Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment, 3766-3788 [2017-00566]
Download as PDF
3766
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please email
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time
on January 26, 2017.
Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–00560 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Combined Notice of Filings #2
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER10–2507–010.
Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
Description: Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Westar Energy, Inc.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5116.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER16–2190–003;
ER16–2191–003; ER16–2453–004.
Applicants: Brady Wind, LLC, Brady
Wind II, LLC, Brady Interconnection,
LLC.
Description: Notice of Non-material
Change in Status of Brady Wind, LLC,
et. al.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5093.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–752–000.
Applicants: PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Description: Notice of Cancellation of
First Revised Service Agreement No.
2359, Queue No. U3–003 of PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5057.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–753–000.
Applicants: PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
Revisions to OATT Schedule 12—
Appendix A re: RTEP Projects
Approved in Dec 2016 to be effective 4/
6/2017.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5061.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–754–000.
Applicants: Southern California
Edison Company.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA
and Distribution Service Agmt
Lendlease California City Solar LLC to
be effective 1/7/2017.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5067.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–755–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2017–01–06_MISO Tariff Clean-up
filing to be effective 1/7/2017.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5078.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–756–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2017–01–06_SA 2884 Otter TailCrowned Ridge 1st Rev GIA (G736) to be
effective 1/7/2017.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5085.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–756–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2017–01–06_SA 2884 Otter TailCrowned Ridge 1st Rev GIA (G736) to be
effective 1/7/2017.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5086.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–757–000.
Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
Amendment to NCEMC NITSA SA 210
to be effective 1/1/2017.
Filed Date: 1/6/17.
Accession Number: 20170106–5147.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the
docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or
protest in any of the above proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission’s
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–00564 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 13102–003]
Birch Power Company; Notice of
Technical Meeting
a. Date and Time of Meeting: January
23, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time (1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time).
b. Place: Telephone conference.
c. FERC Contact: Adam Peer at
adam.peer@ferc.gov, or (202) 502–8449.
d. Purpose of Meeting: Commission
Staff is hosting a technical meeting to
discuss the details of Birch Power’s
proposed Spoils Disposal Plan filed on
May 21, 2014.
e. A summary of the meeting will be
prepared and filed in the Commission’s
public file for the project.
f. All local, state, and federal agencies,
Indian tribes, and other interested
parties are invited to participate by
phone. Please call Adam Peer at (202)
502–8449 by January 17, 2017, to RSVP
and to receive specific instructions on
how to participate.
Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–00562 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 1494–437; Oklahoma]
Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of
Availability of Draft Environmental
Assessment
In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
the Federal Energy Regulatory
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Commission’s (Commission or FERC’s)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office of
Energy Projects has reviewed an
application filed by the Grand River
Dam Authority (GRDA) to permanently
amend the reservoir elevation rule curve
contained in Article 401 of the license
for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project
No. 1494. The amendment would allow
GRDA to keep water levels in the
project’s reservoir, Grand Lake O’ the
Cherokees (Grand Lake), up to two feet
higher August 16 through October 31
each year. The project is located on the
Grand (Neosho) River in Craig,
Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties,
Oklahoma.
Staff prepared a draft environmental
assessment (EA) for the application
which analyzes the potential
environmental effects of approving the
requested permanent change to the
Article 401 rule curve and concludes
that such an approval, with specified
environmental protection measures,
would not constitute a major federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft EA is available for
review at the Commission’s Public
Reference Room or may it be viewed on
the Commission’s Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link.
Enter the docket number P–1494 in the
docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY,
202–502–8659.
You may register online at
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
Any comments on the draft EA should
be filed by February 6, 2017. Comments
may be filed electronically via the
Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3767
Commenters can also submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end
of your comments. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support.
Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents
may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail a paper copy to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of
any filing should include the docket
number P–1494–437.
For further information, contact B.
Peter Yarrington at (202) 502–6129 or
peter.yarrington@ferc.gov, or contact
Jeremy Jessup at (202) 502–6779 or
Jeremy.jessup@ferc.gov.
Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3768
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 401 TO MODIFY
RESERVOIR ELEVATION RULE CURVE
PENSACOLA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC No. 1494-437
Oklahoma
January 2017
BILLING CODE 6717–01–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
EN12JA17.035
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
3769
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Table of Contents
List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................................................................
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................
1.0 Application .................................................................................................................................................................................
2.0 Purpose of Action and Need for Power ....................................................................................................................................
3.0 Background .................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1 Pensacola Project Description ............................................................................................................................................
3.2 Project Operation and Article 401 Rule Curve .................................................................................................................
4.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................
4.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................................................
4.1.1 Rule Curve Modification ..........................................................................................................................................
4.1.2 Storm Adaptive Management Plan ..........................................................................................................................
4.1.3 Drought Adaptive Management Plan ......................................................................................................................
4.2 Other Action Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................................
4.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................................................
5.0 Consultation and Compliance ...................................................................................................................................................
5.1 Background and GRDA’s Pre-Filing Consultation ............................................................................................................
5.2 Responses to Commission’s Additional Information Request .........................................................................................
5.3 Public Notice and Responses .............................................................................................................................................
5.4 Comments on Flooding and the Scope of this Environmental Assessment ...................................................................
5.5 Government-to-Government Consultation .........................................................................................................................
5.6 Statutory Compliance .........................................................................................................................................................
5.6.1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification .................................................................................................................
5.6.2 Endangered Species Act ...........................................................................................................................................
5.6.3 National Historic Preservation Act ..........................................................................................................................
6.0 Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................
6.1 Scope of the Analysis .........................................................................................................................................................
6.2 General Description of the Project Area ............................................................................................................................
6.3 Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................................................................................
6.3.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................................
6.3.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.4 Water Quantity and Flows .................................................................................................................................................
6.4.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................................
6.4.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.5 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................
6.5.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................................
6.5.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.6 Fisheries and Other Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................................
6.6.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................................
6.6.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.7 Terrestrial Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................
6.7.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................................
6.7.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.8 Wetlands and Riparian Resources .....................................................................................................................................
6.8.1 Existing Environment ...............................................................................................................................................
6.8.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.9 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................................................................
6.9.1 Existing Environment ...............................................................................................................................................
6.9.2 Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................................................
6.10 Cultural and Historic Resources ......................................................................................................................................
6.10.1 Existing Environment .............................................................................................................................................
6.10.2 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................
6.11 Recreation ..........................................................................................................................................................................
6.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................................
6.11.2 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................
6.12 Land Use and Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................................
6.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................................
6.12.2 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................................................................................................
7.1 Comprehensive Development and Staff-Recommended Measures ..................................................................................
7.1.1 Staff-Recommended Measures .................................................................................................................................
7.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ...........................................................................................................................
8.0 Finding of No Significant Impact .............................................................................................................................................
9.0 Literature Cited ..........................................................................................................................................................................
10.0 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................................................................
iv
iv
v
1
1
2
2
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
10
11
11
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
22
28
28
30
31
31
33
34
34
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
39
39
39
41
41
42
43
43
43
44
44
46
47
47
48
49
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map of the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project .............................................................................................................
Figure 2. Proposed Changes to Article 401 Reservoir Rule Curve Elevations ........................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3
6
3770
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
List of Tables
Table 1. Responses to Public Notice of GRDA’s Amendment Application ............................................................................................
Table 2. Grand Lake Elevation and Surface Area .....................................................................................................................................
Acronyms
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
ACER U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Assistant
Commissioner, Engineering and Research
Technical Memorandum No. 11
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of
the Interior
°C degrees Celsius
cfs cubic feet per second
CWA Clean Water Act
Commission or FERC Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Drought Plan Drought Adaptive
Management Plan
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
EAP Emergency Action Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS Geographic Information System
Grand Lake Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees
GRDA Grand River Dam Authority; licensee
HPMP Historic Properties Management
Plan
incremental increase change in water
surface elevation under proposed
amendment
Interior Department of the Interior
mg/l milligrams/liter
National Register National Register of
Historic Places
NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Oklahoma AS Oklahoma Archaeological
Survey
Oklahoma DEQ Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Oklahoma DWC Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma WRB Oklahoma Water Resources
Board
Oklahoma SHPO Oklahoma State Historic
Preservation Officer
PD Pensacola Datum; PD is 1.07 feet higher
than NGVD
Storm Plan Storm Adaptive Management
Plan
1 In its request, GRDA also asked that, if the
Commission could not process its permanent
amendment by August 15, 2016, that it be granted
a temporary variance for the period of August 15,
2016, through October 31, 2016, while the
Commission processed its request for a permanent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
11
21
Section 106 Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act
Section 401 Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act
Section 7 Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
401 certification Water Quality Certification
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
recreation during the summer/fall peak
recreation season and provide storage of
additional water to assist in making
releases for maintenance of dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the river
downstream.
3.0
Background
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1
Pensacola Project Description
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; Office of Energy Projects;
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance; Washington, DC
The Commission issued a license for
the Pensacola Project to GRDA on April
24, 1992.2 The project is located on the
Grand (Neosho) River in Craig,
Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties,
Oklahoma (Figure 1). Features of the
Pensacola Project include: (1) A
reinforced-concrete dam consisting of a
4,284-foot-long multiple arch section, an
861-foot-long spillway containing 21
Tainter or radial gates, a 451-foot-long
non-overflow gravity section, and two
non-overflow abutments, comprising an
overall length of 5,950 feet and
maximum height of 147 feet; (2) two
auxiliary spillways about one mile east
of the dam, a 505-foot-long concrete
gravity middle spillway containing 11
Tainter gates and a 464-foot-long
concrete gravity east spillway
containing 10 Tainter gates; (3) a
reservoir known as Grand Lake O’ the
Cherokees (Grand Lake) having a surface
area of 46,500 acres and a storage
capacity of 1,680,000 acre-feet at a water
surface elevation of 745 feet Pensacola
Datum (PD); 3 (4) six 15-foot-diameter
and one 3-foot-diameter steel penstocks
supplying flow to six turbine-generators
of 14.4-megawatt capacity each and one
turbine-generator of 500-kilowatt
capacity located in a powerhouse
immediately below the dam; (5) a
tailrace about 300 feet wide and a
spillway channel about 850 feet wide,
both about 1.5 miles long; and (6)
appurtenant facilities.
Pensacola Hydroelectric Project; FERC
No. 1494–437
1.0 Application
Application Type: Amendment of
Article 401 reservoir elevation rule
curve.
Date Filed: May 6, 2016,
supplemented June 2, 2016, and June
30, 2016.
Applicant’s Name: Grand River Dam
Authority.
Water Body: Neosho (Grand) River.
County and State: Craig, Delaware,
Mayes, and Ottawa counties, Oklahoma.
Federal Lands: The project does not
occupy any federal lands.
2.0 Purpose of Action and Need for
Power
Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA),
licensee for the Pensacola Hydroelectric
Project, requests a permanent
amendment of the reservoir operating
rule curve stipulated in Article 401 of
the project license.1 The Article 401 rule
curve specifies seasonal water surface
elevations that are to be targeted at the
project reservoir (Grand Lake) during
project operation. GRDA’s request
involves changes to the rule curve
during the period of August 16 through
October 31 to reduce the risk of vessel
groundings in late summer, improve
amendment. A temporary variance for 2016 was
granted in an order issued August 12, 2016. Grand
River Dam Authority,156 FERC ¶ 61,106 (2016).
2 The project was originally licensed in 1939 and
was relicensed in 1992. Grand River Dam
Authority, 59 FERC ¶ 62,073 (1992).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3 Pensacola Datum (PD) is 1.07 feet higher than
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) which is
a national standard for measuring elevations above
sea level. Elevations discussed in this EA are in PD
values unless otherwise stated.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3771
Figure 1. Location Map of the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project (source: U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and Environmental Systems Research Institute:
Geographic Information Systems (ESRI-GIS), 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
EN12JA17.036
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
3772
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
3.2 Project Operation and Article 401
Rule Curve
Grand Lake is used for multiple
purposes including power generation,
recreation, wildlife enhancement, and
flood control. Dedicated flood storage
(the flood pool) is provided between
elevations 745 and 755 feet. When
reservoir elevations are within the limits
of the flood pool, the Tulsa District of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) directs water releases from the
dam under the terms of a 1992 Letter of
Understanding and Water Control
Agreement between the Corps and
GRDA that addresses flooding both
upstream and downstream of Grand
Lake.
When reservoir elevations are below
the limits of the flood pool, GRDA
operates the project pursuant to Article
401 of the project license, as amended
in an order issued December 3, 1996.4
Article 401 requires GRDA to operate
the project to maintain, to the extent
practicable, the following target
reservoir surface elevations (the set of
elevations known as a rule curve),
except as necessary for the Corps to
provide flood protection:
Reservoir elevation, in feet
(Pensacola datum)
Period
May 1 through May 31 ......................................................................................................................................
June 1 through July 31 .....................................................................................................................................
August 1 through August 15 .............................................................................................................................
August 16 through August 31 ...........................................................................................................................
September 1 through October 15 .....................................................................................................................
October 16 through October 31 ........................................................................................................................
November 1 through April 30 ............................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Since issuance of the 1996 order,
GRDA has filed eight requests for either
temporary variances from, or permanent
amendments of, the elevations specified
in the Article 401 rule curve. Six of
those applications were withdrawn by
GRDA, denied, or dismissed by the
Commission.5 In July 2012, GRDA filed
an application for a temporary variance
so that it could operate the project to
vary from the rule curve in late summer
and early fall in order to alleviate effects
of an ongoing regional drought. That
application was approved in an order
issued August 15, 2012.6 In July 2015,
GRDA applied for a temporary variance
primarily to enhance recreational
boating in late summer and early fall.
That application, which involved the
same changes to the rule curve
elevations being requested in this
proceeding, was approved in an order
issued August 14, 2015.7 As referenced
above, a temporary variance for late
summer and early fall 2016 was granted
August 12, 2016.
4 Grand River Dam Authority, 77 FERC ¶ 61,251
(1996).
5 See June 26, 2015, Commission staff letter
dismissing, for lack of adequate information, May
28, 2015 request for temporary variance to enhance
recreational boating and tailwater dissolved oxygen
management; July 3, 2013 Commission order
denying March 20, 2013 request for temporary
variance based on drought forecasts, Grand River
Dam Authority, 144 FERC ¶ 61,007 (2013), and
August 2, 2013 letter denying request for
reconsideration; July 25, 2011 Commission staff
letter dismissing, for lack of adequate information,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Raise elevation from 742 to 744.
Maintain elevation at 744.
Lower elevation from 744 to 743.
Lower elevation from 743 to 741.
Maintain elevation at 741.
Raise elevation from 741 to 742.
Maintain elevation at 742.
4.0
Proposed Action and Alternatives
4.1.1
4.1
Proposed Action
GRDA requests a permanent
amendment of the Pensacola Project’s
Article 401 rule curve that would be
followed each year through the
remainder of the current license
period.8 GRDA seeks the rule curve
change to reduce the risk of vessel
grounding at Grand Lake in late
summer, improve recreation during the
summer/fall peak recreation season,
better balance competing stakeholder
interests, and provide additional water
storage, if necessary, to assist in
maintaining DO concentrations in the
tailrace and river below the project, and
below its Markham Ferry Project (No.
2183), located immediately
downstream.9 GRDA’s proposal also
includes a Storm Adaptive Management
Plan (Storm Plan) and a Drought
Adaptive Management Plan (Drought
Plan), which provide frameworks for
communication and operational
decision-making when major weather
events may affect GRDA’s ability to
target elevations on the rule curve.
Under GRDA’s proposal, the
Pensacola Project’s Article 401 rule
curve would be permanently amended
for the remainder of the current license
period. The elevations along the rule
curve would only be changed for the
period of August 16 through October 31.
Between August 16 and September 15
each year, the project would be operated
to target an elevation of 743 feet, which
is up to two feet higher than the current
rule curve. Between September 16 and
September 30, the elevation target
would be lowered from 743 to 742 feet.
Between October 1 and October 31,
operation would target an elevation of
742 feet, which is up to one foot higher
than the current rule curve. After
October 31, reservoir elevations would
follow the project’s existing rule curve.
GRDA would operate the project to
target the elevations along the rule curve
at all times, except as provided by the
Storm Plan or the Drought Plan, or as
necessary for the Corps to provide flood
protection. GRDA’s proposed rule curve
change is shown in Figure 2.
April 6, 2011 request for a temporary (two-year)
variance to enhance recreational boating; April 4,
2006 Commission staff letter denying March 13,
2006 request for temporary variance to respond to
drought conditions, on basis that variance not
warranted based on forecasted conditions; June 17,
2004 letter from GRDA withdrawing January 26,
2004 request to permanently amend Article 401 rule
curve to enhance recreation, water quality, and
wildlife habitat; and August 16, 1999 letter from
GRDA withdrawing June 2, 1999 request for
temporary variance (for calendar year 1999) to
allow for alternative plan for millet seeding.
6 Grand River Dam Authority, 140 FERC ¶ 62,123
(2012).
7 Grand River Dam Authority, 152 FERC ¶ 61,129
(2015) (August 14, 2015 order).
8 The current license for the Pensacola Project
expires in April 2022.
9 In addition to the temporary variance granted in
2016, in a separate proceeding in 2015, the
Commission granted the same temporary variance
for the period of August 15, 2015 through October
31, 2015. Grand River Dam Authority, 152 FERC ¶
61,129 (2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
Rule Curve Modification
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
Storm Adaptive Management
As part of its permanent amendment
request, GRDA proposes to implement a
Storm Plan that would be used yearround in anticipation of and during
major precipitation events within the
Grand/Neosho River basin that might
result in high water conditions
upstream or downstream of Grand Lake.
A Storm Plan was in place during the
2015 and 2016 temporary variance
periods. During the 2015 temporary
variance period, weekly conference calls
between all participants took place to
keep all participants informed of
potential flood conditions in the river
basin. Based on the success of the
weekly calls in 2015 and discussions
during the December 2015 technical
conference,10 the Storm Plan GRDA
includes in its permanent amendment
request includes year-round monitoring,
10 A Technical Conference was held at the
University of Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma on
December 16, 2015, which included GRDA staff,
FERC staff, resource agencies, local government
entities, and Tribes to discuss modeling needs
related to the rule curve amendment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
with activation of the Storm Plan
notifications and conference calls at any
time during the year when there is a
probability of high water conditions in
the Grand/Neosho River basin.
According to the Storm Plan, GRDA
would review, at a minimum, on a daily
basis the following information: (1)
Weather forecasts in the watershed; (2)
Grand Lake surface elevation data; (3)
data from the USGS gages upstream and
downstream of the project; (4) surface
elevations at the Corps’ upstream John
Redmond flood control reservoir and
downstream Lake Hudson (part of
GRDA’s Markham Ferry Project); and (5)
other relevant information affecting
surface elevations at Grand Lake during
the potential flood period.
If GRDA’s daily review of the
information indicates a probability of
high water conditions in the Grand/
Neosho River basin in the vicinity of the
project, GRDA would immediately
provide the information to federal and
state resource agencies, local
government officials, Commission staff,
Tribes, and other interested
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stakeholders.11 In conjunction with the
distribution of the information, GRDA
would also schedule a conference call.
Prior to the conference call, GRDA
would consult with the Corps to
determine whether any reservoir
management actions could be taken to
avoid, reduce, or minimize high water
levels upstream or downstream of the
project. During the conference call,
GRDA would then notify the
participants of any proposal to take
action. Participants will then have an
opportunity during the teleconference to
explore alternative solutions to respond
to the forecasted high-flow event,
recognizing the Corps’ jurisdiction to
direct flood control releases for
11 The Storm Plan contact list includes: GRDA;
the Commission; Corps; National Weather Service,
Tulsa Forecast Office; Oklahoma Secretary of
Energy and Environment; Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation; Oklahoma Water Resources
Board; Oklahoma Office of Emergency Management;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; City of Miami;
Ottawa County Office of the County Commissioner;
Ottawa County Emergency Management; Modoc
Tribe; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees;
Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Oklahoma State Historic
Preservation Office; and Oklahoma Archeological
Survey.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
EN12JA17.037
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
4.1.2
Plan
3773
3774
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
purposes of flood risk management once
the reservoir elevation is forecasted to
exceed a flood pool elevation of 745
feet. GRDA would continue regular
communications with all participants
during each event in order to keep them
informed of prevailing conditions.
GRDA notes that, although the
protocols contained in the Storm Plan
are separate and distinct from the
protocols in its Emergency Action Plan
(EAP) for the project, the Storm Plan
complements the EAP and involves
many of the same entities. According to
the Storm Plan, if the EAP is triggered,
the communication protocols in the
EAP would supersede those included in
the Storm Plan until the emergency is
resolved.
The Storm Plan also includes
provisions regarding historic properties
in the project area that could be
adversely affected by high water levels.
As discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural
and Historic Resources, the plan
specifies that, if the Oklahoma State
Historic Preservation Office (Oklahoma
SHPO) concludes that any actions to
address high water levels at Grand Lake
would adversely affect any
archaeological site or other cultural
resource in the project area, GRDA
would consult with the Oklahoma
SHPO to develop a site-specific plan for
protection or mitigation of the site. The
plan also includes a provision for the
unanticipated discovery of unidentified
burial sites in the project area.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
4.1.3
Plan
Drought Adaptive Management
As part of its permanent amendment
request, GRDA would institute its
proposed Drought Plan during any
period in which the National Drought
Mitigation Center’s (NDMC) U.S.
Drought Monitor identifies a severe to
exceptional drought within the Grand/
Neosho River basin. The plan would
help guide project operations and flow
releases during drought conditions. It’s
the same plan used in 2016 and is
similar to the plan used in 2015. As
noted earlier, GRDA must maintain DO
concentrations below the Pensacola
Project and below its downstream
Markham Ferry Project. GRDA states
that, during periods of drought,
adherence to the Article 401 rule curve
could prevent it from releasing water
necessary to maintain DO
concentrations in these areas.
Adherence to the rule curve could also
prevent it from maintaining reservoir
elevations in the Markham Ferry
Project’s Lake Hudson, which are
necessary to operate GRDA’s Salina
Pumped Storage Project (No. 2524) as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
4.2
Other Action Alternatives
well as meeting other water supply
needs.
Under the plan, GRDA would monitor
information from the NDMC’s U.S.
Drought Monitor and information from
other generally accepted sources of
drought information applicable to the
basin. Based on this information, if
GRDA determines that drought
conditions appear imminent, GRDA
would begin weekly teleconferences
with, in general, the same federal and
state resource agencies, local
government officials, Commission staff,
Indian Tribes, and other interested
stakeholders GRDA intends to consult
with under the Storm Plan.12 In the
teleconferences, GRDA would keep
these parties informed of prevailing
conditions and any plans to begin
additional releases in the event the
NDMC U.S. Drought Monitor declares a
severe to exceptional drought.
Under the plan, if the NMDC U.S.
Drought Monitor declares a severe to
exceptional drought for the Grand/
Neosho River basin, GRDA may, at its
discretion and based on input received
during the weekly teleconferences,
commence additional releases from
Pensacola Dam, regardless of the
prevailing levels at Grand Lake and
Article 401 rule curve target elevations.
Such releases would not exceed a rate
equal to 0.06 feet of reservoir elevation
per day, which is equivalent to
approximately 837 cubic feet per second
(cfs) per hour over a 24-hour period.
During the drought, GRDA would
conduct weekly teleconferences to
discuss project operations and would
address the following issues in each
teleconference: (1) Current and
forecasted drought conditions and
planned project operation; (2)
maintenance of water levels and flows
sufficient to maintain downstream DO
concentrations for water quality and to
prevent fish kills; (3) maintenance of
reservoir elevations at the Markham
Ferry Project’s Lake Hudson sufficient
to operate its Salina Pumped Storage
Project for system reliability; and (4)
based on available information, when
the severe to exceptional drought period
is expected to end. When severe to
exceptional drought conditions are over,
GRDA would cease releases under the
plan, return to operating the project to
target Article 401 rule curve elevations,
and notify federal and state resource
agencies and other stakeholders
involved in the teleconference.
GRDA’s pre-filing consultation
included both its application for a
permanent amendment to the Article
401 rule curve and its request for a
temporary variance for 2016. GRDA
distributed a draft of its application to
federal and state resource agencies,
Indian Tribes, local governmental
authorities, and interested members of
the public on March 15, 2016. On that
same day, GRDA filed a request to
shorten the normal 60-day pre-filing
comment period to 30 days to help
expedite processing. The Commission
approved a reduced pre-filing comment
period on April 5, 2016.
GRDA received comments on the draft
application from the Delaware County
Floodplain Administration, the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
(Oklahoma WRB), the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation
(Oklahoma DWC), the Modoc Tribe of
Oklahoma, the City of Miami, Oklahoma
(City of Miami), plaintiffs in two civil
cases,13 Mr. N. Larry Bork (on behalf of
citizens and businesses located in
Ottawa County, Oklahoma), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
the Oklahoma SHPO. GRDA included
copies of these comments and addressed
them in a comment/response table.
Substantive issues raised in pre-filing
consultation included: (1) The extent
and frequency of flooding of upstream
areas and interpretation of recent flood
studies; (2) progress in recent
12 The only participant not listed for both plans
is the National Weather Service, Tulsa Forecast
Office, which is only included in the Storm Plan.
13 The two cases are City of Miami v. GRDA, Case
No. CJ–08–690 (Okla. Dist. Ct.) and Asbell, et al. v.
GRDA, Case No. CJ–01–381 (Okla. Dist. Ct.).
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No reasonable action alternatives to
GRDA’s proposal have been presented
by GRDA, identified by Commission
staff, or suggested by entities
commenting in this proceeding.
4.3
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative,
GRDA’s request to permanently amend
the Pensacola Project’s Article 401 rule
curve would be denied. GRDA would
therefore continue to operate the project
to target elevations along the current
rule curve, except as directed by the
Corps for flood control, for the
remainder of the current license period.
Also, GRDA’s Storm and Drought Plans
would not be approved by the
Commission. Environmental resources
in the project area would remain the
same as they are initially described in
Environmental Analysis below.
5.0
Consultation and Compliance
5.1 Background and GRDA’s Pre-Filing
Consultation
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
consultation between resource agencies
and GRDA on mitigation for fish and
wildlife under the current rule curve;
and (3) protection of historic properties
and archaeological sites. Almost all of
the issues raised in pre-filing
consultation were relevant to a
permanent rule curve change and
almost all were repeated in the
responses to the Commission’s public
notice of GRDA’s final application, as
described below. All substantive issues
raised in pre-filing consultation are
treated in the resource sections of this
environmental assessment (EA).
GRDA also included in its application
a summary report on a hydraulic
modeling technical conference held
December 16, 2015, at the University of
Oklahoma, and copies of letters from the
University of Oklahoma and the Corps
regarding recent flood studies relative to
the amendment request.
5.2 Responses to Commission’s
Additional Information Request
On May 18, 2016, Commission staff
issued a letter asking GRDA to provide
additional information regarding
fisheries and aquatic resources and the
results of flooding studies on property
and structures. GRDA filed additional
information on these issues on June 2
and 30, 2016, respectively.
5.3
3775
Public Notice and Responses
The Commission issued public notice
of GRDA’s application for a permanent
amendment of the Article 401 rule curve
on September 22, 2016, which was
published in the Federal Register on
September 29, 2016.14 The notice
established a 30-day deadline for
submitting comments, motions to
intervene, and protests. The notice was
also published in five newspapers in the
project area. Responses to the notice are
listed in the following table and
summarized below. On November 8,
2016, GRDA filed an answer to the
comments made in response to the
notice. Issues raised in these filings are
addressed in this EA.
TABLE 1—RESPONSES TO PUBLIC NOTICE OF GRDA’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Entity
Filing date
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma ..................................................................
Oklahoma DWC .................................................................................
Al Newkirk ..........................................................................................
U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), Office of the Secretary,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Interior, Office of the Solicitor ............................................................
N. Larry Bork ......................................................................................
City of Miami ......................................................................................
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Wyandotte Nation, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of
Oklahoma, Seneca-Cayuga Nation (jointly, the Tribes).
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey ......................................................
March 31, 2016 ..................
April 6, 2016 .......................
October 10, 2016 ...............
October 21, 2016 ...............
protest and comments 15.
comments 14.
comments.
comments 16.
October
October
October
October
notice of intervention.
protest and comments.
motion to intervene, protest, and comments.
motion to intervene and protest.
21,
24,
24,
24,
2016
2016
2016
2016
...............
...............
...............
...............
November 7, 2016 .............
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Al Newkirk
U.S. Department of the Interior
Al Newkirk states that his house and
commercial pecan grove are located
across the Neosho River from the City of
Miami. Mr. Newkirk indicates that the
frequency and duration of flooding of
his property have increased over the
years, with flooding in the pecan grove
already occurring three times this year,
and with floods previously lasting a day
or two but now extending to a week to
10 days. Mr. Newkirk indicates that
approximately 20 acres of his land
cannot be accessed when the lake is at
an elevation of 744 feet and there are
flows of 5,000 to 6,000 cfs in the river.
Mr. Newkirk writes that flooding results
in financial harm to him and other
people in the area. Regarding the timing
of the annual lake drawdown in the fall,
Mr. Newkirk indicates that boat traffic
on the lake drops off significantly by
September 15, and higher levels are not
needed for safety past that time.
Interior reviewed the role of its
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in
working with federally recognized
American Indian Tribes stating that it is
clear that higher water elevations would
affect Tribal lands and resources.
Interior indicated that the Inter-Tribal
Council 17 and several of its member
Tribes informed the BIA that backwater
flooding is affecting Tribal lands,
communities, financial enterprises,
infrastructure, and cultural resources.
Interior indicated that these Tribes are
concerned that amending the rule curve
may increase adverse impacts. Interior
noted that there is currently no
agreement on the level of effects on
Tribal lands and resources and until
information to support appropriate
mitigation for adverse effects is
identified, Commission action on
GRDA’s amendment application would
be premature.
14 81
FR 66,957 (Sept. 29, 2016).
made in response to the Commission’s
March 16, 2016, public notice of GRDA’s request to
reduce the public comment period from 60 to 30
days on GRDA’s March 15, 2016 draft application.
16 Interior indicated in its comments that its letter
superseded a letter it had filed October 19, 2016.
15 Filings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
17 The Inter-Tribal Council is a Tribal
intergovernmental body that is comprised of nine
sovereign Tribal governments whose seat of
government is located in and around Ottawa
County, Oklahoma: the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma,
the Wyandotte Nation, the Ottawa Tribe of
Oklahoma, the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, the
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Filing type
Comments.
Interior indicated that, as currently
defined, the project boundary does not
occupy Indian lands, but that BIA is in
the process of establishing the
boundaries and legal definitions of all
affected Indian lands in the project area,
with a number of Tribes having
documented impacts to Tribally-owned
lands and resources. Interior stated that
it intends to more fully evaluate the
project boundary issue during
relicensing.18 Interior also stated that
lands and resources held in trust by the
federal government are subject to its
jurisdiction under section 4(e) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) and to
restitution under FPA section 10(e).
Interior indicated that the relicensing
process is the appropriate forum to
discuss these and all other issues
associated with continued project
operation. Interior and BIA object to the
amendment until project impacts and
mitigation can be evaluated and
negotiated during the re-licensing
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Shawnee
Tribe, Modoc Tribe, Quapaw Tribe, and the SenecaCayuga Tribe.
18 GRDA must file its Notice of Intent and PreApplication Document to begin the relicensing
process no later than March 31, 2017.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3776
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
process, and jurisdictional issues
between the Corps and the Commission
are better understood.
sites, and submitting it to the
Commission after approval by the
Tribes.
Indian Tribes
The Tribes, which comprise six of the
nine sovereign, federally-recognized
Tribal governments whose respective
seats of government are located in and
around Ottawa County, Oklahoma, state
that operation of the project has
adversely affected their lands, facilities,
and resources. In their comments, and
during Government-to-Government
Consultation with the Commission
(discussed below), the Tribes assert that
flooding due to project operation has
increased in elevation, frequency, and
duration, resulting in extensive property
damage, closure of Tribal business
enterprises and facilities, and
impairment to essential services. The
Tribes write that the proposed
amendment would increase risks to
health and human safety. The Tribes
state that the Commission cannot
determine what constitutes an
‘‘incremental’’ increase in flood effects
and evaluate the impacts of such an
increase, where the Commission has not
yet evaluated the impacts of current
operations.
The Tribes indicate that they oppose
GRDA’s proposal and urge the
Commission to deny it based on
unauthorized project-related flooding of
federal trust lands. The Tribes believe
that the Commission should defer any
action pertaining to the rule curve until
project relicensing and indicate that,
alternatively, the Commission should
condition any approval on GRDA’s prior
fulfillment of a series of requirements,
including: (1) completing
comprehensive upstream and
downstream flood routing studies; (2)
acquiring all necessary property rights
within 12 months of completing studies;
(3) investigating and reporting the
extent of its use and occupancy of Tribal
trust lands and filing an amendment
application for authorization for any
such occupancy as required under
sections 4(e), 10(a), and 10(e) of the
FPA; (4) identifying, in consultation
with the Tribes and the Oklahoma
SHPO, any archaeological sites, historic
properties, or Tribal cultural properties
that could be adversely impacted by the
project, including those outside the
current project boundary and above
existing flowage easements; (5)
conducting surveys of any such sites to
determine eligibility for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register); and (6) developing,
in consultation with the Tribes and the
Oklahoma SHPO, a plan for protection
of, or mitigation of damage to, such
N. Larry Bork
N. Larry Bork, in comments on behalf
of 493 citizens and businesses in Ottawa
County, asks the Commission to deny
the amendment application. Mr. Bork
asserts that the Commission is allowing
GRDA to violate its license when
unauthorized flooding occurs, and asks
the Commission to ensure that GRDA
purchases necessary easements before
approving any amendment to the rule
curve. Mr. Bork references recent
studies finding a decrease in the flood
storage capacity of Grand Lake caused
by accumulation of sediments over time,
and gives examples of times Grand Lake
was below an elevation of 743 feet and
high flows still flooded the City of
Miami. Mr. Bork also provides a list of
legal actions related to flooding
upstream of the project.
Additionally, Mr. Bork asserts that
past increases in the rule curve have led
to flooding and economic decline of the
City of Miami. Also, he indicates that
backwater flooding can increase
exposure to contaminants from the
closed Tar Creek Superfund Site and
Spring River. Lastly, Mr. Bork expressed
concern that higher water levels would
cause more pressure on Pensacola Dam,
when 907 earthquakes occurred in
Oklahoma last year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
City of Miami
The City of Miami asks the
Commission to deny the permanent
amendment to the rule curve, or in the
alternative, condition any approval by
requiring a comprehensive upstream
and downstream flood routing study
followed by the acquisition of all
necessary property rights. Citing
recently-completed flood studies, the
City states that project operations have
resulted in increased flooding in the
City and surrounding region. The City
believes that GRDA’s failure to acquire
necessary flowage easements makes
unauthorized flooding illegal under the
project license and state and local laws,
and that it puts the health and safety of
people and property at risk. The City
indicates that the proposed rule curve
amendment would only make this
situation worse.
The City of Miami does not believe
that analyzing only the incremental
effects of the proposal is appropriate
and that the Commission cannot and
should not ignore existing conditions in
rendering a decision on the amendment.
The City says the Commission has a
responsibility to ensure that GRDA
operates the project in the public
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
interest and references prior cases in
support of the Commission not ignoring
existing conditions. The city also
references the Commission’s authority
under the license and under the FPA
related to the protection of life, health,
and property.
Finally, the City of Miami believes
that the Commission must evaluate
flooding in its EA, including impacts
and the adverse socioeconomic impacts
from unauthorized project-related
flooding, and impacts to Tribal lands
and resources that have been identified
through consultations with the InterTribal Council. The City also requests
that the Commission consider the InterTribal Council’s concerns prior to
issuing a decision on the rule curve
proposal.
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
The Oklahoma AS states that,
although the Commission did not
require GRDA to develop a project-wide
Historic Properties Management Plan
(HPMP) for the temporary variance, as
recommended by the Oklahoma SHPO,
the Commission should require a HPMP
for the permanent amendment. The
Oklahoma AS is concerned that changes
in reservoir elevations have the
potential to substantially impact historic
properties, including archaeological
sites, that are located along and near the
shore of Grand Lake, by eroding the
sites and by exposing them to looting
and vandalism. Further, the Oklahoma
AS does not accept the premise that
GRDA’s HPMP for the Markham Ferry
Project is an adequate framework for the
Pensacola Project since Markham Ferry
has its own project setting and cultural
resources. Therefore, the Oklahoma AS
requests that a HPMP be developed
specifically for the Pensacola Project’s
proposed rule curve amendment.
GRDA’s Answer to Interventions and
Comments
On November 8, 2016, GRDA filed an
answer to the comments filed by
Interior, the Tribes, Mr. Bork, and the
City of Miami regarding flood effects,
indicating that these entities’ comments
are without merit and outside the scope
of the Commission’s statutory
responsibilities. GRDA argues that it
and the Commission are not authorized
to address flood control and flowage
rights at Pensacola Dam because flood
control is not a project purpose under
the FPA, and Congress has tasked the
Corps with these responsibilities. GRDA
next states that during the temporary
variances in 2015 and 2016, its Storm
Plan successfully reduced the risk of
flooding at the project. Lastly, GRDA
states that the Tribe’s allegation that the
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Commission has failed to meet its
responsibilities under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) are without merit. GRDA avers
that it has consulted with the
appropriate agencies and Tribes and
that water levels under its proposal
would not be outside the range of the
current rule curve, and that any impacts
to historic properties from flood control
are beyond the scope of the undertaking
and the Commission’s jurisdiction.
GRDA indicated that, while the Tribes
have asserted that project operation is
causing flooding of Tribal trust lands,
the Tribes have not identified properties
listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register that would be affected
by the proposed action.
5.4 Comments on Flooding and the
Scope of This Environmental
Assessment
The majority of the comments filed in
response to the Commission’s public
notice concern flooding in the upper
reaches of Grand Lake. These
comments, summarized above,
primarily focus on the degree to which
the presence of the project and GRDA’s
operation of the project has contributed
to the frequency, duration, and
magnitude of flooding. In addition,
comments were filed on the effects of
the proposed rule curve change on
flooding, the accuracy of the project
boundary, and the adequacy of GRDA’s
property easements in relation to
flooding. Commenters also address the
adequacy of input data and the
methodology of several flood routing
studies presented by GRDA, the City of
Miami, Commission staff, and others in
this and earlier proceedings. Further,
commenters questioned the accuracy
and interpretation of the results of those
studies.
These same issues were raised in the
Commission’s 2015 and 2016
proceedings for GRDA’s temporary
variances. In those proceedings, staff
carefully examined hydraulic modeling
studies and the results of those studies
and summarized its findings which
were then addressed in the
Commission’s orders issued August 14,
2015 and August 12, 2016. In the Water
Quantity and Flows section of this EA,
staff summarizes those studies and
results as needed, in order to address
the flood-related comments received in
this proceeding.
In their comments, Interior, the
Tribes, Mr. Bork, and the City of Miami
raise the issue of flooding and adverse
socioeconomic effects to property in the
City of Miami and Tribal trust lands and
resources. The extent to which the
proposed amendment would aggravate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
flooding and affect property is discussed
in the Water Quantity and Flows
section. The information in that section
includes modeled effects to areas and
structures in the City and surrounding
lands. Pursuant to our statutory
responsibilities under section 106 of the
NHPA, we address comments specific to
Tribal lands and resources in the
Cultural and Historic Resources section
and in the summary of our Governmentto-Government consultation with the
Inter-Tribal Council. To the extent the
above commenters address flooding
concerns that are not related to the
pending amendment, the Commission
will perform a comprehensive review of
the project and any proposed future
operation in the upcoming relicensing
proceeding. That proceeding is the
appropriate forum to identify and
address issues that are separate from
GRDA’s amendment application.
5.5 Government-to-Government
Consultation
Commission staff met with the InterTribal Council on August 3, 2016, in
Miami, Oklahoma to hear the Council’s
concerns and gather any additional
information the Council or its member
Tribes wish to present for Commission
consideration. In summary, the InterTribal Council reiterated its concerns
that the project already floods Tribal
trust lands and other areas in the Miami
region. The Inter-Tribal Council
provided more detailed information
concerning the whereabouts of
individual Tribal lands and facilities
affected by flooding, their desire to be
compensated for flooding effects, and
their concerns about the project in
general. Commission staff’s August 3rd
meeting with the Inter-Tribal Council
and its member Tribes was transcribed
and the transcripts were filed with the
Commission’s Secretary. All comments
presented at the August 3, 2016 meeting
have been made a part of this
proceeding and are publicly available.
Further information concerning cultural
and historic resources and the
Commission’s consultation with the
Tribes is discussed in Section 6.9
Cultural and Historic Resources.
5.6
Statutory Compliance
5.6.1 Section 401 Water Quality
Certification
The Clean Water Act (CWA) gives
authority to each state to issue a section
401 Water Quality Certification (401
certification) for any FERC-licensed
project that requires a permit pursuant
to section 404 of the CWA.
Additionally, an applicant must obtain
a 401 certification for any activity that
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3777
may result in a new discharge into
navigable waters. The 401 certification
is a verification by the state that a
proposed project would not violate
water quality standards.
On June 30, 2016, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
(Oklahoma DEQ) issued a 401
certification for GRDA’s permanent
amendment request, subject to four
conditions: (1) The certification does
not authorize any discharge or dredging;
(2) the reservoir will be maintained
between elevations 742 and 744 feet as
requested by GRDA; (3) emergency and
routine maintenance will be as
permitted by the Corps; and (4) the
results of ongoing testing of DO
mitigation measures under the project
license shall be submitted annually to
Oklahoma DEQ. These conditions are
included in our analysis of effects to
water quality in Section 6.4 Water
Quality.
5.6.2 Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to
ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
federally listed threatened or
endangered species, or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
the critical habitat of such species.
Several federally listed species are
known to use the Pensacola Project area.
The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and the
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana) are listed as endangered,
while the Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis
rosae) and the Neosho madtom (Noturus
placidus) are listed as threatened.
In its April 21, 2016 comments on
GRDA’s application, FWS states that
GRDA’s proposal would not adversely
affect any listed species. Information on
listed species is discussed further in
Section 6.8, Threatened and
Endangered Species. However, in
summary, no further consultation
pursuant to the ESA is required for this
proceeding.
5.6.3 National Historic Preservation
Act
Under section 106 of the NHPA,19 and
its implementing regulations,20 federal
agencies must take into account the
effect of any proposed undertaking on
properties listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register and afford the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the undertaking. GRDA’s
proposed amendment would not cause
Grand Lake to exceed its normal
19 54
20 36
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
U.S.C. 300101 et seq. (2014).
CFR part 800 (2011).
12JAN1
3778
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
maximum (or minimum) water surface
elevations under the rule curve
specified by Article 401. Water levels
would remain within existing
fluctuation limits within the rule curve.
Also, the proposed amendment does not
involve any land-clearing or landdisturbing activities. Therefore, we find
that the proposed amendment would
not affect cultural resources and historic
properties. Further information is
discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and
Historic Resources.
6.0
Environmental Analysis
6.1. Scope of the Analysis
The geographic scope of this analysis
is Grand Lake, its shoreline areas, and
flows immediately upstream and
downstream. As appropriate,
discussions of cumulative
environmental effects are incorporated
into the resource sections in this
document.
The temporal scope of this
environmental analysis focuses on the
period from now until when the current
project license expires in April 2022.
The environmental effects of any
proposed rule curve changes made
during the relicensing period will be
evaluated as part of the relicensing
docket.
6.2 General Description of the Project
Area
The Pensacola Project and its
reservoir, Grand Lake, are located on the
Neosho River in the northeast corner of
Oklahoma, in Craig, Delaware, Mayes,
and Ottawa counties. Downstream of the
project, the Neosho River is locally
known as the Grand River. Much of the
land surrounding Grand Lake is
privately owned and many areas along
its shorelines have become highly
developed with commercial resorts,
private homes and condominiums,
municipal and state parks, marinas, and
private docks.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
6.3
Geology and Soils
6.3.1 Affected Environment
Limestone bluffs and steep rocky
beaches characterize much of the
southern and eastern shorelines at
Grand Lake. Soils in these areas are
mostly cherty material that is not highly
erodible. In contrast, the northern and
western areas of the lake are surrounded
mostly by rolling plains with occasional
hills and ridges with gentle slopes.
These shorelines generally feature more
erodible loamy soils with mud
substrates, silt deposits, and wetlands at
inlets and coves associated with
numerous small tributaries. These mud
substrates and silt deposits provide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
good conditions for the growth of
certain wetland vegetation (FERC 1996;
FERC 2009 (SMP EA)).
6.3.2
Environmental Effects
Under the proposed rule curve, water
levels would not be lowered three feet
from elevation 744 to 741 feet in
August, as is currently done. Instead,
the draw down would stop after one
foot at elevation 743 feet until
September 15, then drop an additional
foot to elevation 742 feet, and remain at
that level until October 31 (see Figure
2). This stepped reduction in water
levels, combined with eliminating the
last foot of drawdown from September
15 to October 31, would likely result in
only minor changes in erosion patterns
that occur under the current rule curve.
These changes would likely include
minor decreases in shoreline erosion,
although erosion from wind and waves
at the waterline would be expected to
continue regardless of water levels.
Reductions in erosion rates over
sequential years could enhance
revegetation of some shallow water,
near-shore areas over time, leading to
increases in substrate and soil
stabilization that could be beneficial.
6.4
Water Quantity and Flows
6.4.1
Affected Environment
Grand Lake is impounded by
Pensacola Dam on the Neosho River,
which has a basin covering 12,110
square miles in Kansas, Oklahoma,
Missouri, and Arkansas. The Neosho
River originates in the Flint Hills of east
central Kansas, then flows southeasterly
and easterly until it enters the 66-milelong Grand Lake. Below Pensacola Dam,
the Neosho flows approximately 77
miles to its confluence with the
Arkansas River. Significant tributaries of
the lake include Spring River, Elk River,
Tar Creek, and Duck Creek.
Flows in the Neosho River
downstream of Pensacola Dam to the
head of Lake Hudson are controlled by
operation of the Pensacola Dam. USGS
gage 07190500, Neosho River Near
Langley, OK, is located approximately
3.6 miles below the dam, and has been
in operation 1939. According to records
collected at that gage for water years
1940 through 2015, the historic highest
daily mean flow was 287,000 cfs,
recorded May 20, 1943. The lowest
daily mean flow for that period was 9
cfs, recorded March 25, 1940, four days
after initial filling of Grand Lake began.
The historic annual mean flow was
7,601 cfs. In water year 2015, the
highest daily mean flow of 86,900 cfs
was recorded at the gage on May 30, and
the lowest daily mean flow of 84 cfs was
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
recorded November 20, with an annual
mean flow of 9,169 cfs (USGS, 2016).
Grand Lake is one of the largest lakes
in Oklahoma with approximately 522
miles of shoreline. At the time of project
was relicensed in 1992, Grand Lake was
recorded as having a surface area of
approximately 46,500 acres at elevation
745 feet. At elevation 745.1 feet, the
mean depth of the reservoir is about 36
feet while the maximum depth is 164
feet (FERC, 2007; FERC 2009). As shown
in Table 2, results of recent surveys
have updated the calculation of the
surface area of Grand Lake at an
elevation of 745 feet, as well as the
surface area at other elevations relevant
in this EA.
Except during flood events, when
releases are directed by the Corps for
flood control, GRDA operates the
Pensacola Project to target seasonal
water elevations at Grand Lake varying
from elevation 741 to 744 feet in
accordance with the Article 401 rule
curve. As shown in Figure 2, a lake
elevation of 742 feet is maintained
November 1 through April 30. In May,
the lake is raised to a summer elevation
of 744 feet. In August, the level is then
reduced to a low point of 741 feet and
then held there for six weeks from
September 1 through October 15. It is
then returned to an elevation of 742 feet
by November 1. While targeting the
elevations on the rule curve, GRDA also
manages releases to provide water to
operate GRDA’s downstream Markham
Ferry Project and its Salina Pumped
Storage Project. In addition, during
summer and fall, calculated releases are
made to help maintain DO
concentrations in the tailrace and
downstream river, as discussed further
under Water Quality below.
Grand Lake is also a significant local
water supply. GRDA indicates in its
application that approximately 25
wholesale customers currently
withdraw water from Grand Lake and
that the lake is used by approximately
21,000 residential households and 500
commercial customers. GRDA issues
yearly permits for domestic water use.
TABLE 2—GRAND LAKE ELEVATION
AND SURFACE AREA
[Source: Oklahoma WRB, 2009]
Surface elevation
(feet PD 21)
740
741
742
743
Surface
area
(thousands
of acres)
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
21 Elevations
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
converted from NGVD to PD.
36.58
37.52
38.83
39.98
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 2—GRAND LAKE ELEVATION
AND SURFACE AREA—Continued
[Source: Oklahoma WRB, 2009]
Surface elevation
(feet PD 21)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
744 ............................................
745 ............................................
Surface
area
(thousands
of acres)
40.60
41.11
6.4.2 Environmental Effects
Project operation using the proposed
rule curve would increase the elevation,
volume, and surface area of Grand Lake
in late summer and early fall. It would
therefore, allow GRDA to store more
water each year during that period for
the duration of the current license term.
As shown in Figure 2, water levels
would no longer be lowered all the way
from elevation 744 to 741 feet in
August, but instead would be reduced to
743 feet and held at that elevation from
August 16 through September 15. The
elevation would then be lowered to 742
feet, eliminating the deepest part of the
drawdown, and held at that elevation
until the following spring. Also, as
shown in Figure 2, the overall length of
the drawdown period between summer
and winter elevations would be reduced
from 12 to 8 weeks. GRDA would
continue to target the rule curve at all
times, except as necessary for the Corps
to provide flood protection, or during
any periods in which the proposed
Storm or Drought Plans might be
utilized.
The increase in lake elevations under
the proposed rule curve would
primarily benefit boating on Grand Lake
in late summer and early fall each year,
as described in Recreation below. The
increase in storage would also provide
a buffer for local entities that utilize
Grand Lake for water supply, because
more storage would be available during
what is typically the hottest and driest
time of the year. This coincides with the
season when the population around the
lake is highest, with the highest local
water demand. The higher reservoir
elevation in late summer and fall would
also help ensure GRDA has sufficient
water for releases to maintain
downstream DO in hot and dry years, as
described further in Water Quality, and
would decrease the chances of Grand
Lake water levels falling below the rule
curve during periods of drought. If
drought conditions cause water to fall
below elevations on the rule curve,
GRDA would, under its proposed
Drought Plan, regardless of reservoir
elevations, make releases that would not
exceed a flow rate equal to 0.06 feet of
reservoir elevation per day, which is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
equivalent to approximately 837 cfs per
hour over a 24-hour period.
The reduction in the total drawdown
depth and the stepped reduction to
winter elevations should also provide
some benefits to other resources,
primarily near-shore and shoreline
habitat for fish and wildlife, as
described in sections below.
Flooding Impacts
There have been several hydraulic
studies prepared that assess the affects
the proposed rule curve amendment
would have on flooding. Key studies, as
well as submitted reviews of those
studies, were evaluated for this
environmental analysis, they include:
• A 2014 study performed by Alan C.
Dennis (2014 Dennis Study); 22
• an independent modeling analysis
performed by Commission staff as part
of its review of GRDA’s 2015 temporary
variance request (2015 Staff Analysis); 23
• a hydraulic modeling study
conducted by Tetra Tech dated February
3, 2016 (2016 Tetra Tech Study); 24
• a May 2016 review by Mead & Hunt
of the 2016 hydraulic modeling study
conducted by Tetra Tech;
• letters dated July 23, 2015 and May
2, 2016 from the University of
Oklahoma regarding the 2014 Dennis
Study and the differences between the
2014 Dennis, 2015 Staff, and 2016 Tetra
Tech studies;
• a letter dated February 20, 2015
from the Corps regarding the 2014
Dennis Study; and
• a summary report on a hydraulic
modeling technical conference held
December 16, 2016 in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.25
In support of its permanent
amendment request, GRDA relies
primarily on the 2014 Dennis Study
which analyzed the upstream flooding
impacts, particularly in the area of
Miami, which would occur as a result
22 The 2014 Dennis Study is a graduate thesis
submitted to the University of Oklahoma graduate
program in 2014 by Alan C. Dennis. Floodplain
Analysis of the Neosho River Associated with
Proposed Rule Curve Modifications for Grand Lake
O’ the Cherokees, Docket No. P–1494–432 (filed
May 29, 2015).
23 Commission staff’s independent analysis
performed for GRDA’s temporary variance request
was filed under Docket No. P–1494–432 on August
31, 2015.
24 The 2016 Tetra Tech Study was completed for
the City of Miami, Oklahoma. Hydraulic Analysis
of the Effects of Proposed Rule Curve Change at
Pensacola Dam on Neosho River Flooding in the
Vicinity of Miami, Oklahoma, Docket No. P–1494–
433 filed April 14, 2016 and July 22, 2016 (2016
Tetra Tech Study).
25 Attendees of the conference included
representatives from GRDA and its consultants,
Commission staff, the City of Miami, the Corps, the
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, and the University of
Oklahoma.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3779
of the proposed rule curve modification.
The study determined that the proposed
rule curve modification would have a
minimal impact on upstream flooding;
concluding that the incremental 26
increase in water surface elevations
would be less than 0.2 foot 27 at Miami.
In review of the GRDA 2015
temporary variance request,
Commission staff performed an
independent analysis on the potential
flooding impacts of the rule curve
change. Commission staff gathered
available pertinent data, including but
not limited to, stream flows, reservoir
elevations, spillway gate operations, and
other data from historic storms to build
the input files for the independent
verification model which also extended
downstream to assess potential flooding
impacts from Pensacola Dam to the
USGS Gage No. 07190500, Neosho River
near Langley, Oklahoma (Langley gage).
While the 2014 Dennis Study only
considered storm events from August 15
to September 15, Commission staff
reviewed historic storms during the
August 16 to October 31 time period for
its independent analysis. Staff selected
the October 1986, September 1993, and
October 2009 storms for use in the
hydraulic model because they are large
historic storms from the time of year
corresponding to the proposed change
in the rule curve. Staff concluded that
historic large spring or early summer
storms were not appropriate for this
analysis since they occur outside of the
proposed rule curve amendment
period.28 Using flow data from USGS
Gage No. 07185000, Neosho River near
Commerce, Oklahoma (Commerce gage),
along with the Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) flood
frequency curve prepared for that
gage,29 Commission staff determined
that the flow recurrence intervals for the
Neosho River for the October 1986,
September 1993, and October 2009
storms are 17-year, 8-year, and 3-year
events, respectively. The results of the
Commission staff independent analysis
concluded that the maximum
incremental increase is approximately
0.1 foot if the reservoir starting elevation
is raised from 741 to 742 feet and
approximately 0.2 foot if the reservoir
starting elevation is raised from 741 to
26 In this document, incremental refers to the
change in water surface elevation due to the
proposed rule curve amendment.
27 0.2 foot is equivalent to 2.4 inches.
28 Generally, storm intensity and duration vary
seasonally throughout the year with larger events
occurring in the spring and early summer for this
river basin.
29 FEMA, Task Order HSFE06–11–J–0001 for
Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees Watershed (Nov. 15,
2013).
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
3780
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
743 feet. However, a precise number of
additional structures impacted by the
maximum incremental increase of 0.2
foot in the vicinity of Miami could not
be determined due to the lack of
surveyed structure data (e.g., first floor
elevation or lowest adjacent grade to the
structure) and the coarseness of the
available topographic data. Staff’s
review of aerial photographic data in the
vicinity of Miami indicated that there
would be increased flooding of 11
structures already inundated with a
reservoir starting elevation of 741 feet.
An additional 22 structures that are
located within a 30-foot horizontal
buffer of the inundation zone could also
be impacted. Nonetheless, many
inundated structures are located at the
edge of the inundated area where flood
depths are minor and the incremental
flooding impacts are minimal.
The maximum incremental increase
in water surface elevation downstream
of Pensacola Dam, at the Langley gage,
also occurs during the October 2009
storm event and is approximately 0.3
foot if the reservoir starting elevation is
raised from 741 to742 feet and
approximately 0.7 foot if the reservoir
starting elevation is raised from 741 to
743 feet.30 With the same topographic
limitations found in the vicinity of
Miami, a specific number of additional
structures impacted by the maximum
incremental increase of 0.7 foot could
not be determined. Review of aerial
photographic data indicated that there
would be increased flooding of 12
structures already inundated with a
reservoir starting elevation of 741 feet.
An additional 7 structures that are
located within a 30-foot horizontal
buffer of the inundation zone could also
be impacted. If GRDA is proactive in its
adaptive management procedures, using
technical experts to continually assess
the potential for storm events and
reacting quickly when necessary by
notifying downstream residents using
EAP procedures that have been
developed for the project, there would
be at most minimal increases in
incremental flooding.
The City of Miami filed comments on
July 22, 2016, which included a new
study performed by Tetra Tech dated
April 26, 2016, that evaluated the effects
of the proposed rule curve change on
structure inundation (2016 Tetra Tech
Study). The 2016 Tetra Tech Study
evaluated the effects of the proposed
rule curve on flooding upstream of
Grand Lake, specifically in the vicinity
of Miami, that would occur during the
October 1986, September 1993, and
30 0.3 and 0.7 foot are equivalent to 3.6 and 8.4
inches, respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
October 2009 historic storm events. The
study was performed using a HEC–RAS
hydraulic model and incorporated new
bathymetric survey data to account for
sedimentation that has occurred in the
Neosho River channel upstream of the
reservoir. The 2016 Tetra Tech Study
indicates that the water surface
elevations at Miami during the modeled
historic flood events are higher than
determined in the 2015 Staff Analysis
for both the 741 and 743 feet Grand
Lake elevations. The study confirmed
that during the three modeled storm
events, the maximum incremental
increase in water surface elevation at
Miami, which occurs during the October
2009 storm, is less than 0.2 foot if the
Grand Lake reservoir elevation is raised
from 741 to 743 feet. The 2016 Tetra
Tech Inundation Study concluded that
the 2015 Staff Analysis underestimated
the number of structures inundated
under the current rule curve, due to the
staff’s lower computed water surface
elevations, but that no additional
structures would be impacted by the
proposed rule curve change.
On June 30, 2016, GRDA filed a
response to Commission staff’s May 18,
2016 request for additional information.
The response included a review,
prepared by GRDA’s consultant Mead &
Hunt, of the 2016 Tetra Tech Study and
an evaluation of the effects to property,
structures, and human life as a result of
the higher water surface elevations
indicated in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study.
Mead & Hunt found that all three of the
most recent hydraulic model studies of
the Neosho River upstream of Pensacola
Dam conducted by Tetra Tech, FERC,
and Dennis agree that the incremental
change in water surface elevations due
to the requested variance is 0.2 feet (2.4
inches) or less at the Miami gage. The
difference in water surface elevations at
the Miami gage between the latest Tetra
Tech model and the FERC model are
primarily due to a difference in the
downstream boundary conditions/
starting water surface elevations, and
the bathymetry data gathered in April
2015 that results in higher predicted
channel elevations. Mead & Hunt
concluded that the Tetra Tech modeling
cannot be relied upon for future studies
until it has been verified that the model
configuration, parameters, calibration
results, and overall results are accurate
and recommended that further
investigation be completed before
relying on the higher water surface
elevations determined in the study.
In order to determine the effects to
property and structures that could result
from the higher water surface elevations
indicated in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study,
Commission staff also requested that
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
GRDA evaluate the impact to structures
that would occur with and without the
proposed rule curve change for the three
historic storm events (October 1986,
September 1993, and October 2009)
modeled in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study
and 2015 Staff Analysis. Even though
Mead & Hunt recommended further
investigation before relying on the 2016
Tetra Tech Study results, it prepared
inundation mapping for the three
historic storm events based on the
elevations in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study.
The results of the inundation mapping,
which used the 2016 Tetra Tech Study
water surface elevations, show no
additional structures would be impacted
by the proposed rule curve change.
To quantify any increased physical
danger to residents due to the
incremental increase in inundation as a
result of higher water surface elevations
computed by Tetra Tech’s model, Mead
& Hunt conducted a hazard analysis for
the three historic storm events using the
ACER 11 procedure.31 The analysis
indicates that there would be no
increased danger under October 1986
and October 2009 storm conditions.
Under September 1993 storm
conditions, two structures, a
commercial building and a recreational
building, may experience an increase in
danger. For the commercial building,
the ACER 11 danger zone would change
from the low danger zone to the
judgment zone; however, the hazard
increase is due to a slight increase in
flood depth of 0.1 foot. For the
recreational building, the ACER 11
danger zone would change from the
judgment zone to the high danger zone;
however, the hazard increase is due to
a slight increase in flood depth of 0.1
foot. Therefore, despite the change in
danger zone classification for these two
structures, the actual change in hazard
is insignificant and there would be no
increased risk to human life.
In addition to Mead & Hunt, others
reviewed and commented on the three
separate hydraulic analyses. University
of Oklahoma professors, who were on
Mr. Dennis’ thesis committee, issued a
letter on July 23, 2015, that responded
to comments directly related to his
Master’s thesis work. The professors
commented on the modeling protocols,
the boundary conditions, and the time
frame of modeling for the 2014 Dennis
Study. In addition, the professors stated
that the 2014 Dennis Study used the
31 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Assistant Commissioner, Engineering
and Research Technical Memorandum No. 11
(ACER 11), Downstream Hazard Classification
Guidelines (December 1988). The ACER 11
procedure describes the danger posed to inundated
structures based on flood depth and velocity.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
most current bathymetric and
topographic information that was
available. In particular, the lake
bathymetry, which was called into
question by the City of Miami in their
June 26, 2015 letter, is based on data
collected by the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board in 2009, so it would
certainly represent sedimentation that
occurred between construction of the
dam and 2009. Then, in a letter filed
May 2, 2016, the same University of
Oklahoma professors commented on the
2014 Dennis Study, the 2015 Staff
Analysis, and the 2016 Tetra Tech
Study and stated that the three different
studies, each using different
approaches, have all reached a nearly
identical result, and that the predicted
difference is within the expected
bounds of model accuracy due to
numerical errors and parameterization
of physical processes.
The Corps, Tulsa District reviewed
the 2014 Dennis Study and found the
study to be of high quality and
consistent with previous studies that
were completed by the Tulsa District
(1998) and Dr. Forrest Holly (2004). The
Corps said that although a more diverse
set of calibration storms would have
been preferable, the results of this study
are consistent with previous efforts, and
the Corps concurred with the findings
that were presented. In a July 24, 2015
letter, the Corps states that it had
performed an analysis of the 2015
temporary variance request and
determined that the variance would
have negligible impacts on downstream
flooding. Furthermore, the Corps states
that its model results showed a
discharge of around 100,000 cfs while
adverse impacts (i.e., flooding) did not
begin until 130,000 cfs at the Highway
82 Bridge. The Corps also notes that
properties outside of existing flowage
easements are not affected until the
discharge exceeds 230,000 cfs.
The City of Miami’s July 22, 2016
comments argue that the 2015 Staff
Analysis underestimates the number of
structures impacted during the historic
storm events. Although both the 2016
Tetra Tech Study and the inundation
mapping conducted by Mead & Hunt
show a greater number of structures
impacted, both studies also determined
that no additional structures would be
impacted by increased flooding due to
the proposed rule curve change.
Further, as discussed above, the Mead &
Hunt hazard analysis using the 2016
Tetra Tech Study found no additional
risk to human life.
Finally, Mr. Bork commented
regarding the capability of GRDA to
timely open spill gates in advance of a
predicted storm event. According to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Supporting Technical Information
Document for the project that is filed
with the Commission, the time required
to position a gate hoist above a spillway
gate and then raise or lower that gate is
typically in the range of 15 to 20
minutes, which is adequate to respond
to storm events. Mr. Bork also expressed
concern regarding the number of
earthquakes in Oklahoma and the
additional pressure that higher water
levels would place on Pensacola Dam.
Because the proposed rule curve change
does not include any water levels higher
than those on the current rule curve,
and because there is no reason to expect
that the rule curve change would
significantly affect high-water events,
we do not anticipate any dam safety
concerns regarding GRDA’s proposed
amendment.
6.5
Water Quality
6.5.1
Affected Environment
Grand Lake
The designated beneficial uses for
Grand Lake include public and private
water supply, fish and wildlife
propagation as a warm water aquatic
community, Class 1 irrigation, and
primary body contact recreation (GRDA,
2008b). Oklahoma state water quality
standards require the following in order
to protect the warm water aquatic
community designation: Dissolved
oxygen (DO) concentrations maintained
at or above 6.0 milligrams per liter (mg/
l) at 25 degrees Celsius (°C) from April
1 to June 15 (for fish early life stages);
at or above 5.0 mg/l at 32 °C from June
16 to October 15 (summer conditions);
and at or above 5.0 mg/l at 18 °C from
October 16 to March 31 (winter
conditions) (GRDA 2008b).
Grand Lake was recently listed on
Oklahoma’s 303(d) list for organic
enrichment/low DO levels and color.32
Water quality in the lake is affected
primarily by heavy recreational use and
shoreline development, but also by
heavy metal contamination from acid
mine drainage originating upstream
along the Neosho River and Spring
River, and possibly by trace metal
contamination from local surface
mining (GRDA 2008a). These sources
include the Tar Creek Superfund Site, a
former mining area known to release
acid mine drainage containing heavy
metals such as lead, cadmium, and zinc
into the Tar Creek system, the Neosho
River and Grand Lake (Oklahoma WRB,
2012).
32 Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are
required to develop lists of impaired waters that
don’t meet the state’s water quality standards for
their designated beneficial uses.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3781
Generally, surface water temperatures
in Grand Lake range from between 4 and
28 °C annually. The reservoir typically
begins to exhibit thermal stratification
in May, with anoxic conditions forming
in the deep waters of the hypolimnion
several weeks later. Across Grand Lake,
the extent of stratification varies, with
downstream portions of the reservoir
exhibiting stronger stratification than
the upstream sections of the reservoir.
Sampling conducted in 2003 and 2004
found that stratification was strongest
during the summer, with approximately
38 percent of the water column having
DO concentrations below 2.0 mg/l in the
lower portion of the reservoir (GRDA,
2008a).
GRDA currently works to mitigate
water quality issues through lake-wide
sanitation regulations, shoreline use
classifications and management of
shoreline development, water quality
monitoring, and other measures
included in its approved Shoreline
Management Plan.
Downstream
The Oklahoma WRB has designated
the Neosho River below the project as a
warm-water aquatic community, with
minimum DO standards of 6.0 mg/l
from October 16 through June 15, and
5.0 mg/l from June 16 through October
15. A 1.0 mg/l DO deficit is allowed for
not more than 8 hours in a 24-hour
period April 1 through October 15.
Water quality in the project tailrace
and the river downstream is dependent
on releases through generation. The
powerhouse draws water from relatively
deep in the reservoir where water can
have very low DO concentrations when
the lake stratifies in summer and into
the fall. In the past, release of this DOdeficient water, combined with the hot
and dry conditions that regularly occur
in late summer and fall, has led to
violations of Oklahoma water quality
standards and fish kills. GRDA now
manages downstream releases during
this period to maintain water quality
criteria for DO pursuant to plans
approved under license Article 403.33
6.5.2
Environmental Effects
Grand Lake
Normal project operation under the
proposed rule curve would not have any
significant negative effects on water
quality in Grand Lake and may provide
some minor benefits to water quality by
reducing the magnitude of water level
changes that may contribute to exposure
33 See Grand River Dam Authority, 151 FERC ¶
62,098 (2015) (Order Modifying and Approving
Dissolved Oxygen Mitigation Plan Pursuant to
Article 403).
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3782
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
of shallow substrates, rates of shoreline
erosion, resuspension of sediments, and
near-shore turbidity. Reduction in
substrate exposure and erosion rates
would also reduce resuspension of
pollutants, such as heavy metals, where
they are present in substrates in the
lake. Mr. Bork raised the issue of
backwater flooding under the proposed
rule curve change allowing increased
exposure to contaminants from the Tar
Creek Superfund Site or Spring River.
Based on the discussion of flooding
effects above in the Water Quantity and
Flows section, we do not believe the
proposed rule curve change would
cause any measurable changes in release
of, or exposure to, contaminants from
those sources.
Downstream
The additional water that would be
stored in Grand Lake under the
proposed rule curve would help ensure
water is available for making releases to
maintain downstream DO
concentrations during late summer and
fall. Additionally, the proposed Drought
Plan would help GRDA to maintain
downstream DO concentrations in the
event that a severe to exceptional
drought is declared for the river basin
and reservoir elevations fall below the
elevations on the rule curve.
GRDA indicates that releasing water
pursuant to the Drought Plan should
also help ensure that it has sufficient
water for DO maintenance in the river
below its downstream Markham Ferry
Project, while maintaining lake
elevations at that project’s Lake Hudson
necessary for operation of its Salina
Pumped Storage Project, which is
important to local electric system
reliability.
Water quality downstream of the
project could be negatively affected if
the higher water levels on the proposed
rule curve lead to any increase in
upstream flood conditions and therefore
more flood flow releases. Increases in
flood flow releases could increase rates
of downstream river bank erosion,
resulting in increases in water turbidity.
However, based on studies to date, it is
unlikely any such effects to downstream
flows and erosion would be significant,
or predictable in frequency or severity.
Oklahoma DEQ’s 401 certification for
GRDA’s permanent amendment request
includes a condition requiring GRDA to
provide it with annual reports of the
results of ongoing testing of downstream
DO mitigation measures performed
under plans that have been approved
under license Article 403. The
Commission included this requirement
as a condition of its approval of GRDA’s
temporary variance for 2016. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Commission added a requirement that
GRDA notify Oklahoma DEQ at the
same time it notifies other agencies
pursuant to the plan of any significant
DO deficiencies or DO mitigation, so
that Oklahoma DEQ can track GRDA’s
progress in maintaining state water
quality standards. Inclusion of the same
requirement in any approval of a
permanent amendment would allow
Oklahoma DEQ to continue to track
GRDA’s progress in maintaining state
water quality standards through the
remainder of the current license period,
and help ensure water quality below the
project is protected.
Based on our review, operation using
the proposed rule curve modification
would not result in any material adverse
impacts to water quality.
6.6 Fisheries and Other Aquatic
Resources
6.6.1
+Affected Environment
Grand Lake
Grand Lake supports a robust warm
water fishery for largemouth and
smallmouth bass, white bass, striped
bass and hybrid striped bass, crappie,
several species of sunfish and catfish,
and paddlefish. It also supports
populations of a number of species of
suckers, minnows, and darters. Gizzard
and threadfin shad are important forage
species that help sustain the sport
fishery in Grand Lake. Grand Lake is
one of the top bass fishing destinations
in the nation, consistently attracting
national fishing tournaments (FERC,
1996; GRDA 2016).
Largemouth bass and many other
fishes present in Grand Lake spawn in
springtime in relatively shallow waters.
Through the summer and fall, the young
of these fishes then use shallow areas
with aquatic and emergent vegetation or
other structure as primary nursery
habitat and for cover and feeding as they
mature (FERC, 1991; FERC, 1996).
Water level fluctuations that occur
under the current rule curve, which was
approved in the order issued December
3, 1996, do not allow the establishment
of significant areas of shallow-water
emergent and submergent aquatic
plants. Juvenile fishes that would use
such areas for cover and feeding in
summer and fall therefore utilize other
types of cover, including woody debris
and other natural features, and manmade structure such as docks, and
artificial reefs. Current work on artificial
reefs is described below.
Fish Habitat Mitigation for Effects of
Current Rule Curve
A significant amount of effort has
been expended to mitigate the effects of
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
water level fluctuations under the rule
curve on shallow-water fish habitat at
Grand Lake. The Article 401 rule curve
in the 1992 license included a stepped
15-week drawdown and partial refill in
late summer and fall, with a lowelevation of 741 feet that was
maintained for a period of 8 weeks. The
drawdown over that period was
intended, in part, to enhance fish
habitat by exposing mudflats for natural
revegetation, and revegetation through
annual millet seeding. When the rule
curve was amended to its current form
in a Commission order issued December
3, 1996, the drawdown was reduced to
12 weeks, and the period of lowest
drawdown was reduced to 6 weeks. The
Commission acknowledged that the
shortened drawdown period would
reduce the effectiveness of annual millet
seeding and negatively affect fish and
waterfowl. Therefore, Article 411 was
added to the license to require a Fish
and Waterfowl Habitat Management
Plan, to include establishment of a
mitigation fund and formation of a
technical committee to administer the
fund to design, implement, and evaluate
work to enhance fish and wildlife
habitat. GRDA’s Article 411 plan was
approved, and the requirement to seed
millet every year was deleted, in an
order issued May 22, 2003.34 Work
under the plan can include, at the
technical committee’s discretion,
seeding of at least 1,000 acres of millet,
at a rate of 15 pounds per acre in any
given year for which favorable
conditions were forecast. However,
millet seeding was seldom performed
under the plan because the reduced
duration of the drawdown period
prevented germination over large
enough areas to provide significant
benefits.35
Since approval of the mitigation plan
in 2003, the primary shallow-water fish
habitat work completed has been the
deployment of approximately 14,000
‘‘spider block’’ artificial reef structures.
These structures attract adult gamefish
for the purpose of improved sport
fishing. They may also provide rearing
and feeding habitat for fry and
fingerlings and cover from predators.
Downstream
The tailrace area below the Pensacola
Project and the reach of river
34 Grand River Dam Authority, 103 FERC ¶ 62,102
(2003) (Order Approving Fish and Waterfowl
Habitat Management plan Under Article 411 and
Deleting Article 404).
35 Since 2003, millet seeding under the plan has
only been attempted several times, most recently in
2011. Seeding has resulted in limited germination
and plant growth adequate to benefit fish and
waterfowl habitat.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
downstream to Lake Hudson supports a
popular fishery that includes many of
the species found in Grand Lake. As
explained above in Water Quality, water
in these areas can be low in DO,
especially in late summer and fall,
which has led to fish kills below the
dam. However, GRDA is currently
successful in mitigating this problem
through managed releases under an
approved DO mitigation plan.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
6.6.2
Environmental Effects
Grand Lake
On an annual basis, maintaining
higher water surface elevations in Grand
Lake from August 15 and October 31
using the proposed rule curve would
result in less fluctuation during late
summer and early fall, providing young
fishes, and other aquatic organisms,
with more stable shallow-water habitat
and cover. The decrease in fluctuation
should allow better colonization of
emergent and submerged vegetation in
these areas, further improving habitat
for young fishes. Over the remainder of
the license term, this should allow
aquatic vegetation to more successfully
colonize and return to suitable areas,
increasing shallow-water habitat and
benefitting young fishes and the
macroinvertebrates they prey upon.
The proposed rule curve change
should not affect any fish habitat
mitigation work under the Article 411
mitigation plan over the remaining term
of the project license. As described
above, annual millet seeding is no
longer performed under the plan and
GRDA is pursuing other mitigation
options (i.e., land acquisitions) under
the Article 411 plan beyond continuing
placement of artificial reef structures.
Therefore, we cannot review any other
fish habitat mitigation work at Grand
Lake at this time, although we assume
that any such work would take the
effects of the water elevations under the
proposal into account.
It is not possible to predict the effects
to fisheries and aquatic resources from
any changes to frequency or intensity of
periods of high water, or periods of low
water resulting from drought, that may
occur under the proposed rule curve, or
any mitigative effects of the proposed
Storm and Drought Plans. However,
there is no reason to expect that there
would be any significant effects on these
resources in Grand Lake.
Based on the above, the proposed rule
curve change should have minor
positive effects on fisheries and aquatic
resources in Grand Lake.
Downstream
As described above under Water
Quality, the proposed rule curve would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
allow GRDA to store more water during
late summer and early fall, increasing
the volume of water available for release
to maintain DO concentrations in the
tailrace and river downstream. This
would help to protect fisheries and
other aquatic resources in downstream
areas in years when inflows are low and
reservoir levels may be difficult to
maintain. Further, as also described
under Water Quality, the proposed
Drought Plan would help to ensure
water is available for maintenance of DO
concentrations and fish protection in
the event that drought conditions cause
reservoir elevations to fall below the
rule curve. It is not possible to predict
effects to downstream aquatic resources
that could occur from any increases in
flooding under GRDA’s proposal, or
effects of GRDA’s proposed Storm Plan.
Based on the above, the proposed rule
curve change would have positive
effects to fisheries downstream of the
project during late summer and fall by
helping to ensure maintenance of DO
concentrations, and use of the Drought
Plan would help to avoid fish kills in
the event of significant drought
conditions.
6.7
Terrestrial Resources
6.7.1
Affected Environment
Vegetation
Grand Lake is located in a transitional
zone between the Ozark Highlands and
Central Irregular Plain eco-regions of
northeast Oklahoma. In the Ozark
Highlands eco-region, which
characterizes most of the project area,
oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine are
the primary forest types. Typical canopy
species on dry uplands and ridgetops
include black oak, white oak, blackjack
oak, post oak, winged elm, and
numerous hickories. Shortleaf pine also
occurs in oak-hickory-pine stands.
Mesic forests containing sugar maple,
white oak, and northern red oak are
typical of north-facing slopes and
ravines of more rugged, deeply
dissected sites. Willows, bottomland
oaks, maples, hickories, birch, American
elm, and sycamore are typical on
floodplains and low terraces. Most level
sites in the region have been converted
to haylands or pasturelands.
In the extreme northern portion of
project, primarily the Neosho River arm
of Grand Lake, the oak hickory forests
of the Ozark Highlands give way to the
tall grass prairies of the Central Irregular
Plains. Typical dominants of tall grass
prairie sites include big bluestem, little
bluestem, switchgrass, and indiangrass.
Dry upland forests, similar to the oakhickory forests of the Ozark Highlands
to the south and east, are common on
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3783
the low rocky hills of the region. Most
of this habitat, approximately 61,462
acres, occurs above 755 feet. Riparian
corridors typically are forested, with
canopy dominants that include
American elm, oaks, hackberry, black
walnut, sycamore, and pecan. Much of
this region has been converted for
agriculture, with rangeland occupying
steeper slopes and croplands on nearly
level plains. Common crops include
sorghum, alfalfa hay, wheat, and
soybeans.
Wildlife
Raptors, such as barred owl, red-tailed
hawk, and red-shouldered hawk occur
in both upland and bottomland forests.
Song birds of the wooded lots include
tanagers, nuthatches, warblers, and
woodpeckers typical of the eastern
deciduous forests. Grassland birds
present in the prairie habitat include
horned lark, grasshopper sparrow,
meadowlark, dickcissel, and bobolink.
Predatory birds in the grasslands consist
of short-eared owl, northern harrier, and
rough-legged hawk. Bald eagles overwinter at Grand Lake. Game birds found
at Grand Lake include bobwhite quail,
wild turkey, mourning dove, and
waterfowl.
Grand Lake is also important as an
over-wintering and migratory stop for
shorebirds and waterfowl; however, the
over-wintering habitat is limited by the
lack of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Cormorants, pelicans, egrets, and herons
are among the non-game birds that
seasonally inhabit the Grand Lake area.
A diverse array of game waterfowl such
as geese and dabbling, diving, perching,
sea, and stiff-tailed ducks also occur on
Grand Lake during migration. Mallards
are the only dabbling duck that overwinter on Grand Lake. Mallards are the
most abundant duck seen on the
reservoir with numbers peaking in
December. Canada geese and wood
ducks live on the reservoir throughout
the year.
Common mammals in the project area
include white-tailed deer, striped
skunk, raccoon, fox squirrel, Virginia
opossum, eastern cottontail, armadillo,
and red fox. These species inhabit the
upland deciduous forest surrounding
the project. The bottomland forests
contain all of these species, plus
muskrat and beaver. Common species
associated with the grassland/savannah
are the least shrew, deer mouse, blacktailed jack rabbit, and badger. Bats are
of ecological concern in the area and the
endangered gray bat is particularly
notable (discussed under Threatened
and Endangered Species).
A variety of frogs, toads, salamanders,
lizards, turtles, and snakes comprise the
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3784
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
local herpetofauna. The amphibians
include species such as the American
toad, spadefoot toad, and tree frogs. The
turtle community includes snapping
turtles, mud turtles, softshell turtles,
and a diversity of slider, map, and box
turtles. With the exception of the box
turtles, most of the turtle community is
highly aquatic. Representative lizard
species include the western slender
glass lizard, collard lizard, Texas horned
lizard, and diversity of skinks. Common
snakes include species such as rat
snakes, water snakes, bull snakes, and
venomous snakes such as copperheads,
western cottonmouths, timber
rattlesnakes, and western pygmy
rattlesnakes.
Grand Lake is an important wintering
area for bald eagles. Most of the
wintering eagles use a large communal
roost located on a small island near
Twin Bridges State Park at the north end
of the reservoir. Blackbirds represent a
large part of the diet for eagles wintering
on Grand Lake due to presence of a large
blackbird roost near Twin Bridges State
Park. The bald eagle can be expected to
forage throughout the project area.
6.7.2
Environmental Effects
The proposed permanent amendment
of rule curve would not impact
vegetation or wildlife resources located
above normal reservoir rule curve
elevations. The change would not likely
cause any negative impacts to vegetation
and wildlife resources located at and
below normal reservoir rule curve
elevations, because water levels would
remain within the range of the current
rule curve.
In its letter dated March 29, 2016, the
Oklahoma DWC states that it supports
the amendment request and agrees that
no additional mitigation for fish and
wildlife resources be required through
the remainder of this license. The
Oklahoma DWC indicated that its
support is based on a recently-finalized
Interagency Agreement between
Oklahoma DWC and GRDA in which
mitigation for wildlife resources would
be addressed through adjacent-site
restoration and management.
6.8
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
6.8.1
Wetlands and Riparian Resources
Existing Environment
Grand Lake and the surrounding areas
contain numerous wetlands. Wetlands
are most abundant along the upper,
shallow reaches of the reservoir. In the
reservoir’s lower reaches, shoreline
areas consist primarily of limestone
bluffs, with wetlands restricted to coves
and backwaters of inundated tributaries.
The project supports about 18,318 acres
of wetland habitats, primarily at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
elevations of 735 to 745 feet. Wetland
habitat areas have been broken down by
type, resulting in the following
approximations: Palustrine forested,
11,649 acres; mudflats, 5,662 acres;
scrub/shrub, 526 acres; ponded water,
247 acres; and emergent, 234 acres
(GRDA 2008a).
As described under Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources above, GRDA may, in
some years, seed millet on mudflat areas
in Grand Lake to benefit shallow-water
waterfowl and fish habitat in
accordance with its approved Article
411 Fish and Waterfowl Habitat
Management Plan. This is performed in
the late summer and fall when lake
elevations are at their lowest point along
the current rule curve. However,
because millet seeding under the plan is
seldom attempted or successful, it is not
a significant factor in the natural
resources of Grand Lake.
6.8.2
Environmental Effects
Implementation of the proposed rule
curve would not likely cause any
negative impacts to existing wetland
resources at Grand Lake because water
levels would remain within the range of
the current rule curve. The change may
provide minor benefits by reducing the
water level fluctuations that occur
under the current rule curve, allowing
some degree of increased growth and
establishment of riparian and shallowwater vegetation, which could benefit
both fish and wildlife that utilize these
areas. The change would eliminate the
deepest part of the annual drawdown, a
six-week period from September 1
through October 15 when elevations are
held at 741 feet, reducing or eliminating
exposure of mudflat areas previously
used for millet seeding in some years.
However, as noted, millet seeding is not
currently a significant factor in Grand
Lake’s natural resources.
In its letter dated March 29, 2016, the
Oklahoma DWC states that it approves
of GRDA’s request to amend its rule
curve for the remainder of its license.
The Oklahoma DWC granted its support
because of a recently-finalized
Interagency Agreement between
Oklahoma DWC and GRDA in which
mitigation for wildlife resources would
be addressed through adjacent-site
restoration and management, thereby
negating the need to lower the lake level
to seed mudflats for millet.
6.9 Threatened and Endangered
Species
6.9.1
Existing Environment
Several species listed under the ESA
have been identified in the Pensacola
Project area. The gray bat (Myotis
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
grisescens) and the Neosho mucket
(Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are listed as
endangered, while the Ozark cavefish
(Amblyopsis rosae) and the Neosho
madtom (Noturus placidus) are listed as
threatened.
Gray bats use two caves that are
located in the Grand Lake project area:
Beaver Dam Cave and Twin Cave. The
Beaver Dam Cave is located adjacent to
Drowning Creek, a tributary of Grand
Lake and the Twin Cave is located more
than a mile from Grand Lake and at an
elevation of 840 feet. Of these, only the
Beaver Dam Cave is affected by Grand
Lake levels. Inundation of the cave
begins when Grand Lake reaches 746
feet and the cave entrance is completely
blocked when Grand Lake reaches 751
feet. Between elevations 756 and 757
feet Grand Lake levels cause water to
reach the ceiling of the cave, drowning
any bats inside. Bats in the cave can
only survive one or two days without
food due to the high energy demands of
raising young from May through August.
Further, if adults are trapped out of the
cave then the young will die. The stress
of being trapped may also result in
aberrant behavior, causing bats to fall
into the water. However, this concern
has been addressed in that the Nature
Conservancy and GRDA enlarged two
high passage areas near the entrance of
Beaver Dam Cave in 2008 and 2013.
This work allows bats to access Beaver
Dam Cave during periods of high water
although the exact elevation of complete
inundation is not in any records filed
with the Commission.
Annual surveys of the gray bat
population have been conducted at
caves within the project area including
Beaver Dam Cave since 2007. Based on
these surveys, most bats vacate the cave
by mid-August. Only in one survey
conducted in 2007 have bats remained
in the cave through August and into
September.
The Neosho mucket is a freshwater
mussel native to streams and rivers,
which lives in nearshore habitat and
does not occur in inundated areas, i.e.,
lakes and ponds. Critical habitat for this
species has been designated in the Elk
River and in the vicinity of Grand Lake;
however, areas designated as critical
habitat occur only in stream channels
and not in areas inundated by lakes or
reservoirs.
The Ozark cavefish is a small fish
with no eyes or pigmentation and lives
strictly in subterranean waters. Cave
ecosystems depend on bats (especially
gray bats) as a source of energy and
nutrients. The Ozark cavefish is found
in Jailhouse Cave and Twin Cave near
Grand Lake.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
The Neosho madtom is a small catfish
that feeds at night on the bottom of
rivers and streams. The madtom only
occurs within a 14-mile reach of the
Neosho River well upstream of Grand
Lake near the Oklahoma/Kansas state
line. Neosho madtom habitat is
periodically affected by the operation of
several Corp’s flood control structures
on the Neosho River.
6.9.2
Environmental Effects
None of the threatened and
endangered species identified at the
project would be affected by the rule
curve change. In its April 21, 2016
comments on GRDA’s application, FWS
states that GRDA’s proposal would not
adversely affect any listed species. FWS
further explained that the increased risk
of flooding at Beaver Dam Cave is not
a concern because listed bats are not
using the cave at that time. Therefore,
no further consultation is needed
pursuant to the ESA.
6.10
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
6.10.1
Cultural and Historic Resources
Existing Environment
Native Americans in the historic
period and Euro-American settlers in
the modern period leading up to
Oklahoma’s statehood have made
extensive use of the Grand River Valley
as a place of settlement and
transportation. This pattern of use
creates a high probability within the
project area for intact cultural resources
dating from prehistoric eras, periods of
early European contact, the nineteenth
century, and the Civil War. In addition
to historical evidence supporting the
likelihood of intact archeological
deposits, the topography of the region
lends itself to the preservation of
archaeological resources. While much of
the land in the downstream portion of
the project near the dam rises in steep
bluffs from the shoreline, the upriver
portions of Grand Lake feature a
shallow, more riverine topography that
has the potential to contain intact
archaeological resources. In addition,
there are a number of tributaries that
feed into Grand Lake that have a high
potential for intact resources (GRDA,
2008).
GRDA maintains data supplied by the
Oklahoma SHPO and the Oklahoma
Historical Society that has identified
potential and significant cultural
resource sites in the project area.
Approximately 50 cultural sites are
known to exist within the project area
(GRDA, 2008).
Currently there is risk of exposure of
archaeological resources and potential
historic properties during drawdown
and drought. In addition to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
discovery provisions in the Storm Plan
and Drought Plans discussed in Section
5.5.3, Article 409 of the project license
requires GRDA to immediately cease
work and to develop a cultural resource
management plan in consultation with
the Oklahoma SHPO if GRDA discovers
previously unidentified archeological or
historic properties during the course of
constructing or developing project
works or other facilities. The plan must
include a description of each discovered
property indicating whether it is listed
on or eligible to be listed on the
National Register, a description of the
potential effect on each discovered
property, proposed measures for
avoiding or mitigating effects,
documentation of the nature and extent
of consultation, and a schedule for
mitigating effects and for conducting
any needed additional studies.
6.10.2 Environmental Effects
Operation under the proposed
amendment would maintain Grand Lake
from August 16 through October 31 at
levels that are neither higher nor lower
than maximum and minimum levels
currently experienced throughout the
year. GRDA is not proposing to change
maximum water surface levels and
therefore, no new lands would be
affected by the amendment.
On March 15, 2016, GRDA provided
the Oklahoma SHPO a draft copy of its
application containing its draft Storm
Plan and draft Drought Plan. In an April
22, 2016 letter to GRDA, the Oklahoma
SHPO recommended GRDA develop an
HPMP to address potential impacts to
archeological sites located along and
near shorelines and recommended
GRDA add the Oklahoma SHPO to the
list of consulting parties for the Storm
Plan and Drought Plan. GRDA added the
Oklahoma SHPO to the consulting party
lists for both plans and, rather than
developing an HPMP, added provisions
in each plan for consulting with the
Oklahoma SHPO about potential
impacts to cultural resources when the
plans are in effect. On April 29, 2016,
GRDA provided updated versions of
both plans to the Oklahoma SHPO for
review and comment.
In an email to GRDA dated May 2,
2016, the Oklahoma SHPO reiterated its
recommendation for a project-wide
HPMP saying GRDA’s proposal to
develop an HPMP during a storm or
drought event, as described in the
revised plans, would be difficult. The
Oklahoma SHPO also recommended
adding the Oklahoma AS to the
consulting party lists for both plans and
recommended GRDA include a
provision for addressing any
unanticipated discoveries of human
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3785
remains or burials in accordance with
state law. GRDA incorporated these
additional recommendations into its
two plans and stated that it would be
able to handle potential difficulties
arising from an emergency situation by
using the Commission-approved HPMP
for its Markham Ferry Project as a
framework to address any effects to
historic properties.
Furthermore, GRDA agreed that if
Oklahoma SHPO or Oklahoma AS
determines that reservoir conditions
during the rule curve amendment
period adversely affect historic
properties, GRDA would develop a sitespecific plan to address these agencies’
concerns. This provision for a sitespecific plan, along with the
consultation and unanticipated
discovery provisions added to the Storm
and Drought Plans, provides additional
protection.
Because GRDA’s amendment would
keep Grand Lake within existing
fluctuation limits and given the
additional consultation and site-specific
provisions added to the Storm Plan and
Drought Plan, we do not recommend
developing a project-wide HPMP at this
time. Both the Oklahoma SHPO and
Oklahoma AS raised concerns that it
would be difficult to develop sitespecific plans during a storm or drought
event. GRDA responded that it would
use the approved HPMP for the
Markham Ferry project as a framework
for the agencies and GRDA to jointly
address any effects to historic properties
during such an event for the proposed
amendment period. The Oklahoma AS
also pointed out that the Pensacola
project has a different project setting
and different cultural resources than the
Markham Ferry project. However the
Markham Ferry HPMP does contain
provisions for inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources and human remains
that could be equally applied in an
appropriate timeframe during a storm or
drought event that would help avoid or
minimize effects to cultural resources.
At the Commission’s August 3, 2016
Tribal consultation meeting and in their
filings with the Commission, the Tribes
asserted that any rule curve change,
whether temporary or permanent,
would increase flooding and adversely
affect Tribal lands, including cultural
properties. The Tribes stated that
backwater flooding from the project,
which they said occurs throughout the
year, would be exacerbated by the
proposed rule curve change. The Tribes
also stated that flooding has impaired
access to important Tribal facilities,
including ceremonial grounds,
educational and assistance services,
recreational facilities, Tribal
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3786
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
government offices, and casinos, and
has had negative social and economic
impacts on Tribal communities. In
addition, the Tribes have stated that
GRDA’s consultation for this
amendment, which included sending
the draft application for Tribal review
and comment, is inadequate and that
they support others’ recommendations
for a project-wide HPMP for the
proposed amendment.
As stated above, GRDA’s proposed
changes are within Grand Lake’s normal
maximum and minimum fluctuation
limits, therefore, no new lands would
likely be affected and we do not
recommend an HPMP. If anything, the
proposed changes would reduce
fluctuating water levels within Grand
Lake and cultural and historic
properties located on or near the
shoreline would be less affected and
would not be subject to additional
exposure, looting, or vandalism, as
asserted by the Oklahoma AS.
Moreover, sites are vulnerable to erosion
at any level, but approval of this
amendment does not exacerbate those
effects since the difference in water
elevations would be smaller during this
period.
Concerning flooding of Tribal lands,
the Pensacola project boundary, as
currently defined, does not occupy
federal Tribal lands held in trust.
Moreover, the proposed amendment
would not change the overall range of
water surface elevations currently
approved for project operations.
However, regardless of the current
boundary or range of operations, the
socio-economic impacts identified by
the Tribes at the consultation meeting
and in their filings are an important
consideration in the Commission’s
comprehensive review of the project.
We believe the upcoming relicensing
proceeding is the appropriate forum to
review any flood effects cause by
current operations and to evaluate any
new information that shows there are
Tribal lands held in trust within the
project boundary.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
6.11
Recreation
6.11.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake is a major recreation
resource in northeastern Oklahoma,
providing over a million recreation user
days during 2014. Boating, fishing, and
waterfowl hunting are popular
recreation activities conducted on the
lake. Recreational access to Grand Lake
is provided through public, commercial,
and private facilities such as boat
ramps, marinas, and boat docks. Grand
Lake has 5 state parks and
approximately 14 municipal parks,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
which collectively provide
approximately 22 public boat ramps. In
addition, there are approximately 439
private boat ramps, 53 commercial boat
ramps, 4,021 commercial boat slips for
rent, and 7,761 permitted private boat
slips on the lake (GRDA, 2015).
Boating on Grand Lake occurs yearround, although the primary recreation
season extends from April 1 until
October 1. Fishing is a year-round
activity on Grand Lake and an average
of 117 fishing tournaments were held on
the lake each year between 2009 and
2014. Waterfowl hunting occurs from
September through January primarily in
the riverine (i.e., uppermost) sections of
the lake (GRDA, 2015).
GRDA indicated in its application that
hazards that lead to boats running
aground exist more often at lower lake
levels. For example, nearly 80 percent of
all boat groundings during the high
recreation season (May 1 until
September 30) in 2013–2014 occurred
while the lake was being drawn down
pursuant to the rule curve or maintained
at elevation 741 feet. GRDA reports that,
in contrast, despite more boats using the
lake in 2015 than in 2014,36
substantially fewer boats ran aground
during the August 16 to October 31,
2015 timeframe during the 2015
temporary variance compared to the
same timeframe in 2013 and 2014
(GRDA, 2016).37
6.11.2 Environmental Effects
Operation under the proposed rule
curve would increase water elevations
at Grand Lake by one to two feet from
August 15 to October 31 each year over
the remainder of the current license
period. These higher elevations would
greatly improve public and private
access at numerous boat ramps and
docks around Grand Lake, and increase
the total water surface area available for
boating, significantly enhancing
recreation opportunities during the
popular late summer/early fall
recreation season.38 Higher reservoir
elevations would also likely decrease
boating hazards in Grand Lake. Based
on the information provided by GRDA,
36 GRDA’s aerial boat counts on Labor Day
weekend counted nearly 2,000 boats during Labor
Day weekend 2015 compared with fewer than 500
boats during Labor Day weekend 2014.
37 In 2013 and 2014 combined, 75 percent (i.e., 24
of 32 reported incidents) of all reported boat
groundings throughout the year occurred during the
August 16 to October 31 timeframe. In 2015, 29
percent (i.e., 2 of 7 reported incidents) of all
reported boat groundings throughout the year
occurred during the August 16 to October 31
timeframe.
38 In its December 23, 1985 license application for
the Pensacola Project, GRDA estimated that each
additional foot of water surface elevation would
result in an additional 1,000 acres of surface area.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the vast majority of boat groundings in
2013 and 2014 occurred during the tail
end of the high recreation season when
high recreational boating use coincided
with periods of lowest water elevations
pursuant to the current rule curve. Such
a pattern did not occur in 2015, when
Grand Lake was held to 742 feet or
above. Therefore, operation using the
proposed rule curve in 2017 and future
years should contribute to a decrease in
boat groundings at Grand Lake in the
late summer early fall.
6.12
Land Use and Aesthetics
6.12.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake has approximately 522
miles of irregular shoreline, which is
characterized by narrow channels and
many coves. The shoreline of Grand
Lake ranges from forested areas with a
mixture of vegetative cover types to
contiguous manicured lawns,
residential housing, and commercial
development. The lands adjacent to the
northern and western shores of the
project consist primarily of rolling
plains with occasional hills and ridges
and gently sloping shoreline. The lands
adjacent to the southern and eastern
shores are characterized by deep ravines
and narrow valleys separated by broad,
gently rolling uplands, with shorelines
consisting primarily of steep rocky
beaches and bluffs. The upper section of
Grand Lake is primarily undeveloped
with a more natural aesthetic, while the
majority of the shoreline of the lower
section of Grand Lake is primarily
highly developed.
About 50 percent of land within the
project boundary comprises deciduous
forest, followed by cropland and pasture
lands comprising about 35 percent of
the project lands. Residential,
commercial, and other development
accounts for about 11 percent of total
land area within the project boundary.
The Grand Lake area is popular for
recreation and residential development,
particularly summer homes. GRDA
manages the reservoir’s shorelines via a
permitting system and operates a lake
patrol to monitor and inspect permitted
shoreline uses and enforce its boating
regulations (FERC, 2009).
6.12.2 Environmental Effects
Operation under the proposed rule
curve would allow GRDA to maintain
higher reservoir elevations from August
15 to October 31, which would increase
the amount of project lands under water
by up to approximately 2,000 acres
during this timeframe compared to
current project operations.39 As noted
39 In its December 23, 1985 license application for
the Pensacola Project, GRDA estimated that each
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
above under Recreation, the higher
water levels would increase the amount
of area available for boating in the
reservoir and improve public and
private access to numerous boat ramps
and docks located at the project, which
would result in moderate benefits to
these land uses adjacent to the project.
In addition, the higher water levels
under the proposed rule curve would
likely improve the scenic quality of the
areas of reservoir shoreline that would
have otherwise been dewatered and
devoid of vegetation during this
timeframe. Such beneficial effects on
aesthetics of the project would be
minor.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
7.0 Conclusions and
Recommendations
7.1 Comprehensive Development and
Staff-Recommended Measures
Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA
require the Commission to give equal
consideration to all uses of the
waterway on which a project is located.
Therefore, when we review a
hydropower application, we consider
power and non-power development, to
include the protection of, mitigation of
damage to, and enhancement of fish and
wildlife; the protection of recreational
opportunities; and other aspects of
environmental quality. In deciding
whether, and under what conditions, to
approve hydropower applications, we
must determine that the project would
be best adapted to a comprehensive plan
for improving or developing the
waterway. This section summarizes our
findings in this EA and reviews our
recommendations for conditions to be
included in any approval of the
proposed permanent amendment.
Based on our independent review of
the licensee’s proposed amendment,
agency and public comments filed on
the licensee’s proposal, and our review
of environmental effects, we believe
approval of GRDA’s proposal, with
Oklahoma DEQ’s mandatory WQC
conditions, is the preferred alternative.
We recommend this alternative because,
based on the information reviewed and
analysis performed in this EA, it would
provide several significant benefits with
few measurable negative impacts.
Operation of the Pensacola Project
using the proposed rule curve would
allow more water to be stored in Grand
Lake, with less fluctuation in water
levels, from August 15 through October
31 each year for the remainder of the
current license term. Operation under
the proposed rule curve would likely
result in minor reductions in shoreline
additional foot of water surface elevation would
result in an additional 1,000 acres of surface area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
erosion rates and could promote
revegetation of some shallow shoreline
areas that could further reduce erosion
over time. This change would not result
in any material adverse impacts to water
quality. In hot dry years, higher water
levels in late summer and early fall
would make more water available for
releases to maintain downstream DO
and avoid fish kills. During any periods
of declared severe to exceptional
drought, GRDA’s proposed Drought Plan
would provide additional protection for
downstream water quality. A reduction
in water level fluctuations in Grand
Lake should have positive effects on
fisheries and other aquatic resources by
providing more stable shallow-water
habitat and cover, especially for juvenile
fishes, and through increased plant
growth and establishment in wetland
areas, including emergent and
submerged vegetation. Fish occupying
the project tailwater and river
downstream would likely benefit from
water quality improvements in hot, dry
years and during any declared severe to
exceptional drought as discussed above.
Higher elevations at Grand Lake in
late summer and early fall would
provide a significant benefit to
recreation by increasing the water
surface area available for boating,
improving access at public and private
launching facilities, and likely
decreasing shallow-water boating
hazards. Higher seasonal water
elevations would likely provide minor
aesthetic improvements in some areas
that were dewatered and devoid of
vegetation in the past.
While we have not identified any
definitive significant short-term or longterm negative effects to resources that
would likely occur with operation
under the proposed rule curve,
commenters have expressed concern
regarding flooding effects and affects to
cultural and historic resources.
Flood-related issues. As discussed
earlier, most flood-related issues raised
by commenters in this proceeding were
reviewed during the Commission’s
processing of GRDA’s temporary
variance requests in 2015 and 2016
which involved the same changes in
reservoir elevations. Staff’s findings on
the flood-related issues were presented
in the temporary variance orders. In the
Water Quantity section above, staff
summarizes those findings that would
allow the same rule curve change each
year for the remaining term of the
license. To the extent commenters
address flooding concerns that are not
related to the pending amendment, the
Commission will perform a
comprehensive review of the project
and any proposed future operation in
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3787
the upcoming relicensing proceeding.
That proceeding is the appropriate
forum to identify and address issues
that are separate from GRDA’s
amendment application.
Cultural and historic resource
protection. We found in our analysis
that the proposed permanent rule curve
change would occur within the project’s
existing fluctuation limits and therefore,
would be unlikely to affect any new
lands. No land-clearing or landdisturbing activities would be required
for this amendment. In addition, less
fluctuating water levels should reduce
the chances of erosion affecting cultural
or historic resources in near-shore areas.
Cultural and historic properties located
on or near the shoreline would
potentially be inundated for a longer
period during the amendment,
providing more cover and helping to
prevent exposure. If anything, keeping
water levels higher during the late
summer and early fall period, when
more people are present, would reduce
the potential for artifact collection or
looting. GRDA’s agreement to prepare
specific plans in consultation with the
Oklahoma SHPO and Oklahoma AS if
either agency determines that historic
properties might be affected would
further protect cultural and historic
resources.
7.1.1
Staff-Recommended Measures
Along with its proposed changes to
the rule curve, GRDA proposes a Storm
Plan that would provide for assessment
of risks of upstream and downstream
flooding during high precipitation
events and a process to proactively and
collaboratively manage these events. A
Storm Plan was in place during the 2015
and 2016 temporary variance periods,
and was successful in aiding
communication related to high
precipitation events within the basin
and managing project facilities during
those events. Under the current
proposal, the Storm Plan would be in
effect each year for the remainder of the
license period. We recommend that any
approval of GRDA’s proposed
amendment incorporate the Storm Plan.
GRDA also proposes a Drought Plan
that would help protect downstream
water quality and fisheries, as well as
generation at its downstream Markham
Ferry Project and Salina Pumped
Storage Project if a severe to exceptional
drought is declared and reservoir
elevations fall below the rule curve. The
Drought Plan would be in effect each
year for the remainder of the license
period. We recommend that any
approval of GRDA’s proposal
incorporate the Drought Plan.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
3788
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
We recommend that any approval of
GRDA’s proposal incorporate the annual
reporting requirement that is a
condition of Oklahoma DEQ’s June 30,
2016 401 certification. The requirement
should mirror paragraph (E) of the
Commission’s August 12, 2016 order
approving the temporary rule curve
variance for 2016, which required
GRDA to notify Oklahoma DEQ, at the
same time it notifies other agencies
pursuant to DO mitigation plans
approved under Article 403, of any
significant DO deficiencies or DO
mitigation, so that Oklahoma DEQ can
track GRDA’s progress in maintaining
state water quality standards. In
addition to Oklahoma DEQ’s ongoing
annual reporting requirement,
Oklahoma DEQ also included three
other mandatory WQC conditions: (1)
that the certification does not authorize
any discharge or dredging; (2) that the
reservoir be maintained between
elevations 742 and 744 feet as requested
by GRDA; and (3) that emergency and
routine maintenance will be as
permitted by the Corps. We have no
objections to these conditions being
added to the license in any order
approving the proposed amendment.
7.2 Consistency With Comprehensive
Plans
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.
803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to
consider the extent to which a project is
consistent with federal or state
comprehensive plans for improving,
developing, or conserving a waterway or
waterways affected by the project. We
reviewed 6 qualifying comprehensive
plans that are applicable to the
proposed action at the Pensacola Project
No. 1494, located in Oklahoma. The
proposed action is consistent with all of
the reviewed comprehensive plans.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Oklahoma
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers. Little Rock District and
Tulsa District. 1991. Arkansas River
Basin, Arkansas and Oklahoma,
feasibility report. Little Rock,
Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma. May
1991.
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 1989. Eastern Oklahoma
wetlands plan: Lower Mississippi
Valley joint venture—North American
waterfowl management plan.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. August
1989.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1997.
Update of the Oklahoma
comprehensive water plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Publication Number 139. Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. February 1997.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2002.
Oklahoma’s water quality standards
and implementation of Oklahoma’s
water quality standards. Oklahoma
Administrative Code, Title 785,
Chapters 45 and 46 effective July 1,
2002. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation
Department. 2001 Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP): The public recreation
estate. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
United States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989.
Fisheries USA: The recreational
fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
8.0
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on information, analysis, and
evaluations contained in this EA, we
find that approval of the proposed rule
curve amendment, to include the
mandatory conditions stipulated by
Oklahoma DEQ in its 401 certification,
would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
9.0
Literature Cited
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission). 2009. Environmental
Assessment for shoreline management
plan for the Pensacola Project, issued
August 14, 2009. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
FERC. 2007. Final Environmental
Assessment for application for nonproject use of project lands and waters
(commercial marina) at the Pensacola
Project, issued October 18, 2007. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
FERC. 1996. Environmental Assessment for
application for amendment of license to
modify rule curve, issued December 3,
1996. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
FERC. 1991. Environmental Assessment for
licensing of Pensacola Project, issued
November 19, 1991. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2016.
Application for non-capacity amendment
of license, including possible temporary
variance for 2016 for the Pensacola
Project. Dated and filed May 6, 2016.
GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2015.
Recreation plan monitoring report for the
Pensacola Project. Dated and filed April
1, 2015.
GRDA. 2008a. Application for shoreline
management plan for the Pensacola
Project. Filed July 21, 2008; as cited in
FERC 2009.
GRDA. 2008b. Environmental assessment of
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
habitable structures on Grand Lake. Filed
December 23, 2008; as cited in FERC
2009.
Oklahoma WRB (Oklahoma Water Resources
Board). 2012. Grand Watershed Planning
Report. Versions 1.1. OWRB, Oklahoma
City. https://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/
ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/
regionalreports/OCWP_Grand_Region_
Report.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2016.
Oklahoma WRB. 2009. Hydrographic Survey
of Grand Lake: Final Report. Dated
August 19, 2009. Available at: https://
www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/
reports_pdf/GrandLake—
hydrographicsurvey.pdf. Accessed
November 28, 2016.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation. 1988. Assistant
Commissioner, Engineering and
Research Technical Memorandum No. 11
(ACER 11), Downstream Hazard
Classification Guidelines. December
1988.
USGS (United States Geological Survey).
2016. Data collected at USGS gage
07190500 Neosho River Near Langley,
OK. Available at: https://
nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ok/nwis/
uv?site_no=07190500. Accessed
November 28, 2016.
USGS. 2016. Figure available at: https://
goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_
Topo_Map. Accessed November 25,
2016.
Environmental Systems Research Institute:
Geographic Information Systems (ESRI–
GIS). 2016. National Hydrography
Dataset. Available at: https://
nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed November 25,
2016.
10.0
List of Preparers
Mark Carter—Recreation, Land Use and
Aesthetics (Environmental Biologist; B.S.
Fisheries Science; M.S. Natural Resources
and Environmental Sciences)
Jeremy Jessup, PE—Water Quantity and
Flows (Civil Engineer; B.S. and M.S. Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering)
Rebecca Martin—Terrestrial Resources,
Wetlands, and Endangered Species
(Environmental Biologist; B.S.
Environmental Earth Science; M.S.
Biology)
Kurt Powers—Cultural and Historic
Resources (Wildlife Biologist; B.A.
Environmental Science and Foreign
Affairs; M.S. Environmental Science and
Engineering)
James Puglisi, PE—Water Quantity and Flows
(Senior Civil Engineer; B.S. and M.S. Civil
Engineering)
B. Peter Yarrington–Water Quantity and
Quality, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(Fisheries Biologist; B.S. Aquatic Ecology,
M.S. Fisheries Science and Taxonomy)
[FR Doc. 2017–00566 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3766-3788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00566]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 1494-437; Oklahoma]
Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory
[[Page 3767]]
Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed
an application filed by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) to
permanently amend the reservoir elevation rule curve contained in
Article 401 of the license for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project No.
1494. The amendment would allow GRDA to keep water levels in the
project's reservoir, Grand Lake O' the Cherokees (Grand Lake), up to
two feet higher August 16 through October 31 each year. The project is
located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and
Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for the
application which analyzes the potential environmental effects of
approving the requested permanent change to the Article 401 rule curve
and concludes that such an approval, with specified environmental
protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission's
Public Reference Room or may it be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number P-
1494 in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.
You may register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
Any comments on the draft EA should be filed by February 6, 2017.
Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can also
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail a paper copy to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include the docket number P-1494-437.
For further information, contact B. Peter Yarrington at (202) 502-
6129 or peter.yarrington@ferc.gov, or contact Jeremy Jessup at (202)
502-6779 or Jeremy.jessup@ferc.gov.
Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[[Page 3768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JA17.035
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
[[Page 3769]]
Table of Contents
List of Figures......................................... iv
List of Tables.......................................... iv
Acronyms................................................ v
1.0 Application......................................... 1
2.0 Purpose of Action and Need for Power................ 1
3.0 Background.......................................... 2
3.1 Pensacola Project Description................... 2
3.2 Project Operation and Article 401 Rule Curve.... 4
4.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives.................... 5
4.1 Proposed Action................................. 5
4.1.1 Rule Curve Modification................... 6
4.1.2 Storm Adaptive Management Plan............ 7
4.1.3 Drought Adaptive Management Plan.......... 8
4.2 Other Action Alternatives....................... 9
4.3 No-Action Alternative........................... 10
5.0 Consultation and Compliance......................... 10
5.1 Background and GRDA's Pre-Filing Consultation... 10
5.2 Responses to Commission's Additional Information 11
Request............................................
5.3 Public Notice and Responses..................... 11
5.4 Comments on Flooding and the Scope of this 16
Environmental Assessment...........................
5.5 Government-to-Government Consultation........... 17
5.6 Statutory Compliance............................ 17
5.6.1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification... 17
5.6.2 Endangered Species Act.................... 18
5.6.3 National Historic Preservation Act........ 18
6.0 Environmental Analysis.............................. 19
6.1 Scope of the Analysis........................... 19
6.2 General Description of the Project Area......... 19
6.3 Geology and Soils............................... 19
6.3.1 Affected Environment...................... 19
6.3.2 Environmental Effects..................... 20
6.4 Water Quantity and Flows........................ 20
6.4.1 Affected Environment...................... 20
6.4.2 Environmental Effects..................... 22
6.5 Water Quality................................... 28
6.5.1 Affected Environment...................... 28
6.5.2 Environmental Effects..................... 30
6.6 Fisheries and Other Aquatic Resources........... 31
6.6.1 Affected Environment...................... 31
6.6.2 Environmental Effects..................... 33
6.7 Terrestrial Resources........................... 34
6.7.1 Affected Environment...................... 34
6.7.2 Environmental Effects..................... 36
6.8 Wetlands and Riparian Resources................. 36
6.8.1 Existing Environment...................... 36
6.8.2 Environmental Effects..................... 37
6.9 Threatened and Endangered Species............... 37
6.9.1 Existing Environment...................... 37
6.9.2 Environmental Effects..................... 38
6.10 Cultural and Historic Resources................ 39
6.10.1 Existing Environment..................... 39
6.10.2 Environmental Effects.................... 39
6.11 Recreation..................................... 41
6.11.1 Affected Environment..................... 41
6.11.2 Environmental Effects.................... 42
6.12 Land Use and Aesthetics........................ 43
6.12.1 Affected Environment..................... 43
6.12.2 Environmental Effects.................... 43
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations..................... 44
7.1 Comprehensive Development and Staff-Recommended 44
Measures...........................................
7.1.1 Staff-Recommended Measures................ 46
7.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans............ 47
8.0 Finding of No Significant Impact.................... 47
9.0 Literature Cited.................................... 48
10.0 List of Preparers.................................. 49
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map of the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project 3
Figure 2. Proposed Changes to Article 401 Reservoir Rule 6
Curve Elevations............................................
[[Page 3770]]
List of Tables
Table 1. Responses to Public Notice of GRDA's Amendment 11
Application.................................................
Table 2. Grand Lake Elevation and Surface Area............... 21
Acronyms
ACER U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Assistant Commissioner, Engineering and Research Technical
Memorandum No. 11
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
[deg]C degrees Celsius
cfs cubic feet per second
CWA Clean Water Act
Commission or FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Drought Plan Drought Adaptive Management Plan
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
EAP Emergency Action Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS Geographic Information System
Grand Lake Grand Lake O' the Cherokees
GRDA Grand River Dam Authority; licensee
HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan
incremental increase change in water surface elevation under
proposed amendment
Interior Department of the Interior
mg/l milligrams/liter
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Oklahoma AS Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
Oklahoma DEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma DWC Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma WRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma SHPO Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer
PD Pensacola Datum; PD is 1.07 feet higher than NGVD
Storm Plan Storm Adaptive Management Plan
Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 401 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 7 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
401 certification Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Office of Energy Projects;
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance; Washington, DC
Pensacola Hydroelectric Project; FERC No. 1494-437
1.0 Application
Application Type: Amendment of Article 401 reservoir elevation rule
curve.
Date Filed: May 6, 2016, supplemented June 2, 2016, and June 30,
2016.
Applicant's Name: Grand River Dam Authority.
Water Body: Neosho (Grand) River.
County and State: Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties,
Oklahoma.
Federal Lands: The project does not occupy any federal lands.
2.0 Purpose of Action and Need for Power
Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), licensee for the Pensacola
Hydroelectric Project, requests a permanent amendment of the reservoir
operating rule curve stipulated in Article 401 of the project
license.\1\ The Article 401 rule curve specifies seasonal water surface
elevations that are to be targeted at the project reservoir (Grand
Lake) during project operation. GRDA's request involves changes to the
rule curve during the period of August 16 through October 31 to reduce
the risk of vessel groundings in late summer, improve recreation during
the summer/fall peak recreation season and provide storage of
additional water to assist in making releases for maintenance of
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the river downstream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In its request, GRDA also asked that, if the Commission
could not process its permanent amendment by August 15, 2016, that
it be granted a temporary variance for the period of August 15,
2016, through October 31, 2016, while the Commission processed its
request for a permanent amendment. A temporary variance for 2016 was
granted in an order issued August 12, 2016. Grand River Dam
Authority,156 FERC ] 61,106 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 Background
3.1 Pensacola Project Description
The Commission issued a license for the Pensacola Project to GRDA
on April 24, 1992.\2\ The project is located on the Grand (Neosho)
River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties, Oklahoma (Figure
1). Features of the Pensacola Project include: (1) A reinforced-
concrete dam consisting of a 4,284-foot-long multiple arch section, an
861-foot-long spillway containing 21 Tainter or radial gates, a 451-
foot-long non-overflow gravity section, and two non-overflow abutments,
comprising an overall length of 5,950 feet and maximum height of 147
feet; (2) two auxiliary spillways about one mile east of the dam, a
505-foot-long concrete gravity middle spillway containing 11 Tainter
gates and a 464-foot-long concrete gravity east spillway containing 10
Tainter gates; (3) a reservoir known as Grand Lake O' the Cherokees
(Grand Lake) having a surface area of 46,500 acres and a storage
capacity of 1,680,000 acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 745
feet Pensacola Datum (PD); \3\ (4) six 15-foot-diameter and one 3-foot-
diameter steel penstocks supplying flow to six turbine-generators of
14.4-megawatt capacity each and one turbine-generator of 500-kilowatt
capacity located in a powerhouse immediately below the dam; (5) a
tailrace about 300 feet wide and a spillway channel about 850 feet
wide, both about 1.5 miles long; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The project was originally licensed in 1939 and was
relicensed in 1992. Grand River Dam Authority, 59 FERC ] 62,073
(1992).
\3\ Pensacola Datum (PD) is 1.07 feet higher than National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) which is a national standard for
measuring elevations above sea level. Elevations discussed in this
EA are in PD values unless otherwise stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JA17.036
[[Page 3772]]
3.2 Project Operation and Article 401 Rule Curve
Grand Lake is used for multiple purposes including power
generation, recreation, wildlife enhancement, and flood control.
Dedicated flood storage (the flood pool) is provided between elevations
745 and 755 feet. When reservoir elevations are within the limits of
the flood pool, the Tulsa District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) directs water releases from the dam under the terms of a 1992
Letter of Understanding and Water Control Agreement between the Corps
and GRDA that addresses flooding both upstream and downstream of Grand
Lake.
When reservoir elevations are below the limits of the flood pool,
GRDA operates the project pursuant to Article 401 of the project
license, as amended in an order issued December 3, 1996.\4\ Article 401
requires GRDA to operate the project to maintain, to the extent
practicable, the following target reservoir surface elevations (the set
of elevations known as a rule curve), except as necessary for the Corps
to provide flood protection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Grand River Dam Authority, 77 FERC ] 61,251 (1996).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period Reservoir elevation, in feet (Pensacola datum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1 through May 31............................ Raise elevation from 742 to 744.
June 1 through July 31.......................... Maintain elevation at 744.
August 1 through August 15...................... Lower elevation from 744 to 743.
August 16 through August 31..................... Lower elevation from 743 to 741.
September 1 through October 15.................. Maintain elevation at 741.
October 16 through October 31................... Raise elevation from 741 to 742.
November 1 through April 30..................... Maintain elevation at 742.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since issuance of the 1996 order, GRDA has filed eight requests for
either temporary variances from, or permanent amendments of, the
elevations specified in the Article 401 rule curve. Six of those
applications were withdrawn by GRDA, denied, or dismissed by the
Commission.\5\ In July 2012, GRDA filed an application for a temporary
variance so that it could operate the project to vary from the rule
curve in late summer and early fall in order to alleviate effects of an
ongoing regional drought. That application was approved in an order
issued August 15, 2012.\6\ In July 2015, GRDA applied for a temporary
variance primarily to enhance recreational boating in late summer and
early fall. That application, which involved the same changes to the
rule curve elevations being requested in this proceeding, was approved
in an order issued August 14, 2015.\7\ As referenced above, a temporary
variance for late summer and early fall 2016 was granted August 12,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See June 26, 2015, Commission staff letter dismissing, for
lack of adequate information, May 28, 2015 request for temporary
variance to enhance recreational boating and tailwater dissolved
oxygen management; July 3, 2013 Commission order denying March 20,
2013 request for temporary variance based on drought forecasts,
Grand River Dam Authority, 144 FERC ] 61,007 (2013), and August 2,
2013 letter denying request for reconsideration; July 25, 2011
Commission staff letter dismissing, for lack of adequate
information, April 6, 2011 request for a temporary (two-year)
variance to enhance recreational boating; April 4, 2006 Commission
staff letter denying March 13, 2006 request for temporary variance
to respond to drought conditions, on basis that variance not
warranted based on forecasted conditions; June 17, 2004 letter from
GRDA withdrawing January 26, 2004 request to permanently amend
Article 401 rule curve to enhance recreation, water quality, and
wildlife habitat; and August 16, 1999 letter from GRDA withdrawing
June 2, 1999 request for temporary variance (for calendar year 1999)
to allow for alternative plan for millet seeding.
\6\ Grand River Dam Authority, 140 FERC ] 62,123 (2012).
\7\ Grand River Dam Authority, 152 FERC ] 61,129 (2015) (August
14, 2015 order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
4.1 Proposed Action
GRDA requests a permanent amendment of the Pensacola Project's
Article 401 rule curve that would be followed each year through the
remainder of the current license period.\8\ GRDA seeks the rule curve
change to reduce the risk of vessel grounding at Grand Lake in late
summer, improve recreation during the summer/fall peak recreation
season, better balance competing stakeholder interests, and provide
additional water storage, if necessary, to assist in maintaining DO
concentrations in the tailrace and river below the project, and below
its Markham Ferry Project (No. 2183), located immediately
downstream.\9\ GRDA's proposal also includes a Storm Adaptive
Management Plan (Storm Plan) and a Drought Adaptive Management Plan
(Drought Plan), which provide frameworks for communication and
operational decision-making when major weather events may affect GRDA's
ability to target elevations on the rule curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The current license for the Pensacola Project expires in
April 2022.
\9\ In addition to the temporary variance granted in 2016, in a
separate proceeding in 2015, the Commission granted the same
temporary variance for the period of August 15, 2015 through October
31, 2015. Grand River Dam Authority, 152 FERC ] 61,129 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.1 Rule Curve Modification
Under GRDA's proposal, the Pensacola Project's Article 401 rule
curve would be permanently amended for the remainder of the current
license period. The elevations along the rule curve would only be
changed for the period of August 16 through October 31. Between August
16 and September 15 each year, the project would be operated to target
an elevation of 743 feet, which is up to two feet higher than the
current rule curve. Between September 16 and September 30, the
elevation target would be lowered from 743 to 742 feet. Between October
1 and October 31, operation would target an elevation of 742 feet,
which is up to one foot higher than the current rule curve. After
October 31, reservoir elevations would follow the project's existing
rule curve. GRDA would operate the project to target the elevations
along the rule curve at all times, except as provided by the Storm Plan
or the Drought Plan, or as necessary for the Corps to provide flood
protection. GRDA's proposed rule curve change is shown in Figure 2.
[[Page 3773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JA17.037
4.1.2 Storm Adaptive Management Plan
As part of its permanent amendment request, GRDA proposes to
implement a Storm Plan that would be used year-round in anticipation of
and during major precipitation events within the Grand/Neosho River
basin that might result in high water conditions upstream or downstream
of Grand Lake. A Storm Plan was in place during the 2015 and 2016
temporary variance periods. During the 2015 temporary variance period,
weekly conference calls between all participants took place to keep all
participants informed of potential flood conditions in the river basin.
Based on the success of the weekly calls in 2015 and discussions during
the December 2015 technical conference,\10\ the Storm Plan GRDA
includes in its permanent amendment request includes year-round
monitoring, with activation of the Storm Plan notifications and
conference calls at any time during the year when there is a
probability of high water conditions in the Grand/Neosho River basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A Technical Conference was held at the University of
Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma on December 16, 2015, which included
GRDA staff, FERC staff, resource agencies, local government
entities, and Tribes to discuss modeling needs related to the rule
curve amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Storm Plan, GRDA would review, at a minimum, on a
daily basis the following information: (1) Weather forecasts in the
watershed; (2) Grand Lake surface elevation data; (3) data from the
USGS gages upstream and downstream of the project; (4) surface
elevations at the Corps' upstream John Redmond flood control reservoir
and downstream Lake Hudson (part of GRDA's Markham Ferry Project); and
(5) other relevant information affecting surface elevations at Grand
Lake during the potential flood period.
If GRDA's daily review of the information indicates a probability
of high water conditions in the Grand/Neosho River basin in the
vicinity of the project, GRDA would immediately provide the information
to federal and state resource agencies, local government officials,
Commission staff, Tribes, and other interested stakeholders.\11\ In
conjunction with the distribution of the information, GRDA would also
schedule a conference call. Prior to the conference call, GRDA would
consult with the Corps to determine whether any reservoir management
actions could be taken to avoid, reduce, or minimize high water levels
upstream or downstream of the project. During the conference call, GRDA
would then notify the participants of any proposal to take action.
Participants will then have an opportunity during the teleconference to
explore alternative solutions to respond to the forecasted high-flow
event, recognizing the Corps' jurisdiction to direct flood control
releases for
[[Page 3774]]
purposes of flood risk management once the reservoir elevation is
forecasted to exceed a flood pool elevation of 745 feet. GRDA would
continue regular communications with all participants during each event
in order to keep them informed of prevailing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Storm Plan contact list includes: GRDA; the Commission;
Corps; National Weather Service, Tulsa Forecast Office; Oklahoma
Secretary of Energy and Environment; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation; Oklahoma Water Resources Board; Oklahoma Office of
Emergency Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; City of Miami;
Ottawa County Office of the County Commissioner; Ottawa County
Emergency Management; Modoc Tribe; United Keetoowah Band of
Cherokees; Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Oklahoma State Historic
Preservation Office; and Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRDA notes that, although the protocols contained in the Storm Plan
are separate and distinct from the protocols in its Emergency Action
Plan (EAP) for the project, the Storm Plan complements the EAP and
involves many of the same entities. According to the Storm Plan, if the
EAP is triggered, the communication protocols in the EAP would
supersede those included in the Storm Plan until the emergency is
resolved.
The Storm Plan also includes provisions regarding historic
properties in the project area that could be adversely affected by high
water levels. As discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and Historic
Resources, the plan specifies that, if the Oklahoma State Historic
Preservation Office (Oklahoma SHPO) concludes that any actions to
address high water levels at Grand Lake would adversely affect any
archaeological site or other cultural resource in the project area,
GRDA would consult with the Oklahoma SHPO to develop a site-specific
plan for protection or mitigation of the site. The plan also includes a
provision for the unanticipated discovery of unidentified burial sites
in the project area.
4.1.3 Drought Adaptive Management Plan
As part of its permanent amendment request, GRDA would institute
its proposed Drought Plan during any period in which the National
Drought Mitigation Center's (NDMC) U.S. Drought Monitor identifies a
severe to exceptional drought within the Grand/Neosho River basin. The
plan would help guide project operations and flow releases during
drought conditions. It's the same plan used in 2016 and is similar to
the plan used in 2015. As noted earlier, GRDA must maintain DO
concentrations below the Pensacola Project and below its downstream
Markham Ferry Project. GRDA states that, during periods of drought,
adherence to the Article 401 rule curve could prevent it from releasing
water necessary to maintain DO concentrations in these areas. Adherence
to the rule curve could also prevent it from maintaining reservoir
elevations in the Markham Ferry Project's Lake Hudson, which are
necessary to operate GRDA's Salina Pumped Storage Project (No. 2524) as
well as meeting other water supply needs.
Under the plan, GRDA would monitor information from the NDMC's U.S.
Drought Monitor and information from other generally accepted sources
of drought information applicable to the basin. Based on this
information, if GRDA determines that drought conditions appear
imminent, GRDA would begin weekly teleconferences with, in general, the
same federal and state resource agencies, local government officials,
Commission staff, Indian Tribes, and other interested stakeholders GRDA
intends to consult with under the Storm Plan.\12\ In the
teleconferences, GRDA would keep these parties informed of prevailing
conditions and any plans to begin additional releases in the event the
NDMC U.S. Drought Monitor declares a severe to exceptional drought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The only participant not listed for both plans is the
National Weather Service, Tulsa Forecast Office, which is only
included in the Storm Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the plan, if the NMDC U.S. Drought Monitor declares a severe
to exceptional drought for the Grand/Neosho River basin, GRDA may, at
its discretion and based on input received during the weekly
teleconferences, commence additional releases from Pensacola Dam,
regardless of the prevailing levels at Grand Lake and Article 401 rule
curve target elevations. Such releases would not exceed a rate equal to
0.06 feet of reservoir elevation per day, which is equivalent to
approximately 837 cubic feet per second (cfs) per hour over a 24-hour
period.
During the drought, GRDA would conduct weekly teleconferences to
discuss project operations and would address the following issues in
each teleconference: (1) Current and forecasted drought conditions and
planned project operation; (2) maintenance of water levels and flows
sufficient to maintain downstream DO concentrations for water quality
and to prevent fish kills; (3) maintenance of reservoir elevations at
the Markham Ferry Project's Lake Hudson sufficient to operate its
Salina Pumped Storage Project for system reliability; and (4) based on
available information, when the severe to exceptional drought period is
expected to end. When severe to exceptional drought conditions are
over, GRDA would cease releases under the plan, return to operating the
project to target Article 401 rule curve elevations, and notify federal
and state resource agencies and other stakeholders involved in the
teleconference.
4.2 Other Action Alternatives
No reasonable action alternatives to GRDA's proposal have been
presented by GRDA, identified by Commission staff, or suggested by
entities commenting in this proceeding.
4.3 No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, GRDA's request to permanently
amend the Pensacola Project's Article 401 rule curve would be denied.
GRDA would therefore continue to operate the project to target
elevations along the current rule curve, except as directed by the
Corps for flood control, for the remainder of the current license
period. Also, GRDA's Storm and Drought Plans would not be approved by
the Commission. Environmental resources in the project area would
remain the same as they are initially described in Environmental
Analysis below.
5.0 Consultation and Compliance
5.1 Background and GRDA's Pre-Filing Consultation
GRDA's pre-filing consultation included both its application for a
permanent amendment to the Article 401 rule curve and its request for a
temporary variance for 2016. GRDA distributed a draft of its
application to federal and state resource agencies, Indian Tribes,
local governmental authorities, and interested members of the public on
March 15, 2016. On that same day, GRDA filed a request to shorten the
normal 60-day pre-filing comment period to 30 days to help expedite
processing. The Commission approved a reduced pre-filing comment period
on April 5, 2016.
GRDA received comments on the draft application from the Delaware
County Floodplain Administration, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board
(Oklahoma WRB), the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
(Oklahoma DWC), the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, the City of Miami,
Oklahoma (City of Miami), plaintiffs in two civil cases,\13\ Mr. N.
Larry Bork (on behalf of citizens and businesses located in Ottawa
County, Oklahoma), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the
Oklahoma SHPO. GRDA included copies of these comments and addressed
them in a comment/response table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The two cases are City of Miami v. GRDA, Case No. CJ-08-690
(Okla. Dist. Ct.) and Asbell, et al. v. GRDA, Case No. CJ-01-381
(Okla. Dist. Ct.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantive issues raised in pre-filing consultation included: (1)
The extent and frequency of flooding of upstream areas and
interpretation of recent flood studies; (2) progress in recent
[[Page 3775]]
consultation between resource agencies and GRDA on mitigation for fish
and wildlife under the current rule curve; and (3) protection of
historic properties and archaeological sites. Almost all of the issues
raised in pre-filing consultation were relevant to a permanent rule
curve change and almost all were repeated in the responses to the
Commission's public notice of GRDA's final application, as described
below. All substantive issues raised in pre-filing consultation are
treated in the resource sections of this environmental assessment (EA).
GRDA also included in its application a summary report on a
hydraulic modeling technical conference held December 16, 2015, at the
University of Oklahoma, and copies of letters from the University of
Oklahoma and the Corps regarding recent flood studies relative to the
amendment request.
5.2 Responses to Commission's Additional Information Request
On May 18, 2016, Commission staff issued a letter asking GRDA to
provide additional information regarding fisheries and aquatic
resources and the results of flooding studies on property and
structures. GRDA filed additional information on these issues on June 2
and 30, 2016, respectively.
5.3 Public Notice and Responses
The Commission issued public notice of GRDA's application for a
permanent amendment of the Article 401 rule curve on September 22,
2016, which was published in the Federal Register on September 29,
2016.\14\ The notice established a 30-day deadline for submitting
comments, motions to intervene, and protests. The notice was also
published in five newspapers in the project area. Responses to the
notice are listed in the following table and summarized below. On
November 8, 2016, GRDA filed an answer to the comments made in response
to the notice. Issues raised in these filings are addressed in this EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 81 FR 66,957 (Sept. 29, 2016).
\15\ Filings made in response to the Commission's March 16,
2016, public notice of GRDA's request to reduce the public comment
period from 60 to 30 days on GRDA's March 15, 2016 draft
application.
\16\ Interior indicated in its comments that its letter
superseded a letter it had filed October 19, 2016.
Table 1--Responses to Public Notice of GRDA's Amendment Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Filing date Filing type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma................ March 31, 2016.............................. protest and comments
\15\.
Oklahoma DWC........................... April 6, 2016............................... comments \14\.
Al Newkirk............................. October 10, 2016............................ comments.
U.S. Department of the Interior October 21, 2016............................ comments \16\.
(Interior), Office of the Secretary,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Interior, Office of the Solicitor...... October 21, 2016............................ notice of intervention.
N. Larry Bork.......................... October 24, 2016............................ protest and comments.
City of Miami.......................... October 24, 2016............................ motion to intervene,
protest, and comments.
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Wyandotte October 24, 2016............................ motion to intervene and
Nation, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, protest.
Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, Eastern
Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca-
Cayuga Nation (jointly, the Tribes).
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey......... November 7, 2016............................ Comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Newkirk
Al Newkirk states that his house and commercial pecan grove are
located across the Neosho River from the City of Miami. Mr. Newkirk
indicates that the frequency and duration of flooding of his property
have increased over the years, with flooding in the pecan grove already
occurring three times this year, and with floods previously lasting a
day or two but now extending to a week to 10 days. Mr. Newkirk
indicates that approximately 20 acres of his land cannot be accessed
when the lake is at an elevation of 744 feet and there are flows of
5,000 to 6,000 cfs in the river. Mr. Newkirk writes that flooding
results in financial harm to him and other people in the area.
Regarding the timing of the annual lake drawdown in the fall, Mr.
Newkirk indicates that boat traffic on the lake drops off significantly
by September 15, and higher levels are not needed for safety past that
time.
U.S. Department of the Interior
Interior reviewed the role of its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in
working with federally recognized American Indian Tribes stating that
it is clear that higher water elevations would affect Tribal lands and
resources. Interior indicated that the Inter-Tribal Council \17\ and
several of its member Tribes informed the BIA that backwater flooding
is affecting Tribal lands, communities, financial enterprises,
infrastructure, and cultural resources. Interior indicated that these
Tribes are concerned that amending the rule curve may increase adverse
impacts. Interior noted that there is currently no agreement on the
level of effects on Tribal lands and resources and until information to
support appropriate mitigation for adverse effects is identified,
Commission action on GRDA's amendment application would be premature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Inter-Tribal Council is a Tribal intergovernmental body
that is comprised of nine sovereign Tribal governments whose seat of
government is located in and around Ottawa County, Oklahoma: the
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Wyandotte Nation, the Ottawa Tribe of
Oklahoma, the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of
Oklahoma, the Shawnee Tribe, Modoc Tribe, Quapaw Tribe, and the
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior indicated that, as currently defined, the project boundary
does not occupy Indian lands, but that BIA is in the process of
establishing the boundaries and legal definitions of all affected
Indian lands in the project area, with a number of Tribes having
documented impacts to Tribally-owned lands and resources. Interior
stated that it intends to more fully evaluate the project boundary
issue during relicensing.\18\ Interior also stated that lands and
resources held in trust by the federal government are subject to its
jurisdiction under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and to
restitution under FPA section 10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GRDA must file its Notice of Intent and Pre-Application
Document to begin the relicensing process no later than March 31,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior indicated that the relicensing process is the appropriate
forum to discuss these and all other issues associated with continued
project operation. Interior and BIA object to the amendment until
project impacts and mitigation can be evaluated and negotiated during
the re-licensing
[[Page 3776]]
process, and jurisdictional issues between the Corps and the Commission
are better understood.
Indian Tribes
The Tribes, which comprise six of the nine sovereign, federally-
recognized Tribal governments whose respective seats of government are
located in and around Ottawa County, Oklahoma, state that operation of
the project has adversely affected their lands, facilities, and
resources. In their comments, and during Government-to-Government
Consultation with the Commission (discussed below), the Tribes assert
that flooding due to project operation has increased in elevation,
frequency, and duration, resulting in extensive property damage,
closure of Tribal business enterprises and facilities, and impairment
to essential services. The Tribes write that the proposed amendment
would increase risks to health and human safety. The Tribes state that
the Commission cannot determine what constitutes an ``incremental''
increase in flood effects and evaluate the impacts of such an increase,
where the Commission has not yet evaluated the impacts of current
operations.
The Tribes indicate that they oppose GRDA's proposal and urge the
Commission to deny it based on unauthorized project-related flooding of
federal trust lands. The Tribes believe that the Commission should
defer any action pertaining to the rule curve until project relicensing
and indicate that, alternatively, the Commission should condition any
approval on GRDA's prior fulfillment of a series of requirements,
including: (1) completing comprehensive upstream and downstream flood
routing studies; (2) acquiring all necessary property rights within 12
months of completing studies; (3) investigating and reporting the
extent of its use and occupancy of Tribal trust lands and filing an
amendment application for authorization for any such occupancy as
required under sections 4(e), 10(a), and 10(e) of the FPA; (4)
identifying, in consultation with the Tribes and the Oklahoma SHPO, any
archaeological sites, historic properties, or Tribal cultural
properties that could be adversely impacted by the project, including
those outside the current project boundary and above existing flowage
easements; (5) conducting surveys of any such sites to determine
eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register); and (6) developing, in consultation with the
Tribes and the Oklahoma SHPO, a plan for protection of, or mitigation
of damage to, such sites, and submitting it to the Commission after
approval by the Tribes.
N. Larry Bork
N. Larry Bork, in comments on behalf of 493 citizens and businesses
in Ottawa County, asks the Commission to deny the amendment
application. Mr. Bork asserts that the Commission is allowing GRDA to
violate its license when unauthorized flooding occurs, and asks the
Commission to ensure that GRDA purchases necessary easements before
approving any amendment to the rule curve. Mr. Bork references recent
studies finding a decrease in the flood storage capacity of Grand Lake
caused by accumulation of sediments over time, and gives examples of
times Grand Lake was below an elevation of 743 feet and high flows
still flooded the City of Miami. Mr. Bork also provides a list of legal
actions related to flooding upstream of the project.
Additionally, Mr. Bork asserts that past increases in the rule
curve have led to flooding and economic decline of the City of Miami.
Also, he indicates that backwater flooding can increase exposure to
contaminants from the closed Tar Creek Superfund Site and Spring River.
Lastly, Mr. Bork expressed concern that higher water levels would cause
more pressure on Pensacola Dam, when 907 earthquakes occurred in
Oklahoma last year.
City of Miami
The City of Miami asks the Commission to deny the permanent
amendment to the rule curve, or in the alternative, condition any
approval by requiring a comprehensive upstream and downstream flood
routing study followed by the acquisition of all necessary property
rights. Citing recently-completed flood studies, the City states that
project operations have resulted in increased flooding in the City and
surrounding region. The City believes that GRDA's failure to acquire
necessary flowage easements makes unauthorized flooding illegal under
the project license and state and local laws, and that it puts the
health and safety of people and property at risk. The City indicates
that the proposed rule curve amendment would only make this situation
worse.
The City of Miami does not believe that analyzing only the
incremental effects of the proposal is appropriate and that the
Commission cannot and should not ignore existing conditions in
rendering a decision on the amendment. The City says the Commission has
a responsibility to ensure that GRDA operates the project in the public
interest and references prior cases in support of the Commission not
ignoring existing conditions. The city also references the Commission's
authority under the license and under the FPA related to the protection
of life, health, and property.
Finally, the City of Miami believes that the Commission must
evaluate flooding in its EA, including impacts and the adverse
socioeconomic impacts from unauthorized project-related flooding, and
impacts to Tribal lands and resources that have been identified through
consultations with the Inter-Tribal Council. The City also requests
that the Commission consider the Inter-Tribal Council's concerns prior
to issuing a decision on the rule curve proposal.
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
The Oklahoma AS states that, although the Commission did not
require GRDA to develop a project-wide Historic Properties Management
Plan (HPMP) for the temporary variance, as recommended by the Oklahoma
SHPO, the Commission should require a HPMP for the permanent amendment.
The Oklahoma AS is concerned that changes in reservoir elevations have
the potential to substantially impact historic properties, including
archaeological sites, that are located along and near the shore of
Grand Lake, by eroding the sites and by exposing them to looting and
vandalism. Further, the Oklahoma AS does not accept the premise that
GRDA's HPMP for the Markham Ferry Project is an adequate framework for
the Pensacola Project since Markham Ferry has its own project setting
and cultural resources. Therefore, the Oklahoma AS requests that a HPMP
be developed specifically for the Pensacola Project's proposed rule
curve amendment.
GRDA's Answer to Interventions and Comments
On November 8, 2016, GRDA filed an answer to the comments filed by
Interior, the Tribes, Mr. Bork, and the City of Miami regarding flood
effects, indicating that these entities' comments are without merit and
outside the scope of the Commission's statutory responsibilities. GRDA
argues that it and the Commission are not authorized to address flood
control and flowage rights at Pensacola Dam because flood control is
not a project purpose under the FPA, and Congress has tasked the Corps
with these responsibilities. GRDA next states that during the temporary
variances in 2015 and 2016, its Storm Plan successfully reduced the
risk of flooding at the project. Lastly, GRDA states that the Tribe's
allegation that the
[[Page 3777]]
Commission has failed to meet its responsibilities under section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) are without merit. GRDA
avers that it has consulted with the appropriate agencies and Tribes
and that water levels under its proposal would not be outside the range
of the current rule curve, and that any impacts to historic properties
from flood control are beyond the scope of the undertaking and the
Commission's jurisdiction. GRDA indicated that, while the Tribes have
asserted that project operation is causing flooding of Tribal trust
lands, the Tribes have not identified properties listed or eligible for
listing in the National Register that would be affected by the proposed
action.
5.4 Comments on Flooding and the Scope of This Environmental Assessment
The majority of the comments filed in response to the Commission's
public notice concern flooding in the upper reaches of Grand Lake.
These comments, summarized above, primarily focus on the degree to
which the presence of the project and GRDA's operation of the project
has contributed to the frequency, duration, and magnitude of flooding.
In addition, comments were filed on the effects of the proposed rule
curve change on flooding, the accuracy of the project boundary, and the
adequacy of GRDA's property easements in relation to flooding.
Commenters also address the adequacy of input data and the methodology
of several flood routing studies presented by GRDA, the City of Miami,
Commission staff, and others in this and earlier proceedings. Further,
commenters questioned the accuracy and interpretation of the results of
those studies.
These same issues were raised in the Commission's 2015 and 2016
proceedings for GRDA's temporary variances. In those proceedings, staff
carefully examined hydraulic modeling studies and the results of those
studies and summarized its findings which were then addressed in the
Commission's orders issued August 14, 2015 and August 12, 2016. In the
Water Quantity and Flows section of this EA, staff summarizes those
studies and results as needed, in order to address the flood-related
comments received in this proceeding.
In their comments, Interior, the Tribes, Mr. Bork, and the City of
Miami raise the issue of flooding and adverse socioeconomic effects to
property in the City of Miami and Tribal trust lands and resources. The
extent to which the proposed amendment would aggravate flooding and
affect property is discussed in the Water Quantity and Flows section.
The information in that section includes modeled effects to areas and
structures in the City and surrounding lands. Pursuant to our statutory
responsibilities under section 106 of the NHPA, we address comments
specific to Tribal lands and resources in the Cultural and Historic
Resources section and in the summary of our Government-to-Government
consultation with the Inter-Tribal Council. To the extent the above
commenters address flooding concerns that are not related to the
pending amendment, the Commission will perform a comprehensive review
of the project and any proposed future operation in the upcoming
relicensing proceeding. That proceeding is the appropriate forum to
identify and address issues that are separate from GRDA's amendment
application.
5.5 Government-to-Government Consultation
Commission staff met with the Inter-Tribal Council on August 3,
2016, in Miami, Oklahoma to hear the Council's concerns and gather any
additional information the Council or its member Tribes wish to present
for Commission consideration. In summary, the Inter-Tribal Council
reiterated its concerns that the project already floods Tribal trust
lands and other areas in the Miami region. The Inter-Tribal Council
provided more detailed information concerning the whereabouts of
individual Tribal lands and facilities affected by flooding, their
desire to be compensated for flooding effects, and their concerns about
the project in general. Commission staff's August 3rd meeting with the
Inter-Tribal Council and its member Tribes was transcribed and the
transcripts were filed with the Commission's Secretary. All comments
presented at the August 3, 2016 meeting have been made a part of this
proceeding and are publicly available. Further information concerning
cultural and historic resources and the Commission's consultation with
the Tribes is discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and Historic Resources.
5.6 Statutory Compliance
5.6.1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification
The Clean Water Act (CWA) gives authority to each state to issue a
section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 certification) for any
FERC-licensed project that requires a permit pursuant to section 404 of
the CWA. Additionally, an applicant must obtain a 401 certification for
any activity that may result in a new discharge into navigable waters.
The 401 certification is a verification by the state that a proposed
project would not violate water quality standards.
On June 30, 2016, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(Oklahoma DEQ) issued a 401 certification for GRDA's permanent
amendment request, subject to four conditions: (1) The certification
does not authorize any discharge or dredging; (2) the reservoir will be
maintained between elevations 742 and 744 feet as requested by GRDA;
(3) emergency and routine maintenance will be as permitted by the
Corps; and (4) the results of ongoing testing of DO mitigation measures
under the project license shall be submitted annually to Oklahoma DEQ.
These conditions are included in our analysis of effects to water
quality in Section 6.4 Water Quality.
5.6.2 Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal
agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered
species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat of such species. Several federally listed species are
known to use the Pensacola Project area. The gray bat (Myotis
grisescens) and the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are listed
as endangered, while the Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) and the
Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) are listed as threatened.
In its April 21, 2016 comments on GRDA's application, FWS states
that GRDA's proposal would not adversely affect any listed species.
Information on listed species is discussed further in Section 6.8,
Threatened and Endangered Species. However, in summary, no further
consultation pursuant to the ESA is required for this proceeding.
5.6.3 National Historic Preservation Act
Under section 106 of the NHPA,\19\ and its implementing
regulations,\20\ federal agencies must take into account the effect of
any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing
in the National Register and afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking.
GRDA's proposed amendment would not cause Grand Lake to exceed its
normal
[[Page 3778]]
maximum (or minimum) water surface elevations under the rule curve
specified by Article 401. Water levels would remain within existing
fluctuation limits within the rule curve. Also, the proposed amendment
does not involve any land-clearing or land-disturbing activities.
Therefore, we find that the proposed amendment would not affect
cultural resources and historic properties. Further information is
discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and Historic Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. (2014).
\20\ 36 CFR part 800 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 Environmental Analysis
6.1. Scope of the Analysis
The geographic scope of this analysis is Grand Lake, its shoreline
areas, and flows immediately upstream and downstream. As appropriate,
discussions of cumulative environmental effects are incorporated into
the resource sections in this document.
The temporal scope of this environmental analysis focuses on the
period from now until when the current project license expires in April
2022. The environmental effects of any proposed rule curve changes made
during the relicensing period will be evaluated as part of the
relicensing docket.
6.2 General Description of the Project Area
The Pensacola Project and its reservoir, Grand Lake, are located on
the Neosho River in the northeast corner of Oklahoma, in Craig,
Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties. Downstream of the project, the
Neosho River is locally known as the Grand River. Much of the land
surrounding Grand Lake is privately owned and many areas along its
shorelines have become highly developed with commercial resorts,
private homes and condominiums, municipal and state parks, marinas, and
private docks.
6.3 Geology and Soils
6.3.1 Affected Environment
Limestone bluffs and steep rocky beaches characterize much of the
southern and eastern shorelines at Grand Lake. Soils in these areas are
mostly cherty material that is not highly erodible. In contrast, the
northern and western areas of the lake are surrounded mostly by rolling
plains with occasional hills and ridges with gentle slopes. These
shorelines generally feature more erodible loamy soils with mud
substrates, silt deposits, and wetlands at inlets and coves associated
with numerous small tributaries. These mud substrates and silt deposits
provide good conditions for the growth of certain wetland vegetation
(FERC 1996; FERC 2009 (SMP EA)).
6.3.2 Environmental Effects
Under the proposed rule curve, water levels would not be lowered
three feet from elevation 744 to 741 feet in August, as is currently
done. Instead, the draw down would stop after one foot at elevation 743
feet until September 15, then drop an additional foot to elevation 742
feet, and remain at that level until October 31 (see Figure 2). This
stepped reduction in water levels, combined with eliminating the last
foot of drawdown from September 15 to October 31, would likely result
in only minor changes in erosion patterns that occur under the current
rule curve. These changes would likely include minor decreases in
shoreline erosion, although erosion from wind and waves at the
waterline would be expected to continue regardless of water levels.
Reductions in erosion rates over sequential years could enhance
revegetation of some shallow water, near-shore areas over time, leading
to increases in substrate and soil stabilization that could be
beneficial.
6.4 Water Quantity and Flows
6.4.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake is impounded by Pensacola Dam on the Neosho River, which
has a basin covering 12,110 square miles in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri,
and Arkansas. The Neosho River originates in the Flint Hills of east
central Kansas, then flows southeasterly and easterly until it enters
the 66-mile-long Grand Lake. Below Pensacola Dam, the Neosho flows
approximately 77 miles to its confluence with the Arkansas River.
Significant tributaries of the lake include Spring River, Elk River,
Tar Creek, and Duck Creek.
Flows in the Neosho River downstream of Pensacola Dam to the head
of Lake Hudson are controlled by operation of the Pensacola Dam. USGS
gage 07190500, Neosho River Near Langley, OK, is located approximately
3.6 miles below the dam, and has been in operation 1939. According to
records collected at that gage for water years 1940 through 2015, the
historic highest daily mean flow was 287,000 cfs, recorded May 20,
1943. The lowest daily mean flow for that period was 9 cfs, recorded
March 25, 1940, four days after initial filling of Grand Lake began.
The historic annual mean flow was 7,601 cfs. In water year 2015, the
highest daily mean flow of 86,900 cfs was recorded at the gage on May
30, and the lowest daily mean flow of 84 cfs was recorded November 20,
with an annual mean flow of 9,169 cfs (USGS, 2016).
Grand Lake is one of the largest lakes in Oklahoma with
approximately 522 miles of shoreline. At the time of project was
relicensed in 1992, Grand Lake was recorded as having a surface area of
approximately 46,500 acres at elevation 745 feet. At elevation 745.1
feet, the mean depth of the reservoir is about 36 feet while the
maximum depth is 164 feet (FERC, 2007; FERC 2009). As shown in Table 2,
results of recent surveys have updated the calculation of the surface
area of Grand Lake at an elevation of 745 feet, as well as the surface
area at other elevations relevant in this EA.
Except during flood events, when releases are directed by the Corps
for flood control, GRDA operates the Pensacola Project to target
seasonal water elevations at Grand Lake varying from elevation 741 to
744 feet in accordance with the Article 401 rule curve. As shown in
Figure 2, a lake elevation of 742 feet is maintained November 1 through
April 30. In May, the lake is raised to a summer elevation of 744 feet.
In August, the level is then reduced to a low point of 741 feet and
then held there for six weeks from September 1 through October 15. It
is then returned to an elevation of 742 feet by November 1. While
targeting the elevations on the rule curve, GRDA also manages releases
to provide water to operate GRDA's downstream Markham Ferry Project and
its Salina Pumped Storage Project. In addition, during summer and fall,
calculated releases are made to help maintain DO concentrations in the
tailrace and downstream river, as discussed further under Water Quality
below.
Grand Lake is also a significant local water supply. GRDA indicates
in its application that approximately 25 wholesale customers currently
withdraw water from Grand Lake and that the lake is used by
approximately 21,000 residential households and 500 commercial
customers. GRDA issues yearly permits for domestic water use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Elevations converted from NGVD to PD.
Table 2--Grand Lake Elevation and Surface Area
[Source: Oklahoma WRB, 2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface
area
Surface elevation (feet PD \21\) (thousands
of acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
740........................................................ 36.58
741........................................................ 37.52
742........................................................ 38.83
743........................................................ 39.98
[[Page 3779]]
744........................................................ 40.60
745........................................................ 41.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.4.2 Environmental Effects
Project operation using the proposed rule curve would increase the
elevation, volume, and surface area of Grand Lake in late summer and
early fall. It would therefore, allow GRDA to store more water each
year during that period for the duration of the current license term.
As shown in Figure 2, water levels would no longer be lowered all the
way from elevation 744 to 741 feet in August, but instead would be
reduced to 743 feet and held at that elevation from August 16 through
September 15. The elevation would then be lowered to 742 feet,
eliminating the deepest part of the drawdown, and held at that
elevation until the following spring. Also, as shown in Figure 2, the
overall length of the drawdown period between summer and winter
elevations would be reduced from 12 to 8 weeks. GRDA would continue to
target the rule curve at all times, except as necessary for the Corps
to provide flood protection, or during any periods in which the
proposed Storm or Drought Plans might be utilized.
The increase in lake elevations under the proposed rule curve would
primarily benefit boating on Grand Lake in late summer and early fall
each year, as described in Recreation below. The increase in storage
would also provide a buffer for local entities that utilize Grand Lake
for water supply, because more storage would be available during what
is typically the hottest and driest time of the year. This coincides
with the season when the population around the lake is highest, with
the highest local water demand. The higher reservoir elevation in late
summer and fall would also help ensure GRDA has sufficient water for
releases to maintain downstream DO in hot and dry years, as described
further in Water Quality, and would decrease the chances of Grand Lake
water levels falling below the rule curve during periods of drought. If
drought conditions cause water to fall below elevations on the rule
curve, GRDA would, under its proposed Drought Plan, regardless of
reservoir elevations, make releases that would not exceed a flow rate
equal to 0.06 feet of reservoir elevation per day, which is equivalent
to approximately 837 cfs per hour over a 24-hour period.
The reduction in the total drawdown depth and the stepped reduction
to winter elevations should also provide some benefits to other
resources, primarily near-shore and shoreline habitat for fish and
wildlife, as described in sections below.
Flooding Impacts
There have been several hydraulic studies prepared that assess the
affects the proposed rule curve amendment would have on flooding. Key
studies, as well as submitted reviews of those studies, were evaluated
for this environmental analysis, they include:
A 2014 study performed by Alan C. Dennis (2014 Dennis
Study); \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The 2014 Dennis Study is a graduate thesis submitted to the
University of Oklahoma graduate program in 2014 by Alan C. Dennis.
Floodplain Analysis of the Neosho River Associated with Proposed
Rule Curve Modifications for Grand Lake O' the Cherokees, Docket No.
P-1494-432 (filed May 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
an independent modeling analysis performed by Commission
staff as part of its review of GRDA's 2015 temporary variance request
(2015 Staff Analysis); \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Commission staff's independent analysis performed for
GRDA's temporary variance request was filed under Docket No. P-1494-
432 on August 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a hydraulic modeling study conducted by Tetra Tech dated
February 3, 2016 (2016 Tetra Tech Study); \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The 2016 Tetra Tech Study was completed for the City of
Miami, Oklahoma. Hydraulic Analysis of the Effects of Proposed Rule
Curve Change at Pensacola Dam on Neosho River Flooding in the
Vicinity of Miami, Oklahoma, Docket No. P-1494-433 filed April 14,
2016 and July 22, 2016 (2016 Tetra Tech Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a May 2016 review by Mead & Hunt of the 2016 hydraulic
modeling study conducted by Tetra Tech;
letters dated July 23, 2015 and May 2, 2016 from the
University of Oklahoma regarding the 2014 Dennis Study and the
differences between the 2014 Dennis, 2015 Staff, and 2016 Tetra Tech
studies;
a letter dated February 20, 2015 from the Corps regarding
the 2014 Dennis Study; and
a summary report on a hydraulic modeling technical
conference held December 16, 2016 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Attendees of the conference included representatives from
GRDA and its consultants, Commission staff, the City of Miami, the
Corps, the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, and the University of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of its permanent amendment request, GRDA relies
primarily on the 2014 Dennis Study which analyzed the upstream flooding
impacts, particularly in the area of Miami, which would occur as a
result of the proposed rule curve modification. The study determined
that the proposed rule curve modification would have a minimal impact
on upstream flooding; concluding that the incremental \26\ increase in
water surface elevations would be less than 0.2 foot \27\ at Miami.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In this document, incremental refers to the change in water
surface elevation due to the proposed rule curve amendment.
\27\ 0.2 foot is equivalent to 2.4 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In review of the GRDA 2015 temporary variance request, Commission
staff performed an independent analysis on the potential flooding
impacts of the rule curve change. Commission staff gathered available
pertinent data, including but not limited to, stream flows, reservoir
elevations, spillway gate operations, and other data from historic
storms to build the input files for the independent verification model
which also extended downstream to assess potential flooding impacts
from Pensacola Dam to the USGS Gage No. 07190500, Neosho River near
Langley, Oklahoma (Langley gage).
While the 2014 Dennis Study only considered storm events from
August 15 to September 15, Commission staff reviewed historic storms
during the August 16 to October 31 time period for its independent
analysis. Staff selected the October 1986, September 1993, and October
2009 storms for use in the hydraulic model because they are large
historic storms from the time of year corresponding to the proposed
change in the rule curve. Staff concluded that historic large spring or
early summer storms were not appropriate for this analysis since they
occur outside of the proposed rule curve amendment period.\28\ Using
flow data from USGS Gage No. 07185000, Neosho River near Commerce,
Oklahoma (Commerce gage), along with the Federal Emergency Management
Act (FEMA) flood frequency curve prepared for that gage,\29\ Commission
staff determined that the flow recurrence intervals for the Neosho
River for the October 1986, September 1993, and October 2009 storms are
17-year, 8-year, and 3-year events, respectively. The results of the
Commission staff independent analysis concluded that the maximum
incremental increase is approximately 0.1 foot if the reservoir
starting elevation is raised from 741 to 742 feet and approximately 0.2
foot if the reservoir starting elevation is raised from 741 to
[[Page 3780]]
743 feet. However, a precise number of additional structures impacted
by the maximum incremental increase of 0.2 foot in the vicinity of
Miami could not be determined due to the lack of surveyed structure
data (e.g., first floor elevation or lowest adjacent grade to the
structure) and the coarseness of the available topographic data.
Staff's review of aerial photographic data in the vicinity of Miami
indicated that there would be increased flooding of 11 structures
already inundated with a reservoir starting elevation of 741 feet. An
additional 22 structures that are located within a 30-foot horizontal
buffer of the inundation zone could also be impacted. Nonetheless, many
inundated structures are located at the edge of the inundated area
where flood depths are minor and the incremental flooding impacts are
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Generally, storm intensity and duration vary seasonally
throughout the year with larger events occurring in the spring and
early summer for this river basin.
\29\ FEMA, Task Order HSFE06-11-J-0001 for Grand Lake O' the
Cherokees Watershed (Nov. 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum incremental increase in water surface elevation
downstream of Pensacola Dam, at the Langley gage, also occurs during
the October 2009 storm event and is approximately 0.3 foot if the
reservoir starting elevation is raised from 741 to742 feet and
approximately 0.7 foot if the reservoir starting elevation is raised
from 741 to 743 feet.\30\ With the same topographic limitations found
in the vicinity of Miami, a specific number of additional structures
impacted by the maximum incremental increase of 0.7 foot could not be
determined. Review of aerial photographic data indicated that there
would be increased flooding of 12 structures already inundated with a
reservoir starting elevation of 741 feet. An additional 7 structures
that are located within a 30-foot horizontal buffer of the inundation
zone could also be impacted. If GRDA is proactive in its adaptive
management procedures, using technical experts to continually assess
the potential for storm events and reacting quickly when necessary by
notifying downstream residents using EAP procedures that have been
developed for the project, there would be at most minimal increases in
incremental flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 0.3 and 0.7 foot are equivalent to 3.6 and 8.4 inches,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Miami filed comments on July 22, 2016, which included a
new study performed by Tetra Tech dated April 26, 2016, that evaluated
the effects of the proposed rule curve change on structure inundation
(2016 Tetra Tech Study). The 2016 Tetra Tech Study evaluated the
effects of the proposed rule curve on flooding upstream of Grand Lake,
specifically in the vicinity of Miami, that would occur during the
October 1986, September 1993, and October 2009 historic storm events.
The study was performed using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model and
incorporated new bathymetric survey data to account for sedimentation
that has occurred in the Neosho River channel upstream of the
reservoir. The 2016 Tetra Tech Study indicates that the water surface
elevations at Miami during the modeled historic flood events are higher
than determined in the 2015 Staff Analysis for both the 741 and 743
feet Grand Lake elevations. The study confirmed that during the three
modeled storm events, the maximum incremental increase in water surface
elevation at Miami, which occurs during the October 2009 storm, is less
than 0.2 foot if the Grand Lake reservoir elevation is raised from 741
to 743 feet. The 2016 Tetra Tech Inundation Study concluded that the
2015 Staff Analysis underestimated the number of structures inundated
under the current rule curve, due to the staff's lower computed water
surface elevations, but that no additional structures would be impacted
by the proposed rule curve change.
On June 30, 2016, GRDA filed a response to Commission staff's May
18, 2016 request for additional information. The response included a
review, prepared by GRDA's consultant Mead & Hunt, of the 2016 Tetra
Tech Study and an evaluation of the effects to property, structures,
and human life as a result of the higher water surface elevations
indicated in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study. Mead & Hunt found that all
three of the most recent hydraulic model studies of the Neosho River
upstream of Pensacola Dam conducted by Tetra Tech, FERC, and Dennis
agree that the incremental change in water surface elevations due to
the requested variance is 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) or less at the Miami
gage. The difference in water surface elevations at the Miami gage
between the latest Tetra Tech model and the FERC model are primarily
due to a difference in the downstream boundary conditions/starting
water surface elevations, and the bathymetry data gathered in April
2015 that results in higher predicted channel elevations. Mead & Hunt
concluded that the Tetra Tech modeling cannot be relied upon for future
studies until it has been verified that the model configuration,
parameters, calibration results, and overall results are accurate and
recommended that further investigation be completed before relying on
the higher water surface elevations determined in the study.
In order to determine the effects to property and structures that
could result from the higher water surface elevations indicated in the
2016 Tetra Tech Study, Commission staff also requested that GRDA
evaluate the impact to structures that would occur with and without the
proposed rule curve change for the three historic storm events (October
1986, September 1993, and October 2009) modeled in the 2016 Tetra Tech
Study and 2015 Staff Analysis. Even though Mead & Hunt recommended
further investigation before relying on the 2016 Tetra Tech Study
results, it prepared inundation mapping for the three historic storm
events based on the elevations in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study. The
results of the inundation mapping, which used the 2016 Tetra Tech Study
water surface elevations, show no additional structures would be
impacted by the proposed rule curve change.
To quantify any increased physical danger to residents due to the
incremental increase in inundation as a result of higher water surface
elevations computed by Tetra Tech's model, Mead & Hunt conducted a
hazard analysis for the three historic storm events using the ACER 11
procedure.\31\ The analysis indicates that there would be no increased
danger under October 1986 and October 2009 storm conditions. Under
September 1993 storm conditions, two structures, a commercial building
and a recreational building, may experience an increase in danger. For
the commercial building, the ACER 11 danger zone would change from the
low danger zone to the judgment zone; however, the hazard increase is
due to a slight increase in flood depth of 0.1 foot. For the
recreational building, the ACER 11 danger zone would change from the
judgment zone to the high danger zone; however, the hazard increase is
due to a slight increase in flood depth of 0.1 foot. Therefore, despite
the change in danger zone classification for these two structures, the
actual change in hazard is insignificant and there would be no
increased risk to human life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Assistant Commissioner, Engineering and Research Technical
Memorandum No. 11 (ACER 11), Downstream Hazard Classification
Guidelines (December 1988). The ACER 11 procedure describes the
danger posed to inundated structures based on flood depth and
velocity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Mead & Hunt, others reviewed and commented on the
three separate hydraulic analyses. University of Oklahoma professors,
who were on Mr. Dennis' thesis committee, issued a letter on July 23,
2015, that responded to comments directly related to his Master's
thesis work. The professors commented on the modeling protocols, the
boundary conditions, and the time frame of modeling for the 2014 Dennis
Study. In addition, the professors stated that the 2014 Dennis Study
used the
[[Page 3781]]
most current bathymetric and topographic information that was
available. In particular, the lake bathymetry, which was called into
question by the City of Miami in their June 26, 2015 letter, is based
on data collected by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board in 2009, so it
would certainly represent sedimentation that occurred between
construction of the dam and 2009. Then, in a letter filed May 2, 2016,
the same University of Oklahoma professors commented on the 2014 Dennis
Study, the 2015 Staff Analysis, and the 2016 Tetra Tech Study and
stated that the three different studies, each using different
approaches, have all reached a nearly identical result, and that the
predicted difference is within the expected bounds of model accuracy
due to numerical errors and parameterization of physical processes.
The Corps, Tulsa District reviewed the 2014 Dennis Study and found
the study to be of high quality and consistent with previous studies
that were completed by the Tulsa District (1998) and Dr. Forrest Holly
(2004). The Corps said that although a more diverse set of calibration
storms would have been preferable, the results of this study are
consistent with previous efforts, and the Corps concurred with the
findings that were presented. In a July 24, 2015 letter, the Corps
states that it had performed an analysis of the 2015 temporary variance
request and determined that the variance would have negligible impacts
on downstream flooding. Furthermore, the Corps states that its model
results showed a discharge of around 100,000 cfs while adverse impacts
(i.e., flooding) did not begin until 130,000 cfs at the Highway 82
Bridge. The Corps also notes that properties outside of existing
flowage easements are not affected until the discharge exceeds 230,000
cfs.
The City of Miami's July 22, 2016 comments argue that the 2015
Staff Analysis underestimates the number of structures impacted during
the historic storm events. Although both the 2016 Tetra Tech Study and
the inundation mapping conducted by Mead & Hunt show a greater number
of structures impacted, both studies also determined that no additional
structures would be impacted by increased flooding due to the proposed
rule curve change. Further, as discussed above, the Mead & Hunt hazard
analysis using the 2016 Tetra Tech Study found no additional risk to
human life.
Finally, Mr. Bork commented regarding the capability of GRDA to
timely open spill gates in advance of a predicted storm event.
According to the Supporting Technical Information Document for the
project that is filed with the Commission, the time required to
position a gate hoist above a spillway gate and then raise or lower
that gate is typically in the range of 15 to 20 minutes, which is
adequate to respond to storm events. Mr. Bork also expressed concern
regarding the number of earthquakes in Oklahoma and the additional
pressure that higher water levels would place on Pensacola Dam. Because
the proposed rule curve change does not include any water levels higher
than those on the current rule curve, and because there is no reason to
expect that the rule curve change would significantly affect high-water
events, we do not anticipate any dam safety concerns regarding GRDA's
proposed amendment.
6.5 Water Quality
6.5.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake
The designated beneficial uses for Grand Lake include public and
private water supply, fish and wildlife propagation as a warm water
aquatic community, Class 1 irrigation, and primary body contact
recreation (GRDA, 2008b). Oklahoma state water quality standards
require the following in order to protect the warm water aquatic
community designation: Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations maintained
at or above 6.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l) at 25 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) from April 1 to June 15 (for fish early life stages); at or
above 5.0 mg/l at 32 [deg]C from June 16 to October 15 (summer
conditions); and at or above 5.0 mg/l at 18 [deg]C from October 16 to
March 31 (winter conditions) (GRDA 2008b).
Grand Lake was recently listed on Oklahoma's 303(d) list for
organic enrichment/low DO levels and color.\32\ Water quality in the
lake is affected primarily by heavy recreational use and shoreline
development, but also by heavy metal contamination from acid mine
drainage originating upstream along the Neosho River and Spring River,
and possibly by trace metal contamination from local surface mining
(GRDA 2008a). These sources include the Tar Creek Superfund Site, a
former mining area known to release acid mine drainage containing heavy
metals such as lead, cadmium, and zinc into the Tar Creek system, the
Neosho River and Grand Lake (Oklahoma WRB, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to
develop lists of impaired waters that don't meet the state's water
quality standards for their designated beneficial uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, surface water temperatures in Grand Lake range from
between 4 and 28 [deg]C annually. The reservoir typically begins to
exhibit thermal stratification in May, with anoxic conditions forming
in the deep waters of the hypolimnion several weeks later. Across Grand
Lake, the extent of stratification varies, with downstream portions of
the reservoir exhibiting stronger stratification than the upstream
sections of the reservoir. Sampling conducted in 2003 and 2004 found
that stratification was strongest during the summer, with approximately
38 percent of the water column having DO concentrations below 2.0 mg/l
in the lower portion of the reservoir (GRDA, 2008a).
GRDA currently works to mitigate water quality issues through lake-
wide sanitation regulations, shoreline use classifications and
management of shoreline development, water quality monitoring, and
other measures included in its approved Shoreline Management Plan.
Downstream
The Oklahoma WRB has designated the Neosho River below the project
as a warm-water aquatic community, with minimum DO standards of 6.0 mg/
l from October 16 through June 15, and 5.0 mg/l from June 16 through
October 15. A 1.0 mg/l DO deficit is allowed for not more than 8 hours
in a 24-hour period April 1 through October 15.
Water quality in the project tailrace and the river downstream is
dependent on releases through generation. The powerhouse draws water
from relatively deep in the reservoir where water can have very low DO
concentrations when the lake stratifies in summer and into the fall. In
the past, release of this DO-deficient water, combined with the hot and
dry conditions that regularly occur in late summer and fall, has led to
violations of Oklahoma water quality standards and fish kills. GRDA now
manages downstream releases during this period to maintain water
quality criteria for DO pursuant to plans approved under license
Article 403.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Grand River Dam Authority, 151 FERC ] 62,098 (2015)
(Order Modifying and Approving Dissolved Oxygen Mitigation Plan
Pursuant to Article 403).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.5.2 Environmental Effects
Grand Lake
Normal project operation under the proposed rule curve would not
have any significant negative effects on water quality in Grand Lake
and may provide some minor benefits to water quality by reducing the
magnitude of water level changes that may contribute to exposure
[[Page 3782]]
of shallow substrates, rates of shoreline erosion, resuspension of
sediments, and near-shore turbidity. Reduction in substrate exposure
and erosion rates would also reduce resuspension of pollutants, such as
heavy metals, where they are present in substrates in the lake. Mr.
Bork raised the issue of backwater flooding under the proposed rule
curve change allowing increased exposure to contaminants from the Tar
Creek Superfund Site or Spring River. Based on the discussion of
flooding effects above in the Water Quantity and Flows section, we do
not believe the proposed rule curve change would cause any measurable
changes in release of, or exposure to, contaminants from those sources.
Downstream
The additional water that would be stored in Grand Lake under the
proposed rule curve would help ensure water is available for making
releases to maintain downstream DO concentrations during late summer
and fall. Additionally, the proposed Drought Plan would help GRDA to
maintain downstream DO concentrations in the event that a severe to
exceptional drought is declared for the river basin and reservoir
elevations fall below the elevations on the rule curve.
GRDA indicates that releasing water pursuant to the Drought Plan
should also help ensure that it has sufficient water for DO maintenance
in the river below its downstream Markham Ferry Project, while
maintaining lake elevations at that project's Lake Hudson necessary for
operation of its Salina Pumped Storage Project, which is important to
local electric system reliability.
Water quality downstream of the project could be negatively
affected if the higher water levels on the proposed rule curve lead to
any increase in upstream flood conditions and therefore more flood flow
releases. Increases in flood flow releases could increase rates of
downstream river bank erosion, resulting in increases in water
turbidity. However, based on studies to date, it is unlikely any such
effects to downstream flows and erosion would be significant, or
predictable in frequency or severity.
Oklahoma DEQ's 401 certification for GRDA's permanent amendment
request includes a condition requiring GRDA to provide it with annual
reports of the results of ongoing testing of downstream DO mitigation
measures performed under plans that have been approved under license
Article 403. The Commission included this requirement as a condition of
its approval of GRDA's temporary variance for 2016. The Commission
added a requirement that GRDA notify Oklahoma DEQ at the same time it
notifies other agencies pursuant to the plan of any significant DO
deficiencies or DO mitigation, so that Oklahoma DEQ can track GRDA's
progress in maintaining state water quality standards. Inclusion of the
same requirement in any approval of a permanent amendment would allow
Oklahoma DEQ to continue to track GRDA's progress in maintaining state
water quality standards through the remainder of the current license
period, and help ensure water quality below the project is protected.
Based on our review, operation using the proposed rule curve
modification would not result in any material adverse impacts to water
quality.
6.6 Fisheries and Other Aquatic Resources
6.6.1 +Affected Environment
Grand Lake
Grand Lake supports a robust warm water fishery for largemouth and
smallmouth bass, white bass, striped bass and hybrid striped bass,
crappie, several species of sunfish and catfish, and paddlefish. It
also supports populations of a number of species of suckers, minnows,
and darters. Gizzard and threadfin shad are important forage species
that help sustain the sport fishery in Grand Lake. Grand Lake is one of
the top bass fishing destinations in the nation, consistently
attracting national fishing tournaments (FERC, 1996; GRDA 2016).
Largemouth bass and many other fishes present in Grand Lake spawn
in springtime in relatively shallow waters. Through the summer and
fall, the young of these fishes then use shallow areas with aquatic and
emergent vegetation or other structure as primary nursery habitat and
for cover and feeding as they mature (FERC, 1991; FERC, 1996).
Water level fluctuations that occur under the current rule curve,
which was approved in the order issued December 3, 1996, do not allow
the establishment of significant areas of shallow-water emergent and
submergent aquatic plants. Juvenile fishes that would use such areas
for cover and feeding in summer and fall therefore utilize other types
of cover, including woody debris and other natural features, and man-
made structure such as docks, and artificial reefs. Current work on
artificial reefs is described below.
Fish Habitat Mitigation for Effects of Current Rule Curve
A significant amount of effort has been expended to mitigate the
effects of water level fluctuations under the rule curve on shallow-
water fish habitat at Grand Lake. The Article 401 rule curve in the
1992 license included a stepped 15-week drawdown and partial refill in
late summer and fall, with a low-elevation of 741 feet that was
maintained for a period of 8 weeks. The drawdown over that period was
intended, in part, to enhance fish habitat by exposing mudflats for
natural revegetation, and revegetation through annual millet seeding.
When the rule curve was amended to its current form in a Commission
order issued December 3, 1996, the drawdown was reduced to 12 weeks,
and the period of lowest drawdown was reduced to 6 weeks. The
Commission acknowledged that the shortened drawdown period would reduce
the effectiveness of annual millet seeding and negatively affect fish
and waterfowl. Therefore, Article 411 was added to the license to
require a Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management Plan, to include
establishment of a mitigation fund and formation of a technical
committee to administer the fund to design, implement, and evaluate
work to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. GRDA's Article 411 plan was
approved, and the requirement to seed millet every year was deleted, in
an order issued May 22, 2003.\34\ Work under the plan can include, at
the technical committee's discretion, seeding of at least 1,000 acres
of millet, at a rate of 15 pounds per acre in any given year for which
favorable conditions were forecast. However, millet seeding was seldom
performed under the plan because the reduced duration of the drawdown
period prevented germination over large enough areas to provide
significant benefits.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Grand River Dam Authority, 103 FERC ] 62,102 (2003) (Order
Approving Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management plan Under Article
411 and Deleting Article 404).
\35\ Since 2003, millet seeding under the plan has only been
attempted several times, most recently in 2011. Seeding has resulted
in limited germination and plant growth adequate to benefit fish and
waterfowl habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since approval of the mitigation plan in 2003, the primary shallow-
water fish habitat work completed has been the deployment of
approximately 14,000 ``spider block'' artificial reef structures. These
structures attract adult gamefish for the purpose of improved sport
fishing. They may also provide rearing and feeding habitat for fry and
fingerlings and cover from predators.
Downstream
The tailrace area below the Pensacola Project and the reach of
river
[[Page 3783]]
downstream to Lake Hudson supports a popular fishery that includes many
of the species found in Grand Lake. As explained above in Water
Quality, water in these areas can be low in DO, especially in late
summer and fall, which has led to fish kills below the dam. However,
GRDA is currently successful in mitigating this problem through managed
releases under an approved DO mitigation plan.
6.6.2 Environmental Effects
Grand Lake
On an annual basis, maintaining higher water surface elevations in
Grand Lake from August 15 and October 31 using the proposed rule curve
would result in less fluctuation during late summer and early fall,
providing young fishes, and other aquatic organisms, with more stable
shallow-water habitat and cover. The decrease in fluctuation should
allow better colonization of emergent and submerged vegetation in these
areas, further improving habitat for young fishes. Over the remainder
of the license term, this should allow aquatic vegetation to more
successfully colonize and return to suitable areas, increasing shallow-
water habitat and benefitting young fishes and the macroinvertebrates
they prey upon.
The proposed rule curve change should not affect any fish habitat
mitigation work under the Article 411 mitigation plan over the
remaining term of the project license. As described above, annual
millet seeding is no longer performed under the plan and GRDA is
pursuing other mitigation options (i.e., land acquisitions) under the
Article 411 plan beyond continuing placement of artificial reef
structures. Therefore, we cannot review any other fish habitat
mitigation work at Grand Lake at this time, although we assume that any
such work would take the effects of the water elevations under the
proposal into account.
It is not possible to predict the effects to fisheries and aquatic
resources from any changes to frequency or intensity of periods of high
water, or periods of low water resulting from drought, that may occur
under the proposed rule curve, or any mitigative effects of the
proposed Storm and Drought Plans. However, there is no reason to expect
that there would be any significant effects on these resources in Grand
Lake.
Based on the above, the proposed rule curve change should have
minor positive effects on fisheries and aquatic resources in Grand
Lake.
Downstream
As described above under Water Quality, the proposed rule curve
would allow GRDA to store more water during late summer and early fall,
increasing the volume of water available for release to maintain DO
concentrations in the tailrace and river downstream. This would help to
protect fisheries and other aquatic resources in downstream areas in
years when inflows are low and reservoir levels may be difficult to
maintain. Further, as also described under Water Quality, the proposed
Drought Plan would help to ensure water is available for maintenance of
DO concentrations and fish protection in the event that drought
conditions cause reservoir elevations to fall below the rule curve. It
is not possible to predict effects to downstream aquatic resources that
could occur from any increases in flooding under GRDA's proposal, or
effects of GRDA's proposed Storm Plan.
Based on the above, the proposed rule curve change would have
positive effects to fisheries downstream of the project during late
summer and fall by helping to ensure maintenance of DO concentrations,
and use of the Drought Plan would help to avoid fish kills in the event
of significant drought conditions.
6.7 Terrestrial Resources
6.7.1 Affected Environment
Vegetation
Grand Lake is located in a transitional zone between the Ozark
Highlands and Central Irregular Plain eco-regions of northeast
Oklahoma. In the Ozark Highlands eco-region, which characterizes most
of the project area, oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine are the primary
forest types. Typical canopy species on dry uplands and ridgetops
include black oak, white oak, blackjack oak, post oak, winged elm, and
numerous hickories. Shortleaf pine also occurs in oak-hickory-pine
stands. Mesic forests containing sugar maple, white oak, and northern
red oak are typical of north-facing slopes and ravines of more rugged,
deeply dissected sites. Willows, bottomland oaks, maples, hickories,
birch, American elm, and sycamore are typical on floodplains and low
terraces. Most level sites in the region have been converted to
haylands or pasturelands.
In the extreme northern portion of project, primarily the Neosho
River arm of Grand Lake, the oak hickory forests of the Ozark Highlands
give way to the tall grass prairies of the Central Irregular Plains.
Typical dominants of tall grass prairie sites include big bluestem,
little bluestem, switchgrass, and indiangrass. Dry upland forests,
similar to the oak-hickory forests of the Ozark Highlands to the south
and east, are common on the low rocky hills of the region. Most of this
habitat, approximately 61,462 acres, occurs above 755 feet. Riparian
corridors typically are forested, with canopy dominants that include
American elm, oaks, hackberry, black walnut, sycamore, and pecan. Much
of this region has been converted for agriculture, with rangeland
occupying steeper slopes and croplands on nearly level plains. Common
crops include sorghum, alfalfa hay, wheat, and soybeans.
Wildlife
Raptors, such as barred owl, red-tailed hawk, and red-shouldered
hawk occur in both upland and bottomland forests. Song birds of the
wooded lots include tanagers, nuthatches, warblers, and woodpeckers
typical of the eastern deciduous forests. Grassland birds present in
the prairie habitat include horned lark, grasshopper sparrow,
meadowlark, dickcissel, and bobolink. Predatory birds in the grasslands
consist of short-eared owl, northern harrier, and rough-legged hawk.
Bald eagles over-winter at Grand Lake. Game birds found at Grand Lake
include bobwhite quail, wild turkey, mourning dove, and waterfowl.
Grand Lake is also important as an over-wintering and migratory
stop for shorebirds and waterfowl; however, the over-wintering habitat
is limited by the lack of submerged aquatic vegetation. Cormorants,
pelicans, egrets, and herons are among the non-game birds that
seasonally inhabit the Grand Lake area. A diverse array of game
waterfowl such as geese and dabbling, diving, perching, sea, and stiff-
tailed ducks also occur on Grand Lake during migration. Mallards are
the only dabbling duck that over-winter on Grand Lake. Mallards are the
most abundant duck seen on the reservoir with numbers peaking in
December. Canada geese and wood ducks live on the reservoir throughout
the year.
Common mammals in the project area include white-tailed deer,
striped skunk, raccoon, fox squirrel, Virginia opossum, eastern
cottontail, armadillo, and red fox. These species inhabit the upland
deciduous forest surrounding the project. The bottomland forests
contain all of these species, plus muskrat and beaver. Common species
associated with the grassland/savannah are the least shrew, deer mouse,
black-tailed jack rabbit, and badger. Bats are of ecological concern in
the area and the endangered gray bat is particularly notable (discussed
under Threatened and Endangered Species).
A variety of frogs, toads, salamanders, lizards, turtles, and
snakes comprise the
[[Page 3784]]
local herpetofauna. The amphibians include species such as the American
toad, spadefoot toad, and tree frogs. The turtle community includes
snapping turtles, mud turtles, softshell turtles, and a diversity of
slider, map, and box turtles. With the exception of the box turtles,
most of the turtle community is highly aquatic. Representative lizard
species include the western slender glass lizard, collard lizard, Texas
horned lizard, and diversity of skinks. Common snakes include species
such as rat snakes, water snakes, bull snakes, and venomous snakes such
as copperheads, western cottonmouths, timber rattlesnakes, and western
pygmy rattlesnakes.
Grand Lake is an important wintering area for bald eagles. Most of
the wintering eagles use a large communal roost located on a small
island near Twin Bridges State Park at the north end of the reservoir.
Blackbirds represent a large part of the diet for eagles wintering on
Grand Lake due to presence of a large blackbird roost near Twin Bridges
State Park. The bald eagle can be expected to forage throughout the
project area.
6.7.2 Environmental Effects
The proposed permanent amendment of rule curve would not impact
vegetation or wildlife resources located above normal reservoir rule
curve elevations. The change would not likely cause any negative
impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources located at and below
normal reservoir rule curve elevations, because water levels would
remain within the range of the current rule curve.
In its letter dated March 29, 2016, the Oklahoma DWC states that it
supports the amendment request and agrees that no additional mitigation
for fish and wildlife resources be required through the remainder of
this license. The Oklahoma DWC indicated that its support is based on a
recently-finalized Interagency Agreement between Oklahoma DWC and GRDA
in which mitigation for wildlife resources would be addressed through
adjacent-site restoration and management.
6.8 Wetlands and Riparian Resources
6.8.1 Existing Environment
Grand Lake and the surrounding areas contain numerous wetlands.
Wetlands are most abundant along the upper, shallow reaches of the
reservoir. In the reservoir's lower reaches, shoreline areas consist
primarily of limestone bluffs, with wetlands restricted to coves and
backwaters of inundated tributaries. The project supports about 18,318
acres of wetland habitats, primarily at elevations of 735 to 745 feet.
Wetland habitat areas have been broken down by type, resulting in the
following approximations: Palustrine forested, 11,649 acres; mudflats,
5,662 acres; scrub/shrub, 526 acres; ponded water, 247 acres; and
emergent, 234 acres (GRDA 2008a).
As described under Fisheries and Aquatic Resources above, GRDA may,
in some years, seed millet on mudflat areas in Grand Lake to benefit
shallow-water waterfowl and fish habitat in accordance with its
approved Article 411 Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management Plan. This
is performed in the late summer and fall when lake elevations are at
their lowest point along the current rule curve. However, because
millet seeding under the plan is seldom attempted or successful, it is
not a significant factor in the natural resources of Grand Lake.
6.8.2 Environmental Effects
Implementation of the proposed rule curve would not likely cause
any negative impacts to existing wetland resources at Grand Lake
because water levels would remain within the range of the current rule
curve. The change may provide minor benefits by reducing the water
level fluctuations that occur under the current rule curve, allowing
some degree of increased growth and establishment of riparian and
shallow-water vegetation, which could benefit both fish and wildlife
that utilize these areas. The change would eliminate the deepest part
of the annual drawdown, a six-week period from September 1 through
October 15 when elevations are held at 741 feet, reducing or
eliminating exposure of mudflat areas previously used for millet
seeding in some years. However, as noted, millet seeding is not
currently a significant factor in Grand Lake's natural resources.
In its letter dated March 29, 2016, the Oklahoma DWC states that it
approves of GRDA's request to amend its rule curve for the remainder of
its license. The Oklahoma DWC granted its support because of a
recently-finalized Interagency Agreement between Oklahoma DWC and GRDA
in which mitigation for wildlife resources would be addressed through
adjacent-site restoration and management, thereby negating the need to
lower the lake level to seed mudflats for millet.
6.9 Threatened and Endangered Species
6.9.1 Existing Environment
Several species listed under the ESA have been identified in the
Pensacola Project area. The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and the Neosho
mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are listed as endangered, while the
Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) and the Neosho madtom (Noturus
placidus) are listed as threatened.
Gray bats use two caves that are located in the Grand Lake project
area: Beaver Dam Cave and Twin Cave. The Beaver Dam Cave is located
adjacent to Drowning Creek, a tributary of Grand Lake and the Twin Cave
is located more than a mile from Grand Lake and at an elevation of 840
feet. Of these, only the Beaver Dam Cave is affected by Grand Lake
levels. Inundation of the cave begins when Grand Lake reaches 746 feet
and the cave entrance is completely blocked when Grand Lake reaches 751
feet. Between elevations 756 and 757 feet Grand Lake levels cause water
to reach the ceiling of the cave, drowning any bats inside. Bats in the
cave can only survive one or two days without food due to the high
energy demands of raising young from May through August. Further, if
adults are trapped out of the cave then the young will die. The stress
of being trapped may also result in aberrant behavior, causing bats to
fall into the water. However, this concern has been addressed in that
the Nature Conservancy and GRDA enlarged two high passage areas near
the entrance of Beaver Dam Cave in 2008 and 2013. This work allows bats
to access Beaver Dam Cave during periods of high water although the
exact elevation of complete inundation is not in any records filed with
the Commission.
Annual surveys of the gray bat population have been conducted at
caves within the project area including Beaver Dam Cave since 2007.
Based on these surveys, most bats vacate the cave by mid-August. Only
in one survey conducted in 2007 have bats remained in the cave through
August and into September.
The Neosho mucket is a freshwater mussel native to streams and
rivers, which lives in nearshore habitat and does not occur in
inundated areas, i.e., lakes and ponds. Critical habitat for this
species has been designated in the Elk River and in the vicinity of
Grand Lake; however, areas designated as critical habitat occur only in
stream channels and not in areas inundated by lakes or reservoirs.
The Ozark cavefish is a small fish with no eyes or pigmentation and
lives strictly in subterranean waters. Cave ecosystems depend on bats
(especially gray bats) as a source of energy and nutrients. The Ozark
cavefish is found in Jailhouse Cave and Twin Cave near Grand Lake.
[[Page 3785]]
The Neosho madtom is a small catfish that feeds at night on the
bottom of rivers and streams. The madtom only occurs within a 14-mile
reach of the Neosho River well upstream of Grand Lake near the
Oklahoma/Kansas state line. Neosho madtom habitat is periodically
affected by the operation of several Corp's flood control structures on
the Neosho River.
6.9.2 Environmental Effects
None of the threatened and endangered species identified at the
project would be affected by the rule curve change. In its April 21,
2016 comments on GRDA's application, FWS states that GRDA's proposal
would not adversely affect any listed species. FWS further explained
that the increased risk of flooding at Beaver Dam Cave is not a concern
because listed bats are not using the cave at that time. Therefore, no
further consultation is needed pursuant to the ESA.
6.10 Cultural and Historic Resources
6.10.1 Existing Environment
Native Americans in the historic period and Euro-American settlers
in the modern period leading up to Oklahoma's statehood have made
extensive use of the Grand River Valley as a place of settlement and
transportation. This pattern of use creates a high probability within
the project area for intact cultural resources dating from prehistoric
eras, periods of early European contact, the nineteenth century, and
the Civil War. In addition to historical evidence supporting the
likelihood of intact archeological deposits, the topography of the
region lends itself to the preservation of archaeological resources.
While much of the land in the downstream portion of the project near
the dam rises in steep bluffs from the shoreline, the upriver portions
of Grand Lake feature a shallow, more riverine topography that has the
potential to contain intact archaeological resources. In addition,
there are a number of tributaries that feed into Grand Lake that have a
high potential for intact resources (GRDA, 2008).
GRDA maintains data supplied by the Oklahoma SHPO and the Oklahoma
Historical Society that has identified potential and significant
cultural resource sites in the project area. Approximately 50 cultural
sites are known to exist within the project area (GRDA, 2008).
Currently there is risk of exposure of archaeological resources and
potential historic properties during drawdown and drought. In addition
to the discovery provisions in the Storm Plan and Drought Plans
discussed in Section 5.5.3, Article 409 of the project license requires
GRDA to immediately cease work and to develop a cultural resource
management plan in consultation with the Oklahoma SHPO if GRDA
discovers previously unidentified archeological or historic properties
during the course of constructing or developing project works or other
facilities. The plan must include a description of each discovered
property indicating whether it is listed on or eligible to be listed on
the National Register, a description of the potential effect on each
discovered property, proposed measures for avoiding or mitigating
effects, documentation of the nature and extent of consultation, and a
schedule for mitigating effects and for conducting any needed
additional studies.
6.10.2 Environmental Effects
Operation under the proposed amendment would maintain Grand Lake
from August 16 through October 31 at levels that are neither higher nor
lower than maximum and minimum levels currently experienced throughout
the year. GRDA is not proposing to change maximum water surface levels
and therefore, no new lands would be affected by the amendment.
On March 15, 2016, GRDA provided the Oklahoma SHPO a draft copy of
its application containing its draft Storm Plan and draft Drought Plan.
In an April 22, 2016 letter to GRDA, the Oklahoma SHPO recommended GRDA
develop an HPMP to address potential impacts to archeological sites
located along and near shorelines and recommended GRDA add the Oklahoma
SHPO to the list of consulting parties for the Storm Plan and Drought
Plan. GRDA added the Oklahoma SHPO to the consulting party lists for
both plans and, rather than developing an HPMP, added provisions in
each plan for consulting with the Oklahoma SHPO about potential impacts
to cultural resources when the plans are in effect. On April 29, 2016,
GRDA provided updated versions of both plans to the Oklahoma SHPO for
review and comment.
In an email to GRDA dated May 2, 2016, the Oklahoma SHPO reiterated
its recommendation for a project-wide HPMP saying GRDA's proposal to
develop an HPMP during a storm or drought event, as described in the
revised plans, would be difficult. The Oklahoma SHPO also recommended
adding the Oklahoma AS to the consulting party lists for both plans and
recommended GRDA include a provision for addressing any unanticipated
discoveries of human remains or burials in accordance with state law.
GRDA incorporated these additional recommendations into its two plans
and stated that it would be able to handle potential difficulties
arising from an emergency situation by using the Commission-approved
HPMP for its Markham Ferry Project as a framework to address any
effects to historic properties.
Furthermore, GRDA agreed that if Oklahoma SHPO or Oklahoma AS
determines that reservoir conditions during the rule curve amendment
period adversely affect historic properties, GRDA would develop a site-
specific plan to address these agencies' concerns. This provision for a
site-specific plan, along with the consultation and unanticipated
discovery provisions added to the Storm and Drought Plans, provides
additional protection.
Because GRDA's amendment would keep Grand Lake within existing
fluctuation limits and given the additional consultation and site-
specific provisions added to the Storm Plan and Drought Plan, we do not
recommend developing a project-wide HPMP at this time. Both the
Oklahoma SHPO and Oklahoma AS raised concerns that it would be
difficult to develop site-specific plans during a storm or drought
event. GRDA responded that it would use the approved HPMP for the
Markham Ferry project as a framework for the agencies and GRDA to
jointly address any effects to historic properties during such an event
for the proposed amendment period. The Oklahoma AS also pointed out
that the Pensacola project has a different project setting and
different cultural resources than the Markham Ferry project. However
the Markham Ferry HPMP does contain provisions for inadvertent
discovery of cultural resources and human remains that could be equally
applied in an appropriate timeframe during a storm or drought event
that would help avoid or minimize effects to cultural resources.
At the Commission's August 3, 2016 Tribal consultation meeting and
in their filings with the Commission, the Tribes asserted that any rule
curve change, whether temporary or permanent, would increase flooding
and adversely affect Tribal lands, including cultural properties. The
Tribes stated that backwater flooding from the project, which they said
occurs throughout the year, would be exacerbated by the proposed rule
curve change. The Tribes also stated that flooding has impaired access
to important Tribal facilities, including ceremonial grounds,
educational and assistance services, recreational facilities, Tribal
[[Page 3786]]
government offices, and casinos, and has had negative social and
economic impacts on Tribal communities. In addition, the Tribes have
stated that GRDA's consultation for this amendment, which included
sending the draft application for Tribal review and comment, is
inadequate and that they support others' recommendations for a project-
wide HPMP for the proposed amendment.
As stated above, GRDA's proposed changes are within Grand Lake's
normal maximum and minimum fluctuation limits, therefore, no new lands
would likely be affected and we do not recommend an HPMP. If anything,
the proposed changes would reduce fluctuating water levels within Grand
Lake and cultural and historic properties located on or near the
shoreline would be less affected and would not be subject to additional
exposure, looting, or vandalism, as asserted by the Oklahoma AS.
Moreover, sites are vulnerable to erosion at any level, but approval of
this amendment does not exacerbate those effects since the difference
in water elevations would be smaller during this period.
Concerning flooding of Tribal lands, the Pensacola project
boundary, as currently defined, does not occupy federal Tribal lands
held in trust. Moreover, the proposed amendment would not change the
overall range of water surface elevations currently approved for
project operations. However, regardless of the current boundary or
range of operations, the socio-economic impacts identified by the
Tribes at the consultation meeting and in their filings are an
important consideration in the Commission's comprehensive review of the
project. We believe the upcoming relicensing proceeding is the
appropriate forum to review any flood effects cause by current
operations and to evaluate any new information that shows there are
Tribal lands held in trust within the project boundary.
6.11 Recreation
6.11.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake is a major recreation resource in northeastern Oklahoma,
providing over a million recreation user days during 2014. Boating,
fishing, and waterfowl hunting are popular recreation activities
conducted on the lake. Recreational access to Grand Lake is provided
through public, commercial, and private facilities such as boat ramps,
marinas, and boat docks. Grand Lake has 5 state parks and approximately
14 municipal parks, which collectively provide approximately 22 public
boat ramps. In addition, there are approximately 439 private boat
ramps, 53 commercial boat ramps, 4,021 commercial boat slips for rent,
and 7,761 permitted private boat slips on the lake (GRDA, 2015).
Boating on Grand Lake occurs year-round, although the primary
recreation season extends from April 1 until October 1. Fishing is a
year-round activity on Grand Lake and an average of 117 fishing
tournaments were held on the lake each year between 2009 and 2014.
Waterfowl hunting occurs from September through January primarily in
the riverine (i.e., uppermost) sections of the lake (GRDA, 2015).
GRDA indicated in its application that hazards that lead to boats
running aground exist more often at lower lake levels. For example,
nearly 80 percent of all boat groundings during the high recreation
season (May 1 until September 30) in 2013-2014 occurred while the lake
was being drawn down pursuant to the rule curve or maintained at
elevation 741 feet. GRDA reports that, in contrast, despite more boats
using the lake in 2015 than in 2014,\36\ substantially fewer boats ran
aground during the August 16 to October 31, 2015 timeframe during the
2015 temporary variance compared to the same timeframe in 2013 and 2014
(GRDA, 2016).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ GRDA's aerial boat counts on Labor Day weekend counted
nearly 2,000 boats during Labor Day weekend 2015 compared with fewer
than 500 boats during Labor Day weekend 2014.
\37\ In 2013 and 2014 combined, 75 percent (i.e., 24 of 32
reported incidents) of all reported boat groundings throughout the
year occurred during the August 16 to October 31 timeframe. In 2015,
29 percent (i.e., 2 of 7 reported incidents) of all reported boat
groundings throughout the year occurred during the August 16 to
October 31 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.11.2 Environmental Effects
Operation under the proposed rule curve would increase water
elevations at Grand Lake by one to two feet from August 15 to October
31 each year over the remainder of the current license period. These
higher elevations would greatly improve public and private access at
numerous boat ramps and docks around Grand Lake, and increase the total
water surface area available for boating, significantly enhancing
recreation opportunities during the popular late summer/early fall
recreation season.\38\ Higher reservoir elevations would also likely
decrease boating hazards in Grand Lake. Based on the information
provided by GRDA, the vast majority of boat groundings in 2013 and 2014
occurred during the tail end of the high recreation season when high
recreational boating use coincided with periods of lowest water
elevations pursuant to the current rule curve. Such a pattern did not
occur in 2015, when Grand Lake was held to 742 feet or above.
Therefore, operation using the proposed rule curve in 2017 and future
years should contribute to a decrease in boat groundings at Grand Lake
in the late summer early fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In its December 23, 1985 license application for the
Pensacola Project, GRDA estimated that each additional foot of water
surface elevation would result in an additional 1,000 acres of
surface area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.12 Land Use and Aesthetics
6.12.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake has approximately 522 miles of irregular shoreline,
which is characterized by narrow channels and many coves. The shoreline
of Grand Lake ranges from forested areas with a mixture of vegetative
cover types to contiguous manicured lawns, residential housing, and
commercial development. The lands adjacent to the northern and western
shores of the project consist primarily of rolling plains with
occasional hills and ridges and gently sloping shoreline. The lands
adjacent to the southern and eastern shores are characterized by deep
ravines and narrow valleys separated by broad, gently rolling uplands,
with shorelines consisting primarily of steep rocky beaches and bluffs.
The upper section of Grand Lake is primarily undeveloped with a more
natural aesthetic, while the majority of the shoreline of the lower
section of Grand Lake is primarily highly developed.
About 50 percent of land within the project boundary comprises
deciduous forest, followed by cropland and pasture lands comprising
about 35 percent of the project lands. Residential, commercial, and
other development accounts for about 11 percent of total land area
within the project boundary. The Grand Lake area is popular for
recreation and residential development, particularly summer homes. GRDA
manages the reservoir's shorelines via a permitting system and operates
a lake patrol to monitor and inspect permitted shoreline uses and
enforce its boating regulations (FERC, 2009).
6.12.2 Environmental Effects
Operation under the proposed rule curve would allow GRDA to
maintain higher reservoir elevations from August 15 to October 31,
which would increase the amount of project lands under water by up to
approximately 2,000 acres during this timeframe compared to current
project operations.\39\ As noted
[[Page 3787]]
above under Recreation, the higher water levels would increase the
amount of area available for boating in the reservoir and improve
public and private access to numerous boat ramps and docks located at
the project, which would result in moderate benefits to these land uses
adjacent to the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In its December 23, 1985 license application for the
Pensacola Project, GRDA estimated that each additional foot of water
surface elevation would result in an additional 1,000 acres of
surface area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the higher water levels under the proposed rule curve
would likely improve the scenic quality of the areas of reservoir
shoreline that would have otherwise been dewatered and devoid of
vegetation during this timeframe. Such beneficial effects on aesthetics
of the project would be minor.
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Comprehensive Development and Staff-Recommended Measures
Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to
give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project
is located. Therefore, when we review a hydropower application, we
consider power and non-power development, to include the protection of,
mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the
protection of recreational opportunities; and other aspects of
environmental quality. In deciding whether, and under what conditions,
to approve hydropower applications, we must determine that the project
would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or
developing the waterway. This section summarizes our findings in this
EA and reviews our recommendations for conditions to be included in any
approval of the proposed permanent amendment.
Based on our independent review of the licensee's proposed
amendment, agency and public comments filed on the licensee's proposal,
and our review of environmental effects, we believe approval of GRDA's
proposal, with Oklahoma DEQ's mandatory WQC conditions, is the
preferred alternative. We recommend this alternative because, based on
the information reviewed and analysis performed in this EA, it would
provide several significant benefits with few measurable negative
impacts.
Operation of the Pensacola Project using the proposed rule curve
would allow more water to be stored in Grand Lake, with less
fluctuation in water levels, from August 15 through October 31 each
year for the remainder of the current license term. Operation under the
proposed rule curve would likely result in minor reductions in
shoreline erosion rates and could promote revegetation of some shallow
shoreline areas that could further reduce erosion over time. This
change would not result in any material adverse impacts to water
quality. In hot dry years, higher water levels in late summer and early
fall would make more water available for releases to maintain
downstream DO and avoid fish kills. During any periods of declared
severe to exceptional drought, GRDA's proposed Drought Plan would
provide additional protection for downstream water quality. A reduction
in water level fluctuations in Grand Lake should have positive effects
on fisheries and other aquatic resources by providing more stable
shallow-water habitat and cover, especially for juvenile fishes, and
through increased plant growth and establishment in wetland areas,
including emergent and submerged vegetation. Fish occupying the project
tailwater and river downstream would likely benefit from water quality
improvements in hot, dry years and during any declared severe to
exceptional drought as discussed above.
Higher elevations at Grand Lake in late summer and early fall would
provide a significant benefit to recreation by increasing the water
surface area available for boating, improving access at public and
private launching facilities, and likely decreasing shallow-water
boating hazards. Higher seasonal water elevations would likely provide
minor aesthetic improvements in some areas that were dewatered and
devoid of vegetation in the past.
While we have not identified any definitive significant short-term
or long-term negative effects to resources that would likely occur with
operation under the proposed rule curve, commenters have expressed
concern regarding flooding effects and affects to cultural and historic
resources.
Flood-related issues. As discussed earlier, most flood-related
issues raised by commenters in this proceeding were reviewed during the
Commission's processing of GRDA's temporary variance requests in 2015
and 2016 which involved the same changes in reservoir elevations.
Staff's findings on the flood-related issues were presented in the
temporary variance orders. In the Water Quantity section above, staff
summarizes those findings that would allow the same rule curve change
each year for the remaining term of the license. To the extent
commenters address flooding concerns that are not related to the
pending amendment, the Commission will perform a comprehensive review
of the project and any proposed future operation in the upcoming
relicensing proceeding. That proceeding is the appropriate forum to
identify and address issues that are separate from GRDA's amendment
application.
Cultural and historic resource protection. We found in our analysis
that the proposed permanent rule curve change would occur within the
project's existing fluctuation limits and therefore, would be unlikely
to affect any new lands. No land-clearing or land-disturbing activities
would be required for this amendment. In addition, less fluctuating
water levels should reduce the chances of erosion affecting cultural or
historic resources in near-shore areas. Cultural and historic
properties located on or near the shoreline would potentially be
inundated for a longer period during the amendment, providing more
cover and helping to prevent exposure. If anything, keeping water
levels higher during the late summer and early fall period, when more
people are present, would reduce the potential for artifact collection
or looting. GRDA's agreement to prepare specific plans in consultation
with the Oklahoma SHPO and Oklahoma AS if either agency determines that
historic properties might be affected would further protect cultural
and historic resources.
7.1.1 Staff-Recommended Measures
Along with its proposed changes to the rule curve, GRDA proposes a
Storm Plan that would provide for assessment of risks of upstream and
downstream flooding during high precipitation events and a process to
proactively and collaboratively manage these events. A Storm Plan was
in place during the 2015 and 2016 temporary variance periods, and was
successful in aiding communication related to high precipitation events
within the basin and managing project facilities during those events.
Under the current proposal, the Storm Plan would be in effect each year
for the remainder of the license period. We recommend that any approval
of GRDA's proposed amendment incorporate the Storm Plan.
GRDA also proposes a Drought Plan that would help protect
downstream water quality and fisheries, as well as generation at its
downstream Markham Ferry Project and Salina Pumped Storage Project if a
severe to exceptional drought is declared and reservoir elevations fall
below the rule curve. The Drought Plan would be in effect each year for
the remainder of the license period. We recommend that any approval of
GRDA's proposal incorporate the Drought Plan.
[[Page 3788]]
We recommend that any approval of GRDA's proposal incorporate the
annual reporting requirement that is a condition of Oklahoma DEQ's June
30, 2016 401 certification. The requirement should mirror paragraph (E)
of the Commission's August 12, 2016 order approving the temporary rule
curve variance for 2016, which required GRDA to notify Oklahoma DEQ, at
the same time it notifies other agencies pursuant to DO mitigation
plans approved under Article 403, of any significant DO deficiencies or
DO mitigation, so that Oklahoma DEQ can track GRDA's progress in
maintaining state water quality standards. In addition to Oklahoma
DEQ's ongoing annual reporting requirement, Oklahoma DEQ also included
three other mandatory WQC conditions: (1) that the certification does
not authorize any discharge or dredging; (2) that the reservoir be
maintained between elevations 742 and 744 feet as requested by GRDA;
and (3) that emergency and routine maintenance will be as permitted by
the Corps. We have no objections to these conditions being added to the
license in any order approving the proposed amendment.
7.2 Consistency With Comprehensive Plans
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 803(a)(2)(A), requires the
Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with
federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or
conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. We reviewed
6 qualifying comprehensive plans that are applicable to the proposed
action at the Pensacola Project No. 1494, located in Oklahoma. The
proposed action is consistent with all of the reviewed comprehensive
plans.
Oklahoma
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Little Rock District and
Tulsa District. 1991. Arkansas River Basin, Arkansas and Oklahoma,
feasibility report. Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma. May
1991.
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 1989. Eastern Oklahoma wetlands plan: Lower Mississippi Valley
joint venture--North American waterfowl management plan. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. August 1989.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1997. Update of the Oklahoma
comprehensive water plan. Publication Number 139. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. February 1997.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2002. Oklahoma's water quality
standards and implementation of Oklahoma's water quality standards.
Oklahoma Administrative Code, Title 785, Chapters 45 and 46 effective
July 1, 2002. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Department. 2001 Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): The public recreation estate. Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.
United States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Fisheries USA: The recreational
fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
8.0 Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on information, analysis, and evaluations contained in this
EA, we find that approval of the proposed rule curve amendment, to
include the mandatory conditions stipulated by Oklahoma DEQ in its 401
certification, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
9.0 Literature Cited
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2009. Environmental
Assessment for shoreline management plan for the Pensacola Project,
issued August 14, 2009. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
FERC. 2007. Final Environmental Assessment for application for non-
project use of project lands and waters (commercial marina) at the
Pensacola Project, issued October 18, 2007. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
FERC. 1996. Environmental Assessment for application for amendment
of license to modify rule curve, issued December 3, 1996. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
FERC. 1991. Environmental Assessment for licensing of Pensacola
Project, issued November 19, 1991. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2016. Application for non-capacity
amendment of license, including possible temporary variance for 2016
for the Pensacola Project. Dated and filed May 6, 2016.
GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2015. Recreation plan monitoring
report for the Pensacola Project. Dated and filed April 1, 2015.
GRDA. 2008a. Application for shoreline management plan for the
Pensacola Project. Filed July 21, 2008; as cited in FERC 2009.
GRDA. 2008b. Environmental assessment of habitable structures on
Grand Lake. Filed December 23, 2008; as cited in FERC 2009.
Oklahoma WRB (Oklahoma Water Resources Board). 2012. Grand Watershed
Planning Report. Versions 1.1. OWRB, Oklahoma City. https://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_Grand_Region_Report.pdf. Accessed December 20,
2016.
Oklahoma WRB. 2009. Hydrographic Survey of Grand Lake: Final Report.
Dated August 19, 2009. Available at: https://www.owrb.ok.gov/
studies/reports/reports_pdf/GrandLake_hydrographicsurvey.pdf.
Accessed November 28, 2016.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1988.
Assistant Commissioner, Engineering and Research Technical
Memorandum No. 11 (ACER 11), Downstream Hazard Classification
Guidelines. December 1988.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2016. Data collected at USGS
gage 07190500 Neosho River Near Langley, OK. Available at: https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ok/nwis/uv?site_no=07190500. Accessed
November 28, 2016.
USGS. 2016. Figure available at: https://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Topo_Map. Accessed November 25, 2016.
Environmental Systems Research Institute: Geographic Information
Systems (ESRI-GIS). 2016. National Hydrography Dataset. Available
at: https://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed November 25, 2016.
10.0 List of Preparers
Mark Carter--Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics (Environmental
Biologist; B.S. Fisheries Science; M.S. Natural Resources and
Environmental Sciences)
Jeremy Jessup, PE--Water Quantity and Flows (Civil Engineer; B.S.
and M.S. Civil and Infrastructure Engineering)
Rebecca Martin--Terrestrial Resources, Wetlands, and Endangered
Species (Environmental Biologist; B.S. Environmental Earth Science;
M.S. Biology)
Kurt Powers--Cultural and Historic Resources (Wildlife Biologist;
B.A. Environmental Science and Foreign Affairs; M.S. Environmental
Science and Engineering)
James Puglisi, PE--Water Quantity and Flows (Senior Civil Engineer;
B.S. and M.S. Civil Engineering)
B. Peter Yarrington-Water Quantity and Quality, Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; B.S. Aquatic Ecology, M.S.
Fisheries Science and Taxonomy)
[FR Doc. 2017-00566 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P