c. Alternative (! - Abandon the Project. Completion of Hugo Lake could he postponed indefinitely with no additional development of the water resources on Kiamichi River. This would preserve the usefulness of the land to be impounded for the production of agricultural products, minerals, timber, and wildlife, Water is a paramount natural resource of the region and very little has been done to put the water to a beneficial use. This alternative does not prevent water resource development in the basin by private or other public interest. However, it would prevent the inundation by Hugo Lake and about 35 miles of natural stream and agricultural and grazing lands. To abandon the Hugo project in the interest of preserving the Kiamichi River as a free-flowing stream foregoes the well-established needs of the project area for flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife development. Abandonment would provide the option of land use to satisfy the needs of those who prefer that the Kiamichi River be a free-flowing stream and assume that this value is greater than the social and economic gains that the project will provide to an area which has been designated as economically depressed by agencies charged with the responsibility through Federal statutes to implement economic growth of an area that lags in econonic development.

The primary object of the plan outlined in Senate Document Ko. 145 was the formation of a comprehensive plan that would most nearly meet the. long range water and related land resource needs in the Kiamichi River Resin. The Hugo Reservoir was authorized to fulfill the above function by being the key unit in a three-reservoir system on Kiamichi River as a multiple-purpose project for flood control, water quality control, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife.

Abandonment of the project would have a major effect on the area because no flood protection would be provided. It would also mean foregoing the benefits of flood prevention in the Kiamichi and Red River System. Hydrology studies indicate that from January 1934 through September 1963 streamflow has exceeded flood stage on 84 separate occasions and that an average of three floods may be expected to occur in the Kiamichi River Rasin every' year, with major flooding every 2 years. This would also mean foregoing 58 m.g.d. for water supply and 90 m.g.d. needed to maintain the quality of flows on the Kiamichi River below the dam.

Studies by the Public Health Service show that the Hugo project has the potential of supplying the future water needs of the Ilugo-Antlers areas and a part of the future water needs of the central Oklahoma area. The cities of Fort' Uocth <.nd Dallas, Texas have expressed interest in obtaining water from reservoirs in the Kiamichi River Rasin.

The multiple-purpose Hugo Lake would provide recreational opportunities for lake-oriented activities which would not be available if abandonment were adopted. It is estimated that the average annual visitation to the project for recreational purposes would be 826,000. The project would also provide an estimated annual yield of 200,000 pounds of commercial fish.

Other benefits not susceptible to evaluation in monetary terms would not be realized by abandoning the Hugo project. To abandon Hugo Lake in the interest of preserving the Kiamichi River as a free-flowing stream foregoes the well-established needs of the area for flood control and water supply. Abandonment of Hugo Lake would have a major effect on the basin in that the cost of providing an alternate source of water supply to areas near the project for future domestic and industrial use would be substantially increased. Without Hugo Lake population growth of the immed­ iate basin area and vicinity will be small. Growth will primarily be confined to the urban areas of Antlers, Hugo, and Fort Towson, Oklahoma. To abandon the Hugo project would result in a future loss to the area in terms of esti­ mated net benefits that the approved project would accrue. These net benefits are estimated to be $49,024,000. Abandonment of the project would require, as a minimum, the removal or correction of safety hazards resulting from the work accomplished to date. It would be desirable, however, to restore the area, as nearly as possible, to its preconstruction condition. Following are some of the things which might be done to accomplish this higher level of restoration: 1. Lands could be made available for disposal. 2. Completed relocations would remain. Nearly completed relocations could be completed and would remain. Relocation not begun could be cancelled. 3. Clearing is completed. No replanting would be done. 4. Boundary markers would not be placed. 5. Embankment could be removed down to the original ground level insofar as possible and placed in borrow areas. Roadway surfacing and riprap could be placed at bottom of borrow area fill. 6. Spillway could be blasted off 10 feet below selected ground level, and pushed into excavation continguous to structure. Tainter gates, hoisting machinery, etc., could be salvaged as scrap metal. 7. Inlet and outlet channels could be filled from embankment. 8. Access roads could be removed and placed under borrow area fill. 9. Overlooks could be razed and removed. 10. Recreation areas would not be developed. 11. Project buildings could be razed and removed, with usable items salvaged. The current total cost to build Hugo Lake is $35,600,000 based on July 1973 estimates. The net cost to abandon the project is $31,399,000 based on July 1971 estimates. Therefore, the cost involved to abandon the project and the benefits that would be foregone indicate that the alternative to abandon the project should not be further considered. The comparison of costs and total benefits are shown in Table 5-3. 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Operation and Maintenance Activities. The purpose of this section of the statenent is to present alternatives to the operation and maintenance activities. Alternatives considered are for operation of the project for authorized purposes and for activities which support these purposes. The intent is to describe the alternative, its desirable impacts and its undesirable impacts.

a. Reservoir Regulation and Flood Control. One alternative to the present method of reservoir regulation xcould be to discontinue the operation of the project for flood control. This alternative would probably require removal of the dam since the outlet works cannot handle the maximum inflows without some modification. The environmental gains as a result of this alternative would be small when compared to the losses from flood damage, perhaps even more than before construction of the dam due to activities in the flood plain which are dependent upon the flood control structure for protection. In view of the tremendous problems and monetary and intangible losses which would be associated with the discontinuance of flood control, this alternative is not feasible.

The faster release of flood waters from Hugo Lake to shorten the downstream time of high flow is not feasible due to the downstream channel capacity. The method of operation provides for a maximum release of 20,000 cfs. When releases exceed this amount doxmstream flooding occurs.

The present course of action is to operate the project according to design with controlled releases less than 20,000 cfs since this appears to meet present downstream commitments. Within the present plan of reservoir regulation there exists some latitude for modification of the plan in the interest of optimizing project operations and benefits without affecting authorized purposes. An example, vould be a controlled water drawdoxm program to improve the sport fishery by stimulating growth and survival of desirable fish. The present plan is periodically examined to deten line if rnodification is needed or warranted.

b. Alternatives to the Maintenance of the Project and Related Structures.

(1) Alternatives for Disposal of Sewage. The first alternative would be to make no provisions for sewage disposal. If this alternative were implemented, it would result in serious health and sanitation problems as well as aesthetically displeasing conditions.

The project building and overlook, both have septic fields. In the public use areas the planned course of action consists of periodically pumping the sewage holding vaults and depositing the waste in an approved sewage treatment facility. The advantage of this alternative is that sewage disposal does not create a pollution problem. (2) Alternatives for Disposal of Solid Wastes. The first alternative is to have no solid waste disposal. If this alternative were implemented, it would result in health and sanitation problems as well as aesthetically displeasing conditions.

A second alternative is to utilize approved community dumps. This is a desirable alternative from an economic standpoint. If approved community dumps are not available, then the alternative will be to operate an approved facility developed for the project.

A third alternative would be to use high temperature incinerators. The advantage of this alternative is that they can reduce the solid waste volume by 95 percent without creating additional pollution. The primary disadvantage with this alternative is that the high temperature incinerators are very expensive, approximately 1 million dollars each. In addition to the high initial cost, incinerators require skilled employees to operate, maintain, and repair the facility. Water, power, and fuel must also be available.

A fourth alternative would be to burn the trash in "open pits". This type of Incineration results in air contaminants which are harmful to plant and animal life. This method would also be in direct violation of the "Oklahoma Clean Air Act," which specifically prohibits this type of open burning.

The chosen system entails the operation of a sanitary landfill on Corps land. ' The landfill will be covered after each dumping with approximately 6 inches of soil. The sanitary landfill will be operated in accordance with the standards set forth in the Oklahoma State Department of Health Rules and Regulations for the Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste.

c. Alternative^ to Insect and Undesirable Vegetation Control.

(1) Alternatives to Insect Control. The most readily apparent alternative to‘ insect control is to have no insect control program. At Hugo Lake mosquitoes, ticks, and flies may be a nuisance. To have no type of pest control program would result in a decrease in visitor usage and satisfaction. This alternative is not preferable due to the adverse effect it would have on the visitor.

A second alternative would be to develop an insect control program with major emphasis on biological pest management (encouragement of insect predators and parasites) with supplementary usage of pesticides for heavy infestations. This is a desirable alternative, but biological insect control is a relatively new field, and the technique of management have not been developed to the point of satisfactory implementation.- This alternative may he the most desirable and when techniques are eventually formulated it will be considered at Hugo Lake. The chosen program of insect control is through elimination of pest breeding sites and limited pesticide application. This program provides for the control of insects at an acceptable level with only a minimum amount of toxic chemicals added to the environment. Each time any pesticide is used care will he taken to insure the proper dosage and application.

(2) Alternatives for Control of Hndeslrahle Vegetation.

(a) Aquatic Vegetation Control. Due to the fluctuation in the lake level and the nature of the shoreline at Hugo, significant aquatic vegetation problems are not predicted. However, if serious infestations develop, solutions will be given special study prior to implementation of control programs.

(b) Terrestrial Vegetation Control. No control of terrestrial vegetation is an obvious alternative. The advantages of this alternative is that it would not require any effort. The disadvantage is that undesirable vegetation would soon become tall and dense, thereby reducing the aesthetic value of the lawns and recreation areas and inviting the ingression of objectionable insects and other pests.

A second alternative is to use mechanical methods such as brush hogging grass whips, etc. The advantage with this alternative is that no chemicals or the hazards associated with them are involved. The disadvantages are that it is expensive and in some cases not effective. Also, the effects of mechanical control are often less aesthetically pleasing than the chemical control.

A third alternative is chemical control of undesirable vegetation. The advantages of this alternative are that it is inexpensive, fast, and effective. The disadvantages are pollution hazards, and the possible side effects of the chemicals on desirable plant and animal life.

The chosen method to be followed, is to use a combination of mechanical and chemical control measures. This method will permit each case to be considered individually and the type of control with the fewest undesirable impacts selected.

d. Alternatives to Forestry and Wildlife Management.

(1) Alternatives to Forest Management. The most apparent alternative to having a forest management program on Corps of Engineers projects is to have no forest management program. The alternative to having no forest management, would be contrary to sound land management practices. Whenever the influences of man and his activities are imposed upon the natural environment, some type of management is necessary to prevent the deterioration of that environment. There are varying degrees of forest management from mere maintenance of existing stands to intensive management of the total forest community. Alternatives involving forest management and the intensity vould depend upon the type of activity, i.e., recreation, wilderness area (no management), commercial harvesting, etc., for which the area is most suitable and the extent of nan's influence. The present course of action, is to prepare a forest management plan tailored to the planned uses of the various areas of the project and implement the program. (2 Alternatives to Fish and Mild]ife Management. At the Hugo project thousands of acres of valuable wildlife habitat are owned by the US Government. Therefore, land management theories practiced on this project have a significant impact upon the hunting of the area.

The first alternative to the proposed actions for fish and wildlife management is a complete lack of management. The effect of "no management" actions on fish and wildlife populations nay he either beneficial or detrimental to wildlife depending upon the type of land management activities carried out. Under the "no management" objectives, all of the land use practices on Corps projects would be manipulated by private lessees for the purpose of providing a profitable monetary return and not for the purpose of managing the environment for wildlife. However, valuable game habitat nay be provided on Corps of Engineers land by carefully planned and executed farming or grazing practices which are complementary to wildlife management. 'Hie cultivation of various agricultural crops may provide food sources for countless numbers of game birds and mammals, and proper animal unit density on grazing tracts can reduce dense cover making it more suitable for some species.

A second alternative would be a comprehensive wildlife management program in which the Corps would he the only agency responsible for its operation, or the plan could call for varying degrees of management between the Corps of Engineers and the various professional wildlife agencies.

A pr gran whereby the Corps of Engineers is responsible for the entire wildlife management element has several disadvantages. Specialized personnal would be required for proper management. Farming equipment, such as tractors, plows, planters, cultivators, brush hogs, etc., would be required along with funds to help pay for this added expense. Habitat management for wildlife would require increases in personnel and funding. On the other hand the State and Federal Uildlife Agencies are equipped professionally and scientifically to cope with s u c h detailed management programs. A management program, in which the Corps of Engineers would have the primary responsibility for certain portions of wildlife and fisheries management, vould be feasible with increased personnel and funding. Management responsibilities would include habitat manipulation, vegetative plantings, sharecropping, nesting cover, grazing, mowing and watering locations. Fxtra machinery for farming practices could be solved if most of the actual cultivated food crops were raised by sharecroppers. •Extra funds required for a program of this type would be moderate.

Similarly, poor habitat conditions could very easily occur on leased areas if crops are cultivated that are unpalatable to wildlife or if improper management is practiced by the lessee.

A complete absence of game fish management at Hugo babe could be detrimental to the sport fishery of the impoundment. Rough fish may overpopulate the available habitat. Game fish progeny, faced with the task of competing for necessary food and space, nay be drastically reduced. Therefore, "no" fisheries management would be adverse to the sport fishery of the lake.

e. Alternatives for the Enforcement of Regulations. The following alternatives are restricted to those that are presently possible with the existing authority of the Corps of Engineers, under the applicable provisions of Chapter III, Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations.

(1) Ho Enforcement. This alternative is not realistic. The regulations were designed so that maximum desirable public use (recreation, etc.) can be made without one individual imposing upon the rights of another. It is obvious that the impacts of this alternative are of such a significant adverse magnitude that they would outweigh any desirable impacts.

(2) Requesting CorpHanccs. This alternative is the method which was used until June 1^72. The policy this method was implemented under is:

Violations of Rules and Regulations. Persons who violate the rules and regulations were courteously informed that they were acting in violation thereof and requested to desist from violation. The admonition was accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for the regulation and the need for conformance in order that others having equal rights may enjoy the lab.e and project area. If it was a matter of applying. For a permit or similar action, assistance was offered. tJhen, in the opinion of the reservoir manager, action on the part of enforcement agencies was required, a report was made to the resident engineer giving complete information as- to the nature of the violation, efforts at correction and recommendation as,to continuance of action. In general, the closing procedure was for the resident engineer to send a written warning to the violator and if this were disregarded, assistance was obtained from appropriate law enforcement officers.

The advantages with this method were that most people would comply when requested to do so and none of the problems with actual enforcement were encountered. The disadvantages with this alternative were many arid varied. Many of the provisions of Chapter III, Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, are not state or local statutes, thus, can only be enforced by Federal Officers. The FBI, US Marshals, etc., have a heavy workload and little time for minor cases on the project; unfortunately, this is also true of many local and state law enforcement officers. Therefore, there was often nothing that could be done except request compliance. In actual working practice the end result of this program was not an enforcement of regulations but a requesting of compliance program which was not effective.

(3) Citation Authority Program. This Is the program which was implemented in June of 1972 and is discussed in the Impact Section of this statement.

f. Alternatives to Management of Land Resources and Facilities.

(1) Alternatives to General Outgrants. The principal alternative to the present grazing lease system, and the lea3t desirable, would be to cancel all grazing leases. The basic disadvantage to this alternative is the lack of positive measures to reach the total environment objectives. Grazing, which can be an efficient economical tool to manipulate the ecosystem, would no longer be available for use by the land manager. Also, there would he a small less of revenue to the county in which the leases are located due to the cessation of the return flow of 75 percent of the lease fee to the county Government and indirectly because the taxable assets of the lessee will be reduced. There would also be a loss of benefits to the cattlemen.

The chosen alternative and the most desirable, from a land management point of view, is to utilize grazing only when it compliments resource management programs. The grazing will be based on natural grazing units with stocking rates and grazing periods determined by range inventory surveys. Specific short- and long-term improvements and management practices will be defined for each grazing unit in order to coordinate activities and designate responsibilities i.e., who is to do what and when. Annually, a range inventory analysis, a systematic inventory of the amount and forage value of vegetation present on the range, will be made to provide objective information required to estimate desirable stocking rates, and the time periods to be grazed. As records of grazing history are compiled and used in conjunction with the annual range surveys, rather accurate determinations of the desirable stocking rates can be made. The primary disadvantages involved in the implementation of this type of grazing system are as follows:

a. It requires extensive detailed planning which as well as being expensive will require considerable expertise.

b. The annual implementation and evaluation of range survey inventories requires personnel with expertise in this field.

c. The initial cost of improvements (fences, water supplies, etc.) will be high, thus It would probably be a lengthy period before the system will be amortized.

The advantages of this alternative are as follows:

a. This alternative lends itself readily to coordinating efforts toward the management of all resources of the project, such as wildlife management, forest management, aesthetics, etc. b. Range inventory analysis will provide objective data upon which sound ecological management decisions can be made.

c. Field administration of this type of system is relatively simple, either the plan is being followed or it is not.

d. There should be definite tangible and intangible Increases of the land value.

Secondary benefits of this alternative are as follows:

a. Unit fences will more clearly identify project boundaries.

b. Encroachments such as trespass grazing, unauthorized land use, etc., will be more easily Identified.

c. With Improved environmental conditions, the public may be subtly reassured that public lands are managed for the total public good.

(2) Easements and Rights-of-Way. An alternative would be to cancel all easements and rights-of-way. Such action would result in the cessation of water withdrawal, the abolishment of power, telephone service, and railroads. This would adversely affect that segment of the regional population receiving electric, telephone, water services, etc.

The best proposal is to require all entities seeking outgrants to restrict their alteration cf the environment to a minimum, i.e., place powerlines underground and seed grass and/or plant trees after burying lines and to provide vegetative screens to obscure aesthetically displeasing structures or alterations. At the present time this course of action, with some modifications, is being implemented.

(3) Commercial Concession. The first alternative to a commercial concession is to remove the concession. This alternative is not desirable due to the public demand for services.

A second alternative would be for the Corps to construct concession facilities and operate them through a second party. An advantage of this alternative is the Corps would have absolute control of the concession impacts. The disadvantage of this alternative is the high initial cost and lengthy amortization period.

g. Alternatives to Project Management and Maintenance Activities.

(1) Alternatives to the Erosion Control. The present erosion control program consists of correcting those readily apparent erosion problems for which correction is feasible. As problems become apparent they are corrected, and as a result net erosion is reduced. There are two basic alternatives to the chosen erosion control program. They are as follows: a. No Erosion Control. If this alternative were implemented the adverse effect would be increased erosion* Both the severity and the gross amount of erosion would be increased, since no existing erosion problems would not be corrected and there would be no counteraction of new erosion problems. Erosion is generally accepted as being detrimental to the environment, thus the specific adverse effects of erosion will not be discussed within this text.

The advantages of this alternative are primarily economic in nature. It is entirely possible in some cases, that it would cost more to correct certain erosion problems that would be lost in economic or intangible values.

b. Anticipatory System. In a system of this nature one tries to anticipate needs and to provide for them before they become critical. The advantages of this alternative are net erosion is reduced, erosion can be stopped before it begins and it provides a systematic approach to the problem. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it will be costly to plan and implement. SECTION 6 - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Paragraph Title Z®£®. 1 General 6-2 SECTION 6 - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

1. General, Man must be recognized as an Integral part of the environment in evaluating the impact of a project on the environment. The proposed project will have a lasting effect on the basin, but from a human viewpoint, this effect may be either good or bad, depending on the changing needs of our society. What is good today may not necessarily be good tomorrow, and what is bad today may not be bad tomorrow. The primary factor in deciding whether to preserve or alter a basin should be to determine which action will provide the most aesthetically pleasing, safe, comfortable, and healthful environment for man.

Any decision favoring one aspect of the environment may impair an even more significant part of the environment. In some regions the citizenry has the belief that a wilderness should be left untouched Instead of building a project that will attract industry and raise the standard of. living. The question is, should the people who enjoy the scenic beauty of the wilderness be the ones who will bear the impact of not raising the standard of living in that area? Should we ask the poor in a depressed area to remain poor while the citizenry in other geographical areas enjoy increasing standards of living with time and money to enjoy the scenic beauty of the economically depressed area?

Income in the predominantly rural and sparsely populated area is derived primarily from farming and lumbering. There are no commercial public recreation areas in the basin. Some fishermen come from outside the area during the spring and fall flows. Some hunters come into the project area during the deer season. Outsiders do not frequent the area as much as the local citizenry because of inaccessibility. The proposed project will make approximately 41,403 acres unavailable for agriculture uses. Flood protection afforded by the project potentially could stimulate agriculture in the downstream flood plain, but this trend may be prevented by increasing urbanization. Nutrient and sediment * retention by the impoundment and the prevention of deposition from floodwaters possibly will result in gradual decrease in the fertility of the flood plain. Even if disturbances to native vegetation by agriculture and urbanization did not increase because of the project, natural succession of native plant species would proceed more rapidly in the absence of flooding, resulting in lower rates of net biological productivity.

In the Hugo Project area, about 35 miles of stream habitat will be replaced by 13,250 acres of lake habitat. Primary productivity per acre of lake probably will greatly exceed the productivity per acre of flowing stream. The total standing crop of fishes in the 13,250 acre conservation pool of Hugo Lake should be many times greater than the existing total standing crop in the 29-mile stretch of Kiamichi River to be inundated. On a long-term, Hugo Lake probably will cause an Increase in total biological productivity of the project area but may cause a decrease In biological productivity of the downstream flood plain directly by flood protection and nutrient retention and indirectly by stimulating urbanization. As population increases occur, urban dwellers will shift into the rural area. To make room for this population shift, farm and ranch acreages and income will be reduced. This in turn will reduce the limited hunting and fishing opportunities and by sheer number of inhabitants will increase the pollution threat.

The long-term use of man's environment will have to be considered on at least the life of the lake, which is speculative but apparently is well in excess of 100-years. Once Hugo Lake is developed, potential resources effected by the project during the first 100 years of the project will be cormltted for that period. The benefits during the first 100 years of life of Hugo Lake are: good water supply; flood control; water quality control, fishing and wildlife; and recreation. All of these potential benefits will either be lost or subject to being lost without development to increase the productivity of the area for man's welfare.

Portions of the archeological sites that remain unexcavated and are inundated will be preserved for future generations after the project has served its useful life. Scientific techniques applied to the recovery of artifacts and archeological investigations can reasonably be expected to advance with time to take full advantage of these resources preserved from present "pot-hunters" excavations as well as future land uses that normally destroy archeological sites. Inundation will probably induce decay of organic materials that have not already disintegrated and minor amounts of sediment may bury sites that are on the present day surface. Sites located near the conservation pool elevation will be destroyed by wave action and human activity but those sites can be excavated after impoundment it it is so desired. Changes are constantly occuring in the environment with or without major developments. These forces causing the changes have been acting for millions of ye'ars. The development of the Hugo Project will result in acceleration of the rate of change. With time, the new ecosystem will stabilize around the lake. There will still be a Kiamichi River, which follows a meandering course in a wide valley with gently sloping sides. There will still be gently rolling, scenic and forrested hills and steep bluffs which, with the lake, will serve generations to come with flood control, good water, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. SECTION 7 - IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED

Paragraph Title Page

1 General 7-2 SECTION 7 - IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 1. General. Completion of the dam and Impoundment of the lake will form a conservation pool of 13,250 surface acres and a flood pool of 34,490 surface acres. The inundation of 13,250 acres of land will commit this land to a water environment, destroying the associated flora and fauna habitats. Also, during normal operation, about 35 miles of the Kiamichi River will be Inundated. Project construction and operation would not foreclose the opportunity to reclaim any or all resources originally committed. If so desired, in the future the embankment could be breached and the total acreage returned to ranch and farm uses. This will be extremely valuable land due to the enrichment caused by sedimentation. The flora of the area could be artlflcally re-established or allowed to re-establish naturally, and the fauna would re-enter the area naturally as the flora produced protective covering. The commitment of the land and stream is not irreversible nor irretrievable.

The materials used in construction of the project, as well as labor costs, will be irreversibly committed. Cost of salvage operation would exceed the return. The archeological sites in the pool area, if not excavated prior to inundation, would be committed for the life of the project but could be retrieved if the project were abandoned. Any archeological sites destroyed by the project, including those "salvaged" represent an irreversible and irretrievable conmitment of archeological resources.

The money expended for relocation of bridges, gas pipelines, telephone lines, power transmission lines, and roads would be irretrievably committed.

As of July 1972, the Corps has irretrievably committed over $23,643,972 of appropriated monies. SECTION 8 - COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

Paragraph Title 1 Public Participation 8-2 2 Government Agencies and Citizen Organizations 8-2

3 Government Agencies 8-3 4 Citizen Organizations 8-13 SECTION 8 - COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

Pursant to provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) coordination has been effected with agencies which are authorized to develop and or enforce environmental standards to obtain a current assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed plan. Interested citizen groups were also invited to comment on the environmental impacts involved in implementing the Hugo project.

1. Public Participation. A public hearing was held at Hugo, Oklahoma, on A September 1956, to discuss improvements desired for flood control, water supply, and other conservation storages in the Kiamichi River Basin. This study included Hugo, Clayton, and Tuskahoma Lake. Local interests along the lower Red River strongly urged that the degree of flood control envisioned in the authorized Hugo Lake be maintained and if possible increased. Residents along the Kiamichi River asked that it and its tributaries be considered in the plan. Interest In water supply storage was expressed by large urban areas as well as some smaller cities in the area. The Kiamichi River Basin interest presented for consideration a three-reservoir plan, consisting of Tuskahoma, Clayton, and Belzoni Lakes, which would provide flood control and hydroelectric power with potential modifications for water supply. During the course of investigation, local interests have shown continued interest in a water supply and flood control project for the basin.

2. Government Agencies and Citizen Organizations. The draft environmental statement was sent to the following Government agencies and citizen organizations requesting their views and comments:

Environmental Protection Agency Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Federal Highway Administrator National Forest Service Advisory Council on Historic Preservation US Department of Commerce Soil Conservation Service Environment Information Center Institute of Environmental Studies Community Affairs and Planning Oklahoma Historical Society Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma Oklahoma Wildlife Federation Sierra Club Izaak Walton League Oklahoma Academy of Science Tulsa Audubon Society Mrs. Connie Taylor News releases were furnished to radio, television, and newspaper media indicating that copies of the draft environmental statement are available for review upon request. 3. Government Agencies. The following governmental agencies furnished comments. Comments and responses are summarized below and copies of the letters are included in Appendix A t Correspondence with Others.

Environmental Protection Agency United States Department of the Interior Federal Highway Administration Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Oklahoma Historical Society State Grant-In-Aid Clearinghouse

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment: 1. One of the project purposes as discussed in the statement is water quality control. As mentioned on page 3-60, an additional 90 mgd will be needed for maintenance of the Kiamichi River. Also, Hugo Lake is expected to beneficially affect the stream below the dam by reducing the concentration of dissolved solids and suspended solids in addition to maintaining water quality during periods of draught. To help in evaluating the future impacts of low-flow augmentation on the water quality of the Kiamichi River below the dam, we suggest that you identify and discuss the existing sources of pollutants being discharged to the Kiamichi River and subsequently the Red River. Also it would be helpful to discuss the limits of the Kiamichi or the Red River which will be benefited by the proposed low-flow augmentation control. This information will be useful in better understanding the long-term impacts on water quality.

Response: The Hugo project was developed for a yield of 90 mgd for water quality control, as recommended by the Public Health Service in its 1962 water resources study for Southeastern Oklahoma and Southwestern Arkansas and as confirmed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in connection with the comprehensive basin study of the Red River below Denison Dam. This study verified that the storage in the Hugo project is needed for dilution of chloride concentration in the main stem of the Red River during low-flow periods, until such time as the water is needed for municipal and industrial purposes and the authorized salt control measures in the upper basin are in place. The storage is also needed for protection of the high quality of the Kiamichi River, while enabling the development of the pulp and paper industry in the basin.

As waste treatment methods improve, the need for addition of water to maintain quality may diminish. Under these conditions, the water supplied for quality control could be reallocated to meet growth of municipal and industrual requirements anticipated in the area.

Comment; 2. Additional information discussing the water and sewage disposal and treatment facilities at the Hugo Lake site is needed in the final statement. We understand that sewage will be removed from vault toilets at Hugo Lake and will be disposed of in a State-approved sewage treatment facility on project lands, at Wilson Point and Virgil Point Recreation Areas. Although the design and operational features of these facilities have been previously coordinated with our office, additional Information describing these facilities should also be Included in the final statement. In addition, we suggest that the construction, operation and maintenance of these facilities be continually coordinated with and reviewed by Federal agencies as required by Executive Order 11507, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air and Water Pollution at Federal Facilities.

Response; Additional Information discussing the above facilities has been added in Section 1. All treatment or treatment facilities will continue to be coordinated with the responsible State and Federal agencies to insure compliance with current guidelines.

Comment: 3. Although the statement discussed in detail the primary short­ term environmental impacts, insufficient information was given to adequately assess the potential secondary long-term impacts that might be Induced by the continued operation, maintenance of the facility, and development of recreational areas on and adjacent to project lands. Because of the magnitude of the proposed project in developing a potential high-density recreation area at Hugo Lake, we believe that the secondary effects on the surrounding communities might be substantial. For example, the ultimate developed facility and recreational area will probably promote further economic growth resulting in the need for additional recreational, residential, cotranercial and industrial developments from which additional solid waste, water, air and noise pollution problems may possibly evolve. We suggest that an adequate plan to prevent degradation of the area's air, water and noise quality from future growth and development be considered as a requisite for this project. Additional information and discussion on the secondary impacts should be contained in the section, The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action.

Response: Additional information discussing the potential secondary long­ term impacts has been added in Section 3. Comment: 4. The discussion of the environmental impacts of the project failed to explain how the Hugo Lake project might inter-relate and/or affect or be affected by the proposed Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs located upstream from Hugo Lake on the Kiamichl River. We suggest that you discuss the cumulative environmental effects of these combined projects to help in better understanding the potential effects on water quality, strearaflow and water supply. Without this information, it would be difficult to fully assess the total environmental impacts of the project.

Response: As the upstream lakes, Clayton and Tuskahoma are completed, a part of the flood control storage in Hugo would be transferred, and the vacated storage in Hugo reallocated to water supply. Provision was made for changes as the system was completed, to meet both water supply and flood control needs. Flood control needs below Hugo were satisfied initially by utilizing storage to be reallocated for water supply as flood control is added by the upstream projects.

Comment: These comments classify your Draft Environmental Impact Statement as LO-2. Specifically, we have no objection to the proposed action; however, the statement did not contain enough information to fully assess the potential long-term secondary environmental impacts of the project. The classification and the date of our comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal actions, under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

Response: Noted.

United States Department of the Interior

Comment: In general, we find that the draft statement contains a great deal of information pertinent to an analysis of project effects and provides a good basis for an understanding of environmental relationships. The one major item that should be considered in more detail is recreation. Since recreation is a project purpose, it should receive coverage comparable to other project features.

Response: The discussion on recreation has been expanded in Section 1.

Comment: There are possible conflicts of uses of both the lake and surrounding lands. These should be considered and recommended measures for solving any conflict of use Included.

Response: Land utilization plans are a part of the Master Plan for the project. All lands will be allocated in this plan which emphasizes proper resource management.

Comment: The proposed location and type of recreation areas and facilities programmed for Hugo Lake should be Identified. In addition to the upstream and downstream recreation areas mentioned in the report more consideration should be given to recreation areas located on the lake shore and the environmental implications of these developments. Detailed location maps should be a part of the draft statement. Response: Recreation areas have been described in Section 1. The comment on detailed location maps is not fully understood since the draft contained a public use plan map in Section 1.

Comment: Summary. The final statement should contain evidence of contact with the Oklahoma Historic Preservation Officer and his comments concerning the effect of the project upon historical and archeological resources.

Response: The Oklahoma Historical Society's comments and the Tulsa District response are contained within this section.

Comment: Project Description. Page 1-4t second paragraph. A figure of 18,000 acres is used for the land and water area to be designated as a National wildlife refuge. The 18,000-acre figure also appears on page 3-64. A more recent estimate of this acreage is about 14,400 acres of land and water. This figure is carried in the General Plan now in the process of finalization by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.

Response: The above figures have been corrected.

Comment: On page 1-5, the reference to a 50-year drought should be reworded to indicate a period of drought that would be expected to occur once in a period of 50 years, rather than a 50-year drought.

Response: The above statement has been changed to reflect the probability of a 50-year drought.

Comment: Also on page 1-5, mention is made that the Central Oklahoma area is expected to obtain water which is in excess of the estimated needs of the Hugo-Antlers area for its future needs from the Kiamichl River Basin. It may be appropriate to expand this discussion to include an explanation that Hugo Lake is the most likely place from which to divert water stored in Hugo, Clayton, and Tuskahoma Lakes to the conveyance system to Oklahoma City. While it is realized that the Central Oklahoma proposal is not a part of ‘the Hugo project, the operation of the Central Oklahoma diversion system would have a considerable environmental impact on Hugo Lake. Also, the new conservation pool levels and other pertinent data associated with Hugo Lake under stages II and III should be discussed in some detail.

Response: Concur, the Hugo Lake is the likely place to take water stored in Hugo, Clayton, and Tuskahoma Lakes. However, the indication that if the water is diverted into a conveyance system to Oklahoma City the impacts to Hugo Lake would be increased is not concurred in. It is believed the impacts on Hugo Lake would be essentially the same regardless of the destination of the water supply. Table 1-2 has been added to Section 1 and indicates the general magnitude of storage changes for the three stages of development. Comment: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. The Hugo Lake project will not adversely affect any existing, proposed, or known potential unit of the National Park System, nor any historic, natural, or environmental education site eligible for the National Landmark Programs.

Response: Concur.

Comment: Page 3-6. The white-tailed deer should be listed as a species to be adversely affected by the project as vital wintering habitat will be lost. Also, all mammals which have occupied the reservoir area will be lost since surrounding areas of suitable habitat presumably are already supporting maximum populations under existing habitat conditions.

Response: The white-tailed deer has been added to the list of mammal species expected to be adversely affected by the impoundment. However, based on historical records of deer hunting and harvest the effect may be rather minimal.

Comment: From the point of view of conservation of natural resources, we are concerned about the disposition of the 10-mi11ion-ton sand and gravel reserve in secs. 8, 9, 16, and 17, T. 6 S., R. 18 E. T>.s deposit, covering about 1,030 acres, was being mined in the early 1960s before dam construction began. We believe the statement would be more complete if it explained whether the deposit was or will be mined out before inundation, is being used for construction of the dam, or will be lost by inundation.

Our review indicates that the project will have some adverse effect on known mineral resources and mineral operations. However, this loss does not appear to be significant in view of the plentiful supplies of such resources nearby.

Response: These reserves were mined prior to construction of Hugo Dam, but were largely depleted. Investigations revealed that the reserves had been depleted of any useable materials that would make them economically feasible to use in the construction of Hugo Dam.

Comment: Page 3-54. Some of the conclusions drawn on this page are not realistic. The three sentences, lines 13-20, project mineral production value in Choctaw County at between $10,000 and $50,000 per year for the next 10 years and estimate a value of $200,000 (per year?) during reservoir construction. Available records show the following values for mineral production in the two counties, from 1959 through 1971 ("W" indicates value withheld to avoid desclosing company confidential information): t'UoilLiO.i.tflfi* Cli «

195'J $149,860 w I960 f j w 1961 w $1,115,500 1962 614,558 174,146 1963 280,333 W 1964 189,725 W 1965 185,109 W 1966 U W 1967 697,333 407,689 1968 272,000 11,000 1969 546,000 38,000 1970 W — 1971 w 1,000 From the above figures, it is apparent that production of construction mineral commodities does not indicate a growth trend but varies in response to the market. It is unrealistic to assume that annual value of production in Choctaw County for the next 10 years could be as low as $10,000 to $50,000. Even if it is assumed that there was no production for the years when data were withheld, the 13-year average is $240,000 per year. For the 3 years for which data are available since construction of the reservoir began in 1967, mineral production value in Choctaw County has averaged $572,000. This section should be revised to reflect more realistic estimates.

Response Concur, the conclusions have been deleted.

Cciment: Page 3-62. The locations of the approved recreation areas for the project should he described. The location, expected use patterns, and facilities needed or planned also should be discussed.

Response: The locations and descriptions of public use facilities has been included in Section 1,

Comment: Page- 3-68. Wildlife Management. The brief discussion of this topic could be expanded to recognize the mitigation aspects of wildlife management and to point up the need for additional development to achieve this purpose. Fencing of the potential State-operated wildlife management area is needed and has been repeatedly recommended by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife as a means of obtaining effective wildlife management. This principal is recognized on page 5-24 of the draft statement. The wildlife management area is being planned as a measure to mitigate project-caused losses to wildlife resources. Without project-provided fencing the mitigation measure would be incomplete. We suggest that the need for fencing to realise the full wildlife management potential of the proposed State management area be recognized in this section of the environmental statement. Response: Some 14,000 acres of project lands have been designated as a National Wildlife Refuge to be administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and about 3,000 acres have been set aside for a State game management area. Expenditures for the Federal Refuge are estimated at about $765,000 for development and $80,000 annually for administration. The proposed State game management area near a well developed National Wildlife Refuge, should be highly complementary to wildlife utilization, conservation and management. It is considered that with the two areas in combination, only minimum supervision and management on the State area would be required to capture the wildlife values associated with these lands. Except in very unusual circumstances, costs of developments to complement or ease the management responsibility are considered to be a function of the managing agency.

Comment: Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Page 5-4, para b. The statement is probably correct in that the cost of water to users would be twice as high under Plan B as under Plan A. However, this does not appear to be derived from nor indicated by cost figures shown on page 5-3.

Response: The cost figures listed in table 5-1 are not cost figures for water supply only, but are totals for overall project construction costs, which includes water supply costs.

Comment: Page 5-9. Alternative C , first paragraph. The discussion topic of this paragraph is pertinent to the review of alternatives but the paragraph is written in a manner which seems misleading. There are conceivable reasons for abandoning the project other than satisfying the needs of those who prefer to maintain the Kiamichi River as a free-flowing stream. Abandonment also would preserve the usefulness of the land to be inundated for the production of agricultural products, minerals, timber, and wildlife. There is undoubtedly a compelling local need for flood control and for water supplyj however, there also is a similar need, nationwide, for the various resources which could be produced on the land if it were not impounded. We feel that the subject deserves a more objective treatment.

Response: The' above paragraph has been expanded.

Comment: Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Page 7-1, third paragraph. Any archeological sites destroyed by the project, including those "salvaged," represents an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of archeological resources.

Response: The above comment has been included in Section 7. United States Department of Transportation

Comment: The draft statement has been reviewed by this office, our Oklahoma Division office, and the Oklahoma Department of Highways. The Oklahoma Department of Highways has informed us that they have no specific comments to offer on the draft environmental impact statement.

Although highway closures and relocations are mentioned in the statement, we feel a more detailed discussion on social impacts caused by highway closures and relocations should be included in the statement.

Response: The social impacts caused by highway closures and relocations have been included in Section 3 under Socio-Economic impacts.

United States Department of Agriculture

Comment: Although the project is nearing completion, a more detailed description of a "flood plain management alternative" - covering the entire Kiamichi River watershed - is needed.

Response: Since Hugo Dam is nearing completion a current detailed description of a flood plain management alternative for the entire basin was not presented. However, in developing Stage II (Clayton Lake) an analysis of the flood plain area between Clayton and Hugo Lakes was made. Several techniques can be utilized in the area to reduce the amount of damage caused by floods without controlling the flcodflows. They include emergency action procedures, flood proofing, structural changes and regulations of land uses. Such programs must be supervised by some level of Government to be effective.

Damages from flooding would be reduced but flow amounts would not be altered. Development of intensified agriculture, a compatibel flood plain use when flood control techniques are utilized, would he prevented and benefits from this use foregone. In the case of flood plain zoning, local approval of the measure would be especially difficult unless suitable compensation for sacrifice of property rights is made to the land owners through some form of institutional arrangement. This technique, if practiced with compensation to the landowners, could reduce the need for flood control in the basin. Water supply development would not occur under this alternative so that there would continue to be periods of no flow in the Jackfork and the lower Kiamichi.

The recreation potential of the stream would be the same as that presently offered by the stream. The public would have ingress to the river at the bridges for fishing. The flood plain could serve as a tenoorary habitat of wildlife between inundations and fish and wildlife should continue at the same levels as present. Most of the lands would continue to remain inaccessible to the public because they are in private ownership. The fishery should continue the same as that at present with low flow or no flow periods temporarily upsetting the ecosystem to reduce the fishery. The social condition and interest required to bring about the enabling legislation needed to develop and implement these preventative measures seem an improbable goal for the area residents at the present time. These flood preventive measures were not, therefore, considered as a viable alternative for development of the water resources and were eliminated from further analysis.

Comment: Additional information is needed on long-term project impacts. The 13,250 acres of forest land which will be inundated in the conservation pool (and latec by sediment) is, for all practical purposes, irretrievably lost to forest production and to the production of life supports values associated with forest land. Breaching the dam after the area is overlain with sediment will not restore the land to its present use capabilities.

Response: The 13,250 acres of forest land inundated in the conservation is not lost for productivity. Admittedly this area will be lost to forest production. The existing terrestrial productivity will be converted into aquatic productivity. If in the future breaching the dam is a reality the use of the land would be different from the present use. However, the use of this fertile land would probably be more suited to an increase in production than to its present day uses. Additional information on long-term project impacts has been included in Section 3;

Comment: Also, creating an impoundment of this size in an area without lakes, will create overwhelming secondary impacts on long term social, economic and cultural development around the reservoir and in the flood plain below the dam. Insufficient emphasis is placed on land use planning and land use planning coordination for those lands within the vicinity of Lake Hugo. Me recommend close coordination with D.F.D.D„0,, (State Planning District No. 3) to prevent or mitigate land-use problems associated with operation of this project.

Response: Kcononic benefits of recreation credited to the project do not include benefits for adjoining development. It would be assumed that such additions would be developed under existing regulations at the time of development. Ne will continue coordination with tie Planning District to prevent or mitigate any land-use problems which may develop. f o m e n t : From table 5-3, it appears that the estimated net project benefit (in dollars) is $49,024,000 instead of the $92,644,000 value shown on page 5-11.

Response: The correction has been made. 'Hie net value for project benefits has been included on the page in question. Comment: We recommend that the advice and assistance of the Oklahoma Division of Forestry be utilized in preparing forest management plans for the Project area. Forest Service help is also available through State Cooperative ProRrams,

Response: Pertinent information and assistance conceminR forest manaRement plans, which are available from the Oklahoma Division of Forestry or State Cooperative ProRrams, will be utilized in developing their management plan.

United States Department of Agriculture

Comment: We have reviewed your draft environmental statement for Hugo Lake, Kianichi River, Oklahoma, and have no specific suggestions for changes.

Ue believe the proposed measures will be compatible with Soil Conservation Service programs. As agricultural lands to be benefited are developed for more intensive use, we will make assistance available through conservation districts to help landowners with conservation treatment systems.

Response: Noted.

Oklahoma Historical Society

Comment: The staff of the Oklahoma Historical Society has studied the environmental statement for Hugo Lake, Uiamichi River, Oklahoma, as it relates to existing Historic Sites.

We find that Spencer Academy, Historic Site, is located approximately 9 miles north of Sawyer, SW 1/4, Sec. 6, TWP5S, R10U, and may be low enough to be covered by the lake's highest planned flooding.

This Academy was established in 1841 as a Choctaw Roy's School. There are some graves here. It was here that "Uncle" Wallace Willis wrote. Swing Low Sweet Chariot and other spirituals.

If it is the case that this site will not be inundated, we will appreciate a letter from you expressing this fact.

Response: The nearest point of the flood control pool is approximately 2 miles northwest of the Spencer Academy site. The nearest conservation pool elevation is approximately 3 miles due west of the site. Therefore, Hugo Lake will not have an effect on the Academy site or the cemetery. This information was furnished the State Historic Preservation Officer by letter dated 26 October 1973. State Grant-In-Aid Clearinghouse

Comment: Department of Pollution Control— "There are numerous environmental problems created by the construction of this reservoir, hut since the damage has already been done (80 percent complete), there is little reason for going through this exercise now,"

Response: This comment is understandable, however, the Corps believes the statement to be necessary to comply with the spirit and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act, recognising that the project was under development prior to that legislation.

Comment: Department of Agriculture— "The project is near completion so any discussion is moot. Impact on agriculture in the lake bed was adverse but downstream from the dam, the impact should be beneficial."

Response: These comments have been noted. 4. Citizen Organization Southeastern State College, Department of Biological Science. Mrs. Connie Taylor Comment: Once again the Corps has failed to provide a comprehensive impact statement. A major flaw is the lack of identifying the scarcer bottomland forests, their total acreage, and to discuss these natural ecosystems in a thorough manner.

The Impact statement even says that there are no good bottomland forests along the river. From my own experiences in SE Oklahoma, I have not yet seen a river completely stripped of its forests. Virgin forest may not remain, but many young mature forests do occur along the Red, Blue, Boggy, Glover, Little, and yes, Kiamichi Rivers.

Response: Essentially all the impacted flood plain forest had been eliminated prior to preparation of the statement. Efforts were made to obtain and include some data on stands which should represent the vegetative type which existed before reservoir clearing. To our knowledge there is no such thing as a "young mature" forest.

Comment: Six pages are spent discussing the extent of the oak, oak-hickory, and oak-pine forests of the upper basin. ALL OF THESE FORESTS LIE UPSTREAM AND ARE NOT IN DANGER OF BEING INUNDATED BY THE RESERVOIR. On the other hand, the flood plain forests along the Kiamichi River in the vicinity of the Hugo Lake are discussed in THREE TYPEWRITTEN LINES, and accompanied by a table with data for only 2 stands.

Response: As noted previously, virtually all the impacted flood plain forest had been eliminated prior to the period of study. The environmental setting of the project includes the immediate and surrounding area of the proposed action. Comment' With the inclusion of stand data for 19 forest vegetation stands not affected by the reservoir, one stand in the lake area, and one below the damsite, we find that only 2/21 or less than 10 percent of the vegetational analysis pertains directly to the effects of the Hugo Reservoir on any naturally occuring vegetation. The main emphasis of the vegetative analysis should deal with the extent of bottomland forests both in the reservoir site and below it. These are the vegetation types in the area that are of minimal occurance in Oklahoma. Other forest analysis which are as relevant as some included can be found in "Relation of Forest Vegetation to Soils and Geology of Gulf Coastal Plain in Oklahoma by R. John Taylor, Unpublished Dissertation, 1967, University of Oklahoma, Norman. The analysis of the vegetation in a river basin is in itself interesting, but as most river of any size travel through numerous flora-fauna associations from its source to its mouth, meaningful averages can't be made. Dams effect the reservoir site and downstream, and affect fisher^s and gene flow of various animals upstream, but will have little affect <. /egetation types. The biotic life zone of the area to be inundated belongs to the Austoriparian, which extends up the river valleys in SE Oklahoma. For a discussion of the extent of this life zone in Oklahoma see Bragg, A. N. and R. John Taylor, 1968, "A range extension of the Pickerel Frog Rana palustrla palustris in Oklahoma with indications of an extention of thXXustroriparian Life Province" published in the Southwestern Naturalist 13(3): 372-373.

Response: There are, as noted, several studies dealing with upland vegetation, none on bottomland vegetation in this part of the state. The Austroriparian life zone is an old general designation which is perhaps more useful to more conventional descriptive type ecologists. Duck and Fletcher was used because it is more precise and better defined.

Comment: In table 2-2, the last association is called Post Oak-Blackjack. This name was drawn from Rice & Penfound, but the data presented is that of a stand in which the Water Oak, Spanish Oak, and Winged Elm all play as important a role as blackjack. If one is not familiar with the paper by Rice and Penfound, this seems strange. Postoak-Oak is perhaps a better name if only 1 stand of data is given, or explanation in the text should clearly define this as a more mesic representative of this very common and quite variable upland vegetation type.

Response: The designation as Postoak-Blackjack was that of the original authors and this is clearly identified in the table heading. Apparently the reviewer.is questioning the fact that blackjack has an importance value of 9.0, while winged elm, Spanish oak and water oak have importance values of 10.6, 10.3, and 13.9. Host forest stands, even if adequately sampled (e.g. standard error+ 9.10 mean) are only about 85 percent reproducible. This means that at Fest there is no significant difference between blackjack and any of the three species mentioned, except perhaps the latter. It is generally accepted that stands are aggregated into categories denoted by leading dominants, and, if all stands were designated by the two most important species (in this case, presumably post oak and water oak) there would be so many combinations that categorization would be superfluous. Comment: From table 2-3, the Acer saccharlnum at stream edge and its importance here has not been discussed at all. This area is a more western location in the US for such maple forest development. There are no bottomland forests in SE Oklahoma which have been preserved at the present time, although extensive efforts are being made to save a representative by saving the Glover River. The Oklahoma Fish and Widllife Department does have a wilderness area. But, unfortunately, the stream side bottomland forests in this area were sacrificed to the progress of the Broken Bow Reservoir. Recreational usages are the prime land use of Broken Bow State Park, and the status of forests here have not been clearly defined at all. Portions of the bottomland have been cleared for cabins, camps, and campgrounds.

Response: The silver maple is found over most of Oklahoma. In the Hugo Lake area it would not be considered an important commercial tree. The tree is fast growing, and consequently is brittle and short-lived. Its primary value is in planting for quick effect or shade. Other comments in the paragraph are noted.

Comment: The use of Generalized Bottomland Forest is not scientific at all. In fact it is a confusing concept as its usage is not only not defined in the text, but there is no clear indication that this figure data column is an average of the 3 lines to the right. A more presentable and certainly clearer representation of this data is the listing of the data for the 3 stands first, and then a column clearly designated as an Average Relative Basal Area.

Response: The use of the term ’’Generalized Bottom Land Forest" might be confusing especially to those who don't read the table heading which defines the deviation of the data. The point is, of course, that most of the bottom land forest had been removed prior to the period of study, and one stand could not adequately portray its attributes. Therefore, data from three different sites were investigated to indicate what might have been in the inundated area. Since the data was undoubtedly heterogenous, data for each stand was presented as well as the average or generalized stand.

Comment: The final statement should include extensive discussion of the major species of the bottomland and stream edge forests in the reservoir site, the important subdorainants, the understory trees, shrubs, vines, forbes, and grasses. The average basal area of 63 and 68 sq. ft./acre represent fair sized forest stands. An average of 68.71 sq.ft./acre was obtained from forest stands in Bryan County west of the reservoir site. A mature Boggy Bottom River stand contained 134.89 sq.ft./acre. The potential timber yield is as important to society as is the number of deer-hunting days or the umpteen million gallons of water needed in the year 2070 as based on expotential growth. In fact 100 years from now, timber decline and eventual shortages are recognized not only by conservationists, but is of concern to the lumber industry. The last statement on page 2-17 is simply not substantiated. It gives short shift to present and possible future timber resources in this fertile bottomland. This timber potential can be computed and should be included for various management regimes from grazing in forested areas to outright select thining for maximum tree growth and regrowth. Properly managed timber resources are renewable.

Response: The above comments are noted. The suggested extensive discussion is not included for the reason that the project was under construction prior to preparation of the statement and the major portion of vegation in the lake had already been cleared or inundated.

Comment: Unfortunately, Choctaw and Pushmataha Counties have not been as extensively studied botanically as have McCurtain to the east and Bryan to the west. This is due to lack of botanical man power, not lack of noteworthy plant and animals. Perhaps this lack of previous study explains the dirth of information presented in this report.

Response: Noted. Perhaps "dirth” should have been dearth.

Comment: Page 3-3 at the end of the page. Aquatic organisms are adapted to the stress of June-Augus1- in our stream environments. Natural stresses act as population controls. This curtails over exploitation of a single niche and promotes populations of fewer but healthier organisms, as opposed to large numbers of weak, stunted individuals. Stress is bad for any one given individual, but is not necessarily bad for any given species in its survival in a particular environment.

Response; Noted.

Comment: Page 3-13 line 16, Hugo Dam will "temporarily" upset ect. This is a permanent commitment and for many species will permanently upset migration patterns, nutrient flow, productivity, and will completely demolish vast areas of particular habitats. These cannot return readily, even if the dam is taken down and the lake drained in 100 years.

Response: It is true that Individuals of many species will be upset or eliminated. The effect on populations will be less drastic. The losses were considered as acceptable trade-offs for more desirable benefits.

Comment: Page 3-13, end of page. I am particularly disturbed by the loose use of Species Diversity. The concept of climax refers to a unit ecosystem which is self replacing and relatively stable. As such a unit, a species diversity index can be obtained. The comparison of the species diversity from A habitat (bottomland forest or mature stream) with the species diversity of various habitats lumped together such as B (lotic), C (lentic) D (lake shore) is very misleading. Each of the lotic or lentic sub-climax habitats will not be able to maintain the stability implied by the concept of climax. Yet your seeming logical assumptions at the bottom of 3-13 and the top of 3-14 lead a reader into believing the greater species diversity computed from the lumping of habitats B. C. and D, is a superior situation to the lower species diversity computed for habitat A, the relatively climax or climax type. The Corps of Engineers should define in a most explicit manner the use of this term. It should clearly be stated for how many habitats the diversity was computed. It is sad that such a concept should be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or most likely misused.

Response; By definition,diversity is a function of area. The sentence specifies with the basin.

Comment; Page 3-15. If nutrients are not limiting, what is? If nutrients do not limit growth in Hugo Lake, then it will be in an advanced eutrophic condition similar to Lake Erie. You should say predicted nutrient levels indicate it will be a fairly productive lake.

Response; Concur.

Comment; Page 3-16. Without land use zoning, urbanization below Hugo Dam will only create a situation in which increased flood losses will occur. The purpose of the structure is to reduce flood damage. The Hugo Dam will control some floods and reduce all others. In 1957, waters swept uncontrolled over Denison Dam. The building of permanent businesses and housing directly below the dam is only setting up a major potential disaster. The recommendations of the National Water Resources Council include use of this concept in conjunction with flood retarding structures. The vast expenditure on the Mississippi has not eliminated flood damages and the damages each year seem to be constantly increasing. This is because humans move into a protected floodplain, utilizing it for housing and industrial sites. Most people fail to comprehend that no dam or other flood control structure can give absolute guarantee of no flooding. The Kiamichi River also receives drainage waters from large areas which will not be contained in the reservoir, but will enter the river downstream.

Response: The waters that flowed uncontrolled from Denison Dam were through the spillway which was designed for that purpose. Good comments.

Comment; Residents, land utilizers, and land owners should be informed of the extent of flood control that they will receive, be it 90 percent, 50 percent, or some lesser figure as the distance downstream increases. Corps oversell for projects finds many land owners simply not prepared the first time major flooJing conditions appear after reservoir construction. Some people located 30, or even 50 miles downstream believe they will have total flood control.

Response: Available information concerning the flood plain is readily available in Corps offices. This service is receiving progressively more use. Unfortunately all owners do not avail themselves of the service, nor do all heed the information received. The absolute solution would more likely be legal restrictions against certain activities or developments in the flood plain. The statement on "Corps oversell" is not concurred in. Comment; Table 3-8. Is this an actual sample of vegetation? What is its exact location? There is a positive need for a map showing the reservoir site and the sampling site locations for all data presented. This would be a very meaningful addition. It should include the 21 sites previously discussed.

Response: Table 3-8 is not an actual sample of vegetation. It is however, a projection of the shoreline community composition expected to be found after project completion.

Comment: Page 3-50. Here is that species diversity again from lumped habitats.

Response: Discussed in previous response.

Comment: Page 3-29. The statement and the list is most interesting. It is definitely true that none of the species on the list would be eliminated from Oklahoma by construction of a lake and suitable habitat for several would be reduced. The point is that many of these species do not occur at the reservoir site nor in the area just downstream. Species such as the two Magnolias grow in the upper Kiamichi basin and in the upper Mountain Fork River areas around Rich Mountain and Blue Bouncer* They do not grow in Choctaw County. Quercus lyrata, I believe is known from McCurtain County. This list is pointless. At this point, a list of plants which actually grow in the reservoir area and grow in the bottoms of the Kiamichi River downstream from the damsite should be inserted. If such a list is not available, then the Corps biologists should collect next spring and summer to ascertain the presence of those species that are rare in Oklahoma and their extent of occurance in this basin. It is rediculous to include a list of plants whose occurrances are in sections of Oklahoma located 50 miles or more away from the reservoir site.

Response: As the reviewer mentioned, this area has not been as well studied as other adjoining areas. The fact that a plant may occur within 50 miles may be very good information. Obviously, the list should be one derived from a site survey. Since no such list was available, it is preferable to list the rare species known to be in the general area, rather than not listing any.

Comment: Page 3-56. Eliminate the sentence "Preventing possible loss of human lives by flood control is recognized as improving the social etc.," Due to the carelessness of recreating humans, tragically, more lives will probably be lost over the life of the Hugo Reservoir than would have been lost without the flood control project. After living adjacent to Lake Texoma for so many years, I am most aware of the loss of life not only in the lake itself, but downstream from unexpected rises in water when very high water flows are passed through the gates. The Optima Dam impact statement analyses this situation in a thorough manner and discusses educational methods for reducing this factor once the reservoir is constructed. Response: The sentence is correct when reviewed in its entirety which adds following social, "and physical well-being of downstream flood plain residents," The remainder of the comment is noted.

Comment: Page 3-58 and 3-59. The data presented from the.1962 report on water needs in Oklahoma should be eliminated or drastically altered and expanded. The data given assumes expotential growth and is now invalid. This generation of Americans by reaching a birth rate of 2.0 (replacement rate) has clearly chosen quality of life over quantity of Individuals. Future water needs should be presented in a series of alternative future projections of varying amounts from loss of population (current trend for this area), maintainance of population, and at several rates to expotential growth. This projected variable of future choices coupled with data from future population counts will make both political and public decision making easier, with development more nearly matching needs of the people. Thus both under and over development can be avoided. It is doubtful the Hugo Dam will reach full utilization by 1980, let alone need further increased yield from Clayton. The National Water Commission recommends full utilization of presently developed water resources and an emphasis on improving quality of water rather than quantity. Oklahoma has not yet developed the water needs to utilize its presently developed resources. As for transportation of water to central Oklahoma, the transport system needs a fully developed ecological approach. Los Angeles is now supplied with abundant water transported hundreds of miles. For what purpose. The life style of city dwellers coupled with the exhaust of its autos makes the air of the city frequently not fit to breath. Water may no longer be a limiting factor for city growth, but the capacity of the air to absorbe further pollutants is definitly limiting. What does this have to do with central Oklahoma? Its per capita ratio is one of the largest in the world. Is the better course to supply huge quantities of water to Oklahoma where populations are centered, or would it be better for limitations to play a part in populations dispersions over the countryside. The use of huge futuristic needs coupled with needs by projects which may never be built is not a sane financial analysis nor a basis for building existing authorized projects.

Response: The data referenced is quite proper in the Hugo analysis since it was used in project studies which occurred prior to the data recommended in the remaining portion of the comment. Current planning studies should of course fully consider the thoughts experienced by the above writer.

Comment: Page 3-63. The impact statement should here refer to the other reservoirs within 50 miles and their future impact on lake recreation in Hugo.

Response: Existing lake resources within 50 miles of Hugo Lake were given in table 2-25 of Section 2. Comment: Page 3-69, Grazing Leases. Overgrazing and subsequent environmental deterioration should not be allowed. Several plant species are notable indicators of overgrazed conditions. The numbers of cows allowable should depend on both weather conditions and pasture recovery capabilities. In chapter 5t page 23 there is considerable discussion concerning expenses involved in the determination of this. Any good soil conservation man or decent rancher can ascertain readily the condition of a pasture. The Corps and Soil Conservation Service are constantly competing against each other for the privileges of building their particular water development projects. These two Government agencies would do us a real service by burying the hatchet and trying to work together for a change.

Response: The above views have been noted. Advice on range and conservation practices on Corps projects i' 'ought and received from the Soil Conservation Service. Cooperative planning nas been continuous with that agency, the statement to the contrary is not concurred in.

Commenti Pages on public hunting do not state that the public hunting lands will be posted. Conflict of I: Merest such as leasing to ranchers land which is also classified as public hunting areas should be avoided. This creates conflict among noncompatible land uses.

Response: Agriculture and grazing leases on lands managed for wildlife are with the approval or direction of the Wildlife Management Agency. Such use is considered to be compatible when properly planned and administered. This is not to say that problems of violations, trespassing, etc., do not occur.

Comment: Two other questions of concern are:

1. What is the discount rate at which the cost-benefit was computed?

2. What is the cost benefit ratio at 6-7/8 percent.

Response:

(1) 3-1/4 percent.

(2) This figure is not available.

Comment: The literature cited does not contain the literature cited for the biological work nor does it contain a reference for the Analysis of the Biology of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma, in which the biological literature is referred to.

Response: This information has been included in the literature cited appendix of the environmental statement. APPENDIX A

CORRESPONDENCE WITH OTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL PNOTLC1 ION AGENCY REGION VI loOO FATTERSCN. SUITE 1IOO DALLAS. TEXAS 752.0 t

November 2, 1973 office of the Reg io nal Administrator

M r. M. W. D eG eer Chief, Engineering Division Tulsa D istrict Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 61 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102

Dear Mr. DeGeer:

We have reviewed t.:; : D raft Environmental Impact Statement for the project, Hugo ^ake, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. The project is located in Choctaw County, west of the town of Sawyer, Oklahoma on the Kiamichi 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 w ildlife management. Public use facilities w ill include roads, parking areas, boat launching ramps, signs, markers, picnic and camping units, playgrounds, beaches, bicycle and hiking trails, and water and sanitary facilities. We understand that the 11,000-foot long earth fill embankment is essentially complete, and impoundment is tentatively scheduled for December, 1973.

In general, the statement adequately discussed many of the already induced environmental impacts of construction, and the impacts that.m ight be generated from future maintenance and operation activities of the facility. However, we suggest that yor consider the following comments in preparing the final Environmental Impact Statement:

1 . One of the project purposes as discussed in the state­ ment is water quality control. As mentioned on page 3-60, an additional 90 mgd w ill be needed for maintenance of the Kiamichi River. Also, Hugo Lake is expected to beneficially affect the stream below the dam by reducing the concentration of dissolved solids and suspended solids in addition to maintaining water quality during periods of draught. To help in evaluating the future impacts of low-flow augmentation on the water quality of the Kiamichi River below the dam, we suggest that you identify and discuss the existing sources of pollutants being discharged to the Kiamichi River and subsequently the Red River. Also it would be helpful to discuss the lim its of the Kiamichi or the Red River which w ill be benefited by the proposed low-flow augmentation control. This information w ill be useful in better understanding the long-term impacts on water quality.

2 . Additional information discussing the water and sewage disposal and treatment facilities at the Hugo Lake site is needed in the final statement. We understand that sewage w ill be removed from vault toilets at Hugo Lake and w ill be disposed of in a State-approved sewage treatment facility on project lands, at Wilson Point and V irgil Point Recreation Areas. Although the design and operational features of these facilities have been previously coordinated with our office, additional information describing these facilities should also be included in the final statement. In addition, we suggest that the construction, opera­ tion and maintenance of these facilities be continually coordinated with and reviewed by Federal agencies as required by Executive Order 11507, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air and Water Pollution at Federal Facilities.

3 . Although the statement discussed in detail the primary short-t m environmental impacts, insufficient information was given to adequately assess the potential secondary long-term impacts that might be induced by the continued operation, main­ tenance of the facility, and development of recreational areas on and adjacent to project lands. Because of the magnitude of the proposed project in developing a potential high-density recreation area at Hugo Lake, we believe that the secondary effects on the surrounding communities might be substantial. For example, the ultim ate developed facility and recreational area w ill probably promote further economic growth resulting in the need for additional recreational, residential, commercial and industrial developments from which additional solid waste, water, air and noise pollution problems may possibly evolve. We suggest that an adequate plan to prevent degradation of the area's a i r , water and noise quality from future growth and development be considered as a requisite for this project. Additional information and discussion on the secondary impacts should be contained in the section, The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. 4 . The discussion of the environmental impacts of the project failed to explain how the Hugo Lake project might inter­ relate and/or affect or be affected by the proposed Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs located upstream from Hugo Lake on the Kiamichi River. We suggest that you discuss the cumulative environmental effects of these combined projects to help in better understanding the potential effects on water quality, streamflow and water supply. Without this information, it would be difficult to fully assess the total environmental impacts of the project.

These comments classify your Draft Environmental Impact Statement as LO-2. Specifically, we have no objection to the proposed action; however, the statement did not contain enough information to fu lly asses*" the potential long-term secondary environmental impacts of . ; project. The classification and the date of our comments w ill be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsiblity to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal actions, under Section 309 of the Clean A i r A c t .

Definitions of the categories are provided on the attach­ ment. Our procedure is to categorize our comments on both the environmental consequences of the proposed action and on the adequacy of the impact statement at the draft stage, whenever p o s s i b l e .

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft Environ­ mental Impact Statement. Please send us two copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement at the same time it is sent to the Council on Environmental Q uality.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur W. Busch Regional Adm inistrator ENVIR3MMECTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION

LO - Lack of Objections

EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the draft iirpact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.

ER - Environmental Reservations.

EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the originating Federal agency to re-assess these aspects.

EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory

EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its potentially harmful effect cn the environment. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action. The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further (including the possibility of no action at a l l ) .

ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT

Catecrorv 1 - Adequate

The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives reasonably available to the project or action.

Category 2 - Insufficient Information

EPA believes the draft impact statement does not contain sufficient information to assess f u lly the environmental impact of the proposed project or action. However, frccn the information sufcmitted, the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact on the environment. EPA has requested that the originator provide the information that was not included in the draft statement.

Category 3 - Inadequate

EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonably available alternatives. The Agency has requested mere information and analysis concerning the potential environmental hazards and has asked that substantial revision fcc made to the impact statement. If a draft statement is assigned a Category 3, no rating w ill be made of the project or action, since a basis does not generally exist on which to make such a determination. United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SOUTHWEST REGION Room 4030, 517 Gold Avenue SW. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101

District Engineer Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army Post Office Box 61 Tulsa, Oklahoma 7*002

Dear Sir:

This is in response to Hr M. W. DeGeer's letter of September 21, 1973, addressed to the ffiice of Environmental Project Review, requesting review and comments on a draft environmental statement for Hugo Lake, Kianichi River, Oklahoma.

In general, we find that the draft statement contains a great deal of information pertinent to an analysis of project effects and pro­ vides a good basis for an understanding of environmental relation­ ships. The one major item that should be considered in more detail is recreation. Since recreation is a project purpose, it should receive coverage comparable to other project features.

There, are possible conflicts of uses of both the lake and surround­ ing lands. These should be considered and recommended measures for solving any conflict of use included.

The proposed location and type of recreation areas and facilities programmed for Hugo Lake should be identified. In addition to the upstream and downstream recreation areas mentioned in the report more consideration should be given to recreation areas located on the lake shore and to the environmental implications of these developments. Detailed location maps should be a part of the draft statement.

The following specific comments are submitted for your considera­ tion and use in developing a final statement for the project:

SUMMARY

The final statement should contain evidence of contact with the Oklahoma Historic Preservation Officer and his comments concerning the e.iect of the project upon historical and archeological resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 1-1*, second paragraph. A figure of 18,000 acres is used for the land and water area to be designated as a national w ild life refuge. The 18,000-acre figure also appears on page 3-64. A more recent estimate of this acreage is about 14,1*00 acres of land and water. This figure is carried in the General Plan now in the process of finalization by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and W ildlife, and Oklahoma Department of W ildlife Conser­ vation.

On page 1-5. the reference to a 50-year drought should be reworded to indicate a period of drought that would be expected to occur once in a period of 50 years, rather than a 50-year drought.

Also on page 1-5, mention is made that the Central Oklahoma area is expected to obtain water which is in excess of the estimated needs of the Hugo-Antlers area for its future needs from the Kiamichi River Basin. It may be appropriate to expand this discussion to include an explanation that Hugo Lake is the most likely place from which to divert water stored in Hugo, Clayton, and Tuskahoma Lakes to the conveyance system to Oklahoma City. While it is realized that the Central Oklahoma proposal is not a part of the Hugo proj­ ect, the operation of the Central Oklahoma diversion system would have a considerable environmental impact on Hugo Lake. Also, the new conservation pool levels and other pertinent data associated with Hugo Lake under stages II and I I I should be discussed in some detai1.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Hugo Lake project will not adversely affect any existing, pro­ posed or known potential unit of the National Park System, nor any historic, natural, or environmental education site e ligib le for the National Landmark Programs.

Page 3"6. The white-tailed deer should be listed as a species to be adversely affected by the project as vital wintering habitat will be lost. Also, all mammals which have occupied the reservoir area will be lost since surrounding areas of suitable habitat presumably are already supporting maximum populations under existing habitat condi tions.

Page 3_54. Some of the conclusions drawn on this page are not re alistic. The three sentences, lines 13~20, project mineral pro­ duction value in Choctaw County at between $10,000 and $50,000 per year for the next 10 years and estimate a value of $200,000 (per year?) during reservoir construction. Available records show the following values for mineral production in the two counties, from 1959 through 1971 ("W" indicates value withheld to avoid disclosing company confidential information):

Year Choctaw Co. Pushmataha Co.

1959 $149,860 W I960 W W 1961 W $1,115,500 1962 614,558 174,146 1963 280,333 w 1964 189,725 w 1965 185,109 w 1966 W w 1967 897,333 407,689 1968 272,000 11,000 1969 546,000 38,000 1970 W -- 1971 W 1,000

From che above figures, it Is apparent that production of construc­ tion mineral commodities does not indicate a growth trend but varies in response to the market. It is unrealistic to assume that annual value of production in Choctaw County for the next 10 years could be as lav as $10,000 to $50,000. Even if it is assumed that there was no production for the years when data were withheld, the 13- year average is $240,000 per year. For the 3 years for which data are available since construction of the reservoir began in 1967» mineral production value in Choctaw County has averaged $572,000. This section should be revised to reflect more realistic estimates.

From the point of view of conservation of natural resources, we are concerned about the disposition of the 10-million-ton sand and gravel reserve in secs. 8, 9» 16, and 17, T. 6 S., R. 18 E. This deposit, covering about 1,030 acres, was being mined in the early 1960's before dam construction began. We believe the statement would be more complete if it explained whether the deposit was or will be mined out before inundation, is being used for construction of the dam, or will be lost by inundation.

Our review indicates that the project will have some adverse effect on known mineral resources and mineral operations. However, this loss does not appear to be significant in view of the plentiful supplies of such resources nearby.

Page 3-62. The locations of the approved recreation areas for the. project should be described. The location, expected use patterns, and facilities needed or planned also should be discussed.

Page 3-68, Wildlife Management. The brief discussion of this topic could be expanded to recognize the mitigation aspects of wildlife management and to point up the need for additional development to achieve this purpose. Fencing of the potential State-operated wild­ life management area is needed and has been repeatedly recommended by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife as a means of obtaining effective wildlife management. This principal is recognized on page 5-24 of the draft statement. The wildlife management area is being planned as a measure to mitigate project-caused losses to wildlife resources. Without project-provided fencing the mitigation measure would be incomplete. We suggest that the need for fencing to realize the full wildlife management potential of the proposed State management area be recognized in this section of the environmental statement.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Page 5-4, paragraph b. The statement is probably correct in that the cost of water to users would be twice as high under Plan B as under Plan A. However, this does not appear to be derived from nor indicated by cost figures shown on page 5-3.

Page 5-9, Alternative C, first paragraph. The discussion topic of this paragraph is pertinent to the review of alternatives but the paragraph is written in a manner which seems misleading. There are conceivable reasons for abandoning the project other than satisfying the needs of those who prefer to maintain the Kiamichi River as a free-flowing stream. Abandonment also would preserve the usefulness of the land to be inundated for the production of agricultural products, minerals, timber, and wildlife. There is undoubtedly a compelling local need for flood control and for water supply; however, there also is a similar need, nationwide, for the various resources which could be produced on the land if it were not impounded. We feel that the subject deserves a more objective treatment. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Page 7-1, third paragraph. Any archeological sites destroyed by the project, including those "salvaged," represents an. irreversible and irretrievable commitment of archeological resources.

Sincerely,

Willard Lewis Special Assistant to the Secretary U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ■teaion ( i i POUT WORTH, m u 7«IO> 819 Taylor Street

October 24, 1973

M r. M. W. D e g r e e r Chief, Engineer D ivision Tulsa D istrict, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 61 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102

Dear Mr. Degreer:

Reference is made to the Corps of Engineers draft environmental statement for Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma, furnished with your letter dated 21 September 1973.

The draft statement has been reviewed by this office, our Oklahoma D ivision o ffice, and the Oklahoma Department of Highways. The Oklahoma Department of Highways has informed us that they have no specific comments to offer on the draft environmental impact statem ent.

Although highway closures and relocations are mentioned in the statement, we feel a more detailed discussion on social impacts caused by highway closures and relocations should be included in the statement.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft environmental s t a t e m e n t .

Sincerely yours,

J. W./White Regional Adm inistrator United States Department of Agriculture FOREST SERVICE Southeast*™ Area, State and Private forestry AHunto, Georgia 30300 November 13, 1973

M.W. Degeer, Chief Engineering Division Department of the Army P.O. Box 61 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102

Dear Mr. Degeer:

The draft environmental statement for Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma was forwarded to this office for review and comment. We apologize for not meeting the deadline date with our remarks as follows:

Although the project is nearing completion, a more detailed description of a "flood plain management alternative” - covering the entire Kiamichi River watershed - is needed.

Additional information is needed on long-term project inpacts. The 13,250 acres of forest land which will be inundated in the conservation pool (and later by sediment) is, for all practical purposes, irretrievably lost to forest production and to the production of life supports values associated with forest land. Breaching the dam after the area is overlain with sediment will not restore the land to its present use capabilities.

Also, creating an impoundment of this size in an area without lakes, will create overwhelming secondary impacts on long term social, economic and cultural development around the reservoir and in the flood plain below the dam. Insufficient emphasis is placed on land use planning and land use planning coordination for those lands within the vicinity of Lake Hugo. We recommend close coordination with K.E.D.D.O. (State Planning District No. 3 ) to prevent or mitigate land-use problems associated with operation of this project.

From Table 5-3, it appears that the estimated net project benefit (in dollars) is $49,024,000 instead of the $92,644,000 value shown cn page 5-11. We recommend that the advice and assistance of the Oklahoma Division of Forestry be utilized in preparing forest management plans for the Project area. Forest Service help is also available through State Cooperative Programs.

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this draft inpact s ta te m e n t.

S i n c e r e ly ,

FREDERICK W. HONING Area Environmental Coordinator UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE State Office, Stillwater, OK 74074

October 11, 1973

Mr. M. W. DeGeer, Chief Engineering Division Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Box 61 Tulsa, OK 74102

Dear Mr. DeGeer:

We have reviewed your draft environmental statement for Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma, and have no specific suggestions for changes.

We believe the proposed measures will be compatible with Soil Conservation Service programs. As agricultural lands to be bene­ fited are developed for more intensive use, we will make assistance available through conservation districts to help landowners with conservation treatment systems.

Sincerely,

Hampton Burns State Conservationist O K L A H O M A ^ ^ ^ S ^ A L SOCIETY

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS FOUNDED MAY 27, 1893 OFFICERS •GEORGE H. SHIRK HISTORICAL BUILDING P r e s id e n t OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 731( Colcord Building, Oklahoma City •H. MILT PHILLIPS Vice President S e m in o le •FISHER MULDROW Vice President X o r man •MRS. GEORGE L. BOWMAN T re a su re r K in g fis h e r October 16, 1973 V. R. EASTERLING Executive Director H is to r ic a l B u ild in g Oklahoma City DAVID HALL G o vern o r o f O k la h o m a Mr. M.W. Degeer E x O ffic io Chief, Engineering Division Oklahoma City Dept, of the Army DIRECTORS Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers LOU ALLARD P.0. Box 61 V r u m r ig h t Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 HENRY B. BASS E n id Q. B. BOYDSTUN Dear Mr. Degeer: Fort Gibson O. B. CAMPBELL The staff of the Oklahoma Historical Society has V in ita " ‘JOE W. CURTIS studied the environmental statement for Hugo Lake, P a u ls r a lle y Kiamichi River, Oklahoma as it relates to existing HARRY L. DEUPREE, M.D. Historic Sites. Oklahoma City W. D. FINNEY F o rt Cobb We find that Spencer Academy, Historic Site, is •LEROY H. FISCHER located approximately 9 miles north of Sawyer, SW £ S tillw a te r BOB FORF.SMAN Sec. 6, TWP5S, R19E, and may be low enough to be T u lsa covered by the lake's highest planned flooding. MRS. JOHN D. FRIZZELL Oklahoma City NOLEN FUQUA This Academy was established in 1841 as a Choctaw D u n ca n Boy's School. There are some graves here. It DEN2IL D. GARRISON was here that "Uncld1 Wallace Willis wrote Swing Bartlesville A. M. GIBSON Low Sweet Chariot and other spirituals. X o r man JOHN E. KIRKPATRICK If it is the case that this site will not be Oklahoma City W. E. McINTOSII inundated, we will appreciate a letter from you T u lia expressing this fact. JAMES D. MORRISON D u r a n t EARL BOYD PIERCE Cordially, M u sk o g e e GENEVIEVE SEGER G ea ry II. MERLE WOODS E l E e n o ' George H. Shirk •Executive Committee President, of Board of Directors Oklahoma Historical Society STATE OF OKLAHOMA State Grant-In-Aid Clearinghouse

4901 N. LINCOLN BLVD. • OKLAHOM A CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105 • PHONE (405) 521-2137

October 25, 1973

Mr. M. W. DeGeer, Chief Engineering Division Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 6l Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102

RE: Draft Environmental Staterr it for Hugo Lake, Kiamichi River

Dear Mr. DeGeer:

The draft environmental imt ict statement has been reviewed in accordance with OMB Circular / -95 and Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act by the state agencies charged with enforcing environmental standards in Oklahoma.

The state agencies comprising the Pollution Control Coordinating Board have reviewed the project and the following specific comments were offered by two of the member agencies:

Department of Pollution Control--"There are numerous environ­ mental problems created by the construction of this reservoir, but since the damage has already been done (80% complete), there is little reason for going through this exercise now. "

Department of Agriculture--"The project is near completion so any discussion is moot. Impact on agriculture in the lake bed was adverse but downstream from the dam, the impact should be beneficial."

The state clearinghouse v/ill have no further comments on this project. Sincerely,

Don N. Strain Director DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES SOUTHEASTERN STATE COLLEGE Durant, Oklahoma 74701 October 11, 1973

Ur. M. W. Denser, Chief Engineering Division, Tulsa District Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 6l Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102

Dear Sir: HUGO DA!-': KIAMICHI RIVER

Once again the Corps has failed to provide a comprehensive impact statement. A major flaw is the lack of identifying the scarcer bottomland forests, their total acreage, and to discuss these natural ecosystems in a thorough manner. The impact statement even says that there are no good bottomland forests along the river. From my own experiences in S3 Oklahoma, I have not yet seen a river completely stripped of its forests. Virgin forest may not remain, but many young mature forests do occur along the Red, Blue, Boggy, Glover, Little, and yes, Kianichi Rivers. Six pages are spent discussing the extent of the oak, oak-hickory, and oak-pine forests of the upper basin. ALL OF THESE FORESTS LIE UPSTREAM AND ARE NOT IN DANGER OF BEING INUNDATED BY THE RESERVOIR.. On th e o th e r hand, the flood plain forests along the Kianichi Hiver in the vicinity of the Hugo lake are discussed in THREE TYPE WRITTEN LINES, and accompanied by a table with data for only 2 stands. With the inclusion of stand data for 19 forest vegetation stands not affected by the reservoir, 1 stand in the lake area, and one below the dam site, we find that only 2/21 or less than KB / of the vegetational analysis pertains directly to the effects of the Hugo Reservoir on any naturally occuring vegetation. The main emphasis of the vegetative analysis should deal with the extent of bottomland forests both in the reservoir site and below it. These are the vegetation types in the area that are of minimal occurance in Oklahoma. Other forest analysis whifch are as relevant as some included can be found in "Relation of Forest Vegetation to Soils and Geology of Gulf Coastal Plain in Oklahoma by R. John Taylor, Unpublished D issertation, 1967, University of Oklahoma, Norman. The analysis of the vegetation in a river basin is in itself interesting, but as most rivers of any size travel through numerous flora-fauna associations from its source to its mouth, meaningful averages can’t be made. Dams affect the reservoir site and downstream, and affect fisheries and genB flow of various animals upstream, but will have little affect on vegetation types. The biotic life zone of the area to be inundated belongs to the Austoriparian, which extends up the river valleys in 3E Oklahoma. For a discussion of the extent of this life zone in Oklahoma see Bragg, A. N. and R. John Taylor, 1968, "A range extension of the Pickerel Frog, Rana palustris palustris in Oklahoma with indications of an extention of the Austroriparian Life Province" published in the Southwestern N aturalist 13(3) • 372-373* In Table 2-2, the last association is called Post Oak-Blackjack. This name was drawn from Rice & Penfound, but the data presented is that of a stand in which the Water Oak, Spanish Oak, and Winged 21m all play as important a role as blackjack. If one is not familiar with the paper by Rice and Penfound, this seems strange. Postoak-Oak is perhaps a better name if only 1 stand of data is given, or explanation in the text should clearly define this as a more mesic representative of this very common and quite variable upland vegetation type. From Table 2-3, the Acer saccharinum at stream edge and its importance here has not been discussed at all. This area is a more western location in the U.S. for such maple forest development. There are no bottomland forests in SE Oklahoma which have been preserved at the present time, although extensive efforts are being made to save a representative by saving the Glover River. The Oklahoma Fish and Wildlife Department does have a wilderness area. 3ut, unfortunately, the stream side bottomland forests in this area were sacrificed to the progress of the Broken Bow Reservoir. Recreational usages are the prime land use of Broken Bow State Park, and the status of forests here have not been clearly defined at all. Portions of the bottomland have been cleared for cabins, camps, and campgrounds.

The use of Generalized Bottomland Forest is not scientific at all. In fact it is a confusing concept as its usage is not only not defined in the text, but there is no clear indication that this figure data column is an average of the 3 lines to the right. A more presentable and certainly clearer representation of this data is the listing of the data for the 3 stands first, and then a column clearly designated as an Average Relative Basal Area.

The final statement should includi extensive discussion of the major species of the bottomland and stream edge forests in the reservoir site, the important subdominants, the understory trees, shrub®, vines, forbes, and grasses. The average basal area of 63 and 68 sq. ft./acre represent fair sized forest stands. An average of 68.71 sq. ft./acre was obtained from forest stands in Bryan County west of the reservoir site. A mature Boggy Bottom River stand contained 134.89 sq. ft./acre. The potential timber yield-is as important to society as is the number of deer-hunting days or the umpteen million gallons of water needed in the year 2070 as based on expotential growth. In fact 100 years from now, timber may be more valuable than another lake'resource. Hardwood timber decline and eventual shortages are recognized not only by conservationists, but is of concern to the lumber industry. The last statement on page 2-17 is simply not substantiated. It gives short shift to present and possible future timber resources in this fertile bottomland. This timber potential can be computed and should be included for various management regimes from grazing in forested areas to outright select thining for maximum tree growth and regrowth. Properly managed timber resources are renewable.

Unfortunately, Choctaw and Pushmataha counties have not been as extensively stucteid botanically as have HcCurtain to the east and Bryan to the west. This is due to lack of botanical man power, not lack of noteworthy plant and animals. Perhaps this lack of previous study explains the dirth of information presented in this report. Page 3-3 at the end of the page. Aquatic organisms are adapted to the stress of June-Aug. in our stream enviroaments. Natural stresses act as population controls. This curtails over exploitation of a single niche and promotes populations of fewer bat healthier organisms, as opposed to large numbers of weak, stunted individuals. Stress is bad for any one given individual, tut is not necessarily bad for any given species in its survival in a particular environment

Page 3-13 line 16 Hugo Dam will'1 temporarily "upset ect. This is a pernenant commitment and for many species w ill permenantly upset migration patterns, nutrient flow, productivity, and w ill completely demolish vast areas of particular habitats. These cannot return r^tflly, even if the dam is taken down and the lake drained in iOO years.

Page 3-13 end of page. I am particularly disturbed by the loose use of Species Diversity. The concept of climax refers to a unit ecosystem which is self replacing and relatively stable. As such a unit, a species diversity index can be obtained. The comparison of the species diversity from A habitat (bottomland forest or mature stream) with the species diversity of various habitats lamped together such as B (lotic), C (lentic) D (lake shore) is very misleading. Bach of the lotic or lentic sub-climax hbbitats vdll not be able to maintain the stability Implied by the concept of climax. Yet your seeming logical assumptions at the bottom of 3-13 and the top of 3-14 lead a reader into belie zing the greater species diversity computed from the lumping of habitats B, 0, and D is a superior situation to the lower species diversity computed for habitat A, the relatively climax or climax type. The Corps of engineers should define in a most explicits manner the use of this term. It should clearly be stated for how many habitats the diversity was computed. It is sad the such a concept should be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or most likely misused.

Page 3-15. If nutrients are not limiting, what is? If nutrients do not lim it growth in Hugo Lake, then it w ill be in an advanced eutrophic condition similar to Lake Brie. You should day predicted nutrient levels indicate it vdll be a fairly productive lake.

Page 3-16. without land use zoning, urbanization below Hugo Dam vdll only create a situation in which increased flood losses vdll occur. The purpose o f the stru c tu re i s to reduce flo o d damage. The Hugo Dam vdll control some floods and reduce all others. In 1957, waters swept uncontrolled over Denison Dam. The building of permenant businesses and housing directly below this dam is only setting up a major potential disaster. The recommendations of the National Hater Resources Council include use of this concept in conjunction with flood retarding structures. The vast expenditure on the M ississippi has not eliminated flood damages and the damages each year seem to be constantly increasing. This is because humans move into a protected floodplain, utilizing it for housing and industrial sites. Host people fail to comprehend that no dam or other flood control structure can give absolute guarantee of no flooding. The Kiamichi Diver also received1 drainage 'waters from large areas 'which will not be contained in the reservoir, bat vdll enter the river dovmstrean. Residents, land u tilizers, and land owners should be informed of the extent of flood control that they vri.ll receive, be it 90 fo , 50 /j . o r some lesser figure as the distance downstream increases. Corps oversell for projects finds many land owners simply not prepared the first time major flooding conditions appear after reservoir construction. Some people located 30, or even 50 miles downstream believe they ;riLll have total flood control.

Table 3-0 Is this an actual sample of vegetation’.7 VJhat is its exact location. There is a positive need for a map showing the reservoir site and the sampling site locations for all data presented. This would be a very meaningful addition. It should include the 21 sited previously d i s c u s s e d .

Page 3-50 Here is that species diversity again from lumped habitats.

Page 3-56 Eliminate the sentence " Preventing possible loss of human lives by flood control is recognizeed as improving the social etc. ." Due to the carelessness of recreating humans, tragically, more lives w ill probably be lost over the life of the Hugo Reservoir than -would have been lost -without the flood control project. After living adjacent to Lake Texoma for so many years, I am most aware of the loss of life not only in the lake itse lf, but downstream from unexpected rises in -water -when very high water flows are passed through the gates. The Optima Dam impact statement analyses this situation in a thorough manner and discusses educational methods for reducing this factor once the reservoir is constructed.

Page 3-29 The statement and the list is most interesting. It is definitely true that none of the species on the list would be eliminated from Oklahoma by construction of a lake and suitable habitat for several -would be reduced. The point is that many of these species do not occur at the reservoir site nor in the area just down stream. Species such as the two Magnolias grow in the upper Kiamichi basin and in the upper lit. Fork River areas around Rich Mountain and 31ue Bouncer. They do not grow in Choctaw County. Quercus lyrata, I believe is known from McCurtain County. This list is pointless. At this point, a list of plants which actually grew in the reservoir area and grow in the bottoms of the Kiamichi River down stream from the dam site should be inserted. If such a list is not available, then the Corps biologists should collect next spring and summer to ascertain the presence of those species that arq rare in Oklahoma and their extent of occurance in this basin. It is ridiculous to include a list of plants whose occurrances areTsections of Oklahoma located 50 miles or more away from the reservoir s i t e . Page 3-53 and 3-59. The data presented from the 1962 report on water needs in Oklahoma should be eliminated or drastically altered and expanded. The data given assumes expotential growth and is now invalid. This generation of Americans by reaching a birth rate of 2.0 (replacement rate) has clearly chosen quality of life over quantity of individuals. Future water needs should be presented in a series of alternative future projections of varying amounts from loss of population (current trend for this area), maintainance of population, and at several rates to expotential growth. This projected variable of future choices coupled with data from future population counts ’.till make both political and public decision making easier, with development more nearly matching needs of the people. Tjiis both under and over development can be avoided. It is doubtful the Hugo Dam w ill reach fu ll utilization by 1980, let alone need further increased yield from Clayton. The National Water Commission recommends fu ll utilization of presently developed water resources and an taphasis on improving quality of water rather than quantity. Oklahoma has not yet developed the water needs to utilize its presently developed resources. As for transportation of water to central Oklahoma, the transport system needs a fully developed ecological approach. Los Angeles is now supplied with abundant water transported hundreds of m iles. For what purpose. The life styje of city dwellers coupled with the exhaust of its autos makes the air of the city frequently not fit to breath. Water may no longer be a lim iting factor for city growth, but the capacity of the air to absorbe further pollutants is definitly lim iting. What does this have to do with central Oklahoma. Its car per capita ratio is one of the largest in the world. Is the better course to supply huge quantiti e z \ i 6 Oklahoma where populations are centered, or would it be bette r { l initationsVplay a part in populations dispersions over the countryside. The use of huge futuristic needs coupled with needs by projects which may never be built is not a sane finantial analysis nor a basis for building existing authorized projects.

Page 3-63 The impact statement should here refer to the other reservoirs within 50 miles and their future impact off lake recreation i n Hugo.

Page 3-69 Grazing leases. Overgrazing and subsequent environmental deterioration should not be allowed. Several plant species are notable indicators of overgrazed conditions. The numbers of cows allowable should depend on both weather conditions and pasture recovery capabilities. In chapter 5, page 23 there is considerable discussion concerning expenses involved in the determination of this. Any good soil concervation man or decent rancher can ascertain readily the-'condition of a pasture. The Corps and Soil Conservation Service are constantly coppeting against each other for the privaleges of building their particular water development project* These two government agencies would do us a real service by burying the hatchet and trying to work together for a change.

Pages on public hunting do not state that the public hunting lands will be posted. Conflict of interest such as leasing to ranchers land which is also classified as public hunting areas should be avoided. This creates conflict among nonconpatible land uses.

Two other questions of cnncern are: 1 . What is the discount rate at which the cost-benefit was computed? 2 . './hat is the cost benefit ratio at 6 7/8

Other comments could be made, but I have devoted suffitien t time to this impact statement. I have lent Dr. Frank '.Jade that portion dealing w ith.fisheries. He is exceedingly busy and it may be some time before he can comment. Dr. Taylor has also expressed concern over the poor quality of the biological assesment. Please send me a copy of "Analysis of the Biology of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma" prepared in 1972 by the University of Oklahoma. I also with to see the final copy of the impact statement. I fully appreciate the opportunity to comment. The literature cited does not contain the literature cited for the biological work nor does it contain a reference for the Analysis of the Biology of the Btiamichi River, Oklahoma in which the biological literature is referred to. Sincerely,

Connie Taylor, Plant Ecologist Sierra Club, NlfRC

The broad ecological vievr necessary for thoughtful water development may be developed in biologists by reading the following books.

Erlich and Erlich—Fopulaticn/Resources/Environment

Barry Commoner—The Closing C ircle, Mature, Kan & Technology

Fichard '.Vagner—Environment and Man

Thomas Detwyler—Man's Impact on Environment

And last but not least Water Folicies for the Future, Final Report to the President and to the Congress of the United States by the National Water Commission.

Then, puting your feet up to the fireplace, and relaxing in your favorite chair spend a few evenings with Leopold's Sand County Almanac. APPENDIX B

LITERATURE CITED American Public health Association, 1971, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste water. American Public Health Association. Washington, DC.

Ashby, V. R., 1966. An introduction to cybernetics, Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mew York, NY.

Bates, John M., 1962. The Impact of Impoundment on the Mussel Fauna of Kentucky Reservoir, Tennessee River. Amer. Midi. Nat. 68 (1): 232-236.

Blair, W. F. and T. H. Hubbell, 1938. The Biotic Districts of Oklahoma. Amer. Midi. Nat. 20:425-454.

Boyd, C. E., 1971. The Limnological Role of Aquatic Macrophytes and their Relationship to Reservoir Management. In: Reservoir Fisheries and Limnology. American Fit ies Society Spec. Publ. No. 8.

Burton, Susan S.,1970. The Hugo Damsite, Ch-112, Choctaw County, Southeast Oklahoma. Oklahoma River Basin Survey, Archeological Site Report No. 16, Norman, Oklahoma.

Carter, W. A., 1967. Ecology of the Nesting Birds of the McCurtain Game Preserve, Oklahoma. Wilson Bull. 79:259-272.

Cline, L. M», 1960. Late Palezoic Rocks of the Quachita Mountains; Oklahoma Geol. Survey, Bull. 85, 113p.

Curtis, J. T., 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Degrunchy, J., 1952. Water Fluctuation as a Factor in the Life of Higher Plants of a 3,300 Acre Lake of the Permian Redbeds of Central Oklahoma. Ph.D. Thesis, Oklahoma State University.

Duck, L. G. and J. B. Fletcher., 1943. A Survey of the Game and Fur-bearing Animals of.Oklahoma. Okla. Game and Fish Comm. Bull. No. 3.

Eley, R. L., 1970. Physicochemical limnology and community metabolish of Keystone Reservoir, Oklahoma. Unpublished Doctor’s dissertation. Oklahoma State University.

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1800, 1963, The Role of Ground Water in the National Water Situation.

Green, W. E. 1947. Effects of Water Impoundment on Tree Mortality and Growth. J. of Forestry 45: 118-120. lull, T. F, and G. Smith, 1955. Effect of Flooding on Woody Plants, West Sandy Dewatering Project, Kentucky Reservoir. J. of Forestry 53:281-285.

Ham, W. C. . *d N. M. Curtis, Jr., 1960, Oklahoma Geological Survey Guidebook 10, Comnon Minerals, rocks and fossils of Oklahoma. Isley, F. B., 1925. The fresh-water mussel fauna of eastern Oklahoma. Proc. Okla. Acad. Scl. 4:43-118.

Isom, B. G., 1969. The mussel resource of the Tennessee River, Malacol. 7 (2-3):397-425.

Jenkins, R. M., 1968. The influence of some environmental factors on standing crops and harvest of Fishes in US reservoirs. Reservoir’Fish, Resour. Sym. April 1967.

, 1970. The influence of engineering design and operation and other environmental factors on reservoir fishery resources. Water Res. Bull. 6:110-119.

Lawton, S. P., 1960. Archeological Survey of the Hugo Reservoir. Unpublished manuscript.

Little, F. L. and C. E. Olmstead, 1931. An ecological study of the southeastern Oklahoma protective unit. Oklahoma Forest Service Manuscript. University of Oklahoma Library.

Loucks, W. L., 1970 (December). A review of the literature concerning the effects of inundation upon trees. Unpublished master's thesis, Kansas State University.

Ludwig, H. L., et al., 1964, Waste Disposal and the future at Lake Tahoe. Jour, Sanitary Eng. Div., ASCE 90(3): 27-51.

Martin, A. C. and F. M. Uhler, 1939. Food of game ducks in the United States and Canada. USDA Tech. Bull. 634.

Odum, E. P. I960, Organic production and turnover in old field succession. Ecology 41:34-49.

Odum, E. P., 1971. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd F.d., W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.

Oklahoma Lilogical Survey, 1972. Analysis of the Biology of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma Contract Number DACU 56-73-C-0023.

Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, 1967-1970. Oklahoma Labor Force Estimates. Total Labor Force. Employment and Unemployment data for State, County, and metropolitan areas,

Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture, 1968. The Oklahoma Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Annual Report.

Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture and USDA-SRS, 1964-1970 Annual Report. Oklahoma Highway Department Research and Development Division, in cooperation with US Bureau of Public Roads, 1966. Engineering classification of Ecological Material, Division Two. 356 p.

Oklahoma Water Resource Board, 1969. Appraisal of the Water and Related Land Resources of Oklahoma - Regions 5 and 6.

Oosting, H. J., 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. Aner. Midi. Nat. 28: 1-126.

Ortenburger, A, I., 1928. Plant collections representative of some typical plant communities of eastern Oklahoma. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 8; 53-57.

Palmer, E. J., 1928. The ligneous flora of Rich Mountain, Arkansas and Oklahoma. J. Arnold Arbore* an 5:108-134.

Penfound, V, T., 1953. Plant communities of Oklahoma Lakes Ecology 34: 561-583.

Perino, J. V. and P. G. Risser, 1972. Some aspects of structure and function in Oklahoma old-field sucre sion. Bull Torrey. Bot. Club 99 (in press).

Pitelka, F. A., 1941. Distribution of birds in relation to major biotic communities. Amer. Midi. Nat. 25: 113-137.

Putnam, J. A., 1951. Management of Bottom land Hardwoods. US Forest Service, South Forest F.xpt. Sta. Occas. Paper 116.

Rice, E. L. and U. T. Penfound., 1959. The Upland Forest of Oklahoma. Ecology 40:593-608.

Risser, P. and E. Rice , 1971a. Phytosociological analysis of Oklhaoma upland forest species. Ecology 52:940-945.

Risser, P. and E. Rice, 1971b. Diversity in tree species in Oklahoma upland forest. Ecology 52:S76-880.

Rohrbaugh, Charles, et al. 1971. Hugo Reservoir 1. Oklahoma River Basin Survey, Archeological Site Report No. 22. Norman, Okla.

Rohrbaugh, C. L. et.al., 1972. Hugo Reservoir II. Oklahoma River Basin survey, Archeological Site Report No. 23. Norman, Oklahoma.

Schnell, G. D., 1971. Check-list of birds of Oklahoma. Stovall Museum of Science and History, Univ. of Oklanoma, Norman, Okla.

Shantz, J. P. and 11. K. Oosting, 1970. Factors affecting interaction and distribution of Haplopappus divaricatus and Conyza conadensis in North. Carpling Old Fields. Ecology 51:780-793.

Sutton, G. M., 1967. Oklahoma Birds: Their Ecology and Distribution, Norman: Univ. of Okla. Press. US Bureau of Census, 1970. Population Census. PC(VI) - 38, Oklahoma.

______, 1970. Population Data. PC(V2). General Population Characteristics.

. 1964. Census of Agriculture, Oklahoma.

US Department of Commerce, 1963 and 1967. Census of Business. Retail, Oklahoma.

______, 1967. Census of Manufacturers.

______, 1963 and 1967. Census of Business. Wholesale Trade, Oklahoma.

USDI Bureau of Mines. 1969. Mineral Yearbook. The Mineral Industry of Oklahoma.

US Geological Survey. 1971. Circular 645: A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. Washington.

University of Oklahoma., 1971. Bureau for Business and Economic Research. Personal Income in Oklahoma.

Wilhra, J. L., and T. C. Dorris. 1968. Biological Parameters for Water Quality Criteria. Bioscience 18:477-481.

Yeager, L. E., 1949. Effect of permanent flooding in a river bottom timber area. 111. Nat. Hist. Survey Bull. 25(2): 33-65.

Youngnan, Arthur E. and Larry A. Uohl, 1972. Plants of the Verdigris Basin, fainsas and Oklahoma, Wichita State Studies of Verdigris River Basin. Unpublished manuscript. APPENDIX £

H Y D R ££ £ £ £ £ A £ £ £ £ R T £