RED RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION
40TH ANNUAL MEETING JUNE 29 -30, 2020
Postponed and Held Virtually Due to COVID-19 Travel Concerns
AGENDA PACKET
Table of Contents
Monday, June 29, 2020: RRCC Committee Meetings - 1:30pm (CDT)
I. 1:30pm - Environmental Committee – Scott Van Winkle, Chair Attachment A - Texas Environmental Report (5 pages) Attachment B - Arkansas Environmental Committee Report (15 pages) Attachment C – Oklahoma Environmental Committee Report (5 pages)
II. 2:30pm - Engineering Committee – Scott Van Winkle, Chair Attachment D – Texas Engineering Committee Report (3 pages) Attachment E – Boeuf Monitoring Report (16 pages)
III. 3:30pm - Legal Committee - Heather Hunziker, Chair Attachment F – Memorandum, Harry Vorhoff – RE: Summary of Legal Committee’s Activities for 2019-2020 (2 pages) Attachment G – Memorandum, Crystal Phelps – RE: Arkansas Compliance (2 pages) Attachment H – Email, Michael Bynum – RE: Response to draft memorandum by Crystal Phelps (2 pages)
IV. 4:00pm - Budget Committee – Scott Van Winkle, Chair Attachment I – 2021 Proposed Budget (1 page) Attachment J – 2020 Budget vs. Actuals (1 page) Attachment K – 2020 Transaction Summary (1 page)
(Note: Attachments I- K will be discussed again during the meeting on 6/30/20 under items VI and VIII A)
Tuesday, June 30, 2020: Commission Meeting – 8:30am (CDT)
I. Call to Order – Chairman Sue Lowry II. Welcome and Introductions
III. Approval of the Agenda IV. Approval of the Minutes of the 2019 RRCC Annual Meeting held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on April 30, 2019 Attachment L – 2019 Minutes of the 39th Annual Meeting of the RRCC (12 pages)
V. Report of the Chairman – Sue Lowry
VI. Report of the Treasurer – Ryan Benefield, Arkansas
VII. Report of the Commissioners A. Texas Attachment M – Texas Commissioners Report (6 pages) B. Oklahoma C. Louisiana D. Arkansas Attachment N – Arkansas Commissioners Report (7 pages)
VIII. Report of the Committees A. Budget Committee – Scott Van Winkle B. Legal Committee – Heather Hunziker C. Engineering Committee – Scott Van Winkle D. Environmental and Natural Resources Committee – Scott Van Winkle
IX. Federal Agency Reports A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers B. Bureau of Reclamation C. U.S. Geological Survey Attachment O – USGS Update (2 pages) D. Natural Resources Conservation Service
X. Updates and Discussion Topics A. Web presence for Red River Compact Commission a. Getting past few years’ Annual Report on-line B. Resolution for the Funding of USGS Streamflow Gages Attachment P – Funding Resolution (3 pages)
XI. New Business A. Annual Report B. Commission Assignments to Committees C. Election of Officers D. Appointments or changes to Committees E. 41st Annual Meeting – Discussion on Texas hosting in 2021 and Appointment of Vice-Chair and Secretary Attachment Q – RRVA Projects and Initiatives Report (6 pages); included for informational purposes
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
Red River Compact Commission Texas Environmental Committee Report June 29, 2020
Invasive Species
Zebra Mussels
Texas has nineteen lakes within five major river basins that has been fully infested by zebra mussels. The Red River Basin became the first basin within the state to have a confirmed infection when an adult zebra mussel was discovered in Lake Texoma on April 3, 2009. Two additional lakes near Lake Texoma have since been listed as fully infested. Lake Dean Gilbert, a 45-acre community fishing lake near the City of Sherman, was listed in 2015; and Randell Lake, near Denson, was listed in 2017.
Texas Environmental Report June 29, 2020 Page | 2
Zebra mussel regulations include all of Texas for all types and sizes of boats used on fresh waters. Boaters are required to drain all water from their vessel, including live wells, bilges, motors and any other receptacles, before approaching or leaving a water body. Possession or transportation of zebra mussels in Texas is a Class C misdemeanor for the first offense, punishable by a fine of up to $500. Repeat offenses can be elevated to a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2,000, jail time up to 180 days, or both.
Other Exotic Aquatic Species
Besides zebra mussels, it is unlawful to transport or possess any exotic aquatic species Texas has listed as harmful or potentially harmful. Special rules for the Red River Basin include provisions for grass, bighead and silver carp.
Texas Environmental Report June 29, 2020 Page | 3
Grass Carp
The grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) is listed as a potentially harmful exotic species in Texas. However, state law allows controlled stocking of triploid (non- reproducing) grass carp to control nuisance aquatic plants. Anyone wishing to purchase or stock these fish in public or private water must first obtain a permit from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Reservoirs in the Red River Basin with grass carp permitting include Spring Lake Park Pool in Texarkana, Pittsburg City Lake in Camp County, Lake Cypress Springs in Franklin County, and Waterloo Lake in Denison, Texas. If a grass carp is caught in these waters, it must be immediately returned to the water unharmed.
Bighead and Silver Carp
In the attempt to stop, or slow the intrusion of bighead and silver carp it is unlawful to transport live, non-game fishes from the following locations in the Red River Basin: 1) below Lake Texoma downstream to the Arkansas border, 2) Big Cypress Bayou downstream of Ferrell’s Bridge Dam on Lake O’ the Pines (including the Texas waters of Caddo Lake), and 3) the Sulphur River downstream of the Lake Wright Patman Dam. Nongame fishes collected from these waters may be used as live bait on the water bodies they were collected.
More information can be found on the Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas Invasive webpages.
Texas Clean Rivers Program
The Texas Clean Rivers Program is a partnership between the TCEQ and regional water authorities to coordinate and conduct water quality monitoring, assessment, and stakeholder participation to improve the quality of surface water within each river basin in Texas. Established in 1991, the Clean Rivers Program (CRP) has become one of the most successful cooperative efforts between federal, state, and local agencies and the citizens of the State of Texas.
Fifteen regional water authorities manage the program in 23 river and coastal basins. The CRP is a hub for water quality information and coordination of monitoring efforts and public participation, for each river basin. CRP partners collect more than 60% of water quality data used by TCEQ. Texas Environmental Report June 29, 2020 Page | 4
There are three separate partners with TCEQ for watersheds in the Red River Basin. The Red River Authority of Texas is the partner agency for both the Red and Canadian River Basins. The Northeast Texas Municipal Water District is the partner agency for Cypress River Basin. The Sulphur River Basin Authority of Texas is the partner agency for Sulphur River Basin. The Clean Rivers Program for the Red River watershed in Texas, managed by the Red River Authority of Texas, provides the current state of the basin through the annual Basin Highlights Report found at: http://www.rra.texas.gov/?dhp=/Publications/CRP/
TCEQ has developed a map-based tool for the CRP for online viewing metadata associated with TCEQ monitoring stations and a query tool for extracting surface water quality data from the TCEQ's Surface Water Quality Monitoring Information System. These tools can be found at the following links:
https://www80.tceq.texas.gov/SwqmisWeb/public/crpweb.faces
Surface Water Quality Monitoring
TCEQ’s Surface Water Quality Monitoring (SWQM) Program monitors and evaluates physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of aquatic systems as a basis for effective policy. More than 1,800 surface water sites statewide are used to collect physical, chemical, and biological samples as part of the SWQM program.
This data is used by TCEQ to characterize existing conditions or identify emerging problems, evaluate the effectiveness of water quality control programs, or identify trends. The data are also used to determine compliance with the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards through the Texas Integrated Report. Texas Environmental Report June 29, 2020 Page | 5
SWQM has an interactive Surface Water Quality Viewer (ArcOnline map) available to the public that allows users to view the stream segments and water bodies (including impairment status) for any body of water in Texas that the TCEQ monitors. Surface Water Quality Monitoring (SWQM) Stations are also included in the viewer.
An annual workshop is held each fall to bring together surface water quality monitoring professionals in Texas who provide water quality data to TCEQ to learn about procedures to assure the quality and comparability of data and to share advances in search. The 33rd Annual SWQM Workshop was held October 21-23, 20219, in Bandera, Texas. For more information on the Annual SWQM Workshop please see: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/monitoring/swqm_workshop
Caddo Lake Monitoring Station
STATE OF ARKANSAS
E NVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT Red River Compact
April 2020
i Red River Compact Arkansas Environmental Committee Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ….………….…………………….………………………………………………………………...... 1 Water Quality …………………………….….……………………………….….……....………..………………………. 2 Changes in 303(d) Listing ……….…………………………………………..………………...... 10 Nonpoint Source Management Impacts ……….....…………………………...... …… 11 Map of DEQ Designated Waters …...……….………………...... 11 TMDL Prioritization …..………..…………..……….………………...... 12 Section 319 Program Update ………..…………..……….………………...... 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. List of DEQ Planning Segments in Red River Compact Area…...... 2
Table 2. Category 5. Descriptions…..……………………………………………...... 3 Table 3. Abbreviations Used in Describing Impaired Waterbodies……...... 3 Table 4. Arkansas’ 2016 303(d) Listings for Red River Basin.…………...... 4 Table 5. Arkansas’ 2016 303(d) Listings for Ouachita River Basin ...... 6 Table 6. Change in 303(d) Listing based on Dissolved Oxygen & Temperature………………………. 10
Table 7. Changes in 303(d) Listing-from NRD Nonpoint Pollution Efforts…...... 11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. DEQ Planning Segments ...... 2 Figure 2. Map of DEQ Impaired Waterbodies ………………….……………………...... 11
Sub basi n I Sub i Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Water is an essential resource for Arkansas. Accurate information on water quality and quantity is necessary to ensure long-term availability and sustainability of water that is safe for drinking and recreation, and is suitable for industry, irrigation, and fish and wildlife. Abatement of degradation and improvement in water quality throughout the Red River Compact Area is a continuing effort and remains a priority for the state.
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) requires all states to identify waters which do not meet or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards. The ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT’s Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) manages State Water Quality Monitoring Networks for surface and subsurface waters; and conducts routine monitoring activities and intensive investigations of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of watersheds and/or aquifers. Data generated from these activities, as well as readily available data from other sources, such as the ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’s Natural Resources Division (NRD) nonpoint pollution prevention and abatement program, are used to prepare the biennial Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 305(b) Report, the List of Impaired Waterbodies 303(d) list, and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). This data is used to evaluate designated use attainment and to prioritize restoration and remediation activities. DEQ develops the 305(b) Report and 303(d) list every two years and submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for acceptance and approval.
Water quality degradation, impairment, and improvement are influenced by both point and nonpoint pollution sources. While DEQ is the state’s primary authority to regulate point source discharge and to administer other regulatory responsibilities, the NRD is responsible for addressing nonpoint source pollution through implementation of voluntary conservation and best management practices which improve water quality and reduce degradation. NRD’s nonpoint source pollution management and reduction efforts are prioritized to: • increase collaborative and innovative conservation partnerships, • enhance cooperation among government agencies and non-governmental groups, and • demonstrate effective nutrient management and reduction practices that best contribute to water quality improvement.
Some of NRD’s collaborative partners include: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, The Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Department of Commerce, Illinois River Watershed Partnership, Beaver Watershed Alliance (BWA), Discovery Farms, Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts, and many other entities which are involved in nonpoint source pollution reduction activities and stakeholder issues. These partnerships are longstanding and vital to sustaining successful nonpoint-nutrient reduction and water quality improvement.
Sub basi n I Sub 1 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY
This report contains data and information from DEQ’s draft 2018 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 305(b) Report and NRD’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan and 2018 Annual Report. Included are DEQ’s 2018 303(d) list of impairments within the Red River Compact Area in Arkansas and a description of NRD’s voluntary conservation and nonpoint pollution efforts to combat these impairments.
In Figure 1., the Red River Compact Area in Arkansas is outlined in red and DEQ’s 305(b) Report Planning Segments are labeled across the Figure 1. DEQ Planning Segments state. Table 1. lists DEQ Planning Segments in the Red River Compact’s Subbasin I and II, known commonly as the Red River and Ouachita River drainage basins in Arkansas.
Table 1. List of Arkansas DEQ Planning Segments in the Red River Compact Area
Red River Basin Ouachita River Basin 1A Dorcheat Bayou & Bodcau Bayou 2A Boeuf River & Tributaries
1B Red River, Sulfur River, & McKinney Bayou 2B Bayou Bartholomew & Tributaries 1C Little River & Tributaries 2C Saline River & Tributaries 1D Mountain Fork & Tributaries 2D Lower Ouachita River & Tributaries 2E Lower Cornie Bayou & Tributaries
2F Ouachita River & Tributaries: Headwaters to Little Missouri River 2G Little Missouri River & Antoine River
A list of Category 5 Impaired Waters in the Red River Compact Area from DEQ’s draft 2018 305(b) Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report are shown in Tables 4 and 5 beginning on page 4. Tables 2 and 3 on page 3 contain descriptions of Category 5 designations and abbreviations used in Tables 4 and 5.
DEQ’s draft 2020 303(d) listing was not available at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, changes in 303(d) listings shown in Tables 4 and 5 are from comparisons between 2016 and the Draft 2018 305(b) reporting. The 2018 Draft 303(d) listing includes stream segments highlighted in yellow which represent possible additions to the 2016 303(d) list and stream segments highlighted in gray which represent possible removals from the 2016 303(d) list.
Sub basi n I Sub 2 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 2. Category 5. Designations
The waterbody is impaired, or one or more water quality standards may not be attained. Category 5 Waterbodies in Category 5 will be prioritized as:
High Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other corrective action(s) for the listed parameter(s).
Waters currently not attaining standards but may be de-listed with future revisions to Medium Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Commission’s Regulation No. 2, the state water quality standards; or Waters which are impaired by point source discharges and future permit restrictions are expected to correct the problem(s).
Waters currently not attaining one or more water quality standards, but all designated uses Low are determined to be supported; or There is insufficient data to make a scientifically defensible decision concerning designated use attainment; or Waters DEQ assessed as unimpaired but were assessed as impaired by EPA.
Table 3. Abbreviations Used in Category 5. Descriptions
Designated Use Not Supported Sources of Contamination
AI = agricultural/industrial water supply FSH = fisheries AG = agriculture activities DW = domestic water supply PC = primary contact HP = hydropower FC = fish consumption SC = secondary contact IP = industrial point source
Water Quality Standard Non-Attainment MP = municipal point source
Al = aluminum PO = priority organics SE= surface erosion AM = ammonia Se = Selenium UN = unknown Be = beryllium SO4 = sulfates UR = urban runoff Cl = chlorides Tb = turbidity RE = resource extraction
Cu = copper TDS = total dissolved solids Cause
DO = dissolved oxygen Tm = temperature HG = Mercury NO3 = nitrate nitrogen Tox = Toxicity NU = nutrients PA = pathogen indicator bacteria TP = total phosphorus SI = Siltation pH = pH UN = Unknown Pb = lead Zn = zinc PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl Hg = mercury
Sub basi n I Sub 3 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 4. Arkansas’ 2018 Draft 303(d) Category 5 in Red River Basin
Planning Segment 1A -Dorcheat Bayou & Bodcau Bayou
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
11140205-010 Little Bodcau Creek AL DO UN Low
11140203-022 Dorcheat Bayou Tb SE Low
11140203-020 Dorcheat Bayou TB SE Low
Planning Segment 1B -Red River, Sulphur River, & McKinney Bayou
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
11140106-025 Red River Al Tb SE Low
11140106-005 Red River Al Tb SE Low
11140106-003 Red River Al Tb SE Low
11140106-001 Red River Al Tb SE Low
11140201-007 Red River Tb SE Low
11140201-011 Red River Al Tb SE Low
11140201-008 Bois D’Arc Creek DO UN Low
11140201-009 Bois D’Arc Creek DO UN Low
11140302-003 Days Creek Cu IP Medium
Note: Yellow= 303(d) stream segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) steam segment removed from 2016 listing
Sub basi n I Sub 4 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 4. (cont.) Arkansas’ Draft 2018 303(d) Category 5 in Red River Basin
Planning Segment 1C -Little River & Tributaries
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
11120109-025 Bear Creek PA IP Medium
11140109-033 Mine Creek SO4 IP Low
11140109-934 Mine Creek, upper TDS IP Low
11140109-001 Little River Tm UN Low
11140109-819 Short Creek pH UN Low
11140109-921 Caney Creek pH UN Low
11140109-018 Cossatot River DO UN Medium
11140109-014 Saline River DO UN Medium
11140109-919 Rollin Fork Creek SO4 IP Low (below Tyson Grannis)
11140109-013 Holly Creek FSH DO UN
Planning Segment 1D -Mountain Fork & Tributaries
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
11140108-014 Mountain Fork Tm, Tb UN Low
1140108-019 Mill Creek pH UN Low
11140108-907 Barren Creek pH UN Low
Note: Yellow= 303(d) stream segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) stream segment removed from 2016 listing
Sub basi n I Sub 5 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 5. Arkansas’ Draft 2018 303(d) Category 5 in Ouachita River Basin
Planning Segment 2A -Boeuf River & Tributaries
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08050002-003 Bayou Macon Cl UN Low
08050002-006 Bayou Macon Cl UN Low
Planning Segment 2B -Bayou Bartholomew & Tributaries
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08040205-001 Bayou Bartholomew DO, Pb UN Low
08040205-907 Chemin-A-Haut Creek AL DO UN Low
08040205-909 Main Street Ditch AL DO, Pb UR Low
08040205-902 Harding Creek AL Pb UR Low
08040205-910 Bayou Imbeau AL, PC DO, Pa, Pb High
08040205-911 Able’s Creek Tb SE Low
08040205-901 Bearhouse Creek AL DO UN Low
08040205-013 Bayou Bartholomew DO UN Low
08040205-006 Bayou Bartholomew Pb UN Low
08040205-905 Cross Bayou DO UN Low
08040205-908 Overflow Creek AL Tb, Cl SE Low
Note: Yellow= 303(d) stream segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) stream segment removed from 2016 listing
Sub basi n I Sub 6 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 5. (cont.) Arkansas’ Draft 2018 303(d) Category 5 in Ouachita River Basin
Planning Segment 2C -Saline River & Tributaries Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08040203-018 Alum Fork Saline River pH UN Medium
08040203-014 Alum Fork Saline River DO, pH UN Medium
08040203-009 Saline River Tb UN Medium
08040203-007 Saline River Tb UN Medium
08040203-913 Saline River Tb SE,UN Medium
08040203-011 North Fork Saline River DO UN Medium
08040203-019 Middle Fork Saline River DO UN Medium
08040203-021 Cedar Creek DO UN Low
08040203-922 Lockett Creek DO UN Low
08040204-002 Saline River Tm UN Medium
08040204-005 Big Creek pH, Pb UN Low
Note: Yellow= 303(d) steam segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) stream segment removed from 2016 listing
Sub basi n I Sub 7 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 5. (cont.) Arkansas’ Draft 2018 303(d) Category 5 in Ouachita River Basin
Planning Segment 2D -Lower Ouachita River & Tributaries Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08040201-007 Smackover Creek DO, pH, Tb, Pb IP Low
08040201-006 Smackover Creek DO, pH, Tb, Pb IP Low
08040201-406 Smackover Creek DO, pH, Tb, Pb IP Low
08040201-806 Salt Creek AL pH UN Low
08040201-606 ECC Tributary AL pH, Cu,NO3 IP High
08040201-905 E. Two Bayou PC pH, PA UN Low
08040201-001 Moro Creek DO, Pb UN Low
08040201-901 Moro Creek Pb UN Low
08040202-008 Bayou de Loutre Al, DW DO, Tb, Pb, Se, Zn, IP High
08040202-007 Bayou de Loutre Al, DW DO, Tb, Pb, Zn IP High
08040202-006 Bayou de Loutre Al, DW DO, Tb, Pb, Zn IP High
08040202-909 Loutre Creek Al, DW Cl,SO4, TDS, Se IP High
08040202-004 Ouachita River DO UN Medium
08040201-002 Ouachita River Pb UN Medium
08040201-004 Ouachita River Pb UN Medium
Note: Yellow= 303(d) steam segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) stream segment removed from 2016 listing
Sub basi n I Sub 8 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 5. (cont.) Arkansas’ Draft 2018 303(d) Category 5 in Ouachita River Basin
Planning Segment 2E -Lower Cornie Bayou & Tributaries
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08040206-015 Cornie Bayou Do, Tb, Pb IP Low
08040206-016 Little Cornie Creek Pb IP Low
08040206-716 Little Cornie Creek Pb IP Low
08040206-816 Little Cornie Creek Pb IP Low
08040206-916 Walker Branch Pb IP Low
Planning Segment 2F -Ouachita River: Headwater to Little Missouri River
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08040102-971 Chamberlain Creek AL, DW, AI pH, SO4, TDS, Pb, Al, Be, Toxi RE Medium
08040102-970 Cove Creek pH, Zn, Tox RE Medium
08040102-975 Lucinda Creek AL pH RE Medium
08040102-976 Cove Creek pH, Zn, Toxi UN Medium
08040101-901 Wilson Creek pH UN Medium
08040101-902 Indian Springs Creek DO, SO4, TDS UN Medium
08040101-048 Prairie Creek DO UN High
08040101-032 Fiddlers Creek DO, pH UN Low
08040101-838 Irons Fork Creek DO, pH UN Low
08040101-043 S Fork Ouachita River DO UN Low
08040101-929 Irons Fork Creek pH UN Low
08040102-023 South Fork Caddo DO UN Low
08040101-033 Ouachita River DO UN Low
Note: Yellow= 303(d) steam segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) stream segment removed from 2016 listing
Sub basi n I Sub 9 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Table 5. (cont.) Arkansas’ Draft 2018 303(d) Category 5 in Ouachita River Basin
Planning Segment 2G -Little Missouri River & Antoine River
Impairment HUC-Reach Name Contamination Priority Designated Use Water Quality
08040103-003 Terre Noir Creek pH UN Low
08040103-002 Terre Noir Creek pH UN Low
08040103-031 Terre Rouge Creek Tb SE Low
Note: Yellow= 303(d) steam segment added to 2016 listing Gray= 303(d) stream segment removed from 2016 listing
Changes in 303(d) Listing Arkansas’ water quality standards are based on least-disturbed waterbodies, approximately six in each Level III Ecoregion, and their average water quality constituent concentrations. Water quality standards for certain constituents, such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH, cannot be attained due to their susceptibility to changing climatic conditions, i.e. these constituents fluctuate with ambient weather conditions. This leads to frequent removal and addition of waterbodies not meeting attainment levels for these constituents. Changes in 303(d) Listings caused by fluctuations in dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH are shown in Table 6. For some waterbodies, the natural background concentration of dissolved oxygen, temperature, or pH may be significantly different than the ecoregion average. In this situation, the individual waterbody cannot attain the water quality standards established for the ecoregion.
Table 6. Changes to 303(d) Listing related to Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, and pH
Constituent Waterbodies Added to Draft 2018 listing Waterbodies Proposed to be Removed from 2016 listing Dissolved Oxygen 29 5 Temperature 1 1 pH 13 1
Sub basi n I Sub 10 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
Nonpoint Source Management Impacts The implementation of nonpoint source best management practices has been effective in reducing pollutants entering three of Arkansas’ rivers. Leading these efforts, the NRD has partnered with landowners in these watersheds to provide education, demonstration projects, technical assistance & expertise, and financial assistance to implement and install best management practices which improve water quality. Results from these activities has been a reduction in contaminant levels enough to remove the waterbodies from the 303(d) impaired waters list. Table 7 shows waterbodies that were removed from the 303(d) as a result of NRD nonpoint pollution efforts in these watersheds. Information on these projects can be viewed on EPA’s website: https://www.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-success-stories-arkansas.
Table 7. Changes to Arkansas 303(d) Listing from NRD Nonpoint Source Pollution Efforts
Constituent NRD Efforts Waterbody Removed Turbidity Illinois River Turbidity ▪ Public education & outreach St. Francis River ▪ Financial assistance Turbidity ▪ Demonstration projects Days Creek Lead ▪ Technical Assistance Bayou DeView ▪ Best Management Practices Turbidity Cache River
Map of DEQ Designated Waters Figure 2. contains all DEQ listed streams by assessment and Category 1b Rivers reporting category. These Category 1b, Category 4a, Category 4b, Category 4a Rivers Category 4b Rivers and Category 5 stream segments are listed in the DEQ Draft 2018 Category 5 Rivers 305(b) Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Assessment Report. Category 1b waters attain all water quality criteria and support all designated uses; however, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) remains in place for one or more constituents. Category 4a waters do not attain water quality standards for one or more designated uses but the development of a TMDL is not required because a TMDL has been completed for the listed parameter(s). Category 4b waters do not attain water quality standards for one or more designated uses but the development of a TMDL is not required because other management alternatives are expected to result in Figure 2. Map of DEQ Designated Waters attainment. Category 5 waterbodies are impaired and prioritized as High, Medium, or Low (full description on page 3).
Sub basi n I Sub 11 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
TMDL Prioritization DEQ has developed a “Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection” under the Clean Water Act 303(d) Program to comply with measures set forth by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DEQ and NRD work cooperatively to direct available and limited resources to priority watersheds which are identified through stakeholder, risk and science-based inclusive processes. Nine of ten watersheds identified through these processes were prioritized for TMDL development. DEQ’s long-term vision plan includes an update to these priorities by the year 2022.
SECTION 319 NONPOINT POLLUTION PROGRAM UPDATE The 2018-2023 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan identifies several priority watersheds which lie within the Red River Compact Area in southern Arkansas. Projects ongoing during the 2019-2020 time period are described in the following section.
Bayou Bartholomew watershed has been a priority for Arkansas’ nonpoint pollution management efforts since 1998 and was re-designated a priority watershed in the 2018-2023 Nonpoint Pollution Management Plan. Water quality concerns in the watershed include the following:
• siltation/turbidity • pathogens • total dissolved solids • chlorides • lead • low dissolved oxygen • sulfates • mercury The current project (#17-400) in HUC 08040205 (Bayou Bartholomew watershed) includes collection, analyzes, and reporting of water quality and discharge data at 10 sites through September 2021. Grab sample techniques and methodologies are being used to collect one field sample per week at each site. Over 2,496 samples are being collected and analyzed for TSS, Turbidity, Total Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Nitrate- Nitrogen, Ammonia Nitrogen, Chloride, and Sulfate concentrations. In addition, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Specific Conductance, and Temperature readings are also being recorded. This water quality monitoring effort is part of Arkansas’ statewide stream gaging network supported though NRD’s Cooperative Agreement with USGS. Water quality data from this project will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution management activities in the watershed and aid efforts to restore all DEQ designated uses.
Upper Saline River watershed is a priority for Arkansas’ nonpoint pollution management effort In the Red River Compact Area. The Upper Saline River watershed has experienced significant increases in commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational development. Urban growth was identified by The Nature Conservancy in 2008 as a major contributor to increases in nutrient and sediment loadings in the watershed. The DEQ approved 2016 303(d) list identifies the Alum Fork, Big Creek, and Saline River as being impaired by turbidity and pH levels. The current project (#15-1800) in HUC 08040203 (Upper Saline River
Sub basi n I Sub 12 Red River Compact bas in II
Arkansas Environmental Committee Report WATER QUALITY
watershed) was initiated in 2019 to establish and obtain water quality information necessary to determine the effectiveness of implemented management practices. Water samples (150 in total) are being collected during base flow and peak flow conditions. These samples are being analyzed for TSS, Turbidity, Total Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Ammonia-Nitrogen, Chloride, Sulfate, Dissolved Oxygen, Specific Conductance, pH, and Temperature. Trends in water quality parameter concentrations, monthly loading estimations, and unit area loading estimations will be based on water quality data collected at 5 water quality monitoring stations. Monitoring for this project will end in June 2020.
Monitoring will resume in October 2020 as part of a new project which will support improved road crossings, restore aquatic habitat, reduce sedimentation, and communicate water quality data results with partners, stakeholders, and local communities in the watershed. This project, “Restoring Aquatic Connectivity and Reducing Sedimentation in the Upper Saline River Watershed,” will be managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and will educate the general public on how and why to implement best management practices on stream barriers and riparian zones. TNC will develop three sites in the North Fork and Alum Fork sub- watersheds near Paron, Arkansas, to demonstrate road/stream crossing design, riparian zone planting, and other water quality improvement techniques. These sites will be used to engage and educate stakeholders, partners, and the general public, and encourage adoption of best management practices to reduce sediment loading and other impairment in the Upper Saline River watershed.
Lower Ouachita-Smackover watershed is a priority for Arkansas’ nonpoint pollution management effort In the Red River Compact Area. The watershed is generally rural and is (predominately) 83% forested. However, several urban areas including the towns of Bearden, Camden, El Dorado, Fordyce, Hampton and Smackover are located within the watershed. The DEQ approved 2016 303(d) list identifies impairment on 16 streams for Ammonia, Chloride, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nitrogen (Nitrates), pH, Sulfates, Total Dissolved Solids and Turbidity. The current project in HUC 08040201 (Lower Ouachita-Smackover watershed) was initiated in 2016 to collect, analyze, and report water quality and discharge data from 10 monitoring stations established at or near the outfalls of the following 12 digit HUCs: Bryant Creek, Lost Creek, Headwaters Lloyd Creek, Holmes Creek, Sandy Creek, Sloan Creek, Gum Creek, Cypress Creek, Cordell Creek, and Little Two Bayou. Weekly water quality grab samples will be collected through December 2020 for a total of 2,496 samples. All samples are being analyzed for TSS, Turbidity, Total Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Ammonia-Nitrogen, Chloride, Sulfate, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen to determine parameter and unit area loadings.
Sub basi n I Sub 13 Red River Compact bas in II
State of Oklahoma
Environmental and Natural Resources Committee Report
Red River Compact
June 30th, 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is the intent of all Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) monitoring activities to advance concepts and principles of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP). Consistent with a primary OCWP initiative, OWRB monitoring initiatives provide invaluable data crucial to the ongoing management of Oklahoma’s water supplies as well as the future use and protection of the state’s water resources. Oklahoma’s decision-makers rely upon this information to address specific water supply, quality, infrastructure, and related concerns. Maintained by the OWRB and updated every 10 years, the OCWP serves as Oklahoma’s official long-term water planning strategy. Recognizing the essential connection between sound science and effective public policy, incorporated in the Water Plan are a broad range of water resource development and protection strategies substantiated by hard data – such as that contained in this report – and supported by Oklahoma citizens.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) exists as a result of the vital economic and social importance of Oklahoma’s lakes, streams, wetlands, and aquifers and the associated need for their protection and management. The data contained in this report is scientifically defensible and has been collected and analyzed following procedures outlined in Use Support Assessment Protocols (USAP), developed by OWRB with input and concurrence of Oklahoma’s other environmental agencies. Specifically, USAPs establish a consistent method to determine if beneficial uses assigned for individual waters through Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (WQS) are being supported. If the OWRB BUMP report indicates that a designated beneficial use is impaired, threatened, or otherwise compromised, measures must be taken to mitigate or restore the water quality.
Traditionally, the State of Oklahoma has utilized numerous water monitoring programs conducted by individual state and federal agencies. In general, each environmental agency designs and implements its own program with only limited participation with other state, municipal, or federal entities. These programs collect information for a specific purpose or project (e.g., development of Total Maximum Daily Loads, WQS process, lake trophic status determination, water quality impact assessments from nonpoint and point source pollution, stream flow measurement, assessment of best management practices, etc.). Therefore, the information is specific to each project’s data quality objectives (DQOs) and is often limited to a very small geographic area.
The specific objectives of BUMP are to detect and quantify water quality trends, document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses, and identify pollution problems before they become a pollution crisis.
Beneficial Use Monitoring Program Components
Monitoring Rivers & Streams - The OWRB is currently monitoring approximately 84 stations on a 6- week rotation. Fixed station monitoring is based largely upon the 84 planning basins as outlined in the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP). In general, at least one sample station is located at the terminal end of each of the planning basins. The OWRB also conducts on-going special studies as well as 25-30 probabilistic monitoring stations annually.
Fixed Station Load Monitoring – The OWRB is currently working with several partners including the United States Geological Survey (USGS), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) and National Weather Service to conduct flow monitoring on all our fixed station sites that are not part of the State of Oklahoma/USGS Cooperative Gaging Network. This cooperative effort will allow for loadings to be calculated, trends to be assessed statewide and provide much needed data for the Use Support Assessment process.
Fixed Station Lakes Monitoring – As part of BUMP, the OWRB conducts sampling on lakes and reservoirs across the State of Oklahoma. To accomplish this task, the OWRB has taken a fixed station approach for the lakes monitoring program. This design allows the state’s objectives to be met as well as ensure various sized waterbodies are represented adequately. The survey population includes all lakes above 50 surface acres, which encompasses approximately 206 different waterbodies. The population is then stratified into two groups – lakes greater than 500 surface acres and those below 500 surface acres. The greater than 500 surface acres group includes 68 lakes, of which approximately one-fifth are monitored annually (quarterly samples). They are then monitored again during a subsequent year in the 5-year rotation, so that each lake greater than 500 surface acres is sampled 2 non-consecutive years during each 5 year rotation. The lakes managed by our Federal partners, the USACE and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are included in the 68 large multipurpose lakes. Additionally, ten lakes of less than 500 surface acres are sampled annually (quarterly samples) over the 5 year sample frame. All lakes monitored have either the PPWS or SWS designation. Many of these smaller lakes have not been sampled historically through BUMP and include small municipal water supplies.
The OWRB works with other agencies, such as the USACE, for inclusion of additional information when possible on waterbodies managed by the Corps. Data collected consists primarily of water chemistry, nutrients, and chlorophyll-a information. In general, a minimum of three to five stations per reservoir are sampled depending on the size of the reservoir. Stations are located such that they represent the lacustrine, transitional, and riverine zones of the lake. On many reservoirs, additional sites are monitored, including major arms of the reservoir as appropriate. Water quality parameters have been added to the lakes sampling effort over the years to enhance program ability to make use support determinations.
Groundwater Monitoring (GMAP) – This program was made possible as result of the increase in funding received from the Oklahoma Legislature for water quality/quantity monitoring based on recommendations of the 2012 Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan. These additional monies were utilized to restore funding levels of the Beneficial Use Monitoring Program as well as to implement the new groundwater program. The program prioritizes efforts on Oklahoma’s 22 major groundwater aquifers, with the baseline phase completed at the conclusion of 2017 and long-term trend monitoring scheduled to begin in 2020. The baseline period focused on 4-6 aquifers per year, beginning in 2013, and assessed concentrations of nutrients, metals and major ion species. Sample size was predicated upon and proportional to the surface area of the aquifer with a general goal of 30 wells per aquifer. Some of the state’s larger aquifers exceeded the goal and some of the smaller aquifers were represented by fewer wells (Table 1). At the conclusion of the baseline sampling period there were 695 wells sampled from major aquifers in the statewide groundwater quality network, with an additional 31 wells in minor aquifers. In addition, the OWRB’s annual groundwater level measurement program nearly doubled in capacity from around 530 to 900 wells and has been spatially redistributed. Also over the 5- year baseline period, the OWRB installed 33 continuous water level recorders to obtain daily or hourly measurements that are more sensitive to detecting seasonal changes (brought on by drought or variable climate conditions) than can be obtained by annual measurements.
Table 1. Sample Networks Based on Aquifer Areal Extent.
Areal Extent Category Sample Site Well Density Sample Sizes Generated
> 5000 km2 1 well per 150 km2 (6 Aquifers) 37 – 89
3001 – 5000 km2 1 well per 100 km2 (5 aquifers) 33 – 48
1501 – 3000 km2 1 well per 75 km2 (6 aquifers) 25 – 33
751 – 1500 km2 1 well per 50 km2 (2 aquifers) 16 – 19
≤ 750 km2 2 aquifers 6 – 10
Program History/Overview
Sampling of the numerous lakes, streams, and rivers across this state was initiated in the summer and fall of 1998. Lake sampling in connection with BUMP began in July of 1998. Sampling on numerous streams and rivers began in earnest in November of the same year. The two sampling programs, one for lakes and one for streams, had separate starting dates for a number of reasons. First, the OWRB had been conducting a lake-sampling program during the warmer summer months since 1990 as part of the Federal Clean Lakes Program. This historical lake sampling program was funded through federal dollars with the express purpose of determining lake trophic status. The trophic status of a lake can range from oligotrophic (low biological productivity) to hypereutrophic (excessive biological productivity). In
general, the more productive a lake is the more water quality problems it is likely to experience. Federal dollars to fund this trophic state assessment of our state’s lakes were discontinued in 1994. At that time, the OWRB searched for other funding sources, and through working with the Secretary of the Environment and the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, the OWRB was able to obtain a one-time federal CWA 319 nonpoint source grant to continue the lake trophic state assessment program. The OWRB subsequently initiated a quarterly lake sampling program in the spring of 1998 and was able to roll the existing lake program into BUMP.
The OWRB has developed USAPs for lakes and streams, which are essential if the state is to be consistent in identifying waters that are not meeting their assigned beneficial uses or are threatened. The OWRB has incorporated the USAP into Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 785:46 to ensure that consistent determinations for impairments are made by the all of the monitoring agencies.
The state must follow consistent procedures for listing waters as impaired. Using the OWRB Use Support Assessment Protocols, it has been possible for OWRB staff to assess whether threats or impairments are present in our waterways. With continued funding, identification of impaired waters will be accomplished on additional waters.
Results of Sampling Efforts
Every two years, the OWRB analyzes data collected by BUMP and that data is used to identify if the waters of the state are meeting their assigned beneficial uses. If the stream/river segment is not meeting its beneficial use it is submitted for inclusion on the EPA’s 303d list. The latest EPA approved 303d list of impaired waters can be found on the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality’s website. Data Presented in this Report can be found at several links. Included in this report are the lakes and rivers monitored by the BUMP and the pertinent stream segments listed in the Oklahoma 303(d) List as not supporting their assigned beneficial uses. See the links below for additional information.
OWRB Beneficial Use Monitoring Program
Streams Monitoring - http://www.owrb.ok.gov/quality/monitoring/bumpstreams.php
Lakes Monitoring - http://www.owrb.ok.gov/quality/monitoring/bumplakes.php
Groundwater Monitoring - http://www.owrb.ok.gov/quality/monitoring/GMAP.php
Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Oklahoma’s 2018 Integrated Water Quality Report with Appendix C - Impaired Waterbodies 303(d) List - https://www.deq.ok.gov/water-quality-division/watershed-planning/integrated-report/
Red River Compact Commission Texas Engineering Committee Report June 29, 2020
Reservoir Levels
In the Red River Basin in Texas, there are 20 reservoirs tracked by the Texas Water Development Board’s reservoir status tracker application on its website, including the Sulphur River and Cypress Creek basins. Currently basin-wide, the reservoirs are at about 97% full, ranging from 10.6% in some smaller reservoirs in Reach I, to 100% in Reach II, Subbasin 2. Lake Texoma is currently 100% full. All the reservoirs in the Sulphur and Cypress basins are full or nearly full due to recent rainfall in East Texas.
Texas Reservoirs in the Red River Basin Reservoir Conservation Conservation Reservoir Percent Full Storage Storage Capacity (acre-ft) (acre-ft) (acre-ft) Red River Basin Arrowhead 99.1 228,334 228,334 230,359 Bonham 97.2 10,735 10,723 11,027 Crook 100.0 9,315 9,195 9,195 Greenbelt 20.0 12,396 11,964 59,968 Hubert H Moss 100.0 24,534 24,058 24,058 Kemp 100.0 252,215 245,307 245,307 Kickapoo 94.8 81,840 81,840 86,345 Mackenzie 10.6 4,905 4,905 46,450 Nocona 100.0 24,277 21,444 21,444 North Fork Buffalo 97.3 14,986 14,986 15,400 Creek Pat Mayse 100.0 121,988 113,683 113,683 Texoma 100.0 2,685,871 1,243,801 1,243,801 95.4% 3,471,396 2,010,240 2,107,037 Sulphur River Basin Jim Chapman 98.8 295,913 257,315 260,332 Sulphur Springs 97.8 17,364 17,364 17,747 Wright Patman 100.0 347,564 231,496 231,496 99.3% 660,841 506,175 509,575 Cypress Creek Basin Bob Sandlin 99.7 202,615 191,884 192,417 Caddo 100.0 139,557 29,898 29,898 Cypress Springs 99.8 66,594 66,594 66,756 Lake O' the Pines 99.6 267,450 267,450 268,566 Monticello 85.1 29,557 29,557 34,740 98.8% 705,773 585,383 592,377 Total 96.7% 4,838,010 3,101,798 3,208,989 Red River Compact Commission Engineering Committee Report for Texas June 29, 2020
Water Use Permitting Activity in Texas
In the Red River Basin in Texas, there are 286 active water rights permits for irrigation, municipal, mining, industrial, recreation and other uses. Currently, there are four pending permit and/or amendment applications being reviewed in the Red River Basin and two in the Sulphur River Basin. The City of Wichita Falls has applied to construct and maintain a 275,000 acre-foot reservoir, Lake Ringgold, on the Little Wichita River, for municipal, agricultural, industrial, and mining uses. TCEQ has recommended the permit be granted, however, there remains a notice and comment period. If granted, The City of Wichita Falls would still need to apply for a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit through the USACE.
During 2019-present, TCEQ has issued nine water use permits in the Red River Basin. The North Texas Municipal Water District’s permit to construct the Lower Bois d’Arc Reservoir for 367,609 acre-feet of storage capacity, has been extended until 2024.
Additional information regarding specific pending applications, the applicant list and project manager's name are provided on the TCEQ website at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/watersupply/water_rights/applic ations/wr_pending.xls.
TCEQ’s Dam Safety Program
The TCEQ Dam Safety Program monitors and regulates both private and public dams in Texas. There are over 7,230 dams in Texas with more than 4,000 regulated by the Dam Safety Program, including about 1,300 high-hazard, 400 significant-hazard and 2,600 low-hazard, non-exempt dams. The program periodically inspects dams that pose a high or significant hazard and makes recommendations and reports to dam owners to help them maintain safe facilities. TCEQ staff also provides practical and straightforward information on issues that affect anyone who owns or operates a dam including state dam safety laws and regulations and enforcement, requirements for emergency action plans, inspection and maintenance issues for all areas on a dam, and recommendations for correction. Currently, there are no dam safety issues identified within the basin.
A users’ guide is provided for obtaining the precipitation data which is required for dam safety evaluations for particular drainage areas: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/field_ops/damsafety/PMP- UserGuide.pdf.
Page 2 of 3
Red River Compact Commission Engineering Committee Report for Texas June 29, 2020
Streamflow Conditions
For the calendar year 2019 through the present, streamflows have been highly variable in the Texas reaches of Cypress Creek and the Red and Sulphur Rivers. Currently, most of the flows are in the normal to above-normal range, except the western tributaries of the Red River in Texas.
Flows at the Index and Spring Bank gages, which are indicator flow gages for Texas’ Compact compliance, have experienced several high flow events, separated by lower average flows. The highest daily flow at Index was about 85,500 cfs in May 2020, and the low was 2,710 cfs in October 2019. At the Spring Bank gage, the peak was 112,000 cfs on May 29, 2020, with a low of 5,080 cfs, also in September 2019.
Page 3 of 3
BOEUF RIVER MONITORING REPORT Red River Compact
April 2020
Boeuf River Annual Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT OVERVIEW…….……….……………………………………………………..………….. 1 BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT……………….…………………….…………..…………………. 2 Introduction……………………..………….……………………………..…………………… 2 General Evaluation……………..………….……………………………..…………………… 2 Monitoring Computations…………………..………….……………………………..…… 9 REPORT CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………..…………………….... 11 General Statement……………..………….……………………………..………………..... 11 Flow Monitoring……….………..………….……………………………..………………….. 11 Flow Analyses……………..………….……………………………..…………………………. 11 Precipitation……………..………….……………………………..…………………………… 11 Summary Conclusions………….……………………………..……………………………… 13 Recommendations……………..………….……………………………..…………………… 13 TECHNICAL APPENDICES…………………………………………………..…………………….... 14 FIGURES & TABLES Figure 1. Boeuf River Daily Flow at Arkansas-Louisiana State Boundary……………………...... 2 Figure 2. Daily Flow & Precipitation Data at Eudora and State Boundary……..………………..……… 3 Figure 3. Annual Flow & Precipitation at Eudora………………………………….………..…………...... 7 Figure 4. Annual Flow & Precipitation at State Boundary…………..………………………………………….. 8 Figure 5. Flow vs. Runoff at State Boundary (2019)………………….…………………………………………….. 9 Figure 6. Flow vs. Runoff at State Boundary (2018)……………………………………..……………...... 10 Figure 7. Monthly Precipitation (2017-2019)……………………………..……………………………………….... 12 Figure 8. Runoff (C) Values……………………………..…………………………………………………………………..... 14 Table 1. Occurrences of 40cfs or Less Flow ……………………...... 4 Table 2. Weekly Precipitation at Eudora and State Boundary Flow……..………………..………………… 4 Table 3. Percent of Eudora Flow Crossing the State Boundary……..………………..………………………. 5 Table 4. Surface Water Use from the Boeuf River (Chicot County)……..………………..…………………. 6 Table 5. Weekly Flow and Estimated Runoff……..………………..…………………………………………………. 12 Table 6. Eudora Precipitation………………………………………………………….…..………………..……………….. 12
Sub basi Sub n I i Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report REPORT OVERVIEW
REPORT OVERVIEW
Arkansas and Louisiana continue to discuss compact compliance and stream flows in the Boeuf River watershed. The former Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, now the Natural Resources Division (NRD) within the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, initiated and completed several studies related to stream flow, instream structures, hydrologic alterations, and historical development on the Boeuf River and throughout the watershed. These efforts are summarized in NRD’s 2018 Boeuf River Report and were presented to the Engineering Committee and Red River Compact Commission at the 2018 annual meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The 2018 Boeuf River Report recommended several monitoring and reporting initiatives for the Boeuf River, with specific attention to the frequency and duration of Boeuf River flows near the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary.
Since 2018, NRD is reporting Boeuf River flows on an annual basis to document how often and for how long 40cfs or less flow is occurring during the year. Occurrences of 40cfs or less lasting at least seven consecutive days (week) are being assessed to determine: 1) are there low flow conditions and seasonal patterns that reoccur each year; and 2) if so, do these conditions warrant further compliance actions by Arkansas. Seasonal low flow patterns are evidenced in period of record data, with low flows historically occurring in fall and winter months. However, there is little to no diversion of water from the Boeuf River during these months, so affirmative steps to reduce diversion during these months are not applicable. Therefore, we are most interested in months when diversion is occurring and Boeuf River flows are below 40cfs, i.e. during growing season months of May and June.
Items listed below are ongoing tasks NRD completes as part of its annual investigation and reporting of Boeuf River flows at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary:
• Monitor real-time data from USGS gage #07367690 near the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary during the months of May and June.
• Document occurrences of 40cfs or less flow durations lasting for at least seven consecutive days.
• Summarize 40cfs or less flow and duration data and present to the Engineering Committee at regularly scheduled Red River Compact meeting.
• Continue coordination and investigative efforts on the Engineering Committee to review, discuss, and assess research methods, studies, or projects which demonstrate advanced, accurate, and affordable methodologies which estimate runoff.
This 2019 Boeuf River Monitoring Report describes results of NRD’s assessment and evaluation of Boeuf River flows at Eudora, Arkansas and near the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary during the normal growing seasons in calendar years 2018-2019. Precipitation data from the Eudora reporting station was utilized to document rainfall across the Boeuf River watershed. Rainfall was assumed to occur uniformly over Eudora and Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary locations for this report.
Sub basi Sub n I 1 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION. Subbasin 2, Reach IV, provisions include the term “weekly runoff” to define Louisiana’s apportionment of water originating in Arkansas. According to Reach IV provisions, Arkansas shall have free and unrestricted use of the water of this reach subject to the limitation that Arkansas shall allow a quantity of water equal to forty (40) percent of the “weekly runoff” to flow into Louisiana. In addition, when the use of water in Arkansas reduces Boeuf River flow at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary to 40cfs or less, the State of Arkansas pledges to take affirmative steps to regulate diversions of runoff in order to allow the equitable apportionment of water (forty percent of “weekly runoff”) to flow into Louisiana.
Data from two USGS stream flow monitoring stations on the Boeuf River are used for this assessment. The assessment is being conducted to determine, if possible, a correlation between these two stations on the Boeuf River in Arkansas and Louisiana, and to evaluate flow patterns, if they exist, which occur or reoccur on an annual basis. Precipitation, water use, and stream flow data (2019) at both the Eudora and state- boundary gages is used to evaluate low and high flow conditions and qualify possible correlation between flow, precipitation, and water use during the agricultural growing season. Results from these evaluations are summarized in this report.
GENERAL EVALUATION. Daily flow for the Boeuf River at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary gage is graphed in Figure 1. From this representation, occurrence of 40cfs or less flow during the “growing season” months of May-August is evidenced. However, additional context and insight is needed to evaluate these 40cfs or less occurrences in relation to Subbasin 2 compliance provisions.
40cfs 40cfs
Figure 1. Boeuf River Daily Flow at Arkansas-Louisiana State Boundary
Sub basi Sub n I 2 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
To further our understanding, daily flows of 40cfs or less and precipitation during the months of May- August (growing season) at Eudora and state boundary gages are highlighted yellow in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Daily Flow & Precipitation Data at Eudora and State Boundary
Sub basi Sub n I 3 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
In Figure 2. there are no seven consecutive day occurrences of 40cfs or less flow during May-August at the state boundary. The longest duration of 40cfs or less flow occurs from June 12-16 for a total of five consecutive days (Table 1.). This level of occurrence and duration would not allow administrative action under any water management scenario, i.e. flows return to levels above 40cfs before documentation and notification processes under current Arkansas water law can be implemented.
Table 1. Occurrence of 40cfs or Less Flow Time Period Duration Average Flow May 28-30, 2019 3 days 36cfs June 2-4, 2019 3 days 35cfs
June 12-16, 2019 5 days 34cfs
There are twenty-one days of Null values reported at the Eudora gage during May-August. However, these Null values occur when Boeuf River flows at Eudora are significantly higher than 40cfs before and after the days when Null values are reported. There are no reported Null values at the state boundary gage during this same time period.
Data from 2019 show no specific numeric correlation between weekly precipitation intensity and Boeuf River flow. In general, we expect higher precipitation intensity at Eudora to produce higher flow at the state boundary. However, this assumption is only evidenced sporadically in the data. Even the highest measured flows at Eudora, when unrestricted flow conditions are more likely mimicked and instream structure and diversion impacts are minimized, produce variability in flow at the state boundary gage, i.e. the same amounts of weekly precipitation at Eudora do not produce replicable Boeuf River flows at the state boundary. This flow inconsistency complicates the development and understanding of a numeric relationship between precipitation and runoff. Some examples of this variability of flow at the state boundary and corresponding weekly precipitation at Eudora are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Weekly Precipitation (Eudora) & State Boundary Flow Time Period Weekly Precipitation State Boundary Flow May 7-13, 2019 7.86” 12,000cfs June 25-30, 2019 0.84” 6,850cfs July 16-22, 2019 2.93” 5,170cfs
The Boeuf River continues to exhibit “flashy” characteristics with respect to flow. This is demonstrated by the sudden rise and fall of flow values which show little effect from the presence of preceding rainfall during most of the year. Only during the spring months, when there is continual rainfall over many weeks,
Sub basi Sub n I 4 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
do flows become elevated and sustained at both Eudora and The sudden rise and fall of flow observed state boundary gages. During these times we can assume the today is largely the result of Corps of landscape (soil) is saturated and there is no water diversion Engineers’ drainage improvement and channelization efforts conducted in the 1960s from the mainstem of the Boeuf River. and 1970s which reduced water retention capacities within the Boeuf River watershed. The impetus for evaluating precipitation, flow, and water use relationships in the Boeuf River watershed is to further understand these factors and their effect on administration and compliance in Reach IV, Subbasin 2. While there is numeric uncertainty associated with weekly precipitation at Eudora and flow at the state boundary, the question we continue to pursue is whether there is any correlation between observed daily flows at Eudora and downstream at the state boundary?, i.e. can we estimate (unrestricted) flow downstream at the state boundary based solely on observed flows at Eudora? If so, what range of flow values at Eudora yield a replicable correlation and proportional flow at the state boundary?
In Table 3. Eudora and state boundary flows are compared both in the growing and non-growing season months. For demonstration purposes, precipitation at Eudora is assumed to be represented in state boundary flows and intervening flows are negligible. With these assumptions, we can express the difference in flow between the two gages as a percentage of Eudora flow crossing the state boundary. Table 3. is for demonstration purposes to evaluate flow between the two gages and does not represent a new method for determining compliance. Daily flows of 40cfs or less are highlighted in .
Table 3. Percent of Eudora Flow Crossing the State Boundary
Date Eudora (cfs) State Boundary (cfs) % Eudora Flow at State Boundary
January 15 471 244 52% February 2 483 257 53%
EASON EASON March 19 472 285 60%
S January 28 876 479 54% February 17 883 610 69% March 8 907 282 29%
ROWING G - January 29 1,280 832 65%
ON February 8 1,110 738 66%
N March 27 1,150 778 67% April 30 220 80 36% May 28 54 39 72% May 29 37 32 86%
May 30 43 38 88% June 2 52 38 73%
EASON June 3 45 32 71% S June 4 39 36 92% June 12 44 38 86%
June 13 31 31 100% ROWING ROWING
G June 14 15 31 227% June 15 24 34 141% June 16 28 34 121%
Sub basi Sub n I 5 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
Similar flow values at Eudora produce varying proportions of flow measured downstream at the state boundary. This variance is lessened when continuous or returning rainfall occurs over a period of days or weeks. Historically, this condition most often occurs during the spring months of January-April. From Table 3., similar flows at Eudora produce some consistency in proportions of flow measured at the state boundary during the months of January-March. This is the result of sustaining rainfall events which contribute to steady flow conditions on the Boeuf River and minimize effects of other factors influencing flow.
Eudora flow can be expressed as a percentage of flow that reaches the state boundary and used as a surrogate to better understand the relationship between these two gages. In Table 3. the percentage of Eudora flow measured at the state boundary is over fifty (50) percent on all but two days. On those two days, March 8 and April 30, flows are well above 40cfs at both Eudora and state boundary gages. When 40cfs or less flow occurs at the state boundary, i.e. May 28-30, June 2-4, and June 12-16, the percentage of Eudora flow measured at the state boundary is over seventy (70) percent.
Table 3. includes only a few days in the spring and growing season months. A percentage of Eudora flow reaching the state boundary can be calculated for any day in any month by comparing data in Figure 3. (Eudora gage) and Figure 4. (state boundary gage). In Figure 3. there is a sixteen (16) consecutive day occurrence of 40cfs or less flow at Eudora from September 29-October 14. However, the corresponding flow at the state boundary is 50cfs and above for the same time period. In Figure 4. there are no 40cfs or less flows recorded at the state boundary except during the period May 26-June 16.
A full complement of 2019 surface water use data is not available, so previous years’ data from USGS are used for this report. Changes in location and number of diversions is attributed to water needs associated with crop rotation. The total volume of reported annual use is minimal when compared to Boeuf River flow during April-August. Table 4. shows changes in reported surface water use from the Boeuf River in Chicot County (2016-2017) during May and June when the lowest flows are recorded at the state boundary. Reported annual water use does not reflect daily withdrawal quantities (unattainable under current Arkansas water law).
Table 4. Surface Water Use from the Boeuf River (Chicot County)
Year Month Monthly Water Use Average Monthly Flow
2016 May 5.0cfs 358cfs
2017 May 3.4cfs 216cfs 2016 June 13.3cfs 572cfs 2017 June 32.1cfs 308cfs
Sub basi Sub n I 6 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
Figure 3. Annual Flow & Precipitation at Eudora
Sub basi Sub n I 7 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
Figure 4. Annual Flow & Precipitation at State Boundary
Sub basi Sub n I 8 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
MONITORING COMPUTATIONS. NRD continues to analyze available flow data and pursue ways to verify compact compliance in Subbasin 2, Reach IV. For purposes of demonstration, a weekly runoff quantity can be estimated by using a generalized and simplistic approach using a weighted runoff coefficient, precipitation, and basin area data. While this method of runoff estimation has little certainty of confidence and accuracy for any single week chosen in a year, a compilation of runoff estimates for every week in a year may provide insight into flow trends and patterns over multiple year periods. In this demonstration, weekly runoff is estimated by used the following arithmetic expression: ▪ Weekly Runoff (Q) = Runoff Value (C) x Weekly Precipitation (I) x Basin Area (A)
In Figure 5. and Figure 6., average weekly flow is compared with forty percent (40%) of the estimated Weekly Runoff (Q) as computed by the arithmetic expression shown above. In Figure 5. forty-nine (49) out of fifty-two (52) weeks the flow recorded at the state boundary exceeds the forty percent (40%) of estimated weekly runoff in 2019. For weeks in 2019 (Figure 5.) when the average weekly flow is less than forty percent (40%) of the estimated weekly runoff, the percentage of flow at Eudora crossing the state boundary (from Figure 3.) is over seventy percent (70%). This comparison of annual flow data, i.e. percentage of flow at Eudora that crosses the state boundary (Figure 3.) compared with average weekly flow vs. 40% of estimated weekly runoff (Figure 5. and Figure 6.), is another format for identifying low flow conditions that might compel compact action. The arithmetic expression is not an accurate methodology for estimating real-time instantaneous weekly runoff.
2019 Average Weekly Flow vs. Estimated 40% Runoff (Boeuf River at State Boundary)
Week when Avg Weekly Flow is less than 40% of Estimated Weekly Runoff
Figure 5. Flow vs. Runoff at State Boundary (2019)
Sub basi Sub n I 9 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report BOEUF RIVER ASSESSMENT
When the weekly flow is less than forty percent (40%) of estimated weekly runoff in 2018 (Figure 6.), the percent of flow at Eudora crossing the state boundary is approximately thirty four percent (34%).
2018 Average Weekly Flow vs. Estimated 40% Runoff (Boeuf River at State Boundary)
Week when Avg Weekly Flow is less than 40% of Estimated Weekly Runoff
Figure 6. Flow vs. Runoff at State Boundary (2018)
Comparing 2019 and 2018 flow data shows there is a smaller increment of time in 2019 (during the growing season) when the average weekly flow is less than forty percent (40%) of the estimated weekly runoff. In 2019 this time period is less than a week and in 2018 the time period is less than two weeks. Precipitation amounts vary seasonally from year to year and this variability is common throughout Arkansas. NRD’s analyses of other larger rivers in the Delta Ecoregion validate these seasonal variances in precipitation and flow, especially during the months of May-June and August-September when the most variability occurs. For example, plentiful precipitation (typically) associated with the spring months of February-April may prolong into May and June in some years, while in other years, it may end in early May or worse doesn’t occur at all. Abundant precipitation in May-June greatly influences flow in subsequent drier months, i.e. whether the stream is gaining or losing depends on groundwater levels and saturation of the underlying groundwater/surface water interface region. While no direct numeric relationship between weekly precipitation and weekly flow can be established, this seasonal variability is an indicator of potential groundwater and underlying saturation levels which govern the flow patterns that occur in subsequent, drier months. A comparison of precipitation, flow, and runoff values is included in Table 5. later in this report. There are no significant trend or data anomalies that need further analyses.
Sub basi Sub n I 10 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report REPORT CONCLUSIONS
REPORT CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL STATEMENT. NRD continues to analyze available flow data and pursue ways to verify compliance in Subbasin 2. Assessment of 2019 flow data from the Eudora and Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary gages is consistent with previous NRD findings. Many factors affect Boeuf River flow at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary and there is no verifiable data to indicate surface water use in Arkansas is altering recurrent Boeuf River flow patterns from year to year. The regular rapid and abrupt changes (fluctuations, rise and fall) in Boeuf River flow are indicative of the significant landform changes implemented by the Corps of Engineers in the 1960s-1970s. This “flashy” flow characteristic is common throughout any given year and is only moderated during continued and repeated rainfall events which occur mostly during spring months of the year. This is an important consideration for compliance as flow is not sustainable during average rainfall conditions in or outside the growing season. Lack of retention capacity caused by massive drainage improvements in the Boeuf River watershed override any temporally limited effect of instream structures and surface water withdrawal. Any expectation for sustained flow at the state boundary should include an acknowledgement of prevailing and governing characteristics of the Boeuf River watershed.
FLOW MONITORING. Recognition of current conditions on the Boeuf River does not abrogate responsibilities and requirements of the compact. Since an accurate method to estimate instantaneous weekly runoff is not available, the compilation and reporting of Boeuf River data through this report is an acceptable and surrogate approach to monitor compliance in Reach IV, Subbasin 2. The 2019 Boeuf River Monitoring Report includes different representations of data that should be meaningful to compliance and monitoring efforts in the future. Additional representation of data should evolve as better understanding of potential multi-year and seasonal flow patterns and fluctuations is developed and additional years of empirical data at Eudora and the state boundary are compiled and evaluated.
FLOW ANALYSES. There are eleven (11) days of 40cfs or less flow recorded at the state boundary during May-June. There are significantly more 40cfs or less flow occurrences recorded at Eudora, with the longest period being from September 29-October 14. Flow at the state boundary during this same time period remains over 55cfs. A high percentage of flow recorded at Eudora is reaching the state boundary in 2019. Flow at the state boundary exceeds forty percent (40%) of the estimated weekly runoff (computed by the generalized arithmetic expression below) 49 out of 52 weeks.
▪ Weekly Runoff (Q) = Runoff Value (C) x Weekly Precipitation (I) x Basin Area (A) During 40cfs or less flow occurrences average weekly flow at the state boundary exceeds forty percent (40%) of the estimated weekly runoff. Table 5. contains comparisons of Eudora and state boundary flows, percent of Eudora flow reaching the state boundary, average weekly flow, and estimated (40%) weekly runoff. Flows less than 40cfs are highlighted in red. This arithmetic expression is not an accurate method for calculating instantaneous weekly runoff, but it is a means to produce runoff estimates for 52 weeks in a year and allow evaluation of seasonal/monthly flow and precipitation relationships which can aid the forecasting of future flow patterns.
Sub basi Sub n I 11 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report REPORT CONCLUSIONS
Table 5. Weekly Flow & Estimated Runoff
State Boundary Date Eudora (cfs) State Boundary (cfs) % Eudora Flow at State Boundary Avg. Weekly Flow Estimated 40% Weekly Runoff*
May 28 54 39 72% cfs 0cfs May 29 37 32 86% 39 (Weekly precipitation is negligible) May 30 43 38 88%
June 2 52 38 73% cfs 0cfs June 3 45 32 71% 38 (Weekly precipitation is negligible) June 4 39 36 92%
June 12 44 38 86%
June 13 31 31 100% 38cfs 3.6cfs June 14 15 31 227%
June 15 24 34 141%
June 16 28 34 121%
*Weekly Runoff (Q) = Runoff Value (C) x Weekly Precipitation (I) x Basin Area (A)
Table 6. Eudora Precipitation PRECIPITATION. Seasonal precipitation variances are observed in the historical 2019 2018 2017 record for streams, including the Boeuf River, throughout the Delta Ecoregion Jan 7.61 30.02 4.94 in Arkansas. These precipitation patterns vary the most during the May-June Feb 7.65 14.20 8.98 Mar 2.77 7.91 3.46 and August-September time period. Because precipitation or lack of Apr 10.21 6.51 4.59 precipitation in May-June influence and control potential groundwater and May 10.18 2.97 5.90 Jun 2.93 4.63 4.80 underlying water saturation levels, real-time observation of precipitation Jul 5.08 3.04 4.92 levels during May-June may aid the forecasting of flow (patterns) to be Aug 2.33 8.91 4.98 experienced in subsequent months. Monthly precipitation for 2017-2019 is Sep 1.07 4.35 12.46 Oct 11.46 2.68 6.59 shown in Figure 7. More precipitation occurs in April-May 2019 than in 2018 Nov 1.17 5.31 3.56 or 2017. This precipitation (April-May 2019) helps prevent seven-consecutive Dec 3.64 12.04 1.73 day 40cfs or less occurrences at the state boundary.
Figure 7. Monthly Precipitation (2017-2019)
Sub basi Sub n I 12 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report REPORT CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS. Arkansas’ interpretation and policy position on compliance in Reach IV, Subbasin II remains unchanged, i.e. real-time monitoring of Boeuf River flows, evaluation of seasonal and year-to year flow patterns, and annual reporting to the Red River Compact Commission is an acceptable approach to evaluating compliance in Reach IV, Subbasin 2. NRD’s Boeuf River monitoring and reporting protocol is an acceptable framework to identify anomalies in seasonal and multi-year flow patterns and inform compliance decision-making. Reporting and analyses will continue to evolve as new data and more accurate, affordable precipitation/runoff modeling techniques become available. Final conclusions from NRD efforts are listed below.
1. No seven (7) consecutive day duration of 40cfs or less flow occurred at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary in 2019. Longest duration of 40cfs or less flow was five (5) consecutive days (June 12-16).
2. When flow at Eudora was 40cfs or less, more than seventy percent (70%) of that flow was measured downstream at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary.
3. Plentiful precipitation in April-May 2019 contributed to the lack of 40cfs or less flow occurrences at Eudora and the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary.
4. Comparison of a) average weekly flow vs. 40% of estimated runoff, b) percent of Eudora flow recorded at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary, and c) occurrences of 40cfs or less flow is an adequate method for evaluating the Boeuf River and potential anomalies or disruptions in flow.
5. Seasonal precipitation levels in May-June may be indicative of groundwater and underlying saturation potential to augment superficial Boeuf River flow. Real-time observation of precipitation levels during May-June may help forecast eminent flow patterns.
6. The arithmetic expression which uses a generalized runoff factor is not an accurate or “stand-alone” method to calculate instantaneous weekly runoff for compliance purposes. However, it does provide a means to generate weekly runoff values for all 52 weeks in a year and allow evaluation of seasonal/monthly precipitation and flow relationships which may help forecast future flow patterns.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continue monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of Boeuf River flows and Subbasin 2 compliance through NRD’s annual Boeuf River Monitoring Report.
2. Continue coordination and monitoring of compliance through the Engineering Committee.
3. Provide a summary of the Boeuf River Monitoring Report each year to the Compact Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting.
Sub basi Sub n I 13 Red River Compact bas in II
Boeuf River Monitoring Report TECHNICAL APPENDICES
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DESCRIPTION OF RUNOFF METHOD. An accurate methodology to estimate weekly runoff in the Boeuf River watershed is not currently available, although significant efforts to develop a robust and predictive precipitation/runoff model were begun and eventually halted. A USGS monthly “unaltered-flow” model was developed to predict, with reasonable accuracy, expected monthly flows based on a statistical analysis of historical precipitation and flow data in the greater Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. Unfortunately, this monthly model could not be refined further to accurately predict weekly flows. Other proposals to develop accurate precipitation/runoff models for the Boeuf River watershed ranged from $250,000 to $2,000,000. The costs of these proposals were judged prohibitive and unjustifiable for compliance activities in Reach IV, Subbasin 2.
An alternative approach to expensive precipitation/runoff models is a comparative evaluation of available precipitation, flow, estimated runoff, and water use data. By comparing these data on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis, the cumulative effect of individual factors influencing Boeuf River flow can be better understood and recurrent patterns forecasted more easily. One dataset that is needed for the comparative evaluation is estimated weekly runoff values for all 52 weeks of the year being evaluated. The value of this dataset is not associated with an individual runoff estimate for a single week, as the estimate for single week by itself will not yield an acceptable level of accuracy and certainty of results. However, when weekly runoff estimates for 52 weeks are viewed (not as a single week but collectively as many weeks in a series) and compared with daily and weekly flow data throughout the year, seasonal and/or weekly patterns that reoccur seasonally or over multiple years are more easily identified. These patterns, when and if they exist, may provide insight into correlations between precipitation, flow, and runoff over broader periods of time and help forecast conditions that can lead to 40cfs or less flows at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. Estimation of weekly runoff for this evaluation is computed using the arithmetic expression below:
▪ Weekly Runoff (Q) = Runoff Value (C) x Weekly Precipitation (I) x Basin Area (A).
Generalized runoff (C) and basin area (A) values are shown in Figure 9. Seven (7) day precipitation data can be found at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/. Uniform distribution of precipitation and runoff is assumed when using this arithmetic expression. Runoff factors are based on available land Boeuf River Arkansas-Louisiana State Boundary use/landcover data. Forty percent (40%) of estimated weekly runoff is Drainage Area=710 square miles computed for 52 weeks and compared with Land Cover (C) Value Eudora and Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary Forest = 12.82% 0.15 Crops = 69.65% 0.25 average weekly flow values to identify trends Herb = 4.82% 0.25 and recurrent patterns if they exist. More Pasture = 2.02% 0.35 accurate data and methods should be Urban = 4.06% 0.70 Water = 6.1% -- incorporated when available. Bare = 0.53% 0.20 Weighted Runoff Value (C) = 0.26 Note: The arithmetic expression above (by itself) is not satisfactorily accurate to compute Figure 8. Runoff (C) Values instantaneous weekly runoff for compliance verification in Subbasin 2.
Sub basi Sub n I 14 Red River Compact bas in II
Memorandum
To: Red River Compact Legal Committee From: Harry Vorhoff, Louisiana Legal Committee Member Date: March 19, 2020 Re: Summary of Legal Committee’s Activities in 2019-2020
At the 39th Annual Meeting of the Red River Compact Commission, which was held on
April 30, 2019, in Oklahoma City, OK, the Commission asked the Legal Committee to identify
how Arkansas would enforce compliance of the provisions of the Red River Compact within its
borders. This request was made at the behest of the Commissioners from Louisiana, who continue
to raise longstanding complaints of Arkansas’ periodic noncompliance on Reach IV, specifically
with Sections 7.02 and 7.03 of the Compact, which define the stream flow requirements for the
several streams that begin in Arkansas and flow into Louisiana, where they then join with the main stem of the Red River.
On May 9, 2019, Arkansas’s Legal Committee member Crystal Phelps circulated a memorandum, outlining some of the issues involved in complying with its duties under the
Compact. See attached memorandum. The Legal Committee held conference calls on July 22,
2019, and November 21, 2019, to discuss the memorandum and the broader assignment.
According to the Arkansas memorandum, the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission may issue allocation orders in order to limit water withdrawals from its rivers and streams.
According to the memorandum, allocation orders can be issued on an emergency basis if the water in rivers and streams covered by the Compact are considered “federal water rights” under Ark.
Code Ann. § 15-22-217. Louisiana’s Legal Committee member believes that Louisiana’s allocation of water in Reach IV streams would constitute “federal water rights” and should be reserved before any other allocation. Clarity on Arkansas’s position of whether Compact waters are included as the “federal water rights” would be helpful.
According to Ms. Phelps, Arkansas has issued only one allocation order and allocation plan in its history. That allocation order and plan addressed low flows on the White River. Arkansas circulated a White River technical analysis. Additional documentation, including the allocation order and plan, as well as how the procedure for its implementation has been requested and will be provided.
While the activities of the Legal Committee have been constructive, Louisiana’s Legal
Committee member requests that Arkansas’s Legal Committee member provide additional clarity on the process for enforcement of the provisions of the Compact. Memorandum To: Red River Compact Legal Committee From: Crystal Phelps, Arkansas Legal Committee Member Date: May 14, 2019 Re: How Arkansas would comply with its duties under the Compact if scientific evidence proves Arkansas is not providing Louisiana with its fair share of Red River flows.
The Arkansas Natural Resource Commission’s Title III, Rules for the Utilization of Surface Water, describes how the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (“ANRC”) implements allocation. Arkansas’s General Assembly is very concerned with overreaching by the executive branch. The General Assembly requires agencies to interpret rules very narrowly and to obtain legislative approval prior to any new or amended rule taking effect. However, agencies can adopt emergency rules without going through the normal rulemaking process if compliance with a federal law or regulation requires adoption of a rule. Such a rule would be effective for 120 days unless promulgated through the normal rulemaking process, which requires permission from the Governor, notice, and legislative review.
Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217, water used for domestic and municipal domestic uses as well as water necessary for federal water rights is not subject to an allocation order. In this context, “federal water rights” refers to water maintained in federal reservoirs, but the term is undefined by statute, and could also be interpreted to include waters due to Louisiana through Arkansas’s participation in the Red River Compact.
ANRC would put an allocation plan in effect via an allocation order when scientific evidence indicated Louisiana was not obtaining 40% of total weekly runoff. The allocation plan would become operative when the volume of water crossing the location of the designated gauge on an affected stream fell to or below the gauge level identified in the plan. At that point, users would need to cease withdrawals. This plan would operate in the same fashion as the White River allocation plan found at Subtitle XIV.
The method for determining the level at which users would cease withdrawals would be calculated as follows:
1. Reserved uses would be excluded. a. The volume of water necessary to maintain flows for domestic and municipal domestic uses as well as water necessary for satisfaction of federal water rights or federal compact requirements1 would be totaled and this volume of water would be excluded from the remaining waters subject to calculation. b. The volume of water necessary to satisfy federal water rights or federal compact requirements would be equivalent to 40% of the weekly runoff originating below or
1 Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217, water used for domestic and municipal domestic uses as well as water necessary for federal water rights is not subject to an allocation order. In this context, “federal water rights” refers to water maintained in federal reservoirs, but the term is undefined by statute, and could also be interpreted to include waters due to Louisiana through Arkansas’s participation in the Red River Compact. flowing from the last downstream major dam site, or if no designated dam site, 40% of the total weekly runoff originating above the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. 2. ANRC would then determine the amount of water necessary for the following uses in the following order of priority: Agriculture, Industry, Minimum Streamflow2, Hydropower, and Recreation. a. ANRC will make calculations for agriculture, industry, hydropower, and recreation based upon water user data reported for each category. b. ANRC will calculate the amount of flow required to meet minimum streamflow for each stream by estimating the amount of low necessary for aquifer recharge, fish and wildlife, navigation, and water quality. 3. These flows would be added together and subtracted from the instream flow discharge with the difference equivalent to the amount of available water. 4. Based upon these numbers, ANRC would establish shortage levels.
When the water in any stream fell to or below the shortage level, ANRC would implement withdrawal restrictions. ANRC would issue an allocation order for any stream with stream flow at or below the allocation level identified in the stream’s allocation plan. ANRC would provide notice of the order to any user diverting from a stream subject to shortage, and the user would be expected to comply with pumping restrictions. The allocation plan would remain in effect until ANRC communicated to users that the shortage had ended.
2 The 2013 amendment to Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217 omits “minimum stream flow” from the listing of uses reserved prior to allocation and places such flows below agriculture in a priority listing for allocation. “Minimum streamflow” within Title III is intended to encompass all flows necessary for aquifer recharge, fish and wildlife, interstate compacts, navigation, and water quality flows necessary to comply with federal compacts. Because we hoped to restore the status of minimum stream flow as a reserved use, we never amended Title III, and Title III still identifies “minimum stream flow” as being a reserved use that must be accounted for prior to allocating unreserved waters. ANRC could adopt emergency rules in response to scientific evidence indicating that Louisiana was not receiving its fair share of flows; we would make our rules consistent with § 15-22-217 and would place flows necessary to satisfy federal compacts above agriculture through defining “federal water rights” to include flows necessary to satisfy federal compacts.
From: Michael Bynum To: Hall, Machelle; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Wade Hodge Subject: Red River Compact Legal Committee Memo Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 8:23:59 AM Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of Louisiana Department of Justice. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello All,
I hope everyone is well. I work for Wade Hodge at the Arkansas Department of Agriculture as associate counsel and will be attending the committee meeting next week.
I am writing in response to the draft memorandum summarizing the Red River Compact Legal Committee’s 2019-2020 activities (“Committee Memo”). The memorandum makes reference to a memorandum circulated by Ms. Crystal Phelps on May 9, 2019 (“NRD Memo”). The NRD Memo references Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217, which requires the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission to prioritize certain water uses when issuing water allocation orders during periods of shortage. After receiving feedback and questions regarding the NRD Memo, the Arkansas Department of Agriculture has determined that it is necessary to clarify its position on whether “federal water rights” as contemplated by Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217 includes Louisiana’s rights under the Red River Compact.
The NRD Memo acknowledges that Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217 does not define the term “federal water rights,” but does attempt to provide an illustrative example (e.g. federal reservoirs) of what that might encompass; but the term federal water rights, used interchangeably with the term “federal reserved water rights” in federal case law, has a well-established definition. Federal water rights are those rights to allocations of water for the use and benefit of federally reserved lands. Federally reserved lands include any federal enclave such national parks, federal reservoirs, Native American reservations, and other federal lands. In all cases, it is important to note that that these federal water rights are those held by the federal government. See inter alia United States v. Dist. Court In & For Eagle County, Colo., 401 U.S. 520, 91 S. Ct. 998, 28 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1971) and Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 103 S. Ct. 1382, 75 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1983), decision supplemented, 466 U.S. 144, 104 S. Ct. 1900, 80 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1984).
Having analyzed the thoroughly adjudicated definition of federal water rights, I wish to turn back to the Committee Memo, which alludes to the State of Louisiana’s position that its allocation of water in Reach IV streams would constitute “federal water rights” under Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217. As you are aware, the Red River Compact refers to the allocation of water rights between signatory States, not the federal government. Therefore, federal water rights as contemplated under Ark. Code Ann. § 15-22-217 would only include those rights vested with the federal government and not those vested with Louisiana under the Red River Compact.
I hope this analysis aids the committee’s work and provides clarification as to the State of Arkansas’s position on the issue at hand. I look forward to meeting everyone.
Best Regards,
Michael Bynum Attorney Specialist
Arkansas Department of Agriculture 1 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 519-3716 [email protected] agriculture.arkansas.gov
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
DRAFT Minutes of the
RED RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION 39th Annual Meeting
Oklahoma Water Resources Board Oklahoma City, Oklahoma April 30, 2019 8:30 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER and II. WELCOME
The 39th Annual Meeting of the Red River Compact Commission was called to order at 8:30 a.m. on April 30, 2019, at the meeting room of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, located at 3800 N. Classen Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Ms. Sue Lowry of Cheyenne, Wyoming, presided as Federal Commissioner and Chairman. She recognized there was a quorum of members present, thanked Oklahoma for hosting the meeting, and asked each person in attendance to make a self-introduction. Julie Cunningham, Oklahoma Commissioner, welcomed everyone to the meeting as well.
Red River Compact Commissioners Sue Lowry, Federal Chairman, Wyoming Julie Cunningham, Oklahoma Richard Scott Van Winkle, Texas (proxy for Toby Baker) Clyde Siebman, Texas John F. Gibson, Arkansas Bruce Holland, Arkansas Edward Knight, Louisiana (proxy for Patrick J. Landry) John Michael Moore, Louisiana
Commissioners Absent Charles Dobbs, Oklahoma
Representatives, Federal Agencies and Guests from Oklahoma Kent Wilkins, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma City, OK (OWRB) Mary Schooley, OWRB, Oklahoma City, OK Sara Gibson, OWRB, Oklahoma City, OK Bill Cauthron, OWRB, Oklahoma City, OK Julie Chambers, OWRB, Oklahoma City, OK Nathan Kuhnert, Bureau of Reclamation, Oklahoma City, OK (USBOR) Jason Lewis, US Geological Survey, Oklahoma City, OK (USGS) Richard Lane, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, OK (USDA, NRCS) Marla Peek, Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Oklahoma City, OK (OKFB) Mike Abate, US Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, OK (USCOE)
1
Representatives, Federal Agencies and Guests from Arkansas Ken Brazil, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Little Rock, AR (ANRC) Crystal Phelps, ANRC, Little Rock, AR Ryan Benefield, ANRC, Little Rock, AR Shawn Jackson, ANRC, Little Rock, AR Jen Sheehan, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Little Rock, AR
Representatives, Federal Agencies and Guests from Texas Heather Hunziker, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Austin, TX Randy Whiteman, Red River Authority, Wichita Falls, TX Trent Gay, Texas Council on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX
Representatives, Federal Agencies and Guests from Louisiana Harry Vorhoff, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Chairman Lowry asked if there were requests to add items to the agenda that has been circulated; there were none. (Attachment 1) Chairman Lowry recognized the official proxy notifications which had been received from Mr. Ed Knight, representing Patrick J. Landry of Louisiana, and Mr. Scott Van Winkle, representing Toby Baker of Texas. The letters will be included in the meeting record. (Attachment 2)
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 2018 MEETING
Chairman Lowry stated the draft minutes of the 2018 Meeting of the Red River Compact Commission, held April 24, 2018, in Hot Springs, AR, had been previously distributed. She asked if there were any edits to the minutes. There being no amendments, Commissioner Holland moved to approve the minutes, and Commissioner Moore seconded. Chairman Lowry called for the vote, and the motion was unanimously approved. Chairman Lowry thanked Ms. Laura Brown of Arkansas for preparing the meeting minutes. (Attachment 3)
V. REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN
Chairman Lowry said her report is brief, as the Commission only meets once a year in the Spring, but there is some communication throughout the year, and she noted the Committees will report their work. She stated if the Commission would like more communication other than a mid-year check in, she would be happy to do that. She will compare the attendance and email list; however, she invited the states to please add invitees. Chairman Lowry asked Acting Commissioner Scott Van Winkle to speak to the matter of the resolutions circulated. Mr. Van Winkle said the first resolution recognizes Ms. Suzy Valentine who spent eight years as the Texas advisor to the Red River Compact Commission, directing distribution by the Chairman. He read the resolution. Chairman Lowry stated the Commission would act separately on each resolution. The reading by Acting Commissioner Van 2 Winkle served as the motion to approve the resolution, and Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion. The resolution was approved unanimously. Acting Commissioner Van Winkle stated the second resolution of the Red River Compact Commission dated April 30, 2019, regarded the funding of stream flow gages. Mr. Van Winkle read the resolution naming the four states' cooperation to support the stream flowing gaging network along the Red River and its tributaries, and expressing support to maintain the gages as critical to the administration of the Compact. The resolution requests that Congress fully fund the USGS GWSIP gages located in the Red River basin, and restore 50/50 cost share. The resolution will be distributed to the Congressional Delegations of the four states, Secretary of Interior, and Director of the USGS. Chairman Lowry stated the reading of the resolution is presented as a motion; Commissioner Moore seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lowry instructed the original resolution will reside with her office, and Acting Commissioner Van Winkle will distribute the resolution to the states to forward to their respective delegation. (Attachment 4) (Report of the Chairman followed item VI.)
VI. REPORT OF THE TREASURER
Chairman Lowry asked for the report of the Treasurer. She introduced Mr. Ryan Benefield, ANRC, who is now Treasurer and thanked Mr. Ed Swaim for his many years of service; he has taken a position with an Arkansas irrigation district. Mr. Benefield addressed the members and said the Commission has come under budget by 95% -- the Commission has a large budget but spends very little. He said the big expenses are the bank charges and annual audit which has been conducted and was very clean; other expenses are meeting expenses for the 2018 meeting. Mr. Benefield stated the Commission maintains a bond in the event there is theft of the funds. To date, expenses total $902.00 and any expenses from the 2019 meeting. Currently, the balance of the compact account stands at $35,452.17; $11,000 is in a Certificate of Deposit. Mr. Benefield concluded the report of the Treasurer. (Attachment 5)
VII. REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS
A. Oklahoma – Commissioner Julie Cunningham welcomed everyone and noted the distributed report of the Oklahoma Commissioners. Beginning with the climate graph, she updated the Commission on the implementation of the Water for 2060 initiatives which are guiding principles following the adoption of the 2012 Comprehensive Water Plan and establishes a net zero gain in water use from 2010-2060 through conservation measures and the use of marginal water. Staff is beginning the scoping process for the required 10-year update of the Water Plan; the next update will focus on economic development. The agency continues to work toward completion of groundwater basin studies establishing the allowable withdrawal rate or equal proportionate share requiring increased funding and staffing, as well as partnering with the USGS. Oklahoma's Governor established the Produced Water Working Group in response to increased earthquakes due to produced water injection; the group is tasked to find a use for the produced water. The Water for 2060 Advisory Group recommended establishment of a recognition program of individuals and entities that make significant contributions in water efficiency; the awards are presented at the annual water conference. And, the agency continues work in water quality monitoring, mapping, and water quality standards and recently announced the release of the agency's 2018 Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) report providing data on 1,300 streams, lakes, and groundwater well sites across the state. The 2012 Water Plan 3 recommended creating a groundwater mapping program monitoring 750 well in 21 major aquifers monitoring water levels and water quality, and this year promulgated rules for water quality standard variance and use support protocols for consistent implementation. Commissioner Cunningham highlighted the OWRB's work conducting three studies in the Red River Basin in collaboration with the USBOR to investigate impacts to the Lugert-Altus Irrigation District (Lugert-Altus Reservoir), and Mountain Park Master Conservancy District (Tom Steed Reservoir) regarding upstream water use on the Upper Red River Basin; the study is scheduled for completion in 2019. The Upper Red River Basin encompasses over 4,000 square miles in all or part of nine counties in southwest Oklahoma and includes tributaries to the Red River--the North Fork, the Salt Fork, and the Elm Fork. Approximately 48,000 acres of land and 45,000 people depend on the reservoirs for water supply. She also reviewed the Floodplain Management Program, Dam Safety Program, and Well Driller program activities, and updated the Commission on the state's $4.2 billion dollar water infrastructure financing program administered by the OWRB. Commissioner Cunningham concluded her report speaking to the state's historic water right agreement between the State, City of Oklahoma City, and Choctaw and Chickasaw nations resolving the state's debt to the Federal Government on Sardis Lake, ensuring reliable water supply for the City, as well as protection of the water in southeastern Oklahoma. The state and the tribes are meeting to discuss water planning initiatives. There were no questions by the Commissioners. (Attachment 6)
B. Texas – Acting Commissioner Scott Van Winkle referred to the distributed report of the Texas Commissioners. He reviewed data regarding drought conditions across the state, saying there is improvement over last year's situation at this same time, and NOAA predicts above normal seasonal total precipitation for most of Texas and the Red River Basin for the next three months. He updated the Commission on the status of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission review of the Red River Authority of Texas in 2018. The Texas Legislature had introduced two measures to address the TSAC recommendations regarding development of an asset management plan, and a feasibility study on the expansion of navigation on the Red River between Texarkana and Denison. He noted there are a total of 102 Groundwater Conservation Districts covering all or part of 108 of the State's 254 counties; eight districts are located within the Red River Basin. Acting Commissioner Van Winkle discussed the Red River Boundary Commission of Texas saying that in January of 2019, US Senator Cornyn and Congressman Thornberry reintroduced measures for the purpose of surveying the gradient boundary along the Red River in Texas and Oklahoma to end decades of confusion over the true boundary and bring certainty to landowners along the river. The 2017 Texas Water Plan remains in effect, and the state anticipates a 70-percent increase in population between 2020 and 2070, with reliable water supplies decreasing by 11 percent. The 5,500 water management strategies recommended in the plan would provide 3.4 million acre-feet per year in additional water supplies in 2020 and 8.5 million acre-feet in 2070. Acting Commissioner Van Winkle concluded the report with an updated on the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) program; established in 2013; through fiscal year 2018, SWIFT has committed over $8.2 billion for projects across Texas. Chairman Lowry asked if the RRCC has or should weigh in on the boundary issues. Ms. Sara Gibson, RRCC Legal Committee Chair, responded that the matter is related to existing Texas boundary property owners and the federal government -- it does not impact Oklahoma or the Compact Commission. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the SWIFT fund is keeping up with funding the identified projects and the timing of those projects. Mr. Van Winkle answered, it is, and there are certain requirements that must be met, including if the project is included in the 2017 Water Plan. The funding is provided through legislative appropriations. (Attachment 7) 4 C. Louisiana – Acting Commissioner Ed Knight presented the report of the Louisiana Commissioners, and referred to the distributed report. He said in follow up to previous reports, Louisiana remains concerned with the deficient stream flows on some streams at the Arkansas/Louisiana Stateline -- defined as Reach IV, as stipulated in the Compact in sections 7.02 and 7.03. He said there had been a wet season and flows were good but the problem could reoccur the next year. He said Louisiana remains concerned until steps that are in place regarding how the computations are determined, and Louisiana requests that Arkansas take affirmative steps to regulate diversions and runoff originating or flowing into Reach IV, and to notify Louisiana. He said as more discussion regarding diversion from the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers occur; Louisiana requests the RRCC Legal Committee to determine what necessary steps Arkansas should have in place to enforce the compact requirements in noncompliance situations. Acting Commissioner Knight reported that flood events of 2016 put a focus on the need for watershed-based management, and Louisiana has committed $120 million over the next 3-5 years to model all eight HUC watersheds. Louisiana will begin modeling efforts for the most impacted Parishes and based on the availability of the new LiDAR, which can be reliably close, the northeast part of the state is currently being validated by the USGS. He said this effort, in combination with the MAP program, will provide opportunities for multi-agency state coordination to resolve issues in the subbasin IV area, and the state is encouraged and looks forward to moving forward in cooperation with the partnering states. Acting Commissioner Knight concluded the report, requesting the Commission's Engineering Committee work toward finding a reasonable accounting method, and to review and make recommendations of any potential proposals for accounting methods, conduct a review and make recommendations. They are encouraged by the report yesterday and will continue to look into that method as well as others. Additionally, Louisiana requests any and all well data and registration from Arkansas regarding Reach IV. (Attachment 8) Chairman Lowry stated she noted the requests for the Legal and Engineering Committees, and asked if there were any questions before discussion later regarding committee reports. There were no questions.
D. Arkansas – Commissioner Holland presented the report for the State of Arkansas. He referred to the distributed report saying most of the contents are updates from the previous year. Arkansas experienced two rain events during the Winter -- one lasting 45 days, the next lasting 37 days-- which has been a challenge to the agriculture industry in harvesting crops in the Fall and Winter, and preparing fields and planting before deadlines. The Legislature met this year, and the Governor transformed state government, consolidating 42 agencies into 14; the Natural Resources Commission will join the Department of Agriculture, and will function as it has historically. The change is that the agency will report to the Secretary of Agriculture and then the Governor, rather than directly to the Governor. The transformation identified that the unpaved roads program (housed in Rural Services) could be included in their programs and along with the 319 funding would leverage more dollars. A task force was created to address farel hog eradication and a line-item appropriation was approved; they are now identifying funding-- perhaps through the new Farm Bill--which goes to the producer, however, and not the state for a trapping program. Legislation was approved $1 million to continue the feasibility study on the Red River for navigation to Texarkana; the budget will determine if there is funding. Efforts are underway with the Hypoxia Task Force, of which Mr. Ryan Benefield is a member, to investigate ways to improve water quality in that basin. Commissioner Holland concluded the Arkansas Commissioners' Report. (Attachment 9) Commissioner Cunningham asked about Arkansas's unpaved program and the 319 program. Commissioner Holland answered stated appropriations go to that program that can be 5 leveraged against the 319 money. She asked if the state is able to use all the 319 dollars. Mr. Benefield stated the agency turned down $1 million in requests this year that could not be funded. The funds are used approximately one-half for monitoring and one-half in actual streams projects, for example, RCP practices and stream bank restoration. Chairman Lowry asked about the funding process for the navigation feasibility study and Commissioner Holland explained the legislative funding process whereby the appropriation is authorized by the legislature and the Governor divides the funds, but in order to receive funding, the appropriation has to have been approved. Chairman Lowry noted the Red River Valley Association report is available in the meeting materials, and provides an update on the status of the Southwest Arkansas Navigation Feasibility Study. Mr. Rich Brontoli is attending to family issues and unable to attend the meeting.
There were no questions or other discussion concerning the state reports.
VIII. REPORT OF COMMITTEES
A. Budget Committee – Mr. Kent Wilkins, OWRB Chair, addressed the Commissioners and stated the Committee met on the previous day and discussed the Treasurer's report and the budget for 2018-2019 fiscal year. He asked Mr. Benefield to discuss the bank account levels and the state's dues. Mr. Benefield explained each state pays $550, which is about double what is spent on an annual basis. Meeting expenses depend upon the location, but can be about $1,000.00. There is $35,000 in the bank, funds can be used to fund a stream gage if needed, but the balance will continue to increase without expenses. The Committee was not suggesting cutting the fees, but just as a matter of information, wanted the Commission to be aware of the balance. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the Commission should ask the Engineering Committee to identify projects such as stream gages or other areas that could be studied. Commissioner Holland commented that amount of funds may not have much of an impact. Chairman Lowry said as a result of the Engineering Committee meeting discussion yesterday, there could be bigger efforts happening the Commission could assist in some aspect. Commissioner Holland stated the project should benefit the full Commission. There was no other discussion regarding the Budget Committee Report. (Attachment 10) Chairman Lowry asked that at the end of the meeting, the committee members be identified.
B. Legal Committee – Ms. Sara Gibson, OWRB Chair, stated to the Commission the Legal Committee did not have an assignment from last year. The Committee will continue to provide assistance to the other committees as necessary, or as directed by the Commission. There were no questions by the Commission.
C. Engineering Committee - Mr. Kent Wilkins, OWRB, presented the Engineering Committee Report on behalf of Mr. Yohanes Sugeng, Chair, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Wilkins stated the Committee met for approximately two hours and considered three items, including having received a presentation and engaged in lengthy discussions. The first item regarded Mr. Scott Van Winkle representing the State of Texas on the Committee. Secondly, the Committee entertained a presentation from The Nature Conservancy on behalf of the State of Louisiana, and he invited Acting Commissioner Ed Knight to speak to the 6 Commission about the presentation. Mr. Knight said the presentation regarded a numeric-based model and one which Louisiana believed is a basis to move forward and sees the need to do that type of work regardless of the basin. He said Louisiana looked forward to working with TNC, and Arkansas USGS; he questioned whether the model reached the level of detail everyone is comfortable with, is it accurate enough, and can the calculations be done on a weekly basis that everyone has access to. Mr. Wilkins said the third item considered by the Committee was a report by the State of Arkansas, and he invited Mr. Ken Brazil to present that report to the Commission. Mr. Brazil stated the report is about the flow analysis of the 2018 season on the Boef River. At last year's compact, Arkansas committed to do an annual report on Boef River flows to determine if there had been a recurrence of the below 40 cfs and how often that occurred, basically during the agricultural growing season. The report is included in the Arkansas Commissioners' Report. He said the Engineering Committee did not have the time to fully discuss the report but will do so in detail over the next few months, along with The Nature Conservancy model that was presented. The report looks at how often there are flows below 40 cfs which is the trigger in the Compact that Arkansas will take affirmative steps. He said the Compact does not state Arkansas will provide a minimum flow at the Stateline, but that if there is a flow below 40 cfs, if there is diversion to be regulated, Arkansas will take affirmative steps to regulate diversion such that a percentage of weekly runoff will cross the Stateline. Mr. Brazil proposed last year that it be reviewed annually how often this actually occurs for seven consecutive days as a realistic starting point, and to review administratively, as the Compact states, a weekly runoff flow below 40 cfs. He said he is committed to report again next year. Mr. Wilkins added that following the State of Louisiana's presentation, the State of Arkansas agreed to check back and review the information by June 3, and then report to the Committee. There were no questions by the Commissioners regarding the Engineering Committee Report. (Attachment 11)
D. Environmental and Natural Resources Committee – Mr. Bill Cauthron, OWRB Chair, addressed the Commissioners and stated the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee did not have an assignment from the previous year. He said, however, the Committee produced a number of documents detailing water quality in the Red River watershed which are quite voluminous and are posted on the OWRB website, Red River Compact page, to be reviewed at their leisure. The reports concern waters from the States' 303(d) list that are not meeting their beneficial use designations. Mr. Cauthron said there was discussion at the committee meeting about generating a map of long-term water quality monitoring stations in the basin which he believed would be timely as well as beneficial. The OWRB has been conducting a Beneficial Use Monitoring Program for 20 years and is currently conducting a holistic evaluation of the program. He was not anticipating any Red River Basin sites coming out of the program but for planning purposes, it would be beneficial to have the sites mapped. Commissioner Cunningham stated the OWRB program has rotational sites, and Mr. Cauthron said that is being considered rather than every site, i.e., for short term projects that do not need to be included. The Committee will make recommendations to the Commission what sites should be on the map, i.e., critical to the Commission's decision-making. Chairman Lowry stated there are other compacts that have water quality concerns, and mapping the sites now may be forward thinking if issues arise in the future.
There were no other questions or comments related to the Committee reports.
7 Chairman Lowry announced a 10-minute break (9:39 a.m.-10:50a.m.)
IX. FEDERAL AGENCY REPORTS
Chairman Lowry invited representatives of the federal agencies to make comments to the Commissioners about the work their agency is performing in the basin. The following agencies presented a written report and submitted copies for distribution.
A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Mr. Mike Abate, Chief Civil Works Branch, discussed the Red River area re-organization that is now divided into two areas offices: the Texoma Area and the Hugo Area. There are 11 structures located in the two areas. He said all of the reservoirs are slightly in flood pool, with the highest being Tom Steed, actually a Bureau of Reclamation Lake that is at 74% flood pool. He conducted a "virtual tour" and reviewed Tulsa District COE projects including highlights that Denison Dam is a hydroelectric plant and has been in operation 74 years, the Estelline Springs chloride control project is estimated to keep 240 tons of salt daily from the Red River Basin, Pat Mayse Lake provides water for the Campbell Soup company, a dam safety project completed at Pine Creek Lake dam, Truscott Brine Lake's inflatable dam and 22-mile pipeline that keep 170 tons of chloride out of the basin daily, Sardis Lake and landmark legislation between the Tribes and Oklahoma, and the Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District completed a dredging project and installation of a floating intake. Mr. Abate discussed the value of the Tulsa District COE to the Nation, included providing $23 billion in flood damage prevention, 18 million recreational visitors, over 50% of contracted water supply contracts (35% in Oklahoma, and 20% in Kansas) are located in the district, 22 units at 8 locations provide hydropower, and the district is actively rehabilitating $232 million in construction projects. Regarding the FY2018-2020 Civil Works Budget, Mr. Abate reviewed the FY2018 allocations of $3.2 million in investigations--including $3 million for the west Tulsa Levee-- and $133 million in Operations and Maintenance (O&M), the FY2019 allocations of $97 million in O&M, and the FY2020 President's Budget of $93.8 million in O&M. The FY 2019 allocation was the first time in 20 years Congress passed a budget, and the COE received $2.2 billion in extra dollars. Additionally, he provided information for the COE budget for the Red River projects; the average age of projects is about 47 years old and dollars are allocated for "non-routine" maintenance which is large repairs. Mr. Abate reviewed the ongoing projects in the District including the Trailrace Hollow Jet Valve, Lake Texoma Automated Fee Station, Hugo Area FY19 goals for the five lakes, and concluded his report with a message of water safety--14 people died from flood events in the Tulsa District, none were wearing a life vest. (Attachment 12) Chairman Lowry asked about private concessionaires utilizing leased areas and Mr. Abate explained at 238 of the 510 recreation areas 5-year leases include marinas, etc.
B. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - Mr. Nathan Kuhnert, Field Representative for the Oklahoma-Texas Area/Oklahoma City office, updated the Commission on projects in the Oklahoma-Texas Area. He said the Bureau of Reclamation (BuREC) has over 600 reservoirs in the 17 western states which are organized into five regions. The Oklahoma-Texas Area Office is located within the Great Plains Region, and within its jurisdiction operates 11 reservoirs and irrigation projects in the southern one-half of Kansas, all of Oklahoma, and most of Texas. He said the BuREC is far more than an infrastructure-based agency, but also performs planning functions as well as distributes grant monies for water planning. He referred to the document, "Summary of Current and Recently Completed Activities" in the Oklahoma-Texas Office under 8 the Planning, Constructions Assistance, and Grant Programs. He said he has been involved in two large basin studies. The Upper Red River Basin, initiated in 2014 and expected to be completed within a year and includes Lugert-Altus Reservoir and Tom Steed Reservoir -- the BuREC has been partnering with the OWRB and the US Geological Survey on this study, a large collaborative effort with outcomes complementing the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan in determining water availability in the Red River Basin and throughout the State. He also distributed a fact sheet, "Reservoir Operations Pilot" on the Washita Basin Project using paleo data and tree ring data during drought episodes which will become an important tool for reservoir operators to better plan and to adapt to changes in climate. Mr. Kuhnert also reviewed the distributed, Title XVI Fact Sheet regarding WaterSmart program projects that include wastewater treatment, recycling water, impaired water and industrial water, and he directed attention to the links for obtaining grants. He invited attendees to send business contact information to him to be included in future communications. (Attachment 13) Mr. Kuhnert mentioned that the BuREC will be meeting with the OWRB on the Red River Basin Study after countless hours of modeling and will be laying out strategies that will alleviate potential risks to water supply for the reservoirs in the basin. Commissioner Cunningham added it is a multi-agency, multi-million dollar, multi-year study and the different modeling shows results of cooperation and we can now test scenarios involving the master conservancy district, the reservoir, and irrigation district. Mr. Kuhnert stated it has been an open vetting process, and the BuREC will provide structure, but ultimately will listen to the stakeholders regarding potential strategies. Commissioner Gibson asked if the Dust Bowl era was reflected in graph, and Mr. Kuhnert responded the tree ring study covered several hundred years which included the Dust Bowl, which for many years was considered a drought of record. He said it was eye-opening to use paleo data which aids in forecasting what could be more severe and longer drought periods in the future. Chairman Lowry suggested Mr. Kuhnert could present an update at next year's meeting. There was discussion that there is no BuREC office in Louisiana, there could be other agencies conducting similar programs, and that WaterSmart Program funding is available for drought contingency planning in all 50 states.
C. U.S. Geological Survey - Mr. Jason Lewis, Director, Oklahoma Water Science Center, expressed appreciation for the Commission's resolution for continued support for funding the stream gaging program, and stated there were no changes in gages in the states and the gages will continue as is. He said the Jennifer Wilson of the Texas Center is in the fourth year of Red River Priority Focus Area Study which includes water use from 2010-2015, groundwater model of the Upper Red River at Texoma, a whole basin PRMS stream flow model, and ecological flow studies resulting in an interactive webpage which hopefully the data can be presented at the next Compact meeting. Commissioner Cunningham stated the Commission supports the stream gage program, but are there other unfunded areas the Commission could support. Mr. Lewis responded the goal is to fund 4,500 priority stream gages that include the gages along the Red River, and the agency has cooperative matching program that is slightly cut each year and is used as seed money to get projects started. Chairman Lowry added that the Compact Commissions signed off on a multi-state letter to the House and Senate on Interior funding and which was delivered at the first of April and available on the Interstate Council on Water Policy website. The letter supported three areas: two stream gage programs mentioned -- priority stream gage and cooperative program, and the next generation water observation program, which Congress has taken an interest in. Mr. Lewis commented the Red River will be included in the regional models.
9 D. Natural Resource Conservation Service - Mr. Rick Lane, Acting Assistant State Conservationist for water resources in Oklahoma, presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the activities of the NRCS in the Red River Basin. He explained the $65 million in 2018 appropriation and anticipated 2019 funding for the NRCS through the Farm Bill. The EQUIP is a major program, and in the Arkansas the Red River Watershed RCPP is a major program providing agricultural and technical assistance to farmers with a focus on water quality, soil erosion, irrigation quality and quantity, and fish and wildlife habitat. The program has eight contracts working on $1,800 acres -- in Louisiana, the Shirttail Canal covering 26,000 acres, and in the Texas, the Red River Valley Conservation Initiative, an irrigation program in the Ogallala Aquifer. The USDA Small Watershed Program involves private and local interests for watershed restoration under the Oklahoma Conservation Commission. In the dam rehabilitation program, Oklahoma and Texas have the highest percentage of low hazard dams with several projects that will be completed this year, which he described. The Louisiana Red Bayou Project involves a 10,000 acre watershed cooperative grant program with 2017 dollars for the Grant Parrish Watershed. There are ten projects in Oklahoma, including a new dam in Love County. Mr. Lane reviewed the Field Office Structure in Oklahoma and addressed the staffing levels which are limited for program implementation. Zone Teams are assigned to coordinate review of operations and determine the needs of the projects, and to identify the specific details to implement the plan. The teams looked at inconsistencies in staffing levels, and looked at other states' programs to develop a team model to have a presence in every county. Then, the teams developed a plan for responsibilities, evaluated equipment, conducted training with assistance with the Conservation Districts field office, and developed a description for each division. He provided a map depicting staffing levels in each county--generally 5-11 people of resource engineers, conservationist, technicians, foresters, and clerical--making sure there is someone who can handle the issues unique to each county, and a training package was put together for each area with a team leader and other specialists identified as a point of contact when needed. Chairman Lowry asked about dam rehabilitation PL 534 which Mr. Lane explained regards flood protection through the construction of dams, dikes and channel work, and to a lesser extent through the relocation, elevation, and flood-proofing of property and vital infrastructure, which was enacted in the Washita River watershed in 1935 following flood events with loss of lives and property. Commissioner Cunningham asked about the percentage of watershed rehabilitation and restoring capacity, and Mr. Lane replied changing of hazard classification is in response to development and potential for future development which drives the rehabilitation program; Oklahoma has 350 high hazard dams which are being reviewed, which also considers rehabilitation to increase water supply. Commissioner Seibman noted that Texoma is 70 years old, and asked if there is a sediment problem, and Mr. Lane responded the NRCS work conducted upstream helped to retain 80-85% of the lake's capacity. There were no other questions, and no other federal agency reports.
X. UPDATES and DISCUSSION TOPICS
A. Feasibility Study of Navigation Extension into SW Arkansas - Richard Brontoli.
Chairman Lowry noted her comments earlier about the report by Mr. Brontoli that has been distributed to the Commission. (Attachment 14) She stated she was not aware of any other Discussion Topics, and there were no requests or comments by the Commissioners. 10 XI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Annual Report - Chairman Lowry said the 2017 report has been approved and will be distributed by Louisiana, by both printed and digital means. Arkansas will produce the 2018 report, and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board will publish the 2019 report (with a draft available at the 2020 meeting). The states discussed the number of reports that should be provided and determined each state will inform the publishing state the number of hard copies and digital copies needed in addition to the President, Federal Chair, Governors, and Commissioners in addition to state requirements. The OWRB provides access to the most current report on its the website, and a copy is provided to the USGS that maintains the RRCC file.
B. and D. Commission Assignments to Committees and Appointment to Committees – Chairman Lowry stated the States are familiar with the rotation of committee responsibilities. Below are the member assignments to the Committees: 1. Budget Committee: Ed Knight (Louisiana), Cynthia Bearden (Arkansas), Kent Wilkins (Oklahoma), and Scott Van Winkle (Texas); 2. Environmental and Natural Resources: Bill Cauthron (Oklahoma), Scott Van Winkle (Texas), Shawn Jackson (Arkansas), and Ed Knight (Louisiana) 3. Engineering Committee: Ken Brazil (Arkansas), Yohanes Sugeng (Oklahoma), Scott Van Winkle (Texas), and Ed Knight (Louisiana) 4. Legal Committee: Heather Hunzicker (Texas), Sara Gibson (Oklahoma), Crystal Phelps (Arkansas), and Harry Vorhoff (Louisiana)
D. Regarding Committee Assignments, the Commission approved the following: Chairman Lowry reviewed the items mentioned under the Committee reports: Louisiana had suggestions for both Legal and Engineering Committees, the Engineering Committee itself agreed to the June 3 review (Boef River flow report and the Nature Conservancy model); and the Environmental Committee agreed to develop a map of long-term water quality monitoring stations in the basin. Acting Commissioner Knight stated Louisiana would like to see the well data and geographic locations (regarding Reach IV) which is a direct request (not Engineering Committee assignment), and Mr. Benefield indicated he could provide a link to the state well commission website that houses that data. Mr. Knight asked for a copy of the data base, and Mr. Benefield explained there are restrictions on the type of information that can be provided from the data base, i.e., personal information, but locations are available on the link; well logs have not been entered for all locations as yet. Regarding the Legal Committee, Acting Commissioner Knight requested Arkansas begin the process of searching legal means to enforce the compact should there be a situation that needs to be remedied, there will be a process forward. Chairman Lowry said the request in the Louisiana report (3rd paragraph) can be the assignment to the Legal Committee, and she read, "...the Legal Committee begin to determine what mechanisms Arkansas has in place and would need to enact in order to sufficiently enforce noncompliance with the terms of the Compact." She said it is more complex than a minimum flow requirement. There were no questions by the Legal Committee regarding the assignment. Chairman Lowry stated the assignment to the Engineering Committee is (1) the accounting method Arkansas will be in discussion with the USGS, and (2) the check back on June 3rd after the USGS is able to review the model. Additionally, (3) the Committee will review and possibly identify needs the Commission can expend $20-30,000, which is in the budget. 11 C. and E. Election of Officers and 40th Annual Meeting
Chairman Lowry said traditionally the host state will serve as Vice Chairman for the next year's meeting. Commissioner Clyde Siebman agreed to serve as Vice Chairman, and his Executive Assistant Andrea Williams McCoy, will serve as Secretary. Oklahoma will provide the membership information to Texas. Commissioner Siebman announced the 2020 meeting will be held on April 27-28, 2020, and anticipated a social activity and a tour of the resources of the area. The meeting location will be Sherman-Denison, Texas.
There was no other New Business for the Commission's consideration.
XII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Lowry noted that usually Mr. Rich Brontoli will make comments regarding the Red River Valley Association, and there are copies of his report available and includes budget information for the COE Civil Works. Ms. Jennifer Sheehan, Arkansas Fish and Wildlife Commission, addressed the Commission and updated the members on the Suphur River State Wildlife Management Area that is experiencing severe channel incising on 10 miles of the Sulphur River and impacts the Red River. They have requested funding through the 1135 program from the Vicksburg District Office, and will be working with the Fort Worth District Office to coordinate with the Texas Fish and Wildlife Commission and is moving forward with a feasibility study from I-49 to the Texas border. She stated they are happy to visit with Louisiana if they are interested. There was no other public comment.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Commissioner John Michael Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Clyde Siebman seconded. Chairman Lowry adjourned the 39th Annual Meeting of the Red River Compact Commission at 11:35 a.m., April 30, 2019.
______Sue Lowry, Chairman Date
______Mary Schooley Date Oklahoma Water Resources Board 2019 Secretary to Commission
12 Red River Compact Commission Texas Commissioners’ Report June 30, 2020
Weather and Drought Conditions
As of June 23, 2020, the United States Drought Monitor shows about 53% of Texas in some level of drought, with 9% experiencing extreme to severe conditions. This compares to only 4% of the state in any level of drought one year ago.
The extreme to severe drought conditions are occurring in the West Texas and Panhandle regions. This includes the upper reaches of the Red River, resulting in 66% of the Red River Basin experiencing drought conditions, with 30% being extreme to severe. In comparison, the eastern reaches of the Red River Basin, as well as the Sulphur River and the Cypress Creek basins, are currently experiencing no drought.
The NOAA Climate Prediction Center’s Seasonal Drought Outlook is predicting that the drought conditions in northwest Texas will remain but may improve in some areas over the next few months. However, there is a 40-50% chance of above normal temperatures and an equal to increased chance of above average precipitation through September for the Red River Basin.
Red River Commissioners’ Report for Texas June 30, 2020
Groundwater
In Texas, landowners own the groundwater below the surface of their land, subject to any regulation by groundwater conservation districts (GCDs), as recognized by the Texas Legislature in 2011. The GCDs enact rules and regulations, including requiring permits, metering, and limitations on the amount of water that may be withdrawn in their area. As of June 2020, a total of 101 GCDs have been created, covering all or part of 180 of the State’s 254 counties. There are currently eight GCDs in the Red River Basin in Texas.
Environmental Flows
The Environmental Flows Advisory Group of the Texas Legislature has not yet set a schedule for consideration of environmental flow standards in the Red, Sulphur or Cypress Creek basins. However, some water rights in these basins do include permit conditions to protect the environment.
Founded in 1992, the Caddo Lake Institute (CLI) is a non-profit scientific and educational organization with the mission of protecting the ecological, cultural and economic integrity of Caddo Lake, its associated wetlands and watershed.
The Caddo Lake Flows Project was initiated in 2004 by the CLI and the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District (NETMWD), TCEQ’s partner for the Cypress Creek Basin Clean Rivers Program, and others. The project goals are to develop consensus recommendations for environmental flow standards for consideration by State agencies, to determine the feasibility of a new operating plan for releases from Lake O' the Pines to provide some of the instream flows in Big Cypress Bayou, to obtain official recognition of the environmental flow regimes in
Page 2 of 6 Red River Commissioners’ Report for Texas June 30, 2020
the official State program, and to develop a long-term adaptive management process for the Cypress Creek basin. According to the CLI website, a series of meetings have been held with natural resource experts and stakeholders from the basin to develop recommendations for environmental flow regimes that mimic the natural flow patterns with monthly, seasonal and yearly variations. Studies were conducted both to test the early recommendations and build a baseline for future reference.
The USACE and the NETMWD have committed to implementing the flow regimes for Big Cypress Bayou with releases of water from Lake O’ the Pines for a five-year test period, to the extent water is available. In exchange, the conditions in Big Cypress Bayou and Caddo Lake would be monitored to evaluate the benefit of the releases. One of the experiments is the reintroduction of the American paddlefish. Monitoring projects include tracking changes in soil moisture and vegetation in areas inundated by the recommended high pulse flows.
The environmental flow recommendations have been included in the 2017 State Water Plan. The USACE has agreed to provide Caddo Lake with the requested flows. There is a possibility that a feasibility study will be conducted to change the operation and outlet structure of Caddo Lake to allow more flexibility in outflows. So far, the Project has been within the scope of Compact and the rules of the Commission. Proposals for lowering Caddo Lake for cypress regeneration, invasive species management or other purposes, by pumping when the lake is not spilling would also be subject to the limits in the Compact and current Commission rules and coordinated with the Commission.
Additional information on Caddo Lake and its watershed can be found on CLI's data website - www.caddolakedata.us.
Page 3 of 6 Red River Commissioners’ Report for Texas June 30, 2020
Red River Boundary Commission of Texas
In 2000, the states of Texas and Oklahoma signed the Texoma Area Boundary Agreement which established the states’ boundary in the Lake Texoma reach and located the boundary on a set of USGS topographic quadrangle maps. Subsequently, a portion of the pump station which had been constructed by the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) in 1989, was shown to be located within the state of Oklahoma.
In 2009, the invasive zebra mussels were found in Lake Texoma and caused the NTMWD to curtail pumping at the intake facility to prevent the interstate transfer of the mussels per the federal Lacey Act. In 2013, the Texas Legislature re-established the Red River Boundary Commission of Texas to work with representatives of the State of Oklahoma to redraw the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma in the Lake Texoma reach to ensure that it complies with the intent of the Red River Boundary Compact and the Lacey Act. In addition, the bill requires that there is no net loss of property between either state to ensure that the redrawn boundary does not increase the political power or influence of either state.
In 2014, the Texas and Oklahoma governors signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing on the operation of the NTMWD facility in Lake Texoma. In 2013 and 2014, U.S. Congress also passed legislation to exempt NTMWD from certain provisions of the Lacey Act for purposes of the invasive zebra mussels. In 2017, the Texas Legislature passed a bill which continued the Texas Commission’s efforts through 2021 to work with Oklahoma to redraw the boundary and eliminate any future impacts to the Lake Texoma facilities due to potential invasive species transfers or other issues.
In January of 2020, Governor Abbott of Texas named Reginald B. Smith, Jr. as chair and appointed four other commissioners to the Red River Boundary Commission to confer and act jointly with representatives appointed on behalf of the State of Oklahoma.
Page 4 of 6 Red River Commissioners’ Report for Texas June 30, 2020
Texas Water Plan of 2017
Texas’ state water plans are based on future conditions that would exist in the event of a recurrence of the worst recorded drought in Texas’ history—known as the “drought of record”—a time when, generally, water supplies are lowest and water demands are highest.
Texas’ population is expected to increase more than 70 percent between 2020 and 2070, from 29.5 million to 51 million, with over half of this growth occurring in Regions C and H. However, Texas’ existing water supplies—those that can already be relied on in the event of drought—are expected to decline by approximately 11 percent between 2020 and 2070, from 15.2 million to 13.6 million acre-feet per year.
Approximately 5,500 water management strategies recommended in this plan would provide 3.4 million acre-feet per year in additional water supplies to water user groups in 2020 and 8.5 million acre-feet per year in 2070. The estimated capital cost to design, construct, and implement the approximately 2,500 recommended water management strategy projects by 2070 is $63 billion. If strategies are not implemented, approximately one-third of Texas’ population would have less than half the municipal water supplies they will require during a drought of record in 2070. In addition, if Texas does not implement the state water plan, estimated annual economic losses resulting from water shortages would range from approximately $73 billion in 2020 to $151 billion in 2070.
State Water Implementation Fund for Texas
The State Water Implementation Funds for Texas (SWIFT) program was enabled by the Texas Legislature and a State constitutional amendment in 2013, for $2 billion to help communities develop and optimize water supplies at cost-effective rates. The program provides low-interest loans, extended repayment terms, deferral of loan repayments, and incremental repurchase terms for projects contained in the 2017 State Water Plan. This original investment is designed to fund close to $27 billion in water supply projects over the next 50 years to help ensure that Texas communities have adequate supplies of water during drought.
Page 5 of 6 Red River Commissioners’ Report for Texas June 30, 2020
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) manages the administration and disbursement of funds and ensures they are used to finance needed water supply projects as defined in the Texas Water Plan prioritization process. The applications for the 2020 funding cycle of the SWIFT program have been submitted. Through fiscal year 2019, SWIFT has committed over $8 billion for projects across Texas.
Projects must be listed in the 2017 State Water Plan to be eligible for SWIFT program financial assistance. The TWDB is considering an important change for this cycle—the increase of subsidies offered for rural and agricultural projects. Preliminary projections indicate a subsidy level of up to 50% for loans. This year’s cycle will provide non-rural entities with interest subsidies that range from 16% to 35% depending upon the length of the loan and type of project.
For more general information on the program, see: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/financial/programs/swift/index.asp.
Page 6 of 6 AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
(2020) AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
Sub Red River Compact Commission basi n I Sub
TRANSFORMATION OF ARKANSAS STATE GOVERNMENT bas
in II In 2019, Governor Asa Hutchison initiated and implemented the first comprehensive reorganization of state government in Arkansas since 1972. During his presentation and press conference the Governor stated:
“This long-overdue and comprehensive reorganization effort will realign agencies to reflect a more modern and efficient way to operate state government
without cutting any services. This will result in improved delivery of services and will ultimately save the state money and the taxpayer time.”
The Governor’s plan accomplishes six key objectives: 1) Reduces the number of cabinet-level agencies from forty-two (42) to fifteen (15). 2) Merges over 200 boards and commissions under fewer umbrella departments. 3) Improves the delivery of services to Arkansas taxpayers by breaking down silos within state government. 4) Improves management control throughout state government by creating the Department of Transformation and Shared Services which includes: Office of Personnel Management, Division of Building Authority, Geographic Information Systems, Division of Procurement, Employee Benefits Division, and Department of Information Systems. 5) Allow agencies to maintain their independent services and revenue streams where required by law, state constitution, or specific function. 6) Create savings for the state and taxpayers beginning in the FY 2021 budget through lease and rent savings, shared services, and a more responsive management approach.
Under the Transformation and Efficiencies Act of 2019, the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission
(ANRC) became a Division within the Arkansas Department of Agriculture (ADA) effective July 1, 2019. After transformation many other Boards and Commission reside within ADA including the following:
Arkansas Department of Agriculture Overlap of functions within Divisions were (Divisions, Boards, & Commissions) combined to increase services and support within the Department. Under
• Livestock & Poultry Division • Forestry Division transformation, ANRC retained • Livestock & Poultry Commission • Forestry Commission its existing (9) Member (Board) Commission to • NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION • Plant Industries Division continue its • NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION • State Plant Board current duties • State Board of Registration for Foresters and ongoing • State Board of Registration for Professional Soil Classifiers responsibilities. • Veterinary Medical Examining Board
1 Red River Compact AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
REACH IV SUBBASIN 2 COMPACT COMPLIANCE
The Natural Resources Division (NRD) continues its efforts to monitor, evaluate, and report 40cfs or less flow on the Boeuf River at Eudora and the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. The “flashy” characteristics of the Boeuf River, i.e. regular rapid and abrupt fluctuations (rise and fall) in flow, are indicative of the significant landform changes implemented by the Corps of Engineers in 1960s-1970s. This “flashy” flow characteristic is common throughout any given year and is only moderated during continued and repeated rainfall events which occur mostly during spring months of the year. This is an important consideration for compliance as flow is not sustainable during average rainfall conditions either in or outside normal growing season months. Lack of retention capacity caused by the massive drainage improvements in the watershed overrides the temporally limited effects of instream structures and surface water withdrawals on seasonal and yearly flow patterns.
The 2019 Boeuf River Monitoring Report includes additional evaluation and comparison of precipitation, flow, and estimated runoff in the Boeuf River watershed. Arkansas’ interpretation and policy position on compliance in Reach IV, Subbasin 2 remains unchanged, i.e. real-time monitoring of Boeuf River flows, evaluation of weekly, seasonal, and multi-year flow patterns and annual reporting to the Red River Compact Commission is an acceptable approach and framework to identify flow anomalies and inform compliance decision-making in Reach IV, Subbasin 2. Reporting and analyses will continue to improve as new data and more accurate methods become available. Summary conclusions from the 2019 Boeuf River Monitoring Report are listed below: 1. No seven (7) consecutive day duration of 40cfs or less flow occurred at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary in 2019. Longest duration of 40cfs or less flow in 2019 was five (5) consecutive days from June 12-16. 2. When flow at Eudora was 40cfs or less, more than seventy percent (70%) of that flow was measured downstream at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. 3. Plentiful precipitation in April-May 2019 contributed to the lack of 40cfs or less flow occurrences at Eudora and the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. 4. Comparison of a) average weekly flow vs. 40% of estimated runoff, b) percent of Eudora flow recorded at the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary, and c) occurrences of 40cfs or less flow is an acceptable framework for evaluating the Boeuf River and potential anomalies and disruptions in flow. 5. Seasonal precipitation levels in May-June may be indicative of groundwater and underlying saturation potential to augment superficial Boeuf River flow. Real-time observations of precipitation levels during May-June may help forecast eminent flow patterns. 6. The arithmetic expression which uses a generalized runoff factor is not an accurate or “stand-alone” method to calculate instantaneous weekly runoff for compliance purposes. However, it does provide a means to generate weekly runoff values for all 52 weeks of the year and allow evaluation of seasonal/monthly precipitation and flow relationships which may help forecast future flow patterns. 7. A presentation which summarizes Boeuf River monitoring results should be provided to the Engineering Committee and Red River Compact Commission at its regularly scheduled annual meeting.
2 Red River Compact AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
MISSISSIPPI RIVER/GULF OF MEXICO HYPOXIA TASK FORCE
The next regular meeting of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force will be held in northwest Arkansas (time and date yet to be determined). The agenda will include sessions open to the public and presentations from state, federal, and private entities involved in nutrient reduction activities at the state and national levels. Detailed information about the upcoming meeting will be coming soon. Note: NRD hosted its first Task Force meeting at the Little Rock Convention Center in May 2014. NRD has added full-time staff to work on the new Arkansas Nutrient Reduction Strategy (ANRS). Efforts have been refocused to concentrate and reallocate limited resources more intensely in select watersheds. This refocus will verify water quality improvements realized from reduction activities in these select watersheds. Emphasis is being placed on the establishment of monitoring requirements, baseline conditions, and tools for reporting success and tracking nutrient reduction progress. Achievements in reduction associated with these refocused efforts will be measurable and controllable to meet overall Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force goals. Mechanisms for success of the strategy are shown below:
Mechanisms for Success & Implementation Arkansas Nutrient Reduction Strategy
• 319 Priority Watershed Designations • CW RLF Nutrient Reduction Incentives
• Watershed Based Plans • NRCS NWQI Projects and Designations
• Water Quality Technicians – NMP Adoption • Nutrient Surplus Area Designations
• Point Source Monitoring & Reporting • Discovery Farms/Watershed
• NRCS RCPP, CSP, AWEP, EQIP, WRE Projects • Watershed Group Establishment and Support
• Sceptic Tank Replacement Grant/Loan Program
ARKANSAS WATER MANAGEMENT There is an imperative need for the continued integration of best available science, data, and technically advanced tools, to support water resource management decision-making, address data gaps and uncertainties, and identify emerging water resource needs. Arkansas’ abundance of water supports local and regional economies across vastly different and unique ecosystems. Improvements in water quality, development of reliable and replenishable water supplies to meet a variety of needs, and maintenance and replacement of water/wastewater infrastructure are key priorities in Arkansas’ ongoing water management and planning efforts. https://www.anrc.arkansas.gov/
Arkansas has the second highest groundwater use in the country. The current quantities of groundwater withdrawal and use from the Alluvial Aquifer in East Arkansas are unsustainable according to U.S. Geological
3 Red River Compact
AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
Survey models. Continued groundwater withdrawal and use at current levels through 2050 may cause irreparable damage and render the Alluvial Aquifer unusable in many areas. For this reason, increased water conservation and development of excess surface water in this region is vital to sustaining groundwater supply and use through 2050 and beyond.
Arkansas has adequate annual rainfall during most years which produces excess surface water. However, this excess surface water is mostly underutilized while groundwater resources are depleted in some basins. NRD is authorized to permit excess surface water (by basin) for non-riparian transport and beneficial use if the withdrawal and use does not diminish existing riparian uses. Currently, there are sixty-two (62) non-riparian permits being managed by NRD. Conjunctive use of excess surface water to supplement groundwater and storage supplies is essential Critical Areas to meeting overall water needs in designated critical groundwater areas. One highly successful, flagship project which exemplifies NRD’s conjunctive and beneficial use water management strategy is the Union County Water Conservation Board’s (UCWCB) $52,000,000 Ouachita River water diversion and infrastructure project in south Arkansas. NRD permitted fifty million gallons per day (50MGD) to the UCWCB for non-riparian use in February 2000. For nearly twenty years UCWCB has withdrawn, treated, and distributed this excess surface water from the Ouachita River for industrial use in the vicinity of El Dorado, Arkansas. Use of non-riparian excess surface water has reduced unsustainable groundwater withdrawals in the Sparta Aquifer from twenty-one million gallons per day (21 MGD) to under eight million gallons per day (8MGD). Reduction in use has resulted in a reversal of Sparta Aquifer declines
Ouachita River Diversion and eliminated the threat of eminent aquifer collapse. http://www.ucwcb.org
Although no permits are required for riparian water use, all water users who withdraw one acre-foot (325,850 gallons) or more per year are required to report their usage each year. From an NRD commissioned water use reporting study completed by FTN Associates, Ltd., it is estimated that up to 1.7 million acre-feet of water may be overreported each year in Arkansas. This overreported usage represents a substantial investment in terms of infrastructure that would be required to transport this volume (surface water) to end users. In addition, completion of intensive environmental flow studies can be costly, time-consuming, and scientifically complex in nature, especially in East Arkansas, where streams have been so significantly altered in form and flow. For these reasons NRD has allocated limited resources to:
1. Improve water use reporting and forecasting accuracy through strategic metering of groundwater wells; and 2. Increase implementation of water conservation practices and surface water storage in East Arkansas. As improvements in water use reporting occur, i.e. improvements in estimating actual use, collecting, analyzing, and distributing data, water resource managers will be better able to balance future water development needs with accurate demand forecasts and lower (public) long-term financial obligations.
4 Red River Compact AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
ARKANSAS TAX INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION
WATER CONSERVATION TAX CREDITS NRD encourages water users in Arkansas to invest in water conservation practices through NRD’s Water Conservation Tax Credit Program. This program offers state Natural Resources Division income tax credit incentives for activities that involve land leveling, conversion from groundwater to surface water, new impoundments, and installation of flow meters on wells. NRD has approved over $13,662,997 in tax credits under this program.
NRD offers a state tax credit for the Creation, Restoration, and Conservation of Private Wetland and Riparian Zones. Wetlands and riparian zones provide significant benefits such as flood control, water quality enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and groundwater recharge. The Arkansas Wetland and Riparian Zone Creation, Restoration, and Conservation Tax Credit Program allows a state income tax credit to be taken by taxpayers who engage in the development, restoration, or conservation of wetland and riparian zones. through projects approved by the Private Lands Restoration Committee. The program promotes an increase in biological and ecological integrity through voluntary restoration or conservation of Arkansas’ important environmental landscapes. 197 projects totaling over $4,750,000 have been approved for tax credits under this program.
Under transformation, Arkansas’ Unpaved Roads Program was transferred from the Arkansas Economic Development Commission to NRD. $300,000 is transferred
annually from fees collected by the Division of Environmental Quality (Department UNPAVED ROADS PROGRAM of Energy and Environment) directly to the Arkansas Unpaved Roads Fund. Unpaved roads in the state are the transportation backbone for rural communities and provide access for hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, and other recreation and tourist activities. Erosion of these unpaved roads has negative effects on the state's economy, tourism, and natural resources. This program provides incentives to counties for maintaining and improving select low-volume, unpaved public roads in Arkansas. Eligible activities include demonstration, training, promotion, and use of best management practices in construction and maintenance of unpaved roads near lakes, rivers, and streams. Recent activity from counties in the Red River Compact Area includes:
2019 State Award Match 2020 (Proposed) State Award Match Calhoun County $27,500 $29,500 Calhoun County $75,000 $75,000 Dallas County $50,369 $53,268 Lincoln County $59,994 $62,193
5 Red River Compact AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
The regional Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Study, encompassing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, was completed in 2019. The study was spearheaded by the Arkansas Dam Safety Section and led by the Arkansas State Climatologist in cooperation with State Dam Safety Departments in the other states. PMP values are used to calculate the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), both of which are used to determine and assess dam spillway capacity and design. The PMP Study produced PMP gridded values (2.5 square mile spatial resolution) and incorporated variations in topography, climate and storm types across the region. The results of these analyses reflected the most current practices used for defining PMPs, including comprehensive storm analysis procedures, extensive use of geographical information systems, explicit quantification of orographic effects, updated maximum dew point and sea surface temperatures, climatologies for storm adjustments, and improved understanding of the weather and climate related to extreme rainfall throughout the region. These PMPs are now used across this region in the United States, replacing the outdated values provided in Hydrometeorological Reports 51, 52, and 55A.
In the Red River Basin, the NRD Floodplain Management Program supports more than 100 communities in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The state of Arkansas, through the NRD, provides ongoing technical floodplain management assistance (to communities) to reduce and minimize flood risk to people, property, and the environment through consistent and thoughtful implementation of NFIP floodplain development regulations. This technical assistance includes:
• Modeling of floodplain management ordinances, building codes and zoning provisions; • Conducting annual floodplain management training workshops across the region; and • Conducting Flood Recovery Workshops for community officials & residents impacted by flooding. Many of these communities implement standards above the National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) minimum. The city of Arkadelphia in Clark County has been recognized by the state of Arkansas and FEMA for achieving consistently high standards and implementing a holistic approach to flood risk reduction. NRD further supports communities in the Red River Compact Area through the Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Program which helps equip communities with the data and tools needed to understand, assess, and communicate flood risk to residents, developers, and community leaders through:
• Partnering with local communities and state and federal agencies that are actively working to identify, assess, and map flood risk ; • Providing state-of-the-art Base Level Engineering data to quickly identify and more effectively communicate flood risks in Arkansas communities which are unlikely to receive updated FEMA initiated maps; and • Equipping local communities with more effective technology and ground truth data to guide development while minimizing economic exposure to flood risks.
6 Red River Compact AR COMMISSIONER REPORT
The Arkansas CTP Program provides updated flood maps, digital mapping, enhanced LiDAR elevation data, and enhanced technical training to approximately 50% of NFIP communities, including those in the Bayou Bartholomew, Little Missouri, Lower Little, Lower Ouachita-Smackover, Lower Saline, Ouachita Headwaters, and Upper Ouachita watersheds in the Red River Compact Area.
NRD’s Floodplain Management Program also provides funds on an annual basis to support local community efforts to reduce or eliminate the risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. From 2012 through 2019, twenty-three flood mitigation projects were funded including the following: creation of open green space via acquisition and demolition of flood prone structures; elevation of repetitively flooded structures to reduce damage potential; and implementation of large-scale drainage projects.
Water quality monitoring continues in 2020 through Arkansas’ Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. There are several ongoing projects in the Red River Compact Area.
Bayou Bartholomew watershed has been a priority for Arkansas’ nonpoint pollution management efforts since 1998 and was re-designated a priority watershed in the 2018-2023 Nonpoint Pollution Management Plan. Over 2,496 samples are being collected through 2021 at ten different sites. Upper Saline River watershed is a priority in Arkansas’ Nonpoint Pollution Management Plan. The current project was initiated in 2019 to address impairment in the Alum Fork, Big Creek, and Saline River sub-watersheds. Over 150 samples are being collected from five sites during base and peak flow conditions through 2020.
Lower Ouachita-Smackover watershed is a priority in Arkansas’ Nonpoint Pollution Management Plan. The watershed is 83% forested, including the towns of Bearden, Camden, El Dorado, Fordyce, Hampton and Smackover. Over 2,496 samples are being collected through 2020 at 10 different sites.
ARKANSAS WATER DEVELOPMENT Water, sewer, and solid waste projects are supported by NRD through federal and state low-interest loan and grant programs. These programs support water, wastewater, infrastructure, and treatment facilities to protect human health and the environment. In FY2019, NRD provided $39,000,000 in financial assistance for wastewater, stormwater, and water quality infrastructure through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Through the Agricultural Water Quality Loan Program, NRD provided approximately $5,558,000 for low interest loans to agricultural landowners who implement nonpoint source pollution control activities such as construction of tail water recovery systems, construction of irrigation reservoirs, purchase of no-till drills, construction of stacking sheds, and construction of ponds and fencing for livestock. In partnership with the Arkansas Department of Health, NRD provided $15,000,000 for affordable water projects and technical assistance to ensure public water systems meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking water Act.
7 Red River Compact United States Department of the Interior
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY C Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center 202 NW 66th St, Building 7 Oklahoma City, OK 73116
U.S. Geological Survey update Red River Compact Meeting June 30th, 2020
Written by Jennifer Wilson, OTWSC Central Texas Branch Studies Section Chief and delivered by Jason Lewis, OTWSC Oklahoma Branch Chief
The USGS is undertaking a 4-year study of water use, availability, and change in the Red River basin in one of several national “Focus Area Studies” in the Department of Interior’s WaterSMART initiative. Focus Area Studies are stakeholder-driven assessments of water availability in river basins with known or potential conflict.
The Red River Focus Area Study (FAS) will compile existing information and add new scientific data and interpretation to facilitate better management of water resources for use by humans and maintenance of water quality and ecological flows in the basin. The study is organized around four important components that are intended to improve the quality and accessibility of information on water availability for humans and ecosystems in the Red River basin, and to advance technical water assessment capabilities:
The Red River Focus Area Study is past its end date and still working to publish final products. Here are some updates on those planned publications:
·The online data visualization of water use across the basin during 2010 and 2015 is in its final stages of development. It will show water use at the HUC-8 scale by water type (groundwater vs surface water) and water use category. It has been demo’ed to USGS project personnel and is currently being refined along with a complete overhaul of the Focus Area Study’s website. The new website will have a story board format with two data visualizations, one for water use and the other for the surface water model (PRMS). · A data release summarizing the water use at the HUC-8 scale is in its final stages of colleague review. It should be published on the USGS ScienceBase page in the coming month. It will provide tabular water use data sets and associated metadata explaining data sources, manipulation, and reporting categories.
· The publications detailing the precipitation-runoff modeling system, or PRMS, and ecological flows study components are still in draft. They are expected to begin the colleague review process in the coming months.
· It was decided to redirect the resources designated for the publication of a numerical groundwater-flow model to the completion of the PRMS report. The groundwater- flow model work is archived on internal an USGS server and can be provided if other USGS/stakeholder interests would like to pick it up and see it through to completion. The model was being developed for alluvial aquifers in the Red River basin upstream of Lake Texoma.
· A data release for georeferenced fish-collection records from 1985 to 2016 compiled from multiple agencies should be heading into colleague review in the coming months, as well.
If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Wilson in the Texas Water Science Center.
My info: [email protected]
512-589-5538
As always the USGS appreciates the Compact’s continued support for the Streamgage Network.
RESOLUTION OF THE RED RIVER COMPACT COMMISSION REGARDING THE FUNDING OF STREAMFLOW GAGES June 30, 2020
WHEREAS, the Red River Compact, signed May 12, 1978, and approved by Congress, apportions the waters of the Red River basin between the States of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana;
WHEREAS, the four states have worked cooperatively together to develop and maintain the streamflow gaging network necessary to administer the provisions of the Compact;
WHEREAS, the cooperation and the establishment of this gaging network has resulted in the administration of this Compact with minimal controversy and no interstate litigation;
WHEREAS, the apportionment and calculations required to administer the Compact necessitate the maintenance of streamflow gages along the Red River and its tributaries at critical locations to measure the flow of water;
WHEREAS, it is critical for the administration of the Red River Compact that these streamflow gages be maintained;
WHEREAS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has historically entered into cost share agreements with cooperators to maintain a nationwide streamflow gaging network through the USGS Cooperative Water Program, now known as Federal Priority Streamgages (FPS), operating under the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program (GWSIP);
WHEREAS, the USGS established goals to satisfy minimum national streamflow information needs with the intent to support these gages entirely with federal funds;
WHEREAS, a priority goal of the USGS GWSIP is to “meet legal and treaty obligations on interstate compacts and international waters;”
WHEREAS, the streamflow gages necessary to administer the Red River Compact qualify under this priority goal for full federal funding under the USGS GWSIP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the Red River Compact Commission requests that Congress fully fund the USGS GWSIP gages associated with the Red River basin and Red River Compact and the USGS place a priority on funding these gages under this program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, federal funding for the USGS GWSIP be restored to ensure the 50/50 cost share for the jointly funded activities with localities and states and fully fund the high-priority federal streamflow gages (historically referred to as the National Streamflow Information Program).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, a copy of this resolution be sent to the members of the congressional delegations for the States of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the USGS.
Sue Lowry Date Executed Federal Commissioner and Chairman June 30, 2020 Red River Compact Commission
Concurred to and supported by:
Clyde M. Siebman Toby Baker Commissioner for Texas Commissioner for Texas
Patrick J. Landry, P.E. John Michael Moore Commissioner for Louisiana Commissioner for Louisiana
Charles Lynn Dobbs Julie Cunningham Commissioner for Oklahoma Commissioner for Oklahoma
John Gibson Bruce Holland Commissioner for Arkansas Commissioner for Arkansas
RED RIVER BASIN STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY GAGES
Number Name
07300000 Salt Fork Red River near Wellington, TX*
07300500 Salt Fork Red River at Mangum, OK
07301300 North Fork Red River near Shamrock, TX
07301410 Sweetwater Creek near Kelton, TX 07301500 North Fork Red River near Carter, OK*
07303400 Elm Fork of North Fork Red River nr Carl, OK 07308500 Red River near Burkburnett, TX* 07315500 Red River near Terral, OK* 07316000 Red River near Gainesville, TX*
07316500 Washita River near Cheyenne, OK 07331000 Washita River near Dickson, OK*
07331600 Red River at Denison Dam nr Denison, TX*
07332500 Blue River near Blue, OK
07335300 Muddy Boggy Creek near Unger, OK 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, TX
07336820 Red River near De Kalb, TX
07337000 Red River at Index, AR* 07340000 Little River near Horatio, AR ·
07344210 Sulphur River near Texarkana, TX
07344370 Red River at Spring Bank, AR
07346310 (COE) Caddo Lake at Dam near Mooringsport, LA
07348000 Twelvemile Bayou near Dixie, LA
07348500 (COE) Red River at Shreveport, LA 07350500 Red River at Coushatta, LA* 07355500 Red River at Alexandria, LA* 07362000 Quachita River at Camden, AR* 07362100 Smackover Creek near Smackover, AR 07363500 Saline River near Rye, AR 07364100 Quachita River near Arkansas-Louisiana State Line 07364150 Bayou Bartholomew near Mcgehee, AR* 07369680 Bayou Macon at Eudora, AR 07367690 Boeuf River near Arkansas/Louisiana Stateline
* Indicates water quality monitoring station For more information see: http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/index.php?r=ar&m=real http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/?m=real&r=la http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/?m=real&r=ok http://txpub.usgs.gov/public/BasinMap/BasinMap.html?basinselect=2
Red River Valley Association P.O. Box 709 Shreveport, LA 71162
June 30, 2020
To: Red River Compact Commissioners FM: Richard Brontoli, Executive Director, [email protected], (318) 393-6207
RE: Red River Major Projects & Initiatives
1. Appropriations: At the end of this update are comparisons of the FY 2020 enacted and FY 2021 President’s Budget. Additional FY 2020 funding received from ‘supplemental’ funds and ‘additional funding pots’ are shown in red. The President’s FY 21 Budget: $5.960 Billion, which is $1.088 B more than FY 20, but a $1.69 Billion reduction from FY 2020 enacted)
2. Navigation FY 2021 O&M: The FY 2020 Appropriations has $11,110,000, for O&M for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. Even though this is greater than past years it is less than the $12,400,000 basic need.
3. CR Emergency Supplemental Funds: The 2015 & 2016 Emergency Supplemental funds were available for the Corps to design for repair of the two levee breaches near Garland City, AR and a levee in Red River Parish, LA, on Loggy Bayou. Contracts for the levee rehabilitations have been awarded and construction has commenced.
4. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway 12’ Navigation Channel: A request for a 12’ channel study for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway was submitted and was included in the Corps Annual Report, March 2017. We were successful to get the study authorized in the 2018 WRDA Bill signed into law by the President. The next step is to get a feasibility study funded in the FY 2021 appropriation bill. The Red River Waterway Commission, local sponsor, is investigating conducting this study, on their own, by Section 203.
5. WRDA 2020: We have 1 item for the WRDA bill. Place Caddo Levee, Cherokee Park segment, into the authorized project; Red River Below Denison Dam. It is in the Senate markup.
6. Degraded Dikes and Revetments: The major floods of 2015, 2016 and 2018, as well as time, have degraded dikes and revetments. Many have degraded to a point of losing their effectiveness in maintaining a 9’ channel, thus requiring additional dredge funds each year. Some are identified as critical and if not repaired, could result in losing the navigation channel in another major flood. Most repairs can be accomplished with O&M funds. We request an additional annual $5,000,000 in O&M funds for “Channel Improvement” projects.
7. IMTS Reduced Lock Service Mandate: After an analysis of the CY 2019 flood impact and increased traffic the Vicksburg staff and Col Hilliard decided to allow our locks to remain operating 24/7/365 for CY 2020. We know there will be a re-evaluation each year and we must show increased activity. In addition to lock closures the waterway was under tow horsepower restrictions and only daylight operations most of the year.
8. Flood Technical Committee: A Flood Technical Committee was formed with representation from Caddo & Bossier Parishes, Bossier City, City of Shreveport, Caddo & Bossier Levee Districts, Caddo-Bossier Port, Red River Watershed Management Institute, Red River Waterway Commission and Red River Valley Association (Chair). Meetings have been held with the Vicksburg District, FEMA & NWS to discuss issues to assist the community leadership and emergency management responders to prepare for the next potential flood event. The Vicksburg District will create a Sedimentation Survey and Hydraulic Model. The Corps has collected the required
1 data and is now analyzing it. The Corps and FEMA provided an interim report to the Flood Technical Committee in August 2019. Everyone was pleased with the model and progress. The final report and findings will be provided in the summer of 2020.
9. Navigation into SW Arkansas Feasibility Study: The Arkansas Legislators took all the funds from the Arkansas Red River Commission trust funds in 2014. The State Legislative session reinstated $1 million, to the Red River Trust Fund. These funds will be provided for the Corps of Engineers to get the feasibility study to a decision point if the project should continue or be terminated. The Vicksburg District contracted with GEC to conduct a way bill analysis and industry surveys. The completed surveys were provided to the University of Tennessee for fright saving analysis. The re-evaluation showed the BCR is greater than 1.0; two L&Ds to Garland has a BCR of 1.8 and three L&Ds to Fulton is 1.2. The Corps has agreed to resume the feasibility study to completion. The Arkansas Red River Commission is considering completing the feasibility study by Section 203. ARRC met with ANRC to discuss Section 203 administration and contracting procedures, as well as obtaining study funding. ARRC met with their regional State delegation to provide a study update and discuss obtaining State funding. It is anticipated that $3 million will be needed to conduct the feasibility study. The delegation requested that Louisiana be approached to provide $1.5 million since L&D 6 will be just north of Shreveport- Bossier City and provide the parishes and cities great benefits. ARRC & RRVA have met with the Louisiana partners; Caddo & Bossier Parishes, Caddo & Bossier Levee Districts; Bossier City, Shreveport, RRWC and Caddo-Bossier Port. All have expressed their intent to participate in cost sharing in the study. Meetings are set to secure the Arkansas funds. Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the budget deficits to cities, parishes & states, it will be difficult to get funding this year.
10. Levee Meetings: We continue to work with the Arkansas levee districts and Bowie County Levee District to get rehabilitation funding through the authorized project; Red River Below Denison Dam. Joint Levee & drainage meetings were held in Arkansas & Louisiana in January 2020 with the Corps.
11. Chloride Control Project: The Administration will not fund this project. Construction on the Wichita River will not resume until the earmark ban is changed. GEM has had several meetings with the Corps and Red River Authority of Texas to move their solar pond project. GEM indicated they have a funding source and could begin constructing their prototype this year.
12. Index to Denison Dam Navigation: North Central Texas Council of Governments is willing to put up $500,000 to conduct a study to determine if navigation is possible from an engineering perspective. They first want the Texas legislators to pass a bill that commits $2.5 m for a complete feasibility study and EIS, if the engineering and discovered study is positive. The Texas legislators passed a bill supporting a feasibility study, but did not provide funding. The North Central COG has agreed to provide the funding for an engineering analysis. A meeting was held at the COG on 6 November with the RRVA and Red River Authority of Texas (RRAT) to discuss a how the funds will be distributed and the process to select an engineering firm to conduct the analysis. The RRVA & RRAT met with the Tulsa District and discovered that a 1989 study was conducted and indicated it would take 11 L&Ds from Texarkana to Denison Dam. RRAT has submitted a Planning Assistance to States (PAS) request to further investigate navigation on the stretch. The NCTCOG funds will be used for the local sponsor cost share.
13. Red River Studies:
a. Corps of Engineers, Wright Patman/Sulphur River: There is an active study to consider re-evaluate the water use in Wright Patman Reservoir. The study will evaluate reducing flood control storage and reallocate it for municipal use. The top of flood pool is 259.5’, which currently provides 30.86’ of flood storage. The study proposes three new conservation pool elevations and reduced flood pool capacity for consideration; 232.5’ (3.86’ into flood pool), 235.0’ (6.36’ into flood pool) and 242.5’ (13.86’ into flood pool). It appears that raising the lake elevation to 232.5’ or 235.0’ msl would not create more downstream flooding and have no impact on navigation. 2
The Corps recommended the 235.0’ elevation. The issue now is that the dam does not meet safety standards at that level, so modifications to the dam will have to be made.
b. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Red River Basin Study, OK: A grant for a 3 year study of water use in the upper reaches of the Red River in the Lugert-Altus region (FY 2014 – FY 2017). This study is cost shared with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Mountain Park MCD; $640,000 (Federal) + $860,000 (non-Federal) = $1,500,000
c. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Washita Basin Study, OK: The study is cost shared with Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Foss Reservoir MCD & Fort Cobb Reservoir MCD; $250,000 (Federal) + $450,000 (non- Federal) = $900,000.
d. USGS, Red River Basin Study: USGS also has a BOR WaterSMART grant to study the quantity of water available in the Red River, four state watershed. This will be a 5 year study effort, expected to be completed in 2019.
e. Choctaw & Chickasaw Indian Nations are conducting a water study for the Red River watershed in OK.
f. Bureau of Land Management Red River land issue. The BLM is in the process of updating its Resource Management Plan (RMP) for lands managed by the BLM, which includes a 116 mile stretch, an estimated 90,000 acres (since cut to 30,000) that may be considered public domain along the Red River on the border between Texas and Oklahoma in Wilbarger, Wichita, and Clay counties. - See more at: http://thornberry.house.gov/redriver/#sthash.3y4XXQ78.dpuf.
3
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FY 2021 APPROPRIATIONS ($000) CIVIL WORKS FY 20 RRVA Pres Local Sponsor I. Studies (GI) Enacted FY 21 FY 21 Requirements Request Budget 1. Navigation into SW Arkansas: Feasibility -0- -0- -0- ARRC - $1 m Pursuing a Section 203 Study Contributed Funds 2. Red River Waterway, LA – 12’ Channel, Recon -0- 500 -0- (RRWC) Approved in WRDA 2018 3. Bossier Parish, LA -0- (Bossier Levee) 4. SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study: Feasibility -0- (OWRB) 5. Washita River Basin, OK -0- (OWRB) 6. SW Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: Recon Study -0- (ANRC / AR Game & Fish) 7. Cypress Valley Watershed, TX -0- (NETWD) 8. Sulphur River Basin, TX -0- -0- -0- (Sulphur Authority) 9. Wichita River Basin above Lake Kemp, TX: Recon -0- (L) 10. Red River Above Denison Dam, TX & OK: Recon -0- (L) 11. Red River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison Dam -0- (?) 12. Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & AR, Recon -0- (?) 13. Walnut Bayou, Little River, AR -0- (ANRC) 14. Little River County/Ogden Levee, AR, Recon -0- (ANRC) 15. Red River Waterway, Index to Denison, Bendway -0- (?)
II. Construction General (CG)
1. Red River Waterway: J. B. Johnston Waterway,LA -0- 12,910 -0- (RRWC) $40,588
2. Chloride Control Project, TX & OK -0- 7,750 -0- N/A Texas - 7,500 / Oklahoma - 800 3. Red River Below Denison Dam; AR & LA -0- 6,300 -0- (Levee Districts) a. Bowie County Levee, TX 4. Red River Emergency Bank Protection -0- 19,600 -0- (Levee Districts) 5. Pine Creek Lake, OK $2,740 -0- -0- 6. McKinney Bayou, AR, PED -0- 50 -0- (?)
NOTES: Local Sponsor Column – Sponsor indicated in ( ); (?) indicates No Sponsor identified and need one to continue (L) indicates Sponsor not required now but need one for feasibility; N/A – No Sponsor required. NOTE: Crossed through studies and projects are not currently active, due to lack of a local sponsor and funding. NOTE: Additional funds received from the FY18 Omnibus Bill ‘additional funds’ indicated by +xxxx. Total CG Additional FY 2020 Funds: $43,328,000
Civil Works Budget – Nation Wide President’s FY20 Budget: $4.872 Billion Congress enacted in FY20: $7.650 Billion
President’s FY21 Budget: $5.966 Billion
4
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION
CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
FY2021 ($000)
Project Enacted RRVA President FY20 Request FY21 DeQueen Lake, AR 1,579 25 2,800 2,925 Dierks Lake, AR 1,410 2,200 2,540 49 Gillham Lake, AR 2,545 2,160 1,598 25 Millwood Lake, AR 3,245 3,630 3,405 42 Bayou Bodcau Reservoir, LA 1,209 2,976 742 Bayou Pierre, LA 33 53 33 Caddo Lake, LA 218 234 286 Wallace Lake, LA 267 383 207 J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA 8,436 22,556 11,110 3,250 - Dredge 85 - VC Broken Bow Lake, OK 3,897 2,788 2.674 Hugo Lake, OK 1,939 3,352 2,180 Pine Creek Lake, OK 1,455 1,500 1,497 Sardis Lake, OK 2,528 889 1,459 10 Waurika Lake, OK 1,604 2,411 1,635 Chloride Control, Area VIII, TX 1,797 2,000 Denison Dam & Lake Texoma, TX 9,053 11,000 8,483 500 Estelline Springs, TX 39 35 39 Lake Kemp, TX 268 300 350 Pat Mayse Lake, TX 1,102 1,352 1,251 Jim Chapman Lake, TX 2,072 2,000 1,907 Lake of the Pines, TX 3,643 8,985 5,607 203 Wright Patman Dam & Lake, TX 4,389 4,971 4,223 250
NOTE: Additional funds received from the FY20 Omnibus Bill ‘additional funds’ indicated by +xxxx. Total O&M Additional FY 2020 Funds: $4,439,000
5
Bureau of Reclamation ($000)
President Congress Project Lake FY 20 Enacted FY 21 Budget Conference
Arbuckle Project 242 249 McGee Creek Project 846 876 Mountain Park Project 631 683 W.C. Austin Project 542 551 Washita Basin Project 1,145 1,123 (Foss & Cobb)
6