THE PROPOSED FASTRILL RESERVOIR IN EAST TEXAS: A STUDY USING

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Michael Ray Wilson, B.S.

Thesis Prepared for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 2009

APPROVED:

Paul Hudak, Major Professor and Chair of the Department of Geography Samuel F. Atkinson, Minor Professor Pinliang Dong, Committee Member Michael Monticino, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies

Wilson, Michael Ray. The Proposed Fastrill Reservoir in East Texas: A Study Using Geographic Information Systems. Master of Science (Applied Geography), December 2009, 116 pp., 26 tables, 14 illustrations, references, 34 titles. Geographic information systems and remote sensing software were used to analyze data to determine the area and volume of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir, and to examine seven alternatives. The controversial reservoir site is in the same location as a nascent wildlife refuge. Six general land cover types impacted by the reservoir were also quantified using Landsat imagery. The study found that water consumption in Dallas is high, but if consumption rates are reduced to that of similar Texas cities, the reservoir is likely unnecessary. The reservoir and its alternatives were modeled in a GIS by selecting sites and intersecting horizontal water surfaces with terrain data to create a series of reservoir footprints and volumetric measurements. These were then compared with a classified satellite imagery to quantify land cover types. The reservoir impacted the most ecologically sensitive land cover type the most. Only one alternative site appeared slightly less environmentally damaging.

Copyright 2009

by

Michael Ray Wilson

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my thesis committee members, Dr. Paul Hudak, Dr. Samuel Atkinson, and Dr. Pinliang Dong, for their guidance on this project. I would also like to provide special thanks to my colleague Joaquin Torrans for his assistance conducting field research along the Neches River.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES...... v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vii

INTRODUCTION...... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW...... 3 Geographic Overview ...... 3 Need for the Fastrill Reservoir...... 7 Opposition to the Fastrill Reservoir...... 13 Environmental Concerns ...... 24 History ...... 30 Summary ...... 34

METHODOLOGY...... 35 Objectives...... 35 Data Collection and Preparation...... 37 Pool Elevations...... 47 Alternate Dam Sites...... 52

RESULTS...... 55

CONCLUSIONS...... 62

REFERENCES...... 112

iv LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Endangered species...... 64

2. Fastrill Reservoir partial water balances (mean annual values) ...... 67

3. Stills Creek alternate site reservoir metrics ...... 68

4. Tailes Creek alternate site reservoir metrics...... 69

5. Ioni Creek alternate site reservoir metrics ...... 70

6. Fastrill Dam site reservoir metrics ...... 71

7. Weches Dam site reservoir metrics ...... 72

8. San Pedro Creek alternate site reservoir metrics ...... 73

9. Box Creek alternate site reservoir metrics...... 74

10. Bowles Creek alternate site reservoir metrics...... 75

11. Stills Creek alternate site image classification metrics ...... 76

12. Tailes Creek alternate site image classification metrics ...... 77

13. Ioni Creek alternate site image classification metrics ...... 78

14. Fastrill Dam site image classification metrics ...... 80

15. Weches Dam site image classification metrics...... 82

16. San Pedro Creek alternate site image classification metrics ...... 84

17. Box Creek alternate site image classification metrics...... 86

18. Bowles Creek alternate site image classification metrics ...... 88

19. Stills Creek alternate site roadway metrics...... 90

20. Tailes Creek alternate site roadway metrics...... 91

21. Ioni Creek alternate site roadway metrics...... 92

v 22. Fastrill Dam site roadway metrics...... 93

23. Weches Dam site roadway metrics ...... 94

24. San Pedro Creek alternate site roadway metrics...... 95

25. Box Creek alternate site roadway metrics ...... 96

26. Bowles Creek alternate site roadway metrics...... 97

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Regional setting map...... 98

2. Texas counties greater than 250,000 population map...... 99

3. Water supply reservoirs map...... 100

4. Parks and forests map...... 101

5. Wildlife refuge boundaries map ...... 102

6. Dam locations map...... 103

7. Elevation map...... 104

8. Watersheds map ...... 105

9. Landsat image classification map...... 106

10. Weather stations map...... 107

11. Neches River daily mean discharge graph ...... 108

12. Neches River mean daily mean discharge graph ...... 109

13. Fastrill Reservoir map...... 110

14. Equivalent reservoir configurations map...... 111

vii INTRODUCTION

Fastrill Reservoir is a proposed reservoir located in east Texas along the upper portion of the Neches River downstream of Lake Palestine. The purpose of the reservoir is to provide a future source of drinking water and municipal use water for the rapidly growing population of the city of Dallas and its suburbs, located to the northwest. Current estimates predict the population of the City of Dallas will double by the year 2060, and will be approximately triple for the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. The portion of the Neches River where the proposed reservoir would be located is an area of riparian habitat characterized by mixed hardwood bottomland forests subject to periodic inundation, and is thus a wetland habitat. It is one of the few remaining natural habitats in a region where wild land has been continuously consumed for development for over a century. The area is considered critical to many species of animals, plants, fish, reptiles, insects, and birds, including several threatened or endangered species. Portions of the lower Neches River have already been protected through the creation of the Big Thicket National Preserve. The upper Neches River has been identified for several decades as in need of protection as well. Preserving the upper Neches River by turning it into a national wildlife refuge conflicts with plans to create a reservoir there. This has placed local, mostly rural residents interested in preserving their own legal rights and local resources alongside conservationists in fighting against the City of Dallas, the Texas Water Development Board, and those development firms that would actually construct the reservoir. The struggle over who gets to decide the ultimate fate of this region has reached the United States Federal Appeals Court, with an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Throughout the process of water supply and reservoir planning, and the planning of the national wildlife refuge, certain questions about the proposed reservoir have only been partially answered, or not answered at all. Where will the dam be located? What

1 is the footprint of the reservoir? What kinds of habitat will be affected, and how much of it? What other features may be affected? Is there an alternate configuration of the reservoir that may be less damaging to the environment? An analysis of geographic and remotely sensed data using a geographic information systems and remote sensing software can provide the data necessary to answer these questions. The goal of this research is to provide data on the footprint of the reservoir, quantification of habitat types in the area, identification of other features affected by the reservoir, and examination of alternate reservoir configurations.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Geographic Overview

The Neches River originates in the Sand Hills of northeast Texas. Its headwaters arise in central Van Zandt County near approximately 32° 30’ 00” north latitude 95° 44’ 30” west longitude, or approximately 1.5 km southwest of the community of Colfax (which is located at the intersection of FM-16 (secondary state highway) and County Road 4414). As this is the beginning of the Neches River watershed, the immediate area is one of the higher points of elevation in the region; nearby television broadcast towers located approximately 1 km away sit at an elevation of 197 m above sea level. The landscape in the region is characterized by rolling farmland with patches of forest and woodland along creek bottoms and hollows. The Neches River flows northeast and eastward only a few kilometers before reaching its first impoundment. Rhine Lake is a small reservoir, about 2 km long and less than 1 km wide, and is located immediately southwest of the town of Van on the south side of Interstate 20. It is privately owned by Chevron Corporation, who acquired the business that was the reservoir’s previous owner. It is currently used only for recreation, such as boating and fishing. In early January 2008, the earthen dam failed, resulting in the catastrophic release of its water into the Neches River and the subsequent draining of the reservoir. The dam was last inspected by state regulators in 1984. The dam failure is blamed on stress caused by a prolonged drought quickly followed by a one of the wettest years in the recent historical record (Castelo 2008). After leaving Rhine Lake, the Neches River flows southeastward through Van Zandt County, where it eventually marks the boundary between Van Zandt and Smith Counties. It turns southward as it leaves Van Zandt County and marks the boundary between Henderson and Smith Counties immediately west of Tyler. Already the river

3 has created a well developed bottomland with meanders situated in flat terrain between marked edges leading to rolling hills. Vegetation within the bottomland is primarily hardwood deciduous forests. Outside the bottomland, the amount of cleared farm land has decreased and the amount of mixed hardwood and coniferous forest and woodland has increased. Just after reaching Henderson County, the Neches River flows into Lake Palestine, its second and largest impoundment. As is typical with most rivers, the largest drop in elevation on the Neches River is found near the headwaters. The pool elevation of Lake Palestine is 105.1 m giving a drop in elevation of 47 percent during the first 15 percent of the river’s length. Lake Palestine has a surface area of approximately 103 km2 and a volume of 507,319,000 m3. The reservoir is owned, operated, and maintained by the Upper Neches River Water Management Authority for multiple uses, including municipal and industrial water supply, water conservation, flood control, recreation, and wildlife preservation. Lake Palestine is impounded by Blackburn Crossing Dam, located northeast of Frankston. It is an earthen dam, 1,743 m in length and constructed between 1960 and 1962, and enlarged between 1969 and 1972. The spillway elevation is 105.5 m above sea level, and the base of the dam is at 89.9 m above sea level, giving a maximum reservoir depth of 15.6 m. The mean reservoir depth is 4.90 m (Breeding 2008).

The submerged channel of the Neches River through Lake Palestine marks the boundary between Henderson and Smith Counties and continues as a portion of the boundary between Anderson and Cherokee Counties. Continuing past Blackburn Crossing Dam, the Neches River flows southward and marks the boundary between Anderson and Cherokee Counties. It is in this stretch of river that the proposed Fastrill Lake would be located. The river bottom continues to widen, with some terraces evident and bounded by bluffs, particularly to the east. The upland areas on either side of the river bottom are a mixture of cleared farmland pastures, and forested areas of

4 either mixed forest or reforested pine plantations. The bottomland is predominately hardwood forest that is frequently flooded. Small areas of swamp forest can be found. At the proposed Fastrill Dam site, the river’s elevation has dropped to 67.0 m. At this point, the river has traveled 33 percent of its total length and decreased 66 percent of its total elevation. Throughout this region, the bedrock geology is marked by the Queen City sand. A series of faults parallel to the rock strata and the Gulf of Mexico coastline create a graben between Jacksonville and Grapeland that cuts perpendicularly across the river valley. Just past the Fastrill Dam site the river marks the boundary between Cherokee and Houston Counties. Near this location is the site of the now-defunct Weches Dam, which is the probable predecessor to the Fastrill Dam. Along the right descending bank of the Neches River is the Davy Crockett National Forest. The river makes a short bend to the east before turning south again. At the top of the left bluff in this area is the Mission Tejas State Historical Park, and nearby on the opposite side of the river is the Caddoan Mounds State Historical Park. Both parks were established for archaeological reasons as they respectively showcase and protect early European and relatively recent Native American settlement in the region. The Neches River begins to gradually flow more southeasterly, and marks the boundaries of Cherokee, Houston, Angelina, and Trinity Counties. Passing out of the

Davy Crockett National Forest, the Neches River encounters the Kisatchie Wold southwest of Lufkin and is diverted to the east. This cuesta is formed by the Catahoula Formation which is primarily sandstone and mudstone from the middle Tertiary Period. It extends from near Huntsville to near Alexandria, Louisiana, and as a geologic control is responsible for diverting many other streams eastward, including the Trinity and Red Rivers. These rivers flow for relatively short distances in the strike valley behind the cuesta, formed by the weaker sandstones and shales of the Jackson Group before cutting through the cuesta and turning again toward the coast. At the land surface, this

5 series of cuestas formed by the Catahoula Formation approximately parallels the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, at a distance of approximately 150 km to 200 km (Bureau of Economic Geology 1992; Raisz 1957). As the Neches River flows eastward through this strike valley, its flood plain widens significantly, reaching widths of up to 10 km, and enclosed by the sandstone bluffs to the north and the Kisatchie Wold to the south. The bottomland flood forest continues in this valley and eventually begins to transition out of the Piney Woods biome and into the Big Thicket biome. The flood plain in this valley is wide and flat, characterized by small lakes, swamps, oxbows, and significant meanders. These meanders become torturous south of Diboll, and the main channel of the river becomes difficult to discern as the Neches River breaks into many braided sloughs. Cutting through the Kisatchie Wold, the Neches River turns south and within a short distance discharges into B. A. Steinhagen Lake, which is the last impoundment of the Neches River before it reaches the ocean. Town Bluff Dam impounds B. A. Steinhagen Lake and is a project of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Normal pool elevation of B. A. Steinhagen Lake is between 24.69 m and 25.30 m above sea level. At the north end of the reservoir is the confluence of the Angelina River. The two rivers and the reservoir form a delta-like environment, with the reservoir submerging abandoned river channels, and connecting sloughs and oxbows together in a complex

pattern. Just north of B. A. Steinhagen Lake, on the Angelina River, is Sam Rayburn Reservoir, the largest reservoir wholly within Texas. Discharging from Town Bluff Dam, the Neches River continues southward through the Big Thicket National Preserve. This preserve was one of the two first National Preserves created by Congress in 1974. Although the area is generally flat and featureless, and lacking in any sites of geographic note, it is important in that it has some of the highest biodiversity of any environment in North America. The National Park Service lists more than 5,000 flowering plants and ferns, twenty species of orchids,

6 four species of carnivorous plants, more than 300 species of migratory and nesting birds (many of which are threatened or endangered), as well as numerous reptile species from snakes and lizards to alligators (National Park Service 2009). Exiting the Big Thicket National Preserve, the Neches River has widened significantly, has larger meanders, and otherwise has the appearance of a large, mature river. Here it reaches the city of Beaumont, where it skirts the east side of the city and begins the only portion of its length through an urban area. This portion of the lower river takes on an industrial character, with port facilities and oil refineries along its banks between Beaumont and Port Arthur. A navigable channel has been constructed linking Beaumont with deeper waters connecting to the Gulf of Mexico, and portions of the Neches River have been straightened. Northeast of Port Arthur, at Humble Island, the Neches River comes to an end where it discharges into Sabine Lake. Sabine Lake itself is a saltwater estuary surrounded by marshes and connected to the Gulf of Mexico by Sabine Pass. The Neches River does not have a high sediment load here and so does not form a delta. In fact land along the southeast Texas coast and into Louisiana is known to be experiencing subsidence, so delta formation is not likely here (see figure 1).

Need for the Fastrill Reservoir

Population in the Dallas region has grown steadily since the mid-nineteenth century. The city of Dallas was founded in 1841, but remained insignificant until after the Civil War. The 1860 census records a population of only 678 people. The arrival of the railroads after the Civil War, and other events of good fortune in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, encouraged Dallas’s growth into a major American city (McElhaney and Hazel 2006).

7 During the twentieth century, the population of the city of Dallas grew on average 28 percent between each decennial census. From 1910 to 1920 the city increased in population by only 6 percent, while from 1920 to 1930 the city grew by 64 percent. Since 1980, the population growth rate has remained between 10 percent and 20 percent per decade. By 2007 the city population is estimated at 1,240,499 people, making it the ninth-largest city in the United States (United States Census Bureau 2009a). The population for the surrounding metropolitan area has grown just as dramatically. In the mid-twentieth century, urban sprawl connected Dallas and its suburbs with nearby Fort Worth and its suburbs, and continued into neighboring counties. By 2008, the twelve counties of the Dallas-Fort Worth Consolidated Metropolitan Area (defined by the United States Census Bureau as Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties) had a combined estimated population of 6,365,429, making it the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the United States, with an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent (United States Census Bureau 2009b). The definition of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area changes from time to time as the urban area and its economic area grow. For this reason, a standardized area of nine counties constituting the main core of the metropolitan area was selected

for the purpose of statistical comparison in this study. These counties are Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties. In 2008 these counties had a total estimated population of 6,153,237, or 96.7 percent of the population of the officially defined metropolitan area (United States Census Bureau 2009b). Additionally, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area is the largest landlocked metropolitan area in the United States, lacking no navigable waterways to the ocean. The New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas are situated directly on the Atlantic

8 and Pacific Oceans respectively, while the Chicago metropolitan area is connected to the Atlantic Ocean via the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The Dallas- Fort Worth region is located along the Trinity River, which flows southeastward to the Gulf of Mexico near Houston. However, the relatively low flow, size, and depth of the Trinity River make it unsuitable for navigation. The metropolitan region is located in the transition between the humid climate of the southeastern United States and the dry climate of the Great Plains. That the Trinity River flows year round yet has insufficient flow for navigation is indicative of this transitional climate, a zone between natural water deficits to the west and natural water surpluses to the east. Thus, water supply is an increasing issue for a growing city in a climate where most of the available water is already being used by plants, animals, and humans. Over the next five decades, the population of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area is forecast to continue growing at a steady rate. Population estimates made by the Texas Water Development Board for the city of Dallas proper reach 1,956,134 people by year 2060. For the nine-county metropolitan region, the population estimates reach 12,558,467 people (Texas Water Development Board 2006a). Dallas Water Utilities serves not only residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the city of Dallas proper, it also serves customers in twenty-seven additional suburban communities throughout Dallas County and into neighboring Collin,

Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, and Tarrant Counties. Although it is the city of Dallas that seeks to build Fastrill Reservoir, for this reason it is necessary to examine Dallas water demands on a metropolitan scale rather than at the specific scale of the city of Dallas. For the year 2000, the annual total water demand in the metropolitan region was

1,578,231,166 m3. Annual water demand is forecast to increase between 11 percent and 28 percent per decade through 2060. By 2060 annual water demand is forecast to increase by approximately 2.4 times the year 2000 level to 3,803,667,699 m3. This

9 demand growth closely parallels the forecast population growth, which is forecast to increase by 2.5 times the year 2000 population (Texas Water Development Board 2006b). New water supply sources must be found if the increased demand in water consumption is to be met. The Long Range Water Supply Plan for Dallas, Texas (City of Dallas 2005b) identifies six potential sources of additional water supply: (1) conservation, where water is made available or shared through reduced consumption; (2) indirect recycling, where wastewater treatment plant effluent is discharged back into reservoirs to augment their quantity; (3) direct recycling, where wastewater treatment plant effluent is used directly by agriculture and industry where non-potable use is appropriate; (4) groundwater; the extraction of water from the water table or from aquifers; (5) existing reservoirs, where unused or underused water rights are obtained from other municipalities and entities; and (6) new reservoirs; the construction of reservoirs where none exist today. Water conservation is already a part of the water supply plan, and calls for a 1 percent reduction per year in consumption, with a total 15 percent reduction in fifteen

years. In five years, this amounts to a total of 18,927,059 m3 per year. The plan does not provide amounts beyond this time frame. Implementation of water conservation is usually voluntary, but can also be mandated by regulation, usually during abnormally

dry conditions. The plan acknowledges that only behavioral changes and long-term curtailment of irrigation (usually for residential lawns and commercial landscaping) will be effective. However, the plan suggests regulatory actions to increase conservation should voluntary conservation efforts fail, including mandatory water restrictions, significant rate increases for the largest user categories, regulation of landscaping, and regulating water fixtures in buildings (City of Dallas, 2005a). Indirect recycling, also known as reservoir augmentation, is identified as being a dependable source of water as well as being relatively inexpensive when compared to

10 other supply alternatives. This method is also already being employed in the Dallas- Fort Worth metropolitan area. The amount of water produced through indirect recycling is variable and depends on the amount of water returned to the wastewater plant for treatment, the amount of water required to be discharged into streams for downstream users or environmental purposes, and by natural limitations in the receiving reservoir, which are unique to each reservoir. For these reasons, long-term quantities of water produced through indirect recycling are not included in the water supply plan. Potential negative impacts of this method of water production include: impacts to lake health such as eutrophication, increased salinity, and reduced quality of aquatic life; human health issues, including bacteria, viruses, and dissolved chemicals and pharmaceuticals not removed by the treatment process; water rights issues, which are not clearly defined in Texas law for this type of water; and public perception about taste, odor, and clarity (City of Dallas 2005b). Direct recycling of water is a limited option in the Long Range Water Supply Plan for Dallas, Texas. Wastewater effluent used for direct recycling can be divided into two categories based on the level of treatment: restricted human contact and unrestricted human contact. Currently, treatment standards exceed those levels for restricted human contact, but do not meet or exceed those for unrestricted human contact. Uses requiring unrestricted human contact are therefore not considered in the plan. The use of direct recycling reduces demand on potable water, especially for highly consumptive uses such as industry and landscape irrigation. It also reduces demand on the distribution system and on water treatment plants. However, since water used for direct recycling is of different quality than potable water, it requires a separate distribution system, which could be costly to build and maintain. The plan states that direct recycling poses the conundrum in which the recycled water needs to be priced lower than standard water to attract customers, while the cost of its infrastructure would require rates higher than for standard water (City of Dallas 2005b).

11 Groundwater as a water supply source appears to receive less consideration in the plan than other supply sources given that it already exists practically everywhere. Groundwater has many perceived benefits: reservoirs are not needed; surface rights, ownership, and uses are rarely affected; environmental and economic impacts are minimal; permits are not required as groundwater is not regulated by Texas law; water is usually of good quality and is available quickly. However, the plan points out that the projected increases in water demand could result in high withdrawal rates. This has the effect of creating a finite supply of water in the ground if withdrawal rates exceed recharge rates for more than a short duration. It also notes that wells can be expensive to drill and pumps expensive to operate. Finally, obtaining water from large but distance aquifers, such as the Ogalalla Aquifer in west Texas, by pipeline is too expensive (City of Dallas 2005b). However, Dallas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens, founder and CEO of Mesa Water Company disputes the price argument against using groundwater. He cites Texas water law which does not regulate groundwater like it does surface water, which eliminates expensive permitting and regulations. Additionally, a private venture selling water to the municipal water utilities is responsible for the infrastructure development (wells, pumps, pipelines, etc.) and not the utility, a further savings to customers. Additionally, water from sources such as the Ogalalla Aquifer in northwest Texas can be

available in as little as five years in quantities close to 500,000,000 m3 per year (Davis 2006). This is a much faster delivery of water than any reservoir proposal in the plan. The utilization of existing reservoirs is another potential water supply source. This includes maximizing the use of available supply, and obtaining unused or underused supply from other entities. Using supply from existing reservoirs does not produce new costs to the water utility other than connecting these reservoirs to the infrastructure. Because these reservoirs already exist, environmental, economic, and social concerns have already been addressed. However, the acquisition of water rights

12 is viewed as a significant limitation to this supply alternative. Water contracts are likely to have stipulations, be temporary in nature, or may not be available at all. As water demand increases throughout Texas, this latter possibility may become more likely as municipalities and entities choose to keep water for their own use. Additionally, using water for consumptive supply may be incompatible with the many reservoirs constructed for flood control or for recreation (City of Dallas 2005b). Creating new reservoirs is an attractive water supply alternative to the City of Dallas. By constructing new reservoirs, the city has permanent water rights and operational control of the reservoir; can expect a stable yield over the long term and can plan accordingly; and over the life of the reservoir is less costly than negotiating contracts for the use of existing reservoirs. However, planning and constructing reservoirs requires a significant capital expense at the beginning of the life of a reservoir, as well as the cost of land acquisition. It is subject to regulatory control and approval and requires permits at the local, state, and federal levels. Water rights, economic, and social impacts must be addressed. Finally, the reservoir impounded behind the dam displaces both people and the environment. These last two can often present the greatest challenge to the development of a reservoir, and is the case with the proposed Fastrill Reservoir (City of Dallas 2005b).

Opposition to the Fastrill Reservoir

Despite these calls by the City of Dallas and regional water planning groups for new reservoir development to meet projected demand, there are people who object specifically to the development of a new reservoir at the Fastrill site along the northern portions of the Neches River, or to any new reservoir in general. These objections are varied, ranging from the high cost of reservoir development, which ultimately is passed on to the consumer, to the environmental cost of this development in an area with little

13 natural habitat remaining, and to politics and political favors. Ultimately these arguments center around the conservation of existing water resources through reduced consumption and the maximizing of efficient uses of existing reservoirs. These opponents argue that by conserving water and reducing its consumption projected water needs can be met using existing supplies without new impoundments. Central to their position are arguments about high water waste in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, comparisons to similar Texas cities who have succeeded in reducing consumption and waste and who are not planning to construct new reservoirs, and, especially for Fastrill Reservoir, the destruction of critical wildlife habitat should new reservoirs be constructed. A statistic demonstrating water overconsumption and inefficiency that is often heard in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area is that during the summer months, when water demand is highest, approximately 60 percent of a typical residential household’s water consumption is not used for drinking, cooking, cleaning, or bathing, but is instead used for watering the lawn and other landscaping. Of this water, approximately half is wasted through evaporation and overwatering such that the excess flows down the street and into storm drains (Davis 2006). To show the relative effects of overconsumption and lack of water efficiency measures, a recent history of water consumption was constructed using data available

from the Texas Water Development Board. Per capita per day water consumption values were calculated from this data. Water consumption rates and trends for Texas counties with populations greater than 250,000 at the 2000 Census were compared for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. Although the Texas Water Development Board has consumption data for most years back to 1974, the years 1980, 1990, and 2000 were chosen because these were years in which the federal census was conducted and reliable population counts are readily available. The year 2004 was also chosen because it is the most recent year for

14 which the Texas Water Development Board has consumption data available, and population estimates from the United States Census Bureau are still readily available. Population counts or estimates were necessary to compute the per capita per day water consumption rates (see figure 2; Texas Water Development Board 2007; United States Census Bureau 1980; United States Census Bureau 2004). At the 2000 Census, there were fifteen Texas counties with population greater than 250,000. These counties are Bexar, Cameron, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Hidalgo, Jefferson, Montgomery, Nueces, Tarrant, and Travis. Of these counties, the four counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties are within the study area. When all uses of water tracked by the Texas Water Development Board (municipal use, manufacturing, electric generation, irrigation, mining, and livestock) are examined, two noticeable trends are apparent. First, these counties fall into two general groups: counties with large agricultural or industrial bases and very high rates of water consumption; and mostly urbanized counties with lower rates of water consumption. Second, is the overall decline in daily per capita consumption over time. In 1980, counties with large amounts of agriculture and industry (Cameron, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hidalgo, and Jefferson Counties) all had daily per capita water consumption rates over 2,100 L, ranging as high as 9,706 L per capita per day in

Hidalgo County. The statewide per capita per day water consumption value was largely in the center of this range. Generally, more than 60 percent of water consumption in these counties is used for irrigation and manufacturing. When all counties were ranked for each year, with rank 1 for the county with the highest water consumption and rank 15 for the county with the lowest water consumption, these six counties had the six highest mean ranks (all mean ranks less than 7). By contrast, the remaining more-urbanized counties all had daily per capita water consumption rates between 650 L and 1,250 L per capita per day. These values were

15 largely one-half to one-third the statewide per capita per day water consumption value. Generally, more than 60 percent of water consumption in these counties is for municipal use. These nine counties had the nine lowest mean ranks (all mean ranks greater than 7). Throughout the study period, the more-urbanized counties had a relatively stable water consumption range between 516 L and 1,347 L per capita per day. By contrast, the counties with large amounts of agriculture and industry generally reduced consumption from a range between 2,166 L and 9,706 L per capita per day in 1980 to a range between 1,129 L and 3,902 L per capita per day in 2000. However, a large increase in water consumption between 2000 and 2004 in Jefferson County increased the upper end of this range to 4,698 L per capita per day in 2004. Each county with a large amount of agriculture or industry showed a marked decline in water consumption from year to year, with the exception of Jefferson and Galveston Counties between the years 2000 and 2004. For the counties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, these reductions were quite steep. Between 1980 and 2004, Hidalgo County demonstrated an overall water consumption decrease of 78.4 percent, and for Cameron County this decrease was 77.9 percent. For Fort Bend County this decrease was 69.3 percent, and for El Paso County this decrease was 32.8 percent. For Jefferson County this decrease was 48.3 percent between 1980 and 2000 but was

37.8 percent between 1980 and 2004. For Galveston County this decrease was 52.4 percent between 1980 and 2000, but was 52.2 percent between 1980 and 2004. By contrast, the more-urbanized counties also demonstrated overall declines, although these were small, as consumption increased for some counties between years. Collin, Dallas, and Nueces Counties demonstrated consumption increases between 1980 and 1990. Collin, Denton, Montgomery, and Travis Counties demonstrate consumption increases between 1990 and 2000, although the increases for Montgomery and Travis counties were small at 16 L and 5 L per capita per day

16 respectively. Except for Nueces County between 1980 and 1990, and for the two very small increases in Montgomery and Travis Counties between 1990 and 2000, all counties that demonstrated water consumption increases are in the study area. Overall declines in water consumption were not as dramatic as for the counties with large amounts of agriculture and industry. Between 1980 and 2004, the per capita per day water consumption decrease for Bexar County was 37.1 percent. For Tarrant County, this decrease was 32.3 percent, for Travis County this decrease was 26.5 percent, and for Montgomery County this decrease was 26.0 percent. For the remaining counties, water consumption reduction was small, less than 20 percent. For Nueces County this decrease was 17.7 percent. For Dallas County this decrease was 14.9 percent, for Denton County this decrease was 4.4 percent, and for Collin County, which demonstrated consumption increases between 1980 and 2000, this overall consumption reduction was only 0.5 percent. Three of these last four counties are in the study area. These data suggest that economic sectors like agriculture and industry can achieve large decreases in water consumption, whereas municipal users of water have not demonstrated decreases in water consumption of similar magnitude. Additionally, proponents of using water conservation measures to meet water needs rather then build new reservoirs point out that the largest areas of water waste (such as landscape irrigation) are in the municipal use category. Examination of municipal water uses only presents a different pattern for these same counties over the same time period. Between 1980 and 2004, only Bexar, El Paso, and Travis Counties demonstrated a continuous decrease in water consumption from year to year. All other counties had at least one time period of increased consumption. Between 1980 and 1990, Cameron, Collin, Dallas, Hidalgo, Montgomery, and Nueces Counties demonstrated water consumption increases. During this time period,

17 the most dramatic increase in water consumption was in Dallas County where the per capita per day consumption increased 160 percent. From 1990 to 2000, Cameron, Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Harris, Jefferson, Montgomery, and Tarrant Counties demonstrated water consumption increases. Of the counties that demonstrated water consumption decreases, Dallas County demonstrated the most dramatic decrease. Per capita per day consumption decreased by 40.6 percent, effectively negating the increase from 1980 to 1990. The net result was that water consumption from 1980 to 2000 decreased by 5 percent. Between 2000 and 2004, only Galveston County demonstrated a water consumption increase. Municipal water consumption in Galveston County increased by 135 percent during this period. Municipal water consumption in Jefferson County remained essentially unchanged between 2000 and 2004; this change amounting to an increase of less than 0.1 L per capita per day. For the entire time period, the largest decrease in water consumption was demonstrated by Bexar County, with a decrease of 32.1 percent. For Nueces County this decrease was 29.9 percent, for Travis County this decrease was 26.0 percent, and for Hidalgo County this decrease was 21.6 percent. Other counties with smaller declines less than 20 percent were Tarrant County at 18.8 percent, Harris County at 18.1 percent, Cameron County at 18.0 percent, El Paso at 12.4 percent, Fort Bend County at 11.9 percent, and Dallas County at 9.1 percent. However, several counties demonstrated water consumption increases over the entire time period. The largest increase was demonstrated by Jefferson County, with an increase of 24.9 percent. Most of this increase was between 1990 and 2000. Galveston County demonstrated a water consumption increase of 13.1 percent, although all of this is attributed entirely to the period from 2000 to 2004. From 1980 to 2000, Galveston County actually demonstrated a net water consumption decrease of 16.0 percent. Collin County demonstrated a net water consumption increase of 9.7 percent, even after a sharp decrease between 2000 and 2004. Finally, Montgomery County demonstrated a water

18 consumption increase of 2.8 percent and Denton County demonstrated a water consumption increase of 1.7 percent. Each county was ranked for each year, with rank 1 for the county with the highest municipal water consumption and rank 15 for the county with the lowest municipal water consumption. Dallas County had the lowest mean rank of 1.5, and Collin County was next with a mean rank of 3.5. Of the four years, Dallas County had the highest per capita per day municipal water consumption for each year except 2000. In 2000, Dallas County was ranked 2, outranked by neighboring Collin County , which was rank 2 in 2004. Tarrant County had a mean rank of 6 and Denton County had a mean rank of 8.25, placing these four counties in the study area in the top 8 counties by mean rank. In 1980, Bexar County and Dallas County had nearly the same municipal water consumption rate of around 570 L per capita per day. Since that time, the water consumption rate in Bexar County decreased at a steady rate, with an average of 10 L per capita per day for each year between 1980 and 2004. Dallas County, however, increased its water consumption rate by an additional 60 percent between 1980 and 1990 followed by a decrease of 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, providing a net decrease of only 2 L per capita per day for each year between 1980 and 2000. Since 2000, the annual decrease has risen to just under 8 L per capita per year. The decrease in water consumption in Bexar County is attributed to water efficiency

measures over the past two decades (Hess, Kelly, and Kramer 2005). Had the four counties in the study area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant) reduced their municipal water consumption rates by 2004 to equal that of Bexar County in that same year (514.15 L per capita per day), the amount of water saved that year

would have been 266,502,965 m3. This is approximately 1.5 times the estimated yield of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir as published in the Region C Initially Prepared Plan (Regional Water Planning Group 2005).

19 Dallas Water Utilities currently obtains water directly from the Trinity River plus six reservoirs. It has usage rights to another reservoir not currently connected to its distribution system. Four of these reservoirs are within the study area. These reservoirs are Grapevine Lake, Lake Ray Hubbard, Lewisville Lake, and Ray Roberts Lake. Of these, Lake Ray Hubbard is within the city limits of Dallas, having been annexed into Dallas through a gerrymander-like proruption extending into suburbs northeast of the city center. Grapevine Lake and Lewisville Lake do not intersect the Dallas city limits, but are nearly surrounded by the extended suburbs of the metropolitan area. Ray Roberts Lake is located just outside the edge of the urban area and retains a rural landscape. The remaining three reservoirs are located east of Dallas in adjacent and nearby counties. These reservoirs are Lake Fork, Lake Palestine, and Lake Tawakoni. All are in rural areas. Currently, Lake Fork and Lake Tawakoni are connected to and is being used by Dallas Water Utilities to provide water to its customers. Lake Palestine is not currently in use as it is not yet connected to the Dallas Water Utilities system, although the City of Dallas has usage rights to a portion of this reservoir (see figure 3; City of Dallas 2005b; City of Dallas 2007). Grapevine Lake is a reservoir located in northeast Tarrant County and southwest Denton County, with the dam located 32 km northwest of the Dallas city center. Its construction was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-14).

Construction of Grapevine Dam on Denton Creek began in January 1948 and was completed in June 1952. Impoundment began the following month. At the conservation

pool elevation of 163.07 m, the reservoir has a capacity of 223,383,561 m3. Of this amount, 166,520,048 m3 is allocated to the Dallas water service area. The City of Grapevine is allocated 63,215,944 m3. Water yield for the Dallas water service area is 65,601 m3 per day (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1982). Lewisville Lake is a reservoir located in southeastern Denton County, with the dam located 36 km northwest of the Dallas city center. Its construction was authorized

20 by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945 as an enlargement of the existing Garza Reservoir. Construction of Lewisville Dam on the Elm Fork Trinity River began in November 1948 and was completed in August 1955. Impoundment began in November 1954. At the conservation pool elevation of 159.11 m, the reservoir has a capacity of

790,644,589 m3. Of this amount, 677,181,529 m3 is allocated to customers in the Dallas water service area. The City of Denton is allocated 82,899,979 m3 of water (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1982). Ray Roberts Lake is a reservoir located in northern Denton County, southern Cooke County, and southwestern Grayson County, with the dam located 70 km northwest of the Dallas city center. Its construction was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298). Construction of Ray Roberts Dam on the Elm Fork Trinity River began in May 1982 and was completed in June 1987. Impoundment began the day of completion. At the conservation pool elevation of 192.79 m, the reservoir has a capacity of 991,472,901 m3. Of this amount, 729,851,204 m3 is allocated to the Dallas water service area. The City of Denton is allocated 256,440,874 m3 of water (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1982). Lewisville Lake and Ray Roberts Lake are operated as a combined system. Water yield from this combined system for the Dallas water service area is 659,169 m3 per day.

Lake Ray Hubbard is located in northeast Dallas County, northwest Kaufman County, western Rockwall County, and southeast Collin County, with the dam located 26 km east of the Dallas city center. The City of Dallas initiated and paid for the construction of the reservoir. Construction of Rockwall-Forney Dam began in 1964 and was completed in 1969. Impoundment of the East Fork Trinity River began in 1968. At the conservation pool elevation of 124.82 m, the reservoir has a capacity of 604,406,100 m3. As the entire reservoir is within the Dallas city limits and is owned by the City of Dallas, it has use of the entire contents of the reservoir. Water yield for the

21 Dallas water service area is 200,941 m3 per day. (Texas Water Development Board 2002; McElhaney and Hazel 2006). Lake Tawakoni is located in northern Van Zandt County, western Rains County, and southeast Hunt County, with the dam located 85 km east of the Dallas city center. The reservoir is owned and operated by the Sabine River Authority, which was established by the Texas legislature in 1949. Construction of Iron Bridge Dam began in January 1958 and was completed in December 1960. Impoundment of the Sabine River then began. At the conservation pool elevation of 133.35 m the reservoir has a capacity of 1,905,500,859 m3. Of this amount, 224,246,998m3 is allocated to customers in the Dallas water service area. Water yield for the Dallas water service area is 613,967 m3 per day (McElhaney and Hazel 2006; Sabine River Authority 2009). Lake Fork Reservoir is located on Lake Fork Creek in northwest Wood County, northeast Rains County, and southern Hopkins County, with the dam located 122 km east of the Dallas city center. The reservoir is owned and operated by the Sabine River Authority. Construction of Lake Fork Dam began in Fall 1975 and was completed in February 1980. Impoundment of Lake Fork Creek began at that time. At the conservation pool elevation of 122.83 m, the reservoir has a capacity of 833,587,026m3. Of this amount, 148,017,821 m3 is allocated to customers in the Dallas water service area. Water yield for the Dallas water service area is 403,888 m3 per day (McElhaney and Hazel 2006; Sabine River Authority 2009). Lake Palestine is located in northeast Anderson County, northwest Cherokee County, southeast Henderson County, and southwest Smith County, with the dam located 167 km southeast of the Dallas city center. The reservoir is owned and operated by the Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority which was established by the Texas legislature in 1949. Construction of Blackburn Crossing Dam began in 1960 and was completed in June 1962. Impoundment of the Neches River then began. The dam and reservoir were enlarged in a project that began in 1969 and was

22 completed in March 1972. At the conservation pool elevation of 105.16 m, the reservoir has a capacity of 507,318,745 m3. Dallas has the option to purchase water from Lake Palestine as needed. The reservoir is not currently connected to the Dallas Water Utilities system, although it is expected to be connected to the system in the year 2015 (McElhaney and Hazel 2006). In addition to water obtained from reservoirs, Dallas Water Utilities also obtains surface water from the Elm Fork Trinity River. Water yield from the river to the Dallas water service area is 37,824 m3 per day (Texas Water Development Board 2002). The total water yield to the Dallas water service area from these sources is 2,361,996 m3 per day. Although the Dallas water service area is not identical to Dallas County, the two are mostly coextensive. For the following comparative example, the assumption is made that the two are similar enough to be considered the same. In 2004, Dallas County had a municipal water consumption of 708.38 L per capita per day. Municipal uses accounted for 91.29 percent of all consumption. That same year, Bexar County had a municipal water consumption of 514.15 L per capita per day. Municipal uses accounted for 79.1 percent of all consumption. In 2004, total water consumption in Dallas County was 1,777,501.3 m3 per day. With current yield from the above sources, and at the rate of total consumption in 2004, there is enough water to sustain 3,043,900 residents. However, if Dallas County were to lower municipal consumption to the same

rate as Bexar County through conservation measures, total water consumption would decrease to 1,332,588.9 m3 (a decrease of 25 percent). With current yield from the above sources unchanged but at the lower rate of municipal consumption, there is enough water to sustain 4,060,200 residents (an increase of 1,016,300 people, or 33 percent more people than without conservation). Through conservation measures alone, the population of Dallas County could increase by 77 percent over 2004 levels without new water supplies. Population of Dallas County is not forecast to exceed four million residents until sometime about 2060. These numbers do not include currently

23 unconnected Lake Palestine, or water savings possible through conservation measures in other use areas such as manufacturing, irrigation, electric generation, mining, and agriculture. Many opponents of Fastrill Reservoir also point out the political relationships between proposed reservoirs, engineering firms who design them, and the members of the regional and state water development boards who recommend and approve them. To some people, these relationships demonstrate conflicts of interest, if not outright political bias, that makes the water planning process inherently unfair. For example, as Rod Davis in his article in D Magazine points out, Marvin Nichols Reservoir (another proposed reservoir on the same list as Fastrill Reservoir) is named for one of the founders of the Fort Worth-based engineering firm Freese and Nichols, which is also an official consultant to the Region C Water Planning Group. This firm has not only recommended construction of that reservoir, but is also the candidate most certain to receive the design contract. The current estimated price of Marvin Nichols Reservoir is $2.1 billion and growing. Noting this potential bias toward recommending the construction of the reservoir, the Region D Water Planning Group (where Marvin Nichols Reservoir would be located) hired its own consultants to do their own study, and produced results contrary to those of Freese and Nichols (Davis 2006). This type of situation may cast doubt upon some of the forecasts issued by planning groups, further

confusing the issue as to whether new reservoirs are needed for water supply or if they are wanted for other reasons.

Environmental Concerns

The Neches River between Lake Palestine and B. A. Steinhagen Lake is the longest stretch of uncontrolled river in east Texas at approximately 384 km in length. Consequently, the river and the river bottomland form the longest stretch of continuous

24 wildlife corridor in east Texas, broken only by ten highway crossings (Diamond 2007). Wildlife corridors within and between ecosystems largely modified by humans provide many benefits to the organisms in the natural world. All organisms in an ecosystem benefit from these corridors, including land animals, reptiles, birds, fish, mollusks, insects, and plants. Corridors provide pathways for geographic movement for animals, particularly migratory animals, that minimize interactions with humans and the hazards such interactions present. They provide territorial zones for organisms that are not fractured by human activity, which fosters the well-being of those organisms. And wildlife corridors also provide means for organisms to adapt to their environment. In east Texas, the Neches River corridor provides a north-south link from northeast Texas to southeast Texas, from the gently rolling hills of the interior to the coastal plain, and between the piney woods and the nearby prairies and the Big Thicket biomes. No other route in the region allows organisms as great and relatively safe geographic pathway as the Neches River, nor do any wildlife corridors have as large a range of latitude. Within the five counties of the study area, there are twenty-one endangered or threatened species of birds, fish, insects, mammals, mollusks, plants, and reptiles listed by the state of Texas, the federal government, or both. These species are found either living in this five county area or are known to migrate through it. Of these twenty-one species, at least nine of them are wetland dependent. Additionally, there are thirty-one species that are relatively rare and could become endangered or threatened if their populations were to become diminished (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). Six species of birds are listed as threatened, and three are listed as endangered. The endangered species of birds includes the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) which prefers to nest on sand and gravel bars in rivers, the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) which nests in old growth pine forest, and the whooping crane (Grus americana) which is a potential migrant through the area. Threatened species include the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and arctic peregrine falcon

25 (Falco peregrinus tundrius) which are potential migrants through the area, Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) which prefers open pine forest, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which prefers rivers, lakes and tall trees, the white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) which prefers freshwater marshes, and the wood stork (Mycteria americana) which prefers flooded areas and standing water. Additionally, the rare Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) winters here (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). Among fish, two species are listed as threatened. Both the creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) and the paddlefish (Polydon spathula) are resident in the Neches River and its tributaries. Both of these prefer swifter flowing waters in rivers, though the Paddlefish is sometimes known to visit reservoirs. An additional four rare species live in the Neches River and nearby watersheds, including the american eel (Anguilla rostrata), ironcolor shiner (Notropis chaybaeus), orangebelly darter (Etheostoma radiosum), and western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). No insects are listed as threatened or endangered in the study area, but insects appear to be the least studied of organism type in this area. Five species are considered rare and are included on lists with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, including two species of caddisfly (Phylocentropus harrisi and Hydroptila ouachita), Holzenthal’s philopotamid caddisfly (Chimarra holzenthalii), Morse’s net-spinning caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche morsei), and the Teas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita). Each species of caddisfly lives in flowing waters, and the Texas emerald dragonfly prefers bogs and forested streams (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). Among mammals, there are three species listed as endangered and one species listed as threatened. The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), which may be transient in the area, is listed as threatened. The black bear (Ursus americanus) is also listed as threatened because of its similarity in appearance and behavior to the

26 Louisiana black bear. Both bear species prefer bottomland hardwood forests and large inaccessible forests, a habitat found along the Neches River. The Rafinesque’s big- eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) is another threatened species that prefers bottomland hardwood forest. Additionally, the red wolf (Canis rufus) is listed as endangered and is locally extinct in Texas. Rare species include the southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius) which prefers bottomland hardwood forest and the plains spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta) which lives in all environments (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). Like insects, no species of mollusks are listed as threatened or endangered, but there are twelve rare species in the five county area. Species known to live specifically in the Neches River include fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis), Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana), Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus), and the wartyback (Quadrula nodulata). Five more species are known throughout the river systems of east Texas, including little spectaclecase (Villosa lienosa), pistolgrip (Tritogonia verrucosa), rock-pocketbook (Arcidens confragosus), Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), and wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia flava). The creeper, also known as the squawfoot, (Strophitus undulatus) is known historically in the Neches River, but may no longer be found there. Mollusks are filter feeders and are sensitive to changes in

water quality. Increased sedimentation and turbidity and reduced water levels from dam construction could be a potential threat to rare mollusks in the Neches River and could potentially lead to them as being listed as threatened or endangered (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). There is only one species of plant that is listed as threatened. The flowering plant tinytim (Geocarpon minimum) prefers glades and open areas with soils high in magnesium and sodium. However, the Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) is a candidate for being listed as threatened at the federal level. It is an endemic

27 species of very limited geographic distribution that prefers wet soils in swamps and riparian woodlands. Other rare plant species of concern include Chapman’s yellow- eyed grass (Xyris chapmanii) which prefers boggy areas, rough-stem aster (Symphyotrichum paniceum var. scabricaule), an endemic plant that prefers boggy yet sunny areas, sandhill woolywhite (Hymenopappus carrizoanus) an endemic plant that lives only on soils developed from the Carrizozo formation and related Eocene deposits, the small-headed pipewort (Ericaulon koernickianum) which prefers upland bogs, and Texas trillium (Trillium pusillum var. texanum), which lives in acidic hardwood bottomlands (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007). Finally, there are five species of reptiles listed as threatened at the state level, including the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) which lives in swamps, bayous, and oxbow lakes, the Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni) which prefers mixed deciduous and pine forests, the northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea copei) which prefers mixed hardwood scrubland, the Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) which prefers dry sandy areas, and the timber rattlesnake or canebrake rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) which prefers swamps, bottomlands, and dense ground cover. The Sabine map turtle (Graptemys ouachitensis sabinensis) is a rare species, whose western extents of its natural range extend to near the Neches River (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2007).

Many of these species, both threatened, endangered, or rare, prefer or need the wetland environment found along or in the river and its associated hardwood bottomland forest, in which can be found old growth trees. Fragmentation of this habitat, one of the largest and longest intact habitats of its kind in Texas, for water production may negatively affect many of theses species. However, creation of a reservoir could create new habitat for others, although this seems less likely (see table 1).

28 Construction of a reservoir on the Neches River would change the nature of recreation in the area. This juxtaposes the purpose of the reservoir to provide drinking water to a large urban area with the recreational uses of wild areas by residents of urban areas. Currently the Neches River is a popular destination for river fishermen, hunters, birders and other wildlife viewers, and canoeists and others who float down rivers on rafts and tubes for pleasure. A reservoir provides camping, lake fishing and boating opportunities, as well as some forms of hunting. The value of one type of recreation over another is dependent on the user. However, given the opposition to the reservoir at both the local and state level outside the Dallas region, the media would suggest the current situation is preferred (see figure 4). In addition to changes in recreation, construction of another reservoir in the region would change the local economy. Currently recreational tourism, such as the activities mentioned above as well as the Texas State Railroad bring tourist dollars into the region. Additionally, much of the area contains tracts of softwood pine plantations. These exist where logging companies have clear cut tracts of land and reforested them for future harvest. In this way forestry provides a sustainable economic activity in the area that is based on the utilizing the existing ecosystem. Additionally, road feature names in the area, such as Cherokee Hunting Club Road indicate that hunting provides not only recreation in the area but economic benefit through hunting leases or property

taxes paid by hunting club organizations. Creation of a national wildlife refuge (discussed below) instead of a reservoir is also the preference of local residents, not only because it would preserve their environment but it would largely preserve their economy. Opponents of the reservoir point out that should Dallas construct a reservoir, the land necessary for the reservoir would be acquired using imminent domain. This immediately displaces residents in the inundated area as well as immediately removes this land from property tax rolls. Any compensation is not expected to be at full market

29 value. Additionally, any economic uses of that land, such as forestry or hunting leases are terminated. Such rapid changes could cause an economic shock to the local economy, to the detriment of the locals affected, but no such shock to Dallas residents who ultimately benefit from the reservoir. The creation of a national wildlife refuge would be a slower process. Land would be acquired at market value from willing sellers only. The land required for the wildlife refuge is less than that required for the reservoir, so fewer people are displaced, and less land is removed from tax rolls. And hunting, logging, and other recreation can continue uninterrupted. No economic shock is expected from this alternative.

History

Humans have lived in the region of the proposed reservoir for thousands of years. Native American tribes were the first humans in the area. In more recent times, a Mound Builder culture inhabited the area. The remains of this culture are preserved in the Caddoan Mounds State Historical Park, which is located on the east bank of the Neches River in Cherokee County near Alto. The proposed dam site is located only about 12 km west-northwest of the historical site. The proximity of the dam location to this archaeological site suggests that other archaeological sites may be located near or

in the footprint of the reservoir. European contact with Native American people occurred in this region in the mid- sixteenth century. In 1690, Franciscan priests established a Catholic mission on San Pedro Creek near its confluence with the Neches River, in present day Houston County. This site is approximately opposite the Neches River from the Caddoan Mounds State Historical Park. The Mission San Francisco de los Tejas was built to establish Spanish dominance over east Texas as well as to evangelize the local Native Americans. The mission was reestablished several times in the vicinity of the Caddoan Mounds. By

30 1731 the relations with the Native Americans soured, and the Spanish were forced to abandon the mission and move it to San Antonio and rename it Mission San Francisco de la Espada. The site in Houston County is now preserved as the Mission Tejas State Historic Park. It is believed that the name of this mission is the origin of the name Texas, and if the original mission were still standing, it would be one of the oldest buildings in the state (Bowman 2001). By the early 20th century, logging had become an important economic activity in east Texas. Logging companies leased or purchased large tracts of land for the harvesting, and mining camps and temporary towns were established as necessary. Some of these communities include Alceda, White City, Bluff City, Lindsey Springs, Walkerton, Neff, Huff, Gilbert, Buggerville, Gipson, and Apple Springs. One of the largest and longest-lived of these communities was Fastrill. It was located along the Neches River about 20 km southwest of Rusk, very near the present site of the proposed dam. The town was established by the Southern Pine Lumber Company on land it owned in March 1922. Its name came from the combination of three men connected to logging in the area: Frank Farrington, the postmaster at nearby Diboll which was the company headquarters, and P. H. Strauss and William Hill, both prominent lumber men. At its height Fastrill counted 600 residents, 200 of which were employees, with a total monthly payroll of $30,000. Production was 15,240,000 m of logs per year. The segregated company town had all the amenities of a regular town including electricity, school, businesses, churches, hotel, drugstore, and a cannery. Each family was provided a four room house on a tree-lined street with front and back porches and an outdoor privy, as well as a plot of farmland to raise food. The community was its own voter precinct, and holidays were observed through community activities. During the Great Depression, workers shifts were cut to two days per week to keep people employed (Rusk Chamber of Commerce 2006; Helm 1999).

31 By 1941 the logging resources in the area were depleted, and the town was abandoned. Most families were relocated to Diboll. During the 1980s, the Arthur Temple Research Area, located on FM-23 south of Rusk, occupied the site. The nearby bridge on Highway 294 crossing the Neches River is officially known as the Fastrill Bridge. Today all that remains at Fastrill are two graves, and an annual gathering of former residents (Rusk Chamber of Commerce 2006; Helm 1999). The area where Fastrill Reservoir would be located was originally identified as a candidate for a reservoir in the late 1950s (as the Weches Dam and Reservoir), and a reservoir was officially proposed here in February 1961 (City of Dallas 2005b). The site was again noted for its reservoir potential in water plans drafted in 1984, 1997, and 2001. However, it has only recently received serious consideration in long-term water management plans. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted in 2009 that there is no evidence the City of Dallas nor the Texas Water Development Board took any steps to actively develop this site before the year 2005. The city of Dallas placed Fastrill Reservoir at the top of its priorities list for water supply in its most recent long-range plans to meet water needs through the year 2060 (City of Dallas 2005a; Regional Water Planning Group 2005). Concurrently the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has sought to designate a section of the Neches River in this same area as a national wild and scenic river.

This is somewhat adjunct with the existing Big Thicket National Preserve (located mainly on the lower Neches River), which was created to protect the rich ecological diversity found in the associated river habitat. The section of the Neches River in Anderson and Cherokee Counties was first identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in January 1985 as having ecologically significant hardwood forests two decades before any reservoir development steps were initiated (City of Dallas 2005b). A federal national wildlife refuge was first proposed in 1988 with Priority 1 designation, the highest designation of ecological importance. A draft environmental analysis was

32 conducted at that time, but the proposal was stalled due to funding limitations. The

proposed refuge would have an area of 102.30 km2. Additionally, in 2002, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department also determined the area to be ecologically significant. The federal refuge proposal was revived in 2003, with public participation initiated and conducted the following year. (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2005; United States Court of Appeals 2009). In July 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined from public comment that an environmental impact statement was unnecessary and prepared a finding of no significant impact. At this time, neither the City of Dallas nor the Texas Water Development Board had taken any concrete actions to establish a reservoir. However, about this time Dallas became aware of the revived refuge proposal and expressed desire to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service on a plan that would allow both a wildlife refuge and a reservoir. The Texas legislature did not designate the Fastrill Reservoir as a critical resource until August 2005. Dallas and the Texas Water Development Board scheduled, but did not begin, a series of engineering and environmental studies in early 2006. The Fish and Wildlife Service designated an acquisition boundary on 11 June 2006 (United States Court of Appeals 2009). The United States Court of Appeals found that by this time neither Dallas nor the Texas Water Development Board had taken concrete steps toward planning the reservoir. On 23 August 2006, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service accepted a 0.407 ha conservation easement from a landholder within the acquisition boundary. On this date, the Neches National Wildlife Refuge came into legal existence which precluded the construction of any reservoir. Both Dallas and the Texas Water Development board filed a lawsuit in January 2007 against the landholder and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in United States District Court. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that a finding of no significant impact was in error and that an environmental impact statement was

33 required. In October 2007 the United States District Court ruled in favor of the defendants on several claims. A central point to the court’s judgment was “an [environmental impact statement] was not required because the establishment of the acquisition boundary did not cause any change in the physical environment...[and that] the refuge’s effect on the City’s water supply was speculative.” In June 2008, the United States District Court ruled in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in September 2008, but in March 2009 the appeals court affirmed the original verdicts. The City and the Texas Water Development Board have appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which may or may not agree to hear the appeal (see figure 5; United States Court of Appeals 2009).

Summary

Fastrill Reservoir has been proposed as a future water supply source for the City of Dallas in its long-range water supply plan. However, critics of the plan have demonstrated that the amount of water supplied can be offset through conservation measures, making the reservoir unnecessary. Additionally, environmental concerns may have ultimately put the brakes on the proposal. The City of Dallas failed to stop the creation of a national wildlife refuge in the same location. Contributing to a federal

appeals court decision on the matter was the lack of concrete data on Fastrill Reservoir. The court writes, “In fact, the City [of Dallas] and the [Texas Water Development Board] have never even settled upon the exact position of the dam or footprint of the reservoir.” (United States Court of Appeals 2009). An analysis using a geographic information systems approach can provide information on the proposed reservoir’s footprint, suggest alternative sites, as well as quantify potential habitat loss from the project.

34 METHODOLOGY

Objectives

The data was processed using a geographic information systems (GIS) to determine what the optimum pool elevation for the proposed reservoir may be. The topography of the area is gently rolling hills. It was expected that as the pool elevation increased the ratio of surface area to reservoir volume would reach a minimum and then begin to increase as the aerial extent of the reservoir grew outward. This minimum ratio is the optimum reservoir level as it minimizes potential evaporation relative to the volume of the entire reservoir. This optimum level may be different than the pool elevation of 83.52 m above sea level. In addition to the Fastrill Dam site, seven other dam configurations were also investigated. These were examined to see if creating a smaller reservoir or relocating the proposed reservoir upstream or downstream might create a reservoir that have fewer impacts on the national wildlife refuge and/or important wildlife habitat. Three of these alternative sites were located upstream of the Fastrill Dam Site. These sites include (listed in order downstream from Blackburn Crossing Dam): the Stills Creek alternate site, located slightly upstream of the confluence of Stills Creek and the Neches River; the Tailes Creek alternate site, located slightly downstream of the confluence of Tailes Creek and the Neches River; the Ioni Creek alternate site, located slightly downstream of the confluence of Ioni Creek and the Neches River. The remaining four of these alternative sites were located downstream of the Fastrill Dam Site. These sites include (listed in order downstream from the Fastrill Dam Site): the Weches Dam site, located approximately at the site of the formerly proposed Weches Dam; the San Pedro Creek alternate site, located slightly downstream of the confluence of San Pedro Creek and the Neches River; the Box Creek alternate site,

35 located slightly downstream of the confluence of Box Creek and the Neches River; and Bowles Creek alternate site, located slightly downstream of the confluence of Bowles Creek and the Neches River (see figure 6). The Weches Dam site was selected since it is a historical dam location that had received some consideration in the past. Most other sites were selected downstream of stream confluences specifically to include those streams in the respective watersheds. The Stills Creek alternate site is an exception to this, as it was placed upstream of a confluence to investigate a relatively small reservoir. A reservoir created by a dam at the Weches Dam site is not very different from one created by a dam at the Fastrill Dam site, It appears plausible from the literature that the Fastrill Site was created by a modification to the Weches Reservoir plan, which ultimately died due to environmental opposition. The sites located upstream from the Fastrill Dam site would create smaller reservoirs, but may not have fewer impacts on the national wildlife refuge. Sites located downstream of the Fastrill Dam site may have fewer impacts on the national wildlife refuge, but may impact other protected areas such as the Davy Crockett National Forest or archaeological sites. Additionally, downstream of the Weches Dam site the Neches River flows through an eastward trending strike valley before turning south again near the Caddoan Mounds State Historic Park. This valley is quite wide, and any dam built here would be much longer than a dam

constructed upstream. Satellite imagery was classified into six general habitat classes to quantify the types and amounts of habitats impacted by the modeled reservoirs. These classes were conifers, deciduous, developed, grass, mixed, and water. The amount of land area in each class was measured for each modeled reservoir using the results of the classification. This allowed quantification of habitat types within the study area.

36 Data Collection and Preparation

Topographic elevation data were obtained from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) in the form of a seamless digital elevation model. Data were downloaded for a rectangular area slightly larger than the bounds of the Fastrill Reservoir watershed approximated from large scale maps. The bounding coordinates for this area are: 31°21’39.7” north latitude, 32°15’50.6” north latitude, 94°58’52.2” west longitude, and 95°46’33.8” west longitude. Due to file size limitations, the data were delivered by the NED servers in two parts. These parts were combined into one digital elevation model using the Mosaic tool in ArcGIS.

1 The digital elevation model data have a spatial resolution of /3 arc-second, which is approximately 9.575523 m at the latitude of the study area. Elevation values for each cell of the digital elevation model are recorded in meters so no other numeric conversions were necessary to the digital elevation model data. The digital elevation model was projected into the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15N projection and the North American Datum of 1983 with bilinear interpolation used as the resampling method (see figure 7). The horizontal accuracy of the digital elevation model is set by the National Map Accuracy Standards, published by the United States Bureau of the Budget in 1941,

revised in 1947. For the scale of the source data used in the study area, no more than 10 percent of tested points may have a horizontal error greater than 12.192 m. The vertical accuracy of the digital elevation model was tested by the United States Geological Survey beginning in 1999. Various accuracy values for the complete nationwide dataset are reported based on the method used to generate the elevation data. For the study area, elevation values were generated using the LineTrace+ software (LT4X). For this method, the vertical RMSE is 2.17 m, with a confidence interval of 95 percent.

37 Aerial photography suitable for base mapping purposes was obtained from the Texas Natural Resources Information System. The selected imagery consisted of color infrared digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangles, with 1-meter spatial resolution. Each image covered the entire 3.75-minute quarter-quadrangle, plus a 300 m perimeter overlap. Imagery was produced in the leaf-off season of 2004 through the National Agricultural Imagery Program, and was already referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15N projection and the North American Datum of 1983. Digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangles intersecting the study area as well as the entire length of the Neches River were obtained for use in this study. Imagery was primarily used for base mapping purposes, such as digitizing the course of the Neches River, and locating ground features. Additionally, the digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangles were used as an aid in the selection of training sites for the Landsat 7 ETM+ image classification. For example, the exact boundaries of particular tracts of coniferous, mixed, or deciduous forest were clearly distinguishable in the 1-meter spatial resolution digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle imagery whereas they were less so in the 30-meter spatial resolution Landsat image. Thus, the digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle imagery contributed to the accuracy of the image classification by providing near ground-truth data despite not being a part of the classified data itself.

Plans for the reservoir state the proposed dam will be approximately located at River Mile 288 (kilometer 463) of the Neches River. To determine this location, the course of the Neches River was mapped from these digital orthophoto quarter- quadrangles using heads-up digitizing at a screen scale of 1:3,000. The digitized centerline followed the visible centerline of the river from its mouth at Sabine Lake near Beaumont to its headwaters in Van Zandt County. In the lower portions of the Neches River where channels had been cut to create a straighter navigable path to refinery port facilities in the area, the digitized path followed the natural river meanders instead. In

38 the middle portions of the Neches River where it passed through areas that appeared to be swamps or were flooded when the imagery was produced, the digitized centerline followed what appeared to be the main channel based on characteristics in the digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle image such as vegetation patterns, color differences, shadows, and path continuity. This was not entirely an objective process. Finally, where the Neches River passes through B. A. Steinhagen Lake and Lake Palestine, the former course of the river was digitized from georeferenced topographic maps where the pre-reservoir river was reflected as county boundaries. For Rhine Lake, a very small reservoir near Van, near the headwaters in Van Zandt County, the approximate centerline of the lake was chosen. However, this reservoir lies outside of the study area, upstream from Lake Palestine, so inaccuracies in digitizing the course of the river here do not affect measurements downstream or in the study area. The primary reason for digitizing the Neches River past the study area to its headwaters was to determine the length of the entire river. With the entire Neches River mapped from digital orthophoto quarter- quadrangles, the centerline was processed in ArcGIS to determine the beginning and end points of River Mile 288 (463.49 km and 465.10 km upstream from the mouth of the river, respectively). These points corresponded very closely to the location of the proposed dam site in relation to other landmarks mentioned in the literature.

Additionally, they also bracketed the relative location as described via personal communication with Tom Mallory of the Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority. Without an exact location for the dam (such as a centerline shapefile), an approximate location was chosen that best matched the descriptions of the dam location in the literature. A polyline shapefile representing actual, proposed, and alternate dam site locations was created, and a feature representing the proposed Fastrill Dam was created within it. The endpoint coordinates for this feature are E283621.595, N3499141.790 and E285888.586, N3500009.552, Universal Transverse

39 Mercator Zone 15N. This feature has a length of 2.43 km. However, it represents the centerline of a hydrographic barrier longer than the width of the river valley and not the actual length of the proposed dam, which would be approximately 2.0 to 2.1 km, depending on its finished design. A second feature was created within this shapefile representing Blackburn Crossing Dam, which impounds Lake Palestine. This was digitized from the digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangles using heads-up digitizing at a screen scale of 1:3,000. Using the approximate location of Fastrill Dam and the actual location of Blackburn Crossing Dam the watershed for the proposed Fastrill Reservoir was calculated. The approximate extents of the watershed were sketched from small-scale maps of the area. A seamless digital elevation model was downloaded from the NED, with bounds 31°21’39.7” north latitude, 32°15’50.6” north latitude, 94°58’52.2” west longitude, and 95°46’33.8” west longitude, which was slightly larger than the approximated area. The digital elevation model was delivered in two parts, which were combined in the GIS into one seamless digital elevation model using the Mosaic tool.

1 This digital elevation model has a spatial resolution of /3 arc second. At the latitude of the study area and the limits of the GIS, this distance is exactly 9.575523 m. Digital elevation models available from the Texas Natural Resources Information Service were not used in the final analysis since these are not edge matched. Preliminary analysis showed that edge matching errors in the Texas Natural Resources Information Service data created sufficient “cliffs” that meaningful results from hydrographic analysis were not possible. The usual method for determining the boundaries of a watershed using ArcGIS is through the Watershed tool. However, during preliminary analysis it was found that the Watershed tool in ArcGIS version 9.1 returned unexpected and erroneous results. After exhaustive investigation into the data and of the GIS processing applied to the data, it was concluded that the errors were due to a bug in the tool’s programming. Therefore,

40 an alternate method for determining the watershed of the proposed Fastrill Lake was constructed. The Basin tool was used in place of the Watershed tool. The parameters for the Basin tool are different than for the Watershed tool and this required some intermediate processing. Primarily, the Watershed tool can calculate (when working properly) a watershed or watershed reach along a river using one or more pour points along a flow path. The Basin tool, however, does not use pour points and is instead sensitive to the edges of the raster to which it is applied. Therefore, to isolate only the watershed between the two dams, it was necessary to introduce artificial edges within the digital elevation model. A mask was generated to create these artificial edges at the location of the proposed dam site and at Blackburn Crossing Dam. This was accomplished by applying a 10 m buffer around the two dam features. This distance was chosen since it is approximately the same as the cell size in the digital elevation model, and would result in a distance 20 m across when both sides of the buffer included. A final width of 20 m ensured that after the cells inside the dam buffers were removed, diagonal cell neighbors were not possible. Because hydrographic analysis in a GIS also includes diagonal cell neighbors, it was necessary to ensure these were not present to create a continuous edge.

The resulting digital elevation model was identical to the original digital elevation model except for two small areas of No Data values at the dam locations. This subsequent digital elevation model was used as input to the Flow Direction tool to create a flow direction raster. In turn, this flow direction raster was used as input to the Basin tool to create a basin raster. The basin raster was converted to a shapefile using the Value field. Extraneous polygons outside the study area basin were removed. In this way, the watershed of the proposed reservoir was determined using the Basin tool

41 as an alternative to the erroneous Watershed tool. The same process was used to determine the watersheds of each alternate location (see figure 8). Landsat 7 imagery was obtained for the purposed of creating a classified image of the study area composed of six general classes of vegetation type. These classes were conifers, deciduous, developed, grass, mixed and water. Landsat 7 imagery was chosen because the data are free and available to the public, data are obtained from the ETM+ sensor in multispectral format suitable for classification, data are recent, and data are collected at regular intervals. According to NASA’s Landsat 7 web page, the ETM+ sensor suffered a mechanical failure of the Scan Line Corrector on 31 May 2003, which has impacted the quality of data available Landsat imagery for Texas was obtained from the TexasView Remote Sensing Consortium for Texas web site (http://www.texasview.org). This data source does not include Landsat 7 imagery after the date of the mechanical failure for the study area. The study area is included in the image footprint of Path 26 Row 38 in the Landsat Worldwide Reference System. Originally the most recent image from 31 March 2003 was used. During the image classification process it was found that classification results were not expected. As many of the spectral bands of the ETM+ sensor are designed to measure vegetation and geologic features, it was concluded that an image acquired during the spring

season did not contain enough vegetation to provide meaningful results, particularly when the goal of the classification was to determine classes based primarily on vegetation. Consequently a summer season image was selected as a replacement. The only summer season image available through the TexasView web site was from 12 August 2000. All other images available were collected in the autumn, winter, or spring seasons. Although the imagery is somewhat dated, it did provide the desired results. The obtained image had already been georeferenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15N projection in the World Geodetic System Datum of 1984

42 (WGS84). This is a worldwide datum, and is different than the NAD83 datum specific to North America used elsewhere in this study. Additionally, the image had a pixel size of 30 m, which is larger than the spatial resolution of other datasets (such as the digital elevation model) used in this study. Because of these differences, the Landsat Imagery was processed in its original format to maintain data integrity. Only when final outputs were produced, were these final data then projected from the WGS84 datum into the NAD83 datum and resampled to the smaller spatial resolution using nearest neighbor interpolation. This transformation then allowed the analysis of the Landsat image to be compared and used with other data produced in this study. The Landsat 7 image was processed and classified using ERDAS Imagine software. First the image was masked to exclude portions of the image located outside the study area. Next, a preliminary unsupervised classification was conducted to test the data. The results showed that the image was easily classifiable, but that a supervised classification would provide better results. A supervised classification was then conducted. Training samples were collected from the Landsat 7 image using the 1-meter color infrared digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangles as a reference. Ground features and general vegetation types and boundaries were clearly identifiable in these digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle images. These samples were defined using polygons to

delineate an area of interest. Ten training samples for each class were used. These sixty training samples were used to collect spectral signatures used to define each class, and a parametric decision rule was applied to assign every pixel in the image into one of the six classes. The classification was further refined by examining the feature space of each band pair and defining an ellipse to create an area of interest in the feature space. Thus, both parametric and non-parametric rules were applied to the classification. A contingency matrix was generated, and the results of the matrix were used to create

43 classification rules for pixels that may be located within more than one class. If a pixel fell outside an ellipse defined in the feature space, it was classified using the parametric rule. If a pixel fell within overlapping ellipses defined in the feature space, it was classified by order. The order was determined by the results of the contingency matrix, with the class with highest separability ranked first and the class with the lowest separability ranked last. These ranks were water, conifers, grass, deciduous, developed, and mixed. Once the classification was refined and finalized, an output raster was created with six categories, one for each class with all pixels in the image placed into one category. A datum transformation from WGS84 to NAD83 was applied to the output raster and the raster was resampled using the nearest neighbor algorithm to the same spatial resolution as the rest of the study data. This final raster was used to quantify the area of habitat types affected by the reservoir at various elevations and dam locations (see figure 9). The accuracy of the classification was tested by randomly generating 500 points within the study area and comparing the coded value in the classification at each point with the corresponding vegetation type visible in the digital orthophoto quarter- quadrangle images. The overall accuracy rate was 66.2 percent (331 points matched). The most accurate class was water, where 100 percent of points were classified correctly. The next most accurate classes were developed (83.3 percent), deciduous (73.2 percent), mixed (63.3 percent) and grass (60.0 percent). The conifers class had the lowest accuracy at 59.2 percent. However, the Landsat imagery and the digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle images were obtained four years apart, and it was noted that the vegetation cover had changed in several areas. Some agricultural fields which had been formerly vegetated (grass) had been recently plowed (developed), and vice versa. More significantly, many stands of pine appear to have been harvested between the 2000 Landsat imagery and the 2004 digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle imagery,

44 leading to a reduction in the accuracy of the deciduous class. Areas of recently planted pine seedlings also were classified poorly, usually as mixed. The local bedrock geology was mapped using data obtained from the Geology of Texas map (Bureau of Economic Geography 1992). Bedrock units and known faults were digitized from rasterized versions of this map. Most of the area inundated by the proposed reservoir is underlain by Quaternary alluvium and Quaternary terrace deposits. Underlying these deposits is the Queen City sand which is itself covered by the lateral portions of the reservoir when at higher pool elevations. A series of northeast-southwest trending faults cross the middle portion of the proposed reservoir. Several of these form a graben extending from near Jacksonville to south of Palestine. No known faults are shown near the proposed dam site, but do occur near other possible dam sites investigated in this study. Soils data were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service as both printed data (soil survey reports) and as digital data (spatial files for use in a GIS). Digital data were obtained in March 2006 from the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURG) (http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov). Soils were mapped at the great group level of USDA soil taxonomy as this was the finest taxonomic resolution found to be usable at the scale of the study area. This data was comprised of soil polygon boundaries with some associated identifying attributes. Soil permeability values were

determined from the printed soil series reports using the predominant soil series in each great group. These series included the Cuthbert Series, Lilbert Series, Nahatche Series, Bienville Series, and Trawick Series (Coffee 1975; Hatherly 1994; Hatherly and Mays 1979; Mowery and Oakes 1958; Steptoe 2002). Climate data were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center in January 2006 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html) for fifteen weather stations located within 100 km of the proposed reservoir. The latitude-longitude coordinates for each station were used to generate a point shapefile. The 30-year mean annual precipitation value

45 for each of these points was added to the point shapefile, which was then used to interpolate a raster across the study area representing mean annual precipitation for each raster cell. The cubic convolution method was used in this interpolation. This data was then used in calculations to estimate a water balance for the proposed reservoir (see figure 10). Additionally, evaporation rates for each 1° latitude by 1° longitude quadrangle were obtained from the Texas Water Development Board (http://midgewater.twdb.state.tx.us/ Evaporation/evap.html). The entire study area is located within Quadrangle 612 so only the evaporation value for this quadrangle was used to estimate a water balance for the proposed reservoir. The United States Geological Survey operates a stream gauge on the Neches River at the Highway 79 bridge crossing near the community of Neches. This is the only stream gauge in the study area and is the uppermost stream gauge on the Neches River. Stream gauge data were downloaded from the National Water Information System web site on 16 September 2006 (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/dv/ ?site_no=08032000). The period of record for the stream gauge was 1 March 1939 to 30 September 2005, a period of more than sixty-six years, or 24,321 mean daily

observations. During the period of record, the gauge recorded a discharge of 0 m3/s only once, on 4 October 1939. The greatest discharge recorded was 1,248.91 m3/s on 2 April 1945. Both of these readings predate the construction of Blackburn Crossing Dam upstream of the gauge between 1960 and 1962. The mean daily mean discharge was 20.58 m3/s with a standard deviation of 38.5107, and the median daily mean discharge was 7.76 m3/s. The mode of the daily mean discharge was 2.32 m3/s. Approximately 37.3 percent of all observations were in the interval between zero and twice the modal value, so the mode was assumed to be a good estimator of the base flow of the Neches River in the study area (see figures 11 and 12).

46

Pool Elevations

Water collecting behind an impoundment will create a pool of standing water that will continue to rise in elevation as more water flows into it until some kind of threshold is reached. These thresholds can be any of various factors including the minimum height of the impoundment, low spots in topography, or natural equilibria (e.g. a balanced inflow versus outflow through seepage or evaporation), or some combination of these. This study modeled potential pool elevations to determine if there were any natural equilibria, topographic low spots, or maximum possible dam heights. These elevations were in calculated in whole-meter intervals (integer values) above sea level. The data revealed two limiting thresholds: a topographic low spot at 99 m would create a lateral outflow out of the reservoir basin; and the ground elevation of Blackburn Crossing Dam at 92 m limits pool elevations higher than this as water from Fastrill Reservoir would backup onto Blackburn Crossing Dam. Additionally, the ground elevation at the furthest downstream alternate location was slightly below 63 m. Thus, only pool elevations between 63 m and 92 m inclusive were modeled. For analysis, a total of thirty constant rasters were created representing a level water surfaces at each elevation value.

The proposed Fastrill Dam site has not been conclusively determined. However, its general location is cited in the literature as River Mile 288 (kilometer 463) of the Neches River. This places it near a bend in the river just south of Highway 294. This corresponds with the location specified by Mr. Tom Mallory with the Upper Neches River Water Management Authority. For this study a straight-line segment approximately perpendicular to the river representing a dam feature connected points of high ground was used in the analysis.

47 Additional alternative dam sites were also used in the analysis. Each dam feature was created in the same manner: perpendicular to the river and connecting points of high ground. Downstream of the Fastrill Site the Weches Site was modeled, as best as could be estimated from the literature. Additional features were modeled immediately downstream of the confluence with San Pedro Creek, Box Creek, and Bowles Creek. Locations downstream of the confluences were selected to increase the drainage basin of the reservoir. Upstream of the Fastrill Site additional features were modeled immediately downstream of Ioni Creek and Tailes Creek. Additionally a feature was created immediately upstream of Stills Creek. This location upstream of the confluence rather than downstream was selected to model a much-reduced reservoir with a smaller drainage basin. All features were created as straight-line segments approximately perpendicular to the river and connecting nearby points of high ground. A total of 199 possible reservoirs were modeled using the Fastrill Dam site location and the seven alternate locations, with the 30 possible pool elevations. The Cut/Fill tool in ArcGIS was used to intersect the digital elevation model with the constant rasters to determine both the surface area (footprint) of the reservoirs as well as their volumes. In the Cut/Fill tool, the digital elevation model was set as the Before raster, and the constant elevation raster was set as the After raster. The resultant raster had positive values for areas that became reservoir (fill) and negative values for areas that remained land (cut). Thus, each area was represented as a raster zone with one value. This value was the calculated volume of the cut or fill. The Cut/Fill raster process was automated using the Model Builder utility in ArcGIS. Each output raster of the Cut/Fill process was converted into a polygon shapefile using the Raster-to-Polygon tool using the Value field. Thus each zone became a polygon in the output shapefile. Cell counts were preserved during the conversion process which allowed for a simplified area calculation. Polygons with negative values

48 were deleted. Polygons with values of zero, were rare, but did occur. These represent raster cells with equal ground surface and water surface elevation, and were merged into the polygons with positive value and were included in the reservoir. Additionally, the Simplify Edges parameter was turned off. This parameter was deselected to maintain data consistency and to preserve the results of Cut/Fill output raster so that the polygon boundaries of each of the 199 reservoirs would coincide with the cell boundaries of any raster produced in the study, including the digital elevation model and the classified imagery. These polygons were used as masks on rasters to derive further data. Several hydrologic variables were examined to provide additional background information about the proposed Fastrill Reservoir. These include river flows, precipitation, evaporation, and groundwater effects. River flow was measured using the stream gauge data obtained from the United States Geological Survey. Because the stream gauge was located near the center of the study area, it was believed to be a good estimator for the amount of water flowing through each reservoir, as nearly all of the water flowing into the reservoirs comes from the Neches River itself. However, it must be noted that for reservoirs further downstream, the stream gauge data increasingly underestimates river flows for dam sites further downstream from the gauge due to the added effects of an increasing number of tributary streams and surface runoff. However, as there are no other gauges located within the study area, additional river flow information would have to be collected. Additionally, the contribution of surface runoff was not calculated. Both are beyond the scope of this study.

The long-term mean daily mean discharge of 20.58 m3/s was used to calculate the average annual volume of water flowing past the gauge. This was calculated to be 649,517,276.15 m3/year. Additionally, the mode value of 2.32 m3/s was used to calculate the base flow of the Neches River, which may be the value necessary to

49 maintain the river downstream of any impoundments in this area. This was calculated to be 73,211,627.52 m3/year. Thus, the amount of water that could be impounded and/or diverted for other use could range as high as 574,305,648.63 m3/year. Direct precipitation was measured by using the precipitation raster interpolated from the fifteen weather stations. Each reservoir polygon was used as a mask on the precipitation raster. The output raster included values for cells located only within the reservoir. The amount of direct precipitation was then calculated for each reservoir by multiplying together the following three values: cell count, cell size, and the average cell value of the masked raster. The cell count represents the total number of cells in the raster that intersect the reservoir. The cell size is a constant value throughout the study (91.6906 m2). Together the product of these two numbers represents the surface area of the reservoir in square meters. Finally, the average of the cell values represents the amount of average annual precipitation for each cell (in meters) if each cell were the same. The product of these three numbers provides the direct precipitation in cubic meters per year. Values for each pool elevation of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir are provided in table 2. Evaporation was measured in much the same way as direct precipitation, although the evaporation rate for the entire study area is reported as a single value. The long term average annual evaporation rate for the 1° latitude by 1° longitude quadrangle encompassing the study area is 1.3204 m/year. The cell count, cell area, and evaporation rate were multiplied together to determine the total evaporation for each reservoir. The product of these three values provides the total evaporation in cubic meters per year. Values for each pool elevation of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir are provided in table 2. Data from the published soil studies showed that the soils in the area were mostly sandy soils with high rates of permeability. The predominant bedrock type in the

50 study area is the Queen City sand. Large volumes of water may be moving through this highly permeable ground and/or stored in bedrock aquifers. The presence of numerous reservoirs and perennial streams suggests that groundwater may be effluent in the study area. The Neches River is a perennial stream, running with water even during periods of prolonged drought. At the stream gauge, the river ran dry only one day in the sixty-six years recorded period. Additionally, Lake Palestine exists without draining away into the highly permeable soils or by evaporating, further suggesting groundwater effluence may be occurring. To test this hypothesis, a piezometer was used to measure groundwater movement. Two tests were done in Lake Palestine on 10 September 2006. The locations chosen were based primarily on foot access as most of the reservoir is surrounded by private property and no boat transportation was available at the time. The first test was conducted at 32.12980° north latitude, 95.48365° west longitude, or approximately 25 m east of the north end of the Highway 155 bridge where it crosses an arm of Lake Palestine near Cutter Landing Road. The piezometer at this location was driven into the ground a distance of 0.432 m. The water depth at this location was 0.146 m. After one hour of elapsed time, the length of the water column inside the piezometer was measured to be 0.165 m, an increase of 0.019 m over the water depth.

A second test was conducted at 32.05517° north latitude, 95.44280° west longitude, or in a small cove approximately 200 m northwest of a dock located near the southwest end of Blackburn Crossing Dam. The piezometer at this location was driven into the ground a distance of 0.241 m. The water depth at this location was 0.222 m. After one hour of elapsed time, the length of the water column inside the piezometer was measured to be 0.279 m, an increase of 0.057 m over the water depth. Both tests showed that water was moving into the piezometer from the ground. This limited data suggests that the groundwater at Lake Palestine is effluent, at least

51 near the shorelines, and contributes to the reservoir as a water input. This appears consistent with the fact that the lake does not drain away into the ground and the Neches River downstream of Lake Palestine is a perennial stream. The conclusion was that groundwater contributes to Lake Palestine. However, calculating the exact amount of groundwater effluence is a complex process of hydrogeology and is beyond the scope of this study. Finally, the amount of each type of habit class impacted by the reservoirs was calculated using the reservoir polygons as a mask on the classified image. Each class was represented by a unique integer value in the classification, which can be considered a zone within a raster. The Zonal Statistics tool was used to calculate the number of cells with each integer value. The total area for each habitat class was determined by multiplying the cell county by the cell area. The product of these two values gives the impacted area of each habitat class in square meters.

Alternate Dam Site

The Fastrill Dam site is located at River Mile 288 (kilometer 463) of the Neches River, approximately 2 km downstream of the Fastrill Bridge on Highway 294. The Neches River generally flows through a wide flood plain bounded by bluffs on each side.

However, at this location, the flood plain narrows considerably. A dam of about 2.0 km in length would be sufficient to impound the river here. By comparison Blackburn Crossing Dam is 1.7 km in length, Grapevine Dam is 3.9 km in length, both Ray Roberts Dam and Denison Dam are 4.6 km in length, and Lewisville Dam is 10.0 km in length. Considering nearby dams have been constructed at up to 5 times the length of Fastrill Dam, this narrow location presents considerable cost savings for dam construction and maintenance. Additionally, prior to the establishment of the North Neches River National Wildlife Refuge, an impoundment created by a dam at this location did not

52 encroach upon protected and preserved lands. From the data presented in the Long Range Water Supply Plan for Dallas, Texas, the low cost of constructing a reservoir here plus the relative ease of obtaining permits appear to be the primary reasons this site is so desirable. The Weches Dam site was located several km downstream of the Fastrill Dam site just north of the unincorporated community of Weches. This appears to be the dam site first proposed in the 1950s. Like the Fastrill Dam site, the river valley here is relatively narrow, making a short and less costly dam possible. A dam here would be approximately the same length as the Fastrill Dam. This site was eventually dropped from consideration due to strong opposition over environmental and local concerns. This was similar to the opposition to the Fastrill Reservoir. Both reservoirs would be very similar to each other. Three dam sites upstream of the Fastrill Dam site were also modeled. The Ioni Creek alternate site is located just downstream of the confluence of Ioni Creek with the Neches River, approximately 4 km north of the Fastrill Dam site just north of the former town of Fastrill. As the river valley here is narrow, a dam at this location would be approximately the same length as the Fastrill Dam. A reservoir here has the same benefits and drawbacks as one at the Fastrill Dam site as well as not requiring the relocation of Highway 294 and FM-23. It would create a smaller reservoir, however.

The Tailes Creek alternate site is located north of the Ioni Creek alternate site approximately two-thirds of the distance upstream from Highway 294 to Highway 84. The river valley grows wider in this area, and the Neches River features a series of large bends and meanders. A dam located here would be approximately 4.5 km in length. Drawbacks to this site are that Tailes Creek is a small creek, and the valley here is wider than other nearby locations. The Stills Creek alternate site is located just upstream of the confluence of Stills Creek and the Neches River, at approximately the location of the Highway 84 crossing.

53 This site was selected to model a small reservoir and does not include the Stills Creek drainage itself. A dam at this location could be as little as 1.5 km in length. Further downstream of the Weches Dam site, three other dam sites were modeled. Each were located just downstream of a tributary stream to increase the drainage basin of the reservoir. The San Pedro Creek alternate site was located about 2 km south of the Weches Dam site, just below the confluence of San Pedro Creek with the Neches River northeast of the community of Weches. At this point the river valley begins to widen again. A dam here would be longer, at approximately 2.5 km in length. While San Pedro Creek is one of the larger tributary streams in the area and would contribute noticeably to a reservoir, it also forms the boundary of the Davy Crockett National Forest, which then follows the Neches River downstream through the study area. In addition to encroaching upon the national forest, a reservoir from a dam at this site would also threaten the Mission Tejas State Historical Park. The Box Creek alternate site is located just below the confluence of Box Creek with the Neches River. A dam located here would be approximately 3 km in length. A reservoir here would have many of the same benefits and drawbacks as the San Pedro Creek alternate site. Additionally, the river valley here begins to include large wetlands. The Bowles Creek alternate site is located just below the confluence of Bowles Creek and the Neches River at approximately the location of Highway 21. A dam located here would be approximately 4 km in length. In addition to encroaching on the Davy Crockett National Forest and the Mission Tejas State Historical Park, a reservoir here would also encroach upon the Caddoan Mounds State Historical Park. Thus archaeological concerns become an issue with a dam at this location. However, the Bowles Creek basin is wider than most creeks in the area and a much larger reservoir can be constructed.

54 RESULTS

The proposed conservation pool elevation for Fastrill Reservoir is 83.52 m above sea level. As analysis was performed using whole-meter elevation (integer values), results reported here are based on a conservation pool elevation of 84 m, the nearest whole-meter elevation. However, it should be noted that for some parameters, comparatively large changes in absolute values between elevation 83 m and elevation 84 m are present in the data, and intermediate values between these two elevations may be more realistic of a static water surface elevation. A complete set of values is present in tables 3 through 26. The land surface elevation at the modeled dam site is between 65 m and 66 m above sea level. Thus, the lowest possible water surface elevation modeled is 66 m. The land surface elevation at the downstream face of Blackburn Crossing Dam is between 92 m and 93 m above sea level. Thus, the highest possible water surface elevation modeled is 92 m above sea level. This avoids having the waters of Fastrill Reservoir abut against Blackburn Crossing Dam. If Blackburn Crossing Dam were not present, the water surface elevation of Fastrill Reservoir could be raised as high as 99 m above mean sea level before water would flow out the sides of the drainage basin northeast of the modeled dam site and into Box Creek.

As modeled water surface elevations increased from 66 m to 92 m above sea level, reservoir volumes also increased with each interval. The largest absolute changes in magnitude were in the higher intervals while the largest relative changes in magnitude were in the lower intervals. At 84 m, the modeled reservoir volume was

668,604,978 m3. It is not known how this value compares with the Region C Initially Prepared Plan or the Region C Water Plan, as these plans report the water yield from the proposed reservoir which is different from the reservoir volume. Water yield was not calculated in this model.

55 Likewise, water surface areas also increased with each interval. The largest absolute changes in magnitude were in the higher intervals while the largest relative changes in magnitude were in the lower intervals. At 84 m, the modeled reservoir surface area was 102,594,403 m2. This is comparable to the values reported in the Region C Initially Prepared Plan (92,875,000 m2) and the Region C Water Plan (100,969,000 m2). In fact, the values reported by the two water plans are in agreement with the model as these values were intermediate between the modeled values for 83 m and 84 m above mean sea level. The area-to-volume ratio decreased with increasing water surface elevation. This indicates that the modeled reservoir was increasingly efficient with regard to minimizing potential evaporative loss as the water surface increased in elevation. There were two small exceptions at 71 m and 86 m where the area-to-volume ratio increased slightly. These are indicative of the inundation of riverine terrace topography at the modeled reservoir’s upstream end, causing the surface area to increase more than usual. The area-to-volume ratio was 0.1534 at 84 m above mean sea level. For other modeled reservoirs, in all cases the least desirable area-to-volume ratio was also at the lowest possible pool elevation. Thus, no minimum criterion was set for determining the optimum area-to-volume ratio for each modeled reservoir. Likewise, the mean reservoir depth increased with increasing water surface elevation, with the same exceptions at 71 m and 86 m. The mean depth of the modeled reservoir was 6.5170 m for the water surface elevation at 84 m above mean sea level. The maximum reservoir depth was slightly more than 18 m at the intersection of the modeled dam site and the Neches River channel (see figure 13). Results of the Landsat 7 ETM+ image classification allow the quantification of the six general land cover classes defined for the classification. The following classes were defined: conifers (e.g. natural coniferous forest and softwood plantations); deciduous (e.g. hardwood bottomland forest and other woodlands, and deciduous forests outside

56 the Neches River floodplain); developed (e.g. roads, railroads, buildings, bare earth, and concrete); grass (e.g. grassy areas, fields, pastures, open meadows, cropland); mixed (e.g.areas of mixed coniferous and deciduous forest); and water (e.g. Neches River, ponds, bogs, and open wetlands). The area of each land cover class increased throughout the range of modeled water surface elevations. The area of each class as a percentage of the total inundated area fluctuated from one elevation interval to the next, although these percentages tended to stabilize as the water surface elevation increased. As a percentage of the total watershed, the inundated area of each class increased overall, but with much less variability. The image classification revealed that at a water surface elevation of 84 m above sea level, the modeled reservoir inundated: 50,713,246 m2 of deciduous (50 percent of the reservoir area); 21,602,213 m2 of mixed forest areas (21 percent of the reservoir area); 15,611,608 m2 of Conifer (15 percent of the reservoir area); 9,506,848 m2 of water (9 percent of the reservoir area); 3,888,323 m2 of developed (4 percent of the reservoir area); and 1,272,115 m2 of grass (1 percent of the reservoir area). Additionally, for the watershed as a whole, the modeled reservoir inundated: 26 percent of water areas in the watershed, 9 percent of deciduous areas in the watershed, 8 percent of Conifer areas in the watershed, 3 percent of mixed areas in the watershed,

2 percent of developed areas in the watershed, and <1 percent of grass areas in the watershed. Thus, the reservoir itself impacts the deciduous areas most, inundating as much deciduous area as the other five classes combined. This class includes the hardwood bottomland forest, which is considered to be the most important and vulnerable land cover type in the study area. Additionally, for the Fastrill Reservoir watershed, the reservoir directly impacts a large proportion of water areas. This class includes wetlands, which may be protected by federal law. Considering that most of the

57 remaining water areas in the watershed are open water areas such as large ponds and Lake Jacksonville, the majority of the wetlands are located in the footprint of the proposed reservoir and could be lost. Whether or not the reservoir would create new or comparable wetlands around its perimeter to replace lost wetlands was not modeled. Each of the four alternate dam sites located downstream of the Fastrill Dam site were compared with the planned reservoir created by the Fastrill Dam. This was accomplished by finding the pool elevation that created a reservoir closest in volume to that of Fastrill Reservoir. In each case, the pool elevation that would create a volume equal to Fastrill Reservoir was intermediate between two whole meter elevations. The modeled pool elevation with a volume measurement closest to that of Fastrill Reservoir was chosen for comparison, and in each case was the upper value (see figure 14). Exact values for the parameters discussed below can be found in tables 3 through 26. A reservoir approximately equal to Fastrill Reservoir but impounded by a dam at the Bowles Creek alternate site had a pool elevation of 78 m above sea level. This reservoir had a comparative volume of 103.2 percent of Fastrill Reservoir and a comparative area of 109.0 percent. As expected with the wider river valley at this location, the lake had a mean depth 0.344 m less than Fastrill Reservoir. This increased its Area/Volume ratio by 0.0086. This reservoir may be less efficient than Fastrill Reservoir given its larger surface area exposed to evaporation and potential

losses through a larger bed area. Of the land cover classes, this reservoir is noteworthy in that it impacted 104.5 percent of the area of conifers that Fastrill Reservoir impacted, the smallest change in this category of any of the four downstream alternatives. A reservoir approximately equal to Fastrill Reservoir but impounded by a dam at the Box Creek alternate site had a pool elevation of 80 m above sea level. This reservoir had a comparative volume of 102.0 percent of Fastrill Reservoir, and a comparative area of 108.6 percent. Of the four downstream alternatives this reservoir had the smallest increase in volume over Fastrill Reservoir for any whole meter pool

58 elevation. As with the Bowles Creek alternate site, the average depth of the lake was 0.9212 m less than Fastrill Lake. In fact this was the lowest average depth of any downstream reservoir and the Ioni alternate site located upstream of Fastrill Dam. Thus, its Area/Volume ratio increased by 0.0144. This reservoir may be less efficient than Fastrill Reservoir given its larger surface area exposed to evaporation and potential losses through a larger bed area. This site had no characteristics of note for the land cover classes. Other alternatives had smaller impact changes in all categories. A reservoir approximately equal to Fastrill Reservoir but impounded by a dam at the San Pedro Creek alternate site had a pool elevation of 82 m above sea level. This reservoir had a comparative volume of 106.9 percent of Fastrill Reservoir, and a comparative area of 110.4 percent. Of the four downstream alternatives this reservoir had the largest increases in area and volume over Fastrill Reservoir for any whole meter pool elevation. The average depth of this reservoir was only slightly less than that of Fastrill Reservoir at 0.2048 m less. The Area/Volume ratio increased by 0.0050. This site was notable in that despite being some 10 percent larger in area than Fastrill Reservoir, this site impacted water areas less. A reservoir at the San Pedro alternate site impacted only 92.6 percent as much water areas as the Fastrill Reservoir. A reservoir approximately equal to Fastrill Reservoir but impounded by a dam at the Weches Dam Site had a pool elevation of 83 m above sea level. This reservoir had

a comparative volume of 102.3 percent of Fastrill Reservoir and a comparative area of 101.4 percent. This reservoir was the closest in area to the Fastrill Reservoir of any of the downstream alternatives. The average depth of this reservoir was 0.0617 m greater than that of Fastrill Reservoir. It’s Area/Volume ratio decreased by 0.0014. This reservoir is slightly more efficient than Fastrill Reservoir for evaporative losses. This site was also noteworthy in that it had less impacts on most of the land cover classes than the other four alternatives. For the mixed class, this reservoir impacted 102.7 percent as much area as Fastrill Reservoir, and for the developed class, this reservoir

59 impacted 103.5 percent as much area as Fastrill Reservoir, the smallest increases of any of the four downstream alternatives. For the deciduous class, considered the most vulnerable, this reservoir impacted 97.5 percent as much area as Fastrill Reservoir, and for the grass class, this reservoir impacted 90.2 percent as much area. Thus, this reservoir impacts less of the critical hardwood forest and less meadows and pastures. Finally, this reservoir impacted 101.7 percent as much road length as Fastrill Reservoir, the smallest increase of any of the downstream alternatives. For the upstream alternatives, all reservoirs were modeled at the same pool elevation as Fastrill Reservoir. As these alternatives produced smaller reservoirs (in effect moving the dam upstream truncates the lower portion of the reservoir), each alternate site had smaller volumes, areas, and impacted less area than the site downstream of it. These alternatives were modeled to produce a smaller reservoir than the plan for Fastrill Reservoir. To compare their effects on the land cover classes, the proportion of each class to the total area was compared rather than the total area. A reservoir at the Ioni Creek alternate site with a pool elevation of 84 m above sea level produced a reservoir with a comparative volume of 70.9 percent of Fastrill Reservoir, with a comparative area of 80.9 percent. The average depth of the reservoir was 0.8006 m less than that of Fastrill Reservoir and the Area/Volume ratio increased by 0.0215. This is expected as the dam was moved upstream to a higher base elevation but the pool elevation was held constant. This reservoir had a lower proportional impact to conifers, mixed, and developed than did Fastrill, but had a higher proportional impact to water, deciduous, and grass than did Fastrill Reservoir A reservoir at the Tailes Creek alternate site with a pool elevation of 84 m above sea level produced a reservoir with a comparative volume of 20.7 percent of Fastrill Reservoir, with a comparative area of 35.8 percent. The average depth of the reservoir was 2.7507 m less than Fastrill Reservoir and the Area/Volume ratio increased by 0.1121. As the dam site was moved upstream the reservoir became rapidly shallower

60 and smaller. This reservoir had a lower proportional impact to conifers, mixed, grass, and developed, but had a higher proportional impact to water and deciduous than did Fastrill Reservoir. A reservoir at the Stills Creek alternate site with a pool elevation of 84 m above sea level produced a reservoir with a comparative volume of 10.4 percent of Fastrill Reservoir, with a comparative area of 24.2 percent. The average depth of the reservoir was only 2.8003 m, which is 3.7167 m less than Fastrill Reservoir. This is by far the smallest and shallowest reservoir modeled. The Area/Volume ratio increased by 0.2037 over Fastrill Reservoir. This reservoir had a lower proportional impact to conifers, mixed, and grass, but a higher proportional impact to water, deciduous and developed than Fastrill Reservoir. For the alternate sites located upstream of Fastrill Reservoir, each reservoir produced a smaller reservoir with less absolute impact to each land cover class. However, as the reservoirs grew smaller, their footprint was spread less over a variety of land cover classes and was more restricted to those immediately near the Neches River. Specifically, as the dam was moved upstream and the reservoir grew smaller, the proportional impacts to water and deciduous increased. These are perhaps the most environmentally sensitive of the land cover classes. Creating a smaller reservoir only concentrates the reservoir in the more sensitive areas, even though there is less of it. For example, the proportion of Fastrill Reservoir that was classified as water was 9.3 percent, but this increased to 19.5 percent for the Tailes Creek alternate site, decreasing to 18.0 percent for the Stills Creek alternate site. Likewise, the proportion of Fastrill Reservoir that was classified as deciduous was 49.3 percent, but this increased to 69.4 percent for the Tailes Creek alternate site, decreasing to 60.1 percent for the Stills Creek alternate site. The Ioni Creek alternate site had intermediate values.

61 CONCLUSIONS

The controversy over the proposed Fastrill Reservoir and its environmental costs, or whether the reservoir is even needed at all has existed for quite some time. The proposal first appeared in the late 1950s as the Weches Dam and Reservoir, but this was eventually dropped from long-range water supply plans in the late 1970s due to environmental and local opposition to the reservoir. Fastrill Reservoir appeared in long- range water supply plans in the early 1980s. Given the timing of its appearance and that the Fastrill Dam site is approximately 2 km to 3 km from the Weches Dam site, it is argued here that the Fastrill proposal is a resurrection of the Weches proposal with a few modifications. Indeed the opposition to Fastrill Reservoir is very similar to that of the Weches proposal, and the Fastrill Reservoir plan may meet the same fate as the Weches proposal. About the same time as the Fastrill Reservoir was first proposed, both state and federal officials identified the habitat in the area as critical and in need of preservation, and began steps to create the Upper Neches River National Wildlife Refuge. The City of Dallas, the proponent and planned user of the reservoir, argued these steps were illegal. However, the United States Court of Appeals noted that the City of Dallas had never taken any concrete steps toward the reservoir’s construction. It even noted that no definitive dam site had been designated, nor a footprint for the

reservoir had been determined. The controversy is now in its third stage of litigation and is currently being appealed to the United States Supreme Court. However, this study answered some of these questions, including the reservoir’s area, volume, location, and quantification of land cover types affected by the reservoir. It also explored several alternative locations. The study found that the modeled reservoir was in line with later published estimates of the reservoir’s area and volume. The shoreline of the reservoir and its

62 location were determined based on an assumed location for the dam. This location was selected based on information obtained from several sources. Fastrill Reservoir was found to affect the bottomland hardwood forest type (the deciduous class) more than any other of the six land cover classes. This is the habitat type that is of most concern for environmental protection. There are numerous endangered species of land animals, fish, birds, reptiles, plants, insects, and mollusks that depend on this habitat. Additionally, the reservoir affects 31.6 km of highways and roads which would have to be abandoned, rerouted, or replaced by bridges. It also affects the Texas State Railroad. The area also includes many softwood pine plantations used as crops by the local logging industry. Of the alternative sites examined, the most desirable alternative appears to be a reservoir constructed by a dam at the Weches Dam site. Although this was the proposal that was dropped several decades ago, it appears to actually produce a reservoir approximately the same size, but is slightly deeper and impacts less of the most sensitive areas. Nevertheless, the research showed that Dallas and several of its suburbs (through the Dallas Water Utility) currently and historically have some of the highest water consumption rates in the state of Texas. Their water consumption rate is also above the national average. However, other comparable cities in Texas have reduced

their water consumption rates without suffering ill economic effects. It was shown that if Dallas were to lower its water consumption rate to that of San Antonio, the current water supply could serve twice the current population. Dallas would not need additional water supplies until about the year 2050 based on current population predictions. However, past population trends are not necessarily indicative of future counts. Thus, the argument that the reservoir is not necessary is a compelling one, but ultimately the parties involved will have to decide if more water is needed in the future or if more preserved wilderness is needed in the future.

63 Table 1 Endangered species within the study area.

Common Name Taxonomic Name Notes Anderson County Cherokee County Henderson County Houston County Smith County Federal Listing (See Note) State Listing (See Note) Wetland Dependent Birds Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrius tundrius X X X X X T Potential migrant Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis X X X X X T Open pine woods, overgrown fields; nests on ground Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X X X X X T T Yes Prefers rivers, lakes, and tall trees Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii X X X X X Winters here; prefers weedy fields, brambles, bare ground Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos X X X X X E E Yes Nests on sand, gravel bars in rivers; eats fish/crustaceans E Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X X X X X Potential migrant T Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis X X X E E Nests in old growth pine forest White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi X T Yes Freshwater marshes, sloughs; nests in marshes Whooping Crane Grus americana X E E Yes Potential migrant Wood Stork Mycteria americana X X X X X T Yes Ponds, flooded areas, shallow standing water Fish American Eel Anguilla rostrata X X X Yes Riverine, requires access to ocean Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus X X X T Yes Neches tributaries; prefers headwaters, no lakes Ironcolor Shiner Notropis chaybaeus X Yes Slow, low-gradient, acid streams, clear water Orangebelly Darter Etheostoma radiosum X X Yes Prefers headwaters and faster-moving streams Paddlefish Polydon spathula X X X T Yes Prefers large free-flowing rivers, but may visit impoundments Western Sand Darter Ammocrypta clara X Yes Mostly clear, faster flowing water in larger rivers Insects (caddisfly) Phylocentropus harrisi X Yes Lives in moving waters (purse casemaker caddisfly) Hydroptila ouachita X Yes Lives in moving waters Holzenthal's Philopotamid chimarra holzenthali X Yes Trinity River basin Caddisfly Morse's Net-spinning Cheumatopsyche morsei X Yes Lives in moving waters Caddisfly Texas Emerald Dragonfly Somatochlora margarita X X Yes Springfed creeks, bogs; sandy, forested streams

Note: C = Candidate Species / E = Endangered Species / T = Threatened Species

64 Table 1 (continued)

Common Name Taxonomic Name Notes Anderson County Cherokee County Henderson County Houston County Smith County Federal Listing (See Note) State Listing (See Note) Wetland Dependent Mammals Black Bear Ursus americanus X X X X X T T Bottomland hardwood forest; large unbroken, inaccessible forest Louisiana Black Bear Ursus americanus luteolus X X X X T T Same as black bear; transient Plains Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta X X X X X Forests, woodlands, open fields, farms; prefers brushy areas Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesqii X X T Bottomland, hardwood forest Red Wolf Canis rufus X X X X X E E Locally extinct; brushy, forested areas Southeastern Myotis Bat Myotis austroriparius X X X X X Bottomland, hardwood forests Mollusks Creeper (Squawfoot) Strophitus undulatus X X X X X Yes Historic in Neches River Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis X X X X X Yes Resident in Neches River Little Spectaclecase Villosa lienosa X X X X X Yes Resident throughout region Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii X X X X X Yes Not in lakes; Resident in Neches River Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa X X X X X Yes Resident throughout region Rock-pocketbook Arcidens confragosus X X X X X Yes Resident throughout region Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura X X X X X Yes Resident in Neches River Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana X X X X X Yes Resident in Neches River Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus X X X X X Yes Resident in Neches River Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi X X X X X Yes Resident throughout region Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava X X X X X Yes Resident throughout region Wartyback Quadrula nodulata X X X X X Yes Resident in Neches River

Note: C = Candidate Species / E = Endangered Species / T = Threatened Species

65 Table 1 (continued)

Common Name Taxonomic Name Notes Anderson County Cherokee County Henderson County Houston County Smith County Federal Listing (See Note) State Listing (See Note) Wetland Dependent Plants Chapman's Yellow-eyed Xyris chapmanii X Yes Soft, peaty, boggy areas Grass Neches River Rose-Mallow Hibiscus dasycalyx X X C Yes Endemic; wet soils in swamps and open riparian woodlands Symphyotrichum paniceum Rough-stem Aster X X X Yes Endemic; wet unshaded habitats and bogs var scabricaule Sandhill Woolywhite Hymenopappus carrizoanus X Endemic; open sandy areas above Carrizozo/Eocene formations Small-headed Pipewort Ericaulon koernickianum X X Yes Acidic sands of upland seeps and bogs Texas Trillium Trillium pusillum var texanum X X X Acid hardwood bottomlands Tinytim Geocarpon minimum X T T Glades and open areas, soils high in magnesium and sodium Reptiles Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii X X X X X T Yes Swamps, bayous, oxbows, ponds Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni X X X X C T Mixed deciduous and pine forest Northern Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea copei X X X T Mixed hardwood scrub, sandy soils Graptemys ouachitensis Sabine Map Turtle X X X X Yes Rivers, ponds, reservoirs with abundant vegetation sabinensis Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum X X X X X T Open, sandy, semi-arid locations Timber/Canebrake Crotalus horridus X X X X X T Yes Swamps, floodplains, upland mixed forest; dense ground cover Rattlesnake

Note: C = Candidate Species / E = Endangered Species / T = Threatened Species

66 Table 2 Fastrill Reservoir pool elevation metrics and partial water balances (mean annual values).

Inputs Outputs 3 Direct Groundwater Balance (m ) Pool Precipitation Effluence Required Evaporation Groundwater = (Sum of Inputs) Elevation Inflow (m3) (m3) (m3) Outflow(m3) (m3) Influence (m3) Inflow (m3) – (Sum of Outputs) 67 m 649,517,276.15 133,313.61 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 145,281.99 25,451,318.52 550,842,361.73 68 m 649,517,276.15 545,689.51 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 594,687.61 118,472,039.50 457,784,611.03 69 m 649,517,276.15 1,790,875.00 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 1,951,984.62 414,543,938.97 161,600,600.04 70 m 649,517,276.15 2,414,010.10 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 2,631,541.13 566,972,164.21 9,115,953.39 71 m 649,517,276.15 8,406,775.59 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 9,168,504.31 2,209,992,689.56 -1,634,448,769.65 72 m 649,517,276.15 12,291,487.98 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 13,405,653.57 3,206,005,431.87 -2,630,813,948.83 73 m 649,517,276.15 17,326,408.11 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 18,896,707.49 4,540,600,969.24 -3,965,865,619.99 74 m 649,517,276.15 26,609,499.58 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 29,041,264.64 7,421,158,027.14 -6,847,284,143.57 75 m 649,517,276.15 37,475,847.27 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 40,956,688.19 10,802,765,934.34 -10,229,941,126.63 76 m 649,517,276.15 48,981,399.76 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 53,567,165.00 14,553,220,384.23 -13,981,500,500.84 77 m 649,517,276.15 59,259,794.05 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 64,834,025.54 18,366,211,467.86 -17,795,480,050.72 78 m 649,517,276.15 64,629,016.42 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 70,724,968.13 20,280,773,231.65 -19,710,563,534.73 79 m 649,517,276.15 73,162,338.85 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 80,122,654.77 22,872,018,116.71 -22,302,672,784.00 80 m 649,517,276.15 84,472,445.41 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 92,623,685.83 25,959,613,315.61 -25,391,458,907.40 81 m 649,517,276.15 92,280,848.79 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 101,248,472.28 28,322,077,244.72 -27,754,739,219.58 82 m 649,517,276.15 101,269,087.92 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 111,184,065.51 31,121,505,276.45 -30,555,114,605.41 83 m 649,517,276.15 111,237,356.04 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 122,210,363.27 34,190,693,904.47 -33,625,361,263.07 84 m 649,517,276.15 123,105,586.27 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 135,430,298.03 38,667,939,719.31 -38,103,958,782.44 85 m 649,517,276.15 137,007,558.01 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 150,855,855.56 43,476,304,038.57 -42,913,846,687.49 86 m 649,517,276.15 160,180,757.36 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 176,808,788.28 50,833,383,904.45 -50,273,706,286.74 87 m 649,517,276.15 170,605,641.21 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 188,402,170.08 44,295,621,869.92 -43,737,112,750.16 88 m 649,517,276.15 183,768,982.48 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 203,075,287.96 58,243,060,103.38 -57,686,060,760.23 89 m 649,517,276.15 203,314,519.58 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 224,972,552.83 64,154,889,739.47 -63,600,242,124.09 90 m 649,517,276.15 217,939,423.42 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 241,341,353.68 68,256,978,009.94 -67,704,074,291.57 91 m 649,517,276.15 233,676,730.95 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 258,941,419.40 72,527,677,130.48 -71,976,636,170.30 92 m 649,517,276.15 251,622,896.28 Unknown Unknown 73,211,627.52 279,003,893.79 77,439,766,638.11 -76,890,841,986.99

67 Table 3 Stills Creek alternate site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 18,908.5677 883 80,962.8383 4.2818 — 0.2335 — 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 300,748.4224 6,758 619,645.3692 2.0603 2.2215 0.4854 0.2518 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,872,306.1293 34,855 3,195,877.3812 1.7069 0.3534 0.5859 0.1005 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 8,672,946.3409 93,241 8,549,327.2960 0.9857 0.7212 1.0145 0.4286 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 18,201,725.7335 124,187 11,386,785.9516 0.6256 0.3602 1.5985 0.5840 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 31,395,221.3240 161,899 14,844,623.5015 0.4728 0.1528 2.1149 0.5164 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 48,342,625.2244 203,794 18,686,003.0133 0.3865 0.0863 2.5871 0.4722 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 69,393,336.0645 270,268 24,781,046.8532 0.3571 0.0294 2.8003 0.2132 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 97,130,937.4737 350,566 32,143,622.1497 0.3309 0.0262 3.0218 0.2215 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 138,960,167.8060 511,512 46,900,864.4678 0.3375 -0.0066 2.9628 -0.0589 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 188,123,278.9110 561,029 51,441,110.0649 0.2734 0.0641 3.6571 0.6942 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 242,408,209.3630 631,238 57,878,618.4585 0.2388 0.0347 4.1882 0.5312 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 305,528,172.0050 739,597 67,814,124.9038 0.2220 0.0168 4.5054 0.3172 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 376,755,694.1980 817,432 74,950,866.1452 0.1989 0.0230 5.0267 0.5213 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 455,187,456.5550 898,140 82,351,034.6055 0.1809 0.0180 5.5274 0.5007 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 542,116,227.2270 987,607 90,554,321.4127 0.1670 0.0139 5.9866 0.4592

68 Table 4 Tailes Creek alternate site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 524,270.1611 15,640 1,434,041.6653 2.7353 — 0.3656 — 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,811,819.8377 35,593 3,263,545.0762 1.1607 1.5747 0.8616 0.4960 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 7,408,015.9558 57,446 5,267,260.7099 0.7110 0.4496 1.4064 0.5448 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 13,395,970.1551 73,887 6,774,746.5806 0.5057 0.2053 1.9773 0.5709 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 21,613,160.0192 115,302 10,572,114.5836 0.4892 0.0166 2.0444 0.0670 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 36,413,545.9814 185,596 17,017,416.6819 0.4673 0.0218 2.1398 0.0954 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 54,834,047.6597 225,600 20,685,409.1868 0.3772 0.0901 2.6509 0.5111 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 77,805,254.0434 274,301 25,150,835.2187 0.3233 0.0540 3.0935 0.4427 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 105,566,795.9830 326,342 29,922,508.0001 0.2834 0.0398 3.5280 0.4345 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 138,190,306.5120 400,160 36,690,927.9263 0.2655 0.0179 3.7663 0.2383 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 178,192,369.5450 488,603 44,800,323.5145 0.2514 0.0141 3.9775 0.2111 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 233,186,016.6660 660,287 60,542,139.9632 0.2596 -0.0082 3.8516 -0.1258 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 296,411,104.6760 718,826 65,909,618.5465 0.2224 0.0373 4.4972 0.6456 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 365,618,424.8730 799,475 73,304,377.2588 0.2005 0.0219 4.9877 0.4904 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 444,803,850.2320 921,875 84,527,312.0304 0.1900 0.0105 5.2623 0.2746 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 533,300,638.3730 1,011,572 92,751,687.6856 0.1739 0.0161 5.7498 0.4875 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 630,129,795.9800 1,106,082 101,417,370.4083 0.1609 0.0130 6.2132 0.4635 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 736,927,211.5170 1,212,508 111,175,638.8397 0.1509 0.0101 6.6285 0.4153

69 Table 5 Ioni Creek alternate site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 70 m 9.5755 91.6906 11.3508 18 1,650.4316 145.4022 — 0.0069 — 71 m 9.5755 91.6906 583,212.9574 10,656 977,055.4978 1.6753 143.7269 0.5969 0.5900 72 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,956,580.2239 21,018 1,927,153.9463 0.9850 0.6903 1.0153 0.4184 73 m 9.5755 91.6906 4,797,730.0441 39,455 3,617,654.3416 0.7540 0.2309 1.3262 0.3109 74 m 9.5755 91.6906 11,833,939.1039 109,426 10,033,340.3620 0.8478 -0.0938 1.1795 -0.1467 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 25,642,954.1653 199,681 18,308,879.3964 0.7140 0.1339 1.4006 0.2211 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 48,217,768.6566 295,410 27,086,333.0136 0.5618 0.1522 1.7802 0.3796 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 80,048,620.5948 377,828 34,643,292.4744 0.4328 0.1290 2.3107 0.5305 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 116,498,710.8050 418,828 38,402,608.8603 0.3296 0.1031 3.0336 0.7230 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 157,661,753.3350 488,210 44,764,289.0916 0.2839 0.0457 3.5220 0.4884 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 207,865,903.2930 582,480 53,407,966.0599 0.2569 0.0270 3.8920 0.3700 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 263,758,612.4480 647,069 59,330,173.0367 0.2249 0.0320 4.4456 0.5536 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 326,514,331.9400 721,552 66,159,567.2408 0.2026 0.0223 4.9353 0.4896 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 396,720,258.1990 803,299 73,655,002.2798 0.1857 0.0170 5.3862 0.4509 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 474,287,562.1510 904,881 82,969,121.2337 0.1749 0.0107 5.7164 0.3302 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 561,871,829.7860 1,024,279 93,916,800.6933 0.1671 0.0078 5.9827 0.2662 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 667,498,853.2090 1,227,802 112,577,955.5422 0.1687 -0.0015 5.9292 -0.0534 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 784,119,748.1730 1,316,079 120,672,130.4836 0.1539 0.0148 6.4979 0.5687 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 909,594,501.7870 1,431,593 131,263,683.4836 0.1443 0.0096 6.9295 0.4316 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,048,875,976.3000 1,599,661 146,673,946.5652 0.1398 0.0045 7.1511 0.2216 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,201,266,461.6100 1,726,111 158,268,228.4432 0.1318 0.0081 7.5901 0.4390 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,365,394,697.9400 1,862,003 170,728,253.3776 0.1250 0.0067 7.9975 0.4074 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,543,836,278.8700 2,016,006 184,848,887.5575 0.1197 0.0053 8.3519 0.3544

70 Table 6 Fastrill dam site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 66 m 9.5755 91.6906 7.0283 1 91.6906 13.0459 — 0.0767 — 67 m 9.5755 91.6906 30,175.2025 1,212 111,129.0600 3.6828 9.3631 0.2715 0.1949 68 m 9.5755 91.6906 310,316.9090 4,923 451,393.0382 1.4546 2.2282 0.6875 0.4159 69 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,217,783.9561 16,237 1,488,780.9795 1.2225 0.2321 0.8180 0.1305 70 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,947,476.1176 21,891 2,007,199.8781 0.6810 0.5415 1.4685 0.6505 71 m 9.5755 91.6906 7,941,577.9610 75,884 6,957,852.7958 0.8761 -0.1951 1.1414 -0.3271 72 m 9.5755 91.6906 16,394,415.5744 110,865 10,165,283.1981 0.6200 0.2561 1.6128 0.4714 73 m 9.5755 91.6906 28,663,484.8304 156,296 14,330,880.8256 0.5000 0.1201 2.0001 0.3873 74 m 9.5755 91.6906 47,156,255.6040 240,037 22,009,147.0078 0.4667 0.0332 2.1426 0.1425 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 73,324,434.8319 338,449 31,032,606.6217 0.4232 0.0435 2.3628 0.2202 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 109,005,917.6830 442,611 40,583,287.4360 0.3723 0.0509 2.6860 0.3232 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 154,825,035.7010 535,800 49,127,846.8186 0.3173 0.0550 3.1515 0.4655 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 206,184,034.1430 585,642 53,697,891.8748 0.2604 0.0569 3.8397 0.6882 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 263,006,027.7030 663,139 60,803,641.6786 0.2312 0.0292 4.3255 0.4858 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 329,626,401.7160 765,340 70,174,517.1410 0.2129 0.0183 4.6972 0.3717 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 402,594,780.0530 836,507 76,699,865.1711 0.1905 0.0224 5.2490 0.5517 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 483,050,020.8340 918,599 84,226,933.4821 0.1744 0.0161 5.7351 0.4861 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 571,720,411.9010 1,009,633 92,573,899.5278 0.1619 0.0124 6.1758 0.4407 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 668,604,978.0750 1,118,919 102,594,403.1997 0.1534 0.0085 6.5170 0.3411 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 776,184,314.6870 1,246,724 114,312,925.8997 0.1473 0.0062 6.7900 0.2730 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 902,681,470.0110 1,460,698 133,932,339.6644 0.1484 -0.0011 6.7398 -0.0502 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,041,063,622.7400 1,557,352 142,794,607.1269 0.1372 0.0112 7.2906 0.5508 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,189,032,102.3500 1,681,257 154,155,536.3170 0.1296 0.0075 7.7132 0.4226 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,351,625,552.9500 1,858,461 170,403,485.1181 0.1261 0.0036 7.9319 0.2187 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,528,149,062.9100 1,993,591 182,793,641.7822 0.1196 0.0065 8.3600 0.4281 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,717,221,238.7700 2,139,002 196,126,469.9526 0.1142 0.0054 8.7557 0.3957 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,921,592,175.2500 2,304,816 211,330,062.3236 0.1100 0.0042 9.0928 0.3372

71 Table 7 Weches dam site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 66 m 9.5755 91.6906 4,582.0264 424 38,876.8329 8.4846 — 0.1179 — 67 m 9.5755 91.6906 205,725.7769 6,836 626,797.2394 3.0468 5.4379 0.3282 0.2104 68 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,644,694.0458 22,491 2,062,214.2643 1.2539 1.7929 0.7975 0.4693 69 m 9.5755 91.6906 4,789,983.7350 48,724 4,467,534.9167 0.9327 0.3212 1.0722 0.2746 70 m 9.5755 91.6906 9,880,114.0270 64,105 5,877,828.7053 0.5949 0.3378 1.6809 0.6087 71 m 9.5755 91.6906 19,811,552.8304 133,860 12,273,709.5467 0.6195 -0.0246 1.6141 -0.0668 72 m 9.5755 91.6906 33,755,995.5185 172,604 15,826,171.8407 0.4688 0.1507 2.1329 0.5188 73 m 9.5755 91.6906 51,870,038.6527 222,256 20,378,795.6747 0.3929 0.0760 2.5453 0.4124 74 m 9.5755 91.6906 76,733,550.5522 313,509 28,745,841.9713 0.3746 0.0183 2.6694 0.1241 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 109,935,037.6580 418,200 38,345,027.1361 0.3488 0.0258 2.8670 0.1976 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 153,214,923.7960 528,789 48,485,003.7166 0.3165 0.0323 3.1600 0.2931 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 207,220,035.7110 628,002 57,581,907.5359 0.2779 0.0386 3.5987 0.4387 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 267,271,206.2140 682,946 62,619,758.2556 0.2343 0.0436 4.2682 0.6695 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 333,304,635.9520 767,321 70,356,156.3058 0.2111 0.0232 4.7374 0.4692 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 409,775,259.4940 875,473 80,272,682.7880 0.1959 0.0152 5.1048 0.3674 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 493,044,047.2410 950,978 87,195,784.8298 0.1769 0.0190 5.6544 0.5497 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 584,205,955.9330 1,037,834 95,159,667.3667 0.1629 0.0140 6.1392 0.4848 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 684,081,445.9540 1,134,086 103,985,075.1905 0.1520 0.0109 6.5787 0.4394 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 792,551,350.5290 1,247,686 114,401,132.2988 0.1443 0.0077 6.9278 0.3492 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 912,123,582.4900 1,379,783 126,513,191.2409 0.1387 0.0056 7.2097 0.2819 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,051,037,039.7100 1,598,478 146,565,476.5339 0.1394 -0.0007 7.1711 -0.0386 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,202,262,929.3700 1,699,721 155,848,512.3597 0.1296 0.0098 7.7143 0.5432 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,363,502,190.6300 1,828,633 167,668,536.6021 0.1230 0.0067 8.1321 0.4178 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,539,872,530.2700 2,011,667 184,451,041.8551 0.1198 0.0032 8.3484 0.2163 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,730,710,492.4800 2,152,437 197,358,333.7488 0.1140 0.0058 8.7694 0.4210 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,934,610,039.8000 2,303,889 211,245,065.0970 0.1092 0.0048 9.1581 0.3887 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,154,417,163.8900 2,476,625 227,083,340.1027 0.1054 0.0038 9.4873 0.3292

72 Table 8 San Pedro Creek alternate site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 64 m 9.5755 91.6906 70.9278 20 1,833.8129 25.8546 — 0.0387 — 65 m 9.5755 91.6906 3,651.6408 54 4,951.2948 1.3559 24.4987 0.7375 0.6988 66 m 9.5755 91.6906 25,992.9005 826 75,736.4716 2.9137 -1.5578 0.3432 -0.3943 67 m 9.5755 91.6906 279,492.4673 7,908 725,089.6093 2.5943 0.3194 0.3855 0.0423 68 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,749,520.9926 38,387 3,519,728.7343 1.2801 1.3142 0.7812 0.3957 69 m 9.5755 91.6906 7,706,836.9132 73,101 6,702,677.7348 0.8697 0.4104 1.1498 0.3686 70 m 9.5755 91.6906 15,565,120.3274 102,209 9,371,608.9875 0.6021 0.2676 1.6609 0.5111 71 m 9.5755 91.6906 29,865,191.2087 186,677 17,116,534.2675 0.5731 0.0290 1.7448 0.0839 72 m 9.5755 91.6906 49,011,637.8456 233,695 21,427,644.9464 0.4372 0.1359 2.2873 0.5425 73 m 9.5755 91.6906 73,310,825.9039 296,050 27,145,015.0255 0.3703 0.0669 2.7007 0.4134 74 m 9.5755 91.6906 105,625,914.1710 401,119 36,778,859.2535 0.3482 0.0221 2.8719 0.1712 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 147,230,837.2990 513,854 47,115,603.9550 0.3200 0.0282 3.1249 0.2530 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 199,762,485.7590 637,010 58,407,856.8531 0.2924 0.0276 3.4201 0.2952 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 264,529,927.6290 751,377 68,894,240.6850 0.2604 0.0319 3.8397 0.4195 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 336,362,052.6320 817,707 74,976,081.0722 0.2229 0.0375 4.4863 0.6466 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 415,542,303.7460 920,718 84,421,225.9558 0.2032 0.0197 4.9222 0.4360 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 506,944,053.4270 1,045,329 95,846,888.7402 0.1891 0.0141 5.2891 0.3669 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 606,337,057.9820 1,132,870 103,873,579.3680 0.1713 0.0178 5.8373 0.5482 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 714,808,666.7070 1,235,057 113,243,171.1613 0.1584 0.0129 6.3122 0.4749 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 833,630,502.5740 1,348,468 123,641,898.7379 0.1483 0.0101 6.7423 0.4301 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 962,363,558.0730 1,475,489 135,288,535.9733 0.1406 0.0077 7.1134 0.3711 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,103,544,092.6800 1,624,201 148,924,034.9581 0.1350 0.0056 7.4101 0.2967 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,265,761,829.0500 1,861,780 170,707,806.3641 0.1349 0.0001 7.4148 0.0047 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,441,923,763.3000 1,979,923 181,540,414.0660 0.1259 0.0090 7.9427 0.5279 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,629,745,488.8900 2,130,166 195,316,291.4261 0.1198 0.0061 8.3441 0.4014 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,835,131,079.3800 2,342,924 214,824,209.3683 0.1171 0.0028 8.5425 0.1983 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,057,585,961.1500 2,510,179 230,159,927.9567 0.1119 0.0052 8.9398 0.3973 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,295,574,859.7500 2,691,184 246,756,392.8940 0.1075 0.0044 9.3030 0.3632 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,552,648,254.5900 2,902,131 266,098,259.0807 0.1042 0.0032 9.5929 0.2899

73 Table 9 Box Creek alternate site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 64 m 9.5755 91.6906 75,523.9291 3,531 323,759.6624 4.2868 — 0.2333 — 65 m 9.5755 91.6906 956,519.2784 16,054 1,472,001.5917 1.5389 2.7479 0.6498 0.4165 66 m 9.5755 91.6906 3,116,821.0189 31,871 2,922,272.5008 0.9376 0.6013 1.0666 0.4168 67 m 9.5755 91.6906 6,903,167.0793 57,328 5,256,441.2139 0.7615 0.1761 1.3133 0.2467 68 m 9.5755 91.6906 15,852,351.9671 121,036 11,097,868.7337 0.7001 0.0614 1.4284 0.1151 69 m 9.5755 91.6906 29,112,054.5143 170,670 15,648,842.1361 0.5375 0.1625 1.8603 0.4319 70 m 9.5755 91.6906 46,439,737.8583 212,015 19,439,791.7940 0.4186 0.1189 2.3889 0.5286 71 m 9.5755 91.6906 71,655,689.8921 311,399 28,552,374.7134 0.3985 0.0201 2.5096 0.1207 72 m 9.5755 91.6906 102,552,055.4240 364,974 33,464,700.9421 0.3263 0.0721 3.0645 0.5549 73 m 9.5755 91.6906 139,201,026.9890 434,656 39,853,888.3665 0.2863 0.0400 3.4928 0.4283 74 m 9.5755 91.6906 184,751,180.2460 550,633 50,487,894.1345 0.2733 0.0130 3.6593 0.1665 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 240,392,648.9500 670,417 61,470,966.1825 0.2557 0.0176 3.9107 0.2514 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 307,658,327.5980 802,054 73,540,847.4286 0.2390 0.0167 4.1835 0.2728 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 388,030,580.3380 925,745 84,882,154.8209 0.2188 0.0203 4.5714 0.3879 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 476,195,932.6570 999,930 91,684,225.2133 0.1925 0.0262 5.1939 0.6225 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 572,543,125.4910 1,113,640 102,110,368.2923 0.1783 0.0142 5.6071 0.4132 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 682,134,523.6640 1,248,290 114,456,513.4475 0.1678 0.0106 5.9598 0.3527 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 800,487,286.2400 1,343,529 123,189,038.6493 0.1539 0.0139 6.4980 0.5383 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 928,704,716.1790 1,456,153 133,515,605.6894 0.1438 0.0101 6.9558 0.4577 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,068,781,433.0200 1,589,015 145,697,807.9739 0.1363 0.0074 7.3356 0.3798 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,220,190,653.3800 1,729,384 158,568,331.9195 0.1300 0.0064 7.6950 0.3594 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,385,377,650.3800 1,895,439 173,794,021.7356 0.1254 0.0045 7.9714 0.2763 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,573,781,764.7400 2,159,663 198,020,890.3392 0.1258 -0.0004 7.9476 -0.0238 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,778,188,745.2800 2,298,087 210,713,075.9831 0.1185 0.0073 8.4389 0.4914 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,996,193,981.1900 2,471,173 226,583,442.7140 0.1135 0.0050 8.8100 0.3711 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,234,103,412.8800 2,708,506 248,344,658.2217 0.1112 0.0023 8.9960 0.1860 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,490,792,352.3700 2,890,879 265,066,555.9594 0.1064 0.0047 9.3969 0.4009 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,764,371,004.4800 3,087,764 283,119,068.3163 0.1024 0.0040 9.7640 0.3671 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 3,059,011,850.8300 3,324,197 304,797,762.2448 0.0996 0.0028 10.0362 0.2722

74 Table 10 Bowles Creek alternate site reservoir metrics.

Cell Pool Size Cell Area Cell Reservoir Area:Volume Mean Change Elevation (m) (m2) Volume (m3) Count Area (m2) Ratio Change Depth (m) (m) 63 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,027,570.0331 35,808 3,283,258.5645 1.6193 — 0.6175 — 64 m 9.5755 91.6906 6,162,191.5497 80,409 7,372,752.9579 1.1964 0.4229 0.8358 0.2183 65 m 9.5755 91.6906 15,564,188.8144 118,522 10,867,358.4558 0.6982 0.4982 1.4322 0.5964 66 m 9.5755 91.6906 27,819,149.7393 149,694 13,725,539.1968 0.4934 0.2048 2.0268 0.5946 67 m 9.5755 91.6906 42,905,079.5120 186,880 17,135,147.4682 0.3994 0.0940 2.5039 0.4771 68 m 9.5755 91.6906 64,510,943.6963 264,097 24,215,223.8918 0.3754 0.0240 2.6641 0.1601 69 m 9.5755 91.6906 91,198,851.1081 320,725 29,407,481.6553 0.3225 0.0529 3.1012 0.4371 70 m 9.5755 91.6906 122,704,217.2360 371,591 34,071,417.9305 0.2777 0.0448 3.6014 0.5002 71 m 9.5755 91.6906 162,944,451.0920 478,535 43,877,182.1152 0.2693 0.0084 3.7136 0.1123 72 m 9.5755 91.6906 209,413,482.3290 537,552 49,288,488.8261 0.2354 0.0339 4.2487 0.5351 73 m 9.5755 91.6906 262,191,888.1430 614,152 56,311,992.1227 0.2148 0.0206 4.6561 0.4073 74 m 9.5755 91.6906 324,527,485.7880 737,011 67,577,012.8996 0.2082 0.0065 4.8023 0.1463 75 m 9.5755 91.6906 397,585,728.9330 864,052 79,225,483.9479 0.1993 0.0090 5.0184 0.2161 76 m 9.5755 91.6906 482,967,480.4620 1,003,888 92,047,136.7805 0.1906 0.0087 5.2470 0.2286 77 m 9.5755 91.6906 582,313,109.5340 1,136,951 104,247,768.8843 0.1790 0.0116 5.5859 0.3389 78 m 9.5755 91.6906 690,216,921.7550 1,219,453 111,812,430.3592 0.1620 0.0170 6.1730 0.5871 79 m 9.5755 91.6906 807,168,906.3870 1,344,614 123,288,522.9976 0.1527 0.0093 6.5470 0.3740 80 m 9.5755 91.6906 938,516,064.4070 1,491,063 136,716,526.0561 0.1457 0.0071 6.8647 0.3177 81 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,079,621,106.3100 1,596,855 146,416,662.6194 0.1356 0.0101 7.3736 0.5089 82 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,231,589,372.3600 1,721,604 157,854,978.7127 0.1282 0.0074 7.8020 0.4284 83 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,396,842,176.1600 1,873,049 171,741,068.2263 0.1229 0.0052 8.1334 0.3314 84 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,575,151,192.1600 2,031,988 186,314,287.4229 0.1183 0.0047 8.4543 0.3208 85 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,768,901,545.1400 2,215,914 203,178,580.7300 0.1149 0.0034 8.7061 0.2519 86 m 9.5755 91.6906 1,988,235,685.7100 2,511,917 230,319,286.2952 0.1158 -0.0010 8.6325 -0.0736 87 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,225,701,065.6900 2,667,523 244,586,900.5767 0.1099 0.0059 9.0998 0.4673 88 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,478,410,070.1400 2,857,740 262,028,019.7225 0.1057 0.0042 9.4586 0.3587 89 m 9.5755 91.6906 2,752,839,931.8100 3,118,530 285,940,022.6561 0.1039 0.0019 9.6273 0.1688 90 m 9.5755 91.6906 3,048,066,070.7600 3,320,961 304,501,051.3222 0.0999 0.0040 10.0100 0.3827 91 m 9.5755 91.6906 3,361,927,428.2700 3,537,183 324,326,585.6537 0.0965 0.0034 10.3659 0.3558 92 m 9.5755 91.6906 3,698,878,370.3000 3,797,360 348,182,382.2228 0.0941 0.0023 10.6234 0.2575

75 Table 11 Stills Creek alternate site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

77 m 484 54.8131 0.2086 12 1.3590 0.0017 0 0.0000 0.0000 78 m 3,335 49.3489 1.4372 87 1.2874 0.0121 39 0.5771 0.0009 79 m 13,169 37.7822 5.6751 530 1.5206 0.0737 869 2.4932 0.0208 80 m 29,042 31.1472 12.5156 1,821 1.9530 0.2531 2,961 3.1756 0.0708 81 m 32,164 25.8997 13.8610 3,304 2.6605 0.4592 5,554 4.4723 0.1327 82 m 35,505 21.9303 15.3008 7,124 4.4003 0.9902 11,253 6.9506 0.2690 83 m 40,336 19.7925 17.3827 11,185 5.4884 1.5546 16,209 7.9536 0.3874 84 m 48,547 17.9625 20.9212 22,485 8.3195 3.1252 23,678 8.7609 0.5659 85 m 59,172 16.8790 25.5000 32,140 9.1680 4.4671 34,594 9.8680 0.8269 86 m 71,184 13.9164 30.6765 42,290 8.2676 5.8779 61,803 12.0824 1.4772 87 m 73,887 13.1699 31.8414 50,472 8.9963 7.0151 70,376 12.5441 1.6821 88 m 80,014 12.6757 34.4818 58,223 9.2236 8.0924 83,841 13.2820 2.0039 89 m 85,347 11.5397 36.7800 66,080 8.9346 9.1844 108,132 14.6204 2.5845 90 m 92,677 11.3376 39.9389 72,464 8.8648 10.0717 124,726 15.2583 2.9812 91 m 97,352 10.8393 41.9536 78,276 8.7153 10.8795 144,263 16.0624 3.4481 92 m 100,870 10.2136 43.4696 86,212 8.7294 11.9825 168,028 17.0137 4.0161

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

77 m 344 38.9581 0.0099 0 0.0000 0.0000 43 4.8698 0.0025 78 m 3,073 45.4720 0.0884 0 0.0000 0.0000 224 3.3146 0.0128 79 m 19,427 55.7366 0.5587 34 0.0975 0.0014 826 2.3698 0.0471 80 m 56,085 60.1506 1.6129 353 0.3786 0.0148 2,979 3.1949 0.1698 81 m 78,683 63.3585 2.2628 513 0.4131 0.0216 3,969 3.1960 0.2263 82 m 102,181 63.1140 2.9386 747 0.4614 0.0314 5,089 3.1433 0.2901 83 m 126,254 61.9518 3.6309 1,658 0.8136 0.0697 8,152 4.0001 0.4648 84 m 162,355 60.0719 4.6691 2,449 0.9061 0.1030 10,754 3.9790 0.6131 85 m 204,740 58.4027 5.8881 4,360 1.2437 0.1833 15,560 4.4385 0.8871 86 m 300,321 58.7124 8.6369 9,682 1.8928 0.4070 26,232 5.1283 1.4955 87 m 326,423 58.1829 9.3875 11,459 2.0425 0.4817 28,412 5.0643 1.6198 88 m 362,793 57.4733 10.4335 13,894 2.2011 0.5841 32,473 5.1443 1.8514 89 m 416,580 56.3253 11.9803 23,832 3.2223 1.0019 39,626 5.3578 2.2592 90 m 450,560 55.1190 12.9575 32,828 4.0160 1.3801 44,177 5.4044 2.5186 91 m 485,653 54.0732 13.9668 43,514 4.8449 1.8293 49,082 5.4648 2.7983 92 m 524,031 53.0607 15.0705 53,941 5.4618 2.2677 54,525 5.5209 3.1086

76 Table 12 Tailes Creek alternate site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

75 m 1,758 11.2404 0.6525 217 1.3875 0.0207 3,780 24.1688 0.0775 76 m 4,914 13.8061 1.8238 441 1.2390 0.0420 8,222 23.1000 0.1685 77 m 9,397 16.3580 3.4876 1,043 1.8156 0.0993 12,182 21.2060 0.2496 78 m 15,424 20.8751 5.7245 1,335 1.8068 0.1271 14,385 19.4689 0.2948 79 m 26,935 23.3604 9.9968 2,712 2.3521 0.2582 17,916 15.5383 0.3671 80 m 43,342 23.3529 16.0861 5,614 3.0248 0.5344 23,708 12.7740 0.4858 81 m 46,710 20.7048 17.3361 8,862 3.9282 0.8436 29,872 13.2411 0.6121 82 m 50,175 18.2919 18.6222 15,317 5.5840 1.4580 39,612 14.4411 0.8117 83 m 55,317 16.9506 20.5306 21,919 6.7166 2.0865 47,429 14.5335 0.9719 84 m 63,558 15.8831 23.5892 35,571 8.8892 3.3860 56,950 14.2318 1.1670 85 m 74,198 15.1857 27.5382 47,670 9.7564 4.5377 70,226 14.3728 1.4391 86 m 86,218 13.0577 31.9993 60,893 9.2222 5.7964 100,710 15.2525 2.0637 87 m 88,927 12.3711 33.0047 72,244 10.0503 6.8769 112,048 15.5876 2.2961 88 m 95,054 11.8896 35.2787 83,817 10.4840 7.9785 128,925 16.1262 2.6419 89 m 100,387 10.8894 37.2581 95,658 10.3765 9.1056 157,969 17.1356 3.2371 90 m 107,731 10.6499 39.9837 105,448 10.4242 10.0375 178,406 17.6365 3.6559 91 m 112,413 10.1632 41.7214 115,260 10.4206 10.9715 202,713 18.3271 4.1540 92 m 116,071 9.5728 43.0791 128,274 10.5792 12.2103 232,032 19.1365 4.7548

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

75 m 9,301 59.4693 0.2349 0 0.0000 0.0000 584 3.7340 0.0302 76 m 20,921 58.7784 0.5285 0 0.0000 0.0000 1,095 3.0764 0.0567 77 m 33,312 57.9884 0.8415 88 0.1532 0.0034 1,424 2.4788 0.0737 78 m 40,802 55.2222 1.0306 239 0.3235 0.0093 1,702 2.3035 0.0881 79 m 64,803 56.2028 1.6369 331 0.2871 0.0129 2,605 2.2593 0.1349 80 m 107,083 57.6968 2.7049 746 0.4019 0.0291 5,103 2.7495 0.2643 81 m 132,834 58.8803 3.3553 970 0.4300 0.0379 6,352 2.8156 0.3289 82 m 160,112 58.3709 4.0444 1,283 0.4677 0.0501 7,802 2.8443 0.4040 83 m 188,050 57.6236 4.7501 2,306 0.7066 0.0900 11,321 3.4691 0.5863 84 m 226,425 56.5836 5.7194 3,327 0.8314 0.1298 14,329 3.5808 0.7420 85 m 271,382 55.5424 6.8550 5,491 1.1238 0.2143 19,636 4.0188 1.0169 86 m 369,759 55.9997 9.3400 11,245 1.7030 0.4389 31,462 4.7649 1.6293 87 m 397,719 55.3290 10.0463 13,704 1.9064 0.5348 34,184 4.7555 1.7702 88 m 436,018 54.5380 11.0137 16,845 2.1070 0.6574 38,816 4.8552 2.0101 89 m 493,391 53.5204 12.4629 27,809 3.0166 1.0853 46,661 5.0615 2.4164 90 m 530,107 52.4043 13.3903 37,868 3.7435 1.4779 52,012 5.1417 2.6935 91 m 568,510 51.3985 14.3604 49,511 4.4763 1.9322 57,675 5.2144 2.9867 92 m 610,953 50.3875 15.4325 60,920 5.0243 2.3775 64,258 5.2996 3.3276

77 Table 13 Ioni Creek alternate site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

70 m 6 33.3333 0.0015 0 0.0000 0.0000 2 11.1111 0.0000 71 m 1,035 9.7128 0.2656 688 6.4565 0.0335 1,245 11.6836 0.0172 72 m 4,496 21.3912 1.1540 909 4.3249 0.0442 2,560 12.1800 0.0354 73 m 8,035 20.3650 2.0623 1,377 3.4901 0.0670 5,500 13.9399 0.0761 74 m 12,871 11.7623 3.3035 5,169 4.7237 0.2516 17,987 16.4376 0.2490 75 m 20,646 10.3395 5.2991 19,899 9.9654 0.9685 33,109 16.5809 0.4583 76 m 32,165 10.8883 8.2556 33,867 11.4644 1.6484 53,930 18.2560 0.7465 77 m 38,321 10.1424 9.8356 49,056 12.9837 2.3877 75,564 19.9996 1.0460 78 m 44,949 10.7321 11.5368 55,277 13.1980 2.6905 85,875 20.5036 1.1887 79 m 56,475 11.5678 14.4951 66,118 13.5429 3.2182 96,377 19.7409 1.3341 80 m 73,100 12.5498 18.7622 75,522 12.9656 3.6759 109,111 18.7321 1.5104 81 m 76,520 11.8256 19.6400 83,697 12.9348 4.0738 122,774 18.9739 1.6995 82 m 80,236 11.1199 20.5937 95,978 13.3016 4.6715 140,598 19.4855 1.9462 83 m 85,917 10.6955 22.0518 109,293 13.6055 5.3196 157,132 19.5608 2.1751 84 m 94,330 10.4246 24.2111 130,004 14.3670 6.3277 174,152 19.2458 2.4107 85 m 105,177 10.2684 26.9952 150,503 14.6936 7.3254 197,143 19.2470 2.7289 86 m 117,357 9.5583 30.1214 174,710 14.2295 8.5037 237,486 19.3424 3.2874 87 m 120,222 9.1349 30.8567 196,917 14.9624 9.5846 257,810 19.5892 3.5687 88 m 126,474 8.8345 32.4614 221,543 15.4753 10.7832 285,674 19.9550 3.9544 89 m 132,120 8.2592 33.9105 249,594 15.6029 12.1485 329,374 20.5902 4.5593 90 m 139,719 8.0944 35.8609 271,227 15.7132 13.2014 363,042 21.0324 5.0254 91 m 144,648 7.7684 37.1260 294,119 15.7958 14.3157 401,093 21.5409 5.5521 92 m 148,356 7.3589 38.0777 321,788 15.9617 15.6624 446,411 22.1433 6.1794

78 Table 13 (continued)

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

70 m 9 50.0000 0.0002 0 0.0000 0.0000 1 5.5556 0.0000 71 m 6,998 65.6719 0.1210 0 0.0000 0.0000 690 6.4752 0.0251 72 m 11,638 55.3716 0.2012 0 0.0000 0.0000 1,415 6.7323 0.0515 73 m 22,613 57.3134 0.3910 18 0.0456 0.0005 1,912 4.8460 0.0695 74 m 67,994 62.1370 1.1756 531 0.4853 0.0157 4,874 4.4542 0.1773 75 m 117,742 58.9650 2.0358 1,044 0.5228 0.0309 7,241 3.6263 0.2633 76 m 164,210 55.5872 2.8392 2,106 0.7129 0.0623 9,132 3.0913 0.3321 77 m 199,652 52.8420 3.4520 4,401 1.1648 0.1303 10,834 2.8674 0.3940 78 m 215,046 51.3447 3.7182 5,991 1.4304 0.1773 11,690 2.7911 0.4251 79 m 249,102 51.0235 4.3070 7,048 1.4436 0.2086 13,090 2.6812 0.4761 80 m 300,508 51.5911 5.1959 8,243 1.4152 0.2440 15,996 2.7462 0.5817 81 m 337,473 52.1541 5.8350 8,898 1.3751 0.2634 17,707 2.7365 0.6440 82 m 375,387 52.0249 6.4905 9,496 1.3161 0.2811 19,857 2.7520 0.7222 83 m 415,991 51.7853 7.1926 10,909 1.3580 0.3229 24,057 2.9948 0.8749 84 m 466,193 51.5198 8.0606 12,556 1.3876 0.3717 27,646 3.0552 1.0054 85 m 522,582 51.0195 9.0356 15,283 1.4921 0.4524 33,591 3.2795 1.2216 86 m 630,158 51.3241 10.8956 21,935 1.7865 0.6493 46,156 3.7592 1.6786 87 m 665,433 50.5618 11.5055 25,807 1.9609 0.7639 49,890 3.7908 1.8144 88 m 711,334 49.6883 12.2992 30,940 2.1612 0.9158 55,628 3.8857 2.0231 89 m 778,865 48.6894 13.4668 44,841 2.8032 1.3273 64,867 4.0550 2.3591 90 m 823,537 47.7105 14.2392 56,995 3.3019 1.6871 71,591 4.1475 2.6036 91 m 871,507 46.8048 15.0686 71,711 3.8513 2.1227 78,925 4.2387 2.8704 92 m 924,219 45.8441 15.9800 87,844 4.3573 2.6002 87,388 4.3347 3.1781

79 Table 14 Fastrill dam site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

66 m 1 100.0000 0.0002 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 67 m 234 19.3069 0.0585 44 3.6304 0.0020 14 1.1551 0.0002 68 m 700 14.2190 0.1750 181 3.6766 0.0082 133 2.7016 0.0018 69 m 1,136 6.9964 0.2840 3,252 20.0283 0.1468 1,167 7.1873 0.0157 70 m 1,314 6.0025 0.3285 3,754 17.1486 0.1695 2,294 10.4792 0.0309 71 m 6,667 8.7858 1.6666 6,187 8.1532 0.2794 8,915 11.7482 0.1200 72 m 12,554 11.3237 3.1382 7,637 6.8886 0.3448 15,779 14.2326 0.2124 73 m 17,085 10.9312 4.2708 11,715 7.4954 0.5290 27,056 17.3107 0.3642 74 m 21,982 9.1578 5.4949 18,719 7.7984 0.8452 45,012 18.7521 0.6059 75 m 29,767 8.7951 7.4410 35,877 10.6004 1.6200 63,403 18.7334 0.8534 76 m 41,441 9.3628 10.3592 52,091 11.7690 2.3521 87,306 19.7252 1.1752 77 m 47,666 8.8962 11.9153 71,058 13.2620 3.2085 112,937 21.0782 1.5202 78 m 54,294 9.2709 13.5721 80,041 13.6672 3.6141 126,719 21.6376 1.7057 79 m 65,820 9.9255 16.4533 93,594 14.1138 4.2261 140,493 21.1861 1.8911 80 m 82,445 10.7723 20.6091 105,547 13.7909 4.7658 156,507 20.4493 2.1066 81 m 85,865 10.2647 21.4640 115,787 13.8417 5.2282 173,224 20.7080 2.3316 82 m 89,581 9.7519 22.3930 130,601 14.2174 5.8971 194,442 21.1672 2.6172 83 m 95,271 9.4362 23.8153 146,910 14.5508 6.6335 215,067 21.3015 2.8948 84 m 103,684 9.2664 25.9183 170,264 15.2168 7.6880 235,599 21.0559 3.1712 85 m 114,538 9.1871 28.6316 193,757 15.5413 8.7488 262,407 21.0477 3.5321 86 m 126,743 8.6769 31.6825 221,319 15.1516 9.9933 307,861 21.0763 4.1439 87 m 129,629 8.3237 32.4039 246,764 15.8451 11.1422 331,818 21.3066 4.4663 88 m 135,907 8.0837 33.9733 274,913 16.3516 12.4132 363,226 21.6044 4.8891 89 m 141,561 7.6171 35.3866 307,009 16.5195 13.8625 410,753 22.1018 5.5288 90 m 149,160 7.4820 37.2862 332,299 16.6684 15.0044 448,003 22.4722 6.0302 91 m 154,089 7.2038 38.5183 359,276 16.7964 16.2225 490,127 22.9138 6.5972 92 m 157,799 6.8465 39.4457 392,255 17.0189 17.7116 540,386 23.4459 7.2737

80 Table 14 (continued)

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

66 m 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 67 m 799 65.9241 0.0135 0 0.0000 0.0000 121 9.9835 0.0043 68 m 3,663 74.4059 0.0619 0 0.0000 0.0000 246 4.9970 0.0088 69 m 10,332 63.6324 0.1745 0 0.0000 0.0000 350 2.1556 0.0126 70 m 13,998 63.9441 0.2364 0 0.0000 0.0000 531 2.4257 0.0191 71 m 48,170 63.4785 0.8134 9 0.0119 0.0003 5,936 7.8225 0.2132 72 m 65,590 59.1620 1.1075 66 0.0595 0.0019 9,239 8.3336 0.3318 73 m 89,668 57.3706 1.5141 126 0.0806 0.0037 10,646 6.8114 0.3824 74 m 139,345 58.0515 2.3529 901 0.3754 0.0265 14,078 5.8649 0.5056 75 m 191,180 56.4871 3.2281 1,523 0.4500 0.0449 16,699 4.9340 0.5998 76 m 239,814 54.1817 4.0493 2,643 0.5971 0.0778 19,316 4.3641 0.6938 77 m 277,527 51.7968 4.6861 4,994 0.9321 0.1471 21,618 4.0347 0.7764 78 m 294,969 50.3668 4.9806 6,779 1.1575 0.1996 22,840 3.9000 0.8203 79 m 330,577 49.8503 5.5819 7,994 1.2055 0.2354 24,661 3.7188 0.8857 80 m 383,299 50.0822 6.4721 9,366 1.2238 0.2758 28,176 3.6815 1.0120 81 m 421,092 50.3393 7.1102 10,090 1.2062 0.2971 30,449 3.6400 1.0936 82 m 460,105 50.0877 7.7690 10,741 1.1693 0.3163 33,129 3.6065 1.1899 83 m 501,973 49.7184 8.4759 12,189 1.2073 0.3590 38,223 3.7858 1.3728 84 m 553,091 49.4308 9.3391 13,874 1.2399 0.4086 42,407 3.7900 1.5231 85 m 610,471 48.9660 10.3079 16,656 1.3360 0.4905 48,895 3.9219 1.7561 86 m 719,145 49.2330 12.1429 23,384 1.6009 0.6886 62,246 4.2614 2.2356 87 m 755,223 48.4940 12.7521 27,286 1.7521 0.8035 66,632 4.2785 2.3932 88 m 801,862 47.6942 13.5396 32,447 1.9299 0.9555 72,902 4.3362 2.6184 89 m 870,169 46.8220 14.6930 46,380 2.4956 1.3658 82,589 4.4439 2.9663 90 m 915,726 45.9335 15.4622 58,649 2.9419 1.7272 89,754 4.5021 3.2236 91 m 964,590 45.0953 16.2873 73,443 3.4335 2.1628 97,477 4.5571 3.5010 92 m 1,018,374 44.1846 17.1955 89,671 3.8906 2.6407 106,331 4.6134 3.8190

81 Table 15 Weches dam site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

66 m 127 29.9528 0.0313 0 0.0000 0.0000 15 3.5377 0.0002 67 m 1,772 25.9216 0.4372 76 1.1118 0.0033 222 3.2475 0.0029 68 m 2,960 13.1608 0.7304 894 3.9749 0.0383 1,746 7.7631 0.0229 69 m 3,751 7.6985 0.9255 6,891 14.1429 0.2952 5,237 10.7483 0.0688 70 m 4,079 6.3630 1.0065 9,115 14.2189 0.3905 9,172 14.3078 0.1205 71 m 9,541 7.1276 2.3542 19,337 14.4457 0.8284 19,445 14.5264 0.2554 72 m 15,507 8.9841 3.8263 22,142 12.8282 0.9486 27,398 15.8733 0.3599 73 m 20,045 9.0189 4.9460 27,842 12.5270 1.1928 40,072 18.0297 0.5264 74 m 24,944 7.9564 6.1549 39,170 12.4941 1.6781 60,076 19.1624 0.7892 75 m 32,748 7.8307 8.0805 58,810 14.0626 2.5194 81,038 19.3778 1.0646 76 m 44,500 8.4155 10.9803 77,427 14.6423 3.3170 107,721 20.3713 1.4151 77 m 50,726 8.0774 12.5165 98,677 15.7128 4.2274 136,345 21.7109 1.7911 78 m 57,505 8.4201 14.1892 109,657 16.0565 4.6978 152,282 22.2978 2.0005 79 m 69,069 9.0013 17.0426 125,460 16.3504 5.3748 169,337 22.0686 2.2245 80 m 85,695 9.7884 21.1450 139,491 15.9332 5.9759 188,245 21.5021 2.4729 81 m 89,115 9.3709 21.9889 151,566 15.9379 6.4932 206,705 21.7360 2.7154 82 m 92,831 8.9447 22.9058 168,218 16.2086 7.2065 229,977 22.1593 3.0212 83 m 98,521 8.6873 24.3098 186,971 16.4865 8.0099 252,654 22.2782 3.3191 84 m 106,934 8.5706 26.3857 212,355 17.0199 9.0974 274,945 22.0364 3.6119 85 m 117,788 8.5367 29.0639 237,661 17.2245 10.1815 303,732 22.0130 3.9901 86 m 129,995 8.1324 32.0759 267,256 16.7194 11.4494 351,310 21.9778 4.6151 87 m 132,884 7.8180 32.7888 294,579 17.3310 12.6199 377,384 22.2027 4.9576 88 m 139,163 7.6102 34.3381 324,612 17.7516 13.9065 411,154 22.4842 5.4012 89 m 144,819 7.1990 35.7337 358,942 17.8430 15.3772 461,466 22.9395 6.0622 90 m 152,421 7.0813 37.6095 386,352 17.9495 16.5515 501,523 23.3002 6.5884 91 m 157,352 6.8298 38.8262 415,499 18.0347 17.8002 546,671 23.7282 7.1815 92 m 161,068 6.5035 39.7431 451,039 18.2118 19.3227 600,325 24.2396 7.8863

82 Table 15 (continued)

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

66 m 191 45.0472 0.0032 0 0.0000 0.0000 91 21.4623 0.0032 67 m 3,928 57.4605 0.0653 0 0.0000 0.0000 838 12.2586 0.0298 68 m 15,154 67.3781 0.2520 0 0.0000 0.0000 1,737 7.7231 0.0619 69 m 30,639 62.8828 0.5096 0 0.0000 0.0000 2,206 4.5275 0.0786 70 m 39,049 60.9141 0.6495 0 0.0000 0.0000 2,690 4.1962 0.0958 71 m 75,700 56.5516 1.2590 9 0.0067 0.0003 9,828 7.3420 0.3500 72 m 94,255 54.6077 1.5676 97 0.0562 0.0028 13,205 7.6505 0.4702 73 m 119,424 53.7326 1.9862 189 0.0850 0.0055 14,684 6.6068 0.5229 74 m 169,946 54.2077 2.8265 996 0.3177 0.0292 18,377 5.8617 0.6544 75 m 222,680 53.2473 3.7035 1,671 0.3996 0.0490 21,253 5.0820 0.7568 76 m 272,355 51.5054 4.5297 2,831 0.5354 0.0830 23,955 4.5302 0.8530 77 m 310,703 49.4748 5.1675 5,197 0.8275 0.1524 26,354 4.1965 0.9384 78 m 328,782 48.1417 5.4682 7,002 1.0253 0.2054 27,718 4.0586 0.9870 79 m 365,347 47.6133 6.0763 8,244 1.0744 0.2418 29,864 3.8920 1.0634 80 m 418,829 47.8403 6.9658 9,635 1.1005 0.2826 33,578 3.8354 1.1956 81 m 457,310 48.0884 7.6058 10,379 1.0914 0.3044 35,903 3.7754 1.2784 82 m 497,057 47.8937 8.2669 11,051 1.0648 0.3241 38,700 3.7289 1.3780 83 m 539,531 47.5741 8.9733 12,518 1.1038 0.3672 43,891 3.8702 1.5628 84 m 591,090 47.3749 9.8308 14,223 1.1400 0.4172 48,139 3.8583 1.7141 85 m 648,903 47.0294 10.7923 17,019 1.2335 0.4992 54,680 3.9629 1.9470 86 m 758,033 47.4222 12.6074 23,770 1.4870 0.6972 68,114 4.2612 2.4254 87 m 794,592 46.7484 13.2154 27,691 1.6291 0.8122 72,591 4.2708 2.5848 88 m 841,878 46.0387 14.0018 32,875 1.7978 0.9642 78,951 4.3175 2.8112 89 m 910,851 45.2784 15.1490 46,829 2.3279 1.3735 88,760 4.4123 3.1605 90 m 956,989 44.4607 15.9163 59,116 2.7465 1.7339 96,036 4.4617 3.4196 91 m 1,006,527 43.6882 16.7402 73,935 3.2091 2.1685 103,905 4.5100 3.6998 92 m 1,061,054 42.8427 17.6471 90,218 3.6428 2.6461 112,921 4.5595 4.0208

83 Table 16 San Pedro Creek alternate site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

64 m 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 65 m 6 11.1111 0.0014 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 66 m 245 29.6610 0.0562 0 0.0000 0.0000 105 12.7119 0.0012 67 m 1,956 24.7344 0.4488 87 1.1002 0.0029 459 5.8042 0.0051 68 m 4,028 10.4931 0.9243 2,597 6.7653 0.0870 3,606 9.3938 0.0404 69 m 5,205 7.1203 1.1944 10,193 13.9437 0.3416 8,138 11.1325 0.0913 70 m 6,451 6.3116 1.4803 14,924 14.6015 0.5002 15,662 15.3235 0.1757 71 m 12,159 6.5134 2.7902 28,287 15.1529 0.9481 29,456 15.7791 0.3304 72 m 18,244 7.8068 4.1865 31,670 13.5519 1.0614 39,929 17.0859 0.4479 73 m 22,880 7.7284 5.2503 38,823 13.1137 1.3012 56,271 19.0073 0.6312 74 m 27,873 6.9488 6.3961 52,505 13.0896 1.7597 81,202 20.2439 0.9108 75 m 35,694 6.9463 8.1908 73,794 14.3609 2.4732 105,343 20.5006 1.1816 76 m 47,470 7.4520 10.8930 95,023 14.9170 3.1848 135,905 21.3348 1.5244 77 m 53,762 7.1551 12.3369 117,958 15.6989 3.9534 168,318 22.4013 1.8880 78 m 60,579 7.4084 13.9012 130,291 15.9337 4.3668 187,413 22.9193 2.1022 79 m 72,150 7.8363 16.5564 148,620 16.1418 4.9811 209,761 22.7823 2.3528 80 m 88,776 8.4926 20.3716 164,578 15.7441 5.5159 232,634 22.2546 2.6094 81 m 92,219 8.1403 21.1617 178,419 15.7493 5.9798 254,491 22.4643 2.8545 82 m 96,058 7.7776 22.0426 197,143 15.9623 6.6074 282,210 22.8500 3.1655 83 m 101,791 7.5486 23.3582 218,180 16.1798 7.3124 310,517 23.0274 3.4830 84 m 110,227 7.4705 25.2940 245,469 16.6365 8.2270 338,097 22.9142 3.7923 85 m 121,123 7.4574 27.7943 272,814 16.7968 9.1435 373,095 22.9710 4.1849 86 m 133,361 7.1631 30.6026 305,133 16.3893 10.2267 427,075 22.9391 4.7904 87 m 136,260 6.8821 31.2679 335,611 16.9507 11.2482 459,023 23.1839 5.1487 88 m 142,685 6.6983 32.7422 369,582 17.3499 12.3868 499,751 23.4607 5.6055 89 m 148,501 6.3383 34.0768 408,889 17.4521 13.7042 558,365 23.8320 6.2630 90 m 156,251 6.2247 35.8552 440,607 17.5528 14.7672 606,353 24.1558 6.8013 91 m 161,566 6.0035 37.0749 474,852 17.6447 15.9149 660,197 24.5318 7.4052 92 m 165,957 5.7185 38.0825 518,048 17.8506 17.3627 725,745 25.0073 8.1405

84 Table 16 (continued)

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

64 m 5 25.0000 0.0001 0 0.0000 0.0000 15 75.0000 0.0004 65 m 23 42.5926 0.0003 0 0.0000 0.0000 25 46.2963 0.0007 66 m 356 43.0993 0.0052 0 0.0000 0.0000 120 14.5278 0.0036 67 m 4,510 57.0309 0.0658 0 0.0000 0.0000 896 11.3303 0.0268 68 m 25,671 66.8742 0.3745 18 0.0469 0.0004 2,467 6.4267 0.0737 69 m 46,526 63.6462 0.6788 30 0.0410 0.0007 3,009 4.1162 0.0899 70 m 61,337 60.0113 0.8949 151 0.1477 0.0037 3,684 3.6044 0.1100 71 m 104,370 55.9094 1.5227 922 0.4939 0.0228 11,483 6.1513 0.3429 72 m 126,093 53.9562 1.8396 2,004 0.8575 0.0495 15,755 6.7417 0.4705 73 m 155,495 52.5232 2.2686 4,263 1.4400 0.1053 18,318 6.1875 0.5471 74 m 209,607 52.2556 3.0580 6,907 1.7219 0.1706 23,025 5.7402 0.6877 75 m 264,209 51.4171 3.8547 8,657 1.6847 0.2138 26,157 5.0904 0.7812 76 m 317,941 49.9115 4.6386 11,538 1.8113 0.2849 29,133 4.5734 0.8701 77 m 363,390 48.3632 5.3017 15,837 2.1077 0.3911 32,112 4.2738 0.9590 78 m 386,516 47.2683 5.6390 18,995 2.3230 0.4690 33,913 4.1473 1.0128 79 m 431,755 46.8933 6.2991 21,793 2.3670 0.5381 36,639 3.9794 1.0942 80 m 493,238 47.1850 7.1961 24,885 2.3806 0.6145 41,218 3.9431 1.2310 81 m 536,705 47.3757 7.8302 27,074 2.3899 0.6685 43,962 3.8806 1.3130 82 m 582,669 47.1775 8.5008 29,580 2.3950 0.7304 47,397 3.8376 1.4155 83 m 631,720 46.8472 9.2164 32,902 2.4400 0.8124 53,358 3.9569 1.5936 84 m 687,891 46.6212 10.0359 35,595 2.4124 0.8789 58,210 3.9451 1.7385 85 m 751,625 46.2766 10.9658 40,112 2.4696 0.9905 65,432 4.0286 1.9542 86 m 867,613 46.6013 12.6580 48,964 2.6300 1.2090 79,634 4.2773 2.3783 87 m 909,871 45.9549 13.2745 54,418 2.7485 1.3437 84,740 4.2800 2.5308 88 m 964,491 45.2777 14.0714 61,872 2.9046 1.5278 91,785 4.3088 2.7412 89 m 1,045,069 44.6053 15.2470 79,407 3.3892 1.9608 102,693 4.3831 3.0670 90 m 1,100,733 43.8508 16.0591 94,940 3.7822 2.3443 111,295 4.4337 3.3239 91 m 1,160,055 43.1057 16.9245 113,335 4.2113 2.7985 121,179 4.5028 3.6191 92 m 1,225,495 42.2274 17.8793 134,198 4.6241 3.3137 132,688 4.5721 3.9628

85 Table 17 Box Creek alternate site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

64 m 1,053 29.8216 0.2269 114 3.2285 0.0035 177 5.0127 0.0018 65 m 3,415 21.2720 0.7360 1,247 7.7675 0.0385 1,669 10.3962 0.0169 66 m 7,092 22.2522 1.5284 3,321 10.4201 0.1026 3,902 12.2431 0.0394 67 m 11,965 20.8711 2.5786 6,523 11.3784 0.2015 6,387 11.1412 0.0646 68 m 14,626 12.0840 3.1521 17,616 14.5543 0.5441 15,044 12.4294 0.1521 69 m 16,131 9.4516 3.4764 28,689 16.8096 0.8861 23,976 14.0482 0.2423 70 m 17,459 8.2348 3.7626 35,740 16.8573 1.1039 36,048 17.0026 0.3644 71 m 23,271 7.4730 5.0152 50,479 16.2104 1.5592 54,982 17.6564 0.5557 72 m 29,411 8.0584 6.3384 54,715 14.9915 1.6900 67,611 18.5249 0.6834 73 m 34,113 7.8483 7.3517 62,845 14.4586 1.9411 86,486 19.8976 0.8742 74 m 39,118 7.1042 8.4304 77,958 14.1579 2.4079 114,746 20.8389 1.1598 75 m 46,948 7.0028 10.1178 100,560 14.9996 3.1061 141,062 21.0409 1.4258 76 m 58,733 7.3228 12.6576 123,495 15.3973 3.8145 174,177 21.7164 1.7605 77 m 65,025 7.0241 14.0136 148,744 16.0675 4.5944 208,895 22.5651 2.1114 78 m 71,842 7.1847 15.4828 162,993 16.3004 5.0345 230,082 23.0098 2.3256 79 m 83,467 7.4950 17.9881 183,465 16.4744 5.6668 255,537 22.9461 2.5829 80 m 100,101 8.0191 21.5729 202,037 16.1851 6.2404 281,659 22.5636 2.8469 81 m 103,572 7.7090 22.3210 217,668 16.2012 6.7233 306,251 22.7945 3.0954 82 m 107,426 7.3774 23.1516 238,805 16.3997 7.3761 337,155 23.1538 3.4078 83 m 113,187 7.1231 24.3931 263,383 16.5752 8.1353 371,538 23.3817 3.7553 84 m 121,669 7.0354 26.2211 293,847 16.9914 9.0762 404,275 23.3768 4.0862 85 m 133,026 7.0182 28.6687 325,116 17.1525 10.0421 444,519 23.4520 4.4930 86 m 145,337 6.7296 31.3218 363,519 16.8322 11.2282 506,049 23.4319 5.1149 87 m 148,373 6.4564 31.9761 398,595 17.3446 12.3117 544,655 23.7004 5.5051 88 m 155,191 6.2801 33.4455 436,705 17.6720 13.4888 592,721 23.9854 5.9910 89 m 161,213 5.9521 34.7433 480,869 17.7540 14.8529 657,718 24.2834 6.6479 90 m 169,003 5.8461 36.4221 516,164 17.8549 15.9431 710,018 24.5606 7.1765 91 m 174,357 5.6467 37.5760 554,229 17.9492 17.1188 768,552 24.8902 7.7682 92 m 178,764 5.3777 38.5257 602,589 18.1274 18.6126 840,850 25.2948 8.4989

86 Table 17 (continued)

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

64 m 1,700 48.1450 0.0221 0 0.0000 0.0000 487 13.7921 0.0131 65 m 8,922 55.5749 0.1158 0 0.0000 0.0000 801 4.9894 0.0215 66 m 16,310 51.1750 0.2117 9 0.0282 0.0002 1,237 3.8813 0.0332 67 m 30,181 52.6462 0.3918 20 0.0349 0.0004 2,252 3.9283 0.0604 68 m 68,339 56.4617 0.8871 1,198 0.9898 0.0265 4,213 3.4808 0.1130 69 m 94,321 55.2651 1.2243 1,834 1.0746 0.0406 5,719 3.3509 0.1534 70 m 111,618 52.6463 1.4488 3,026 1.4273 0.0669 8,124 3.8318 0.2179 71 m 157,184 50.4767 2.0403 5,445 1.7486 0.1205 20,038 6.4348 0.5376 72 m 180,031 49.3271 2.3369 7,292 1.9980 0.1613 25,914 7.1002 0.6952 73 m 210,807 48.4997 2.7363 10,647 2.4495 0.2355 29,758 6.8463 0.7983 74 m 268,701 48.7986 3.4878 14,867 2.7000 0.3289 35,243 6.4005 0.9455 75 m 325,398 48.5367 4.2238 17,757 2.6487 0.3928 38,692 5.7713 1.0380 76 m 381,621 47.5805 4.9536 21,824 2.7210 0.4828 42,204 5.2620 1.1322 77 m 430,608 46.5148 5.5894 26,766 2.8913 0.5921 45,707 4.9373 1.2262 78 m 456,709 45.6741 5.9282 30,435 3.0437 0.6733 47,869 4.7872 1.2842 79 m 506,196 45.4542 6.5706 33,787 3.0339 0.7475 51,188 4.5965 1.3733 80 m 570,543 45.7060 7.4058 37,587 3.0111 0.8315 56,363 4.5152 1.5121 81 m 616,003 45.8496 7.9959 40,514 3.0155 0.8963 59,521 4.4302 1.5968 82 m 664,735 45.6501 8.6285 44,287 3.0414 0.9798 63,745 4.3776 1.7101 83 m 720,094 45.3170 9.3470 49,756 3.1312 1.1008 71,057 4.4718 1.9063 84 m 779,317 45.0633 10.1158 53,700 3.1052 1.1880 76,576 4.4279 2.0544 85 m 848,127 44.7457 11.0089 59,792 3.1545 1.3228 84,859 4.4770 2.2766 86 m 972,382 45.0247 12.6218 70,376 3.2587 1.5569 102,000 4.7230 2.7364 87 m 1,019,068 44.3442 13.2278 77,747 3.3831 1.7200 109,649 4.7713 2.9416 88 m 1,080,053 43.7061 14.0194 87,503 3.5409 1.9358 119,000 4.8155 3.1925 89 m 1,168,996 43.1602 15.1739 107,770 3.9789 2.3842 131,940 4.8713 3.5396 90 m 1,228,563 42.4979 15.9471 125,322 4.3351 2.7725 141,809 4.9054 3.8044 91 m 1,292,074 41.8450 16.7715 145,607 4.7156 3.2213 152,945 4.9533 4.1032 92 m 1,364,483 41.0470 17.7114 169,331 5.0939 3.7461 168,180 5.0593 4.5119

87 Table 18 Bowles Creek alternate site classification metrics.

Pool Water % of % of Conifers % of % of Mixed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

63 m 22,774 63.6003 4.5101 177 0.4943 0.0051 1,776 4.9598 0.0167 64 m 30,085 37.4150 5.9579 915 1.1379 0.0262 4,302 5.3501 0.0404 65 m 34,286 28.9280 6.7899 2,769 2.3363 0.0791 7,991 6.7422 0.0750 66 m 38,966 26.0304 7.7167 5,805 3.8779 0.1659 11,748 7.8480 0.1103 67 m 44,212 23.6580 8.7556 10,275 5.4982 0.2937 16,950 9.0700 0.1591 68 m 47,311 17.9143 9.3693 22,971 8.6979 0.6565 28,730 10.8786 0.2697 69 m 48,949 15.2620 9.6937 34,732 10.8292 0.9926 39,051 12.1759 0.3666 70 m 50,691 13.6416 10.0387 42,954 11.5595 1.2276 52,776 14.2027 0.4955 71 m 56,583 11.8242 11.2055 58,658 12.2578 1.6764 72,933 15.2409 0.6847 72 m 62,889 11.6991 12.4543 63,676 11.8456 1.8198 86,458 16.0837 0.8117 73 m 67,769 11.0346 13.4207 72,674 11.8332 2.0770 106,582 17.3543 1.0006 74 m 72,850 9.8845 14.4270 88,645 12.0276 2.5334 135,968 18.4486 1.2764 75 m 80,804 9.3518 16.0022 112,159 12.9806 3.2055 163,252 18.8938 1.5326 76 m 92,866 9.2506 18.3909 136,300 13.5772 3.8954 197,488 19.6723 1.8540 77 m 99,260 8.7304 19.6571 162,618 14.3030 4.6475 234,305 20.6082 2.1996 78 m 106,134 8.7034 21.0184 177,911 14.5894 5.0846 257,418 21.1093 2.4166 79 m 117,844 8.7642 23.3374 199,664 14.8492 5.7063 285,664 21.2451 2.6818 80 m 134,553 9.0240 26.6464 219,559 14.7250 6.2749 314,795 21.1121 2.9552 81 m 138,070 8.6464 27.3429 236,488 14.8096 6.7587 342,030 21.4190 3.2109 82 m 141,981 8.2470 28.1174 259,225 15.0572 7.4085 376,371 21.8616 3.5333 83 m 147,776 7.8896 29.2651 285,907 15.2643 8.1711 414,842 22.1480 3.8945 84 m 156,292 7.6916 30.9515 318,417 15.6702 9.1002 451,391 22.2143 4.2376 85 m 167,719 7.5688 33.2145 351,877 15.8795 10.0565 496,302 22.3972 4.6592 86 m 180,166 7.1725 35.6795 393,058 15.6477 11.2334 564,221 22.4618 5.2968 87 m 183,653 6.8848 36.3700 430,506 16.1388 12.3037 607,827 22.7862 5.7062 88 m 190,653 6.6715 37.7563 471,296 16.4919 13.4694 660,895 23.1265 6.2044 89 m 196,770 6.3097 38.9677 518,769 16.6350 14.8262 732,571 23.4909 6.8773 90 m 204,983 6.1724 40.5941 557,430 16.7852 15.9311 790,458 23.8021 7.4207 91 m 210,527 5.9518 41.6921 598,655 16.9246 17.1093 854,947 24.1703 8.0261 92 m 215,090 5.6642 42.5957 650,904 17.1410 18.6025 934,712 24.6148 8.7749

88 Table 18 (continued)

Pool Deciduous % of % of Grass % of % of Developed % of % of Elevation Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed Count Reservoir Watershed

63 m 10,168 28.3959 0.1217 0 0.0000 0.0000 913 2.5497 0.0232 64 m 41,746 51.9171 0.4995 21 0.0261 0.0000 3,340 4.1538 0.0849 65 m 68,926 58.1546 0.8248 97 0.0818 0.0000 4,453 3.7571 0.1132 66 m 87,802 58.6543 1.0506 239 0.1597 0.0000 5,134 3.4297 0.1306 67 m 108,543 58.0817 1.2988 587 0.3141 0.0121 6,313 3.3781 0.1605 68 m 153,254 58.0294 1.8338 2,997 1.1348 0.0619 8,834 3.3450 0.2247 69 m 182,922 57.0339 2.1888 4,433 1.3822 0.0916 10,638 3.3169 0.2705 70 m 204,698 55.0869 2.4994 6,842 1.8413 0.1413 13,630 3.6680 0.3466 71 m 254,217 53.1240 3.0420 10,189 2.1292 0.2104 25,955 5.4238 0.6601 72 m 279,664 52.0255 3.3465 12,758 2.3734 0.2635 32,107 5.9728 0.8165 73 m 313,890 51.1095 3.7560 16,994 2.7671 0.3510 36,243 5.9013 0.9217 74 m 375,516 50.9512 4.4934 22,073 2.9949 0.4559 41,959 5.6931 1.0670 75 m 436,377 50.5036 5.2217 25,850 2.9917 0.5339 45,610 5.2786 1.1599 76 m 496,753 49.4829 5.9441 31,023 3.0903 0.6407 49,458 4.9266 1.2577 77 m 550,056 48.3799 6.5820 37,262 3.2774 0.7696 53,450 4.7012 1.3593 78 m 579,740 47.5410 6.9372 42,073 3.4502 0.8689 56,177 4.6067 1.4286 79 m 634,009 47.1517 7.5865 46,729 3.4753 0.9651 60,704 4.5146 1.5437 80 m 703,010 47.1482 8.4122 52,275 3.5059 1.0796 66,871 4.4848 1.7006 81 m 751,990 47.0919 8.9983 57,215 3.5830 1.1817 71,062 4.4501 1.8071 82 m 804,872 46.7513 9.6311 62,495 3.6300 1.2907 76,660 4.4528 1.9495 83 m 866,114 46.2409 10.3639 72,091 3.8489 1.4889 86,319 4.6085 2.1951 84 m 930,051 45.7705 11.1290 81,525 4.0121 1.6837 94,312 4.6414 2.3984 85 m 1,003,736 45.2967 12.0107 92,269 4.1639 1.9056 104,011 4.6938 2.6451 86 m 1,135,210 45.1930 13.5839 115,810 4.6104 2.3918 123,452 4.9147 3.1395 87 m 1,186,952 44.4964 14.2031 126,879 4.7564 26204 131,706 4.9374 3.3494 88 m 1,253,194 43.8526 14.9957 139,907 4.8957 2.8895 141,795 4.9618 3.6059 89 m 1,348,366 43.2372 16.1345 165,627 5.3111 3.4207 156,427 5.0160 3.9780 90 m 1,413,097 42.5508 16.9091 187,427 5.6438 3.8709 167,566 5.0457 4.2613 91 m 1,482,054 41.8993 17.7342 210,945 5.9636 4.3566 180,055 5.0904 4.5789 92 m 1,561,349 41.1167 18.6831 238,312 6.2757 4.9218 196,993 5.1876 5.0096

89 Table 19 Stills Creek alternate site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 77 m 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 — 78 m 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.233 301.7241% 79 m 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.300 28.7554% 80 m 0.669 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.669 123.0000% 81 m 0.688 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.688 2.8401% 82 m 0.716 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.716 4.0698% 83 m 0.831 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.831 16.0615% 84 m 0.888 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.906 9.0253% 85 m 0.930 0.000 0.000 2.436 3.366 271.5232% 86 m 1.287 0.000 0.000 6.279 7.566 124.7772% 87 m 1.412 0.000 0.000 7.031 8.443 11.5913% 88 m 2.061 0.000 0.370 7.928 10.359 22.6934% 89 m 2.910 0.000 0.420 9.263 12.593 21.5658% 90 m 3.513 0.000 0.509 10.442 14.464 14.8575% 91 m 3.793 0.000 0.633 11.533 15.959 10.3360% 92 m 3.954 0.000 1.285 12.762 18.001 12.7953%

90 Table 20 Tailes Creek alternate site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 75 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 76 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 77 m 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 — 78 m 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.419 622.4138% 79 m 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.453 0.753 79.7136% 80 m 0.669 0.000 0.000 0.864 1.533 103.5857% 81 m 0.688 0.000 0.000 1.076 1.764 15.0685% 82 m 0.716 0.000 0.000 1.569 2.285 29.5351% 83 m 0.856 0.000 0.000 1.755 2.611 14.2670% 84 m 1.020 0.000 0.000 1.940 2.960 13.3665% 85 m 1.294 0.000 0.000 4.683 5.977 101.9257% 86 m 1.991 0.000 0.000 9.190 11.181 87.0671% 87 m 2.576 0.000 0.000 10.381 12.957 15.8841% 88 m 3.595 0.000 0.370 11.847 15.812 22.0344% 89 m 5.139 0.000 0.420 13.702 19.261 21.8125% 90 m 6.498 0.000 0.509 15.597 22.604 17.3563% 91 m 7.072 0.000 0.633 17.589 25.294 11.9005% 92 m 7.990 0.000 1.285 19.507 28.782 13.7898%

91 Table 21 Ioni Creek alternate site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 70 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 71 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.977 0.977 — 72 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.977 0.977 0.0000% 73 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.977 0.977 0.0000% 74 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.214 2.214 126.6121% 75 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.815 3.815 72.3126% 76 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.767 4.767 24.9541% 77 m 0.058 0.000 0.000 7.138 7.196 50.9545% 78 m 0.233 0.000 0.000 8.547 8.780 22.0122% 79 m 0.300 0.000 0.000 9.609 9.909 12.8588% 80 m 0.669 0.000 0.000 10.560 11.229 13.3212% 81 m 0.688 0.000 0.000 11.467 12.155 8.2465% 82 m 0.716 0.000 0.000 12.837 13.553 11.5014% 83 m 0.856 0.000 0.000 13.792 14.648 8.0794% 84 m 1.020 0.000 0.000 14.713 15.733 7.4072% 85 m 1.326 0.000 0.000 18.764 20.090 27.6934% 86 m 2.098 0.000 0.000 24.074 26.172 30.2738% 87 m 2.786 0.000 0.000 26.129 28.915 10.4807% 88 m 3.886 0.000 0.370 28.706 32.962 13.9962% 89 m 5.602 0.000 0.516 31.974 38.092 15.5634% 90 m 6.991 0.000 0.672 35.043 42.706 12.1128% 91 m 7.598 0.000 0.854 38.454 46.906 9.8347% 92 m 8.709 0.029 1.742 41.523 52.003 10.8664%

92 Table 22 Fastrill dam site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 66 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 67 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 68 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 69 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 70 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 71 m 0.000 0.494 0.000 1.735 2.229 — 72 m 0.000 0.745 0.000 2.228 2.973 33.3782% 73 m 0.000 1.638 0.000 3.239 4.877 64.0431% 74 m 0.000 2.087 0.497 5.182 7.766 59.2372% 75 m 0.000 2.159 0.591 8.077 10.827 39.4154% 76 m 0.000 2.226 0.743 11.463 14.432 33.2964% 77 m 0.058 2.369 1.134 15.291 18.852 30.6264% 78 m 0.233 2.506 1.397 17.360 21.496 14.0250% 79 m 0.300 2.538 1.494 18.606 22.938 6.7082% 80 m 0.669 2.558 1.640 19.910 24.777 8.0173% 81 m 0.688 2.600 1.918 21.124 26.330 6.2679% 82 m 0.716 2.648 2.399 22.804 28.567 8.4960% 83 m 0.856 2.719 2.592 23.962 30.129 5.4678% 84 m 1.020 2.881 2.654 25.046 31.601 4.8857% 85 m 1.326 2.998 2.715 29.370 36.409 15.2147% 86 m 2.098 3.558 3.154 34.996 43.806 20.3164% 87 m 2.786 4.148 3.270 37.291 47.495 8.4212% 88 m 3.886 4.299 3.683 40.144 52.012 9.5105% 89 m 5.602 4.530 3.983 43.573 57.688 10.9129% 90 m 6.991 4.649 4.234 46.848 62.722 8.7263% 91 m 7.598 4.761 4.449 50.385 67.193 7.1283% 92 m 8.709 4.934 4.934 53.608 72.185 7.4293%

93 Table 23 Weches dam site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 66 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 67 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 68 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 69 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 70 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 71 m 0.000 0.494 0.000 1.914 2.408 — 72 m 0.000 0.745 0.000 2.571 3.316 37.7076% 73 m 0.000 1.638 0.000 3.869 5.507 66.0736% 74 m 0.000 2.087 0.497 6.017 8.601 56.1830% 75 m 0.000 2.159 0.591 9.162 11.912 38.4955% 76 m 0.000 2.226 0.743 12.842 15.811 32.7317% 77 m 0.058 2.369 1.134 16.831 20.392 28.9735% 78 m 0.233 2.506 1.397 19.092 23.228 13.9074% 79 m 0.300 2.538 1.494 20.490 24.822 6.8624% 80 m 0.669 2.558 1.640 21.814 26.681 7.4893% 81 m 0.688 2.600 1.918 23.061 28.267 5.9443% 82 m 0.716 2.648 2.399 24.768 30.531 8.0093% 83 m 0.856 2.719 2.592 25.967 32.134 5.2504% 84 m 1.020 2.881 2.654 27.071 33.626 4.6431% 85 m 1.326 2.998 2.715 31.427 38.466 14.3936% 86 m 2.098 3.558 3.154 37.076 45.886 19.2898% 87 m 2.786 4.184 3.270 39.403 49.643 8.1877% 88 m 3.886 4.299 3.683 42.292 54.160 9.0990% 89 m 5.602 4.530 3.983 45.797 59.912 10.6204% 90 m 6.991 4.649 4.234 49.218 65.092 8.6460% 91 m 7.598 4.761 4.449 52.919 69.727 7.1207% 92 m 8.709 4.934 5.402 56.340 75.385 8.1145%

94 Table 24 San Pedro Creek alternate site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 64 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 65 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 66 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 67 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 68 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.192 0.192 — 69 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.330 0.330 71.8750% 70 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.515 0.515 56.0606% 71 m 0.000 0.494 0.000 2.534 3.028 487.9612% 72 m 0.000 0.745 0.000 3.333 4.078 34.6764% 73 m 0.000 1.638 0.018 4.740 6.396 56.8416% 74 m 0.000 2.087 1.028 6.961 10.076 57.5360% 75 m 0.000 2.159 1.401 10.132 13.692 35.8873% 76 m 0.000 2.226 1.865 13.918 18.009 31.5294% 77 m 0.058 2.369 2.439 17.961 22.827 26.7533% 78 m 0.233 2.547 2.775 20.266 25.821 13.1160% 79 m 0.300 2.668 2.998 21.973 27.939 8.2026% 80 m 0.669 2.821 3.243 23.765 30.498 9.1592% 81 m 0.688 2.978 3.723 25.084 32.473 6.4758% 82 m 0.716 3.070 4.758 26.914 35.458 9.1923% 83 m 0.856 3.896 5.002 28.382 38.136 7.5526% 84 m 1.020 4.277 5.425 29.590 40.312 5.7059% 85 m 1.326 4.557 5.726 34.042 45.651 13.2442% 86 m 2.098 5.303 6.562 39.863 53.826 17.9076% 87 m 2.786 6.138 6.942 42.340 58.206 8.1373% 88 m 3.886 6.329 7.575 45.586 63.376 8.8822% 89 m 5.602 6.757 8.373 49.527 70.259 10.8606% 90 m 6.991 6.997 9.159 53.419 76.566 8.9768% 91 m 7.598 7.200 9.628 57.417 81.843 6.8921% 92 m 8.709 7.657 11.199 61.306 88.871 8.5872%

95 Table 25 Box Creek alternate site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 64 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 65 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 66 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 67 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 — 68 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.192 0.192 — 69 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.330 0.330 71.8750% 70 m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.552 0.552 67.2727% 71 m 0.000 0.494 0.000 2.881 3.375 511.4130% 72 m 0.000 0.745 0.000 3.866 4.611 36.6222% 73 m 0.000 1.638 0.018 5.824 7.480 62.2208% 74 m 0.000 2.087 1.028 8.325 11.440 52.9412% 75 m 0.000 2.159 1.401 11.548 15.108 32.0629% 76 m 0.000 2.226 1.865 15.375 19.466 28.8456% 77 m 0.058 2.417 2.439 19.727 24.641 26.5848% 78 m 0.233 2.614 2.775 22.528 28.150 14.2405% 79 m 0.300 2.754 2.998 24.409 30.461 8.2096% 80 m 0.669 3.295 3.243 26.558 33.765 10.8467% 81 m 0.688 3.467 3.723 27.917 35.795 6.0121% 82 m 0.716 3.578 4.758 29.813 38.865 8.5766% 83 m 0.856 4.193 5.228 31.341 41.618 7.0835% 84 m 1.020 4.929 5.907 32.696 44.552 7.0498% 85 m 1.326 5.229 6.476 37.310 50.341 12.9938% 86 m 2.098 6.089 7.509 43.629 59.325 17.8463% 87 m 2.786 6.883 7.966 46.372 64.007 7.8921% 88 m 3.886 7.275 8.676 49.972 69.809 9.0646% 89 m 5.602 7.894 9.522 54.423 77.441 10.9327% 90 m 6.991 8.243 10.334 58.584 84.152 8.6660% 91 m 7.598 8.552 10.824 62.862 89.836 6.7544% 92 m 8.709 9.491 13.076 67.201 98.477 9.6186%

96 Table 26 Bowles Creek alternate site roadway metrics.

US Texas Texas Federal State FM County Pool Highways Highways Routes Roads Total Elevation (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Change 63 m 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.496 0.531 — 64 m 0.000 0.886 0.000 0.693 1.579 197.3635% 65 m 0.000 1.428 0.000 0.763 2.191 38.7587% 66 m 0.000 1.538 0.000 0.898 2.436 11.1821% 67 m 0.000 1.916 0.000 1.465 3.381 38.7931% 68 m 0.000 2.143 0.000 2.129 4.272 26.3531% 69 m 0.000 2.340 0.000 3.415 5.755 34.7144% 70 m 0.000 2.457 0.000 4.781 7.238 25.7689% 71 m 0.000 3.057 0.000 7.788 10.845 49.8342% 72 m 0.000 3.367 0.000 9.122 12.489 15.1591% 73 m 0.000 4.341 0.018 11.269 15.628 25.1341% 74 m 0.000 4.846 1.028 13.900 19.774 26.5293% 75 m 0.000 4.954 1.401 17.383 23.738 20.0465% 76 m 0.000 5.069 1.865 21.473 28.407 19.6689% 77 m 0.058 5.321 2.439 26.132 33.950 19.5128% 78 m 0.233 5.644 2.785 29.302 37.964 11.8233% 79 m 0.300 6.104 3.036 32.113 41.553 9.4537% 80 m 0.669 6.827 3.329 34.753 45.578 9.6864% 81 m 0.688 7.147 3.838 36.409 48.082 5.4939% 82 m 0.716 7.641 4.731 38.629 51.717 7.5600% 83 m 0.856 9.464 5.497 40.934 56.751 9.7337% 84 m 1.020 11.078 6.242 43.161 61.501 8.3699% 85 m 1.326 11.961 6.965 48.347 68.599 11.5413% 86 m 2.098 13.986 8.075 55.492 79.651 16.1110% 87 m 2.786 14.996 8.618 58.624 85.024 6.7457% 88 m 3.886 15.531 9.412 62.692 91.521 7.6414% 89 m 5.602 16.684 10.428 67.824 100.538 9.8524% 90 m 6.991 17.154 11.342 72.628 108.115 7.5365% 91 m 7.598 17.607 11.943 77.692 114.840 6.2202% 92 m 8.709 18.858 14.276 82.958 124.801 8.6738%

97 Legend

" Principal Cities " Denton Neches River Big Thicket National " Preserve Fort Worth " Dallas Texas County Boundaries " Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Metropolitan Area

Study Area " Jacksonville

Palestine " " N Nacogdoches e " c Waco h e s

®

River 0 20 40 60 80 Kilometers

" Austin Beaumont "

Houston "

Figure 1 Regional setting.

98 1 — Bexar County Legend 2 — Cameron County Dallas/Fort Worth 3 — Collin County Metropolitan Area 4 — Dallas County 5 — Denton County Counties <250,000 6 — El Paso County Population 7 — Fort Bend County Counties >250,000 8 — Galveston County Population 9 — Harris County 10 — Hidalgo County 11 — Jefferson County 12 — Montgomery County 13 — Nueces County 5 3 14 — Tarrant County 14 4 15 — Travis County 6

15 12 9 11 7 1 8

13 ® 10 2 0 100 200 Kilometers

Figure 2 Texas counties greater than 250,000 population (2000 census).

99 Legend

" Cities Existing Reservoirs 8 Proposed Reservoirs 7 Neches River Texas County Boundaries 6 Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan Area 1 5 Dallas " 4 2

1 — Grapevine Lake 2 — Lake Fork Reservoir 3 3 — Lake Palestine 4 — Lake Ray Hubbard 5 — Lake Tawakoni 6 — Lewisville Lake ® 7 — Ray Roberts Lake 8 — Fastrill Reservoir (Proposed) 0 10 20 30 40 50 9 — Marvin Nichols Reservoir (Proposed) 9 Kilometers

Figure 3 Water supply reservoirs.

100 Legend " " Cities and Towns Bullard

State Parks Poynor " Frankston " Davy Crockett " Cuney National Forest

I. D. Fairchild State Forest " Jacksonville

Neches River Rusk State Park Jim Hogg Study Area Palestine State Park State Park

"

" Rusk Palestine

Caddoan Mounds State Historical Park

Texas State Railroad " Alto State Historical Park

Mission Tejas State Historical Park ® Grapeland "

0 5 10 15 Kilometers

Figure 4 Parks and forest lands.

101 Legend Jacksonville " " Cities & Communities ¤£79 Major Highways Proposal B Boundary Pert " Todd City " " Ironton Proposal C Boundary Neches River TS155 Fastrill Reservoir " Pierces Chapel Neches "

¤£79

¤£84 " Maydelle

¤£84 " ® Jarvis

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers

Figure 5 Neches National Wildlife Refuge proposed boundaries.

102 Legend " Bullard " Cities and Towns

" Dam Locations Poynor " Frankston Neches River 1 " Cuney Study Area " Jacksonville

" Rusk Palestine " 7

8

5 " Alto 1 — Blackburn Crossing Dam 4 2 — Box Creek Alternate Site 3 — Bowles Creek Alternate Site 9 3 4 — Fastrill Dam Site 6 2 5 — Ioni Creek Alternate Site " Grapeland ® 6 — San Pedro Creek Alternate Site 7 — Stills Creek Alternate Site 8 — Tailes Creek Alternate Site 0 5 10 15 Kilometers 9 — Weches Dam Site

Figure 6 Dam locations.

103 Legend Elevation High : 236 meters

Low : 62 meters

®

0 5 10 15 Kilometers

Figure 7 Elevation.

104 Legend Henderson County Smith County " Bullard " Cities and Towns Texas County Boundaries Poynor " Stills Creek " Frankston Watershed " Cuney Tailes Creek Watershed Ioni Creek " Jacksonville Watershed Fastrill Dam Watershed Cherokee County Weches Dam Watershed San Pedro Creek Anderson County Watershed Rusk " Box Creek " Watershed Palestine Bowles Creek Watershed

Each watershed also includes " Alto all cumulative upstream water- sheds in addition to the area shown.

® Grapeland "

0 5 10 15 Kilometers Houston County

Figure 8 Watersheds.

105 Legend Grass Deciduous Mixed Conifers Developed Water

®

0 5 10 15 Kilometers

Figure 9 Landsat image classification.

106 Legend # Mineola (1,031 mm/year) # Weather Stations # Kaufman (988 mm/year) Neches River Texas County Boundaries # Tyler (1,150 mm/year) Study Area Athens # Henderson # (1,068 mm/year) (1,225 mm/year) #Corsicana (1,003 mm/year) Jacksonville #(1,170 mm/year) # Rusk Palestine # (1,232 mm/year) (1,178 mm/year) Nacogdoches # (1,228 mm/year)

Buffalo # Lufkin # (1,110 mm/year) (1,244 mm/year) #Crockett (1,155 mm/year)

#Groveton ® (1,222 mm/year) Madisonville 0 10 20 30 40 # Kilometers (1,118 mm/year)

Figure 10 Weather stations, showing average annual precipitation.

107 10000

1000

100

Mean 10 Median Mode 1

0.1 Q (cubic meters per second) meters Q (cubic

0.01

0.001

0.0001 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 11 Daily mean discharge of the Neches River between 1939 and 2006.

108 60

50

40

30

20 Q (cubic meters per second)

10

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 12 Mean daily mean discharge of the Neches River for the calendar year.

109 Legend ¤£79 Highways ¤£69 Fastrill Dam 747 Neches River )"" Fastrill Reservoir

¤£84

)"12"48

¤£84

)"18"57

)"2"3 )"32"3

TS294 ® TS294

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers )"22"8

Figure 13 Fastrill Reservoir.

110 Legend Weches Alterna"te Site San Pedro Creek Alternate Site

" Cities and Towns ¤£79 Primary Highways ¤£79 ¤£84 " Palestine Neches River " Rusk ¤£84 "

Reservoir " Rusk

Alto ST294 " Alto " ST294 !(21 !(21

" Grapeland

" " Box Creek Alternate Site Bowles Creek Alternate Site

£79 ¤£79 ¤

84 84 " ¤£ " ¤£ Rusk " Rusk

Alto Alto " ST294 " ST294 ® !(21

0 5 10 15 20 " Grapeland 21 Kilometers " Grapeland !(

Figure 14 Equivalent reservoir configurations.

111 REFERENCES

Bowman, Bob. 2001. Mission Tejas. All Things Historical, Texas Escapes. 12-18 August.

Breeding, Seth D. 2008. Lake Palestine. Handbook of Texas Online. Austin: Texas State Historical Association. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/LL/ rol63.html (accessed 11 January 2008).

Bureau of Economic Geography. 1992. Geology of Texas (map). Austin: Univ. of Texas at Austin.

Castelo, Veronica. 2008. Owners lose lake after dam breaks. News 8 Austin. 9 January. http://www.news8austin.com/your_news/default.asp?ArlID=197874 (accessed 11 January 2008).

City of Dallas, Dallas Water Utilities. 2005a. Fastrill Reservoir preliminary feasibility study presented to Health, Environment, and Human Services, and Finance and Audit Committee. Dallas City Council Meeting. 28 March.

———. 2005b. Long range water supply plan for Dallas, Texas: Issues guiding the city's submission to the Region C Planning Committee. Dallas City Council Meeting. 9 March.

———. 2007. 2007 Dallas drinking water quality report, publication #07/08-35. Dallas: City of Dallas.

112 Coffee, Daniel R. 1975. Soil survey of Anderson County, Texas. Washington, DC: United States Soil Conservation Service.

Davis, Rod. 2006. Hard truth, dry times: Why Dallas has to drown northeast Texas or die of thirst in 50 years. D Magazine. September.

Diamond, Christine. 2007. Neches River on national top 10 endangered list due to Fastrill Dam. Lufkin (TX) Daily News. 17 April.

Hatherly, Don T. 1994. Soil survey of Smith County, Texas. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Hatherly, Don T. and Major D. Mays. 1979. Soil survey of Henderson County, Texas. Washington, DC: United States Soil Conservation Service.

Helm, Phylena. 1999. Fastrill, Texas. Handbook of Texas Online. Austin: Texas State Historical Association. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/FF/ hvf11.html (accessed 8 March 2006).

Hess, Myron, Mary Kelly, and Ken Kramer. 2005. Comments on initially prepared 2006 regional water plan for Region C. Austin: National Wildlife Federation South Central

Region. http://texaswatermatters.org/pdfs/articles/2005_ipp_region_c_joint_comments .pdf (accessed 20 February 2006).

McElhaney, Jackie and Michael V. Hazel. 2006. Dallas, Texas. Handbook of Texas Online. Austin: Texas State Historical Association. http://www.tshaonline.org/ handbook/online/articles/DD/hdd1.html (accessed 27 November 2006).

113

Mowery, Irvin C. and Harvey Oakes. 1958. Soil survey of Cherokee County, Texas. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

National Park Service. 2009. Big Thicket National Preserve. http://www.nps.gov.bith (accessed 3 February 2009).

Raisz, Erwin. 1957. Landforms of the United States (map), 6th rev. ed. Brookline, MA: Raisz Landform Maps.

Regional Water Planning Group. 2005. 2005 initially prepared regional water plan, Region I. Austin: Texas Water Development Board.

Rusk Chamber of Commerce. 2006. Site of Fastrill. http://www.rusktexascoc.org/ site_of _fastrill.htm (accessed 8 March 2006).

Sabine River Authority. 2009. Comprehensive Sabine watershed management plan report. http://sratx.org/srwmp/comprehensive_plan/final_report/html/Toc.htm (accessed 3 May 2009).

Steptoe, Levi. 2002. Soil survey of Houston County, Texas. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2007. Rare, threatened, and endangered species of Texas by county database. Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. http://gis.tpwd.state.tx.us/Tpw_EndangeredSpecies/DesktopDefault.aspx (accessed 3 April 2007).

114

Texas Water Development Board. 2002. Water for Texas: 2002 state water plan. Austin: Texas Water Development Board.

———. 2006a. 2006 regional water plan population projections for 2000-2060 for cities, utilities, and county-other by county and region in Texas. Austin: Texas Water Development Board. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/data/popwaterdemand/2003 projections/PopulationProjections/STATE_REGION/region_pop.xls (accessed 5 October 2006).

———. 2006b. 2006 regional water plan: County water demand projections for 2000- 2060. Austin: Texas Water Development Board. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/data/ popwaterdemand/2003Projections/Demand%20Projections/BoardApproved/County/ county_demand_totals.htm (accessed 27 November 2006).

———. 2007. Historical water use information. Austin: Texas Water Development Board. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wuhistorical (accessed 21 July 2007).

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Pertinent Data Sheets. Fort Worth, TX:

United States Army Corps of Engineers.

United States Census Bureau. 1980. 1980 Census of population and housing. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

———. 2004. Historic Census Files. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/ (accessed 5 October 2006).

115 ———. 2009a. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed 2 May 2009).

———. 2009b. July 1, 2008 population estimates for metropolitan, micropolitan, and combined statistical areas. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 2009. No. 08-10890, City of Dallas vs. H. Dale Hall, et. al. and Texas Water Development Board vs. United States Department of the Interior, et. al. New Orleans. 12 March.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. 2005. North

Neches River National Wildlife Refuge establishment proposal, environmental assessment, conceptual management plan, and land protection plan. Albuquerque: National Wildlife Refuge System.

116