GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY

VINITA, OKLAHOMA

PENSACOLA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

(FERC PROJECT NO. 1494)

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

AMENDMENT TO LICENSE - SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN

STANDARD TERMS

af Acre-foot, the amount of water needed to cover one acre to a depth of one foot.

APE Area of Potential Effect as pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

base flow Sustained, low flow in a stream; ground-water discharge is the source of base flow in most places.

bedload Sediment that moves on or near the streambed and is in almost continuous contact with the bed.

bedrock General term for consolidated (solid) rock that underlies soils or other unconsolidated material.

benthic invertebrates Insects, mollusks, crustaceans, worms, and other organisms without a backbone that live in, on, or near the bottom of lakes, streams, or oceans.

benthic Refers to plants or animals that live on the bottom of lakes, streams, or oceans.

confluence The flowing together of two or more streams; the place where a tributary joins the main stream.

cubic foot per second Rate of water discharge representing a volume of 1 cubic foot passing a given point during 1 second, equivalent to approximately 7.48 gallons per second or 448.8 gallons per minute or 0.02832 cubic meter per second.

cumulative impact The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

direct effect Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

drawdown The difference between the water level in a reservoir before pumping and the water level in the reservoir during pumping. Also, the act of discharging of water to lower reservoir storage levels.

flashboards Removable boards installed seasonally in reservoir spillways to temporarily increase storage capacity.

flood plain The relatively level area of land bordering a stream channel and inundated during moderate to severe floods.

indirect effects Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

instream use Water use taking place within the stream channel for such purposes as hydroelectric power generation, navigation, water-quality improvement, fish propagation, and recreation. Sometimes called nonwithdrawal use or in-channel use.

license application Application for a new license; submitted to FERC no less than two years in advance of expiration of an existing license.

mean discharge The arithmetic mean of individual daily mean discharges during a specific period, usually daily, monthly, or annually.

mouth The place where a stream discharges to a larger stream, a lake, or the sea.

noncontact water recreation Recreational activities, such as fishing or boating that does not include direct contact with the water.

Nonpoint source A pollution source that cannot be defined as originating from discrete points such as pipe discharge. Areas of fertilizer and pesticide applications, atmospheric deposition, manure, and natural inputs from plants and trees are types of nonpoint source pollution.

normal operating capacity The maximum MW output of a generator or group of generators under normal maximum head and flow conditions.

peaking Operation of generating facilities to meet maximum instantaneous electrical demands.

Pensacola Datum Pensacola Datum (PD) is 1.07 feet higher than NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum), which is a national standard for measuring elevations above sea level.

penstock An inclined pressurized pipe through which water flows from a forebay or tunnel to the powerhouse turbine.

point source A source at a discrete location such as a discharge pipe, drainage ditch, tunnel, well, concentrated livestock operation, or floating craft.

Project Area Project Area is defined as the zone of potential, reasonably direct Project impacts, typically extending 0 to 100 feet from the Project Boundary.

Project Boundary The area defined in the license issued by FERC for the Project as needed for Project operations. For the Pensacola Project, the real boundary is described by a metes and bounds description. For the purposes of this ER, elevation 750 feet PD is identified as the approximate Project Boundary.

Project Drainage Basin The Project’s Grand (Neosho) River drainage basin.

Project Region The area around the Project at the County level to include Craig, Delaware, Mayes and Ottawa counties.

Project roads Roads within Project Boundary primarily used for Project purposes excluding Federal, state, county, and non-Licensee private roads.

Project Vicinity The area extending to about five miles from the Project Boundary.

Project viewshed The area from which the Project is visible. The land base from which the Project may be seen.

Project works All of the infrastructure associated with the operations of the Project.

ramping The act of increasing or decreasing stream flows from a powerhouse, dam or division structure.

RD Recreation Day, which equals a visit by a person to a Project development for recreation purposes during any portion of a 24-hour period.

recreation day Each visit by a person to a development for recreational purposes during any portion of a 24 hour period.

relicensing The process of acquiring a new FERC license for an existing hydroelectric project upon expiration of the existing FERC license.

Reservoir Useable Capacity A volume measurement of the amount of water that can be stored for generation, down to a minimum level.

RM River mile as measured along the river course, measured from the headwaters of the river to its mouth.

RT&E Species Rare, threatened, endangered and special status species, which for purposes of this PAD is defined to include (1) all species (plant and animal) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the Federal and state Endangered Species Acts and the California Native Plant Protection Act, and (2) all species (plant and animal) listed by the USFS as sensitive, special status or watch list.

run-of-river A hydroelectric project that uses the flow of a stream with little or no reservoir capacity for storing water.

spillway A passage for releasing surplus water from a reservoir or canal.

tailrace Channel through which water is discharged from the powerhouse turbines.

trash rack A mechanism, found on a dam or intake structure, which clears the water of debris before the water passes through the structure.

tributary A river or stream flowing into a larger river, stream or lake.

turbine A machine that converts the energy of a stream of water into the mechanical energy of rotation. This energy is then used to turn an electrical generator or other device. Also called a “water wheel”.

4.0 environmental analysis

In this section, each resource potentially affected by implementing GRDA’s proposed SMP is first described by its existing conditions and then analyzed to disclose any effects—beneficial or adverse—that may occur on or to that resource as a result of the measures contained in the SMP.

4.1 Geology and Soils

The Project Vicinity (i.e., the area extending to about five miles from the Project Boundary) contains several unique geologic features and supports several industrial interests associated with mineral extraction. As mentioned in Section 3.1, coal, clay, lead, zinc, lime, and petroleum and natural gas are mined in the basin.

4.1.1 Geology

The Project is located in northeastern Oklahoma, bordered on the east by the Ozark Plateau and on the west by the Prairie Plains. Bedrock in the Project Vicinity includes limestone, chert, sandstone, and shale. The Project dam is constructed on chert (FERC, 1991).

The southern and eastern portions of the Project Vicinity (the lower portion of the reservoir) contain deep ravines and narrow valleys separated by broad, gently rolling uplands. The shorelines of the lower portions of the reservoir are mostly limestone bluffs and steep rocky beaches (FERC, 1991; GRDA, 2004).

The northern and western portions of the Project Vicinity lie in the Prairie Plains, which are typified by gently rolling plains with occasional hills and ridges. The shorelines in these portions of the reservoir generally have gentler slopes. Wetlands are confined to inlets and coves along the numerous small tributaries that enter the reservoir, and are more abundant along the upper, shallower reaches of the reservoir. Extensive cave systems occur in some of the limestone formations along the reservoir (FERC, 1991; GRDA, 2004)

4.1.2 Soils

The shores of Grand Lake are primarily stony, silty-loam soils on 5- to 20-percent slopes. This soil composition also occupies timbered upland ridges in cherty limestone areas. The soil surface layer is dark grayish brown in the upper 2 inches and pale brown in the lower horizon. The subsoil, which is a brown, stony, silty, and clay loam, is about 60 percent chert by volume (GRDA 2002).

Substantial shoreline erosion has occurred in certain areas of the Lake as a result of fluctuating water levels and natural weather conditions. Wake-generated waves of powerboats and personal watercraft (PWC) have also contributed to this erosion (FERC 2002).

4.1.3 Effects of Implementing the SMP

Implementing the SMP would likely improve shoreline protection and stability due to the shoreline management classification (SMC) system and the restrictions and regulations identified in the SMP (see Section 1.2).

The SMP contains measures that would protect geologic features such as steep slopes, cliffs, caves, wetlands and other sensitive areas from long term development through its SMC system. Areas of steep slopes, identified as slopes of greater than 100 percent and which are at least 20 feet in height, as well as wetlands and shallow areas would be classified as “Sensitive Resources”. As such, the SMP affords protection from unnecessary development through GRDA’s policy to discourage and/or limit development proposals for lands within this classification. Also, the permit program and SMP require a potential permittee to include with their permit application, extensive additional application support and justification of development in the sensitive resource classification, along with appropriate protection, mitigation and enhancement measures. These procedures provide a mechanism to ensure that if GRDA determines that development could occur in the sensitive resource area, a permittee would be required to mitigate adverse impacts.

The SMP contains measures that promote retention and maintenance of shoreline vegetation to stabilize shorelines and to reduce erosion and runoff of soils. Measures include requiring landowners to obtain permits to modify the existing shoreline vegetation or to remove vegetation to allow reasonable and safe access paths to docks and/or shoreline.

Construction that is permitted on Project lands could cause temporary disturbance to soils and could potentially cause sediments or silt to be released downstream; however, permits require the use of control measures during construction. GRDA would require erosion and sedimentation control plans and the proper permits (i.e., USACE permits, etc) to ensure that any construction impacts are minimized.

The SMP supports and promotes applications for consolidated shoreline uses (e.g., community docks). The SMP also supports the voluntary use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for purposes of stabilizing soils during construction and using vegetation to minimize erosion and slope failure on or from non-Project lands.

4.2 Water Resources

Grand Lake is the third largest reservoir in Oklahoma and provides power generation, flood control, recreation, and public and private water supply. In a federally-funded Clean Lakes Phase I Study in 1995, the primary environmental concerns were related to heavy metal contamination in the upstream portion of the reservoir, and eutrophication which is accelerated by high phosphorus inputs (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995).

4.2.1 Water Quality

Grand Lake is an alkaline lake that stratifies in the summer with respect to temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Grand Lake shows indications that eutrophication is occurring faster than a natural rate, partially due to high nutrient levels, especially phosphorus. Additional concerns stem from heavy metals released from abandoned mines that are bound to sediments in the upper portion of the reservoir. The designated beneficial uses for Grand Lake include public and private water supply, fish and wildlife propagation as a warmwater aquatic community, Class I irrigation, and primary body contact recreation (OKWRB, 2001).

Point sources of pollution into the Grand Lake watershed include nutrient input from residential development around the Lake, from 22 wastewater treatment plants in the watershed in Oklahoma plus more in portions of the watershed in Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri, and acidic mine drainage with associated heavy metal contaminants from several sources in the Neosho and Spring River watersheds. Much of the nonpoint source pollution in the watershed comes from agricultural activities, lakeside recreation, and possible trace metal contamination in the surface runoff from mining operations (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995; OK Office of the Secretary of the Environment, 2004). Figure 5.2-1 shows the location of all PDES sites near Grand Lake in Oklahoma.

Figure 5.2-1: Location of Oklahoma PDES Sites in the Vicinity of Grand Lake

(Source: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality)

Various portions of the Grand Lake watershed are listed on the state 303(d) lists as impaired waters. Grand Lake has been listed on the 303(d) State Impaired Waters list for organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (EPA, 2002). Eighty segments of the watershed are listed on the Kansas 1998 303(d) list as impaired by low dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, pH, siltation, fecal coliform, cadmium, hydro, zinc, ammonia, selenium, chlordane, sulfate, lead, metals, copper, and organic enrichment. Twenty segments are listed on the Missouri 1998 303(d) list as being impaired by zinc, nutrients, BOD, fecal coliform, algae, sediment, ammonia, and suspended solids. One segment is on the Arkansas 1998 303(d) list for heavy metals. Sixteen segments are listed as impaired and in need of a TMDL in Oklahoma's 2002 Integrated Report for low dissolved oxygen, chloride, lead, pathogens, pH, sulfates, TDS, and turbidity (OKDEQ, 2002).

4.2.1.1 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

State standards have been established for Warm Water Aquatic Communities and are provided in Table 5.2.1-1.

Table 5.2.1-1: Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Criteria to Protect Fish and Wildlife

FISHERY CLASS	DATES APPLICABLE	MINIMUM D.O. CRITERIA (mg/L)	SEASONAL TEMP (C)
Early Life Stages	04/01 - 06/15	6.0^a	25^b
Other Life Stages - Summer Conditions	06/16 - 10/15	5.0¹	32
Other Life Stages - Winter Conditions	10/16 - 03/31	5	18

a Because of natural diurnal dissolved oxygen fluctuation, a 1.0 mg/l dissolved oxygen concentration deficit shall be allowed for not more than eight (8) hours during any twenty-four (24) hour period.

b Discharge limits necessary to meet summer conditions will apply from June 1 of each year. However, where discharge limits based on Early Life Stage (spring) conditions are more restrictive, those limits may be extended to July 1.

Surface temperatures at Grand Lake typically range between 4 and 28 degrees C on an annual basis. Grand Lake begins exhibiting thermal stratification in May and anoxic conditions begin to develop in the hypolimnion several weeks later (OKWRB, 2001). As algae from the warmer surface waters die and fall to deeper water, they are degraded by bacteria in a process that consumes much of the oxygen in the hypolimnion. The anoxic condition in the hypolimnion is exacerbated by high levels of phosphorus which "fertilize" the Lake and encourage greater algal productivity (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995).

Locations in the downstream portions of the Lake display stronger stratification than locations in the upstream portions of the Lake in terms of the stratification period and extent of anoxia in the hypolimnion. The stronger stratification in the lower section of Grand Lake is likely due to increased water depth.

From November 2003 through August 2004, the Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (OKWRB, 2004) sampled Grand Lake once per quarter. Vertical profiles showed the strongest stratification in the Lake during the summer sample, taken on August 23, 2004, with approximately 38 percent of the water column having DO concentrations below 2.0 mg/L in the lower portion of the reservoir. During the fall and winter samples, the Lake was mixed and DO concentrations were above 4.0 mg/L throughout the water column. The Lake showed weak stratification during the spring sample, taken May 17, 2004, with 6-10 percent of the water column having DO concentrations of less than 2.0 mg/L (OKWRB, 2004).

4.2.1.2 pH

Grand Lake is an alkaline lake with pH ranging from 6.8 to 8.8. This is within state water quality criteria for the fish and wildlife propagation beneficial use which require pH to fall between 6.5 and 9.0. During the summer stratification period, the deeper, hypolimnetic water generally has pH values near the lower end of the range while the surface waters remain more alkaline. While lower pH values have been shown to be associated with anoxic hypolimnetic conditions, the lower pH in these waters encourages phosphate resolubilization, thus accelerating eutrophication (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995).

4.2.1.3 Phosphorus

Grand Lake has been shown to have excessive quantities of phosphorus. Phosphorus enters the system from several locations, with 72 percent of it coming from non-point sources and 28 percent of it coming from point sources. Early residential development paid little attention to sewage and septic systems (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995). The over 8,000 homes found within 500 feet of the Lake perimeter and the additional over 1,000 homes built between 500 feet and ¼ mile from the shoreline contribute an estimated range of phosphorus between 1,396 to 4,656 kg/year to the Lake (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995). Concentrated development around the Lake, including resorts, has exacerbated phosphorus inputs. Upstream in the watershed, a series of waste water treatment plants and agricultural practices release phosphorus and other nutrients in the system. Historically, agricultural activities have been relatively low-impact, concentrating on cattle grazing and corn and hay production; however, within the last several decades several large-scale poultry production have also been established. These facilities produce large amounts of poultry manure in a small period of time, and despite efforts to use the manure for beneficial purposes, a large amount of phosphorus and nitrogen is lost to surface runoff (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995).

4.2.1.4 Sediments and Heavy Metals Contamination

Another result from agricultural practices in the watershed is increased sedimentation with stormwater runoff. Runoff containing high concentrations of sediments also results from construction sites and paved or unpaved roads. Sediments present in the upstream portion of the reservoir additionally contain heavy metals including lead, zinc and cadmium.

A primary source of heavy metals in the upstream part of the reservoir is abandoned mines. Mining operations in the watershed ceased in the 1970s and mines were abandoned. Over time, the mines filled with water resulting in low pH water with associated heavy metals flowing into tributaries of Grand Lake. Acid mine drainage was a serious problem in Tar Creek, a tributary to the Neosho River. Tar Creek was considered to be one of the nation's most polluted streams in 1981 and became a Superfund site (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995). The cleanup efforts relating to the Superfund program lasted six years and included efforts to plug and cap abandoned water wells, and diversion of flows around sinkholes and mine cave-ins (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995).

As a result of mine drainage, heavy metals are now bound to sediments in the upper portion of the reservoir. No metal toxicity has been found in the water column, but fish species collected downstream of Grand Lake have a higher concentration of lead than the national average (State of Oklahoma, 2003). Under typical Lake Conditions, metals will remain bound to the sediments and not pose a serious threat to the water column. However, physical disruption of the sediments, such as would occur from dredging and other in-water construction activities, may cause metals to be released into the water column. Although it is unlikely to occur, a decrease in pH to 6.0 may also cause a release of metals from the sediments (OKWRB and OKSU, 1995).

4.2.1.5 Bacteria

In a study conducted during the recreational season of May through September of 2004, five locations in Grand Lake were sampled for E.coli, fecal coliform, and enterococci. Sample results were within state standards for Primary Contact Beneficial Use in reference to E.coli and fecal coliform. However, three out of ten samples analyzed for enterococci resulted in values greater than the limit of 61/100 mL for discrete samples for Primary Contact Beneficial Use. The limit for the monthly geometric mean of the samples, 33/100mL, was not exceeded (OKWRB, 2004).

4.2.2 Water Quantity

Grand Lake drains three rivers spanning four states, including the Neosho River (also known as the Grand River in Oklahoma), the Spring River, and the Elk River. Table 5.2.2-1 shows the relative contributions of each river to Grand Lake.

Table 5.2.2-1: Summary of Hydraulic Characteristics of Grand Lake

(OKWRB and OKSU, 1995)

SOURCE	DRAINAGE AREA (sq. mi.)	DISCHARGE CFS
Neosho River	5,879	3,652
Spring River	2,510	2,050
Elk River	872	803
Sum of Above	9,258	6,505
Below Dam	10,298	7,208

A USGS gage (No. 07190500) is located near Langley, Oklahoma on the Grand River, 3.6 miles below the Pensacola Dam. Based on 65 years of data recorded at this gage between 1940 and 2003, the mean flow is 6,704 cubic feet per second. Figure 3.5-2 shows the annual mean streamflow at this gage. The mean streamflow in 1940 was substantially lower than other years due to the closure of the Pensacola dam during construction.

Figure 5.2-1: Annual Mean Streamflow at Grand River near Langley, OK

Data recorded at the Grand River gage shows a seasonal variation in flow with greatest flows in spring and early summer and lowest flows in fall and winter. Table 5.2.2-2 provides monthly mean flows recorded at the gage for the 65-year period of record between 1940 and 2003.

Table 5.2.2-2: Mean Monthly Streamflow Recorded at the Grand River Gauge (No. 07190500) near Langley, Oklahoma (1940-2003)

MONTH	MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (CFS)
January	4,844
February	6,087
March	8,899
April	11,120
May	12,070
June	11,130
July	8,909
August	4,354
September	4,866
October	5,939
November	6,673
December	5,620

4.2.2.1 Project Operations

The Project generally is operated in load following mode, with generation dependent on the availability of water and the demand for power. The Project has six turbines having a total hydraulic capacity of 10,200 cfs. Project discharge varies based on inflows and power demands. There is no FERC requirement for minimum flow, although when the Project is not generating, a downstream gage records a base flow of approximately 25 cfs. The base flow is likely due to a combination of leakage from the Project and from a small tributary upstream from the gage.

4.2.2.2 Seasonal Target Lake Elevations

The Project is currently operated to meet seasonal Lake elevation targets as required by the Section 401 Water Quality certificate and license Article 401, as described in Section 4.3.

4.2.2.3 Water Use

Water in Grand Lake is used primarily for flood control and power generation. Flood storage occurs in Grand Lake between the elevations of 745 and 755 feet. When the reservoir elevation reaches 745 feet, the USACE may direct water releases from the dam. However, when reservoir levels are below 745 feet, the pool is used for power generation and releases are controlled by GRDA.

4.2.3 Effects of Implementing the SMP

The SMP includes several actions that, if implemented, may affect the water quality of Grand Lake and the watershed. The intent of many efforts described in the SMP is to improve water quality in the Lake and to slow the rate at which nutrients and pollutants are entering the Lake.

Erosion of the shoreline may contribute to high sediment levels in the Lake, increased turbidity, and potentially can cause heavy metals and other contaminants bound to the sediments to be released into the water. GRDA has developed a SMC system as part of the SMP to assist GRDA in managing the shoreline to prevent erosion (the effects of implementing the SMP on soils are also described in Section 4.1.3). Under the “Multi Purpose” and “Limited Development” management classifications, GRDA would encourage the development of multi-family or community docks, rather than individual docks, to reduce the overall effects of erosion and sedimentation to the shoreline and Lake water quality. Areas that GRDA has designated as “Sensitive Resource Areas” would be further protected by GRDA from development. Because these areas often contain features like wetlands and steep cliffs, development in these areas could result in degradation of water quality through erosion, sedimentation, and the loss of sediment-retaining wetlands.

As part of the SMP, GRDA outlines a series of guidelines, training requirements, and permit processes for the Project lands to reduce erosion of the shoreline. The Vegetation Management guidelines would allow GRDA to regulate use of heavy equipment to remove large shoreline debris like logs or driftwood through permits. Footpaths providing access to the shore could be cleared and maintained, but must be conformed to SMP specifications and be sited so that disturbance of trees and other vegetation is minimized. GRDA would also encourage stabilization of banks using native vegetation or natural materials to deflect wave action and stabilize the shoreline as part of the SMP.

GRDA would require that anyone working with debris management or vegetation removal acquire proper training so that water quality standards are met. For example, within two years of the issuance of the SMP, any contractor performing dredging activities would need to acquire training of environmental issues relating to dredging in order to work in Grand Lake. Any excavation or dredging activities would need to be permitted by GRDA and, if applicable, by the USACE.

Because some sediment in the reservoir contains contaminants, the SMP would require that dredging over 250 cubic feet of material requires testing for heavy metals, PCBs and other contaminants. This requirement as well as mandating training of contractors would likely decrease the likelihood of sediment-bound contaminants entering the Lake. Inputs of contaminants found in herbicides and pesticides would likely be reduced with the implementation of the SMP as the use of these chemicals would be prohibited on GRDA land.

GRDA addresses point-source nutrient load to Grand Lake in the SMP through permitting all shoreline activities. If the SMP is implemented, the net input of nutrients from point sources would likely decrease. In turn, a reduction in nutrient input would likely slow the eutrophication process in Grand Lake and may increase DO concentrations. Under the SMP, the use of fertilizers on GRDA lands would be prohibited.

Water Quantity

While the SMP would limit the location of commercial water withdrawals to zones classified for “Commercial Uses”, the SMP does not specifically limit or encourage water withdrawals. The SMP would not affect Project operations or seasonal Lake elevations. Therefore, implementing the SMP would not likely affect water quantity at Grand Lake.

Water Use

The SMP would not affect Project operations or seasonal Lake level elevations and would therefore not affect the primary water uses of flood control and power generation. Because implementing the SMP would likely improve water quality as it relates to turbidity and DO, it would likely enhance the fish and wildlife propagation as a warmwater aquatic community. Implementing the SMP would also likely reduce bacteria levels in the Lake due to various permitting regulations as described above, and would therefore improve Grand Lake's ability to meet standards for the primary body contact recreation beneficial use.

4.3 Fish, Wildlife and Botanical

4.3.1 Fish and Aquatic Species

The fish community in Grand Lake is similar to other reservoirs within the region. The primary sportfish in the Lake is largemouth bass, and Grand Lake is considered one of the top bass tournament reservoirs during the past several years (GRDA, 2004). The Lake also has a sport fishery for walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass, striped bass, white bass, crappie, and panfish. The panfish in Grand Lake include species such as the warmouth, longear sunfish, bluegill, and green sunfish. A healthy forage fish population of skipjack herring and gizzard shad maintains the sport fishery. Other species of recreational interest include flathead, blue, and channel catfish. Other notable species within the Lake include longnose gar, carp, river carpsucker, smallmouth buffalo, logperch, emerald shiner, river shiner, red shiner, ghost shiner, silverband shiner, bullhead minnow, blue sucker, river redhorse, and river darter (FERC, 1991). The federally threatened Ozark cavefish and Neosho madtom, found near Grand Lake, is discussed in section 5.3.5 of this report.

Another species of particular interest is the paddlefish, a pelagic, filter-feeder, planktivore, that makes long spawning migrations up river to find clean gravel bars to deposit eggs (OKDWC, 2005b). The numbers of paddlefish migrating up the Grand/Neosho River in the springtime make this river system one of the top five paddlefish fisheries in the nation (OKDWC, 2005a). Special regulations in Oklahoma now limit a person to one paddlefish per day, but ongoing research indicates fishing pressure is still depressing this population. The paddlefish population of Grand Lake was estimated to be 80,808 and 55,404 in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The estimates were dominated by juvenile paddlefish, showing strong recruitment potential in this Lake (OKDWC, 2005b).

Another filter-feeding species recently discovered in Grand Lake is the zebra mussel. This exotic invasive species was likely transferred to the Lake using boats as the vector. Once established this species can rapidly reproduce and spread quickly throughout a watershed. The presence of this species has been linked to declines in biodiversity and disruption of the food chain (GRDA press release, July 17, 2006).

4.3.1.1 Current Management

Current management of this fishery is limited to creating juvenile habitat by flooding mudflats seeded with Japanese millet, stocking/regulation of fishery, and lake level manipulation (GRDA 2003c). The millet-seeding program has low annual success and only seasonal benefits (OKWRB, 2005). On going research into the feasibility of establishing aquatic plants in the littoral zone of Grand Lake will determine the methods for future habitat mitigation initiatives. The goal of the new management plan is to replace the millet-seeding program with an initiative to provide a more diverse native plant community, while still creating fish habitat and waterfowl forage (OKWRB, 2005). Other attempts to create fish refuge include the construction of 13 brush shelters from cedar trees sunk in various parts of the Lake (OKDWC, 2005a).

Current fishing regulations are designed to increase the total abundance and quality size of crappie and bass. OKDWC has never stocked crappie in the Lake, but stocked largemouth bass most recently in 1995 with 30,280 juveniles. Striped bass and hybrids are the primary species stocked into Grand Lake. In April 2005, a total of 690,000 hybrid striped bass fry were released into the Lake. Walleye were stocked heavily in 2001 (264,540) and from 1989-1990 (789,655).

The rule curve for Grand Lake is another tool used to manage fish habitat. The current rule curve is described in Section 4.3. This rule curve is specifically designed to allow high water to inundate terrestrial vegetation in the spring and provide young-of-the-year largemouth bass refuge. The late summer draw down exposes large mudflats of nutrient rich soils to encourage the establishment of vegetation (FERC 1991).

Currently, GRDA has no plan to contain or manage the risk of zebra mussel. Zebra mussels can reproduce and colonize new areas very quickly. A population of zebra mussels would likely out compete filter feeding fish (i.e. paddlefish, herring, and shad) and disrupt the natural food chain.

4.3.2 Wildlife

4.3.2.1 Birds

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 consisted of short-eared owl, northern harrier, and rough-legged hawk. Bald eagles over-winter at Grand Lake, and benefit from the fish passed through the hydro plant (Lish, 1987). 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 show up on Grand Lake annually. 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 (Stancill et al., 1988). Mallards are the only dabbling duck that over-winter on Grand Lake. Mallards are the most abundant duck seen on the Lake with a peak number in December. Canada geese and wood ducks live on the Lake through out the year.

4.3.2.2 Mammals

White-tailed deer, striped skunk, raccoon, fox squirrel, Virginia opossum, eastern cottontail, and red fox inhabit the upland deciduous forest are found in the Project Vicinity. 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 (see Section 5.3.5.2).

4.3.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians

A variety of frogs, toads, salamanders, lizards, turtles, and snakes comprise the local herpetofauna. The amphibians include species such as the American toad, spadefoot toad, tree frogs, narrow-mouthed. 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, bullsnakes, and venomous snakes such as copperheads, western cottonmouths, timber rattlesnakes, and western pygmy rattlesnakes. (Erickson and Leslie, 1988)

4.3.2.4 Current Management

Currently, waterfowl production and waterfowl food availability are primary concerns of resource managers. Article 411 of the Project license provided a plan to annually seed 1,000 acres of mudflats along Grand Lake’s shoreline with Japanese millet. A new aquatic plant program is currently being studied to replace the millet seeding program. This new habitat enhancement strategy would use native plants planted in the littoral zone to provide forage and shelter to migrating waterfowl and aquatic species such as fish and turtles (OKWRB, 2005). In addition, GRDA has designated approximately 1,630 acres of Project lands adjacent to Grand Lake as wildlife management areas and management of these lands is covered by Article 406 of the license.

4.3.3 Botanical

Grand Lake is located in a transitional zone between the Ozark Highlands and Central Irregular Plain ecoregions of northeast Oklahoma (Woods et al., 2005). In the Ozark Highlands ecoregion, which characterizes most of the Project Vicinity, oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine are the primary forested cover type associations (Woods et al., 2005). 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 (Woods et al., 2005).

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 (Woods et al., 2005). 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. 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 (Woods et al., 2005).

Botanical species typical of the Grand Lake vicinity are listed in Table 5.3.3-1, Appendix D.

4.3.4 Wetlands

Grand Lake and the surrounding areas contain numerous wetlands, which are most abundant along the upper, shallow reaches of the reservoir (Figure 5.3-1). In the reservoir’s lower reaches, shoreline areas consist primarily of limestone bluffs, with wetlands restricted to coves and backwaters of inundated tributaries. Acreages of the various wetland types occurring in the vicinity of the Project are summarized in Table 5.3.4-1.

Table 5.3.4-1: Wetland Cover Types (in acres) by Elevation Zone at Grand Lake, Oklahoma

	ELEVATION ZONES
WETLAND COVER TYPES	735-742^a	742-755	755+^b	Totals
Palustrine Forested Wetlands^c	1,720	5,555	4,374	11,649
Emergent Wetlands	34	145	55	234
Scrub/Shrub Wetlands	194	268	64	526
Mudflats	4,994	645	23	5,662
Ponded Water	89	70	88	247
Totals	7,031	6,683	4,604	18,318
Steep Rocky Shoreline (miles)^d	138

(Source: Adapted from Erickson and Leslie, 1988)

a Elevations 735 to 742 are included because the study was conducted under the pre-1992 rule curve when these elevations were occasionally exposed. Since then, many of these areas have become permanently inundated.

b To 1/4 mile from 755 foot PD elevation.

c Referred to as Bottomland or Floodplain Forests in Erickson and Leslie, 1988.

d A linear measurement (miles) due to zone being too narrow to accurately digitize.

4.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Ozark cavefish (Amblyosis rosae), Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are documented as occurring in the Project Vicinity and are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and by the State of Oklahoma. The gray bat (Myotis grisescens), which is state- and federally-listed as endangered, also occurs in the Project Vicinity. According to the Oklahoma Biological Inventory (2006), no other state-listed species are documented as occurring in the Project Vicinity or within the Project Area.

4.3.5.1 Aquatic

Ozark cavefish

This Ozark cavefish is sightless cave obligate that requires clean-flowing, permanently dark cave streams, often with rubble bottom (Masters, 1993). A commensal association exists between this species and the federally-endangered gray bat, as there is some evidence that Ozark cavefish feed directly on gray bat guano (USFWS, 1989). The Ozark cavefish is found in pools in two caves, Twin Cave and Jailhouse Cave, located near the project (GRDA, 2004). Jailhouse Cave is located outside of the Project drainage basin and thus is not influenced by the Project (GRDA, 1986). The land above and adjacent to Twin Cave is owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for the protection of the cave and its cave-dwelling species (i.e., Ozark cavefish and gray bat). (FERC, 1991).

Neosho Madtom

The Neosho madtom is endemic to the Neosho (Grand) River system in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas. It occurs in riffle areas of moderate sized, clear-flowing streams with a substratum of loosely packed gravel pebbles less than one inch in diameter (Masters, 1993). Neosho madtoms are known to occur at an upstream site on the Grand River that is periodically inundated by the USACE’s flood pool (FERC, 1991). Because of their intolerance of impounded conditions (Masters, 1993), the Neosho madtom is not expected to occur in Grand Lake with any frequency.

4.3.5.2 Terrestrial

Gray bat

Gray bats inhabit limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. This species migrates seasonally between winter (hibernating) and summer (maternity) caves (USFWS, 1982). Gray bats forage almost exclusively over water along river or reservoir edges bordered by forest (LaVal et al., 1977), and as such, maternity colonies are typically located is close proximity to such features (Tuttle, 1976). Gray bats utilizing the Grand Lake area are summer residents that hibernate in caves in northern Arkansas and Missouri (GRDA, 1986). Two gray bat caves have been documented in the Project Vicinity: Beaver Dam Cave and Twin Cave. Beaver Dam and Twin Caves are located approximately 2 miles apart and are utilized to varying degrees as maternity caves (GRDA, 2004; FERC, 1991). As previously noted, land adjacent to and above Twin Cave is owned and managed by TNC for the protection of the cave and its cave-dwelling species (i.e., Ozark cavefish and gray bat). Beaver Dam Creek is located on private property (FERC, 1991).

Bald Eagle

Bald eagles are found throughout North America, typically near open waterbodies such as lakes and large rivers. Most eagles consume a diet consisting primarily of fish, with lesser quantities of waterfowl, carrion, and small mammals (muskrats, squirrels, rabbits) (Gough, et al., 1998). Availability of large trees and snags for perching and open flight paths to feeding areas are important in habitat selection (Polite and Pratt, 2002; BOR, 1994). Grand Lake is an important wintering area for bald eagles (GRDA, 1986). 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.

4.3.6 Effects of Implementing the SMP

Aquatic Resources

The SMP would potentially increase protection to both water quality and fish habitat at Grand Lake (see Section 5.2 for effects on water quality). One such protection provided to sensitive resources and shoreline vegetation is that GRDA proposes to minimize construction activities on Project lands, especially on lands that fall within the “Sensitive Resource” management classification. Sensitive resources include wetlands, shallow areas of shoreline, vegetated islands, and steep upland slopes that are highly susceptible to erosion. Shoreline vegetation, including wetlands, utilize excess nutrients and trap sediment that may run-off upland habitat before they reach the watershed. Sediments can increase turbidity in the water and reduce the foraging ability of sight feeding fish. In addition, silt can settle over important fish nesting substrates (i.e. gravel and sand) or bury nests under layers of silt. A decrease in oxygen caused by excess nutrients may suffocate fish and cause massive fish kills. Stabilizing the shoreline with vegetation would likely prevent these harmful pollutants from reaching Grand Lake.

Fish habitat would likely be maintained along the shores where Sensitive Areas are located. These Sensitive Areas would provide overhead cover for both juvenile and adult fish. In addition, aquatic vegetation would likely establish along the shoreline and provide cover and macroinvertebrate fish forage. Dead trees that fall into Grand Lake would also provide macroinvertebrate fish forage and cover along the shores of Sensitive Areas. Maintaining shoreline vegetation would likely provide similar habitat opportunities for fish. The increased protections to fish and macroinvertebrates from implementing the SMP would likely maintain or enhance the current fishery resource at Grand Lake.

The SMP is designed to regulate construction activities at Grand Lake to minimize effects to the fishery resource. Construction activities permitted along the shore may temporarily displace fish and increase turbidity. Upland ground disturbance, dredging, and shoreline vegetation management is regulated by GRDA. Through the SMP, GRDA is encouraging community docks to concentrate construction activities and recreational use along the shoreline. Community docks would likely minimize construction effects to the fishery resource by limiting the activities to designated areas. If GRDA requires that construction contractors receive training on BMP measures, construction sites would likely have reduced sediment run-off which would help to maintain fishery habitat. GRDA encourages the planting of native plants on shoreline property, having a potential beneficial effect on fishery habitat.

Shoreline debris management is designed to limit soil disturbance and erosion by regulating the use of heavy equipment to remove driftwood and debris from the Project shoreline.

Ozark Cavefish

Since neither of the caves where Ozark Cavefish occur are within the Project Area, implementation of the proposed SMP would likely result in no effect on this species.

Neosho Madtom

Due to the Neosho Madtom’s intolerance of impounded conditions, implementation of the proposed SMP in areas surrounding the reservoir would likely have no effect on this species.

Gray Bat

Gray bats are known to use two caves in the Project Vicinity, Twin Cave and Beaver Dam Cave, as maternity caves during the summer months. , The bats likely use much of the reservoir’s open water in the vicinity of the caves for foraging. Implementation of the proposed SMP would likely result in no impacts to Twin Cave, as it is owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy for protection of the cave ecosystem. Beaver Dam Cave is located along the south shore of the Drowning Creek arm of Grand Lake and is intermittently inundated by the USACE’s flood pool. The shoreline in Drowning Creek near Beaver Dam Cave is designated as a sensitive resource area. As such the area receives additional consideration and is unlikely to experience approved shoreline activities. Additional development in other areas of Drowning Creek, may decrease foraging habitat quality due to decreased shoreline forest cover, may affect insect prey base due to increased use of insecticides on non-project lands associated with residential development. Overall, implementation of the SMP may provide some additional protection for bat habitat through limiting development near the maternity and roosting caves.

Bald Eagle

While bald eagles are not known to nest in the Project Vicinity, the Lake is used extensively by wintering eagles (GRDA, 1986). Most eagle wintering on Grand Lake use a communal roost on a small island near Twin Bridges State Park, with much of the prey base provided by a nearby blackbird roost (GRDA, 1986). Designation of this island, and all other undeveloped islands, as a “Sensitive Resource” area would provide enhanced protection for both the communal eagle roost and the nearby blackbird roost. Further, implementing the Sensitive Resources and other SCS designations would provide enhanced overall protection for foraging habitat throughout Grand Lake.

Botanical

Palustrine wetlands[4] represent approximately 83%[5] of total Project wetlands; thus designation of these areas as “sensitive resources” would significantly enhance protection for wetlands in the Project Area. Further, maintenance by GRDA’s Office of Ecosystem Management of a current GIS database showing all SMCs and other significant resources, including wetlands, would likely increase public awareness of wetlands surrounding the Project and foster protective land use decisions by GRDA during the shoreline permitting process.

4.4 Historical and Archaeological

Prehistoric peoples, 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 area as a place of both settlement and transportation. This pattern of use creates a high probability within the Project Area for intact cultural resources dating from prehistoric eras as well as the periods of early European contact, the early nineteenth century, and the Civil War.

4.4.1 Cultural

Archaeologists have identified evidence for human occupation in what is now Oklahoma that extends back approximately 15,000 years. Although humans occupied the Project Vicinity as early as the Paleo-Indian era, most of the archaeological sites that have been found in Oklahoma are more recent. The most extensive archaeological remains have been found in the caves and ledges of the Ozarks in the northeastern portion of the state (in the general vicinity of the Project), in the caves of the Oklahoma panhandle, and along the banks of a number of rivers and creeks. In the late prehistoric age, from A.D. 1 to the early sixteenth century, archaeological evidence suggests rapidly increasing social complexity and technological and cultural advancement. The archaeological evidence clearly points to larger and more settled communities that were connected to other parts of the American continent by trade networks (Gibson, 1984).

In the early sixteenth century, there were at least three Native American language stocks suggesting a growing complexity and diversity to the population. The Project Vicinity was occupied primarily by Quapaw-speaking tribes that were located in the area from the Arkansas River into eastern Oklahoma. By the 1820s, what is now Oklahoma was carved off to be territory for displaced and relocated eastern Indian tribes. From then until the late nineteenth century, Oklahoma was inhabited primarily by Native Americans (Gibson, 1984).

American settlers began moving into Oklahoma in the late eighteenth century, and by the early nineteenth century they had established trading settlements along the Grand and Verdigris Rivers. American settlers expanded into the Indian Territory quickly; Fort Smith was the first outpost in the early nineteenth century, but by the 1820s it was merely the gatepost to settlements further west. Other military outposts included Fort Gibson at the mouth of the Grand River, and Fort Towson near the mouth of the Kiamichi River (Gibson, 1984).

At the same time, more Native Americans were relocated from the eastern states into the Oklahoma Territory. In the wake of the War of 1812, when many Native Americans in the southeast sided with the British, the American government began a policy of relocation as different tribes were forced to cede enormous tracts of land in Alabama and Mississippi. By the 1830s, the Indian Territory was divided among, and largely governed by, another set of five tribes: Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole. The Cherokees were located in the northern and eastern parts of the state, including the Project Vicinity (Gibson, 1984).

As more and more non-Native Americans discovered the rich farmland of Oklahoma, and as railroads began to snake their way across the region, the Federal government bowed to increased pressure to open what remained of Indian lands to white settlement. In 1889, in an amendment to the Indian Appropriation Act of that year, Congress declared the land open to non-Native American settlement as of April 22, 1889. Oklahoma became a Territory later in 1889, and became a state in 1906 (Gibson, 1984).

In addition to the historical evidence for the likelihood of intact archaeological 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 features a shallower, 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 (Gibson, 1984).

4.4.1.1 Known Cultural Properties

In a letter dated February 3, 2004, the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (OAS) noted that no shoreline surveys for archaeological surveys have been conducted on Grand Lake. In previous correspondence with FERC, only one archaeological site was identified within the Project Boundary. Site 34DL202 is a historic cemetery located in Delaware County, in the NE ¼ of Section 17, Township 24N, Range 22E. Subsequent correspondence with the OAS provided documentation of nearly 50 cultural sites within the Project Area. The significance of those sites is not known.

4.4.2 Historical

The Pensacola Dam was the first hydroelectric facility in the State of Oklahoma. The dam was under construction from late 1938 until its completion in March, 1940. The Lake was filled by late in the summer of 1940.

4.4.2.1 Known Historic Properties

The Pensacola Dam hydroelectric project was listed on the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) in 2003. It is one of three dams in Oklahoma that is listed on the NRHP.

4.4.3 Effects of Implementing the SMP

The SMP states that GRDA would assist the permit applicant in determining whether consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or the OAS is required. The SMP requires further that it would be the responsibility of the applicant to have the appropriate investigations carried out prior to any ground-disturbing activity. The SMP notes GRDA has added a non-public database of known archaeological sites to the GIS data base for the Lake. GRDA will check applications against this data base and advise applicants of the potential for cultural resources. As GRDA notes, early involvement with the SHPO or OAS is crucial to the protection of historic properties and for minimizing potential problems in the permitting process.

Other than referencing the archaeological data base, the SMP provides no guidelines regarding how GRDA would make a determination regarding when a proposed action has the potential to affect historic properties, and thus when consultation with the SHPO is required. Article 409 of the Project License states that the Licensee will consult with the SHPO before starting any land-clearing or ground-disturbing activities within the Project Boundary. In addition, Article 409 requires that all land-clearing and land-disturbing activities would be stopped in the case that previously unidentified archaeological or historic properties are discovered during the course of construction at the Project. The SMP requires permittees to comply with Article 409. These existing license requirements are sufficient to provide protection for historic properties at the Project.

4.5 Recreation

Grand Lake is one of Oklahoma’s most popular recreation areas for boating and fishing. Grand Lake supports a high-quality sport fishery for largemouth bass, striped bass, white bass, crappie, catfish, and paddlefish. On average, 135 fishing tournaments are held at the Lake each summer, primarily for bass (GRDA, 2004c). The Lake is popular for boating activities such as pleasure boating, waterskiing, and rafting (large groups of boats tying up together for socializing). The Lake is also used for personal water craft (PWCs), sailboats, large yachts and houseboats. Several regattas are held on the Lake each year (GRDA, 1997). Waterfowl hunting is also a popular use of Grand Lake and is concentrated on the riverine sections of the Lake between Sailboat Bridge and Twin Bridges State Park and along Horse Creek (GRDA, 2004a). There are a number of land-based recreation activities provided by state and local parks, as well, such as camping, hunting, hiking, picnicking and sightseeing.

4.5.1 Recreation Sites and Public Access

Grand Lake is home to a multitude of public, private and commercial land and water-based recreation sites such as state parks, public boat launches, and commercial resorts and marinas.

The Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department (OKTRD) operates and manages five state parks around Grand Lake:

· Bernice State Park

· Cherokee State Park

· Disney/Little Blue State Park

· Honey Creek State Park

· Twin Bridges State Park.

All of these parks provide boat ramps, campsites, picnic tables, and restroom facilities. Disney/Little Blue, Honey Creek, and Twin Bridges State Parks also provide playgrounds and Honey Creek State Park provides a swimming pool. Two of these parks, Twin Bridges and Cherokee, have beach access to the Lake for swimming and angling (Caneday, et. al, 1996).

In addition, local communities and municipalities provide beaches, picnic areas, boating access, and other recreation facilities. Municipal and community parks include Willow Park and Riverview Park. Cabin rentals, boat rentals and other marina services are also provided at several public parks.

On the lower section of the Lake, below Sailboat Bridge, there are over 22 public access sites providing boat launching facilities such as Port Ketchum, Duck Creek Bridge, Seaplane Base, Shangri-La and Council Cove Public Access sites, and the City of Miami and the City of Grove Boat Ramps. Public recreation sites are shown on Figure 5.5-1. In addition, access to the Lake is provided by publicly accessible, private boat ramps, primarily located in residential areas and at marinas. Generally, privately operated marinas allow the public to launch their boats for free, but charge a parking fee for vehicles and trailers. Ramps constructed at private residences are open to the public for free (GRDA, 1997).

There are also numerous private and commercial recreation facilities and opportunities at the Project such as commercial marinas, resorts, RV parks, and campgrounds. Presently, there are approximately 4,000 permitted private docks, located mostly in the lower section of the Lake. These docks are the primary means of access for most Grand Lake residents. Over 300 commercial docks are permitted on Grand Lake below Sailboat Bridge, providing 3,589 slips for boats of various sizes.

Public access to Grand Lake can also be gained via informal recreation sites such as fishing access points at bridges and impromptu carry-in boat landings. In addition, numerous “volunteer” public access points correspond with rights-of-way and old road beds scattered throughout the region. Such locations are undocumented, usually not maintained at any specified level of care, and used primarily by local residents and those knowledgeable of the region. Such locations are also mandated as the rights of the public (GRDA, 1997).

GRDA operates a tourist center at the dam and provides guided tours from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Although GRDA does not own, operate nor maintain any recreation facilities at Grand Lake, it has provided lands and matching funds for the development, operation, management and maintenance of several recreation sites. Over 20 of the public boat launching facilities were provided through joint cooperation between GRDA and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (OKDWC). The five state parks and many municipal parks were transferred to the state and local communities by GRDA. Six of the publicly accessible, private boat launches were constructed with GRDA matching funds (GRDA, 1997).

	Multi Purpose	Limited²	Public/ Municipal Areas	Sensitive Resource³	Project Operations
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES¹
Construction of Commercial Dock	YES	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	YES - if meets GRDA permitting standards and is within the objectives of the managing entity YES - if meets GRDA permitting standards and is within the objectives of the managing entity	NO	NO
Repair in kind of Commercial Facility or Use (Less than 50 %)	YES-if structure has existing permit from GRDA;	YES-if structure has existing permit from GRDA;
Repair/Replacement of Commercial Facility (Greater than 50%)	YES but requires permit review under new SMP standards	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	NO
New Full Service Marina	YES	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	NO
Floating Restaurant/ Hotel/Casino	YES	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	NO
Water Withdrawal (e.g. municipalities/golf courses/commercial irrigation)	YES	YES	YES	YES
Recreation/Water Parks w/ Shorefront Facilities	YES	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	NO	NO
Dredging⁴	YES	YES	NO	AS NEEDED FOR PROJECT OPERATIONS
Commercial Marine Railways & Trams	YES	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	NO	AS NEEDED FOR PROJECT OPERATIONS
Boat Ramps⁵	YES	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	NO	NO
Floating Breakwaters	YES	YES	YES	NO

Table 5.6.3-2: Allowable Residential Uses Within Shoreline Management Classifications

	Multi Purpose	Limited		Public/ Municipal Areas		Sensitive Resource²	Project Operations
	Multi Purpose	Limited		Public/ Municipal Areas		Sensitive Resource²	Project Operations
Private Residential/ Multi-Family Uses¹
Docks	Yes	Yes		YES - if meets GRDA permitting standards and is within the objectives of the managing entity		GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED	No
Breakwaters,	YES	YES					NO
Boat Houses	YES	YES					NO
Decks &Patios	YES	YES					NO
Repair/Replacement of Residential Uses (less than 50%)	YES-if structure has existing permit from GRDA;
Repair/Replacement of Residential Uses (greater than 50%)	YES but requires permit review under new SMP standards		YES but requires permit review under new SMP standards	YES - if meets GRDA permitting standards and is within the objectives of the managing entity	GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED		NO
Multi-boat slips (<10)	Yes		Yes				No
Multi-boat slips (>10)	YES		Yes with no commercial trade				No
Marine Railways & Trams	YES		YES				NO
Boat Ramps⁴	YES		YES				As necessary for Project Operations
Vegetation Management	YES-within vegetation management plan guidelines				YES-within vegetation management plan guidelines		As necessary for Project Operations
Floatable Debris Management	YES	YES		YES	YES		YES
Water Withdrawal	YES	YES		YES - if meets GRDA permitting standards and is within the objectives of the managing entity	YES		Yes w/FERC Review
Retaining Walls	Yes	Yes			Yes		No
Dredging	Yes	Yes			No		As Necessary For Project Operations
Beaches/Common Use Areas	Yes	Yes			No		No
Picnic/Event Facilities	No	Yes			No		No
Agricultural Activities

¹All new Residential uses will require some form of permitting and/or review by GRDA; Please refer to GRDA permitting handbooks for further details.

²GRDA strongly discourages proposals for commercial uses within Sensitive Resource areas; GRDA cautions project proponents that it requires proof of extreme mitigating circumstances, extensive additional permit application support and justification, and mitigation measures for consideration of such uses.

³Dredging is generally limited to 2000 cy and only allowed during drawdown events. GRDA does not allow any channel dredging.

⁴ Ramp may not be constructed unless at least twenty-five (25) homeowners or the public at large may access the ramp.

Implementation of SMC development activity restrictions and other proposed SMP protection, enhancement and education programs discussed in greater detail below, in conjunction with GRDA’s permitting program, are likely to provide additional protection and benefits to shoreline resources over the existing condition. The effects of development activities on the environmental and aesthetic resources of the Lake would be a primary consideration in the permitting process. In particular, GRDA would evaluate proposed new uses, and modifications to existing uses, based on among other things, the existing uses within a half-mile radius of the proposed activities, (including SMC and allowable use determinations) and the environmental and recreational effects, including potential economic development and tourism benefits and safety and navigation issues.

The SMP would protect shoreline resources by requiring development permit applications to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with particular scrutiny for certain activities and SMC designations. Though residential development is allowed in most of the proposed SMC classifications, land disturbance and construction in certain areas would be subject to restrictions, such as prohibiting construction of boat houses and docks in shallow coves and limiting or restricting new uses in areas considered congested. Municipal or public use areas proposed for locations outside the designated SMCs would need to be demonstrated to be in the public interest before approval by GRDA. Likewise, applicants proposing new uses in Sensitive Resource areas would be required to demonstrate necessity and public interest and provide required protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures necessary to minimize the effects of the proposed development.

Furthermore, permits for commercial activities must address the proposed Project’s environmental effects including those on fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, vegetation, cultural resources, water quality and existing recreation uses, including any unavoidable adverse effects and PM&E measures to address those effects. Applicants must provide, among other things, a statement supporting that the project is consistent with approved recreation, dredging, cultural resource and wildlife protection plans, statutory mandates or project management requirements and describing why the project is in the public interest. Issues of boating safety during and after construction, as well as a statement of measures proposed to protect adjacent property owners’ access to the shoreline and Lake is also required for commercial permit applications.

Implementing the SMP may result in a slight decrease in the rate of residential and commercial development along the shoreline. Commercial and, to a lesser degree, residential development may be reduced due to restrictions and guidelines that limit development in selected SMCs. However, because development is not expressly prohibited by the proposed SMP, it is not likely that the rate of development would be substantially reduced from current conditions. As such, shoreline resources (i.e., riparian vegetation, fisheries, recreational use, etc.) would likely continue to be affected by shoreline development activities. Because these shoreline resources would be considered by GRDA in any permit application, the proposed SMP and associated programs are expected to benefit land use, aesthetics, and the natural, cultural and recreational resources of Grand Lake.

4.7 Additional Shoreline Management Policies

The SMP contains additional shoreline management policies designed to protect and enhance the environmental, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic resources of the Lake that would affect land use and development activities along the shoreline. These policies include:

· Habitable Structures;

· Vegetation Management and Shoreline Stabilization;

· Dredging; and

· Derelict docks.

Each policy, and associated benefits to land use management and the environmental, cultural, and recreational resources of the Lake, are discussed below.

4.7.1 Habitable Structures Policy

Of increasing interest at Grand Lake is the development of on-water habitable structures or “dock-o-miniums”. These structures typically resemble cabins or homes and are placed on floating structures, on covered or enclosed docks, or over boat houses. Generally, these structures may contain water supply and/or waste disposal facilities, such as sinks, showers, toilets, kitchen facilities, and food preparation areas.

Existing habitable structures have the potential to contribute to deteriorating water quality in the Project due to non-existent or faulty gray water, septic or other waste disposal systems (see Section 5.2.3). Their location, over the water, is a particular challenge for proper waste disposal. In addition, to sanitation issues, these structures may inhibit navigation in near shore areas, block views of boaters and shoreline residents, present a different waterfront aesthetic and can present a safety issue for access. Closed and covered structures block line of sight for boats entering the Lake and those boating adjacent to these structures.

Due to the existence of these structures on the Lake, GRDA proposes to allow the existing structures to remain under its “grandfathering” policy. As discussed in the SMP, GRDA proposes … [to be completed following review of the SMP]

4.7.2 Vegetation Management and Shoreline Stabilization Policies

GRDA proposes a policy for the management, removal, and planting of vegetation within the Project Boundary. The Vegetation Management Policy would generally prohibit the use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers; require a permit for live vegetation removal but allow dead trees to be removed; generally not allow mowing; allow the construction of foot paths; and prohibit vegetable gardens within the Project Boundary. The policy would also encourage the planting of trees, shrubs, wildflowers, native grasses, and ground covers within GRDA lands to create, improve, or enhance the vegetative cover.

The proposed SMP also includes a Shoreline Stabilization Policy, wherein GRDA would issue permits allowing shoreline property owners to stabilize eroding shorelines within the Project Boundary. Through this policy, GRDA would recommend shoreline stabilization methods, such as biostabilization, riprap, or retaining walls. GRDA would conduct site inspections of the eroded areas to determine the most appropriate methods for stabilization.

Neither policy expressly prohibits vegetation removal or requires shoreline stabilization in areas where erosion is identified; therefore, shoreline erosion may not be adequately addressed in the SMP. However, GRDA would consider effects on soils in permit applications submitted for vegetation removal and would approve the most appropriate measure with emphasis on biostabilization techniques for shoreline stabilization. Hazardous tree removal, with a permit, is already allowed under GRDA’s existing permitting policy. The Vegetative Management and Shoreline Stabilization Policies are not likely to significantly change existing land use patterns and trends, though stricter scrutiny for certain land clearing and ground disturbance activities may shift landscape management schemes. Shoreline property owners may be required to choose alternative landscape and shoreline stabilization methods if proposed measures in applications were deemed by GRDA to be inappropriate or inconsistent with the environmental and aesthetic protection goals of the SMP.

4.7.3 Dredging

Dredging is a highly regulated activity under the proposed SMP. All dredging must conform to GRDA’s existing approved Dredging Management Plan (cite). Additionally the SMP imposes restrictions on dredging in Sensitive Resource areas. The current plan provides comprehensive regulations and guidelines for dredging, excavation and fill activities. Among the protective measures that would be imposed under the SMP are: wetland delineation studies, limitations on the amount of material removed, regulations on the disposal of spoil material, and potential soil testing requirements. In addition, GRDA would require completion of a training program for all contractors wishing to undertake dredging activities at Grand Lake.

Because dredging is primarily conducted for on-water navigational purposes, the effects of the policy on land use is negligible. However, some dredging occurs to provide improved or additional access to Project waters at residential or commercial access facilities. To the extent that this policy would impose more stringent regulations for dredging activities which may directly affect the construction of access support facilities, there could be a slight decline in new access facility construction, particularly in shallower areas of the Lake. There may also be an increase in PM&E measures associated with dredging activities.

4.7.4 Other Policies and Provisions

The SMP contains provisions to address derelict docks and other unimproved and unmaintained structures. This provision would likely benefit the safety of dock users, prevent floating debris associated with dilapidated on-water structures, and preserve the aesthetic integrity of the Project shoreline. It is unlikely that enforcement of building standards would result in a decrease or leveling-off of new dock permit applications.

GRDA proposes to use GIS as a tool to assist shoreline management activities. A database would geospatially identify existing land uses, designate SMCs, and parcels of recreation areas, wetlands and other natural resources. This database would form the basis of the existing condition descriptions and manage permit and ownership information on a parcel basis for each shoreline property. To the extent that the GIS database would assist GRDA with administration of its permitting system, enforcement of development restrictions, management of SMCs, and identification of environmental, cultural and recreational resources, and land use management within the Project Boundary would be significantly enhanced.

Implementation of the SMCs, the aforementioned land management policies, and additional development restrictions imposed through the permitting process would likely afford protection of shoreline resources. However, the potential remains that fish and wildlife resources, especially those with limited habitat and water quality would be affected, as development activities on adjacent properties are not regulated through GRDA’s permitting process and the provisions of the proposed SMP would not apply to these lands. Though GRDA has no control over lands outside of the Project Boundary, the SMP promotes Best Management Practices (BMPs) for preserving and protecting natural resources on lands adjacent to the Project. The goal of promoting shoreline BMPs is to assist in the conservation and protection of valuable shoreline resources and help to reduce potential impacts to shoreline resources and water quality. BMPs are voluntary guidelines and, as such, are effective in protecting resources to the extent that shoreline property owners adopt and adhere to them. However, adverse impacts to environmental, cultural, recreational or aesthetic resources by construction activities outside of the Project Boundary are largely beyond the control of GRDA.

4.8 Agency Consultation and Enforcement

Agency consultation provisions of the proposed permitting program may also offer additional limited protection for resources, depending upon the particular resource and level of consultation required (notification vs. agency permit requirements). For example, any development that affects wetland areas is subject to the terms of the 401 water quality certification issued by the OKDNR, a 404 permit approved by the Corps, and, other local, county, state and federal permit certifications. SHPO notification is required for any land disturbing activities and items of cultural significance discovered during land disturbing activities. Although consultation is currently required under GRDA’s permit program, the proposed SMP would better ensure protection of resources from adverse effects of development by clarifying for the public who may be submitting a permit application, when agency consultation is required.

GRDA also has a law enforcement division that enforces GRDA rules and regulations on Project lands and waters. The SMP does not propose any changes over the existing condition as the enforcement division was created as part of GRDA’s enabling legislation (see Section 4.1). GRDA’s enforcement division would be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the SMP, once approved by FERC.

4.9 SMP Monitoring and Amendment

GRDA proposes to review the SMC designations, mapping, SMP policies, and its permitting program every six years. Review and update of the SMP would help to ensure the applicability and relevance of the SMP provisions, review any new shoreline management issues and address new land uses and shoreline development trends in the future, and provide for responsible land management.

4.10 Socioeconomics

The Project is bordered by Craig, Delaware, Mayes and Ottawa Counties in northeastern Oklahoma. The primary contributing factors of the socioeconomic environment described below for these counties are: population, income, tourism, development and employment. Table 5.10-1 provides a summary of the major socioeconomic characteristics of the counties around Grand Lake.

Table 5.10-1: Selected Demographic and Economic Characteristics for Craig, Delaware, Mayes and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma

	Population (2000)^a	Population Projection 2030^a	Per Capita Income (2000)^a	Labor Force (2005)^b	Unemployment Rate (11/2005)^b
Craig	14,950	20,000	$16,593	6,770	4.20%
Delaware	37,077	56,200	$15,424	17,390	4.00%
Mayes	38,369	50,300	$15,350	16,270	4.50%
Ottawa	33,194	39,600	$14,478	16,130	4.60%
^aU.S. Census, 2005e ^b LAUS Oklahoma, 2005

4.10.1 Demographics

The 2000 population of the four county region was approximately123,590 (Table 3.10-1). Delaware and Mayes Counties have the highest populations and are roughly equal in estimated population. The largest communities in these counties are Grove and Pryor, respectively. The Grove Chamber of Commerce (2006) reports that the community was recently rated one of the top retirement areas in the nation by Rand McNally, the Wall Street Journal, and Retirement Places.

Ottawa ranks third in population among the four counties, and Craig County ranks last with the lowest 2000 population. The largest communities in Ottawa and Craig Counties are Miami and Vinita, respectively. Population projections through the year 2030 show an anticipated increase in the population of all four counties (Table 5.10.1-1).

More recent annual population estimates suggest that the populations of Craig and Ottawa are actually decreasing (Table 3.10-2). Regardless of the conflicting data, it seems clear that the regional population will continue to grow, on balance, in the near future. All four counties around Grand Lake likely experience some seasonal changes in population due to the influx of summer residents and tourists during the popular summer months from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Per capita incomes in the four counties ranged from $14,478 to $16,593 in 2000 (Table 5.10.1-1).

Table 5.10.1-1: Annual Population Estimates for Craig, Delaware, Mayes and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma, 2000 through 2004

	CENSUS	PROJECTIONS				PERCENT CHANGE
COUNTY	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2000-2004
Craig	14,950	14,800	14,800	14,900	14,900	-0.52
Delaware	37,077	37,700	38,000	38,600	39,100	5.42
Mayes	38,369	38,500	38,800	39,000	39,300	2.36
Ottawa	33,194	33,200	32,900	32,800	32,700	-1.38
					126,000
(Source: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 2005c.)

4.10.2 Economy

Construction of Grand Lake resulted in the development of a significant recreational resource in the region. The Lake supports numerous marinas and state recreation sites, all providing water-based access and attracting tourism dollars to the local economy. Local communities capitalize on this by promoting their individual attractions. In fact, the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation estimated that Grand Lake generated in excess of $28 million in tourism-related revenue to the area in 1987 (Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of the Environment, 2005). It is likely that tourism related revenue has increased since 1987.

Vinita is hailed as the second oldest town in Oklahoma and plays a significant role in the state’s history. It is also located along historic Route 66. Miami, Oklahoma – sometimes claimed to be the birthplace of Route 66 – also uses the historic road to attract visitors. Miami also draws in tourism dollars through several popular gaming facilities. The community of Grove claims to offer the largest concentration of tourism services and recreation attractions in the area (Grove Area Chamber of Commerce, 2006). Pryor, Oklahoma, in Mayes County, is substantially removed from Grand Lake, approximately 50 miles away. Pryor is located closer to Lake Hudson.

Many seasonal businesses are established to capitalize on the tourism industry and support the interests and needs of the visitors and permanent and seasonal residents alike. These businesses include fast food establishments, gas stations, waterfront shops, marinas, retail, etc., all providing employment opportunities and contribute to economic stability of the area.

It is generally acknowledged that property values are, in part, a function of location, and that includes proximity to water bodies. In Oklahoma, the availability of waterfront property is relatively limited when compared to land locked parcels. Thus, one would expect land values near Grand Lake would be different from land values that are distant from water bodies. Although detailed information specific to Grand Lake is not available, there is information available that suggests that land values in the vicinity of Grand Lake are greater than those values elsewhere. Land values in Mayes, Delaware, Ottawa and Craig Counties have increased 75 to 150 percent between the periods 1973-1975 and 1998-2000 (Kletke, 2003). In terms of dollars per acre, land values in Mayes, Delaware and Ottawa Counties have consistently exceeded land values in the rest of the state during the period 1972 to 1999. During the same period, land values in Craig County have generally remained equal to or slightly greater than the statewide values.

The primary industries contributing to employment in the region are educational, health and social services; and manufacturing (Table 5.10.2-1). Recreation and tourism industry plays an important role, but only ranks among the top three industries in terms of employment in Ottawa County. These establishments employ approximately 4,100 people in the four counties (US Census, 2000e). The community of Miami, in Ottawa County, supports Northeastern A&M College, which is reflected in the fact that the education, health and social services industry is one of the largest employers in the County.

Table 5.10.2-1: Employment by Industry in Craig, Delaware, Mayes and Ottawa Counties, 2000^a

	CRAIG COUNTY	DELAWARE COUNTY	MAYES COUNTY	OTTAWA COUNTY
Employed Population	6,366	14,745	16,520	14,172

	Percent of Employed Workers by County
Educational, health and social services	23.5	17.2	17.4	23.9
Manufacturing	14.9	21.3	25.1	17.7
Retail trade	11.3	12	11	10.3
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities	9.2	5.2	7.2	5
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services	6.3	8.1	6	10.5
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining	6.2	5	3.9	4.9
Construction	5.9	9.8	8.5	6.3
Public administration	5.1	3.4	3.4	4.3
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services	4.4	4.1	4.5	3.4
Other services	3.9	4.9	4.5	6.2
Wholesale trade	3.9	2.4	3.4	2.7
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing	3.5	4.9	3.5	3.9
Information	1.8	1.5	1.7	0.9
^a U.S. Census, 2000e.

4.10.3 Effects of Implementing the SMP

Grand Lake is a popular tourist destination as well as a major recreational destination for residents from Oklahoma. Expenditures by the recreational enthusiasts, homeowners, and visitors constitute a portion of the local economy that would continue under the proposed SMP as development of the Lake continues. Similarly, the regional area may experience an increase in construction and seasonal services as development continues around the Lake. Some property owners may experience slightly lower property values of their undeveloped property if it is located adjacent to property classified as “Sensitive” under the SMC where certain development restrictions may apply.

Under GRDA’s proposed SMP, there are no set limits on development at the Lake with the exception of limits in the Sensitive Resource SMC (see Section 5.6.1). The SMP designates areas where development is more conducive due to already disturbed lands, an absence of sensitive environmental resources, and presence of lands classified as Multi-Purpose and Public/Municipal areas. Implementing GRDA’s proposed SMP is a reasonable compromise between protecting the Project’s scenic, recreational, and environmental values while also providing adequate development opportunities on Grand Lake.

4.11 Tribal Resources

4.11.1 Lands of Tribal Significance

No tribal lands are located within the Project Boundary. No cultural resources have been specifically identified as sites of traditional cultural or religious significance to any tribe. However, the Grand River valley has been occupied more or less continuously since the Paleo-Indian era, as many as 15,000 years ago. Native Americans have had a presence in the Grand River valley and in northeastern Oklahoma in general, into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Known federally recognized tribes that have expressed an interest in the Project include the Wyandotte Nation, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, the Wichita & Affiliated Tribes, the Cherokee Nation, the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma, the Cherokee Tribe, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, the Osage Tribe, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. Under the terms of Section 106 of the NHPA, the Commission would seek consultation with these tribes in any undertaking.

4.11.2 Effects of Implementing the SMP

There are no known effects of implementing the SMP on tribal resources. As described in Section 5.4.3, any archaeological and historic resources would be addressed through consultation with the SHPO, Advisory Council and appropriate Native American tribes.

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Caneday, Lowell, Brandon Neal, Susie Ruby, and Clarence Ruby. 1996. Recreation Management Plan: Grand Lake O’ The Cherokees. School of HPEL, University of Oklahoma. March, 1996.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OSB-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

EPA. 2002. 303(d) State Impaired Waters list. [Online] URL: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=OK121600030020&p_cycle=2002. (Accessed November 9, 2005).

Erickson, N.E. and D.M., Leslie Jr. 1988. Shoreline vegetation and general wildlife values around Grand Lake, Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University. Stillwater, Oklahoma. 70 pages. January 1988.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1991. Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License: Pensacola Hydro Project (FERC No. 1494-002). November 19, 1991. Accession No.: 19911205-0106.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1992. Order Issuing New License, Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494). April 24,1992. Accession No.: 19920429-0438.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1996. Order Amending License, Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494). December 3,1996. Accession No.: 19961204-3094.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1998. Order Approving Recreation Plan. August 14, 1998. Accession No.: 19980818-0333.

Gibson, A.M. 1984. The History of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press. August, 1984.

Gough, G.A., J.R. Sauer, and M. Iliff. 1998. Patuxent Bird Identification Infocenter. Version 97.1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, Maryland. [Online] URL: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/infocenter.html. (Accessed October 22, 2002).

Grand River Dam Authority. 1986. Supplemental Information, Assessment of Impact on the Gray Bat and Ozark Cavefish. Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 1494. Vinita, Oklahoma. Submitted to FERC July 1886.

Grand River Dam Authority. 1997. Grand Lake O’ The Cherokees: Recreation Management Plan. September 26, 1997.

Grand River Dam Authority. 1999. FERC Form 80 Recreation Report. March 29, 1999. Accession No.: 19990331-0208.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2002. Additional information on the application for non-project use of project lands and waters, Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494-232). Grand River Dam Authority, Vinita, OK. March 29, 2002.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2003a. Application for License for Major Project - Existing Dam, Markham Ferry Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2183-OK. June 2, 2003. Accession No.: 20030616-0371.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2003b. FERC Form 80 Recreation Report. July 14, 2003. Accession No.: 20030715-0193.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2003c. Grand River Dam Authority Pensacola Project Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management Plan. 6pp.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2004a. Article 401 Amendment Application. January 29, 2004. Accession No.: 20040130-0300.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2004b. Article 401 Amendment Application, Supplemental Information Part 2. January 29, 2004. Accession No.: 20040526-0141.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2004c. Grand River Fishing Tournament Data.

Grand River Dam Authority. 2005. Grand Lake O’ The Cherokees. [Online] URL: http://www.grda.com/Water/grand.html. (Accessed November 17, 2005; October 17, 2006).

Grove Area Chamber of Commerce, 2006. [Online] URL: http://groveok.org. (Accessed January 10, 2006).

Hoagland B.W., Buthod A.K., Butler I.H., Crawford P.H.C., Udasi A.H., Elisens W.J., and Tyrl R.J. 2004. Oklahoma Vascular Plants Database (http://geo.ou.edu/botanical), Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA.

Kletke, D. 2003. Oklahoma Land Values. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University. [Online] URL: http://agecon.okstate.edu/oklandvalues/. Site last modified January 4, 2006. (Accessed January 17, 2006).

LAUS Oklahoma -- Oklahoma Labor Market Information, Oklahoma Counties, November 2005, Released December 22, 2005. [Online] URL: http://www.oesc.state.ok.us/lmi/
LAUS/2005/Nov/Counties.htm. (Accessed January 9, 2006).

LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging Behavior and Nocturnal Activity Patterns of Missouri Bats, With Emphasis on the Endangered Species Myotis grisescens and Myotis sodalis. J. Mammal. 58:592-599.

Lish, J.W. 1987. Diet, Population Size, and Location of High Use Areas for Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Wintering on Grand Lake During January – March 1987. Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. 70 pp.

Masters, R. E. 1993. Oklahoma's Endangered and Threatened Species. Formal Extension Report No. 6. Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University. Stillwater, Oklahoma. 44pp.

Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006. [Online] URL: http://www.visitmiamiok.com. (Accessed January 10, 2006).

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001a. Field Crops in 2001, Craig County Oklahoma. [Online] URL: http://www.fedstats.gov/cgi-bin/mapstats/AgLookup?40035. (Accessed December 9, 2005).

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001b. Field Crops in 2001, Delaware County Oklahoma. [Online] URL: http://www.fedstats.gov/cgi-bin/mapstats/AgLookup?40041. (Accessed December 9, 2005).

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001c. Field Crops in 2001, Mayes County Oklahoma. [Online] URL: http://www.fedstats.gov/cgi-bin/mapstats/AgLookup?40097. (Accessed December 9, 2005).

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001d. Field Crops in 2001, Ottawa County Oklahoma. [Online] URL: http://www.fedstats.gov/cgi-bin/mapstats/AgLookup?40115. (Accessed December 9, 2005).

National Weather Service Forecast Office. 2005. Miami, Oklahoma Climatology. [Online] URL: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/climate/miami.html. (Accessed November 17, 2005).

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2005a. Census 2000 Community Profiles. [Online] URL: http://busdev3.odoc5.odoc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=1470&_dad
=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&cwr=68. (Accessed December 9, 2005).

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2005b. Census 2000 County Demographics and Population Data. [Online] URL: http://www.okcommerce.gov/index.php?
option=com_docman&task=view_category&Itemid=99&subcat=7&catid=64&limitstart=0&limit=20. (Accessed December 9, 2005).

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2005c. Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Oklahoma: April 1, 2002 to July 1, 2004, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. [Online] URL: http://staging.okcommerce.gov/test1/dmdocuments/cnty04.pdf (Accessed January 6, 2005).

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Fish Tissues Metal Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area. Final Report.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Prepared Pursuant to Section 303(d) and Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2005a. Oklahoma Reservoir Fact Sheet: Grand.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2005b. Oklahoma Information for Paddlefish Conservation Management Grant. December Report.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2005c. Spring Electrofishing Survey Results.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2005d. Fishing Restrictions on Grand Lake and the Neosho River. [Online] URL: http://www.wildlifedepartment.com
/fishregs/specialrestrict.htm. (Accessed December 5, 2005).

Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of the Environment. 2004. Comprehensive Study of the Grand Lake Watershed - 2004 Initial Report.

Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of the Environment. 2005. Comprehensive Study of the Grand Lake Watershed. Final Report. Per Senate Bill 408, 2003 Legislative Session. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 177 pgs.

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of Planning and Development. 2002. Oklahoma Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: The Public Recreation Estate (Revised 2002). Prepared for Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department by Lowell Caneday, Ph.D., Oklahoma State University. August, 2002.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OKWRB). 2005. First annual report for GRDA fish and wildlife mitigation project: feasibility study for establishing vascular aquatic plant communities in the littoral zone of Grand Lake. April 12: 35pp.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board and Oklahoma State University. 1995. Diagnostic and Feasibility Study of Grand Lake O' the Cherokees. Phase I of a Clean Lakes Project, Final Report.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1984. Oklahoma’s water atlas. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Pub. No. 120. 186pp.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2001. Oklahoma Water Watch. Grand Lake Association Chapter. Draft 1993-2001 Data Summary.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2004. 2004 Report of the Oklahoma Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP). Lake Sampling, 2003-2004 Draft Final Report.

Polite, C. and J. Pratt. 2002. Bald Eagle. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. [Online] URL: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/B113.html. (Accessed October 15).

Pryor Area Chamber of Commerce, 2006. [Online] URL: http://www.pryorok.com. (Accessed January 10, 2006).

Stancill, W.J., D.M. Leslie, Jr., and R.F. Raskevitz. 1989. Waterfowl Production on Grand Lake and Associated Wetlands in Northeastern Oklahoma. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 69:33-37.

Stancill, W.J., S.B. Haggard, R.F. Raskevitz, and D.M. Leslie Jr. 1988. Waterfowl Use and Hunting Opportunities on Grand Lake and Ancillary Wetlands. 97

Tuttle, M.D. 1976. Population Ecology of the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens): Factors Influencing Growth and Survival of Newly Volant Young. Ecology. 57:587-595.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. 2nd Edition. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Montana Projects Office. Billings, Montana.

U.S. Census. 1990a. Craig County General Population and Housing Characteristics, 1990.

U.S. Census. 1990b. Delaware County General Population and Housing Characteristics, 1990.

U.S. Census. 1990c. Mayes County General Population and Housing Characteristics, 1990.

U.S. Census. 1990d. Ottawa County General Population and Housing Characteristics, 1990.

U.S. Census. 2000b. Delaware County General Demographic Characteristics, 2000.

U.S. Census. 2000c. Mayes County General Demographic Characteristics, 2000.

U.S. Census. 2000d. Ottawa County General Demographic Characteristics, 2000.

U.S. Census. 2000e. Oklahoma Demographic Characteristics, 2000. [Online] URL: http://www.okcommerce.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=view_category&Itemid=99&subcat=7&catid=64&limitstart=0&limit=20. (Accessed January 9, 2006).

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Response to project (P-1494-224) Thunder Bay Marina expansion. Albuquerque, New Mexico. October 11, 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the Gray Bat Recovery Team. Atlanta, Georgia. 91 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Ozark Cavefish Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 15 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Refuge Expansion Environmental Assessment. 100pp.

US Census. 2000a. Craig County General Demographic Characteristics, 2000.

Vinita Oklahoma Area Chamber of Commerce, 2006. [Online] URL: http://www.vinita.com. (Accessed January 10, 2006).

Wagner, Steve. 1992. The prehistoric paddlefish. Outdoor Oklahoma. March/April. [Online] http://www.nativefish.org/articles/Pre_paddlefish.php. (Accessed November 17, 2005).

Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. 2005. The Grand (Neosho) River. [Online] URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neosho_River. (Accessed November 17, 2005).

Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Butler, D.R., Ford, J.G., Henley, J.E., Hoagland, B.W., Arndt, D.S., and Moran, B.C. 2005. Ecoregions of Oklahoma (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,250,000).

Table 5.3.3-1: Botanical Species Typical of the Grand Lake Vicinity

FAMILY	SCIENTIFIC NAME	COMMON NAME
Acanthaceae	Dicliptera brachiata	branched foldwing
	Justicia americana	American water-willow
Aceraceae	Acer negundo	boxelder
	Acer rubrum	red maple
	Acer saccharinum	silver maple
	Acer saccharum	sugar maple
Alismataceae	Alisma subcordatum	American water plantain
	Sagittaria ambigua	Kansas arrowhead
	Sagittaria calycina	hooded arrowhead
Anacardiaceae	Rhus aromatica	fragrant sumac
	Rhus lanceolata	prairie sumac
Annonaceae	Asimina triloba	pawpaw
Apiaceae	Bifora americana	prairie bishop
	Oxypolis rigidior	stiff cowbane
	Polytaenia nuttallii	Nuttall's prairie parsley
Aquifoliaceae	Ilex decidua	possumhaw
Araceae	Arisaema dracontium	green dragon
	Arisaema triphyllum	Jack in the pulpit
Asclepiadaceae	Asclepiasspp.	milkweed
Asteraceae	Achillea millefolium	common yarrow
	Helianthus petiolaris	prairie sunflower
	Ratibida pinnata	pinnate prairie coneflower
	Rudbeckia hirta	blackeyed Susan
	Rudbeckia laciniata var laciniata	cutleaf coneflower
	Symphyotrichum turbinellum	smooth violet prairie aster
Balsaminaceae	Impatiens capensis	jewelweed
Berberidaceae	Podophyllum peltatum	mayapple
Betulaceae	Betula nigra	river birch
	Corylus americana	American hazelnut
	Ostrya virginiana	hophornbeam
Bignoniaceae	Campsis radicans	trumpet creeper
	Catalpa bignonioides	southern catalpa
	Catalpa speciosa	northern catalpa
Caprifoliaceae	Lonicera flava	yellow honeysuckle
	Sambucus nigra	common elderberry
Cornaceae	Cornus drummondii	roughleaf dogwood
	Cornus florida	flowering dogwood
Cupressaceae	Juniperus virginiana	eastern redcedar
Cyperaceae	Carex aggregata	glomerate sedge
	Carex granularis var granularis	limestone meadow sedge
	Carex oklahomensis	Oklahoma sedge
	Cyperus pseudovegetus	marsh flatsedge
	Eleocharis palustris	common spikerush
	Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani	softstem bulrush
	Scirpus atrovirens	green bulrush
Dryopteridaceae	Cystopteris fragilis	brittle bladderfern
	Woodsia obtusa	bluntlobe cliff fern
Fabaceae	Albizia julibrissin	silktree
	Gleditsia triacanthos	honeylocust
	Glycine max	soybean
	Medicago spp.	Alfalfa hay
	Robinia pseudoacacia	black locust
Fagaceae	Quercus alba	white oak
	Quercus falcata	southern red oak
	Quercus macrocarpa	bur oak
	Quercus marilandica	blackjack oak
	Quercus muehlenbergii	chinkapin oak
	Quercus palustris	pin oak
	Quercus rubra	northern red oak
	Quercus shumardii	Shumard's oak
	Quercus stellata	post oak
	Quercus velutina	black oak
Juglandaceae	Carya spp.	hickory
	Carya alba	mockernut hickory
	Carya cordiformis	bitternut hickory
	Carya illinoinensis	pecan
	Carya laciniosa	shellbark hickory
	Carya ovalis	red hickory
	Carya texana	black hickory
	Juglans nigra	black walnut
Juncaceae	Juncus acuminatus	tapertip rush
	Juncus effusus	common rush
	Juncus marginatus	grassleaf rush
Lamiaceae	Agastache nepetoides	yellow giant hyssop
	Mentha spicata	spearmint
	Mentha X piperita	peppermint
	Salvia azurea var grandiflora	pitcher sage
	Scutellaria incana	hoary skullcap
Lauraceae	Lindera benzoin	northern spicebush
	Sassafras albidum	sassafras
Moraceae	Maclura pomifera	osage orange
	Morus alba	white mulberry
	Morus rubra	red mulberry
Nelumbonaceae	Nelumbo lutea	American lotus
Nymphaeaceae	Nymphaea odorata	American white waterlily
Nyssaceae	Nyssa sylvatica	blackgum
Oleaceae	Forestiera acuminata	eastern swampprivet
	Fraxinus americana	white ash
	Fraxinus pennsylvanica	green ash
Onagraceae	Circaea lutetiana	broadleaf enchanter's nightshade
	Ludwigia alternifolia	seedbox
	Ludwigia palustris	marsh seedbox
	Oenothera biennis	common evening-primrose
Ophioglossaceae	Botrychium virginianum	rattlesnake fern
Orchidaceae	Calopogon oklahomensis	Oklahoma grasspink
	Calopogon tuberosus var tuberosus	tuberous grasspink
Phytolaccaceae	Phytolacca americana	American pokeweed
Pinaceae	Pinus echinata	shortleaf pine
Plantaginaceae	Plantago aristata	largebracted plantain
	Plantago major	common plantain
Poaceae	Aegilops cylindrica	jointed goatgrass
	Andropogon gerardii	big bluestem
	Andropogon saccharoides	silver bluestem
	Andropogon ternarius	splitbeard bluestem
	Andropogon virginicus	broomsedge bluestem
	Aristida oligantha	prairie threeawn
	Panicum virgatum	switchgrass
	Schizachyrium scoparium	little bluestem
	Setaria parviflora	marsh bristlegrass
	Sorghastrum nutans	Indiangrass
	Sorghum spp.	Sorghum
	Spartina pectinata	prairie cordgrass
	Sphenopholis obtusata	prairie wedgescale
	Tripsacum dactyloides	eastern gamagrass
	Triticum aestivum	common wheat
	Vulpia octoflora	sixweeks fescue
Polemoniaceae	Phlox divaricata	wild blue phlox
Polygalaceae	Polygala incarnata	procession flower
	Polygala sanguinea	purple milkwort
Polygonaceae	Polygonum aviculare	prostrate knotweed
	Polygonum hydropiper	marshpepper knotweed
	Polygonum hydropiperoides	swamp smartweed
	Rumex acetosella	common sheep sorrel
	Rumex obtusifolius	bitter dock
Portulacaceae	Claytonia virginica	Virginia springbeauty
	Portulaca oleracea	little hogweed
Potamogetonaceae	Potamogeton diversifolius	waterthread pondweed
Primulaceae	Androsace occidentalis	western rockjasmine
	Dodecatheon meadia	pride of Ohio
	Lysimachia ciliata	fringed loosestrife
Pteridaceae	Adiantum pedatum	northern maidenhair
	Argyrochosma dealbata	powdery false cloak fern
	Pellaea wrightiana	Wright's cliffbrake
Ranunculaceae	Anemone caroliniana	Carolina anemone
	Anemone virginiana	tall thimbleweed
	Aquilegia canadensis	red columbine
	Clematis catesbyana	satincurls
	Clematis versicolor	pale leather flower
	Ranunculus fascicularis	early buttercup
	Ranunculus hispidus	bristly buttercup
Rhamnaceae	Ceanothus americanus	New Jersey tea
	Frangula caroliniana	Carolina buckthorn
Rosaceae	Agrimonia pubescens	soft agrimony
	Amelanchier arborea	common serviceberry
	Crataegus coccinioides	Kansas hawthorn
	Crataegus mollis	Arnold hawthorn
	Malus ioensis	prairie crabapple
	Prunus americana	American plum
	Prunus serotina	black cherry
	Rosa foliolosa	white prairie rose
	Rosa multiflora	multiflora rose
	Rubus spp.	blackberry
Rubiaceae	Cephalanthus occidentalis	common buttonbush
	Diodia virginiana	Virginia buttonweed
	Galium aparine	stickywilly
	Galium concinnum	shining bedstraw
Rutaceae	Ptelea trifoliata	common hoptree
Salicaceae	Salix caroliniana	coastal plain willow
	Salix humilis var humilis	prairie willow
	Salix nigra	black willow
Scrophulariaceae	Agalinis gattingeri	roundstem false foxglove
	Agalinis heterophylla	prairie false foxglove
	Bacopa rotundifolia	disk waterhyssop
	Buchnera americana	American bluehearts
	Castilleja coccinea	scarlet Indian paintbrush
	Collinsia violacea	violet blue eyed Mary
	Linaria vulgaris	butter and eggs
	Lindernia dubia	yellowseed false pimpernel
	Mimulus alatus	sharpwing monkeyflower
Smilacaceae	Smilax bona-nox	saw greenbrier
	Smilax glauca	cat greenbrier
Tiliaceae	Tilia americana	American basswood
Typhaceae	Typha angustifolia	narrowleaf cattail
	Typha latifolia	broadleaf cattail
Ulmaceae	Celtis laevigata	sugarberry
	Celtis laevigata var reticulata	netleaf hackberry
	Celtis occidentalis	common hackberry
	Celtis tenuifolia	dwarf hackberry
	Ulmus alata	winged elm
	Ulmus americana	American elm
	Ulmus rubra	slippery elm
Urticaceae	Boehmeria cylindrica	smallspike false nettle
	Urtica dioica	stinging nettle
Verbenaceae	Phryma leptostachya	American lopseed
	Verbena hastata	swamp verbena
Violaceae	Hybanthus concolor	eastern greenviolet
	Viola sagittata	arrowleaf violet
	Viola sororia	common blue violet
Vitaceae	Ampelopsis cordata	heartleaf peppervine
	Parthenocissus quinquefolia	Virginia creeper
	Vitis vulpina	frost grape

(Source: Hoagland et al., 2004)

[1] The 503 miles of shoreline within the Project Boundary is referenced from GRDA’s GIS system used to develop the SMP. Traditionally, GRDA has used an estimate of 1200miles of shoreline based upon original surveys and metes and bounds descriptions of GRDA’s properties at Grand Lake.

[2] 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.

[3] The elevation 750 feet PD is identified as the approximate Project boundary. The real boundary is described by a metes and bounds description. A legal survey should be consulted for any detailed work or for identifying activities on a specific parcel.

[4] Referred to as Bottomland or Floodplain Forests in Erickson and Leslie, 1988.

[5] Between elevations 742 and 755 PD; See Erickson and Leslie, 1988.

[6] FERC defines “recreation day” as each visit by a person to a development for recreational purposes during any portion of a 24 hour period.

[7] The elevation 750 feet PD is identified as the approximate project boundary. The real boundary is described by a metes and bounds description. A legal survey should be consulted for any detailed work or for identifying activities on a specific parcel.

AGENCY/STAKEHOLDER	DATE FILED
INSERT LIST OF AGENCIES	INSERT DATES FILED

PERIOD	RESERVOIR ELEVATION
May 1 – May 31	Spring fill - Raise elevation from 742 to 744 feet PD
Jun 1 – Jul 31	Elevation 744 feet PD
Aug 1 – Aug 15	First summer drawdown - Lower elevation from 744 to 743 feet PD
Aug 16 – Aug 31	Second summer drawdown - Lower elevation from 743 to 741 feet PD
Sep 1 – Oct 15	Elevation at 741 feet PD
Oct 16 – Oct 31	Fall fill - Raise elevation from 741 to 742 feet PD
Nov 1 – Apr 30	Elevation at 742 feet PD

LAND USE	PERCENT OF TOTAL LAND USE
Commercial and Services	0.3%
Cropland and Pasture	35.0%
Deciduous Forest Land	49.1%
Mixed Urban or Developed	0.7%
Non-forested Wetland	0.4%
Other Agricultural Land	0.0%
Other Urban or Developed	0.1%
Residential	9.3%
Streams and Canals	4.4%
Transportation, Commercial, and Utilities	0.2%
Transitional Areas	0.5%

1.0 Proposed action and PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

3.1 General Locale

3.2 Pensacola Project

4.2.2.2 Seasonal Target Lake Elevations

4.3.1 Fish and Aquatic Species

4.6 Land Uses and Aesthetics

4.10 Socioeconomics