FINAL

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

BULL SHOALS LAKE AND

Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer District, Little Rock, Arkansas

September 1973 Summary Sheet

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Little Rock, Arkansas

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Action: The operation and maintenance of consists of hydroelectric power generation, flood control, operation and maintenance of parks, and management of land and water resources.

3. a. Environmental Impacts of the Operation and Maintenance Program. - The generators at Bull Shoals produce much needed electrical energy without air pollution. Generation has created a downstream environment that is dependent on cold water releases. Lake fluctuations change the environment along the shoreline with respect to fish spawning and vegetation survival. The heavy recreational use of the lake results in changes 1n the local environment. The flood control operations preserve and stabilize the downstream environment.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects of the Operations and Maintenance Program. - Power generation and flood control regulation result in lake fluctuations that adversely affect vegetation along the shoreline and the fish in the lake. Operation of the parks results in solid waste and sewage disposal problems. Overuse and encroachments cause timber damage and destruction.

4. Alternatives to Present Operation and Maintenance Programs. - The alternatives to the present O&M practices would be modification or total cessation of hydroelectric power generation, flood control, recreational activities, and management practices.

5. Comments reguested: Soil Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Department of Interior Environmental Protection Agency Arkansas Department of Commerce Missouri Water Resources Board

6. Draft statement to CEQ 1973 Final statement to CEQ 2 5 FEeH ^ . INDEX

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BULL SHOALS IflKE

Section Title Page

I Project Description ------1 A Location ------1 B Lake Description ------1 C Facilities ------1 1 and Powerhouse------1 2 Flood Control Regulationand Storage------2 3 Parks ------2 D Fish and Wildlife Management------3 E Operations and Maintenance Activities ------3

II Environmental Setting ------4 A Economy of the Area ------4 1 Economic Environment and Impact------4 a Existing Economy------4 b Socioeconomic Factors ------5 c Project Impact ------6 d Conclusions ------7 B Description of the Area ------7 1 Topography...... -...... 7 2 Vegetation------7 3 Animal L i f e ------8 4 Archaeological and Historical ------8 5 Geological Features------— 9

III The Environmental Impact of the Programmed O&M Activities ------9 A Hydroelectric Power Production and Flood Control — 9 1 Upstream Effects ------9 2 Downstream Effects ------10 B Resource Management ------10 1 Fish and Wildlife Management ------11 2 Timber Management------12 3 Water Quality------12 4 Lake Fluctuation------12 5 Shoreline Vegetation ------13 6 Encroachments ------13 7 Sale of Gravel ------13 8 Agricultural and GrazingLeases ------13 9 Air Pollution------13 C Recreation------14 1 Marine Toilets ------14 2 Disposal of Solid Waste ------14 3 Disposal of Sewage------15 4 Private Floating Facilities ------16 Section Title Page

5 Vector Control ------17 6 Roadway Construction ------17 7 Traffic Control ------17 D Avoidable Effects ------17

IV Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided As a Result of O&M Activities ------17 A Hydroelectric Power Generation ------17 B Flood Control ------18

V Alternatives to Present Project Operation, Maintenance and Management Practices ------18 A Hydroelectric Power Generation ------18 B Flood Control ------19 C Management of Government-owned Perimeter Lands — 19

VI The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity------20 A Hydroelectric Power Production ------20 B Flood Control ------20 C Preservation of Lake and Surroundings ------21

VII Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources------21

VIII Coordination With Other Agencies ------21 A U. S. Department of Agriculture ------21 1 Forest Service ------21 2 Soil Conservation Service ------22 B Environmental Protection Agency------22 C Missouri Department of Conservation ------23 D Missouri Water Resources Board ------24 E Lakes Country Regional Planning Commission ------24 F Arkansas Department of Commerce Division of Soil and Water Resources------24 G Mary Woolf, Secretary, Lead-Hill Diamond City Sportsmen Association ------27 H U. S. Department of Interior ------28

Coordination List ------31 FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT BULL SHOALS UK E

U.S. Army Engineer District Little Rock, Arkansas

I. Project description.

A. Location. Bull Shoals Lake is situated in the of north central Arkansas and southern Missouri and at the top of the conservation pool extends for a distance of 87 miles along the White River from the , 10 miles west of Mountain Home, Arkansas, to the Powersite Dam near Forsyth, Missouri. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 as modified by the Flood Control Act of 1941 for flood control, generation of power, and other beneficial water uses. Construction of the project began in April 1946 and was essentially complete 1n September 1952. The Bull Shoals Dam is located at river mile 418.6 on the White River. (See Plate 1.)

B. Lake description. Bull Shoals Lake has a storage capacity of 5,408,000 acre-feet of water. Flood control storage accounts for 2.360.000 acre-feet and 1,003,000 acre-feet is for power drawdown, and 2.045.000 acre-feet 1s for inactive and dead storage. The flood control storage is equivalent to a depth of 7.3 inches of water over the area of 6,036 square miles that drains into the lake, and the total storage is equivalent to a depth of almost 17 inches over the area. At the top of the flood control pool, the lake has a surface area of 71,240 acres and a shoreline of 1,050 miles. The full conservation pool covers an area of 45,440 acres and has a shoreline 740 miles long. The project affords flood protection for the White and Lower valleys, hydroelectric power, and recreational opportunities.

C. Facilities.

1. Dam and powerhouse. Bull Shoals Dam extends for a distance of 2,256 feet across the White River Valley, rises to a height of 258 feet above the riverbed, and contains 2,100,000 cubic yards of concrete. Eight 18-foot diameter penstocks deliver water to the powerhouse. The eight generating units at Bull Shoals, four of which are rated at 40,000 kilowatts each and four at 45,000 kilowatts each, are capable of generating within the range of from 340,000 to 391,000 kilowatts, depending on the lake level. The total power output of Bull Shoals and the upstream tandem project Table Rock, except for 62,000 kilowatts of capacity, 74,400,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per year, and some of the overload capability of the two plants, is marketed by Southwestern Power Administration to a six- company electric cooperative. The electricity is then sold to many towns and cities in Missouri and Arkansas. Hydroelectric facilities in this. part of the United States are designed for peaking because of limited inflow. Power is normally generated only during periods of maximum demand and supplements thermal generation which is used to supply the base load. Hydroelectric power is ideal for peaking in that it is readily available to meet sudden changes in load and does not contribute to air and thermal pollution. Scheduling of power under four contracts is done by Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. The remaining power production is scheduled by the Southwestern Power Administration. Total net energy produced,at Bull Shoals between September 1952 and June 1972 was 10,665,567,000 kilowatt-hours and resulted 1n a gross revenue of $27,071,673.

2. Flood control regulation and storage. The water surface of the lake rises into the flooa control pool only during periods of excessive rainfall, estimated to be about 17 percent of the time. These periods last for several months in some years and do not occur at all in other years. Water stored in the flood control zone during a flood is released at the maximum practicable nondamaging rate after the flood danger has passed, so that the storage space 1s again available to regulate future floods. Bull Shoals Lake is the downstream unit 1n the Bull Shoals system of lakes operated for control of floods on the White and Mississippi Rivers, generation of hydroelectric power, and other beneficial purposes. The overall White River Basin system consists of Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals Lakes, located in tandem on the upper White River and Norfork, Clearwater, and Greers Ferry Lakes on the tributaries. From July 1951, when filling of the power pool began, until June 1972, 68 floods occurred on the White River which were regulated by the combined operation of the Beaver, Bull Shoals, Table Rock, and Norfork Lakes with effecting regulation since 1957 and since 1964. Crest stages of these floods were reduced an average of 9.6 feet at Calico Rock, 59 miles downstream from Bull Shoals Dam. Flooding was prevented on an average of 15,550 acres of Improved land for each flood by Bull Shoals Lake. Through June 1972 the accumulated flood losses prevented resulting from the operation of the lake amounted to $15,087,000.

3. Parks. A comprehensive master plan for recreational purposes and land management for Bull Shoals Lake was prepared 1n cooperation with the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Missouri Conservation Commission, U.S. Public Health Service, Missouri State Health Department, and Arkansas State Board of Health to make the best possible use of the lake area. The Corps of Engineers manages 19 parks around the lake, 11 of which include leases for commercial boat dock concessions. Ten parks, seven with boat docks, are located in Arkansas and all others are in Missouri. The boat docks provide rental boats and motors, boat storage, fish bait, soft drinks, and other allied services. All parks have been or will be provided with recreational facilities including picnicking and camping, water supply, launching ramps, and sanitary facilities. A program for the orderly development and expansion of the parks on Bull Shoals Lake is contained in an updated Master Plan for the Development and Management of Bull Shoals Lake. These parks are expanded as visitation increases and funds become available. There are no parks on Bull Shoals Lake that have been fully developed. Based on the success achieved in the past in user fee areas, entrance gates will be built in those parks with high visitation that are threatened with overuse. These gates will be closed when the park is full and the campers will be directed to parks that are less heavily used. Anticipated increased visitation was considered in the design of the sewage treatment facilities at Bull Shoals. During the 1972 visitation at Bull Shoals Lake was estimated at 3,939,700.

D. Fish and wildlife management. The ownership of fish and wildlife resources located within a particular state belongs to that state. The states have the right and authority to manage, regulate, and control fish and wildlife resources within their boundaries. Management of fish and resident wildlife by regulations and law enforcement is the primary responsibility of the state wildlife or conservation agency. The Corps of Engineers has the responsibility for performing specific manage­ ment practices for sustaining and improving fish and wildlife resources on land and water areas under their administration. A license has been granted to the Missouri Department of Conservation permitting them to manage 14,267 acres of land and water areas associated with Bull Shoals Lake. The wildlife management plans of the Missouri Department of Conservation consist of managing various species of wildlife and posting the boundary of the licensed area to assist the general public in locating and Identifying the tracts of land open to public hunting. The planting of crops conducive to wildlife enhancement is performed largely under sharecrop agreements with local farmers with some planting by Department personnel where sharecroppers are not available. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has been granted licenses for the Jones Point Wildlife Management Area consisting of 1,527 acres of lake lands for wildlife management, and for 33 acres in the vicinity of Lead Hill Boat Dock for development of a fish nursery pond.

E. Operations and maintenance activities. The project is operated and maintained for reduction of flooding on the White and Lower Mississippi Rivers, production of hydroelectric power, providing wholesome outdoor recreational experiences for the visiting public, fish and wildlife enhancement, and other beneficial water uses. Some of the O&M activities include:

1. Removing solid waste from parks and disposing of it in sanitary landfills.

2. Providing cleanup services at parks to maintain them in a clean and sanitary manner.

3. Pumping and disposal of sewage from vault toilets, septic tanks, and trailer dump stations.

4. Developing a land management program that includes erosion control, removal of hazardous dead timber in the parks and reforestation and planting with cover and food plots for wildlife management.

5. Establishing grasses and other types of vegetation on areas denuded by intense use and planting appropriate shrubs along roadways, walkways, and around buildings. 6. Operation, development, and maintenance of recreational facilities and road networks.

7. Continuing to operate and maintain the project in accordance with the approved regulation plans for flood control, hydroelectric power production, and other beneficial water uses.

II. Environmental setting.

A. Economy of the area.

1. Economic environment and impact.

a. Existing economy. Bull Shoals Lake lies principally within Baxter, Boone, and Marion Counties, Arkansas, and Ozark and Taney Counties, Missouri. Population in this area increased from approximately 39,000 in 1960 to more than 45,000 in 1970. 1/ The area is primarily rural, with a scattering of small towns which derive their existence from tourist and retirement expenditures, agricultural trade, and manufacturing.

(1) Principal cities and towns in the five-county Bull Shoals Lake vicinity include Mountain Home, Harrison, Yellville, and Flippin (Arkansas), and Branson, Gainsville, Hollister, and Forsyth (Missouri). The area contains more than 60 manufacturing firms with production centering around lumber and wood products, food and kindred products, stone, clay, and glass products, chemicals, and transportation equipment. 2/

(2) The residents of the Bull Shoals vicinity are, in general, less well off financially than other residents of the States of Arkansas and Missouri. Per capita personal income in the area increased from $1,153 in 1960 to $1,900 in 1970, while per capita income in Arkansas increased from $1,370 to $2,740 and per capita income in Missouri increased from $2,110 to $3,660. 2 J This may be partially explained by the historical reliance of residents on agricultural activities, reflected by large percentages of agricultural employment in the area and small percentages of professional, technical, and kindred workers, clerical and kindred

1/ Census of Population, 1960 and 1970, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

2/ Missouri Directory of Manufacturing and Mining, 1971, Missouri Division of Commerce and Industrial Development, Jefferson City, Missouri, and 1970-71 Edition Directory of Arkansas Industries, Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, Litt7e Rock, Arkansas.

3/ Study area estimates from Personal Income for Missouri Counties, Missouri Economy Study, University of Missouri, and from data published by the Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas. State data from Survey of Current Business, April 1971, page 21. workers, and operatives and kindred (manufacturing-related) workers. 4/ It should be noted that many members of farm families in the area supplement their agriculture-based income with employment in other categories. Area farms are larger than state averages, but are of considerably lower value on a per-farm and per-acre basis. Most of the farms in the area are livestock farms, involved in the production of cattle and calves, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, and hogs and pigs. 5/

b. Socioeconomic factors. Some insight into the well-being of residents of the four-county Bull Shoals Lake study area may be gained by observation of certain socioeconomic indicators, such as income distribution, educational attainment and facilities and the availability of health personnel and facilities. The following paragraphs discuss these indicators for the four-county area.

(1) In 1970 approximately 56 percent of the households in the Bull Shoals area had cash incomes of less than $5,000, while 48 percent of Arkansas residents and only 35 percent of Missouri residents were in this category. Only 15 percent of the residents near Bull Shoals had incomes in excess of $10,000, while 20.4 percent of Arkansas residents and 28.6 percent of Missouri residents were thus classified. 6/

(2) Available data indicate that in 1960 adults in the Bull Shoals area had educational attainment approximately equal to that of the average Arkansas resident but considerably lower than the average Missouri resident, with very few area residents in the completed-less-than-five- years category. 7/ At the present time the area contains a total of 16 high schools, with supporting elementary and junior high schools. 8/

(3) The United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare recommends 1,500 persons per resident physician as a desirable ratio for the proper provision of physicians' services in a given area. The ratio in the vicinity of Bull Shoals Lake in 1970 was 1,260 persons per resident physician. The Arkansas ratio was 1,073 per physician, and the Missouri

4/ Census of Population, 1960, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

5/ 1964 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

6/ Sales Management Survey of Buying Power, 1971.

7J Census of Population, 1960, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

8/ Missouri School Directory, 1971-72, Missouri State Board of Education, and Arkansas Educational Directory, 1971-72, Arkansas State Department of Education. ratio was 871 per physician. Hospital beds in the Bull Shoals area are more plentiful on the average, than 1n the two encompassing states, and hospital facilities are fairly well distributed throughout the area. Nursing home beds, on the average, are as plentiful as in the two states. The Bull Shoals area contains four public health departments or units, employing doctors, nurses, and part-time public health dentist, tuberculosis clinicians, and maternal and child health clinicians. 9/

c. Project impact. The economic impact of the Bull Shoals project on the surrounding area has taken a variety of forms, some of which are discussed In the following paragraphs.

(1) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employs approximately 70 persons In the project area for operation and maintenance purposes. It is estimated that local spending by these 70 employees directly supports 14 retail jobs and five service (i.e., repair, personal, recreation, medical, educational, and other services) jobs. 10/

(2) Recreation visitation at the Bull Shoals project totaled approximately 3,959,000 in 1971. Utilization of expenditure levels derived from 0RRRC Study Report 24, article titled Private and Public Provision of Outdoor Recreation Opportunity by Marion Clawson, 1962, indicates that 1971 visitors to Bull Shoals Lake directly supported 145 retail jobs and 146 service jobs in the project area.

(3) The assessed value of property adjoining Bull Shoals Lake has increased 535 percent since 1945.

(4) Gross reported income of the five major commercial boat docks on the lake totaled approximately $350,000 in 1970. Records are not available for the seven minor concessionaires.

(5) Privately-owned boats, houseboats, motors, and boat trailers regularly used on the lake in 1972 were valued at over $4.5 million.

(6) In 1972 outdoor recreation equipment sold annually in the vicinity of Bull Shoals Lake totaled over $1.8 million.

9/ Arkansas and Missouri State Departments of Health provided most of the health data. Information on physicians in Arkansas was provided by the Arkansas Medical Society.

10/ In general, retail and service jobs supported by operation and maintenance and recreation expenditures were estimated by dividing the expenditure amounts by average-sale-per-employee data, then applying average-earnings-per-employee data to the jobs thus obtained to obtain subsequent-round impacts. Average sales and earnings were derived from 1967 Census of Business data for counties, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (7) Approximately 207 vacation resorts, cottage camps, lodges, hotels and similar accommodations where overnight facilities are provided exist in the vicinity of the lake.

d. Conclusions. Statistical data are not currently available to quantify the total effect of the Bull Shoals project on the local economy, but some indication of isolated effects can be derived from information in the preceding paragraphs. It is estimated that the project accounts for approximately 9 percent of area retail jobs and 11 percent of area service jobs. In addition, it is estimated that Corps of Engineers employees' payroll income, with operation-and-maintenance-related retail and service employees' income and recreation-expenditure-related retail and service employees' income accounted for more than $1.7 million of area personal income in 1970. This excludes consideration of agricultural losses prevented by the project, as well as effects on other types of employment in the area, such as housing and other construction, transporta­ tion and public utilities, wholesale trade, and finance, insurance, and real estate. Also, not considered in this amount are income received by and expenditures of retirees and other persons induced to move into the area because of the proximity of the project, increasing property values and tax revenues, and Income from sale of outdoor recreation equipment.

B. Description of the area.

1. Topography. The region in which the Bull Shoals Lake is located is characterized by narrow, flat-topped ridges between deeply cut valleys. The prominent topographic features of the area are the extensive and deeply cut meanders of the White River and its principal tributaries. The elevations of the lake area vary from 450 feet m.s.l. (mean sea level) in the streambed to 1,100 feet m.s.l. on the adjacent hill and ridge tops. The land generally rises from the narrow alluvial bottom in steep slopes to narrow upland plateaus or ridges. In general, the entire area may be classified as rough and broken.

2. Vegetation. Approximately 70 percent of the Government- owned land not permanently Inundated is wooded. The area generally has been cut over repeatedly and very little high-grade timber remains. Forest fires have also contributed to the absence of timber. The existence of a dominant oak-hickory woodland interspersed with redcedar is typical of the Ozark highland region. There are a few scattered stands of shortleaf pine. Other species present include elm, maple, gum, ash, sycamore, walnut, birch, honey locust, persimmon, and cotton­ wood. Flowering dogwood and redbud are also common and contribute greatly to the beauty of the Ozark scenery. The principal commercial timber products are cross ties, stave bolts, redcedar lumber and fence posts, hardwood flooring, lumber, and furniture stock and charwood. Considerable quantities of walnut logs are also harvested in the general reg ion. 3. Animal life. The whitetailed deer and black bear, since reintroduction by Arkansas in the 1960's, are the only species of big game found in the lake area. The upland game population of the lake area includes squirrels, bobwhite quail, rabbits, doves, and wild turkeys. Fur-bearing animals present include beaver, o'possums, striped skunks, raccoons, mink, woodchucks, muskrats, foxes, and bobcats. Resident and migratory waterfowl are becoming increasingly important in the lake area. Ducks and geese use the lake for resting during migration. The lake furnishes habitat for all species of native game fish that were present in the river. However, the species composition presently occurring in the lake differs from that which normally occurred in the river. Smallmouth bass have become acclimated to the lake environment and comprise a significant component of the sport fishery of the lake. Rock bass are present in limited amounts and are confined to tributary streams entering the lake and to the transitional areas where a stream gradually becomes a part of the lake. The principle sport fish species harvested from Bull Shoals Lake are largemouth bass, white bass, spotted bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, channel catfish, black crappie, walleye, sunfish, and rainbow trout. The operation of the Bull Shoals Lake project resulted in changes downstream that affected conditions for fish. These changes include increased minimum flows in the lower reaches of the river, reduction of overflow area, and increased duration of flooding of certain other areas. Increased downstream flows and increased duration of flooding of low areas provide additional habitat for fish. Reduction in overflow conditions reduces habitat available to the fishery and tends to reduce fertility of permanent waters which are normally benefited by periodic overflows. Downstream from Bull Shoals Dam, the warm water fishery was adversely affected by cold water discharges through the dam. However, a trout fishery was established in the immediate downstream area which helped compensate for warm water fish disappearance.

4. Archaeological and historical. Settlement of the Bull Shoals Lake area began after the War of 1812 when the Congress of the United States rewarded veterans of that war with land grants in Missouri and Arkansas. Most of the written history of the area centers around the development of the City of Mountain Home, which is the hub of commerce, industry, education, and government of Baxter County. The region prospered with agriculture, minerals, and lumbering development and the construction of the White River Subdivision of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railroad (now Missouri Pacific Lines) in 1902. Indians lived in the area for almost 10,000 years. Dart and spear points found around the lake indicate that nomadic hunters roamed the woods as early as 8,000 B.C. The area was never heavily populated, but campsites were found all along the rivers and streams, and those Indians who lived by hunting and by gathering wild berries and nuts would have found that this portion of the Ozarks supplied most of their needs. It was probably not until around A.D. 500 that Indians began to settle in small villages and farm the bottomland. From the few sites which have been scientifically investigated in and around the lake area, archeologists have concluded that sometime after A.D. 1400, groups of Indians who had lived along the Mississippi River began moving up the White River and into the Ozark Mountains. Pottery vessels and other artifacts found around the lake area are very similar to those found in large village sites in extreme eastern Arkansas. These Indians did not stay long in the area, for by the time of the first European contacts in northern Arkansas, only a few scattered native groups were here, and the Osage Indians were using the whole of north Arkansas as hunting territory. When the Cherokees lived in central Arkansas from 1817 to 1829, it is likely that they came Into this part of Baxter County as well. The National Register of Historic Places has been consulted and no national historic properties are affected by the operation and maintenance of the property; and in the case of new Federal developments within the project, contact will be made with the appropriate State Liaison Officer for historic preservation.

5. Geological features. Bull Shoals Dam is located near the western edge of tne Salem Plateau, which is the lowest of the plateaus making up the Ozark Plateau province. The Salem Plateau lies essentially north and east of the White River and forms the drainage area of its eastern tributaries. The Springfield Plateau, which lies south and west of the White River in this region, is represented by isolated knobs, such as Bull Shoals Mountain, in the immediate vicinity of the dam. These plateau surfaces are now intricately and deeply dissected by the dentritic pattern of the White River drainage system. In the Ozark region, the White River follows a meandering course through a narrow valley which has an asymmetrical valley profile at the sharp river bends. A steep, rock bluff forms the valley wall on the outside of the bends and a long, gentle, slip-off slope forms the inside valley wall. Along straight courses of the river between bends, both valley walls are steep and more or less symmetrical. The strata in the region of the Bull Shoals Lake have a slight dip to the south. The region is on the southern flank of a large regional dome with its nucleus in the igneous rocks of the St. Francis Mountains about 200 miles northeast. Locally, short anticlines and dome structures with as much as 90 feet of structural relief are noted in the exposures along the White River. Faults with small displacements are found in the vicinity. There is no record of any seismic activity originating in the Bull Shoals area and it is believed that all faults 1n the region are static and no future movements are expected. Three rock formations of Ordovician age are present above river level within the region. In descending order they are the Everton, Powell, and Cotter formations. The Jefferson City formation underlies the Cotter and is present only a few feet below river level at the dam. These formations consist largely of dolomitic limestone with occasional lenses of sandstone and shale. The Everton and Powell formations are not present at the dam but cap the nearby higher hills which are remnants of the Springfield Plateau surface. Geological hazards such as rockfalls and slides are no greater problems at Bull Shoals Lake than at other lakes with high rock bluffs along the shoreline. There are no major shale beds along the shoreline to provide planes of weakness along which slides could occur.

III. The environmental impact of the programmed 0&M activities.

A. Hydroelectric power production and flood control.

1. Upstream effects. Lake fluctuations, associated with power production and flood control procedures, produce changes in the environ­ ment along the shoreline of the lake. The proximity to the lake causes some of the trees above the top of the conservation pool to flourish while some of the less well adapted vegetation at various elevations along the shoreline is destroyed by extended periods of inundation. Fish nests and eggs are either exposed to air and destroyed as the water recedes or they are adversely affected by changes in temperature as the depth of the water increases. Wildlife habitat along the shoreline is flooded during increases in lake level. Shoreline erosion is a problem in areas where wave wash attacks unstable sections of the shoreline.

2. Downstream effects. Cold water releases resulting from hydro­ electric power production changed the environment downstream from the dam from one that contained an excellent warm water fishery into an outstanding cold water trout fishery provided stocking is utilized. The cessation of cold water releases from Bull Shoals Lake would quickly result in a warming of the water downstream from the dam. The cessation of power or other water releases from Bull Shoals and from Norfork, a lake on a tributary of the White River that flows into the river 44 miles downstream from Bull Shoals, would ultimately result in a warming of the White River downstream. If a typical weekday powerload of 2900 mwh (megawatt hours) at Bull Shoals and 450 mwh at Norfork and 90 degrees Fahrenheit ambient temperature is assumed, the resulting 6 a.m. water temperature at a point 92 miles downstream from Bull Shoals would be 55 degrees Fahrenheit. With no further water releases from either dam and an ambient temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit, the water temperature will rise to 68 degrees Fahrenheit in eight hours. Generally, the elevation of water temperatures over 70 degrees Fahrenheit for prolonged periods disrupts the normal life processes of trout and could cause Adverse effects on the fishery. As in the past, since the impoundment of Bull Shoals Lake and the establishment of the cold water fishery downstream, efforts will be made to insure the continued survival of the trout fishery by providing sufficient amounts of cold water from Bull Shoals Lake. The maximum nondamaging flow that can be released from the dam has been established for the river downstream from Bull Shcals Dam and flood control procedures are partially predicated on these values. The relatively stable flows result in a more stable downstream environment and a reduction in the damage to property and wildlife habitat by floods. Hydroelectric powerplants, unlike fossil fuel units, produce the much needed electrical energy without contributing to air pollution and without depletion of irreplaceable natural resources, such as coal or petroleum. The production of electricity by hydropower plants such as Bull Shoals also results in the conservation of natural fuel reserves for future use. If present fuel costs of approximately 3 mills per kilowatt hour are used as a basis of computation, the fuel conserved from September 1952 to June 1972 that would have been necessary to generate 10,655,567,COO kilowatt hour would be worth approximately $30 million (10,665,567,000 X .003). Another indirect benefit to the consumer is realized by the power companies usir.g low cost peaking power which reduces power production costs and results in lower consumer costs of electric energy.

B. Resource management. Resource management includes operation and management in areas such as: (1) fish and wildlife, (2) timber, (3) water quality, (4) lake fluctuations, (5) shoreline vegetation, (6) encroachments, (7) sale of gravel, (8) agricultural and grazing leases, and (9) air pollution.

1. Fish and wildlife management. Largemouth, spotted, and smallmouth bass, walleye, catfish, crappie, white bass and several species of sunfish thrive in the lake. At present, white bass and largemouth bass comprise the majority of the sport fish harvested. Also, the lake supports a substantial rainbow trout fishery. The cold tailwater down­ stream from the dam has been stocked with rainbow trout and a most important sport fishery for this exotic species has been developed for this area. Natural reproduction of trout 1n this portion of the river is insufficient to maintain the fishery and trout are periodically stocked from a nearby Federal trout hatchery. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is responsible for the stocking of the river for that portion suitable for trout survival and development.

a. The Missouri Department of Conservation has licensed 14,267 acres of land and water areas from the Corps of Engineers. Of this, 2,132 acres are Included in the Drury refuge and wildlife management area. The primary objectives of the refuge portion of the Drury wildlife and management area is the production of wild turkeys which are trapped and used for restocking in other parts of the state. A secondary objective consists of providing food for migratory waterfowl and establishment of a resident flock of greater Canada geese that were stocked in the area in October 1970. A portion of the Drury wildlife and management area is used primarily for public recreation with hunters taking racoon, squirrel, wild turkey, deer, and other game from the area. Over 12,000 acres of land and water areas in the upper reaches of the Little North Fork Arm of Bull Shoals Lake are used to provide food for migratory waterfowl and for public recreation. The Spring Creek and Turkey Creek refuge areas provide sanctuary for the waterfowl. Select areas are planted with crops such as millet, dwarf milo, wheat, and barley to attract and hold the birds.

b. A peninsula containing 1,527 acres has been licensed to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Food plots and cover are being provided to attract and hold squirrels, rabbits, quail, deer, and other game and nongame animals. Also, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has constructed a fish nursery pond on a 33-acre site. This pond has been used in stocking thousands of bass, walleye, and catfish fry into the lake.

c. On 1 January 1973, the Missouri Department of Conservation began managing an additional 6,924 acres of land around Bull Shoals Lake in southern Missouri for wildlife. The Department has held a license to approximately 14,000 acres of land and water around the lake since 1963. Basically, the plan involves regulated grazing of pastures, cropping of suitable fields, and planting of supplemental food plots to provide high quality wildlife habitat. Grazing leases will be administered by the Corps of Engineers but will incorporate the recommendations made by the Missouri Department of Conservation for wildlife enhancement. The Department will negotiate sharecrop agreements with farmers interested 1n cropping suitable fields with a part of the Department's share left in the field as food for wildlife. The lands will be open to the public for hunting and other uses. The boundaries of the lands will be posted to enable the public to Identify them. In addition to managing the resident wildlife species, the management program 1s Intended to make the lake region suitable for expansion of a recently introduced flock of giant Canada geese.

2. Timber management. Some of the native timber on Government- owned land around Bull Shoals Lake has been lost through clearing by adjacent landowners, by harvest and sale prior to Government ownership, by fluctuations 1n lake level, by forest fires, and by the construction or parks. The minimal management of the timber resources on Government-owned land has resulted in a general decline in quantity and quality of these resources. Some areas have had timber removed: (a) as a result of encroachments, (b) to build or expand parks, or, (c) 1n some few instances, to provide a view of the lake for adjacent landowners. While permits are required to remove timber and underbrush on Government-owned land, there has been no approved timber management plan to Improve the quantity or quality of the forest on this land in general. Since these management practices have resulted 1n accelerated losses of forest resources, a comprehensive and progressive vegetation management plan has been developed by the Corps of Engineers for Bull Shoals Lake. The basic plan is concerned with restoration and preservation of the forest resources on all Government-owned land around the lake.

3. Water quality. The Little Rock District is developing water analysis capability. Personnel are being trained and equipment obtained that will permit more detailed analyses than have been possible in the past. Other agencies, such as the Missouri Water Pollution Board in 1968 and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Office in Fayetteville, Arkansas, have stated that the quality of the water in Bull Shoals is excellent. The lake is a favorite of skin divers because of its unusual clarity. Turbidity 1s a minor problem that adversely affects Bull Shoals Lake only for very short periods of time after very heavy rains. During these periods of heavy runoff, the urban areas and other parts of the terrain that have had the protective vegetation removed contribute silt and other suspended particles to the tributaries. The particles eventually settle to the bottom and the water clears without adverse effects on the environment. In an effort to reduce turbidity caused by rain falling on denuded areas and washing into the lake, a grass cover is being established in parks.

4. Lake fluctuation. Lake fluctuation is a function of power generation, flood control, and rainfall. Drawdown of the lake may result in: (a) the exposure of large areas of mud flats that are unattractive, (b) a reduction in the area available for water sports, (c) a reduction in the area available to waterfowl, (d) a reduction or elimination of aquatic vegetation along the shoreline and (e) potentially destructive effects on fish spawning. Fluctuations in lake level of as much as 20 to 30 feet per year are common. Management measures to provide seasonal pool operation in the interest of improving fish production and harvest, and otherwise optimizing project benefits without adversely affecting authorized project purposes, are carried out in cooperation with State and Federal agencies concerned to the maximum extent practicable. Hydrographic data pertaining to peak drawdown and other fluctuations are available but tabulating and relating the effects of drawdown to other uses of the lake and Government-owned land is considered beyond the scope of this statement. If a study of alternatives to the present project purpose is ever undertaken, then the effect that drawdown has on other uses of the project will be examined.

5. Shoreline vegetation. Shoreline alterations or clearing by adjacent landowners with or without permission, result in the removal of vegetation. Vegetation loss also may occur during the construction of boat docks, tramways, steps, or walks.

6. Encroachments. An encroachment is defined as trespassing or intruding upon the rights, property, etc., of another or to advance beyond the proper, original,or customary limits or to mike inroads. These encroachments will be controlled by closer surveillance and refusal to issue clearing or brush removal permits for the removal of native vegetation on Corps of Engineers owned land.

7. Sale of gravel. Gravel is sold by the Government from dry deposits located below the top of conservation pool during the period 1 June to 31 December. The restriction of the sales to the fall months helps to minimize the disturbance to fish spawning beds during spawning season.

8. Agricultural and grazing leases. A total of 172 lease units comprising 19,311 acres are presently available around Bull Shoals Lake for agricultural and grazing purposes. Twenty-eight plots with a total of 2,040 acres are leased to priority lessees. These priority leases are renegotiated at five-year intervals. Another 144 lease units are offered through advertisement. A total of 158 units containing 18,550 acres were under lease as of 30 June 1973. Units available for lease are advertised extensively in the project area and are then awarded to the successful bidder. These units consist of moderately steep or sloping range and forested lands and creek or river bottomlands originally used for farm crops. The leases provide that these lands will be open to the public for hunting and for access to the lake. No significant amount of crop farming is conducted on leased lands.

9. Air pollution. Bull Shoals Lake is located in the Ozark Mountains, remote from heavy smoke-producing industry or large mining operations. The mountain air is very clean and smog is virtually unknown in this region. None of the operation or maintenance activities contribute significantly to air pollution. State laws of both Arkansas and Missouri are quite restrictive pertaining to open burning. Open burning is allowed only in residential areas and in certain controlled agricultural, forestry, wildlife and industrial activities. Ceremonial fires and campfires are excluded from control by the law. C. Recreation. The 0AM recreational functions having an impact on the environment include: (1) regulation of boats and the related use of marine toilets, (2) disposal of solid waste, (3) sewage, and (4) regula­ tion of private floating facilities. Other 0AM recreational activities have minor environmental Impact such as (5) vector control, (6) roadway construction in the parks, and (7) traffic control.

1. Marine toilets. There are over 4,000 boats moored on Bull Shoals Lake. Eighty-n1ne have marine toilets. Boats operating on the lake for a period longer than three days are issued a permit. The permit requires the owner to operate in a safe and sanitary manner and abide by such regulations as may be published and placed in effect by the Department of the Army. Also, written approval must be obtained from the appropriate state health agency for the method of disposal of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other waste, and disposal must be in accordance with the approved method. In addition to boats, there are 56 floating cabins in fixed mooring positions on the lake. Twenty-six of these are in Arkansas and 30 in Missouri. All of the cabins have marine toilets. Those in Arkansas are approved by the Arkansas State Health Department. The Missouri Water Pollution Board approved several and refused to act on subsequent applications. All cabins are to be phased out by January 1980. Boats used for overnight accommodations and occupied for long periods that are equipped with inadequate toilet facilities or do not have toilets are a serious threat to the lake water quality. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 has great potential for eliminating the threat of pollution to our lakes from the boating public by requiring the use of holding tanks. The Little Rock District, in attempting to facilitate compliance with the new law, has installed two marine dump stations on Bull Shoals Lake and more stations will be built as the demand increases. However, until the Coast Guard develops and approves regulations that will allow full implementation of the Federal law, the solution to the immediate problem of marine sanitation rests with the responsible state agencies.

2. Disposal of solid waste. Visitation to Bull Shoals Lake has increased steadily for the past several years. The volume of solid waste to be disposed of continues to increase at a greater rate than the increase in visitation. The use of disposable bottles and containers has increased the volume per person sharply during the past two or three years. The solid waste generated by visitors is disposed of daily during the summer months and less frequently during the winter season. In 1972 an estimated 1,500,000 pounds of solid waste were disposed of at Bull Shoals. The solid waste from the parks is taken to a commercially operated state- approved sanitary landfill. Unauthorized dumping on Government-owned land around the lake by local residents has adverse effects. The land around Bull Shoals Lake in Government ownership is unsuitable for long­ term landfill use. It is essential that solid waste be disposed of in a manner approved by the Missouri Department of Public Health and Welfare or the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology in an effort to reduce pollution to the lake. There are over 600 public roadways leading to the shores of Bull Shoals Lake. Local rural residents from the area and from nearby housing developments have no collection system or many of the residents refuse to use an existing service for the disposal of solid waste. Many of these residents make a practice of dumping their solid waste on Government-owned lands or on adjacent lands where debris 1s washed 1n the lake, 1n H e u of hauling 1t to approved landfill disposal areas. These unauthorized dumps are sources of pollution to the lake. The number of ranger personnel 1s Inadequate to patrol these roadways and prevent local residents from dumping solid waste. The present practice of disposal of solid waste from the parks 1n a sanitary landfill remotely located from the lake is the most economical and environmentally acceptable method. If studies show that sanitary landfills have serious undesirable effects on the environment, other means of disposal, such as the more costly Incineration methods, will be Investigated thoroughly and an acceptable method will be selected. The disposal of solid waste by the local population around the lake will continue to be difficult to control because of the large number of roads to the lake. An Increase 1n the number of rangers to be used 1n patrolling the Corps of Engineers owned land would bring about a noticeable reduction 1n dumping.

3. Disposal of sewage. The parks surrounding Bull Shoals Lake are provided with both waterborne and vault-type toilets. The vault toilets are pumped monthly during the summer by contractors, and less frequently during the winter. The Corps of Engineers requested permission to discharge the contents pumped from vault-type toilets Into the treatment facilities of the towns around Bull Shoals Lake but all the municipalities contacted reported that their treatment plants were operating at or above capacity. To control the method of disposal of the effluent, earth pits were provided on Government land for the contractor's use as an interim measure. The material was Hmed and covered with at least six inches of earth. During calendar year 1972, a total of 62,000 gallons of material from vault toilets was disposed of by burial, which could have an adverse effect upon ground water and lake quality. Although the threat of pollution is a possibility, there has been insufficient time and experience to determine the long-range effects of the burial of sewage on Bull Shoals Lake. The most environmentally desirable method of sewage disposal would consist of using an approved municipal treatment facility. This 1s not possible at Bull Shoals because of the overloaded condition of the treatment facilities 1n the towns surrounding the lake. The installation of sewage treatment facilities by the Government is another environmentally acceptable proposal. A sewage treatment facility that 1s now under construction near Robinson Point Park on Norfork Lake will be used to treat a portion of the vault toilet wastes from Bull Shoals. The remainder of the wastes will be buried in pits on Government land. When construction of a treatment facility at Bull Shoals 1s completed in 1974, the treatment complex now used will treat wastes from Norfork exclusively. Construction of the Robinson Point plant will be complete in mid 1973. The facility consists of a three-cell, tube aerated sewage lagoon with each cell having a detention time of 300 days. With a total retention time of 1,030 days, a high degree of treatment is expected. The proposed system to be constructed in 1974 at the Lead H111 Park on Bull Shoals consists of two aerated lagoons,in series. The product of these ponds will be chlorinated and it is proposed to dispose of the effluent by overland flow. Trailer dump stations are located 1n the parks to receive waste from self-contained camping vehicles. The waste 1s disposed of along with the vault toilet waste. Marine dump stations will be built 1n 1973 to service boats with holding tanks.

4. Private floating facilities. Private docks on Bull Shoals Lake house a variety of crafts from small fishing boats to large cabin cruisers. They provide either open or covered storage for boats, fishing gear, and related articles. Other examples of private floating facilities are swimming floats and duck blinds. The most numerous of these facilities are private boat docks. These docks may be constructed or owned by any person that has access to the lake. Before construction is begun, plans must be submitted by the builder. These plans must be 1n accordance with the Minimum Design Standards for Private Floating Facilities as determined by the Corps of Engineers. After the dock 1s built, It is inspected and a revocable permit is issued that allows the dock to remain on the lake for a period of one to five years. Project personnel work with the dock owner to determine a satisfactory mooring location and to assure compliance with the terms of the permit. There were 402 privately-owned boat docks on the lake as of December 1972. The environmental effects of private boat docks and related facilities are: (1) the threat of pollution from unauthorized human habitation, (2) the damage to trees along the shoreline to which mooring cables are often attached, (3) the totally displeasing appearance of docks that have been allowed to go aground 1n areas that are subject to rapid dewatering, (4) the loss of scenic vistas because of a boat dock moored near a particularly beautiful rock bluff. A carefully developed and strictly Implemented zoning plan is being developed which will avoid problems such as: (1) the navigation hazard posed by docks that have broken loose from exposed mooring areas, (2) the restriction of pedestrian access caused by mooring cables, and (3) the sense of confinement brought about by the clustering of boat docks along desirable segments of the shoreline. The prime objective of the zoning plan is to produce an optimum mix of diverse recreational benefits. This requires limited restrictions of water surface and shoreline usage to insure against undesirable conflicts between the many activities which typically occur at the lake. The lake is being zoned to allow private docks in certain areas. Other areas are not conducive to private docks for one or more of the following reasons:

a. Areas inadequately protected from prevailing winds.

b. Shoreline in or near parks or where storage should be provided by commercial facilities.

c. Areas subject to rapid dewatering.

d. Scenic areas that should be preserved in their natural state for the public enjoyment.

Community docks (group-owned) are encouraged as they provide a convenient method of grouping boats and utilizing less lake area than individually- owned docks of equivalent capacity. 5. Vector control. Proper sanitation and Utter control, such as screened toilets and regular solid waste collection In the parks, provide for effective control of flies, mosquitoes, ticks, rats, and other prominent disease vectors. Fluctuation of the lake, mowing of the vegetation and wind and wave action eliminate mosquito breeding areas. Insecticides and herbicides are used when needed under established Federal controls and recommendations of the manufacturer. In 1971, a research pest control project was conducted at Greers Ferry Lake under contract with the University of Arkansas, Department of Entomology. The results were productive and methods of control established by this research assure sound, effective, and safe control procedures at all lakes in the District.

6. Roadway construction. Roads 1n the parks are necessary for access. These roads are laid lightly on the land by following the contour wherever possible with trees and rock outcrops preserved to the maximum extent possible. In forested and wooded terrain, clearing limits are carefully controlled and selective cutting Is used to produce variation and indentation 1n the tree line.

7. Traffic control. Traffic control in the parks restricts wheeled vehicles to authorized roads and parking areas thereby reducing damage to grass, trees, and fragile foliage. This control 1s accomplished by strategically placed trees, dome posts and grade differentials.

D. Avoidable effects. Some of the adverse effects of hydropower generation and flood control previously mentioned can and will be avoided or mitigated by operational and management activities of ongoing or proposed O&M programs. These adverse effects, which cannot be avoided as a result of O&M activities, are discussed more fully 1n Sections IV and V In this statement. Management measures to provide seasonal pool operation in the interest of improving fish production and harvest, and otherwise optimizing project benefits without adversely affecting authorized project purposes are carried out in cooperation with state and Federal agencies concerned to the maximum extent practicable. In 1972 the water level 1n Bull Shoals Lake was purposely raised and held one to two feet above the conservation pool elevation during the bass spawning season. This resulted in the inundation of a band of terrestrial vegetation around the shoreline of the lake which produced higher survival of the black bass spawn. As a result, the 1972 year class of black basses is the strongest since 1968 when excessive rainfall raised the lake elevation approximately 15 feet into the flood pool.

IV. Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided as a result of O&M activities.

A. Hydroelectric power generation. The use of lake water to generate electricity causes a drop in lake level if the amount of water used in generation exceeds the inflow into the lake. Several adverse effects may result from a drop in lake level. Some of these are: (1) the possible loss of spawning beds, (2) destruction of fish eggs if the lake falls during spawning season, and (3) the exposure of the alluvial shore- line to wave wash. The lack of power generation may also cause (4) water temperature problems in the river downstream. After the warm water of the river was replaced by the cold water from power releases and a trout fishery was established, this fishery became dependent upon the cold water from these releases to maintain 1t. If cold water 1s not released down­ stream by power generation or other means, the water temperature 1n the* river downstream from the dam will rise to levels that trout cannot tolerate. The most efficient and economical scheduling of power production does not always coincide with the water temperature requirements of the trout. Therefore, power generation or the lack of 1t, can have an adverse effect on the trout fishery.

B. Flood control. High lake levels resulting from storing flood water can cause damage to the shoreline environment such as trees and nesting areas. Water is stored 1n the flood pool no longer than necessary. This varies depending on how long the extended rainfall periods contribute to sustained high Inflows. Flood control regulation procedures are designed to evacuate the impounded flood waters as rapidly as possible without creating downstream damages after the flood danger has passed to regain the ability to regulate future floods. This storage period has ranged from one day to 193 days and could be even longer in exceptionally wet years. The flood storage release rate 1s controlled by several factors, the major ones being a limitation 1n the volume of water that the channel downstream can carry, the relative levels of Bull Shoals and Norfork Lakes, and the remaining flood storage in each. When necessary, flood water 1s released through the units and electric power is generated for base loads as well as for peaking purposes. Wave wash during periods of high pool elevation created by storage of flood water can cause erosion on unstable areas of shoreline that are not normally exposed to wave action.

V. Alternatives to present project operation, maintenance, and manage­ ment practices.

A. Hydroelectric power generation. The alternatives to the present operating practices of hydroelectric power generation are: (1) schedule power generation that would result in minimum uniform daily releases to assure cold water downstream from the dam to sustain trout or (2) take no action. No action would provide for the cessation of all generation and cold water for maintenance of the trout fishery would be released through conduits in the base of the dam. Hydroelectric powerplants operate most economically when producing peak power on demand. Generation can begin within minutes, but due to a limited supply of water in the lake, generation cannot be on a continuous basis to provide a base load. The alternative of the cessation of power production or significant changes in the present operation would require a restudy of the project to determine the feasibility of redesignation or reauthorization of project purposes, which is beyond the scope of this statement. Authorization would be required for this study. The continuation of the present practice of power production is considered the most feasible and economical method of operating the project for the authorized purposes. The cessation of hydroelectric power generation would result in an immediate power shortage during peakload periods. The Corps of Engineers is working with the Southwestern Power Administration and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to supply cold water power releases necessary for the preservation of the trout fishery which would be more compatible with the electrical demands of the area.

B. Flood control. The alternatives to operating Bull Shoals for flood control would be to give up a large part of the flood reduction now provided along the White River downstream from the dam or substitute other structural or nonstructural methods of flood control. A stable lake level with less than 10 feet fluctuation could be achieved but no flood reduction would be afforded the downstream environment. Water would also be wasted since excess inflows could no longer be stored in the conserva­ tion pool for use during droughts or held temporarily in the flood pools and used for productive purposes after downstream flooding receded. The operation of the project for recreational purposes only would also require a study to be made to determine the feasibility of reauthorization of project purposes since the project was originally authorized for flood control, hydroelectric power generation and other beneficial purposes. The elimination of the flood control protection provided by Bull Shoals Dam would eventually result in loss of property, jobs, and possibly life in the reach of the White River downstream from the dam. The loss of industry through actual or threatened flooding would have a negative effect on the economy of the region downstream. Flooding of the area would have a detrimental social effect. Crops and other accumulated damages prevented since the dam began holding flood water, as stated in subparagraph IC2 , could be expected to occur in the future. Within the present plan of reservoir regulation, there is some latitude for modifica­ tion of the regulation plan in the interest of optimizing benefits without adversely affecting authorized project purposes. One such modification of established regulation procedures used at Bull Shoals is the creation of buffer zones in the flood control pool. These zones help to optimize fish spawn.

C. Management of Government-owned perimeter lands. Most land around the lake is of the multiple use type. It is: (1) used for recreation, (2) leased for agricultural and grazing purposes, (3) allowed to remain in native vegetation, or (4) devoted to wildlife propagation. Some of the activities associated with the recreational use of the land are: (1) the use of marine toilets, (2) the disposal of solid waste, and (3) the disposal of sewage. If water quality studies indicate that the continued and expanded use of marine toilets on our lakes results in an accelerated decline in the environment, an alternative to be considered would consist of banning boats with marine toilets from the lakes. Studies on disposal of solid waste in sanitary landfills may indicate that this form of disposal is harmful to the environment. If such a determination is made, other more costly alternative methods of disposal such as incineration, composting or recycling will be investigated. Sewage at Bull Shoals will be disposed of in a sewage treatment complex on Government-owned land upon completion of the facility in 1973. If the treatment is not satisfactory and produces harmful environmental effect, alternative methods of treatment such as advanced waste treatment will be considered. An all-encompassing alternative to the present methods of disposal of solid waste and sewage would be to prohibit public use of the land and water, obliterate all park development and return the land to its natural state. This action would eliminate production of solid waste and sewage but 1t is not considered a feasible alternative because of the initial investment by the Government in these facilities and the increasing demand by the using public for this type recreational experience. Resource management plans are being prepared to insure that the best possible use is made of this land. One of the functions of each resident office 1s to provide ranger patrols and surveillance to protect against unauthorized timber removal, road construction, and other encroachments. The alternatives to these policies would consist of: (1) convert lands around the lake to single use lands, or (2) take no action. Programs such as a forest management plan for the parks are being prepared. The conversion of lands to single use exclusively such as timber or agricultural use is not consistent with the highest and best use of these lands and does not conform to the recreational potential found on and around the lake. The alternative of "no action" would imply that no protection from encroaching reads and timber cutting would be available and no attempt would be made to provide management plans in areas of concern such as timber or wildlife propagation. The "no action" alternative would result in total abandonment of management of all Government-owned land around the lake which, in time, would result in a loss of the natural resources such as ground cover, wildlife, timber, topsoil, natural areas and the aesthetic qualities of perimeter lands that are managed in their native state. Beneficial aspects of the abandonment of management of all Government-owned lands would include greater use by special interest groups such as those desiring free pulp- wood, free grazing lands, closer access to the lake by nearby landowners, and removal of topsoil and native building materials. It is considered appropriate, therefore, to continue aggressive management activities sc that project resources continue to be available for future generations.

VI. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environ­ ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.

A. Hydroelectric power production. The Bull Shoals project assists in satisfying the current need for electrical power, flood control protection, and outdoor recreation. The power available at Bull Shoals provides a peaking capability needed to meet the Associated and Southwestern Power Administration loads. Turbine releases provide increased minimum flows during low flow or drought periods which maintain the downstream trout fisheries. The flood control and other beneficial water uses are available now and on a long-term basis. Hydropower generation does not cause air or water pollution.

B. Flood control. The flood control aspect of the project also maintains the downstream environment by regulating the amount of release. The maximum flow that can be released without damage downstream is known and the downstream environment is relatively stable because of the higher degree of control over the flows downstream of the dam. C. Preservation of lake and surroundings. The Jake and its environment can be preserved for use for the 100-year life of the project by careful regulation and monitoring of activities. This would Include: developing adequate solid waste disposal areas and municipal sewage treatment plants, stringent regulation by local Government concerning zoning for building construction and individual sewage treatment and disposal facilities near the lake, strict regulation and enforcement of state laws governing marine toilets, orderly and timely expansion of the parks to avoid overuse, and application of other sound recreational and resources management practices.

VII. Irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. A thorough review of resource management procedures in effect at Bull Shoals Lake has revealed that with the exception of the sale of gravel and the labor and material required for operation, maintenance, and management of the project, there are no Irreversible and Irretrievable commitments of resources as a result of operating, maintaining and managing the project.

VIII. Coordination with other agencies. Coordination with Federal and state agencies, and interested individuals, has been completed on the draft statement. Their comments are as follows:

A. U. S. Department of Agriculture.

1. Forest Service.

Comment: A major threat to a resource such as Bull Shoals Lake is the increasing public use and the related problems such use brings. A major action 1n regard to the operation and maintenance of this resource would be proper control and administration of the public use. A more specific description of the proposed operation and maintenance action is needed in regard to resource and people management.

Response;- Although Section IE, Operations and Maintenance Activities, did not cover specific examples of resource management, Section IIIB, Resource Management, describes these items in detail. Control of the using public to preserve the lake resource is included in IE6 under operation, development, and maintenance of recreational facilities and road networks. The preservation of the lake and its environment for the using public, both present and future, is a top priority objective of the Little Rock District.

Comment: It may now be evident through your analysis of zoning needs and planning for public use that severe restrictions should be Imposed on the many uses now allowed. Leases for agricultural use and marinas could be regulated in accord with the ability of the lake to withstand such use; access points may need to be reduced; human and solid waste must be handled properly, and surface use closely regulated to insure the proper recreation experience and least environmental impact. If such action cannot be assured, then adverse environmental effects should be shown in Section IV of the statement. If not properly funded or managed, lack of operation and maintenance activities can have a rather severe adverse effect on water quality, scenic attractiveness, and wild­ life at a lake of this type. Response: Problem areas such as these were listed in the statement as having the potential for causing adverse environmental effects 1f Improperly managed. Steps have been taken to remove or reduce the negative effects 1n some problem areas. For example, the land that was leased on 1 January 1973 around Bull Shoals Lake in the State of Missouri has a condition of the lease, that permits grazing from 1 April to 1 October. Also, a contract will be awarded in 1973 for two sewage treatment facilities for Bull Shoals. We feel that our management of the lake, though hampered by lack of funds and by Insufficient numbers of personnel, is adequate to avoid adverse effects.

Comment: A minimum release requirement was not mentioned and we assume there is none. What effects on present operation would 50 c.f.s. release have?

Response: The house generating unit runs almost constantly to provide electricity for the dam and powerhouse. This unit releases approximately 50 c.f.s. (cubic feet per second). Leakage from the lake through several springs downstream from the dam provides another 60 c.f.s. These sources provide a total of about 110 c.f.s. that could be considered a constant minimum flow.

Comment: Page 12, Item 4, potentially destructive effects on fish spawning areas as a result of drawdown 1s not included under the heading. Could be added at (d).

Response: Concur. Final statement has been changed to add: (e) potentially destructive effects of fish spawning areas.

2. Soil Conservation Service.

Comment: All of the agricultural lands in the Bull Shoals Lake area with the exception of Ozark County, Missouri, occur within soil and water conservation districts. The Soil Conservation Service, along with the soil conservation districts of Taney County, Missouri, and Boone County, Marion County, and Baxter County, Arkansas, will be glad to provide technical assistance on items I, E, 4, and 5 on the draft dealing with operation and maintenance activities. This capability would extend to forage and grazing management of project land under lease for agri­ cultural and grazing purposes. The Soil Conservation Service also encourages the continued operation of this facility to provide for flood control.

Response: A resource management plan that will be an appendix to the Master Plan has been written. As this management plan is implemented, the technical assistance offered will be utilized.

B. Environmental Protection Agency.

Comment: We suggest that the effects of the drawdown on all uses of the lake be discussed in the statement. Response; With the exception of the potential destruction of fish spawning areas associated with drawdown, we are not aware of any other ways 1n which drawdown affects the environment.

Comment: The purpose or objective of the exposure of the deposits of gravel below the top of the conservation pool during the period 1 June to December 31 should be given. Is the drawdown during this period maintained for the purpose of exposing the deposits for processing?

Response: Some deposits from which gravel is sold may be inundated only once in five or ten years. Other deposits may remain above the lake level for two or three years. The purpose of the policy that restricts removal to dry deposits is to prohibit disturbance of deposits in the lake at whatever level it may be. The removal of wet deposits could result in the destruction of fish eggs and nests and increase turbidity. The lake drawdown is in no way controlled by gravel sales. The restriction of sale to the fall months also 1s Intended to reduce the potential damage to fish spawning.

Comment: The section on marine toilets should state that the requirements of the recently passed Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 will be followed.

Response: Concur. The final statement has been changed to show that the applicable portions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 will be followed.

Comment: We suggest that the section on disposal of sewage contain a description of the oxidation lagoon that is now under construction and give its point of discharge. Also, an explanation of the proposed additional treatment facilities that are to be constructed in 1973 should be included. This section discusses the disposal of waste from waterborne and vault-type toilets. A discussion should also be given of the waste treatment facilities for self-contained camping facilities.

Response: Concur. The final statement includes these items.

Comment: The flood control section in Section IV should explain that during floods, water is released through the penstock of the generators and that electric power is generated for base loads as well as for peaking purposes.

Response: Concur. The final statement reflects this change.

C. Missouri Department of Conservation.

Comment: On the Missouri portion of the reservoir, it is more factual to indicate the "wildlife enhancement is performed" largely under sharecrop agreements with local farmers with some planting by Department personnel where sharecroppers are not available, rather than "with local outdoor groups."

Response: The final statement has been changed. Comment: Include after whitetailed deer, "black bear since reintroduction by Arkansas in the 1960's."

Response: Concur. The final statement reflects this change.

Comment: Change the last part of the first sentence to indicate the cold water fishery 1s "one 1n which it 1s necessary for continual artificial stocking of trout at other than project expense.*

Response: The final statement has been changed to Indicate that stocking of the trout fishery is required.

Comment: Cessation of cold water releases would also preclude the need for further stocking.

Response: Since a minimum flow of 110 c.f.s. is assured through house unit generation and leakage, there 1s no reason to assume that there will ever be a total cessation of cold water releases.

Comment: The second sentence in the fish and wildlife management section in Section III should read in part, "this area ijs to provide hunting and recreation."

Response: Paragraph C of the fish and wildlife portion of Section III was rewritten in its entirety.

Comment: The Missouri Department of Conservation is in the process of obtaining license to 7,000 additional acres; of this, approximately 700 acres will be placed in crop production.

Response: The updating of paragraph C referred to above discusses in detail the licensing of the additional acreage.

D . Missouri Water Resources Board.

Comment: A review by the Water Resources Board indicates that the statement is adequate to guide operation and maintenance practices and the management of project lands. We believe it to be in sufficient detail to assist in making operational and management decisions with full consideration of the environmental effects that might be expected.

E. Lakes Country Regional Planning Commission.

Comment: The statement was found consistent with the goals and objectives of the Lakes Country Regional Planning Commission.

F. Arkansas Department of Commerce Division of Soil and Water Resources.

Comment: In our opinion the statement presents an accurate and impartial analysis of the environmental effects resulting from the operation and maintenance of Bull Shoals Lake; however, your analysis does not include or evaluate the conservation of natural fuel reserves which have been conserved for future use as a result of the hydro-electric generation of 10,665,567,000 kilowatt. Present fuel costs are approximately three mills per kilowatt hour, consequently the fuel conserved from September 1952 to June 1972, has a value of approximately 30 million dollars (10,665,567,000 kilowatt x .003) which adds to the benefits of the environmental impact. Another indirect benefit to the general public is realized through the power supply company's utilization of low cost peaking power (hydro-electric power) which reduces power production costs, and results in lower consumers' costs of electric energy.

Response: Concur. The final statement has been changed to include these items.

Comment: It is apparent that detrimental effects are created by wide variation in volume of cold water releases, necessitated by generating peaking power, principally on week days from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during hot weather in the summer months, which cause wide differentials in stream flow and water temperature which adversely affect the habitat of aquatic life and river transportation. This adversity is partially offset by releasing water from the dam during minimum flow periods when water is not released for power generation.

We recommend that a study be made to determine the economic feasibility for the construction of a dam and reservoir below the existing dam, either on stream or off stream, for an impoundment of water to be released for stabilizing adequate stream flow when power is not being generated. It would also provide storage for off-peak pump back of water to the reservoir for recycling. As an alternative, provided an impound­ ment is not feasible, we suggest that consideration be given to amending existing contractual arrangements for sale of electric power and operation of the Bull Shoals and Norfork generation systems, which would permit integrating the two systems which are presently operated as independent systems.

Integrating the Bull Shoals and Norfork systems offers the advantage of coordinating the scheduling of generation between the two systems which would result in improving stream flow conditions below the confluence of the White and North Fork Rivers. The time interval of water released from Bull Shoals Reservoir reaching the mouth of the North Fork River is approximately 18 hours, and water released from Norfork Reservoir reaching the same point is approximately two hours. Maximum daily peaking periods during the summer months do not exceed 12 hours, which represents the maximum daily periods, excluding emergencies, that hydro-power is generated and water used for this purpose is released. Theoretically, coordinated scheduling of power releases could extend continuity of stream flow from power generation approximately six hours per day on White River downstream from the junction with the North Fork River. The water released from Norfork Reservoir does not affect the stream flow on White River above the mouth of the North Fork River; consequently, an impoundment immediately below the Bull Shoals Dam could serve the purpose of providing a triple benefit, and would be of greater value in regulating stream flow. 1. Provide adequate supply of water to be released to stabilize stream flow and water temperature.

2. Conserve water in the power storage pool which is presently being released to maintain adequate stream flow.

3. Provide storage for off-peak pump-back of water for use 1n generation of additional peaking power.

Off-peak pump-back of water would be of no benefit for conserva­ tion of natural fuel resources for power generation as its value is to replace construction of additional generating plants for stand-by service to be used for peaking purposes and emergencies. It would be a factor of determining feasibility in developing the above-stated project.

If the Corps of Engineers has completed a study of an impoundment for the above-stated purposes, we would like to be advised of the results and recommendations.

Response: The power installations at Bull Shoals, Beaver, Table Rock, and Greers Ferry cause weekday fluctuations in tailwater stages of 8 to 10 feet. A study was conducted 1n July 1960 to determine the feasibility of reducing fluctuations by constructing regulation weirs in the channel downstream from the dam. It was found that the regulating weirs would reduce the fluctuations in the river and, 1f they were located far enough downstream and were of sufficient size, they would also reduce the fluctuations 1n the pools formed by the weirs. These structures were also found to be rather costly and they would only partly eliminate the hazards involved since the overflow structure in the river is in itself a hazard and an obstruction to navigation. There are also other disadvantages of a weir. The 17-mile reach between Bull Shoals Dam and Cotter is the most important and highly developed part of the trout fishery. Twelve of these 17 miles would be above the weir proposed in the study and fluctuations in this area would be generally greater than without the weir. The study indicated that it would net be feasible to reduce stage fluctuations upstream from the weir without encroaching on the power head at Bull Shoals or the weir would have to be moved farther downstream and enlarged to obtain a greater amount of storage per foot of elevation. Sustained discharge from Bull Shoals under secondary power generation or flood releases would cause flow over any weir constructed across the channel with the attendant danger to boats. Portage around the weir would be required at all times. While the reduced stage fluctuation downstream from the weir should improve natural fish reproduction, it would not eliminate the "put and take" nature of the fishery. The study did not consider off-channel locations or pump-back powersites. Pump-back powersites were studied and reported on in the 1968 White River Comprehensive Basin Report.

Comment: We are concerned that the natural resources within the State of Arkansas be conserved and developed for uses that will be of greatest future benefit to the people. The environmental impact of the Bull Shoals Project has greatly benefitted the surrounding area in improved recreation facilities, hunting, fishing, boating and economic improvement in increased population, homes, business, industry and tourist trade.

It is apparent that some environmental problems, such as those pertaining to disposal of solid waste and sewage, have not been completely solved. It is also apparent that the Corps is fully aware of these deficiencies and is coping with these problems about as satisfactorily as could be expected under the existing conditions. We are pleased to see that a zoning plan is being devised to provide, among other things, more restrictions on privately-owned boat docks. This we believe is necessary to protect the scenic and other qualities of the shoreline. The overall operations arid maintenance program of the project should continue to be designed to produce maximum benefit to the public in conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources.

G. Mary Woolf, Secretary, Lead Hill-Diamond City Sportsmen Association.

Comment: We are definitely aware that the lake must be used for hydroelectric power production and flood control. (Many of us live 1n all electric homes.) However, inasmuch as we are a part of a chain of lakes in the White River Basin, shouldn't these lakes be considered as a unit as far as power generation 1s concerned?

Our reasoning on this is to permit or allow for more control of water levels during the spawning season offish to produce a maximum spawn. This fits into the recreational and economic picture of the area. Our desire for a rotating water level control plan on the lakes may need the coordination of several facilities, but does not seem to be an impossible procedure.

Response: • There are four major on the White River and one on its tributary, the Little Red River. The energy generated in the powerhouses of these dams is sold under different contracts. For example, Table Rock and Bull Shoals have been contracted into a different power marketing system than Beaver, Norfork and Greers Ferry. The power demands of the two systems are different, thus each lake level will be balanced for its system, but not necessarily for lakes in the other system. This explains the difference in lake levels at times between projects such as Bull Shoals and Norfork. Because of the tremendously complex requirements for operating the projects for their a-thorized purposes of power generation and flood control, it is not always possible to maintain lake levels for other purposes. However, whenever it is possible the projects will be managed and operated to optimize other uses such as fish spawning. For example, in 1972 Table Rock was operated to maintain a lake level in the flood pool of Bull Shoals Lake to enhance conditions for a good fish spawn in late May and June. Throughout the summer of 1972 releases were made from Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Greers Ferry to maintain water temperatures for trout, when there was little or no power demand, especially on weekends. In the fall of 1972, Table Rock was operated when possible at less than one-half its possible capability to minimize downstream water quality problems related to low dissolved oxygen. Thus, more power was generated by .Bull Shoals to meet the power demand while minimizing the adverse conditions of low dissolved oxygen. Also, because of downstream flooding conditions, Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Greers Ferry were restricted in the fall of 1972 to the generation of firm power. The Southwestern Power Administration scheduled the generation of more power than normal from Beaver and Table Rock to further reduce the downstream releases from Bull Shoals and Norfork to approximately one-half of the permissible release.

H. U. S. Department of Interior.

Comment: A discussion of a comprehensive master plan for recreation purposes prepared 1n cooperation with appropriate agencies is Included on page 3. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife did not participate in the preparation of this plan. The statement should be revised to reflect this.

Response: The original Master Plan for Recreational Development and Reservoir Utilization for Bull Shoals Lake dated October 1950 contains a paragraph on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It states that the USF&WS was invited to study the project and make recommendations relative to ways and means of providing maximum benefits to fish and wildlife. The USF&WS prepared a comprehensive paper on the project entitled, "A Report of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Bull Shoals Reservoir Project, White River, Arkansas and Missouri." This report and other communications from the Fish and Wildlife Service are a part of the Master Plan for Bull Shoals Lake. The Bull Shoals Master Plan is now being updated and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will be asked for input prior to completion of the plan.

Comment: .The effects of cold water releases on the downstream fishery should be described more adequately. The project operation results in the loss of an outstanding and unusual warm-water fishery. As a result of this project, the warm-water fishery has been virtually destroyed in more than 165 miles of the White River while an additional 250 miles of White River fishery have been reduced. It is stated in this section that, "The lake furnishes excellent habitat for all species of native game fish that were present in the river." We believe this section would better reflect the fishery resources in the reservoir by indicating that there is a change in aquatic species composition between the river and lake environment. The lake does not furnish as good a habitat as the river previously afforded for smallmcuth and rock bass.

Response: Instructions concerning the preparation of operation and maintenance environmental statements required that the statements be restricted to those impacts on the environment resulting from 0&M activities and not the project per se. Since the change in fishery environment resulted from the construction of the dam, this was not an 0&M impact and was not treated as such in the statement. It is true that about 103 miles of the White River downstream from the multiple-purpose Bull Shoals Dam and Lake presently support a far more extensive and economically important recreational fishery than was supported by the river in its natural state. Construction and operation of Bull Shoals has drastically changed the pre-impoundment warm-water ecosystems of the White River downstream from Bull Shoals Dam. The temperature of the water released through the turbines is consistently cold, usually about 50 degrees Fahrenheit. This cold water detrimentally affected, in varying degrees, the pre-impour.dment warm-water fishery in the White River downstream from Bull Shoals Dam to the mouth of the Black River, a major tributary entering the White River at a point approximately 158 miles downstream from the dam. Most of the important species of native warm-water fishes, including smallmouth bass, were virtually eliminated from the 103 mile reach downstream from Bull Shoals Dam to near Batesville, Arkansas. However, this reach was found to be favorable for rainbow trout. Through the joint efforts of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, a most important trout fishery has been developed in this reach. This trout fishery is not self-sustaining as natural reporduction is retarded by fluctuations in stream flows and is insufficient to support the intense fishing pressure. This extensive and economically important recreational fishery could not have been developed without the continuing operation of Bull Shoals Lake.

The meaning contained within the following statement is unclear: "...an additional 250 miles of White River fishery have been reduced." More people than ever before are now fishing the White River. This is possibly due to more stable flows. The commercial fishery of the White River has declined in the past dozen years. This decline could be associated with the controlled water level fluctuations thereby eliminating much of the food production potential associated with alternately flooding and then drying out the shoal areas. Current sport fishery production and harvest data are unavailable for the lower portion of the White River.

We concur that different species composition have resulted in the lake than those previously found in the White River. However, Bull Shoals Lake is now producing smallmouth bass in sufficient quantities that they represent a significant sport fish harvest.

Comment: The archeological investigation of the general area is described on page 13 of the draft. Contact should be made with the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the University of Arkansas to ascertain the value of any existing sites on project lands adjacent to the reservoir, and whether or not visitors to the project area are destroying any of them. If significant sites do exist which cannot be adequately protected, it would be desirable to consider ways by which those remains could be excavated by professional archeologists. Certainly, if future develop­ ments in the area are considered, attention to the archeological resources in those localities should be included in development plans. The state­ ment should reflect this situation. Response: The Arkansas Archeological Survey was contacted and they indicated that three or four archeological sites have been reported that were exposed by wave action or erosion around the shoreline of the lake. No Information is currently available as to the significance of the known resources. It 1s planned to contact the NPS to ascertain their capability to assess the significance of the known Information. In the event additional Investigation work is required, 1t will be carried out 1n accordance with Interagency agreements between the Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service. The results of this effort will be Incorporated 1n the statement by amendment as 1t 1s expected that a considerable period of time, one to three years, will be needed to budget for accomplishment of this work.

In the case of new Federal development within the project, liaison will be maintained with the National Park Service so they can budget for any archeological work that may be necessary. However, 1f time limitations make 1t Impossible for that agency to budget for the work, the Corps of Engineers has authority to perform limited archeological reconnaissance surveys. These limited surveys should reveal the existence of sites which 1n turn will be brought to the attention of the National Park Service for further action.

In accordance with E.O. 11593, an Inventory of sites, buildings, districts, and objects that appear to qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places has been made for Federally-owned or controlled land 1n the Bull Shoals project area. The results of this work have been coordinated with the States of Arkansas and Missouri Historic Preservation Officer. Only one site, Klssee Mills, was found to possibly qualify for the National Register. It 1s believed that the State Historic preservation officer will recommend against Including 1t in the National Register. COORDINATION LIST

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of Agriculture

Mr. Vernon Martin Mr. Jay H. Cravens State Conservationist Regional Forester, Eastern Region Soil Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 633 West Wisconsin Avenue P. 0. Box 459 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Mr. Maurice J. Spears Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture P. 0. Box 2323 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Department of Interior

Mr. Laurence Lynn Assistant Secretary, Program Development and Budget ATTN: Office of Environmental Project Review Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240

Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Arthur W. Busch Mr. Jerome Svore, REG VII Regional Administrator EPA Room 249 Environmental Protection Agency 1735 Baltimore Avenue 1600 Patterson, Suite 1100 ATTN: EIS Coord, E. C. Vest Dallas, Texas 75201 Kansas City, Missouri 64108

STATE AGENCIES

Mr. John P. Saxton, Acting Director Mr. Clifford L. Summers Division of Soil and Water Resources Executive Director, Water Resources Arkansas Department of Commerce Board 1920 West Capitol Avenue P. 0. Box 271 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

(Will further coordinate with all other Arkansas/Missouri State agencies having interest in water projects.) FOOTNOTES

If Census of Population, i960 and 1970, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

2/ Missouri Directory of Manufacturing and Mining, 1971, Missouri Division of Commerce & Industrial Development, Jefferson City, Missouri, and 1970*71 Edition Directory of Arkansas Industries, Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas.

3/ Study area estimates from Personal Income for Missouri Counties, Missouri Economy Study, University of Missouri, and from data published by the Industrial Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas. State data from Survey of Current Business, April 1971, page 2 1 .

U/ Census of Population, i960, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

5/ I96U Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

6/ Sales Management Survey of Buying Power, 1971.

7/ Census of Population, i960, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

8/ Missouri School Directory, 1971-72, Missouri State Board of Education, and Arkansas Educational Directory, 1971-72, Arkansas State Department of Education.

9/ Arkansas and Missouri State Departments of Health provided most of the health data. Information on physicians in Arkansas was provided by the Arkansas Medical Society.

10/ In general, retail and service jobs supported by operation and maintenance and recreation expenditures were estimated by dividing the expenditure amounts by average-sale-per-employee data, then applying average-earnings-per-employee data to the jobs thus obtained to obtain subsequent-round impacts. Average sales and earnings were derived from 1967 Census of Business data for counties, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

COMMISSIONERS ARKANSAS CHARLES R. ALTER. C H A IR M A N DEWITT GERALD C. HENDRIX. V ic e -C h m . ANTOINE ROMEO E. SHORT BRINKLEY J O H N L U C E PORT SMITH WAYNE GAIRHAN TR U M A N N JACK A. GIBSON Department of Commerce DERMOTT W. A. RATCLIFFE DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES S W E E T H O M E 1920 W est C a p ito l a v e n u e LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72001 JOHN P. SAXTON RICHARD W. LONGING DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OP COMMERCE (5 0 1 ) 371-1611 December IS, 1972 (5 0 1) 371-2231

William H. Keech, Major, Corps of Engineers Little Rock District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Re: Operation and Maintenance - Bull Shoals Lake

Dear Major Keech:

We have reviewed the draft of the 1972 operations and main­ tenance environmental statement, Bull Shoals Lake, prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In our opinion the statement presents an accurate and impartial analysis of the environmental effects resulting from the operation and maintenance of Bull Shoals Lake; however, your analysis does not include or evaluate the conservation of natural fuel reserves which have been conserved for future use as a result of the hydro-electric generation of 10,665,567,Kwh. Present fuel costs are approximately 3 mills per Kwh, consequently the fuel conserved from September, 1952, to June, 1972, has a value of approximately 30 million dollars (10,665,567,000 Kwh x .003) which adds to the benefits of the environmental impact. Another indirect benefit to the general public is realized through the power supply company’s utilization of low cost peaking power (hydro-electric power) which reduces power pro­ duction costs, and results in lower consumers' costs of electric energy.

It is apparent that detrimental effects are created by wide variation in volume of cold water releases, necessitated by generating peaking power, principally on week days from 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. during hot weather in the summer months, which cause wide differentials in stream flow and water temperature which adversely affect the habitat of aquatic life and river transportation. This adversity is partially offset by releasing water from the dam during minimum flow periods when water is not released for power generation. We recommend that a study be made to determine the economic feasibility for the construction of a dam and reservoir below the existing dam, either on stream or off stream, for an impoundment of water to be released for stabilizing adequate stream flow when power is not being generated. It would also provide storage for off-peak pump-back of water to the reservoir for recycling. As an alternative, provided an impoundment is not feasible we suggest that consideration be given to amending existing contractual arrangements for sale of electric power and operation of the Bull Shoals and Norfork generation systems, which would permit integrating the two systems which are presently operated as independent systems.

Integrating the Bull Shoals and Norfork systems offers the advantage of coordinating the scheduling of generation between the two systems which would result in improving stream flow conditions below the confluence of the White and Northfork Rivers. The time interval of water released from Bull Shoals Reservoir reaching the mouth of the Norfork River is approximately 18 hours, and water released from Norfork Reservoir reaching the same point is approximately 2 hours. Maximum daily peaking periods during the summer months do not exceed 12 hours, which represents the maximum daily periods, excluding emergencies, that hydro-power is generated and water used for this purpose is released. Theoretically, coordinated scheduling of power releases could extend continuity of stream flow from power generation approximately 6 hours per day on White River downstream from the junction with the Northfork River. The water released from Norfork Reservoir does not affect the stream flow on White River above the mouth of the Northfork River; consequently an impoundment immediately below the Bull Shoals Dam could serve the purpose of providing a triple benefit, and would be of greater value in regulating stream flow.

1. Provide adequate supply of water to be released to stabilize stream flow and water temperature.

2. Conserve water in the power storage pool which is presently being released to maintain adequate stream flow.

3. Provide storage for off-peak pump-back of water for use in generation of additional peaking power.

Off-peak pump-back of water would be of no benefit for conservation of natural fuel resources for power generation as its value is to replace construction of additional generating plants for stand-by service to be used for peaking purposes and emergencies. It would be a factor of determining feasibility in developing the above-stated project.

If the Corps of Engineers has completed a study of an impoundment for the above-stated purposes, we would like to be advised of the results and recommendations. We are concerned that the natural resources within the State of Arkansas be conserved and developed for uses that will be of greatest future benefit to the people.

The environmental impact of the Bull Shoals Project has greatly benefitted the surrounding area in improved recreation facilities, hunting, fishing, boating and economic improvement in increased population, homes, business, industry and tourist trade.

It is apparent that some environmental problems, such as those pertaining to disposal of solid waste and sewage, have not been completely solved. It is also apparent that the Corps is fully aware of these deficiencies and is coping with these problems about as satisfactorily as could be expected under the existing conditions. We are pleased to see that a zoning plan is being devised to provide, amoung other things, more restrictions on privately owned boat docks. This we believe is necessary to protect the scenic and other qualities of the shoreline. The overall operations and maintenance program of the project should continue to be designed to produce maximum benefit to the public in conservation, development and utilization of natural resources.

Sincerely yours,

John P. Saxton Direc tor THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Water Resources Board P.O.Box 271 LIFFORD L. SUMMERS Area Code 314 Icting Executive Director Department of Business and Administration Telephono-635-9251- JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101 December 28, 1972 751-4252

Mr. David L. Burrough Chief, Planning and Reports Branch Little Rock District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Mr. Burroughs

Attached is a copy of a letter received from the Lakes Country Regional Planning Commission regarding the Draft Operations and Maintenance Environmental Statement, Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas and Missouri.

Would you please include this comment with the letters forwarded to your office on December 4, 1972.

Sincerely,

Rita Kerperin Sec'y to Mr. Summers LAKES COUNTRY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

December 20, 1972

Mr. Clifford L. Summers Acting Executive Director Water Resources Board P. 0. Box 271 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Re: Draft, Operations and Maintenance Environmental Statement, Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas and Missouri LCRPC #255

Dear Mr. Summers:

The above-referenced draft has been received and reviewed by the Lakes Country Regional Planning Commission in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 (Revised) and Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The statement was found consistent with the goals and objectives of the Lakes Country Regional Planning Commission.

Sincerely,

Glenn C. Griffin Executive Director U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e FOREST SERVICE Eastern Region 633 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

1940

December 5, 1972

Major William H. Keech Deputy District Engineer Department of the Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 867 .Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Major Keech:

We have reviewed your draft environmental statement for the operation and maintenance of Bull Shoals Lake in Arkansas and Missouri; our comments follow:

A more specific description of the proposed operation and maintenance action is needed in regard to resource and people management; for example, on page six the activity of leasing, permit issuance, and control of people is not listed. A major threat to a resource such as Bull Shoals Lake is the increasing public use and the related problems such use brings. A major action in regard to the operation and maintenance of this resource would be proper control and admin­ istration of the public use.

It may now be evident through your analysis of zoning needs and planning for public use that severe restrictions should be imposed on the many uses now allowed. Leases for agricultural use and marinas could be regulated in accord with the ability of the lake to withstand such use, access points may need to be reduced, human and solid waste must be handled properly, and surface use closely regulated to ensure the proper recreation experience and least environmental impact.

If such action cannot be assured, then adverse environmental effects should be shown in section IV of the statement. If not properly funded or managed, lack of operation and maintenance activities can have a rather severe adverse effect on water quality, scenic attractiveness, and wildlife at a lake of this type.

A minimum release requirement was not mentioned and we assume there is none. What effects on present operation would a 50 cfs release have? Page 20, item 4: potentially destructive effects on fish spawning areas as a result of drawdown is not included under the heading. You may wish to add it at (d). We can appreciate that at a lake of this size and shape with unlimited access, rig id enforcement of rules and regulations is a formidable task. We applaud your effort in this regard and can assure you we w ill cooperate in every way possible.

Sincerely,

I h7 CRAVE&S Regional Forester THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Water Resources Board P.O.Box 271 CL1IT0RD L. SUMMERS Area Code 314 Acting Executive Director Department of Business and Administration Telcphonc”635-925 JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101 December 4, 1972 751-425.

Major William H. Keech Deputy District Engineer Little Rock District, Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Major Keech:

Enclosed are comments received from the Missouri state agencies in regard to the Little Rock District draft operation and Maintenance environmental statement, Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas and Missouri dated October, 1972.

The statement was distributed to all affected state agencies, the state clearinghouse, and two regional planning commissions having jurisdiction within the area.

The remaining agencies and organizations did not reply within the specified time limit and it must be concluded that they have no comments on the statement.

A review by the Water Resources Board indicates that the statement is adequate to guide operation and maintenance practices and the management of project lands. We believe it to be in sufficient detail to assist in making operational and management decisions with full consideration of the environmental effects that might be expected.

Sipcerely,

Cliljfprd L. Summers Acting Executive Director MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

2901 North Ten Mile Drive - Jefferson City , Missouri 65101 P. O. Box 180 - Telephone 314 751 4115 CARL R. NORF.N, Director November 16, 1972

Mr. Clifford L. Summers Acting Executive Director Missouri Water Resources Board 308 East High Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Mr. Summers:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement concerning the Operations and Maintenance of Bull Shoals Lake dated October, 1972. Although the statement is quite good, we offer the following comments and observations:

Page 5, Line 17 - On the Missouri portion of the reservoir, it is more factual to indicate the "wildlife enhancement is performed" largely under sharecrop agreements with local farmers with some planting by Department personnel where sharecroppers are not available, rather than "with local outdoor groups".

Page 12, Item 3 - Include after white tailed deer, "black bear since reintroduction by Arkansas in the 1960's ".

Page 16, Item 2 - Change the last part of the first sentence to indicate the cold water fishery is "one in which it is necessary for continual artificial stocking of trout at other than project expense".

Cessation of cold water releases would also preclude the need for further stocking (sentence 2). Page 19* Item C - The second sentence should read in part* "this area is to provide hunting and recreation".

Page 21* Item 8 - This department is in the process of obtaining license to 7*000 additional acres, of this approximately 700 acres will be placed in crop production.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer these brief comments.

Sin cerely ,

LAR&/R. GALE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

cc: Mr. Noren

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Vicksburg, M ississippi LAKES COUNTRY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

October 25, 1972

Mr. Clifford L. Summers Acting Executive Director Water Resources Board P. 0. Box 271 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Mr. Summers:

The Draft Operations and Maintenance Environmental Statement, Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas and Missouri, has been received and assigned LCRPC #255.

The Statement is scheduled for review by our Technical Planning Board on Tuesday, November 21, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 309 of the Springfield City Hall. That evening, upon recommendation by the Technical Planning Board, it will be presented for review by our Executive Commiteee. Any persons interested in the Statement are certainly welcome to attend the meetings.

— In the meantime, I need seven additional copies of the Statement in order that I may provide copies to the members of the Technical Planning Board. In the event that it is not possible to provide me with this number, I would appreciate as many as you can provide.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Glenn C. Griffin Executive Director GCG/ma OCT 2 7 T97Z

WATER RESOURCES BOARD

^-— Telephone request, 7 copies direct fran Corps, October 27, 1972 CLS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VI 1600 PATTERSON. SUITE IIOO DALLAS. TEXAS 73201

November 30, 1972 OFFICE OF THE

R e g i o n a l administrator

Colonel Donald G. Weinert District Engineer Little Rock District Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Colonel Weinert:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for operation and maintenance of Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas and Missouri.

The following comments, which are keyed to the subject headings of the statement, should be considered in preparing the Final Environmental Statement:

III. The environmental impact of the programmed OSM activities.

B . Resource management.

4. Lake fluctuation. We suggest that the effects of the drawdown on all uses ' of the lake be discussed in the state­ ment .

7. Sale of gravel. The purpose or objective of the exposure of the deposits of gravel below the top of the conservation pool during the period June 1 to December 31 should be given. Is the drawdown during this period maintained for the purpose of exposing the deposits for processing?

C. Recreation.

1. Marine toilets. This section should state that the requirements of the recently-passed Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 will be followed. 3. Disposal of sewage. We suggest that this section contain a description of the oxidation lagoon that is now under construction and give its point of discharge. Also, an explana­ tion of the proposed additional treatment facilities that are to be constructed in 1973 should be included. This section discusses the disposal of waste from water-borne and vault-type toilets. A discussion should also be given of the waste treatment facilities for self-contained camping facilities.

IV. Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided as a result of OSM activities.

B. Flood control. This section should explain that during floods, water is released through the penstock of the generators and that electric power is generated for base loads as well as for peaking purposes.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft statement and request that this office be furnished two copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely yours,

'•-'•Arthur W. Busch Regional Administrator UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE P. 0. Box 2323, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

November 17, 1972

Major William H. Keech Department of the Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Major Keech:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for operation and maintenance of Bull Shoals Lake and have the following comments:

All of the agricultural lands in the Bull Shoals Lake area with the exception of Ozark County, Missouri, occur within soil and water conservation districts. The Soil Conservation Service, along with the soil conservation districts of Taney County, Missouri, and Boone County, Marion County, and Baxter County, Arkansas, will be glad to provide technical assistance on Items I, E, L and 9 on page 6 dealing with operation and maintenance activities. Ibis capability would extend to forage and grazing management of project lands under lease for agricultural and grazing purposes.

The Soil Conservation Service also encourages the continued operation of this facility to provide for flood control.

The Soil Conservation Service State Conservationist in Missouri, Mr. J. Vernon Martin, and his staff have also reviewed this draft environmental statement. They concur with the comments in this letter.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft.

Sincerely,

Einar L. Roget State Conservationist United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SOUTHWEST REGION Room 4030, 517 Gold Avenue SW. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101

January 15, 1973

District Engineer D.S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0, Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your letter of October 20, 1972, requesting our review and comment on the draft operations and maintenance environmental statement for Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas and Missouri.

The draft statement for the most part adequately describes the fish, wildlife, and recreational resources present in the project area as well as the environmental effect of the operation and maintenance program on these resources.

We believe the statement could be improved in certain areas. The following comments refer to specific portions of the statement.

Page 4, item 3, includes a discussion of a comprehensive master plan for recreation purposes prepared in cooperation with appropriate ■ agencies. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife did not partici­ pate in the preparation of this plan. The statement should be revised to reflect this.

Page 12, item 3, should be expanded to more adequately describe the effects of cold water releases on the downstream fishery. The project operation results in the loss of an outstanding and unusual warm-water fishery. As a result of this project, the warm-water fishery has been virtually destroyed in more than 165 miles of the White River while an additional 250 miles of White River fishery have been reduced. It is stated in this section that, "The lake furnishes excellent habitat for all species of native game fish that were present in the river." We believe this section would better reflect the fishery resources in the reservoir by indicating that there is a change in aquatic species composition between the river and lake environment. The lake does not furnish as good a habitat as the river previously afforded for smallmouth and rock bass.. Page 13, item 4, describes an archeological investigation of the general area. Contact should be made with the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the University of Arkansas to ascertain the value of any existing sites on project lands adjacent to the reservoir, and whether or not visitors to the project area are destroying any of them. If significant sites do exist which cannot be adequately pro­ tected, it would be desirable to consider ways by which those remains could be excavated by professional archeologists. Certainly, if future developments in the area are considered, attention to the archeological resources in those localities should be included in development plans. The statement should reflect this situation.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this statement.

Sincerely,

Copp Collins Field Representative P. 0. Box B Lead Hill, Arkansas 12&kk November 17, 1972

Colonel Donald G. Weinert Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 867 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Colonel Weinert: We received your letter of November 6, 1972 and also the copy of the Corps1 Operational and Maintenance Environmental Statement ON Bull Shoal6 Lake. We wish to commend the people that prepared the statement as it is one of the easiest governmental drafts for a layman to understand that we have encountered. It is concise, well arranged and to the point.

The following comments on the draft are purely from the peoples point of view and are in no way professional.

We are definitely aware that the lake must be used for hydro­ electric power production and flood control. (Many of us live in all electric homes.) However, in as much as we are a part of a chain of lakes in the White River Easin shouldn't these lakes be considered as a unit as far as power generation is concerned?

Our reasoning on this is to permit or allow for more control of water levels during the spawning season of fish to produce a maxlmuir spawn. This fits into the recreational and economic picture of the area. Our desire for a rotating water level con­ trol plan on the lakes may need the coordination of several facilities, but does not seem to be an impossible procedure.

In as much as the control period is mainly spring until about July 15, unless we hit an unusually hot spring and earily summer, we are not forgetting our river trout fishermen below the dam and their need for cool water from the lakes.

You referred in your letter to the 200,000 bass that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission stocked last summer. This of course may or may not be a help, but if it is it will take the 2 to 2-J- inch flngerllngs about two years to reach a size that will be right for fishermen. Also, we must remember that even this number of fingerlings is only a drop in a lake the size of Bull Shoals as compared to a good natural spawn. Good natural spawn­ ing conditions not only produce bass, but will increase spawn of all species of fish in the lake.

We are also aware that the Corps can not solve all of the fisher­ man's problems, but we are '‘dltlhg' that you give our problems due consideration at the proposed conference you mentioned in your letter of November 6. Thank you for your informative letter and we are pleased with the apparent forward planing of the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers.

Very truly yours,

Mary Woolf, Secretary LEAD HILL - DIAMOND CITY SPORTSMEN ASSOCIATION cc: Covernor Dale Bumpers Robert Jenkins, Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Representive Roger V. Logan, Jr. State Senator Elect Dr. Lex Moore