Document ID: FERC-2017-0055-0001
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Notice
Title: Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Grand River Dam Authority
Posted Date: 2017-01-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3766-3788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00566]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1494-437; Oklahoma]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory

[[Page 3767]]

Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed 
an application filed by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) to 
permanently amend the reservoir elevation rule curve contained in 
Article 401 of the license for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project No. 
1494. The amendment would allow GRDA to keep water levels in the 
project's reservoir, Grand Lake O' the Cherokees (Grand Lake), up to 
two feet higher August 16 through October 31 each year. The project is 
located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and 
Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
    Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for the 
application which analyzes the potential environmental effects of 
approving the requested permanent change to the Article 401 rule curve 
and concludes that such an approval, with specified environmental 
protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that 
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission's 
Public Reference Room or may it be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number P-
1494 in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free 
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.
    You may register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    Any comments on the draft EA should be filed by February 6, 2017. 
Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can also 
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior 
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information 
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online 
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, 
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail a paper copy to: 
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing 
should include the docket number P-1494-437.
    For further information, contact B. Peter Yarrington at (202) 502-
6129 or peter.yarrington@ferc.gov, or contact Jeremy Jessup at (202) 
502-6779 or Jeremy.jessup@ferc.gov.

    Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[[Page 3768]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JA17.035

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C

[[Page 3769]]

Table of Contents

 
 
 
List of Figures.........................................              iv
List of Tables..........................................              iv
Acronyms................................................               v
1.0 Application.........................................               1
2.0 Purpose of Action and Need for Power................               1
3.0 Background..........................................               2
    3.1 Pensacola Project Description...................               2
    3.2 Project Operation and Article 401 Rule Curve....               4
4.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives....................               5
    4.1 Proposed Action.................................               5
        4.1.1 Rule Curve Modification...................               6
        4.1.2 Storm Adaptive Management Plan............               7
        4.1.3 Drought Adaptive Management Plan..........               8
    4.2 Other Action Alternatives.......................               9
    4.3 No-Action Alternative...........................              10
5.0 Consultation and Compliance.........................              10
    5.1 Background and GRDA's Pre-Filing Consultation...              10
    5.2 Responses to Commission's Additional Information              11
     Request............................................
    5.3 Public Notice and Responses.....................              11
    5.4 Comments on Flooding and the Scope of this                    16
     Environmental Assessment...........................
    5.5 Government-to-Government Consultation...........              17
    5.6 Statutory Compliance............................              17
        5.6.1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification...              17
        5.6.2 Endangered Species Act....................              18
        5.6.3 National Historic Preservation Act........              18
6.0 Environmental Analysis..............................              19
    6.1 Scope of the Analysis...........................              19
    6.2 General Description of the Project Area.........              19
    6.3 Geology and Soils...............................              19
        6.3.1 Affected Environment......................              19
        6.3.2 Environmental Effects.....................              20
    6.4 Water Quantity and Flows........................              20
        6.4.1 Affected Environment......................              20
        6.4.2 Environmental Effects.....................              22
    6.5 Water Quality...................................              28
        6.5.1 Affected Environment......................              28
        6.5.2 Environmental Effects.....................              30
    6.6 Fisheries and Other Aquatic Resources...........              31
        6.6.1 Affected Environment......................              31
        6.6.2 Environmental Effects.....................              33
    6.7 Terrestrial Resources...........................              34
        6.7.1 Affected Environment......................              34
        6.7.2 Environmental Effects.....................              36
    6.8 Wetlands and Riparian Resources.................              36
        6.8.1 Existing Environment......................              36
        6.8.2 Environmental Effects.....................              37
    6.9 Threatened and Endangered Species...............              37
        6.9.1 Existing Environment......................              37
        6.9.2 Environmental Effects.....................              38
    6.10 Cultural and Historic Resources................              39
        6.10.1 Existing Environment.....................              39
        6.10.2 Environmental Effects....................              39
    6.11 Recreation.....................................              41
        6.11.1 Affected Environment.....................              41
        6.11.2 Environmental Effects....................              42
    6.12 Land Use and Aesthetics........................              43
        6.12.1 Affected Environment.....................              43
        6.12.2 Environmental Effects....................              43
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.....................              44
    7.1 Comprehensive Development and Staff-Recommended               44
     Measures...........................................
        7.1.1 Staff-Recommended Measures................              46
    7.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans............              47
8.0 Finding of No Significant Impact....................              47
9.0 Literature Cited....................................              48
10.0 List of Preparers..................................              49
 

List of Figures

 
 
 
Figure 1. Location Map of the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project          3
Figure 2. Proposed Changes to Article 401 Reservoir Rule               6
 Curve Elevations............................................
 

[[Page 3770]]

List of Tables

 
 
 
Table 1. Responses to Public Notice of GRDA's Amendment               11
 Application.................................................
Table 2. Grand Lake Elevation and Surface Area...............         21
 

Acronyms

ACER U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 
Assistant Commissioner, Engineering and Research Technical 
Memorandum No. 11
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
[deg]C degrees Celsius
cfs cubic feet per second
CWA Clean Water Act
Commission or FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Drought Plan Drought Adaptive Management Plan
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
EAP Emergency Action Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS Geographic Information System
Grand Lake Grand Lake O' the Cherokees
GRDA Grand River Dam Authority; licensee
HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan
incremental increase change in water surface elevation under 
proposed amendment
Interior Department of the Interior
mg/l milligrams/liter
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Oklahoma AS Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
Oklahoma DEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma DWC Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma WRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma SHPO Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer
PD Pensacola Datum; PD is 1.07 feet higher than NGVD
Storm Plan Storm Adaptive Management Plan
Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 401 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 7 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
401 certification Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of 
the Clean Water Act

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Office of Energy Projects; 
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance; Washington, DC

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project; FERC No. 1494-437

1.0 Application

    Application Type: Amendment of Article 401 reservoir elevation rule 
curve.
    Date Filed: May 6, 2016, supplemented June 2, 2016, and June 30, 
2016.
    Applicant's Name: Grand River Dam Authority.
    Water Body: Neosho (Grand) River.
    County and State: Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties, 
Oklahoma.
    Federal Lands: The project does not occupy any federal lands.

2.0 Purpose of Action and Need for Power

    Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), licensee for the Pensacola 
Hydroelectric Project, requests a permanent amendment of the reservoir 
operating rule curve stipulated in Article 401 of the project 
license.\1\ The Article 401 rule curve specifies seasonal water surface 
elevations that are to be targeted at the project reservoir (Grand 
Lake) during project operation. GRDA's request involves changes to the 
rule curve during the period of August 16 through October 31 to reduce 
the risk of vessel groundings in late summer, improve recreation during 
the summer/fall peak recreation season and provide storage of 
additional water to assist in making releases for maintenance of 
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the river downstream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its request, GRDA also asked that, if the Commission 
could not process its permanent amendment by August 15, 2016, that 
it be granted a temporary variance for the period of August 15, 
2016, through October 31, 2016, while the Commission processed its 
request for a permanent amendment. A temporary variance for 2016 was 
granted in an order issued August 12, 2016. Grand River Dam 
Authority,156 FERC ] 61,106 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.0 Background

3.1 Pensacola Project Description

    The Commission issued a license for the Pensacola Project to GRDA 
on April 24, 1992.\2\ The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) 
River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties, Oklahoma (Figure 
1). Features of the Pensacola Project include: (1) A reinforced-
concrete dam consisting of a 4,284-foot-long multiple arch section, an 
861-foot-long spillway containing 21 Tainter or radial gates, a 451-
foot-long non-overflow gravity section, and two non-overflow abutments, 
comprising an overall length of 5,950 feet and maximum height of 147 
feet; (2) two auxiliary spillways about one mile east of the dam, a 
505-foot-long concrete gravity middle spillway containing 11 Tainter 
gates and a 464-foot-long concrete gravity east spillway containing 10 
Tainter gates; (3) a reservoir known as Grand Lake O' the Cherokees 
(Grand Lake) having a surface area of 46,500 acres and a storage 
capacity of 1,680,000 acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 745 
feet Pensacola Datum (PD); \3\ (4) six 15-foot-diameter and one 3-foot-
diameter steel penstocks supplying flow to six turbine-generators of 
14.4-megawatt capacity each and one turbine-generator of 500-kilowatt 
capacity located in a powerhouse immediately below the dam; (5) a 
tailrace about 300 feet wide and a spillway channel about 850 feet 
wide, both about 1.5 miles long; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The project was originally licensed in 1939 and was 
relicensed in 1992. Grand River Dam Authority, 59 FERC ] 62,073 
(1992).
    \3\ Pensacola Datum (PD) is 1.07 feet higher than National 
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) which is a national standard for 
measuring elevations above sea level. Elevations discussed in this 
EA are in PD values unless otherwise stated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3771]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JA17.036

[[Page 3772]]

3.2 Project Operation and Article 401 Rule Curve

    Grand Lake is used for multiple purposes including power 
generation, recreation, wildlife enhancement, and flood control. 
Dedicated flood storage (the flood pool) is provided between elevations 
745 and 755 feet. When reservoir elevations are within the limits of 
the flood pool, the Tulsa District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) directs water releases from the dam under the terms of a 1992 
Letter of Understanding and Water Control Agreement between the Corps 
and GRDA that addresses flooding both upstream and downstream of Grand 
Lake.
    When reservoir elevations are below the limits of the flood pool, 
GRDA operates the project pursuant to Article 401 of the project 
license, as amended in an order issued December 3, 1996.\4\ Article 401 
requires GRDA to operate the project to maintain, to the extent 
practicable, the following target reservoir surface elevations (the set 
of elevations known as a rule curve), except as necessary for the Corps 
to provide flood protection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Grand River Dam Authority, 77 FERC ] 61,251 (1996).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Period                               Reservoir elevation, in feet  (Pensacola datum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1 through May 31............................  Raise elevation from 742 to 744.
June 1 through July 31..........................  Maintain elevation at 744.
August 1 through August 15......................  Lower elevation from 744 to 743.
August 16 through August 31.....................  Lower elevation from 743 to 741.
September 1 through October 15..................  Maintain elevation at 741.
October 16 through October 31...................  Raise elevation from 741 to 742.
November 1 through April 30.....................  Maintain elevation at 742.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since issuance of the 1996 order, GRDA has filed eight requests for 
either temporary variances from, or permanent amendments of, the 
elevations specified in the Article 401 rule curve. Six of those 
applications were withdrawn by GRDA, denied, or dismissed by the 
Commission.\5\ In July 2012, GRDA filed an application for a temporary 
variance so that it could operate the project to vary from the rule 
curve in late summer and early fall in order to alleviate effects of an 
ongoing regional drought. That application was approved in an order 
issued August 15, 2012.\6\ In July 2015, GRDA applied for a temporary 
variance primarily to enhance recreational boating in late summer and 
early fall. That application, which involved the same changes to the 
rule curve elevations being requested in this proceeding, was approved 
in an order issued August 14, 2015.\7\ As referenced above, a temporary 
variance for late summer and early fall 2016 was granted August 12, 
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See June 26, 2015, Commission staff letter dismissing, for 
lack of adequate information, May 28, 2015 request for temporary 
variance to enhance recreational boating and tailwater dissolved 
oxygen management; July 3, 2013 Commission order denying March 20, 
2013 request for temporary variance based on drought forecasts, 
Grand River Dam Authority, 144 FERC ] 61,007 (2013), and August 2, 
2013 letter denying request for reconsideration; July 25, 2011 
Commission staff letter dismissing, for lack of adequate 
information, April 6, 2011 request for a temporary (two-year) 
variance to enhance recreational boating; April 4, 2006 Commission 
staff letter denying March 13, 2006 request for temporary variance 
to respond to drought conditions, on basis that variance not 
warranted based on forecasted conditions; June 17, 2004 letter from 
GRDA withdrawing January 26, 2004 request to permanently amend 
Article 401 rule curve to enhance recreation, water quality, and 
wildlife habitat; and August 16, 1999 letter from GRDA withdrawing 
June 2, 1999 request for temporary variance (for calendar year 1999) 
to allow for alternative plan for millet seeding.
    \6\ Grand River Dam Authority, 140 FERC ] 62,123 (2012).
    \7\ Grand River Dam Authority, 152 FERC ] 61,129 (2015) (August 
14, 2015 order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

4.1 Proposed Action

    GRDA requests a permanent amendment of the Pensacola Project's 
Article 401 rule curve that would be followed each year through the 
remainder of the current license period.\8\ GRDA seeks the rule curve 
change to reduce the risk of vessel grounding at Grand Lake in late 
summer, improve recreation during the summer/fall peak recreation 
season, better balance competing stakeholder interests, and provide 
additional water storage, if necessary, to assist in maintaining DO 
concentrations in the tailrace and river below the project, and below 
its Markham Ferry Project (No. 2183), located immediately 
downstream.\9\ GRDA's proposal also includes a Storm Adaptive 
Management Plan (Storm Plan) and a Drought Adaptive Management Plan 
(Drought Plan), which provide frameworks for communication and 
operational decision-making when major weather events may affect GRDA's 
ability to target elevations on the rule curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The current license for the Pensacola Project expires in 
April 2022.
    \9\ In addition to the temporary variance granted in 2016, in a 
separate proceeding in 2015, the Commission granted the same 
temporary variance for the period of August 15, 2015 through October 
31, 2015. Grand River Dam Authority, 152 FERC ] 61,129 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.1.1 Rule Curve Modification
    Under GRDA's proposal, the Pensacola Project's Article 401 rule 
curve would be permanently amended for the remainder of the current 
license period. The elevations along the rule curve would only be 
changed for the period of August 16 through October 31. Between August 
16 and September 15 each year, the project would be operated to target 
an elevation of 743 feet, which is up to two feet higher than the 
current rule curve. Between September 16 and September 30, the 
elevation target would be lowered from 743 to 742 feet. Between October 
1 and October 31, operation would target an elevation of 742 feet, 
which is up to one foot higher than the current rule curve. After 
October 31, reservoir elevations would follow the project's existing 
rule curve. GRDA would operate the project to target the elevations 
along the rule curve at all times, except as provided by the Storm Plan 
or the Drought Plan, or as necessary for the Corps to provide flood 
protection. GRDA's proposed rule curve change is shown in Figure 2.

[[Page 3773]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JA17.037

4.1.2 Storm Adaptive Management Plan
    As part of its permanent amendment request, GRDA proposes to 
implement a Storm Plan that would be used year-round in anticipation of 
and during major precipitation events within the Grand/Neosho River 
basin that might result in high water conditions upstream or downstream 
of Grand Lake. A Storm Plan was in place during the 2015 and 2016 
temporary variance periods. During the 2015 temporary variance period, 
weekly conference calls between all participants took place to keep all 
participants informed of potential flood conditions in the river basin. 
Based on the success of the weekly calls in 2015 and discussions during 
the December 2015 technical conference,\10\ the Storm Plan GRDA 
includes in its permanent amendment request includes year-round 
monitoring, with activation of the Storm Plan notifications and 
conference calls at any time during the year when there is a 
probability of high water conditions in the Grand/Neosho River basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Technical Conference was held at the University of 
Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma on December 16, 2015, which included 
GRDA staff, FERC staff, resource agencies, local government 
entities, and Tribes to discuss modeling needs related to the rule 
curve amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Storm Plan, GRDA would review, at a minimum, on a 
daily basis the following information: (1) Weather forecasts in the 
watershed; (2) Grand Lake surface elevation data; (3) data from the 
USGS gages upstream and downstream of the project; (4) surface 
elevations at the Corps' upstream John Redmond flood control reservoir 
and downstream Lake Hudson (part of GRDA's Markham Ferry Project); and 
(5) other relevant information affecting surface elevations at Grand 
Lake during the potential flood period.
    If GRDA's daily review of the information indicates a probability 
of high water conditions in the Grand/Neosho River basin in the 
vicinity of the project, GRDA would immediately provide the information 
to federal and state resource agencies, local government officials, 
Commission staff, Tribes, and other interested stakeholders.\11\ In 
conjunction with the distribution of the information, GRDA would also 
schedule a conference call. Prior to the conference call, GRDA would 
consult with the Corps to determine whether any reservoir management 
actions could be taken to avoid, reduce, or minimize high water levels 
upstream or downstream of the project. During the conference call, GRDA 
would then notify the participants of any proposal to take action. 
Participants will then have an opportunity during the teleconference to 
explore alternative solutions to respond to the forecasted high-flow 
event, recognizing the Corps' jurisdiction to direct flood control 
releases for

[[Page 3774]]

purposes of flood risk management once the reservoir elevation is 
forecasted to exceed a flood pool elevation of 745 feet. GRDA would 
continue regular communications with all participants during each event 
in order to keep them informed of prevailing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Storm Plan contact list includes: GRDA; the Commission; 
Corps; National Weather Service, Tulsa Forecast Office; Oklahoma 
Secretary of Energy and Environment; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 
Conservation; Oklahoma Water Resources Board; Oklahoma Office of 
Emergency Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; City of Miami; 
Ottawa County Office of the County Commissioner; Ottawa County 
Emergency Management; Modoc Tribe; United Keetoowah Band of 
Cherokees; Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Oklahoma State Historic 
Preservation Office; and Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GRDA notes that, although the protocols contained in the Storm Plan 
are separate and distinct from the protocols in its Emergency Action 
Plan (EAP) for the project, the Storm Plan complements the EAP and 
involves many of the same entities. According to the Storm Plan, if the 
EAP is triggered, the communication protocols in the EAP would 
supersede those included in the Storm Plan until the emergency is 
resolved.
    The Storm Plan also includes provisions regarding historic 
properties in the project area that could be adversely affected by high 
water levels. As discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and Historic 
Resources, the plan specifies that, if the Oklahoma State Historic 
Preservation Office (Oklahoma SHPO) concludes that any actions to 
address high water levels at Grand Lake would adversely affect any 
archaeological site or other cultural resource in the project area, 
GRDA would consult with the Oklahoma SHPO to develop a site-specific 
plan for protection or mitigation of the site. The plan also includes a 
provision for the unanticipated discovery of unidentified burial sites 
in the project area.
4.1.3 Drought Adaptive Management Plan
    As part of its permanent amendment request, GRDA would institute 
its proposed Drought Plan during any period in which the National 
Drought Mitigation Center's (NDMC) U.S. Drought Monitor identifies a 
severe to exceptional drought within the Grand/Neosho River basin. The 
plan would help guide project operations and flow releases during 
drought conditions. It's the same plan used in 2016 and is similar to 
the plan used in 2015. As noted earlier, GRDA must maintain DO 
concentrations below the Pensacola Project and below its downstream 
Markham Ferry Project. GRDA states that, during periods of drought, 
adherence to the Article 401 rule curve could prevent it from releasing 
water necessary to maintain DO concentrations in these areas. Adherence 
to the rule curve could also prevent it from maintaining reservoir 
elevations in the Markham Ferry Project's Lake Hudson, which are 
necessary to operate GRDA's Salina Pumped Storage Project (No. 2524) as 
well as meeting other water supply needs.
    Under the plan, GRDA would monitor information from the NDMC's U.S. 
Drought Monitor and information from other generally accepted sources 
of drought information applicable to the basin. Based on this 
information, if GRDA determines that drought conditions appear 
imminent, GRDA would begin weekly teleconferences with, in general, the 
same federal and state resource agencies, local government officials, 
Commission staff, Indian Tribes, and other interested stakeholders GRDA 
intends to consult with under the Storm Plan.\12\ In the 
teleconferences, GRDA would keep these parties informed of prevailing 
conditions and any plans to begin additional releases in the event the 
NDMC U.S. Drought Monitor declares a severe to exceptional drought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The only participant not listed for both plans is the 
National Weather Service, Tulsa Forecast Office, which is only 
included in the Storm Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the plan, if the NMDC U.S. Drought Monitor declares a severe 
to exceptional drought for the Grand/Neosho River basin, GRDA may, at 
its discretion and based on input received during the weekly 
teleconferences, commence additional releases from Pensacola Dam, 
regardless of the prevailing levels at Grand Lake and Article 401 rule 
curve target elevations. Such releases would not exceed a rate equal to 
0.06 feet of reservoir elevation per day, which is equivalent to 
approximately 837 cubic feet per second (cfs) per hour over a 24-hour 
period.
    During the drought, GRDA would conduct weekly teleconferences to 
discuss project operations and would address the following issues in 
each teleconference: (1) Current and forecasted drought conditions and 
planned project operation; (2) maintenance of water levels and flows 
sufficient to maintain downstream DO concentrations for water quality 
and to prevent fish kills; (3) maintenance of reservoir elevations at 
the Markham Ferry Project's Lake Hudson sufficient to operate its 
Salina Pumped Storage Project for system reliability; and (4) based on 
available information, when the severe to exceptional drought period is 
expected to end. When severe to exceptional drought conditions are 
over, GRDA would cease releases under the plan, return to operating the 
project to target Article 401 rule curve elevations, and notify federal 
and state resource agencies and other stakeholders involved in the 
teleconference.

4.2 Other Action Alternatives

    No reasonable action alternatives to GRDA's proposal have been 
presented by GRDA, identified by Commission staff, or suggested by 
entities commenting in this proceeding.

4.3 No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, GRDA's request to permanently 
amend the Pensacola Project's Article 401 rule curve would be denied. 
GRDA would therefore continue to operate the project to target 
elevations along the current rule curve, except as directed by the 
Corps for flood control, for the remainder of the current license 
period. Also, GRDA's Storm and Drought Plans would not be approved by 
the Commission. Environmental resources in the project area would 
remain the same as they are initially described in Environmental 
Analysis below.

5.0 Consultation and Compliance

5.1 Background and GRDA's Pre-Filing Consultation

    GRDA's pre-filing consultation included both its application for a 
permanent amendment to the Article 401 rule curve and its request for a 
temporary variance for 2016. GRDA distributed a draft of its 
application to federal and state resource agencies, Indian Tribes, 
local governmental authorities, and interested members of the public on 
March 15, 2016. On that same day, GRDA filed a request to shorten the 
normal 60-day pre-filing comment period to 30 days to help expedite 
processing. The Commission approved a reduced pre-filing comment period 
on April 5, 2016.
    GRDA received comments on the draft application from the Delaware 
County Floodplain Administration, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board 
(Oklahoma WRB), the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 
(Oklahoma DWC), the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, the City of Miami, 
Oklahoma (City of Miami), plaintiffs in two civil cases,\13\ Mr. N. 
Larry Bork (on behalf of citizens and businesses located in Ottawa 
County, Oklahoma), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the 
Oklahoma SHPO. GRDA included copies of these comments and addressed 
them in a comment/response table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The two cases are City of Miami v. GRDA, Case No. CJ-08-690 
(Okla. Dist. Ct.) and Asbell, et al. v. GRDA, Case No. CJ-01-381 
(Okla. Dist. Ct.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Substantive issues raised in pre-filing consultation included: (1) 
The extent and frequency of flooding of upstream areas and 
interpretation of recent flood studies; (2) progress in recent

[[Page 3775]]

consultation between resource agencies and GRDA on mitigation for fish 
and wildlife under the current rule curve; and (3) protection of 
historic properties and archaeological sites. Almost all of the issues 
raised in pre-filing consultation were relevant to a permanent rule 
curve change and almost all were repeated in the responses to the 
Commission's public notice of GRDA's final application, as described 
below. All substantive issues raised in pre-filing consultation are 
treated in the resource sections of this environmental assessment (EA).
    GRDA also included in its application a summary report on a 
hydraulic modeling technical conference held December 16, 2015, at the 
University of Oklahoma, and copies of letters from the University of 
Oklahoma and the Corps regarding recent flood studies relative to the 
amendment request.

5.2 Responses to Commission's Additional Information Request

    On May 18, 2016, Commission staff issued a letter asking GRDA to 
provide additional information regarding fisheries and aquatic 
resources and the results of flooding studies on property and 
structures. GRDA filed additional information on these issues on June 2 
and 30, 2016, respectively.

5.3 Public Notice and Responses

    The Commission issued public notice of GRDA's application for a 
permanent amendment of the Article 401 rule curve on September 22, 
2016, which was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 
2016.\14\ The notice established a 30-day deadline for submitting 
comments, motions to intervene, and protests. The notice was also 
published in five newspapers in the project area. Responses to the 
notice are listed in the following table and summarized below. On 
November 8, 2016, GRDA filed an answer to the comments made in response 
to the notice. Issues raised in these filings are addressed in this EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 81 FR 66,957 (Sept. 29, 2016).
    \15\ Filings made in response to the Commission's March 16, 
2016, public notice of GRDA's request to reduce the public comment 
period from 60 to 30 days on GRDA's March 15, 2016 draft 
application.
    \16\ Interior indicated in its comments that its letter 
superseded a letter it had filed October 19, 2016.

                       Table 1--Responses to Public Notice of GRDA's Amendment Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Entity                                   Filing date                         Filing type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma................  March 31, 2016..............................  protest and comments
                                                                                        \15\.
Oklahoma DWC...........................  April 6, 2016...............................  comments \14\.
Al Newkirk.............................  October 10, 2016............................  comments.
U.S. Department of the Interior          October 21, 2016............................  comments \16\.
 (Interior), Office of the Secretary,
 Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Interior, Office of the Solicitor......  October 21, 2016............................  notice of intervention.
N. Larry Bork..........................  October 24, 2016............................  protest and comments.
City of Miami..........................  October 24, 2016............................  motion to intervene,
                                                                                        protest, and comments.
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Wyandotte       October 24, 2016............................  motion to intervene and
 Nation, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma,                                                      protest.
 Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, Eastern
 Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca-
 Cayuga Nation (jointly, the Tribes).
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey.........  November 7, 2016............................  Comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Newkirk
    Al Newkirk states that his house and commercial pecan grove are 
located across the Neosho River from the City of Miami. Mr. Newkirk 
indicates that the frequency and duration of flooding of his property 
have increased over the years, with flooding in the pecan grove already 
occurring three times this year, and with floods previously lasting a 
day or two but now extending to a week to 10 days. Mr. Newkirk 
indicates that approximately 20 acres of his land cannot be accessed 
when the lake is at an elevation of 744 feet and there are flows of 
5,000 to 6,000 cfs in the river. Mr. Newkirk writes that flooding 
results in financial harm to him and other people in the area. 
Regarding the timing of the annual lake drawdown in the fall, Mr. 
Newkirk indicates that boat traffic on the lake drops off significantly 
by September 15, and higher levels are not needed for safety past that 
time.
U.S. Department of the Interior
    Interior reviewed the role of its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 
working with federally recognized American Indian Tribes stating that 
it is clear that higher water elevations would affect Tribal lands and 
resources. Interior indicated that the Inter-Tribal Council \17\ and 
several of its member Tribes informed the BIA that backwater flooding 
is affecting Tribal lands, communities, financial enterprises, 
infrastructure, and cultural resources. Interior indicated that these 
Tribes are concerned that amending the rule curve may increase adverse 
impacts. Interior noted that there is currently no agreement on the 
level of effects on Tribal lands and resources and until information to 
support appropriate mitigation for adverse effects is identified, 
Commission action on GRDA's amendment application would be premature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Inter-Tribal Council is a Tribal intergovernmental body 
that is comprised of nine sovereign Tribal governments whose seat of 
government is located in and around Ottawa County, Oklahoma: the 
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Wyandotte Nation, the Ottawa Tribe of 
Oklahoma, the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 
Oklahoma, the Shawnee Tribe, Modoc Tribe, Quapaw Tribe, and the 
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interior indicated that, as currently defined, the project boundary 
does not occupy Indian lands, but that BIA is in the process of 
establishing the boundaries and legal definitions of all affected 
Indian lands in the project area, with a number of Tribes having 
documented impacts to Tribally-owned lands and resources. Interior 
stated that it intends to more fully evaluate the project boundary 
issue during relicensing.\18\ Interior also stated that lands and 
resources held in trust by the federal government are subject to its 
jurisdiction under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and to 
restitution under FPA section 10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ GRDA must file its Notice of Intent and Pre-Application 
Document to begin the relicensing process no later than March 31, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interior indicated that the relicensing process is the appropriate 
forum to discuss these and all other issues associated with continued 
project operation. Interior and BIA object to the amendment until 
project impacts and mitigation can be evaluated and negotiated during 
the re-licensing

[[Page 3776]]

process, and jurisdictional issues between the Corps and the Commission 
are better understood.
Indian Tribes
    The Tribes, which comprise six of the nine sovereign, federally-
recognized Tribal governments whose respective seats of government are 
located in and around Ottawa County, Oklahoma, state that operation of 
the project has adversely affected their lands, facilities, and 
resources. In their comments, and during Government-to-Government 
Consultation with the Commission (discussed below), the Tribes assert 
that flooding due to project operation has increased in elevation, 
frequency, and duration, resulting in extensive property damage, 
closure of Tribal business enterprises and facilities, and impairment 
to essential services. The Tribes write that the proposed amendment 
would increase risks to health and human safety. The Tribes state that 
the Commission cannot determine what constitutes an ``incremental'' 
increase in flood effects and evaluate the impacts of such an increase, 
where the Commission has not yet evaluated the impacts of current 
operations.
    The Tribes indicate that they oppose GRDA's proposal and urge the 
Commission to deny it based on unauthorized project-related flooding of 
federal trust lands. The Tribes believe that the Commission should 
defer any action pertaining to the rule curve until project relicensing 
and indicate that, alternatively, the Commission should condition any 
approval on GRDA's prior fulfillment of a series of requirements, 
including: (1) completing comprehensive upstream and downstream flood 
routing studies; (2) acquiring all necessary property rights within 12 
months of completing studies; (3) investigating and reporting the 
extent of its use and occupancy of Tribal trust lands and filing an 
amendment application for authorization for any such occupancy as 
required under sections 4(e), 10(a), and 10(e) of the FPA; (4) 
identifying, in consultation with the Tribes and the Oklahoma SHPO, any 
archaeological sites, historic properties, or Tribal cultural 
properties that could be adversely impacted by the project, including 
those outside the current project boundary and above existing flowage 
easements; (5) conducting surveys of any such sites to determine 
eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 
(National Register); and (6) developing, in consultation with the 
Tribes and the Oklahoma SHPO, a plan for protection of, or mitigation 
of damage to, such sites, and submitting it to the Commission after 
approval by the Tribes.
N. Larry Bork
    N. Larry Bork, in comments on behalf of 493 citizens and businesses 
in Ottawa County, asks the Commission to deny the amendment 
application. Mr. Bork asserts that the Commission is allowing GRDA to 
violate its license when unauthorized flooding occurs, and asks the 
Commission to ensure that GRDA purchases necessary easements before 
approving any amendment to the rule curve. Mr. Bork references recent 
studies finding a decrease in the flood storage capacity of Grand Lake 
caused by accumulation of sediments over time, and gives examples of 
times Grand Lake was below an elevation of 743 feet and high flows 
still flooded the City of Miami. Mr. Bork also provides a list of legal 
actions related to flooding upstream of the project.
    Additionally, Mr. Bork asserts that past increases in the rule 
curve have led to flooding and economic decline of the City of Miami. 
Also, he indicates that backwater flooding can increase exposure to 
contaminants from the closed Tar Creek Superfund Site and Spring River. 
Lastly, Mr. Bork expressed concern that higher water levels would cause 
more pressure on Pensacola Dam, when 907 earthquakes occurred in 
Oklahoma last year.
City of Miami
    The City of Miami asks the Commission to deny the permanent 
amendment to the rule curve, or in the alternative, condition any 
approval by requiring a comprehensive upstream and downstream flood 
routing study followed by the acquisition of all necessary property 
rights. Citing recently-completed flood studies, the City states that 
project operations have resulted in increased flooding in the City and 
surrounding region. The City believes that GRDA's failure to acquire 
necessary flowage easements makes unauthorized flooding illegal under 
the project license and state and local laws, and that it puts the 
health and safety of people and property at risk. The City indicates 
that the proposed rule curve amendment would only make this situation 
worse.
    The City of Miami does not believe that analyzing only the 
incremental effects of the proposal is appropriate and that the 
Commission cannot and should not ignore existing conditions in 
rendering a decision on the amendment. The City says the Commission has 
a responsibility to ensure that GRDA operates the project in the public 
interest and references prior cases in support of the Commission not 
ignoring existing conditions. The city also references the Commission's 
authority under the license and under the FPA related to the protection 
of life, health, and property.
    Finally, the City of Miami believes that the Commission must 
evaluate flooding in its EA, including impacts and the adverse 
socioeconomic impacts from unauthorized project-related flooding, and 
impacts to Tribal lands and resources that have been identified through 
consultations with the Inter-Tribal Council. The City also requests 
that the Commission consider the Inter-Tribal Council's concerns prior 
to issuing a decision on the rule curve proposal.
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
    The Oklahoma AS states that, although the Commission did not 
require GRDA to develop a project-wide Historic Properties Management 
Plan (HPMP) for the temporary variance, as recommended by the Oklahoma 
SHPO, the Commission should require a HPMP for the permanent amendment. 
The Oklahoma AS is concerned that changes in reservoir elevations have 
the potential to substantially impact historic properties, including 
archaeological sites, that are located along and near the shore of 
Grand Lake, by eroding the sites and by exposing them to looting and 
vandalism. Further, the Oklahoma AS does not accept the premise that 
GRDA's HPMP for the Markham Ferry Project is an adequate framework for 
the Pensacola Project since Markham Ferry has its own project setting 
and cultural resources. Therefore, the Oklahoma AS requests that a HPMP 
be developed specifically for the Pensacola Project's proposed rule 
curve amendment.
GRDA's Answer to Interventions and Comments
    On November 8, 2016, GRDA filed an answer to the comments filed by 
Interior, the Tribes, Mr. Bork, and the City of Miami regarding flood 
effects, indicating that these entities' comments are without merit and 
outside the scope of the Commission's statutory responsibilities. GRDA 
argues that it and the Commission are not authorized to address flood 
control and flowage rights at Pensacola Dam because flood control is 
not a project purpose under the FPA, and Congress has tasked the Corps 
with these responsibilities. GRDA next states that during the temporary 
variances in 2015 and 2016, its Storm Plan successfully reduced the 
risk of flooding at the project. Lastly, GRDA states that the Tribe's 
allegation that the

[[Page 3777]]

Commission has failed to meet its responsibilities under section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) are without merit. GRDA 
avers that it has consulted with the appropriate agencies and Tribes 
and that water levels under its proposal would not be outside the range 
of the current rule curve, and that any impacts to historic properties 
from flood control are beyond the scope of the undertaking and the 
Commission's jurisdiction. GRDA indicated that, while the Tribes have 
asserted that project operation is causing flooding of Tribal trust 
lands, the Tribes have not identified properties listed or eligible for 
listing in the National Register that would be affected by the proposed 
action.

5.4 Comments on Flooding and the Scope of This Environmental Assessment

    The majority of the comments filed in response to the Commission's 
public notice concern flooding in the upper reaches of Grand Lake. 
These comments, summarized above, primarily focus on the degree to 
which the presence of the project and GRDA's operation of the project 
has contributed to the frequency, duration, and magnitude of flooding. 
In addition, comments were filed on the effects of the proposed rule 
curve change on flooding, the accuracy of the project boundary, and the 
adequacy of GRDA's property easements in relation to flooding. 
Commenters also address the adequacy of input data and the methodology 
of several flood routing studies presented by GRDA, the City of Miami, 
Commission staff, and others in this and earlier proceedings. Further, 
commenters questioned the accuracy and interpretation of the results of 
those studies.
    These same issues were raised in the Commission's 2015 and 2016 
proceedings for GRDA's temporary variances. In those proceedings, staff 
carefully examined hydraulic modeling studies and the results of those 
studies and summarized its findings which were then addressed in the 
Commission's orders issued August 14, 2015 and August 12, 2016. In the 
Water Quantity and Flows section of this EA, staff summarizes those 
studies and results as needed, in order to address the flood-related 
comments received in this proceeding.
    In their comments, Interior, the Tribes, Mr. Bork, and the City of 
Miami raise the issue of flooding and adverse socioeconomic effects to 
property in the City of Miami and Tribal trust lands and resources. The 
extent to which the proposed amendment would aggravate flooding and 
affect property is discussed in the Water Quantity and Flows section. 
The information in that section includes modeled effects to areas and 
structures in the City and surrounding lands. Pursuant to our statutory 
responsibilities under section 106 of the NHPA, we address comments 
specific to Tribal lands and resources in the Cultural and Historic 
Resources section and in the summary of our Government-to-Government 
consultation with the Inter-Tribal Council. To the extent the above 
commenters address flooding concerns that are not related to the 
pending amendment, the Commission will perform a comprehensive review 
of the project and any proposed future operation in the upcoming 
relicensing proceeding. That proceeding is the appropriate forum to 
identify and address issues that are separate from GRDA's amendment 
application.

5.5 Government-to-Government Consultation

    Commission staff met with the Inter-Tribal Council on August 3, 
2016, in Miami, Oklahoma to hear the Council's concerns and gather any 
additional information the Council or its member Tribes wish to present 
for Commission consideration. In summary, the Inter-Tribal Council 
reiterated its concerns that the project already floods Tribal trust 
lands and other areas in the Miami region. The Inter-Tribal Council 
provided more detailed information concerning the whereabouts of 
individual Tribal lands and facilities affected by flooding, their 
desire to be compensated for flooding effects, and their concerns about 
the project in general. Commission staff's August 3rd meeting with the 
Inter-Tribal Council and its member Tribes was transcribed and the 
transcripts were filed with the Commission's Secretary. All comments 
presented at the August 3, 2016 meeting have been made a part of this 
proceeding and are publicly available. Further information concerning 
cultural and historic resources and the Commission's consultation with 
the Tribes is discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and Historic Resources.

5.6 Statutory Compliance

5.6.1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification
    The Clean Water Act (CWA) gives authority to each state to issue a 
section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 certification) for any 
FERC-licensed project that requires a permit pursuant to section 404 of 
the CWA. Additionally, an applicant must obtain a 401 certification for 
any activity that may result in a new discharge into navigable waters. 
The 401 certification is a verification by the state that a proposed 
project would not violate water quality standards.
    On June 30, 2016, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 
(Oklahoma DEQ) issued a 401 certification for GRDA's permanent 
amendment request, subject to four conditions: (1) The certification 
does not authorize any discharge or dredging; (2) the reservoir will be 
maintained between elevations 742 and 744 feet as requested by GRDA; 
(3) emergency and routine maintenance will be as permitted by the 
Corps; and (4) the results of ongoing testing of DO mitigation measures 
under the project license shall be submitted annually to Oklahoma DEQ. 
These conditions are included in our analysis of effects to water 
quality in Section 6.4 Water Quality.
5.6.2 Endangered Species Act
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal 
agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered 
species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the 
critical habitat of such species. Several federally listed species are 
known to use the Pensacola Project area. The gray bat (Myotis 
grisescens) and the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are listed 
as endangered, while the Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) and the 
Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) are listed as threatened.
    In its April 21, 2016 comments on GRDA's application, FWS states 
that GRDA's proposal would not adversely affect any listed species. 
Information on listed species is discussed further in Section 6.8, 
Threatened and Endangered Species. However, in summary, no further 
consultation pursuant to the ESA is required for this proceeding.
5.6.3 National Historic Preservation Act
    Under section 106 of the NHPA,\19\ and its implementing 
regulations,\20\ federal agencies must take into account the effect of 
any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing 
in the National Register and afford the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. 
GRDA's proposed amendment would not cause Grand Lake to exceed its 
normal

[[Page 3778]]

maximum (or minimum) water surface elevations under the rule curve 
specified by Article 401. Water levels would remain within existing 
fluctuation limits within the rule curve. Also, the proposed amendment 
does not involve any land-clearing or land-disturbing activities. 
Therefore, we find that the proposed amendment would not affect 
cultural resources and historic properties. Further information is 
discussed in Section 6.9 Cultural and Historic Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. (2014).
    \20\ 36 CFR part 800 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.0 Environmental Analysis

6.1. Scope of the Analysis

    The geographic scope of this analysis is Grand Lake, its shoreline 
areas, and flows immediately upstream and downstream. As appropriate, 
discussions of cumulative environmental effects are incorporated into 
the resource sections in this document.
    The temporal scope of this environmental analysis focuses on the 
period from now until when the current project license expires in April 
2022. The environmental effects of any proposed rule curve changes made 
during the relicensing period will be evaluated as part of the 
relicensing docket.

6.2 General Description of the Project Area

    The Pensacola Project and its reservoir, Grand Lake, are located on 
the Neosho River in the northeast corner of Oklahoma, in Craig, 
Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties. Downstream of the project, the 
Neosho River is locally known as the Grand River. Much of the land 
surrounding Grand Lake is privately owned and many areas along its 
shorelines have become highly developed with commercial resorts, 
private homes and condominiums, municipal and state parks, marinas, and 
private docks.

6.3 Geology and Soils

6.3.1 Affected Environment
    Limestone bluffs and steep rocky beaches characterize much of the 
southern and eastern shorelines at Grand Lake. Soils in these areas are 
mostly cherty material that is not highly erodible. In contrast, the 
northern and western areas of the lake are surrounded mostly by rolling 
plains with occasional hills and ridges with gentle slopes. These 
shorelines generally feature more erodible loamy soils with mud 
substrates, silt deposits, and wetlands at inlets and coves associated 
with numerous small tributaries. These mud substrates and silt deposits 
provide good conditions for the growth of certain wetland vegetation 
(FERC 1996; FERC 2009 (SMP EA)).
6.3.2 Environmental Effects
    Under the proposed rule curve, water levels would not be lowered 
three feet from elevation 744 to 741 feet in August, as is currently 
done. Instead, the draw down would stop after one foot at elevation 743 
feet until September 15, then drop an additional foot to elevation 742 
feet, and remain at that level until October 31 (see Figure 2). This 
stepped reduction in water levels, combined with eliminating the last 
foot of drawdown from September 15 to October 31, would likely result 
in only minor changes in erosion patterns that occur under the current 
rule curve. These changes would likely include minor decreases in 
shoreline erosion, although erosion from wind and waves at the 
waterline would be expected to continue regardless of water levels. 
Reductions in erosion rates over sequential years could enhance 
revegetation of some shallow water, near-shore areas over time, leading 
to increases in substrate and soil stabilization that could be 
beneficial.

6.4 Water Quantity and Flows

6.4.1 Affected Environment
    Grand Lake is impounded by Pensacola Dam on the Neosho River, which 
has a basin covering 12,110 square miles in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, 
and Arkansas. The Neosho River originates in the Flint Hills of east 
central Kansas, then flows southeasterly and easterly until it enters 
the 66-mile-long Grand Lake. Below Pensacola Dam, the Neosho flows 
approximately 77 miles to its confluence with the Arkansas River. 
Significant tributaries of the lake include Spring River, Elk River, 
Tar Creek, and Duck Creek.
    Flows in the Neosho River downstream of Pensacola Dam to the head 
of Lake Hudson are controlled by operation of the Pensacola Dam. USGS 
gage 07190500, Neosho River Near Langley, OK, is located approximately 
3.6 miles below the dam, and has been in operation 1939. According to 
records collected at that gage for water years 1940 through 2015, the 
historic highest daily mean flow was 287,000 cfs, recorded May 20, 
1943. The lowest daily mean flow for that period was 9 cfs, recorded 
March 25, 1940, four days after initial filling of Grand Lake began. 
The historic annual mean flow was 7,601 cfs. In water year 2015, the 
highest daily mean flow of 86,900 cfs was recorded at the gage on May 
30, and the lowest daily mean flow of 84 cfs was recorded November 20, 
with an annual mean flow of 9,169 cfs (USGS, 2016).
    Grand Lake is one of the largest lakes in Oklahoma with 
approximately 522 miles of shoreline. At the time of project was 
relicensed in 1992, Grand Lake was recorded as having a surface area of 
approximately 46,500 acres at elevation 745 feet. At elevation 745.1 
feet, the mean depth of the reservoir is about 36 feet while the 
maximum depth is 164 feet (FERC, 2007; FERC 2009). As shown in Table 2, 
results of recent surveys have updated the calculation of the surface 
area of Grand Lake at an elevation of 745 feet, as well as the surface 
area at other elevations relevant in this EA.
    Except during flood events, when releases are directed by the Corps 
for flood control, GRDA operates the Pensacola Project to target 
seasonal water elevations at Grand Lake varying from elevation 741 to 
744 feet in accordance with the Article 401 rule curve. As shown in 
Figure 2, a lake elevation of 742 feet is maintained November 1 through 
April 30. In May, the lake is raised to a summer elevation of 744 feet. 
In August, the level is then reduced to a low point of 741 feet and 
then held there for six weeks from September 1 through October 15. It 
is then returned to an elevation of 742 feet by November 1. While 
targeting the elevations on the rule curve, GRDA also manages releases 
to provide water to operate GRDA's downstream Markham Ferry Project and 
its Salina Pumped Storage Project. In addition, during summer and fall, 
calculated releases are made to help maintain DO concentrations in the 
tailrace and downstream river, as discussed further under Water Quality 
below.
    Grand Lake is also a significant local water supply. GRDA indicates 
in its application that approximately 25 wholesale customers currently 
withdraw water from Grand Lake and that the lake is used by 
approximately 21,000 residential households and 500 commercial 
customers. GRDA issues yearly permits for domestic water use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Elevations converted from NGVD to PD.

             Table 2--Grand Lake Elevation and Surface Area
                      [Source: Oklahoma WRB, 2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Surface
                                                                 area
             Surface elevation  (feet PD \21\)                (thousands
                                                              of acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
740........................................................        36.58
741........................................................        37.52
742........................................................        38.83
743........................................................        39.98

[[Page 3779]]

 
744........................................................        40.60
745........................................................        41.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.4.2 Environmental Effects
    Project operation using the proposed rule curve would increase the 
elevation, volume, and surface area of Grand Lake in late summer and 
early fall. It would therefore, allow GRDA to store more water each 
year during that period for the duration of the current license term. 
As shown in Figure 2, water levels would no longer be lowered all the 
way from elevation 744 to 741 feet in August, but instead would be 
reduced to 743 feet and held at that elevation from August 16 through 
September 15. The elevation would then be lowered to 742 feet, 
eliminating the deepest part of the drawdown, and held at that 
elevation until the following spring. Also, as shown in Figure 2, the 
overall length of the drawdown period between summer and winter 
elevations would be reduced from 12 to 8 weeks. GRDA would continue to 
target the rule curve at all times, except as necessary for the Corps 
to provide flood protection, or during any periods in which the 
proposed Storm or Drought Plans might be utilized.
    The increase in lake elevations under the proposed rule curve would 
primarily benefit boating on Grand Lake in late summer and early fall 
each year, as described in Recreation below. The increase in storage 
would also provide a buffer for local entities that utilize Grand Lake 
for water supply, because more storage would be available during what 
is typically the hottest and driest time of the year. This coincides 
with the season when the population around the lake is highest, with 
the highest local water demand. The higher reservoir elevation in late 
summer and fall would also help ensure GRDA has sufficient water for 
releases to maintain downstream DO in hot and dry years, as described 
further in Water Quality, and would decrease the chances of Grand Lake 
water levels falling below the rule curve during periods of drought. If 
drought conditions cause water to fall below elevations on the rule 
curve, GRDA would, under its proposed Drought Plan, regardless of 
reservoir elevations, make releases that would not exceed a flow rate 
equal to 0.06 feet of reservoir elevation per day, which is equivalent 
to approximately 837 cfs per hour over a 24-hour period.
    The reduction in the total drawdown depth and the stepped reduction 
to winter elevations should also provide some benefits to other 
resources, primarily near-shore and shoreline habitat for fish and 
wildlife, as described in sections below.
Flooding Impacts
    There have been several hydraulic studies prepared that assess the 
affects the proposed rule curve amendment would have on flooding. Key 
studies, as well as submitted reviews of those studies, were evaluated 
for this environmental analysis, they include:
     A 2014 study performed by Alan C. Dennis (2014 Dennis 
Study); \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 2014 Dennis Study is a graduate thesis submitted to the 
University of Oklahoma graduate program in 2014 by Alan C. Dennis. 
Floodplain Analysis of the Neosho River Associated with Proposed 
Rule Curve Modifications for Grand Lake O' the Cherokees, Docket No. 
P-1494-432 (filed May 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     an independent modeling analysis performed by Commission 
staff as part of its review of GRDA's 2015 temporary variance request 
(2015 Staff Analysis); \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Commission staff's independent analysis performed for 
GRDA's temporary variance request was filed under Docket No. P-1494-
432 on August 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a hydraulic modeling study conducted by Tetra Tech dated 
February 3, 2016 (2016 Tetra Tech Study); \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 2016 Tetra Tech Study was completed for the City of 
Miami, Oklahoma. Hydraulic Analysis of the Effects of Proposed Rule 
Curve Change at Pensacola Dam on Neosho River Flooding in the 
Vicinity of Miami, Oklahoma, Docket No. P-1494-433 filed April 14, 
2016 and July 22, 2016 (2016 Tetra Tech Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a May 2016 review by Mead & Hunt of the 2016 hydraulic 
modeling study conducted by Tetra Tech;
     letters dated July 23, 2015 and May 2, 2016 from the 
University of Oklahoma regarding the 2014 Dennis Study and the 
differences between the 2014 Dennis, 2015 Staff, and 2016 Tetra Tech 
studies;
     a letter dated February 20, 2015 from the Corps regarding 
the 2014 Dennis Study; and
     a summary report on a hydraulic modeling technical 
conference held December 16, 2016 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Attendees of the conference included representatives from 
GRDA and its consultants, Commission staff, the City of Miami, the 
Corps, the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, and the University of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its permanent amendment request, GRDA relies 
primarily on the 2014 Dennis Study which analyzed the upstream flooding 
impacts, particularly in the area of Miami, which would occur as a 
result of the proposed rule curve modification. The study determined 
that the proposed rule curve modification would have a minimal impact 
on upstream flooding; concluding that the incremental \26\ increase in 
water surface elevations would be less than 0.2 foot \27\ at Miami.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In this document, incremental refers to the change in water 
surface elevation due to the proposed rule curve amendment.
    \27\ 0.2 foot is equivalent to 2.4 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In review of the GRDA 2015 temporary variance request, Commission 
staff performed an independent analysis on the potential flooding 
impacts of the rule curve change. Commission staff gathered available 
pertinent data, including but not limited to, stream flows, reservoir 
elevations, spillway gate operations, and other data from historic 
storms to build the input files for the independent verification model 
which also extended downstream to assess potential flooding impacts 
from Pensacola Dam to the USGS Gage No. 07190500, Neosho River near 
Langley, Oklahoma (Langley gage).
    While the 2014 Dennis Study only considered storm events from 
August 15 to September 15, Commission staff reviewed historic storms 
during the August 16 to October 31 time period for its independent 
analysis. Staff selected the October 1986, September 1993, and October 
2009 storms for use in the hydraulic model because they are large 
historic storms from the time of year corresponding to the proposed 
change in the rule curve. Staff concluded that historic large spring or 
early summer storms were not appropriate for this analysis since they 
occur outside of the proposed rule curve amendment period.\28\ Using 
flow data from USGS Gage No. 07185000, Neosho River near Commerce, 
Oklahoma (Commerce gage), along with the Federal Emergency Management 
Act (FEMA) flood frequency curve prepared for that gage,\29\ Commission 
staff determined that the flow recurrence intervals for the Neosho 
River for the October 1986, September 1993, and October 2009 storms are 
17-year, 8-year, and 3-year events, respectively. The results of the 
Commission staff independent analysis concluded that the maximum 
incremental increase is approximately 0.1 foot if the reservoir 
starting elevation is raised from 741 to 742 feet and approximately 0.2 
foot if the reservoir starting elevation is raised from 741 to

[[Page 3780]]

743 feet. However, a precise number of additional structures impacted 
by the maximum incremental increase of 0.2 foot in the vicinity of 
Miami could not be determined due to the lack of surveyed structure 
data (e.g., first floor elevation or lowest adjacent grade to the 
structure) and the coarseness of the available topographic data. 
Staff's review of aerial photographic data in the vicinity of Miami 
indicated that there would be increased flooding of 11 structures 
already inundated with a reservoir starting elevation of 741 feet. An 
additional 22 structures that are located within a 30-foot horizontal 
buffer of the inundation zone could also be impacted. Nonetheless, many 
inundated structures are located at the edge of the inundated area 
where flood depths are minor and the incremental flooding impacts are 
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Generally, storm intensity and duration vary seasonally 
throughout the year with larger events occurring in the spring and 
early summer for this river basin.
    \29\ FEMA, Task Order HSFE06-11-J-0001 for Grand Lake O' the 
Cherokees Watershed (Nov. 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum incremental increase in water surface elevation 
downstream of Pensacola Dam, at the Langley gage, also occurs during 
the October 2009 storm event and is approximately 0.3 foot if the 
reservoir starting elevation is raised from 741 to742 feet and 
approximately 0.7 foot if the reservoir starting elevation is raised 
from 741 to 743 feet.\30\ With the same topographic limitations found 
in the vicinity of Miami, a specific number of additional structures 
impacted by the maximum incremental increase of 0.7 foot could not be 
determined. Review of aerial photographic data indicated that there 
would be increased flooding of 12 structures already inundated with a 
reservoir starting elevation of 741 feet. An additional 7 structures 
that are located within a 30-foot horizontal buffer of the inundation 
zone could also be impacted. If GRDA is proactive in its adaptive 
management procedures, using technical experts to continually assess 
the potential for storm events and reacting quickly when necessary by 
notifying downstream residents using EAP procedures that have been 
developed for the project, there would be at most minimal increases in 
incremental flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 0.3 and 0.7 foot are equivalent to 3.6 and 8.4 inches, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The City of Miami filed comments on July 22, 2016, which included a 
new study performed by Tetra Tech dated April 26, 2016, that evaluated 
the effects of the proposed rule curve change on structure inundation 
(2016 Tetra Tech Study). The 2016 Tetra Tech Study evaluated the 
effects of the proposed rule curve on flooding upstream of Grand Lake, 
specifically in the vicinity of Miami, that would occur during the 
October 1986, September 1993, and October 2009 historic storm events. 
The study was performed using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model and 
incorporated new bathymetric survey data to account for sedimentation 
that has occurred in the Neosho River channel upstream of the 
reservoir. The 2016 Tetra Tech Study indicates that the water surface 
elevations at Miami during the modeled historic flood events are higher 
than determined in the 2015 Staff Analysis for both the 741 and 743 
feet Grand Lake elevations. The study confirmed that during the three 
modeled storm events, the maximum incremental increase in water surface 
elevation at Miami, which occurs during the October 2009 storm, is less 
than 0.2 foot if the Grand Lake reservoir elevation is raised from 741 
to 743 feet. The 2016 Tetra Tech Inundation Study concluded that the 
2015 Staff Analysis underestimated the number of structures inundated 
under the current rule curve, due to the staff's lower computed water 
surface elevations, but that no additional structures would be impacted 
by the proposed rule curve change.
    On June 30, 2016, GRDA filed a response to Commission staff's May 
18, 2016 request for additional information. The response included a 
review, prepared by GRDA's consultant Mead & Hunt, of the 2016 Tetra 
Tech Study and an evaluation of the effects to property, structures, 
and human life as a result of the higher water surface elevations 
indicated in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study. Mead & Hunt found that all 
three of the most recent hydraulic model studies of the Neosho River 
upstream of Pensacola Dam conducted by Tetra Tech, FERC, and Dennis 
agree that the incremental change in water surface elevations due to 
the requested variance is 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) or less at the Miami 
gage. The difference in water surface elevations at the Miami gage 
between the latest Tetra Tech model and the FERC model are primarily 
due to a difference in the downstream boundary conditions/starting 
water surface elevations, and the bathymetry data gathered in April 
2015 that results in higher predicted channel elevations. Mead & Hunt 
concluded that the Tetra Tech modeling cannot be relied upon for future 
studies until it has been verified that the model configuration, 
parameters, calibration results, and overall results are accurate and 
recommended that further investigation be completed before relying on 
the higher water surface elevations determined in the study.
    In order to determine the effects to property and structures that 
could result from the higher water surface elevations indicated in the 
2016 Tetra Tech Study, Commission staff also requested that GRDA 
evaluate the impact to structures that would occur with and without the 
proposed rule curve change for the three historic storm events (October 
1986, September 1993, and October 2009) modeled in the 2016 Tetra Tech 
Study and 2015 Staff Analysis. Even though Mead & Hunt recommended 
further investigation before relying on the 2016 Tetra Tech Study 
results, it prepared inundation mapping for the three historic storm 
events based on the elevations in the 2016 Tetra Tech Study. The 
results of the inundation mapping, which used the 2016 Tetra Tech Study 
water surface elevations, show no additional structures would be 
impacted by the proposed rule curve change.
    To quantify any increased physical danger to residents due to the 
incremental increase in inundation as a result of higher water surface 
elevations computed by Tetra Tech's model, Mead & Hunt conducted a 
hazard analysis for the three historic storm events using the ACER 11 
procedure.\31\ The analysis indicates that there would be no increased 
danger under October 1986 and October 2009 storm conditions. Under 
September 1993 storm conditions, two structures, a commercial building 
and a recreational building, may experience an increase in danger. For 
the commercial building, the ACER 11 danger zone would change from the 
low danger zone to the judgment zone; however, the hazard increase is 
due to a slight increase in flood depth of 0.1 foot. For the 
recreational building, the ACER 11 danger zone would change from the 
judgment zone to the high danger zone; however, the hazard increase is 
due to a slight increase in flood depth of 0.1 foot. Therefore, despite 
the change in danger zone classification for these two structures, the 
actual change in hazard is insignificant and there would be no 
increased risk to human life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 
Assistant Commissioner, Engineering and Research Technical 
Memorandum No. 11 (ACER 11), Downstream Hazard Classification 
Guidelines (December 1988). The ACER 11 procedure describes the 
danger posed to inundated structures based on flood depth and 
velocity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Mead & Hunt, others reviewed and commented on the 
three separate hydraulic analyses. University of Oklahoma professors, 
who were on Mr. Dennis' thesis committee, issued a letter on July 23, 
2015, that responded to comments directly related to his Master's 
thesis work. The professors commented on the modeling protocols, the 
boundary conditions, and the time frame of modeling for the 2014 Dennis 
Study. In addition, the professors stated that the 2014 Dennis Study 
used the

[[Page 3781]]

most current bathymetric and topographic information that was 
available. In particular, the lake bathymetry, which was called into 
question by the City of Miami in their June 26, 2015 letter, is based 
on data collected by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board in 2009, so it 
would certainly represent sedimentation that occurred between 
construction of the dam and 2009. Then, in a letter filed May 2, 2016, 
the same University of Oklahoma professors commented on the 2014 Dennis 
Study, the 2015 Staff Analysis, and the 2016 Tetra Tech Study and 
stated that the three different studies, each using different 
approaches, have all reached a nearly identical result, and that the 
predicted difference is within the expected bounds of model accuracy 
due to numerical errors and parameterization of physical processes.
    The Corps, Tulsa District reviewed the 2014 Dennis Study and found 
the study to be of high quality and consistent with previous studies 
that were completed by the Tulsa District (1998) and Dr. Forrest Holly 
(2004). The Corps said that although a more diverse set of calibration 
storms would have been preferable, the results of this study are 
consistent with previous efforts, and the Corps concurred with the 
findings that were presented. In a July 24, 2015 letter, the Corps 
states that it had performed an analysis of the 2015 temporary variance 
request and determined that the variance would have negligible impacts 
on downstream flooding. Furthermore, the Corps states that its model 
results showed a discharge of around 100,000 cfs while adverse impacts 
(i.e., flooding) did not begin until 130,000 cfs at the Highway 82 
Bridge. The Corps also notes that properties outside of existing 
flowage easements are not affected until the discharge exceeds 230,000 
cfs.
    The City of Miami's July 22, 2016 comments argue that the 2015 
Staff Analysis underestimates the number of structures impacted during 
the historic storm events. Although both the 2016 Tetra Tech Study and 
the inundation mapping conducted by Mead & Hunt show a greater number 
of structures impacted, both studies also determined that no additional 
structures would be impacted by increased flooding due to the proposed 
rule curve change. Further, as discussed above, the Mead & Hunt hazard 
analysis using the 2016 Tetra Tech Study found no additional risk to 
human life.
    Finally, Mr. Bork commented regarding the capability of GRDA to 
timely open spill gates in advance of a predicted storm event. 
According to the Supporting Technical Information Document for the 
project that is filed with the Commission, the time required to 
position a gate hoist above a spillway gate and then raise or lower 
that gate is typically in the range of 15 to 20 minutes, which is 
adequate to respond to storm events. Mr. Bork also expressed concern 
regarding the number of earthquakes in Oklahoma and the additional 
pressure that higher water levels would place on Pensacola Dam. Because 
the proposed rule curve change does not include any water levels higher 
than those on the current rule curve, and because there is no reason to 
expect that the rule curve change would significantly affect high-water 
events, we do not anticipate any dam safety concerns regarding GRDA's 
proposed amendment.

6.5 Water Quality

6.5.1 Affected Environment
Grand Lake
    The designated beneficial uses for Grand Lake include public and 
private water supply, fish and wildlife propagation as a warm water 
aquatic community, Class 1 irrigation, and primary body contact 
recreation (GRDA, 2008b). Oklahoma state water quality standards 
require the following in order to protect the warm water aquatic 
community designation: Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations maintained 
at or above 6.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l) at 25 degrees Celsius 
([deg]C) from April 1 to June 15 (for fish early life stages); at or 
above 5.0 mg/l at 32 [deg]C from June 16 to October 15 (summer 
conditions); and at or above 5.0 mg/l at 18 [deg]C from October 16 to 
March 31 (winter conditions) (GRDA 2008b).
    Grand Lake was recently listed on Oklahoma's 303(d) list for 
organic enrichment/low DO levels and color.\32\ Water quality in the 
lake is affected primarily by heavy recreational use and shoreline 
development, but also by heavy metal contamination from acid mine 
drainage originating upstream along the Neosho River and Spring River, 
and possibly by trace metal contamination from local surface mining 
(GRDA 2008a). These sources include the Tar Creek Superfund Site, a 
former mining area known to release acid mine drainage containing heavy 
metals such as lead, cadmium, and zinc into the Tar Creek system, the 
Neosho River and Grand Lake (Oklahoma WRB, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to 
develop lists of impaired waters that don't meet the state's water 
quality standards for their designated beneficial uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, surface water temperatures in Grand Lake range from 
between 4 and 28 [deg]C annually. The reservoir typically begins to 
exhibit thermal stratification in May, with anoxic conditions forming 
in the deep waters of the hypolimnion several weeks later. Across Grand 
Lake, the extent of stratification varies, with downstream portions of 
the reservoir exhibiting stronger stratification than the upstream 
sections of the reservoir. Sampling conducted in 2003 and 2004 found 
that stratification was strongest during the summer, with approximately 
38 percent of the water column having DO concentrations below 2.0 mg/l 
in the lower portion of the reservoir (GRDA, 2008a).
    GRDA currently works to mitigate water quality issues through lake-
wide sanitation regulations, shoreline use classifications and 
management of shoreline development, water quality monitoring, and 
other measures included in its approved Shoreline Management Plan.
Downstream
    The Oklahoma WRB has designated the Neosho River below the project 
as a warm-water aquatic community, with minimum DO standards of 6.0 mg/
l from October 16 through June 15, and 5.0 mg/l from June 16 through 
October 15. A 1.0 mg/l DO deficit is allowed for not more than 8 hours 
in a 24-hour period April 1 through October 15.
    Water quality in the project tailrace and the river downstream is 
dependent on releases through generation. The powerhouse draws water 
from relatively deep in the reservoir where water can have very low DO 
concentrations when the lake stratifies in summer and into the fall. In 
the past, release of this DO-deficient water, combined with the hot and 
dry conditions that regularly occur in late summer and fall, has led to 
violations of Oklahoma water quality standards and fish kills. GRDA now 
manages downstream releases during this period to maintain water 
quality criteria for DO pursuant to plans approved under license 
Article 403.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Grand River Dam Authority, 151 FERC ] 62,098 (2015) 
(Order Modifying and Approving Dissolved Oxygen Mitigation Plan 
Pursuant to Article 403).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.5.2 Environmental Effects
Grand Lake
    Normal project operation under the proposed rule curve would not 
have any significant negative effects on water quality in Grand Lake 
and may provide some minor benefits to water quality by reducing the 
magnitude of water level changes that may contribute to exposure

[[Page 3782]]

of shallow substrates, rates of shoreline erosion, resuspension of 
sediments, and near-shore turbidity. Reduction in substrate exposure 
and erosion rates would also reduce resuspension of pollutants, such as 
heavy metals, where they are present in substrates in the lake. Mr. 
Bork raised the issue of backwater flooding under the proposed rule 
curve change allowing increased exposure to contaminants from the Tar 
Creek Superfund Site or Spring River. Based on the discussion of 
flooding effects above in the Water Quantity and Flows section, we do 
not believe the proposed rule curve change would cause any measurable 
changes in release of, or exposure to, contaminants from those sources.
Downstream
    The additional water that would be stored in Grand Lake under the 
proposed rule curve would help ensure water is available for making 
releases to maintain downstream DO concentrations during late summer 
and fall. Additionally, the proposed Drought Plan would help GRDA to 
maintain downstream DO concentrations in the event that a severe to 
exceptional drought is declared for the river basin and reservoir 
elevations fall below the elevations on the rule curve.
    GRDA indicates that releasing water pursuant to the Drought Plan 
should also help ensure that it has sufficient water for DO maintenance 
in the river below its downstream Markham Ferry Project, while 
maintaining lake elevations at that project's Lake Hudson necessary for 
operation of its Salina Pumped Storage Project, which is important to 
local electric system reliability.
    Water quality downstream of the project could be negatively 
affected if the higher water levels on the proposed rule curve lead to 
any increase in upstream flood conditions and therefore more flood flow 
releases. Increases in flood flow releases could increase rates of 
downstream river bank erosion, resulting in increases in water 
turbidity. However, based on studies to date, it is unlikely any such 
effects to downstream flows and erosion would be significant, or 
predictable in frequency or severity.
    Oklahoma DEQ's 401 certification for GRDA's permanent amendment 
request includes a condition requiring GRDA to provide it with annual 
reports of the results of ongoing testing of downstream DO mitigation 
measures performed under plans that have been approved under license 
Article 403. The Commission included this requirement as a condition of 
its approval of GRDA's temporary variance for 2016. The Commission 
added a requirement that GRDA notify Oklahoma DEQ at the same time it 
notifies other agencies pursuant to the plan of any significant DO 
deficiencies or DO mitigation, so that Oklahoma DEQ can track GRDA's 
progress in maintaining state water quality standards. Inclusion of the 
same requirement in any approval of a permanent amendment would allow 
Oklahoma DEQ to continue to track GRDA's progress in maintaining state 
water quality standards through the remainder of the current license 
period, and help ensure water quality below the project is protected.
    Based on our review, operation using the proposed rule curve 
modification would not result in any material adverse impacts to water 
quality.

6.6 Fisheries and Other Aquatic Resources

6.6.1 +Affected Environment
Grand Lake
    Grand Lake supports a robust warm water fishery for largemouth and 
smallmouth bass, white bass, striped bass and hybrid striped bass, 
crappie, several species of sunfish and catfish, and paddlefish. It 
also supports populations of a number of species of suckers, minnows, 
and darters. Gizzard and threadfin shad are important forage species 
that help sustain the sport fishery in Grand Lake. Grand Lake is one of 
the top bass fishing destinations in the nation, consistently 
attracting national fishing tournaments (FERC, 1996; GRDA 2016).
    Largemouth bass and many other fishes present in Grand Lake spawn 
in springtime in relatively shallow waters. Through the summer and 
fall, the young of these fishes then use shallow areas with aquatic and 
emergent vegetation or other structure as primary nursery habitat and 
for cover and feeding as they mature (FERC, 1991; FERC, 1996).
    Water level fluctuations that occur under the current rule curve, 
which was approved in the order issued December 3, 1996, do not allow 
the establishment of significant areas of shallow-water emergent and 
submergent aquatic plants. Juvenile fishes that would use such areas 
for cover and feeding in summer and fall therefore utilize other types 
of cover, including woody debris and other natural features, and man-
made structure such as docks, and artificial reefs. Current work on 
artificial reefs is described below.
Fish Habitat Mitigation for Effects of Current Rule Curve
    A significant amount of effort has been expended to mitigate the 
effects of water level fluctuations under the rule curve on shallow-
water fish habitat at Grand Lake. The Article 401 rule curve in the 
1992 license included a stepped 15-week drawdown and partial refill in 
late summer and fall, with a low-elevation of 741 feet that was 
maintained for a period of 8 weeks. The drawdown over that period was 
intended, in part, to enhance fish habitat by exposing mudflats for 
natural revegetation, and revegetation through annual millet seeding. 
When the rule curve was amended to its current form in a Commission 
order issued December 3, 1996, the drawdown was reduced to 12 weeks, 
and the period of lowest drawdown was reduced to 6 weeks. The 
Commission acknowledged that the shortened drawdown period would reduce 
the effectiveness of annual millet seeding and negatively affect fish 
and waterfowl. Therefore, Article 411 was added to the license to 
require a Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management Plan, to include 
establishment of a mitigation fund and formation of a technical 
committee to administer the fund to design, implement, and evaluate 
work to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. GRDA's Article 411 plan was 
approved, and the requirement to seed millet every year was deleted, in 
an order issued May 22, 2003.\34\ Work under the plan can include, at 
the technical committee's discretion, seeding of at least 1,000 acres 
of millet, at a rate of 15 pounds per acre in any given year for which 
favorable conditions were forecast. However, millet seeding was seldom 
performed under the plan because the reduced duration of the drawdown 
period prevented germination over large enough areas to provide 
significant benefits.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Grand River Dam Authority, 103 FERC ] 62,102 (2003) (Order 
Approving Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management plan Under Article 
411 and Deleting Article 404).
    \35\ Since 2003, millet seeding under the plan has only been 
attempted several times, most recently in 2011. Seeding has resulted 
in limited germination and plant growth adequate to benefit fish and 
waterfowl habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since approval of the mitigation plan in 2003, the primary shallow-
water fish habitat work completed has been the deployment of 
approximately 14,000 ``spider block'' artificial reef structures. These 
structures attract adult gamefish for the purpose of improved sport 
fishing. They may also provide rearing and feeding habitat for fry and 
fingerlings and cover from predators.
Downstream
    The tailrace area below the Pensacola Project and the reach of 
river

[[Page 3783]]

downstream to Lake Hudson supports a popular fishery that includes many 
of the species found in Grand Lake. As explained above in Water 
Quality, water in these areas can be low in DO, especially in late 
summer and fall, which has led to fish kills below the dam. However, 
GRDA is currently successful in mitigating this problem through managed 
releases under an approved DO mitigation plan.
6.6.2 Environmental Effects
Grand Lake
    On an annual basis, maintaining higher water surface elevations in 
Grand Lake from August 15 and October 31 using the proposed rule curve 
would result in less fluctuation during late summer and early fall, 
providing young fishes, and other aquatic organisms, with more stable 
shallow-water habitat and cover. The decrease in fluctuation should 
allow better colonization of emergent and submerged vegetation in these 
areas, further improving habitat for young fishes. Over the remainder 
of the license term, this should allow aquatic vegetation to more 
successfully colonize and return to suitable areas, increasing shallow-
water habitat and benefitting young fishes and the macroinvertebrates 
they prey upon.
    The proposed rule curve change should not affect any fish habitat 
mitigation work under the Article 411 mitigation plan over the 
remaining term of the project license. As described above, annual 
millet seeding is no longer performed under the plan and GRDA is 
pursuing other mitigation options (i.e., land acquisitions) under the 
Article 411 plan beyond continuing placement of artificial reef 
structures. Therefore, we cannot review any other fish habitat 
mitigation work at Grand Lake at this time, although we assume that any 
such work would take the effects of the water elevations under the 
proposal into account.
    It is not possible to predict the effects to fisheries and aquatic 
resources from any changes to frequency or intensity of periods of high 
water, or periods of low water resulting from drought, that may occur 
under the proposed rule curve, or any mitigative effects of the 
proposed Storm and Drought Plans. However, there is no reason to expect 
that there would be any significant effects on these resources in Grand 
Lake.
    Based on the above, the proposed rule curve change should have 
minor positive effects on fisheries and aquatic resources in Grand 
Lake.
Downstream
    As described above under Water Quality, the proposed rule curve 
would allow GRDA to store more water during late summer and early fall, 
increasing the volume of water available for release to maintain DO 
concentrations in the tailrace and river downstream. This would help to 
protect fisheries and other aquatic resources in downstream areas in 
years when inflows are low and reservoir levels may be difficult to 
maintain. Further, as also described under Water Quality, the proposed 
Drought Plan would help to ensure water is available for maintenance of 
DO concentrations and fish protection in the event that drought 
conditions cause reservoir elevations to fall below the rule curve. It 
is not possible to predict effects to downstream aquatic resources that 
could occur from any increases in flooding under GRDA's proposal, or 
effects of GRDA's proposed Storm Plan.
    Based on the above, the proposed rule curve change would have 
positive effects to fisheries downstream of the project during late 
summer and fall by helping to ensure maintenance of DO concentrations, 
and use of the Drought Plan would help to avoid fish kills in the event 
of significant drought conditions.

6.7 Terrestrial Resources

6.7.1 Affected Environment
Vegetation
    Grand Lake is located in a transitional zone between the Ozark 
Highlands and Central Irregular Plain eco-regions of northeast 
Oklahoma. In the Ozark Highlands eco-region, which characterizes most 
of the project area, oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine are the primary 
forest types. Typical canopy species on dry uplands and ridgetops 
include black oak, white oak, blackjack oak, post oak, winged elm, and 
numerous hickories. Shortleaf pine also occurs in oak-hickory-pine 
stands. Mesic forests containing sugar maple, white oak, and northern 
red oak are typical of north-facing slopes and ravines of more rugged, 
deeply dissected sites. Willows, bottomland oaks, maples, hickories, 
birch, American elm, and sycamore are typical on floodplains and low 
terraces. Most level sites in the region have been converted to 
haylands or pasturelands.
    In the extreme northern portion of project, primarily the Neosho 
River arm of Grand Lake, the oak hickory forests of the Ozark Highlands 
give way to the tall grass prairies of the Central Irregular Plains. 
Typical dominants of tall grass prairie sites include big bluestem, 
little bluestem, switchgrass, and indiangrass. Dry upland forests, 
similar to the oak-hickory forests of the Ozark Highlands to the south 
and east, are common on the low rocky hills of the region. Most of this 
habitat, approximately 61,462 acres, occurs above 755 feet. Riparian 
corridors typically are forested, with canopy dominants that include 
American elm, oaks, hackberry, black walnut, sycamore, and pecan. Much 
of this region has been converted for agriculture, with rangeland 
occupying steeper slopes and croplands on nearly level plains. Common 
crops include sorghum, alfalfa hay, wheat, and soybeans.
Wildlife
    Raptors, such as barred owl, red-tailed hawk, and red-shouldered 
hawk occur in both upland and bottomland forests. Song birds of the 
wooded lots include tanagers, nuthatches, warblers, and woodpeckers 
typical of the eastern deciduous forests. Grassland birds present in 
the prairie habitat include horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, 
meadowlark, dickcissel, and bobolink. Predatory birds in the grasslands 
consist of short-eared owl, northern harrier, and rough-legged hawk. 
Bald eagles over-winter at Grand Lake. Game birds found at Grand Lake 
include bobwhite quail, wild turkey, mourning dove, and waterfowl.
    Grand Lake is also important as an over-wintering and migratory 
stop for shorebirds and waterfowl; however, the over-wintering habitat 
is limited by the lack of submerged aquatic vegetation. Cormorants, 
pelicans, egrets, and herons are among the non-game birds that 
seasonally inhabit the Grand Lake area. A diverse array of game 
waterfowl such as geese and dabbling, diving, perching, sea, and stiff-
tailed ducks also occur on Grand Lake during migration. Mallards are 
the only dabbling duck that over-winter on Grand Lake. Mallards are the 
most abundant duck seen on the reservoir with numbers peaking in 
December. Canada geese and wood ducks live on the reservoir throughout 
the year.
    Common mammals in the project area include white-tailed deer, 
striped skunk, raccoon, fox squirrel, Virginia opossum, eastern 
cottontail, armadillo, and red fox. These species inhabit the upland 
deciduous forest surrounding the project. The bottomland forests 
contain all of these species, plus muskrat and beaver. Common species 
associated with the grassland/savannah are the least shrew, deer mouse, 
black-tailed jack rabbit, and badger. Bats are of ecological concern in 
the area and the endangered gray bat is particularly notable (discussed 
under Threatened and Endangered Species).
    A variety of frogs, toads, salamanders, lizards, turtles, and 
snakes comprise the

[[Page 3784]]

local herpetofauna. The amphibians include species such as the American 
toad, spadefoot toad, and tree frogs. The turtle community includes 
snapping turtles, mud turtles, softshell turtles, and a diversity of 
slider, map, and box turtles. With the exception of the box turtles, 
most of the turtle community is highly aquatic. Representative lizard 
species include the western slender glass lizard, collard lizard, Texas 
horned lizard, and diversity of skinks. Common snakes include species 
such as rat snakes, water snakes, bull snakes, and venomous snakes such 
as copperheads, western cottonmouths, timber rattlesnakes, and western 
pygmy rattlesnakes.
    Grand Lake is an important wintering area for bald eagles. Most of 
the wintering eagles use a large communal roost located on a small 
island near Twin Bridges State Park at the north end of the reservoir. 
Blackbirds represent a large part of the diet for eagles wintering on 
Grand Lake due to presence of a large blackbird roost near Twin Bridges 
State Park. The bald eagle can be expected to forage throughout the 
project area.
6.7.2 Environmental Effects
    The proposed permanent amendment of rule curve would not impact 
vegetation or wildlife resources located above normal reservoir rule 
curve elevations. The change would not likely cause any negative 
impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources located at and below 
normal reservoir rule curve elevations, because water levels would 
remain within the range of the current rule curve.
    In its letter dated March 29, 2016, the Oklahoma DWC states that it 
supports the amendment request and agrees that no additional mitigation 
for fish and wildlife resources be required through the remainder of 
this license. The Oklahoma DWC indicated that its support is based on a 
recently-finalized Interagency Agreement between Oklahoma DWC and GRDA 
in which mitigation for wildlife resources would be addressed through 
adjacent-site restoration and management.

6.8 Wetlands and Riparian Resources

6.8.1 Existing Environment
    Grand Lake and the surrounding areas contain numerous wetlands. 
Wetlands are most abundant along the upper, shallow reaches of the 
reservoir. In the reservoir's lower reaches, shoreline areas consist 
primarily of limestone bluffs, with wetlands restricted to coves and 
backwaters of inundated tributaries. The project supports about 18,318 
acres of wetland habitats, primarily at elevations of 735 to 745 feet. 
Wetland habitat areas have been broken down by type, resulting in the 
following approximations: Palustrine forested, 11,649 acres; mudflats, 
5,662 acres; scrub/shrub, 526 acres; ponded water, 247 acres; and 
emergent, 234 acres (GRDA 2008a).
    As described under Fisheries and Aquatic Resources above, GRDA may, 
in some years, seed millet on mudflat areas in Grand Lake to benefit 
shallow-water waterfowl and fish habitat in accordance with its 
approved Article 411 Fish and Waterfowl Habitat Management Plan. This 
is performed in the late summer and fall when lake elevations are at 
their lowest point along the current rule curve. However, because 
millet seeding under the plan is seldom attempted or successful, it is 
not a significant factor in the natural resources of Grand Lake.
6.8.2 Environmental Effects
    Implementation of the proposed rule curve would not likely cause 
any negative impacts to existing wetland resources at Grand Lake 
because water levels would remain within the range of the current rule 
curve. The change may provide minor benefits by reducing the water 
level fluctuations that occur under the current rule curve, allowing 
some degree of increased growth and establishment of riparian and 
shallow-water vegetation, which could benefit both fish and wildlife 
that utilize these areas. The change would eliminate the deepest part 
of the annual drawdown, a six-week period from September 1 through 
October 15 when elevations are held at 741 feet, reducing or 
eliminating exposure of mudflat areas previously used for millet 
seeding in some years. However, as noted, millet seeding is not 
currently a significant factor in Grand Lake's natural resources.
    In its letter dated March 29, 2016, the Oklahoma DWC states that it 
approves of GRDA's request to amend its rule curve for the remainder of 
its license. The Oklahoma DWC granted its support because of a 
recently-finalized Interagency Agreement between Oklahoma DWC and GRDA 
in which mitigation for wildlife resources would be addressed through 
adjacent-site restoration and management, thereby negating the need to 
lower the lake level to seed mudflats for millet.

6.9 Threatened and Endangered Species

6.9.1 Existing Environment
    Several species listed under the ESA have been identified in the 
Pensacola Project area. The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and the Neosho 
mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are listed as endangered, while the 
Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) and the Neosho madtom (Noturus 
placidus) are listed as threatened.
    Gray bats use two caves that are located in the Grand Lake project 
area: Beaver Dam Cave and Twin Cave. The Beaver Dam Cave is located 
adjacent to Drowning Creek, a tributary of Grand Lake and the Twin Cave 
is located more than a mile from Grand Lake and at an elevation of 840 
feet. Of these, only the Beaver Dam Cave is affected by Grand Lake 
levels. Inundation of the cave begins when Grand Lake reaches 746 feet 
and the cave entrance is completely blocked when Grand Lake reaches 751 
feet. Between elevations 756 and 757 feet Grand Lake levels cause water 
to reach the ceiling of the cave, drowning any bats inside. Bats in the 
cave can only survive one or two days without food due to the high 
energy demands of raising young from May through August. Further, if 
adults are trapped out of the cave then the young will die. The stress 
of being trapped may also result in aberrant behavior, causing bats to 
fall into the water. However, this concern has been addressed in that 
the Nature Conservancy and GRDA enlarged two high passage areas near 
the entrance of Beaver Dam Cave in 2008 and 2013. This work allows bats 
to access Beaver Dam Cave during periods of high water although the 
exact elevation of complete inundation is not in any records filed with 
the Commission.
    Annual surveys of the gray bat population have been conducted at 
caves within the project area including Beaver Dam Cave since 2007. 
Based on these surveys, most bats vacate the cave by mid-August. Only 
in one survey conducted in 2007 have bats remained in the cave through 
August and into September.
    The Neosho mucket is a freshwater mussel native to streams and 
rivers, which lives in nearshore habitat and does not occur in 
inundated areas, i.e., lakes and ponds. Critical habitat for this 
species has been designated in the Elk River and in the vicinity of 
Grand Lake; however, areas designated as critical habitat occur only in 
stream channels and not in areas inundated by lakes or reservoirs.
    The Ozark cavefish is a small fish with no eyes or pigmentation and 
lives strictly in subterranean waters. Cave ecosystems depend on bats 
(especially gray bats) as a source of energy and nutrients. The Ozark 
cavefish is found in Jailhouse Cave and Twin Cave near Grand Lake.

[[Page 3785]]

    The Neosho madtom is a small catfish that feeds at night on the 
bottom of rivers and streams. The madtom only occurs within a 14-mile 
reach of the Neosho River well upstream of Grand Lake near the 
Oklahoma/Kansas state line. Neosho madtom habitat is periodically 
affected by the operation of several Corp's flood control structures on 
the Neosho River.
6.9.2 Environmental Effects
    None of the threatened and endangered species identified at the 
project would be affected by the rule curve change. In its April 21, 
2016 comments on GRDA's application, FWS states that GRDA's proposal 
would not adversely affect any listed species. FWS further explained 
that the increased risk of flooding at Beaver Dam Cave is not a concern 
because listed bats are not using the cave at that time. Therefore, no 
further consultation is needed pursuant to the ESA.

6.10 Cultural and Historic Resources

6.10.1 Existing Environment
    Native Americans in the historic period and Euro-American settlers 
in the modern period leading up to Oklahoma's statehood have made 
extensive use of the Grand River Valley as a place of settlement and 
transportation. This pattern of use creates a high probability within 
the project area for intact cultural resources dating from prehistoric 
eras, periods of early European contact, the nineteenth century, and 
the Civil War. In addition to historical evidence supporting the 
likelihood of intact archeological deposits, the topography of the 
region lends itself to the preservation of archaeological resources. 
While much of the land in the downstream portion of the project near 
the dam rises in steep bluffs from the shoreline, the upriver portions 
of Grand Lake feature a shallow, more riverine topography that has the 
potential to contain intact archaeological resources. In addition, 
there are a number of tributaries that feed into Grand Lake that have a 
high potential for intact resources (GRDA, 2008).
    GRDA maintains data supplied by the Oklahoma SHPO and the Oklahoma 
Historical Society that has identified potential and significant 
cultural resource sites in the project area. Approximately 50 cultural 
sites are known to exist within the project area (GRDA, 2008).
    Currently there is risk of exposure of archaeological resources and 
potential historic properties during drawdown and drought. In addition 
to the discovery provisions in the Storm Plan and Drought Plans 
discussed in Section 5.5.3, Article 409 of the project license requires 
GRDA to immediately cease work and to develop a cultural resource 
management plan in consultation with the Oklahoma SHPO if GRDA 
discovers previously unidentified archeological or historic properties 
during the course of constructing or developing project works or other 
facilities. The plan must include a description of each discovered 
property indicating whether it is listed on or eligible to be listed on 
the National Register, a description of the potential effect on each 
discovered property, proposed measures for avoiding or mitigating 
effects, documentation of the nature and extent of consultation, and a 
schedule for mitigating effects and for conducting any needed 
additional studies.
6.10.2 Environmental Effects
    Operation under the proposed amendment would maintain Grand Lake 
from August 16 through October 31 at levels that are neither higher nor 
lower than maximum and minimum levels currently experienced throughout 
the year. GRDA is not proposing to change maximum water surface levels 
and therefore, no new lands would be affected by the amendment.
    On March 15, 2016, GRDA provided the Oklahoma SHPO a draft copy of 
its application containing its draft Storm Plan and draft Drought Plan. 
In an April 22, 2016 letter to GRDA, the Oklahoma SHPO recommended GRDA 
develop an HPMP to address potential impacts to archeological sites 
located along and near shorelines and recommended GRDA add the Oklahoma 
SHPO to the list of consulting parties for the Storm Plan and Drought 
Plan. GRDA added the Oklahoma SHPO to the consulting party lists for 
both plans and, rather than developing an HPMP, added provisions in 
each plan for consulting with the Oklahoma SHPO about potential impacts 
to cultural resources when the plans are in effect. On April 29, 2016, 
GRDA provided updated versions of both plans to the Oklahoma SHPO for 
review and comment.
    In an email to GRDA dated May 2, 2016, the Oklahoma SHPO reiterated 
its recommendation for a project-wide HPMP saying GRDA's proposal to 
develop an HPMP during a storm or drought event, as described in the 
revised plans, would be difficult. The Oklahoma SHPO also recommended 
adding the Oklahoma AS to the consulting party lists for both plans and 
recommended GRDA include a provision for addressing any unanticipated 
discoveries of human remains or burials in accordance with state law. 
GRDA incorporated these additional recommendations into its two plans 
and stated that it would be able to handle potential difficulties 
arising from an emergency situation by using the Commission-approved 
HPMP for its Markham Ferry Project as a framework to address any 
effects to historic properties.
    Furthermore, GRDA agreed that if Oklahoma SHPO or Oklahoma AS 
determines that reservoir conditions during the rule curve amendment 
period adversely affect historic properties, GRDA would develop a site-
specific plan to address these agencies' concerns. This provision for a 
site-specific plan, along with the consultation and unanticipated 
discovery provisions added to the Storm and Drought Plans, provides 
additional protection.
    Because GRDA's amendment would keep Grand Lake within existing 
fluctuation limits and given the additional consultation and site-
specific provisions added to the Storm Plan and Drought Plan, we do not 
recommend developing a project-wide HPMP at this time. Both the 
Oklahoma SHPO and Oklahoma AS raised concerns that it would be 
difficult to develop site-specific plans during a storm or drought 
event. GRDA responded that it would use the approved HPMP for the 
Markham Ferry project as a framework for the agencies and GRDA to 
jointly address any effects to historic properties during such an event 
for the proposed amendment period. The Oklahoma AS also pointed out 
that the Pensacola project has a different project setting and 
different cultural resources than the Markham Ferry project. However 
the Markham Ferry HPMP does contain provisions for inadvertent 
discovery of cultural resources and human remains that could be equally 
applied in an appropriate timeframe during a storm or drought event 
that would help avoid or minimize effects to cultural resources.
    At the Commission's August 3, 2016 Tribal consultation meeting and 
in their filings with the Commission, the Tribes asserted that any rule 
curve change, whether temporary or permanent, would increase flooding 
and adversely affect Tribal lands, including cultural properties. The 
Tribes stated that backwater flooding from the project, which they said 
occurs throughout the year, would be exacerbated by the proposed rule 
curve change. The Tribes also stated that flooding has impaired access 
to important Tribal facilities, including ceremonial grounds, 
educational and assistance services, recreational facilities, Tribal

[[Page 3786]]

government offices, and casinos, and has had negative social and 
economic impacts on Tribal communities. In addition, the Tribes have 
stated that GRDA's consultation for this amendment, which included 
sending the draft application for Tribal review and comment, is 
inadequate and that they support others' recommendations for a project-
wide HPMP for the proposed amendment.
    As stated above, GRDA's proposed changes are within Grand Lake's 
normal maximum and minimum fluctuation limits, therefore, no new lands 
would likely be affected and we do not recommend an HPMP. If anything, 
the proposed changes would reduce fluctuating water levels within Grand 
Lake and cultural and historic properties located on or near the 
shoreline would be less affected and would not be subject to additional 
exposure, looting, or vandalism, as asserted by the Oklahoma AS. 
Moreover, sites are vulnerable to erosion at any level, but approval of 
this amendment does not exacerbate those effects since the difference 
in water elevations would be smaller during this period.
    Concerning flooding of Tribal lands, the Pensacola project 
boundary, as currently defined, does not occupy federal Tribal lands 
held in trust. Moreover, the proposed amendment would not change the 
overall range of water surface elevations currently approved for 
project operations. However, regardless of the current boundary or 
range of operations, the socio-economic impacts identified by the 
Tribes at the consultation meeting and in their filings are an 
important consideration in the Commission's comprehensive review of the 
project. We believe the upcoming relicensing proceeding is the 
appropriate forum to review any flood effects cause by current 
operations and to evaluate any new information that shows there are 
Tribal lands held in trust within the project boundary.

6.11 Recreation

6.11.1 Affected Environment
    Grand Lake is a major recreation resource in northeastern Oklahoma, 
providing over a million recreation user days during 2014. Boating, 
fishing, and waterfowl hunting are popular recreation activities 
conducted on the lake. Recreational access to Grand Lake is provided 
through public, commercial, and private facilities such as boat ramps, 
marinas, and boat docks. Grand Lake has 5 state parks and approximately 
14 municipal parks, which collectively provide approximately 22 public 
boat ramps. In addition, there are approximately 439 private boat 
ramps, 53 commercial boat ramps, 4,021 commercial boat slips for rent, 
and 7,761 permitted private boat slips on the lake (GRDA, 2015).
    Boating on Grand Lake occurs year-round, although the primary 
recreation season extends from April 1 until October 1. Fishing is a 
year-round activity on Grand Lake and an average of 117 fishing 
tournaments were held on the lake each year between 2009 and 2014. 
Waterfowl hunting occurs from September through January primarily in 
the riverine (i.e., uppermost) sections of the lake (GRDA, 2015).
    GRDA indicated in its application that hazards that lead to boats 
running aground exist more often at lower lake levels. For example, 
nearly 80 percent of all boat groundings during the high recreation 
season (May 1 until September 30) in 2013-2014 occurred while the lake 
was being drawn down pursuant to the rule curve or maintained at 
elevation 741 feet. GRDA reports that, in contrast, despite more boats 
using the lake in 2015 than in 2014,\36\ substantially fewer boats ran 
aground during the August 16 to October 31, 2015 timeframe during the 
2015 temporary variance compared to the same timeframe in 2013 and 2014 
(GRDA, 2016).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ GRDA's aerial boat counts on Labor Day weekend counted 
nearly 2,000 boats during Labor Day weekend 2015 compared with fewer 
than 500 boats during Labor Day weekend 2014.
    \37\ In 2013 and 2014 combined, 75 percent (i.e., 24 of 32 
reported incidents) of all reported boat groundings throughout the 
year occurred during the August 16 to October 31 timeframe. In 2015, 
29 percent (i.e., 2 of 7 reported incidents) of all reported boat 
groundings throughout the year occurred during the August 16 to 
October 31 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.11.2 Environmental Effects
    Operation under the proposed rule curve would increase water 
elevations at Grand Lake by one to two feet from August 15 to October 
31 each year over the remainder of the current license period. These 
higher elevations would greatly improve public and private access at 
numerous boat ramps and docks around Grand Lake, and increase the total 
water surface area available for boating, significantly enhancing 
recreation opportunities during the popular late summer/early fall 
recreation season.\38\ Higher reservoir elevations would also likely 
decrease boating hazards in Grand Lake. Based on the information 
provided by GRDA, the vast majority of boat groundings in 2013 and 2014 
occurred during the tail end of the high recreation season when high 
recreational boating use coincided with periods of lowest water 
elevations pursuant to the current rule curve. Such a pattern did not 
occur in 2015, when Grand Lake was held to 742 feet or above. 
Therefore, operation using the proposed rule curve in 2017 and future 
years should contribute to a decrease in boat groundings at Grand Lake 
in the late summer early fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In its December 23, 1985 license application for the 
Pensacola Project, GRDA estimated that each additional foot of water 
surface elevation would result in an additional 1,000 acres of 
surface area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.12 Land Use and Aesthetics

6.12.1 Affected Environment
    Grand Lake has approximately 522 miles of irregular shoreline, 
which is characterized by narrow channels and many coves. The shoreline 
of Grand Lake ranges from forested areas with a mixture of vegetative 
cover types to contiguous manicured lawns, residential housing, and 
commercial development. The lands adjacent to the northern and western 
shores of the project consist primarily of rolling plains with 
occasional hills and ridges and gently sloping shoreline. The lands 
adjacent to the southern and eastern shores are characterized by deep 
ravines and narrow valleys separated by broad, gently rolling uplands, 
with shorelines consisting primarily of steep rocky beaches and bluffs. 
The upper section of Grand Lake is primarily undeveloped with a more 
natural aesthetic, while the majority of the shoreline of the lower 
section of Grand Lake is primarily highly developed.
    About 50 percent of land within the project boundary comprises 
deciduous forest, followed by cropland and pasture lands comprising 
about 35 percent of the project lands. Residential, commercial, and 
other development accounts for about 11 percent of total land area 
within the project boundary. The Grand Lake area is popular for 
recreation and residential development, particularly summer homes. GRDA 
manages the reservoir's shorelines via a permitting system and operates 
a lake patrol to monitor and inspect permitted shoreline uses and 
enforce its boating regulations (FERC, 2009).
6.12.2 Environmental Effects
    Operation under the proposed rule curve would allow GRDA to 
maintain higher reservoir elevations from August 15 to October 31, 
which would increase the amount of project lands under water by up to 
approximately 2,000 acres during this timeframe compared to current 
project operations.\39\ As noted

[[Page 3787]]

above under Recreation, the higher water levels would increase the 
amount of area available for boating in the reservoir and improve 
public and private access to numerous boat ramps and docks located at 
the project, which would result in moderate benefits to these land uses 
adjacent to the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In its December 23, 1985 license application for the 
Pensacola Project, GRDA estimated that each additional foot of water 
surface elevation would result in an additional 1,000 acres of 
surface area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the higher water levels under the proposed rule curve 
would likely improve the scenic quality of the areas of reservoir 
shoreline that would have otherwise been dewatered and devoid of 
vegetation during this timeframe. Such beneficial effects on aesthetics 
of the project would be minor.

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Comprehensive Development and Staff-Recommended Measures

    Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to 
give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project 
is located. Therefore, when we review a hydropower application, we 
consider power and non-power development, to include the protection of, 
mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the 
protection of recreational opportunities; and other aspects of 
environmental quality. In deciding whether, and under what conditions, 
to approve hydropower applications, we must determine that the project 
would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or 
developing the waterway. This section summarizes our findings in this 
EA and reviews our recommendations for conditions to be included in any 
approval of the proposed permanent amendment.
    Based on our independent review of the licensee's proposed 
amendment, agency and public comments filed on the licensee's proposal, 
and our review of environmental effects, we believe approval of GRDA's 
proposal, with Oklahoma DEQ's mandatory WQC conditions, is the 
preferred alternative. We recommend this alternative because, based on 
the information reviewed and analysis performed in this EA, it would 
provide several significant benefits with few measurable negative 
impacts.
    Operation of the Pensacola Project using the proposed rule curve 
would allow more water to be stored in Grand Lake, with less 
fluctuation in water levels, from August 15 through October 31 each 
year for the remainder of the current license term. Operation under the 
proposed rule curve would likely result in minor reductions in 
shoreline erosion rates and could promote revegetation of some shallow 
shoreline areas that could further reduce erosion over time. This 
change would not result in any material adverse impacts to water 
quality. In hot dry years, higher water levels in late summer and early 
fall would make more water available for releases to maintain 
downstream DO and avoid fish kills. During any periods of declared 
severe to exceptional drought, GRDA's proposed Drought Plan would 
provide additional protection for downstream water quality. A reduction 
in water level fluctuations in Grand Lake should have positive effects 
on fisheries and other aquatic resources by providing more stable 
shallow-water habitat and cover, especially for juvenile fishes, and 
through increased plant growth and establishment in wetland areas, 
including emergent and submerged vegetation. Fish occupying the project 
tailwater and river downstream would likely benefit from water quality 
improvements in hot, dry years and during any declared severe to 
exceptional drought as discussed above.
    Higher elevations at Grand Lake in late summer and early fall would 
provide a significant benefit to recreation by increasing the water 
surface area available for boating, improving access at public and 
private launching facilities, and likely decreasing shallow-water 
boating hazards. Higher seasonal water elevations would likely provide 
minor aesthetic improvements in some areas that were dewatered and 
devoid of vegetation in the past.
    While we have not identified any definitive significant short-term 
or long-term negative effects to resources that would likely occur with 
operation under the proposed rule curve, commenters have expressed 
concern regarding flooding effects and affects to cultural and historic 
resources.
    Flood-related issues. As discussed earlier, most flood-related 
issues raised by commenters in this proceeding were reviewed during the 
Commission's processing of GRDA's temporary variance requests in 2015 
and 2016 which involved the same changes in reservoir elevations. 
Staff's findings on the flood-related issues were presented in the 
temporary variance orders. In the Water Quantity section above, staff 
summarizes those findings that would allow the same rule curve change 
each year for the remaining term of the license. To the extent 
commenters address flooding concerns that are not related to the 
pending amendment, the Commission will perform a comprehensive review 
of the project and any proposed future operation in the upcoming 
relicensing proceeding. That proceeding is the appropriate forum to 
identify and address issues that are separate from GRDA's amendment 
application.
    Cultural and historic resource protection. We found in our analysis 
that the proposed permanent rule curve change would occur within the 
project's existing fluctuation limits and therefore, would be unlikely 
to affect any new lands. No land-clearing or land-disturbing activities 
would be required for this amendment. In addition, less fluctuating 
water levels should reduce the chances of erosion affecting cultural or 
historic resources in near-shore areas. Cultural and historic 
properties located on or near the shoreline would potentially be 
inundated for a longer period during the amendment, providing more 
cover and helping to prevent exposure. If anything, keeping water 
levels higher during the late summer and early fall period, when more 
people are present, would reduce the potential for artifact collection 
or looting. GRDA's agreement to prepare specific plans in consultation 
with the Oklahoma SHPO and Oklahoma AS if either agency determines that 
historic properties might be affected would further protect cultural 
and historic resources.
7.1.1 Staff-Recommended Measures
    Along with its proposed changes to the rule curve, GRDA proposes a 
Storm Plan that would provide for assessment of risks of upstream and 
downstream flooding during high precipitation events and a process to 
proactively and collaboratively manage these events. A Storm Plan was 
in place during the 2015 and 2016 temporary variance periods, and was 
successful in aiding communication related to high precipitation events 
within the basin and managing project facilities during those events. 
Under the current proposal, the Storm Plan would be in effect each year 
for the remainder of the license period. We recommend that any approval 
of GRDA's proposed amendment incorporate the Storm Plan.
    GRDA also proposes a Drought Plan that would help protect 
downstream water quality and fisheries, as well as generation at its 
downstream Markham Ferry Project and Salina Pumped Storage Project if a 
severe to exceptional drought is declared and reservoir elevations fall 
below the rule curve. The Drought Plan would be in effect each year for 
the remainder of the license period. We recommend that any approval of 
GRDA's proposal incorporate the Drought Plan.

[[Page 3788]]

    We recommend that any approval of GRDA's proposal incorporate the 
annual reporting requirement that is a condition of Oklahoma DEQ's June 
30, 2016 401 certification. The requirement should mirror paragraph (E) 
of the Commission's August 12, 2016 order approving the temporary rule 
curve variance for 2016, which required GRDA to notify Oklahoma DEQ, at 
the same time it notifies other agencies pursuant to DO mitigation 
plans approved under Article 403, of any significant DO deficiencies or 
DO mitigation, so that Oklahoma DEQ can track GRDA's progress in 
maintaining state water quality standards. In addition to Oklahoma 
DEQ's ongoing annual reporting requirement, Oklahoma DEQ also included 
three other mandatory WQC conditions: (1) that the certification does 
not authorize any discharge or dredging; (2) that the reservoir be 
maintained between elevations 742 and 744 feet as requested by GRDA; 
and (3) that emergency and routine maintenance will be as permitted by 
the Corps. We have no objections to these conditions being added to the 
license in any order approving the proposed amendment.

7.2 Consistency With Comprehensive Plans

    Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 803(a)(2)(A), requires the 
Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with 
federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or 
conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. We reviewed 
6 qualifying comprehensive plans that are applicable to the proposed 
action at the Pensacola Project No. 1494, located in Oklahoma. The 
proposed action is consistent with all of the reviewed comprehensive 
plans.
Oklahoma
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Little Rock District and 
Tulsa District. 1991. Arkansas River Basin, Arkansas and Oklahoma, 
feasibility report. Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma. May 
1991.
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. 1989. Eastern Oklahoma wetlands plan: Lower Mississippi Valley 
joint venture--North American waterfowl management plan. Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma. August 1989.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1997. Update of the Oklahoma 
comprehensive water plan. Publication Number 139. Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma. February 1997.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2002. Oklahoma's water quality 
standards and implementation of Oklahoma's water quality standards. 
Oklahoma Administrative Code, Title 785, Chapters 45 and 46 effective 
July 1, 2002. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Department. 2001 Statewide Comprehensive 
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): The public recreation estate. Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma.
United States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Fisheries USA: The recreational 
fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.

8.0 Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based on information, analysis, and evaluations contained in this 
EA, we find that approval of the proposed rule curve amendment, to 
include the mandatory conditions stipulated by Oklahoma DEQ in its 401 
certification, would not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

9.0 Literature Cited

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2009. Environmental 
Assessment for shoreline management plan for the Pensacola Project, 
issued August 14, 2009. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC.
FERC. 2007. Final Environmental Assessment for application for non-
project use of project lands and waters (commercial marina) at the 
Pensacola Project, issued October 18, 2007. Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
FERC. 1996. Environmental Assessment for application for amendment 
of license to modify rule curve, issued December 3, 1996. Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
FERC. 1991. Environmental Assessment for licensing of Pensacola 
Project, issued November 19, 1991. Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC.
GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2016. Application for non-capacity 
amendment of license, including possible temporary variance for 2016 
for the Pensacola Project. Dated and filed May 6, 2016.
GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2015. Recreation plan monitoring 
report for the Pensacola Project. Dated and filed April 1, 2015.
GRDA. 2008a. Application for shoreline management plan for the 
Pensacola Project. Filed July 21, 2008; as cited in FERC 2009.
GRDA. 2008b. Environmental assessment of habitable structures on 
Grand Lake. Filed December 23, 2008; as cited in FERC 2009.
Oklahoma WRB (Oklahoma Water Resources Board). 2012. Grand Watershed 
Planning Report. Versions 1.1. OWRB, Oklahoma City. https://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_Grand_Region_Report.pdf. Accessed December 20, 
2016.
Oklahoma WRB. 2009. Hydrographic Survey of Grand Lake: Final Report. 
Dated August 19, 2009. Available at: https://www.owrb.ok.gov/
studies/reports/reports_pdf/GrandLake_hydrographicsurvey.pdf. 
Accessed November 28, 2016.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. 
Assistant Commissioner, Engineering and Research Technical 
Memorandum No. 11 (ACER 11), Downstream Hazard Classification 
Guidelines. December 1988.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2016. Data collected at USGS 
gage 07190500 Neosho River Near Langley, OK. Available at: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ok/nwis/uv?site_no=07190500. Accessed 
November 28, 2016.
USGS. 2016. Figure available at: http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Topo_Map. Accessed November 25, 2016.
Environmental Systems Research Institute: Geographic Information 
Systems (ESRI-GIS). 2016. National Hydrography Dataset. Available 
at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed November 25, 2016.

10.0 List of Preparers

Mark Carter--Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics (Environmental 
Biologist; B.S. Fisheries Science; M.S. Natural Resources and 
Environmental Sciences)
Jeremy Jessup, PE--Water Quantity and Flows (Civil Engineer; B.S. 
and M.S. Civil and Infrastructure Engineering)
Rebecca Martin--Terrestrial Resources, Wetlands, and Endangered 
Species (Environmental Biologist; B.S. Environmental Earth Science; 
M.S. Biology)
Kurt Powers--Cultural and Historic Resources (Wildlife Biologist; 
B.A. Environmental Science and Foreign Affairs; M.S. Environmental 
Science and Engineering)
James Puglisi, PE--Water Quantity and Flows (Senior Civil Engineer; 
B.S. and M.S. Civil Engineering)
B. Peter Yarrington-Water Quantity and Quality, Fisheries and 
Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; B.S. Aquatic Ecology, M.S. 
Fisheries Science and Taxonomy)

[FR Doc. 2017-00566 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P