final bull shoals lake environmental assessment 1-75 · final environmental assessment bull shoals...

Little R

ock District

FINA

L Environmental A

ssessment

Bull Shoals Lake

Master Plan R

evision D

ecember 2015

For Further Inform

ation, Contact: Planning and

Environmental D

ivision U

.S. Arm

y Corps of

EngineersLittle R

ock District

Post Office B

ox 867Little R

ock, Arkansas

72203-0867

This page left intentionally blank

BU

LL

SHO

AL

SL

AK

EM

AST

ER

PLA

N R

EV

ISION

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ASSE

SSME

NT

SE

CT

ION

PA

GE

Table of Con

tents

1.0 INTRO

DU

CTION

............................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PURPO

SE AND

NEED

FOR ACTIO

N .................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Project History ............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 No-Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Moderate Conservation – (Alternative 2, M

odified, Selected Alternative) ................................................ 9

3.3 Moderate Conservation (Alternative 2) .................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Limited G

rowth (Alternative 3) ................................................................................................................. 10

3.5 Maxim

um Conservation (Alternative 4) ................................................................................................... 10

4.0 AFFECTED EN

VIRON

MEN

T ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Project Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Climate ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Topography, G

eology, and Soils .......................................................................................................... 13

4.4 Aquatic Environment ................................................................................................................................ 15

4.4.1 H

ydrology and Groundw

ater ...................................................................................................... 15

4.4.2 W

ater Quality .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.4.3 Fish Species and H

abitat ............................................................................................................. 17

4.5 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................................................................... 19

4.5.1 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................. 19

4.5.2 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 20

4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................... 20

4.5.1 Invasive Species........................................................................................................................... 21

4.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources ..................................................................................................... 22

4.6.1 Paleontology ............................................................................................................................... 22

4.6.2 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 22

4.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 25

4.8 Socio-Economic Resources ........................................................................................................................ 25

4.9 Recreation Resources ................................................................................................................................ 27

4.10 Health and Safety .................................................................................................................................... 27

4.11 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................ 27

5.0 ENVIRO

NM

ENTAL CO

NSEQ

UEN

CES .............................................................................................................. 28

5.1 Climate ...................................................................................................................................................... 34

5.1.1 No-Action (Alternative 1) ................................................................................................................... 34

5.1.2 Modified M

oderate Conservation (Selected Alternative 2) .............................................................. 34

5.1.3 Moderate Conservation (Alternative 2) ............................................................................................. 34

5.1.4 Limited G

rowth (Alternative 3) .......................................................................................................... 34

5.1.5 Maxim

um Conservation (Alternative 4) ............................................................................................. 34

5.2 Topography, Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 35


5.2.2 Modified M

oderate Conservation (Selected Alternative 2) ............................................................... 35


5.2.4 Limited G


5.2.5 Maxim


5.3 Aquatic Environment ............................................................................................................................... 36

5.3.1 Hydrology and G

roundwater ............................................................................................................. 36

5.3.2 W

ater Quality .............................................................................................................................. 37

5.3.3 Fish Species and H

abitat ............................................................................................................. 38

5.4 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................................................................... 40

5.4.1 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................. 40

5.4.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 41

5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................................ 42

5.5.1 No Action (Alternative 1)................................................................................................................... 42

5.5.2 Modified M



5.5.4 Limited G


5.5.5 Maxim


5.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources ..................................................................................................... 44


5.6.2 Modified M



5.6.4 Limited G


5.6.5 Maxim


5.7 Socio-Economic Resources ....................................................................................................................... 45

5.7.1 No Action (Alternative 1) ................................................................................................................... 45

5.7.2 Modified M



5.7.4 Limited G


5.7.5 Maxim


5.8 Recreation Resources ............................................................................................................................... 46


5.8.2 Modified M



5.8.4 Limited G

rowth (Alternative 3) ........................................................................................................... 47

5.8.5 Maxim


5.9 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 47

5.9.1 No Action (Alternative 1) ................................................................................................................... 47

5.9.2 Modified M



5.9.4 Limited G


5.9.5 Maxim


5.10 Health &

Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 48

5.10.1 No Action (Alternative 1) .................................................................................................................. 48

5.10.2 Modified M

oderate Conservation (Selected Alternative 2) ............................................................ 49

5.10.3 Moderate Conservation (Alternative 2) ........................................................................................... 49

5.10.4 Limited G

rowth (Alternative 3) ........................................................................................................ 49

5.10.5 Maxim

um Conservation (Alternative 4) ........................................................................................... 49

5.11 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 49

5.11.1 No-Action (Alternative 1) ................................................................................................................. 49

5.11.2 Modified M


5.11.2 Moderate Conservation (Alternative 2) ............................................................................................ 50

5.11.3 Limited G

rowth (Alternative 3) ........................................................................................................ 50

5.11.4 Maxim

um Conservation (Alternative 4) .......................................................................................... 50

5.12 Cumulative Im

pacts ................................................................................................................................ 51

6.0 ENVIRO

NM

ENTAL CO

MPLIAN

CE ................................................................................................................... 53

6.1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ............................................................................................................ 53

6.2 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................................ 53

6.3 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................................. 53

6.4 Cultural Resource Requirement ................................................................................................................ 54

7.0 Scoping and Public Concern .......................................................................................................................... 55

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 55

7.2 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................................... 55

7.3 Focus Groups ............................................................................................................................................. 56

7.4 Draft M

aster Plan/Draft Environm

ental Assessment. ............................................................................... 56

7.5 Final Master Plan/Final EA. ........................................................................................................................ 57

8.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 58

9.0 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................. 60

10.0 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................................... 62

BU

LL

SHO

AL

S LA

KE

MA

STE

R PL

AN

RE

VISIO

NE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L A

SSESSM

EN

T

LIST

OF

APPE

ND

ICE

S

Appendix

A: Public

Com

ments

Part 1: ScopingR

eport

Part 2: Draft R

elease Com

ment A

nalysis Report

Appendix

B:Local, State&

FederalAgency

Coordination

Letters

Part 1:Agency

ScopingLetters

Part 2:Agency D

raft Release Letters

Appendix

CA

lternativeM

aps

BU

LL

SHO

AL

S LA

KE

MA

STE

R PL

AN

RE

VISIO

NE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L A

SSESSM

EN

T

LIST

OF

TA

BL

ES

AN

D

FIGU

RE

S Table

2.1Pertinent D

ataofB

ull Shoals Dam

andLake

Table3.1

Com

parison of Land Classification by A

lternativeTable 3.2 A

creage Matrix

Table4.1 Threatened,Endangered,Protected

andSpecies ofC

oncernTable 4.2 Previous A

rchaeological Investigations at Bull Shoals Lake

Table 4.3 Previously Recorded R

esources at Bull Shoals Lake

Table4.4

Population TrendsTable

4.5H

ousingC

haracteristics, 2010Table

4.6Incom

eand Education, 2009-2013

Table4.7

Population byR

aceand

Origin, 2010

Table5.1

Resource

Impactw

ithIm

plementation ofA

lternativesTable

6: Federal Act/Executive

OrderC

ompliance

Figure2.1

Bull Shoals Lake

and Surrounding Area

Figure3.1

Pie Charts for Percentage

ofLandC

lassifications forEach Alternative

Figure4.1

Geology ofB

ull Shoals LakeW

atershed

1 1.0 IN

TR

OD

UCT

ION

The

MasterPlan is the strategic

land usedocum

ent thatguides thecom

prehensivem

anagementand

development ofallrecreational, natural, and

culturalresources throughout thelife

ofthe water

resourceproject. The

MasterPlan

guidestheefficient and

cost-effectivem

anagement,

development, and use

ofproject lands. It is avitaltool forthe

responsiblestew

ardship andsustainability

ofprojectresourcesforthebenefitofpresent and

futuregenerations.

TheM

asterPlanguidesand

articulatesCorps'responsibilities pursuant to Federal law

s to preserve,conserve,restore,m

aintain, manage,and

developthe

project'slands, waters,and

associated resources. The

MasterPlan is a

dynamic

operational document projecting w

hatcould and should happen overthe

lifeofthe

projectand is intended to be flexibleto respond to

changing conditions. The

MasterPlan deals in concepts, not in details, ofdesign oradm

inistration. Detailed

managem

ent andadm

inistration functions areaddressed in the

Operational M

anagement Plan

(OM

P), which im

plementsthe

conceptsoftheM

asterPlan into operationalactions. M

asterPlans are required to bedeveloped

andkept current forC

ivil Works projects operated

and maintained

bythe

Corps and

theyinclude

all land(fee,easem

ents, orotherinterests)originally

acquiredforthe

projectsandany

subsequent land(fee,easem

ents, orotherinterests)acquired to support the

operations andauthorized m

issions oftheproject.

TheM

asterPlan is not intended to address thespecifics ofregional w

aterquality, shoreline m

anagement, orw

aterlevel managem

ent; theseareasare

covered in aproject’s shoreline

managem

ent plan orwaterm

anagement plan. H

owever, specific

issues identified through the M

asterPlanrevision processcan still be

comm

unicatedand

coordinatedw

ith theappropriate

internalCorps resource

(i.e. Operations forshoreline

managem

ent)orexternalresourceagency

(i.e. Arkansas D

epartment of Environm

ental Quality and M

issouri Departm

ent ofNatural

Resourcesforw

aterquality)responsibleforthat specific

area.

Therevised

MasterPlan

updates Design M

emorandum

No. 1-G

, Updated

MasterPlan

for D

evelopment and M

anagement ofB

ull Shoals Lake(U

SAC

E 1975). W

ith theM

asterPlanrevision,an Environm

ental Assessm

ent (EA)w

ascompleted to evaluate

existingconditions and

potential impacts ofproposed

alternatives. TheEA

is prepared pursuant to the

NationalEnvironm

entalPolicyA

ct(NEPA

),Council on Environm

ental Quality

(CEQ

)regulations (40

CFR

,1500–1517),and theC

orps implem

entingregulation, Policy

andProcedures

forImplem

entingN

EPA, EngineerR

egulation (ER)200-2-2

(1988).

2 2.0 P

UR

PO

SE AN

D N

EED FO

R A

CTIO

N

2.1 Purp

ose and N

eed

The purpose of the proposed actionisto revise the B

ull Shoals Lake Master Plan to set a vision for

the next 10 to 20 years and to reflect changing needs for operation of the project's lands, waters, and

associated resources.

The need for the proposed action is based on the age of the current plan and the changed conditions around the lake and in lake use.The

MasterPlan

forBull ShoalsLake

was last approved in 1975;

andw

asfollowed

by31supplem

ents overthelast40

years.D

uringthat tim

e, publicuse

patterns have

remained sim

ilar, but trends, facility and service demands have shifted in the past 40 years due

tothe need for alternative experiences in

recreationand tourism

.V

isitation to the lake decreased from

2000 to 2010;however, the dem

and for high quality recreational experiences has remained

consistent.B

ull ShoalsLakeincurs recreation

pressureforboth private

shorelineand public

recreation use, resulting in managem

ent concernsregarding the overall sustainability of the lake.R

eallocation of services needs to be assessed with public

useat projectfacilities.

Over the last four

decades, managem

ent changesinvolvingrecreation area

closuresand improvem

ents haveoccurred

to meetevolving

publicuse.

Inaddition, cooperative

agreements are being considered in order to

operateand m

aintain facilities, which w

ouldreduce

thefinancial burden

on thetax

payers. 2.2 P

roject History

Bull Shoals

Lakeis a

multiple

purposew

aterresourcedevelopm

ent projectinitially authorized fortw

o purposes:floodcontroland hydropow

ergeneration. Subsequent authorized uses included:w

ater supply,including providingw

aterstorageto supply

am

inimum

flow discharge

(Section 132 of the FY

2006 Energy and Water R

esources Developm

ent Act, Public

Law109-103);recreation;and

fish andw

ildlife(Flood C

ontrol Act of1938,asam

ended in 1944,1946, 1954,1962, 1965 and 1968).B

ull ShoalsLake

is am

ajor component ofa

comprehensive

planforw

aterresourcedevelopm

ent in the

White

RiverBasin of A

rkansas and Missouri.The

project is located in thescenic

Ozark M

ountain region ofsouthern

Missouri(Taney and O

zark counties) and northernA

rkansasin Baxter, B

oone and M

arion counties-Figure2.1.The

totalareacontained in

theB

ull Shoals project, includingboth land

and watersurface,consists of104,573.3

acres.Ofthis total, 12.9

acresarein flow

ageeasem

ent.The

region is characterizedby

narrowridges betw

eendeeply

cut valleysthatarew

ell wooded

with

deciduous treesandscattered pine

andcedar.W

hen thelake

is at thetop ofthe

conservation pool(elevation 659 feet above m

ean sea level), thew

aterareais48,225.3

surface acreswith

822 milesof

shorelinew

ithin the lands owned in fee. The

shorelineis irregularw

ith topographyranging

from

steep bluffs to gentleslopes.

Construction ofB

ull Shoals Dam

was initiated in

June1947. The

dam w

ascompleted in July of1951,

and thepow

erhouseand sw

itchyardw

erecom

pleted in 1953. Thelake

was declared operationalfor

publicuse

in 1953under the authority ofthe Flood C

ontrol Act approved 28 June 1938 (Public Law

N

o. 761, 75th Congress, 3rd Session) as m

odified by the Flood Control A

ct approved 18 August 1941

(Public Law N

o. 228, 77th Congress, 1st Session)w

hich includedthe authorization of the project for

flood control and generation of hydroelectric power.

Table2.1 provides pertinent construction and

operations dataforthis lake.

3 There are 37 public use areas around B

ull Shoals Lake. Nine cam

pgrounds and six access points on the lake are operated by the C

orps of Engineers. In 2012, a district lead Recreation A

djustment Plan

evaluated all the parks on Bull Shoals Lake and for budgetary reasons, leased the cam

ping portion of D

am Site Park and Pontiac Parks. In both cases, the boat ram

ps continue to be operated and m

aintained by the Corps. There are tw

elve parks and ten access points operated by city, county, or state agencies, m

arinas, church groups, or schools around the lake.The Selected A

lternative,described in this final EA

, would result in no significant park operational changes. Since 1975, parks

have been evaluated using an efficiency review process. Those parks chosen for closure for budgetary

reasons were offered for lease through standard leasing procedures. C

losed parks could be reopened at such tim

e as adequate funding becomes available. There are three parks W

oodard, Spring Creek,

and Dam

Site that have been reduced to lake access only. One State Park (B

ull Shoals-White R

iver State Park) is located on B

ull Shoals Lake and the White R

iver and it is operated by the Arkansas

Departm

ent of Parks and Tourism. Three Parks (B

ull Shoals, Ozark Isle, and Pontiac) are operated by

a comm

ercial concessionaire. One park (Shadow

Rock) is operated by the C

ity of Forsyth, Missouri.

Two parks (H

ighway K

and Kissee M

ills) are operated by Taney County, M

issouri. One park (Lead

Hill C

ity Park) is operated by the City of Lead H

ill. One park (Shoal C

reek) is operated by City of

Protem (Protem

Volunteer Fire D

epartment). Three parks (D

am Site, Point R

eturn and Danuser C

ity Park) are operated by the C

ity of Bull Shoals; at D

am Site, the C

ity operates the campground and the

Corps retains operation and m

aintenance of the launch ramp. C

amp G

alilee is a recreation area and is leased to the First U

nited Methodist C

hurch of Harrison, A

rkansas. The Arkansas G

ame and Fish

Com

mission operates a boat launch site w

ithin the Cam

p Galilee recreation area. Elbow

Park is not developed, but w

as kept in the High D

ensity land classification for any potential future use (at the w

riting of this master plan revision,the C

orps does not have future plans to develop this park, but m

ade the decision to keep the park in High D

ensity should any outside entities have future interest in the site).

4

Figure 2.1 B

ull Shoals Lake and Surrounding A

rea

5

Table 2.1PertinentD

ataofBull ShoalsD

amand Lake

PERTIN

ENT

DA

TAO

FTH

ED

AM

AN

DLA

KE

GeneralInform

ation

Purpose, Stream, States

FC, P, W

S, R, F&

WW

hiteR

., M

issouri &

Arkansas(1)

Drainage

area, squarem

iles6,036

Average

annualrainfalloverthedrainage

area, inches,approximately

45.4

D

am

Lengthin

feet2,256

Height,feetabove

streambed

258Top

ofdamelevation,feetabove

mean sea

level708

Generators

M

ainunits,num

ber8

Rated

capacityeach unit,kilow

atts45,000

Stationservice

units, number

2R

atedcapacity

each unit,kilowatts

700

Lake

N

ominalbottom

ofpowerdraw

down

Elevation,feetabovem

ean sealevel

588A

rea, acres20,260

Nom

inaltopofconservation pool


ean sealevel

659

Area, acres

48,225.Length ofshoreline, m

iles821

Nom

inaltopofflood-controlpool


ean sealevel

695

Area, acres

71,240Length ofshoreline, m

iles1,050

Five-Yearfrequency

pool


ean sealevel(flood pool)

695Elevation,feetabove

mean sea

level(drawdow

n)628.5

(1)FC

–flood

control, P–

power, W

S-water supply, MF-m

inimum

flow,

R-recreation, F&

W-Fish and W

ildlife

6 3.0 A

LTER

NA

TIV

ES

Alternativesevaluated in thisEA

aredepicted in Table

3.1,andin Figure

3.1. The alternatives include: A

lternative1 (N

oA

ction);Alternative

2(M

oderate Conservation);Selected A

lternative 2 (M

oderate Conservation) M

odified;Alternative

3(Lim

ited Grow

th);andA

lternative4

(Maxim

um

Conservation).

Foram

oredetailed m

apanalysis of the

PreferredA

lternative,referto Appendix

Dofthe

Bull Shoals M

asterPlan, which

contains topographicm

aps depictingland

classification andflow

ageeasem

entareasaround theshoreline.

Acom

pleteset ofm

apsforeachalternative

is located in an

appendixto thisdocum

ent.

In thisEA developm

ent, thedifferent alternativesare

compared to the

No A

ction Alternative

in order to evaluate potential positive and negative effects on the natural and hum

an environment

based on the various shoreline acreage classifications determined by each action alternative. A

ll evaluated alternatives w

ereprovided for public review

after completion of the draft EA

.Public com

ments w

erecollected during the public com

ment period and considered in the developm

ent of the final EA

and the final updated Master Plan.Based on

publiccom

ments received, the

finalEA

would

compare all action alternatives to the Preferred A

ction or to a modified alternative that

is developed,based on publicpreferences.

The Final EA presents

the Selected Alternative and

providesthe basis for the agency decision under N

EPA.

7

Table

3.1C

omparison of L

and Classifications by A

lternative

Land C

lassification

Alternative 1 –N

o Action

Alternative 2 –M

oderate C

onservation

Alternative 2

Modified, Selected A

lternative—M

oderate C

onservation

Alternative 3 –

Limited

Developm

ent

Alternative 4 –M

aximum

C

onservation

AcresPercent

AcresPercent

AcresPercent

AcresPercent

AcresPercent

High D

ensity8,310.9

15%3,714.6

7%3,937.9

7%3,480.3

6%3,714.6

7%

Low D

ensity31,957.2

57%7,257.6

13%7,272.1

13%11,915.8

21%0.0

0%

Environmentally

Sensitive11,895.7

21%29,366.9

52%29,048.5

52%25,190.9

45%36,624.3

65%

Project O

perations61.8

< 1%91.8

< 1%91.8

<1%91.8

< 1%91.8

< 1%

Wildlife

Managem

ent3,953.5

7%15,917.3

28%15,997.9

28%15,669.4

28%15,917.3

28%

Not A

llocated169.0

< 1%0.0

0%0.0

0%0.0

0%0.0

0%

8 Figure

3.1Pie C

harts for PercentageofL

andC

lassificationsforE

achA

lternative.

15%

57%

21%

0.1%

7% 0.3%

ALTERN

ATIVE ON

EN

O ACTIO

N

High D

ensity Recreation

Low D

ensity Recreation

Environmentally Sensitive

Project Operations

Wildlife M

anagement

No Allocation

7%

13%

52%

0.2%

28%

ALTERN

ATIVE TWO

M

OD

ERATE CON

SERVATIONH

igh Density

Low D

ensity


Project Operations

Wildlife M

anagement

7%

13%

52%

0.2%

28% ALTERN

ATVE TWO

(MO

DIFIED

) SELECTED

ALTERN

ATIVE MO

DERATE CO

NSERVATIO

N

High D

ensity

Low D

ensity


Project Operations

Wildlife M

anagement

6%

21%

45%

0.2%

28% ALTERN

ATIVE THREE

LIMITED

DEVELO

PMEN

T High D

ensity

Low D

ensity


Project Operations

Wildlife M

anagement

7%0%

65%0.2%

28%

ALTERN

ATIVE FOU

RM

AXIM

UM

CON

SERVATION

High D

ensity

0 Low D

ensity


Project Operations

Wildlife M

anagement

9 3.1 N

o-Action

(Altern

ative 1) The

No A

ction Alternative

land classification, which isbased on the 1975 m

aster plan,doesnot accurately reflect the land use activities or resource m

anagement of the lake. In addition, this

alternative does not address resource managem

ent laws, policies, and regulations that w

ere im

plemented after the 1975 B

ull Shoals Lake Master Plan.

Operation and m

anagement of B

ull ShoalsLake would continue as outlined in the current

Master Plan U

pdate, which designates8,310.9 acres as H

igh Density recreation and 31,957.2

acres as Low D

ensity recreation. This alternative has the potential to allow for increased land

and water based im

pacts within the Low

Density land classification

due to the fact this constitutes 57%

of available shoreline acreage. There are 11,895.7 acres classified as Environm

entally Sensitive areas, 61.8 acres as Project Operations, 3,953.5 acres as W

ildlife M

anagement, and 169 acres that currently have no allocation. H

igh Density recreation refers to

lands developed for intensive recreational activities for the visiting public including day use areas and/or cam

pgrounds. These could include areas for concessions (marinas, com

mercial

concessions, etc.), and quasi-public development.

Low D

ensity recreation lands have minim

al development or infrastructure that supports a

passive public recreational use (e.g. primitive cam

ping, fishing, hunting, trails, wildlife view

ing, resorts, etc.).

Environmentally Sensitive areas include those lands w

here scientific, ecological, cultural or aesthetic features have been identified. D

esignation of these lands is not limited to just lands that

are otherwise protected by law

s such as the Endangered Species Act, the N

ational Historic

Preservation Act or applicable State statutes. These areas m

ust be considered by managem

ent to ensure they are not adversely im

pacted. Typically, limited or no developm

ent of public use is allow

ed on these lands. No agricultural or grazing uses are perm

itted on these lands unless necessary for a specific resource m

anagement benefit, such as prairie restoration. These

restoration areas are typically distinct parcels located within another, and perhaps larger, land

classification area.

The Project Operations category includes those lands required for the dam

, spillway, sw

itchyard, levees, dikes, offices, m

aintenance facilities, and other areas that are used solely for the operation of the project.

Wildlife M

anagement lands are designated for stew

ardship of fish and wildlife resources.

Vegetative m

anagement lands are designated for stew

ardship of forest, prairie, and other native vegetative cover.

3.2 Mod

erate Conservation

– (Altern

ative 2, Modified, Selected A

lternative)

The Selected Alternative, w

hich is now the Preferred A

lternative, is a slightly modified version of

Alternative 2, the M

oderate Conservation alternative. U

nder this alternative, High D

ensity lands total 3,937.9 acres; Low

Density lands total 7,272.1 acres; Environm

entally Sensitive Area lands

total 29,048.5 acres; Wildlife M

anagement lands total 15,997.9 acres; and Project O

perations lands total 91.8 acres.

10 The increase in H

igh Density acreage is prim

arily in response to the public’s concerns for additional boat ram

ps and launch sites, especially during high water events. Four high w

ater ram

ps and sites have been proposed at the following C

orps parks: Dam

Site, HW

Y 125, B

uck C

reek, and Beaver C

reek. In addition, High D

ensity acreage was added back to the future use

Elbow Park. Slight boundary line adjustm

ents were also m

ade at Beaver C

reek and the Blackw

ell Ferry A

rea. Low D

ensity acreage was added back to the Pot Shoals N

ets Pen area to incorporatean existing deteriorated public launch ram

p. The Corps proposes to rehab the Pot Shoals launch

ramp pending receipt of funding.

3.3 Mod

erate Conservation

(Altern

ative 2)

Under A

lternative 2, the land classifications would be revised to reflect current m

anagement

practices and responsesto agency and public comm

ents received during the scoping phase. C

hanges included reclassifying undeveloped High D

ensity land classifications (i.e. future/closed C

orps parks) to other land classifications; reclassifying undeveloped Low D

ensity land to W

ildlife Managem

ent, Project Operations, or Environm

entally Sensitive Area; and reclassifying

lands that contained active shoreline use permits to Low

Density.

Alternative

2proposes 3,714.6

acresin High D

ensityrecreation, representing a 4,596.3

acre decrease

from the

No A

ction Alternative.

Low D

ensitylands total 7,257.6

acres, representing a reduction of 24,699.7

acresfrom the N

o Action A

lternative.The m

ajority of the decrease in Low

Density acreage w

ould bedue to reclassification to Environm

entally Sensitive areas (increased to 29,366.9

acres), and Wildlife M

anagement (to 15,917.3 acres).It should be noted that

although the total number of acres of Low

Density w

ould be less under Alternative 2 than

under the No A

ction Alternative, there w

ould still be sufficient Low D

ensity land to accom

modate projected developm

ent demands for the next 10 to 20 years.

Table 3.2 provides a com

parison of alternatives in relation to Alternative 2.

3.4 Limited G

rowth (A

lternative 3)

Alternative 3

would

classify more lands that contained roads, utility lines, and shoreline use

permits to a Low

Density land classification. M

any future Corps parks w

ould be reclassified from

High D

ensity to predominantly Low

Density land classification.

This alternativew

ouldallow

additional low density developm

ent above the amount proposed

underAlternative 2, m

ostly due to conversion of Environmentally Sensitive acres to Low

Density

classification. High

Density

landswould be

reducedby

234.3acresas com

pared toA

lternative 2,resulting in

3,480.3acresbeing classified as H

igh Density.

LowD

ensitylands w

ould be increased by 4,659.4 acres, w

hich increases thatacreageto 11,913.9

acres. The increase in Low

Density as com

pared to Alternative 2 w

ould primarily com

e from a reduction in land classified as

Environmentally Sensitive (decreased by 4,176.8 acres to 25,192.6

acres), andas W

ildlifeM

anagement(decreased by 246.9 to

15,669.4 acres). 3.5 M

aximu

m Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

Alternative 4 w

ouldreclassify all Low

Density R

ecreation lands identified underAlternative 1

to Environm

entally Sensitive Areas. Existing perm

itted shoreline uses would be grandfathered but

11 there w

ould be no new shoreline use perm

its issued. This alternative

would create m

ore protected shorelinethan

all otheralternatives, asthe7,252.0

acresofLow D

ensity lands shown in

Alternative

2w

ould bereclassified

asEnvironmentally

Sensitivelands. U

nder Alternative 4 there w

ould be a total of36,624.3acres in the


classification.H

igh Density, Projectoperations lands and

Wildlife

Managem

ent lands would rem

ain thesam

e as underAlternative

2.

12

Table 3.2 Acreage M

atrix

13 4.0 A

FFECTED

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

4.1 P

roject Setting

Bull Shoals Lake is a reservoircreated by B

ull Shoals Dam

on the White R

iver, which is

located approximately seven m

iles northwest of M

ountain Hom

e, Arkansas. The lake extends

from N

orth Central A

rkansas in Marion, B

oone, and Baxter counties into South C

entral M

issouri in Taney and Ozark counties, as show

n in Figure 2.1. A m

ore detailed description of the project location and area is provided in the follow

ing sub-sections. 4.2 Clim

ate C

limate w

ithin the Bull Shoals Lake w

atershed is temperate, w

ith summ

er extremes lasting for

longer periods throughout northern Arkansas, and w

inter temperatures being m

ore influential in the zone's northern reaches in M

issouri. Extremes m

ay vary from low

s around 0°F in the winter

months to highs above 100°F occurring from

southern Arkansas to central M

issouri during the sum

mer m

onths. Extreme tem

peratures may occur for short periods of tim

e at any location w

ithin the watershed. H

eavy rainfall events are comm

on. Average annual rainfall over the

watershed varies from

44 to 46 inches. Monthly rainfall varies from

2.5 inches in the winter

months to about 5 inches in the spring. Snow

fall each year averages from 8 to 16 inches from

south to north across the w

atershed. Snow packs are usually short lived and are not com

monly

a concern for flooding.

Clim

atechange is an area of concern due to the potential for effects on

many

aspects of the environm

ent, especially those related to water resources. The U

.S.Global C

hange Research

Program (U

SGC

RP) sum

marized inform

ation regarding climate change

and its potential effects in regional assessm

ents(http://ww

w.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-

assessments/us-im

pacts). In theM

idwest, w

hich extends from M

innesota to Missouri, extrem

e events such as heat w

aves,droughts and heavy rainfall events are projected to occur more

frequently. Should these events become significant enough to im

pact the operation of Bull

Shoals Lake, the Master Plan and associated docum

ents (i.e. Operations M

anagement Plan and

Shoreline Managem

ent Plan) would

be reviewed and revised, if necessary.

4.3 Top

ography, G

eology, and Soils

The

topography in the Bull Shoals Lake region includes gentle

slopesto steep inclines typical of the O

zark Highlands. B

luffs of near vertical relief are present where the original W

hite R

iver channel has eroded the residual limestone substrate. The upper reaches of several sm

all tributaries contain sm

all flood plains and gentle slopes of less than five%

. Primary ridges and

connecting spur ridges have inclines as great as 10%, w

ith side slopes ranging from 10 to 25%

inclines. A

spect, or the direction a slope is facing, is generally described as easterly in nature

14

for all land occurring on the west side of the reservoir and w

esterly in nature for land occurring on the east side of the reservoir, how

ever due to the presence of many sm

aller drainages and resulting ridges, aspects of all directions have been created, m

akingthe landform

around Bull

Shoals very rugged in appearance.

The Ozark H

ighlands Physiographic Province is underlain mainly by Paleozoic sedim

entary rocks com

posed mainly of lim

estone and dolomite w

ith lesser amounts of sandstone and shale.

Much of the region is underlain by carbonate rocks w

ith extensive karst development, resulting

with sink holes and caves being com

mon in this region. Figure 4.1 depicts geological

formations and fault lines located in this region.

Figure 4.1 Geology of B

ull Shoals Lake W

atershed

The strata in the region of Bull Shoals Lake have a slight dip to the south. The region is on the

southern flank of a large regional dome w

ith its nucleus in the igneous rocks of the St. Francis M

ountains, about 200 miles to the northeast. Locally, short anticlines and dom

e structures with

as much as 90 feet of structural relief are noted in the exposures along the W

hite River. Faults

with sm

all displacements are found in the vicinity. There is no record of any seism

ic activity originating in the B

ull Shoals Lake area. It is believed that all faults in the region are static and no future m

ovements are expected. Three rock form

ations of Ordovician age are present above

the river level within the region. These form

ations include the Cotter, Pow

ell, and Everton. The Jefferson C

ity formation underlies the C

otter, and is present only a few feet below

river level at B

ull Shoals Dam

. These formations consist largely of dolom

ite limestone w

ith

15

occasional lenses of sandstone and shale. TheEverton and Pow

ell formations are not present at

the dam, but cap the nearby hills. The capped hills are rem

nants of the Springfield Plateau surface.

Bull Shoals Lake is located w

ithin two physiographic areas of the O

zark Highlands. The

Salem Plateau is exposed across northern and central B

axter County, and is characterized by

gently sloping to rolling uplands, and steep, stony side slopes with outcrops of dolom

ite. The elevation ranges from

about 700 to 1,000 feet above sea level and there are a few broad areas

on uplands that have a gradient of one to eight percent.

The Springfield Plateau is exposed in parts of west central and across m

ost of southern Marion

County and m

ost of southern Baxter C

ounty, and the Missouri counties of Taney and O

zark, and is adjacent to and higher in elevation than the Salem

Plateau. This plateau has been strongly dissected by stream

s. Steep, V-shaped valleys separated by gently sloping to

moderately sloping land characterize it. The side slopes have a gradient of 12 to 50 %

. The elevation atop the ridges ranges from

about 1,000 to 1,200 feet above sea level. There are areas on uplands w

here the gradient is one to eight percent and provides a more flat relief.

Ozark stream

s and rivers are frequently located in narrow, confined valleys and are affected by

stream bed elevations that are typically only a few

meters above bedrock, w

hich results in stream

valleys that are entrenched and comm

only less than one-fourth mile w

ide. The chert content of som

e limestone and

dolomite areas can be relatively high. Form

ed by rock dissolution and w

eathering, streams often contains large quantities of chert gravel, w

hich provides an available source of gravel sedim

ent to the river system. For these reasons, m

ost flood plains are less than 1,000 feet w

ide.

Soil surveys as published by the Natural R

esource Conservation Service (N

RC

S) are available for B

axter, Ozark, and Taney counties, as w

ell as Soil Conservation Service surveys for B

oone and M

arion counties in Arkansas. These

would

be utilizedfor developing specific resource

managem

ent plans for the Operational M

anagement Plan. In general, m

ost soils adjacent to the lake are classified by the N

RC

S as Clarksville, N

ixa and Gasconade soils. A

rkana, Doniphan,

Gassville, and M

oko soils are the major soils on this plateau surface. A

rkana-Moko w

hich is: m

oderately deep and shallow, gently sloping to steep, w

ell drained, cherty, and stony soils that form

ed in residuum of dolom

ite and limestone. H

ealing, Razort, W

ideman, and B

ritwater soils

formed w

ithin flood plains of tributary streams.

Soil conservation and managem

ent arem

ajor considerationswhen planning natural resource

and recreation managem

ent practices. While soil m

ovement is influenced by clim

ate, soil type, and topography, w

hich are uncontrollable, it can also be negatively affected by compaction,

modification of vegetative cover, and very high lake pool elevations w

hich increase wave

action and inundation of unprotected shoreline.

4.4 Aq

uatic Environ

men

t

4.4.1Hydrology an

d Groun

dwater

Bull Shoals Lake is located on the W

hite Riverand w

as formed by the construction ofthe B

ull Shoals H

ydroelectric Dam

in Marion C

ounty, Arkansas, w

hich beganin 1947 and w

as com

pleted in 1951. The elevation of the top of the conservation pool is approximately 659 feet

16 N

GV

D29 w

ith the flood pool being at 695 feet NG

VD

29. The conservation pool top area is approxim

ately 48,005 surface acres and the flood pool top area is approximately 71,240 surface

acres. The shoreline length of the design conservation poolis approximately 740 m

iles, and the flood pool is approxim

ately 1,050 miles in length. B

ull Shoals Lake is located within the W

hite R

iverDrainage B

asin, which drains approxim

ately 27,765 squarem

iles in northern Arkansas

and southern Missouri.

Bull Shoals Lake drains approxim

ately 6,036 square miles of the W

hite R

iver Drainage B

asin and has an average depthof 67 feet. W

ith the implem

entation ofthe W

hite River M

inimum

Flow (W

RM

F)Project, the total water storage capacity ofB

ull Shoals Lake

is 5.408m

illion acre-feet, with 2.127 m

illion acre-feet offlood control storage, 1.236m

illion acre-feet ofconservation storage, and 2.045m

illion acre-feet ofinactive storage.

Bull Shoals Lake is an im

pounded area of the White R

iver which begins atan elevation of

approximately 2,050 feet M

ean Sea Level (MSL)near the O

zark National Forest in northw

est A

rkansas. The upper end of the lake begins at the tailwaters of Pow

ersite Dam

, which form

s Lake Taneycom

o, near Forsyth, Missouri. M

ajor tributaries feeding the lake include Swan

Creek and B

eaver Creek, entering the north side in Taney C

ounty, Missouri and B

ear Creek,

entering from the south in B

oone County, A

rkansas. M

ost ground water w

ithdrawn from

water w

ells occurs in theQ

uaternary alluviumin the B

ull Shoals Lake area, w

ith most w

ells being completed at a depth of about 200 –

300 feet below

surface. The recharge (outcrop) area for this formation is in southern M

issouri. The primary

porosity of these rocks has been greatlyreduced by

compaction and cem

entation, thus a reduction in their ability to supply large w

ithdrawal rates. G

round water occurs m

ainly in fractures and joints in

the sandstone and in solution openings in the limestone and dolom

ite.

4.4.2 Water Q

uality O

verall surface water quality in the B

ull ShoalsLake area is very high and has been designated as an Extraordinary R

esource Water B

ody bythe A

rkansas Departm

ent ofEnvironmental

Quality (A

DEQ

).Therefore the area surrounding the lake issubject to m

ore stringent state regulationscontrolling pollution discharge and in-stream

activities.The w

atersofthe Arkansas

portion of the White R

iver watershed have all been designated by the A

DEQ

for fisheries, prim

ary and secondary contactrecreation, and domestic, agricultural, and industrial w

ater supplies (A

DEQ

, 2012).B

ull Shoals Lake is classified by AD

EQ as a

Type A w

ater body, w

hich includes most larger lakes of several thousand acres in size, in upland forest dom

inated w

atersheds, having an average depth of 30 to 60 feet, and having low prim

ary production (i.e., having a low

trophicstatusifin natural [unpolluted] condition). This is m

ainly dueto

temperature stratification, w

hich is natural and occurs in many deep reservoirs such as B

ull Shoals Lake. D

uring the warm

er months, lake w

aters of the upper layer (theepilim

nion) are w

armer and contain m

ore dissolved oxygen, while the denser, low

er layer waters (the

hypolimnion) are colder and contain very little or no

dissolved oxygen. As the stratified

epilimnion cools in the late fall and w

inter, the layers begin to mix (de-stratify) and dissolved

oxygen (DO

) ismore evenly distributed. This condition is m

ore favorable to the fishery of the lake and overall w

ater quality. In 2004, A

DEQ

placed the first three miles of the B

ull Shoalstail water on the W

ater Q

uality Limited

Waterbodieslist(303(d)list) due to violation of the 6 m

g/L dissolved oxygen (D

O) standard. The listed source of the D

O violation is hydropow

er (HP). Section

303(d) of theC

lean Water A

ct requires states to list waters thatdo not m

eet Federal water

17 quality standards or have a significant potential notto m

eet standards as a result ofpoint source dischargers or non-point source run-off. Subsequent to listing on the 303(d)list, the statute requiresthatthe

states develop and set the Total Maxim

umD

aily Load(TM

DL) for

water bodies on the list w

ithin 13years. A

TMD

L establishes the maxim

umam

ountofapollutant that can enter a specific w

ater body without violating the w

aterquality standards. V

aluesare normally calculated am

ounts based on dilution and the assimilative capacity of

the water body. TM

DLs have been established by A

DEQ

for the 3.0 miles of the W

hite R

iver below B

ull Shoals Dam

. While the first three m

iles below the B

ull Shoals damis

listed on the303 (d) as an im

paired waterbody,B

ull ShoalsLake is nota listed waterbody.

In January 2009,USA

CE com

pleted the WR

MF Study, w

hich would

increase the minim

umflow

below the dam

to 800 cfs to benefit the aquatic habitat andm

ay result in water quality

improvem

ents in the tail water.

For the Missouri portion of B

ull Shoals Lake, the Missouri D

epartment of N

atural Resources

and the Clean W

ater Com

mission are responsible forsetting and enforcing w

ater quality standards w

ithin the State ofMissouri. C

lassified waters in the state are categorized according

totheir beneficial w

ater usage. Majorreservoirs like Bull Shoals Lake are usually several

thousand acres in size and are classified by the state as L2 (comparable to Type A

in Arkansas).

Bull Shoals Lake, in addition to m

aintaining L2 water quality standards,is also subject to four

other water quality standards: (1) livestock and w

ildlife watering; (2) protection of w

armw

ater aquatic life and hum

an health/fish consumption; (3) w

holebody contact recreation; and

(4) boating and canoeing w

aterquality standards (MD

NR

, 1996b). 4.4.3 Fish Species an

d Habitat

The impoundm

ent of the White R

iver and other tributary streams and rivers w

hich form B

ull Shoals Lake resulted in changes in the com

position of the fish populations. Smallm

outh bass w

as the principal game fish found in the W

hite River prior to im

poundment. A

rkansas Gam

e and Fish C

omm

ission (AG

FC) and M

issouri Departm

ent of Conservation (M

DC

) are the agencies prim

arily responsible for managing the fishery and through their efforts, a variety of

fish species are well-established in the lake. Sport fish species currently found include:

largemouth bass, spotted bass, sm

allmouth bass, w

hite bass, striped bass, hybrid white-striped

bass, walleye, flathead catfish, channel catfish, w

hite crappie, black crappie, and various species of sunfish. D

ue to the quality and diversity of the fishery, Bull Shoals Lake serves as a national

fishing destination, hosting hundreds of bass tournaments annually.

Bull Shoals Lake w

as first impounded in 1951 and m

uch of the standing timber w

as cut prior to the im

poundment. Since im

poundment, the few

remaining native forests that w

ere submerged

provided structure and forage habitat for fish. This limited habitat has degraded over tim

e.Therefore in 1986, U

SAC

E, MD

C, and A

GFC

began a large scale artificial habitat im

provement project w

ith the primary objective to im

prove fish habitat within B

ull Shoals Lake. Since 1987, 459 fish habitat structures know

n as “fish attractors” have been placed in B

ull Shoals Lake by AG

FC and 95 attractors by M

DC

. Approxim

ately 64,000 trees comprise

the attractors which cover over 124 acres of lake

bottom, totaling 30 m

iles in length. AG

FC

and MD

C fund the m

aintenance of the attractors each year, adding fresh cover to keep the attractors productive and increasing the habitat.

In 2013, MD

C began a fish habitat enhancem

ent project on Bull Shoals Lake using standing cut

18 cedar trees anchored in concrete to provide a vertical habitat structure. W

hen the project is com

pleted, 62 structures would

be constructed. Depending upon the structure, up to 300 trees

would

be constructed parallel to the shore in shallower w

ater and perpendicular to the shore in deeper w

ater to prevent possible boating obstacles. These structures would

create approxim

ately 12 acres of fish habitat. In 2014, AG

FC began a trial program

of adding com

mercially m

ade artificial fish habitat structures to a small num

ber of existing fish attractors. These structures are being studied for visual esthetics, durability, and usage by fish to determ

ine if they can be used to enhance the existing fish habitat structure program

.

The public is also encouraged to place natural fish attractorsin Bull Shoals Lake. Each year 50

permits are issued to private individuals to cut cedar trees and place fish attractors at various

locations. In 1995, USA

CE began a program

for the public to bring their discarded Christm

as trees to be used as fish attractors to enhance fish habitat. Since the program

began, thousands of these trees have been placed in the lake by U

SAC

E personnel and the public.

The impoundm

ent of Bull Shoals Lake caused environm

ental changes in the tailwater portion of

the White R

iver from the dam

to 60 miles dow

nstream. A

GFC

realized that the cold water

discharges from B

ull Shoals Lake would necessitate a change in their fisheries m

anagement

program for the W

hite River as it transform

ed from a w

arm w

ater fishery to a cold water

fishery. Rainbow

trout, cutthroat trout, brook trout, and brown trout w

ere stocked in the White

River to replace the w

arm-w

ater fishery. This cold-water fishery is a success. H

owever, because

of the unfavorable environmental factors such as:

lack of suitablesubstrate,the fluctuation of

water tem

peratures, dissolved oxygen levels, water levels and current, trout reproduction is very

limited.

In 1955, the Norfork N

ational Fish Hatchery w

as built by the U.S. Fish and W

ildlife Service (U

SFWS) at nearby N

orfork Lake to mitigate the loss of the w

arm w

ater fishery and provide trout for the cold w

ater fishery below B

ull Shoals and Norfork D

ams. Each year, an average of

approximately 1,184,000 rainbow

trout, 105,000 brown trout, 150,000 cutthroat trout, and

34,500 brook trout from the N

orfork Hatchery and from

the USFW

S Fish Hatcheries at G

reers Ferry Lake and M

amm

oth Springs, AR

and the Arkansas State Fish H

atchery at Mam

moth

Springs, AR

are stocked in the White R

iver. Since the trout program began, the fishery has

flourished and is now know

n as a “world class trout fishery” and has becom

e a popular international trout fishing destination.

During periods w

hen there is little or no power generation, the w

ater flow in the tailw

ater area is reduced, resulting

in shallow depths and exposed river bottom

perimeters. C

oncerns about the degradation of aquatic habitats for the cold w

ater fishery in the White R

iver due to these exposed areas lead to the im

plementation of “W

hite River M

inimum

Flows”. Section 132(a) of

the FY06 EW

DA

A authorizes and directs the im

plementation of plan B

S-3 at Bull Shoals for

minim

um flow

s in order to increase the wetted perim

eter of the river and improve the habitat

for the cold water fishery. Plan B

S-3 reallocates 5 feet of flood control storage at Bull Shoals

Lake for the minim

um flow

s release of 800 cfs. The conservation pool elevationw

asraised by 5 feet from

654.0 to 659.0; and the seasonal pool held from M

ay to July for water tem

perature releases w

asraised by 5 feet from 657.0 to

662.0ft.

Walleye, striped bass, hybrid w

hite-striped bass, and rainbow trout have been introduced into

Bull Shoals Lake to add diversity to the fishery. N

atural reproduction of striped bass and hybrid

19 w

hite-striped bass does not occur in Bull Shoals Lake and natural production of w

alleye is considered m

inimal. Since 2004, A

GFC

each year stocks approximately 200,000 w

alleye, 300,000 black crappie, 50,000 channel catfish, 45,000 blue catfish, and 20,000 rainbow

trout each year. H

owever, A

GFC

discontinued stocking rainbow trout into B

ull Shoals Lake in 2014. M

DC

stocks approximately 352,000

walleye

and 16,000 striped bassannuallyin B

ull Shoals. W

hile natural reproduction occurs in white crappie, black crappie, largem

outh bass, and spotted bass, A

GFC

and MD

C supplem

ent this reproduction by occasional stockings of these species. H

istorically, there have also been introductions of northern pike, blue catfish, lake trout, and threadfin shad.

In 1963, AG

FC constructed an 8 acre fish nursery pond on the w

est shore of the East Sugar Loaf C

reek arm of B

ull Shoals Lake for the purpose of rearing game fish for stocking purposes.

In 1975, AG

FC constructed a net pen fish hatchery in the Pot Shoals A

rm of B

ull Shoals Lake. Typically over 10,000 C

hannel and bluecatfish w

ere raised in the summ

er months and 15,000

rainbow trout in the w

inter months for stocking purposes. In 2007, the A

GFC

replaced the 8 acre nursery pond on East Sugar Loaf C

reek with the construction of the larger 21 acre D

r. R

alph Bow

ers/Tomm

y Donohoe B

ull Shoals Lake Nursery Pond located on the east shore of

the West Sugar Loaf C

reek arm. This fish nursery pond is used to alternately rear black crappie

and walleye for stocking directly into the lake. In 2013, the Pot Shoals net pen operation w

as discontinued and the facilities perm

anently closed in 2014 due to the possible spreading of invasive zebra m

ussels to other bodies of water through the stocking program

.

4.5 Terrestrial R

esources

4.5.1 Wildlife

White-tailed deer and eastern w

ild turkey are comm

on game anim

als found and hunted in the Bull

Shoals Lakearea. B

lack bear havealso becom

e comm

on in the area and are hunted on the A

rkansas side of Bull Shoals Lake. The principal sm

all game species found in the open upland

areas include bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, and m

ourning dove. Gray and fox squirrels are

comm

on in upland wooded areas and are also popular for sportsm

en. Furbearing animals found in

the Bull ShoalsLake area include

coyote, red fox, gray fox, otter, mink, m

uskrat, beaver, bobcat, and raccoon.H

abitat managem

ent that includeswildlife food plot plantings, m

owing, soil

disturbance, removal of exotic species and application of prescribed fire provide benefit to these

populations.

The comm

on goldeneye, hooded merganser, and bufflehead

are the predominant m

igratory w

aterfowl species visiting B

ull ShoalsLake.M

allards, gadwall, and other duck

species are also present; how

ever, they are only transient visitors as their characteristic feeding habits of obtaining food from

shallow w

aters discourage them from

obtaining food from the deep, clear w

aters of Bull

ShoalsLake. Migratory geese com

mon

to the area are Canada geese of the Eastern Prairie

Population. Giant and G

reater Canada geese w

ere introduced to the area by the MD

Cin 1971 and

1972 and have become established as a resident population. R

esident Canada geese are so

numerous in m

anycovesand recreation areasthat their presence has becom

e a nuisance. Many of

the recreation areas on Bull Shoals Lake are closed to cam

ping and opened for Canada goose

hunting during the hunting season to help control their population.

20 R

ing-billed gulls frequent the Bull Shoals area. B

ull Shoals has also become a popular place for

observationofbald eagles. Fifty or m

ore birds comm

only winter here and 6-8 breeding pairs can

be found during the nesting period of March to June.

Greater and lesser yellow

legs and large flocks of horned grebes are also seen during their peak m

igration in the spring and fall. Bull

Shoals Lake is also one of the few places w

here visitors can see both the turkey vulture and the black vulture at the sam

e time in the w

inter. In fact, wintering black vulture num

bers have become

so large, they have become a nuisance to the public and in causing destruction to the infrastructure

of Bull Shoals D

am. From

2012 to present day, it is estimated the vultures have done several

hundred thousand dollars in damage to the dam

, including the roof of the powerhouse and

associated facilities. The vultures pick apart anything that resembles rubber and vulture droppings

on these facilities are very caustic. Lethal permits w

ere obtained from the U

SFWS in 2013, 2014,

and 2015 when other m

easures, such as pyrotechnics, noise-making devices, and chem

ical repellant w

ere all found to be ineffective. The permits are required for com

pliance with the

Migratory B

ird Treaty Act of 1918.

4.5.2 Vegetation

The O

zark Highlands Ecoregion is characterized as a high plateau dissected by deep rugged

valleys formed by stream

s and rivers. Vegetation types w

ithin this region include oak-hickory forests, oak-hickory-pine forests, bluestem

prairies and cedar glades. Post oaks, blackjack oaks, and black hickory are the dom

inant species found in the dry upland forests. Sandstone bedrockareascontain species such as shortleaf pine and various species of oak. The m

esic slope forests include species such as w

hite oak, northern red oak, bitternut hickory, and flowering dogw

ood. D

olomite/lim

estone glades, which are characterized by barrens-like com

munities of prairie type

native forbs and grasses, occur on the shallow soil over outcroppings of bedrock. U

SAC

E conductsa prescribed fire program

to help to maintain these specialized vegetative ecosystem

s in the B

ull Shoals Lake area. Along the rivers, stream

s, and lake shores the riparian habitats are characterized by birch and silver m

aple. Norm

al operational water level fluctuation at B

ull Shoals Lake

has created regions along the shoreline that has little or no vegetation, but upslope of these regions the shoreline is generally undeveloped and heavily forested.

4.6 Threaten

ed and En

dangered Sp

ecies There are m

any species in the Ozarks that are considered either threatened,endangered,or state

species of concern. Species become listed

for a variety of reasons including over-hunting, over fishing, and habitat loss as a result of hum

an development and pollution; of these, habitat loss is

the main contributor that im

perils most species. A

threatened species is one that is likely to becom

e endangered within the foreseeable future. A

n endangered species is one in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The bald eagle (H

alieetus leucocephalus) is com

mon during the w

inter months around B

ull Shoals Lake. In addition, several bald eagle nests are located around the lake. A

lthough the bald eagle was delisted by U

SFWS in

2007 due to recovery of the species, both the bald and golden eagles are still protected in accordance w

ith the Bald and G

olden Eagle Protection Act. Transient populations of gray and

Indiana bats(Myotis grisescens and M

yotis sodalis)-federally endangered species-are docum

ented in caves located on and near the Bull Shoals Lake area. In addition, populations of

the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis),w

hichhas been proposed for federal listing,

also occur around the lake.

21 The Tum

bling Creek cave snail (Antrobia culveri), is a sm

all crustacean known to exist only in the

Tumbling C

reek Cave and in the karst groundw

ater system that connects the cave to the springs on

Big C

reek and Bear C

ave Hollow

located in the Bull Shoals Lake area in Taney C

ounty, Missouri.

USA

CE w

orks closely with the U

.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the 100 acres of U

SAC

E ow

ned cave recharge area and manage the project lands and w

aters of Bull Shoals Lake to protect

the cave snail and aid in its recovery.

Table 4-1lists species know

n to occur on project lands as reported from the U

.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s federally classified status list of species and the Arkansas and M

issouri Natural H

eritage data sets. There are other threatened and endangered species that are know

n to be in the general area.

Table 4-1 T

hreatened, Endangered, and Species of C

oncern

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

eFederal/State Status

State/Global R

ank

Bald Eagle

Halieetus

leucocephalus

*Protected under B

ald and Golden

Eagle Protection Act

Gray B

atM

yotis grisescensE/E

S3/G3

Indiana Bat

Myotis sodalis

E/ES3/G

3

Tumbling C

reek cave snail

Antrobia culveriE/E

S2/G3

E = Endangered; S2: Imperiled: Im

periled in the state because of rarity or because of some factor(s) m

aking it very vulnerable to extirpation from

the nation or state (1,000 to 3,000)-typically 6 to 20 occurrences or few rem

aining individuals (1,000 to 3,000);S3: V

ulnerable: Vulnerable in the state either because rare and uncom

mon, or found only

in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors m

aking it vulnerable to extirpation. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences or betw

een3,000 and 10,000 individuals; G

3: Vulnerable: V

ulnerable globally either because very rare and local throughout its range, found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at som

e locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction or elim

ination. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences or betw

een 3,000 and 10,000 individuals.

4.5.1Invasive Species

In accordance with Executive O

rder (EO) 13112, an invasive species m

eans an alien species whose

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environm

ental harm or harm

to human health.

Invasive species can be microbes, plants, or anim

als that are non-native to an ecosystem. In

contrast, exotic species, as defined by EO 11987, include all plants and anim

als not naturally occurring, either presently or historically, in any ecosystem

of the United States. Invasive species

can take over and out-compete native species by consum

ing their food, taking over their territory, and altering the ecosystem

in ways that harm

native species. Invasivespecies can be accidentally

transported or they can be deliberately introduced because they are thought to be helpful in some

way. Invasive species cost local, state, and federal agencies billions of dollars every year.

22 The B

ull Shoals Project is not protected from the spread of invasive species. Locally the project

office works w

ith its partners, AG

FC, M

DC

, University of A

rkansas Extension Services and U

nited States Departm

ent of Agriculture, to help stop the spread of som

e of the Ozarks m

ost unw

antedspecies. Invasive species include feral hogs (Sus scrofa), zebra m

ussels (Dreissena

polymorpha), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), gypsy m

oth (Lymantria dispar) and the

emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Project rangers post signage in all the

recreation areas to com

municate the dangers of spreading invasive species on project lands and w

aters. Rangers also

place emerald ash borer and gypsy m

oth traps on project lands to monitor any infestations of this

species.

4.6 Archaeological an

d Historic R

esources

4.6.1Paleon

tologyN

orth central Arkansas and south central M

issouri are located on the Salem Plateau. G

eologically the plateau is m

ade up of relatively flat-lying Paleozoic age strata consisting of dolostones, sandstones, and lim

estones. The Ordovician aged C

otter and Jefferson City D

olomite is the

primary outcropping form

ation in the area. Few fossils are know

n to exist in the Jefferson City

Dolom

ite. Fossils from the C

otter Dolom

ite are rare but include gastropods, cephalopods, and reef-building algae. The O

rdovician aged Powell D

olomite and Everton Form

ation also outcrop in the general area although to a lesser extent.

4.6.2Cultural Resources

The following is a brief history of the hum

an occupation of the Bull Shoals Lake area:

Paleo-Indian (12,000-8,000 B.C

.) –The earliest docum

ented archeological manifestation in

the Ozark area relates to w

hat the Paleo-Indian or Early Hunting H

orizon. There is evidence of Paleo-Indian inhabitants in the O

zark Highlands indicated by the presence

of Clovis,

Cum

berland, and Folsom bifaces in isolated instances in B

oone and New

ton Counties,

Arkansas. N

o Paleo-Indian sites have been excavated in the Ozarks, only surface sites and

multi-com

ponent shelter sites are present.

Archaic (8,000-500 B.C

.) -Around 8,000 years ago, the clim

ate began to change. The Pleistocene epoch gave w

ay to the Holocene. W

armer tem

peratures, along with increased

hunting efficiency, brought about the extinction of the megafauna that the Paleo-Indians had

followed. A

rchaic people relied on the animals and plants that w

e see today. Settlement patterns

were seasonal, w

ith bands of people staying inone area for entire seasons before m

oving on tothe next settlem

ent. From these base cam

ps, hunting parties were sent out, som

etimesfor days,

to kill game. A

rchaic period hunting camps abound in the W

hite River area.

Woodland (500 B

.C. –

A.D

. 900)-One m

ajor technological change marked

the beginning of the W

oodland period-pottery. Ceram

ics had begun to appear during the Archaic period, but

their proliferation marked

the beginning of the Woodland period. Pottery signified

an increasing reliance on dom

esticated plants. Horticulture

had now spread throughout m

ost of the Eastern W

oodlands, with the W

hite River area being no exception. The bow

and arrow becam

ea part of the tool assem

blage, further increasing the efficiency of hunting game. For the m

ost part, how

ever, the Woodland period is very poorly understood in the W

hite River area.

23 U

nfortunately, only a few sites containing W

oodland period components have been studied.

Mississippian (A

.D. 900 –

1541) -The Mississippian period generally m

arkedthe transition to

full-scale agriculture anda chiefdom

level ofpolitics. An influence of religion from

M

esoamerica spread rapidly throughout the southeastern U

.S. Large mound sites w

ere constructed,elaborate

tradenetw

orks were established, and populations dram

atically increased. O

zark adaptations, however, w

ere unique during the Mississippian period.

Dom

esticated crops w

ere grown in the river valleys, but hunting and gathering likely m

ade up the bulk of the food supply. Sm

all Mississippian period

mound sites did exist in the W

hite River area, such as the

Loftin Site, inundated by Table Rock

Lake. Other M

ississippian sitesin the area includedopen-

air village sites and rock shelters. It had beenspeculated that these com

munities w

ere “outposts” of the C

addo culture located to the southwest. R

ecently, however, researchers have

demonstrated

that these societies simply interacted

with one another on a frequent basis, w

ith no evidence of C

addo colonization.

Protohistoric / Historic Periods (A

.D. 1541 –1865) -The Protohistoric period began w

ith the D

e Soto expedition into the Southeastern United

States. Generally speaking, D

e Soto did not enter the O

zarks, but the aftermath of his expedition definitely did

enter the area. Diseases the

Spaniard and his men brought w

ith them, such as sm

allpox and influenza, had a devastating effect. The tribes inhabiting the area had no im

munity against these diseases, and up to 90

percent of the populations were decim

ated. During this tim

e period, the Ozarks w

ere primarily

being used as a hunting ground for the Osage, w

ho were centered m

ore to the north.

Euro-Am

erican settlement began in the O

zarksinthe late 18th century.

People generally subsisted on a com

bination of hunting wild gam

eand herding dom

esticated animals. W

ith the creation of the A

rkansas Territory in 1819, people fromthe upland South, or A

ppalachia, began to m

ove into the Ozarks. These people brought w

iththem

many

aspects of their culture, including fundam

entalist religion, unique architectural styles, and an aptitude for farming rocky

terrain. Although slave holding w

as not unheard of, it certainly was not the norm

.A

few m

ajor battlesof the C

ivil War, such as Pea R

idge, were fought in the area. Theoretically,the battle of

Pea Ridge solidified U

nion control over southern Missouri.

In reality, the entire Ozark region

was hostage to B

ushwhackers, or outlaw

s that roamed the land and robbed people

indiscriminately.

Previous Investigations in the Bull Shoals L

ake Area

The most recentbroad cultural resources inventory for B

ull Shoals Lake was conducted in

1988 for the Cultural Resources Priority Plan for the U

.S.Army Engineer D

istrict,LittleRock

(Blakely and B

ennett, Jr., 1988). Table 4-2listsprevious surveys perform

ed along theB

ull Shoals Lake. Table 4-2 includes the m

ost up to date survey information according the records

of the Arkansas A

rcheological Survey and the Missouri D

epartment of N

atural Resources.

24

Table 4-2 Previous A

rcheological Investigations on Bull Shoals L

akeA

uthorT

itleY

ear

How

ard, Lynn EA

rcheological Survey in Bull

Shoals Region of A

rkansas1963

Spears, Carol, N

ancy Myer,

Hester D

avisW

atershed Summ

ary of A

rcheological and Historic

Resources in the W

hite River

Basins, A

rkansas and M

issouri.

1975

Novick, Lee and C

harles C

antlryB

ull Shoals Lake: An

Archeological Survey of a

Portion of Bull Shoals Lake

Shoreline.

1979

Lee, Aubra Lane

Cultural R

esources Investigations at B

ull Shoals Lake, A

rkansas

1986

Blakely, Jeffrey A

. and W.J.

Bennett Jr.

Cultural R

esources Priority Plan for the U

.S. Arm

y Engineer D

istrict

1988

Recorded C

ultural Resources in the B

ull Shoals Lake A

rea

Today, the Bull Shoals Project is hom

e to approximately 138 identified archeological sites m

ade up of cam

p sites, shelter and cave sites, rock cairns, and earthen mound sites. A

vast majority of

these sites were subm

erged by impoundm

ent of the White R

iver. Less than five percent of the know

n sites within the lake area w

ere investigated any further than documentation. Table 4.3

summ

arizes the previously recorded resources at Bull Shoals Lake.

Table4.3 Previously R

ecorded Resourcesat Bull ShoalsL

ake

Type

ofSiteN

umber

ofSitesH

istoric4

Prehistoric114

Multicom

ponent20

Total138

NationalR

egisterEligibility

StatusN

otEvaluated132

NotEligible

5Eligible

1

25 4.7 A

ir Quality

Bull Shoals Lake is located in the O

zark Mountains, rem

ote from heavy em

ission-producing industry or large m

ining operations. The air is clean with low

levels of air emissions below

local em

ission thresholds.There

havebeen no violationsofthe

current NationalA

mbient A

irQuality

Standards (NA

AQ

S)establishedby

EPA. A

ir monitoring

requirementsare

establishedby

EPAand

aredictated undertheirguidance

and monitoring

objectives. Monitoring

sitesareplaced in

areas believed to havehigherconcentration ofpollutants, w

hich generallyconsist ofthe

state’slargerm

etropolitanareas. These

areas, called Metropolitan

Statistical Areas(M

SA’s)are

definedby

thelargerpopulation

centersand surrounding counties. Based on these

guidelines,theBranson M

SA has one

airqualitym

onitoring site, with ozone

theonly

constituent beingm

onitored. Theozone

concentration is consistently below the

75 parts perbillion (ppb)established

byEPA

forthis pollutant. 4.8 Socio-Econ

omic R

esources There

arefive

counties that surround Bull ShoalsLake, three

in Arkansas and tw

o in Missouri.

Table4.4

provides acom

parativesum

mary

ofpopulation trends within those

fivecounties that

areadjacent to the

projectarea. Thetotal population

ofthosecountiesin 2010

was 156,467,

with the 2013

populationestim

atedat 148,368. The

2013population represents a

-5.45%decrease since

2010. During

thesam

etim

eperiod the

United

States ofAm

ericahad

population increase

of2.33%

. T

able4.4

PopulationT

rends

Population 2013

Population 2010

Percent Change (2010-2013)

Boone County, AR

37,396 36,903

1.3%

Marion County, A

R 16,430

16,653 -1.3%

Baxter County, A

R

40,957 41,513

-1.3%

Ozark County, M

O

9.560 9,723

-1.7%

Taney County, MO

53,575

51,675 3.7%

Total

148,368 156,467

0.70%

Data from w

ww

.census.gov

Table4.5

portraysselected housing characteristicsrelated to numberofunits, m

edian value,vacancy

rateand size

ofhousehold. In 2010 therew

erea

total of83,672housing

units within the

surrounding countiesaccordingto the

2010 U.S.C

ensus. Approxim

ately74%

ofthehousing

units areow

neroccupied, with

theaverage

household sizebeing

approximately

2.3people

perunit.

As indicated in Table

4-5the

median value

ofowner-occupied housing

in 2010 was $106,400.

26 T

able4.5

Housing C

haracteristics, 2010

Total Housing

Units

Percent Ow

ner O

ccupied M

edian Value

(owner o ccupied)

Average H

ousehold Size (ow

ner o ccupied)

Boone County, AR

16,831 72.6

106,400 2.43

Marion County, A

R 9,354

79.5 92,700

2.34 Baxter County, A

R

22,580 76.5

120,000 2.24

Ozark County, M

O

5,652 79.1

89,900 2.35

Taney County, MO

29,255

63.2 129,100

2.45 Total

83,672 74.1

106,400 2.36

Data from

ww

w.census.gov

Median household incom

esfrom 2009-2013

was$35,343

in thefive

counties surroundingB

ull Shoals Lake

accordingto the

U.S.C

ensus Am

ericanC

omm

unitySurvey. A

lmost 22%

ofthe population w

ithin thosecounties w

asconsidered to bebelow

thepoverty

level in 2010 according to the

2010 U.S.C

ensus (Table4.6). The

relativeshare

ofthepopulation below

thepoverty

levelfortheprojectarea

is higherthanforthe

StateofA

rkansas(19.7%),and the State

ofMissouri(15.9%

). Around 84%

ofthepopulation

from the

counties surroundingthe

lakehave

at least ahigh

school diploma,and 15%

havea

bachelor’s degreeorhigher.

Table

4.6Incom

eand

Education, 2009-2013

Median

Income

Persons Below Poverty

Level (percent) High School

Graduates (percent)

Bachelors or Higher (percent)

Boone County, AR 38,506

21.2 85.4

15.4 M

arion County, AR 34,494

21.4 83.6

12.9 Baxter County, AR

35,343 17.7

87.6 16.5

Ozark County, M

O

32,078 25.2

82.8 12.5

Taney County, MO

38,461

19.9 84.7

18.6 Total

35,343 21.08

84.7 15.4

Data from w

ww

.census.gov

According

to the2010 U

.S.Census, 3.6%

ofthepopulation w

ithin theprojectarea

consisted of dem

ographicm

inoritypopulations in 2010 ascom

pared to 20%forthe

StateofA

rkansasand16%

fortheState

ofMissouri(Table

4.7). T

able4.7

Population by Race

andO

rigin,2010

W

hite

Black

Other

Hispanic or

Latino Origin

Boone County, A

R 96.5

0.2 .03

1.8 M

arion County, AR

95.9 0.2

2.2 1.7

Baxter County, MO

96.9

0.2 1.2

1.7 O

zark County, MO

97.4

0.1 1.2

1.3 Taney County, M

O

93.6 0.9

0.7 4.8

Total 97.0

0.31.05

2.26 Data from

ww

w.census.gov

27 4.9 R

ecreation R

esources The recreational resource of the B

ull Shoals Lake is considered to be of great importance to this

Ozark M

ountain region. Tourism and lake visitation is a m

ajor source of income for the counties

surrounding this lake. The Project offers many recreational activities such as sw

imm

ing, SC

UB

A diving, boating, w

ater skiing, fishing, picnics, and camping, as w

ell as hiking and biking trails.

There are 38 public use areas around Bull Shoals Lake. N

ine campgrounds and

six access points on the lake are operated by the Corps of Engineers. In 2012, a district lead

Recreation A

djustment Plan evaluated all the parks on B

ull Shoals Lake and for budgetary reasons, leased the cam

ping portion of Dam

Site Park and Pontiac Park. In both cases, the boat ram

ps continue to be operated and maintained by the M

ountain Hom

e Project Office. There are

twelve parks and ten access points operated by city, county, or state agencies, m

arinas, church groups, or schools around the lake.

For a detailed description of the recreational resources, as well as visitation data at B

ull ShoalsLake, see C

hapter 2 of the Bull Shoals R

evised Master Plan.

4.10 Health an

d Safety Safety

ofproject visitorsand project staffarethe highest priority

in dailyproject operations.

Facilitiesandrecreationalareasareroutinely

evaluated to ensuresitesaresafeforvisitoruse. Project staffconducts num

erous watersafety

programsand publicannouncem

ents to educate children

and project visitorsabout ways to be

safeon the

lake. In

coordination with the

MissouriState

Highw

ayPatrol (M

SHP), no w

akezonesare

marked

with buoys. Park

Rangers provide

visitorassistanceand w

orkw

ith countylaw

enforcement

agencies to ensurepublic

safety.Park R

angers, MSH

P, and Arkansas G

ame and Fish

personnel providew

atersafetyand enforcem

ent patrols on thelake

as theirbudgets allow.

4.11 Aesthetics

Managem

ent objectives includem

aintainingscenic

vistas while

limiting

impacts that w

ouldnegatively

affectaesthetics. Natural landscapes and view

s of undeveloped lands are anim

portant featurethatenhances the

recreational experience. Theperim

eterlands around Bull

ShoalsLakeprovide

anaturalsetting

that is aestheticallypleasing

aswellas buffering

thelake

fromdevelopm

entandnegative

impacts such

as erosion and stormw

aterrunoff. How

ever, thereare

problems in m

aintainingthese

aesthetic qualities. Projectresourcestaffis continually

investigatingtrespasses that include

activities suchas tim

bercutting and land destruction byunauthorized offroad

vehicles. Inaddition, litterand illegal trash dum

pingboth on project lands

and project watersare

continual problems. V

andalismw

ithin recreation areasalso occurs.O

therconcerns that im

pactaestheticsaredem

andsput upon projectresourcesforuses suchasroad

andutility

linecorridors.

28 5.0 EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

L CON

SEQU

ENCES

Thefollow

ingtable

summ

arizestheresourcesthat are

likelyto be

affectedby

each of the alternatives for an update of the B

ull Shoals Master Plan

including the No A

ction alternative.A

detailed discussion ofthe potential impacts of each of the alternatives follow

sthe synopsis provided in the table.

From draft to final, the Selected A

lternative, which is now

the Preferred Alternative, is a slightly

modified version of A

lternative 2, the Moderate C

onservation alternative. Under this alternative,

High D

ensity lands total 3,937.9 acres; Low D

ensity lands total 7,272.1 acres; Environmentally

Sensitive Area lands total 29,048.5 acres; W

ildlife Managem

ent lands total 15,997.9 acres; and Project O

perations lands total 91.8 acres.

The increase in High D

ensity acreage is primarily in response to the public’s concerns for

additional boat ramps and launch sites, especially during high w

ater events. Four high water

ramps and sites have been proposed at the follow

ing Corps parks: D

am Site, H

WY

125, Buck

Creek, and B

eaver Creek. In addition, H

igh Density acreage w

as added back to the future use Elbow

Park. Slight boundary line adjustments w

ere also made at B

eaver Creek and the B

lackwell

Ferry Area.

This slightly modified change in A

lternative 2 is described in the following table and synopsis.

Since the change is not significant, the descriptions will be very sim

ilar to ones used for A

lternative 2.

29 Table

5.1R

esourceIm

pactwith

Implem

entation ofAlternatives

R

esourceC

ategory

A

lternative1

No A

ction

A

lternative2

Moderate

Conservation

Alternative

2 Modified

Moderate C

onservation(Selected)

A

lternative3

Lim

ited Grow

th

Alternative

4M

aximum

C

onservation

C

limate,

Topography,

Geology and

Soils

Therew

ouldbe an

impact,

althoughnotsignificant,

on climate, topography

andgeology asa

resultofim

plementation

oftheN

o A

ctionA

lternative due to the potential for new

developm

ent around the lake provided by a larger proportion of high density designated lands.

TheM

oderate Conservation A

lternativew

ould bem

ore protective than

theN

oA

ctionA

lternative interm

sofpotentialimpacts on clim

ate, topography, geology and soils due to a reduction in low

density acreage.

Them

odified Moderate Conservation

Alternative

would be

more protective

thanthe

No

Action

Alternative in

terms

ofpotentialimpacts on clim

ate, topography, geology and soils due to a reduction in low

density acreage.

TheLim

ited Grow

thA

lternativew

ouldhave less potential im

pactsonclim

ate, topography,geology and soils than the N

o Action A

lternative due to a reduction in low

density acreage.

TheM

aximum

ConservationA

lternative isthe most protective of

allalternativesin termsofpotential

impacts on clim

ate, topography,geology, and soils due to

the classification of all low

density acreage to environm

entally sensitive.

A

quaticE

nvironment

Thehydrology

andgroundw

atercomponents

ofBull ShoalsLake

would

notchangefrom

the existingcondition

dueto the

implem

entationof

the No A

ctionA

lternative. Water

quality may be m

inimally

impacted due to a greater

amount of high density

designated land which

results in a higher risk for new

development.

TheM

oderate ConservationA

lternativeissim

ilarto theN

oA

ctionA

lternative interm

sofpotentialim

pactsto thehydrology

andgroundw

ater componentsofthe

aquaticenvironm

ent, but water

quality would be enhanced due to

reduced potential for new

development.

Them


Alternative

issimilarto the

No

Action

Alternative in

termsofpotential

impactsto the

hydrology andgroundw

ater componentsofthe aquatic

environment, but w

ater quality would

be enhanced due to reduced potential for new

development.

TheLim

ited Grow

thA

lternativew

ould result in littleto

noim

pacts on the

hydrology andgroundw

ater com

ponentsofthe aquaticenvironm

ent Water quality im

pacts w

ould likely be negligible under this alternative.

TheM

aximum

ConservationA

lternative issimilarto the

Conservation A

lternativein

potentialimpacts on

thehydrology

andgroundw

atercomponentsofthe

aquatic environment, but should be

more protective of w

ater quality due to the elim

ination of low density

lands and the potential for new

development.

30

R

esourceC

ategory

A

lternative1

(No A

ction)

A

lternative2

Moderate

Conservation

Alternative

2 Modified

Moderate C


A

lternative3

Lim

ited Grow

th

Alternative

4M

aximum

C

onservation

T

errestrial R

esources

Underthe

No

Action

Alternative

thereisno

modification of existing

low density acres.

Based

onthis,the

potentialexistsfor continualdegradation

ofshorelinevegetation

due to probable increaseddevelopm

ent andsubsequentvegetationrem

oval/mow

ingactivities.

Implem

entationofthe M

oderate C

onservationA

lternativew

ouldhave

apositive

impacton

terrestrial resourcesin com

parisonto the

No

Action

Alternative. D

ueto an

increasein environm

entallysensitive

andw

ildlifem

anagementlands,this

would

havea

positivebenefitto the

acreage around the lake.

Implem

entationofthe m

odified M

oderate Conservation

Alternative

would

havea

positiveim

pactonterrestrial resourcesin com

parisonto

theN

o Action

Alternative. D

ueto an

increasein environm

entallysensitive

andw

ildlifem

anagementlands,this

would

havea

positivebenefitto the

acreage around the lake.

TheLim

ited Grow

thA

lternativew

ouldbe sim

ilar to the Conservation A

lternative, however sm

all portion of environm

entally sensitive lands would

convert to low density under this

alternative. This may result in

minim

al impacts to w

ildlife and vegetation due to the land conversion and potential for additional developm

ent.

TheM

aximum

ConservationA

lternativew

ouldhave

thegreatest

positiveim

pactonthe lakeside

terrestrial resourcesofallthealternativesevaluated

due to the elim

ination of low density lands and

the reduction in potential new

development.

T

hreatened&

EndangeredSpecies

TheN

o Action

Alternative

would

haveno

significantim

pactonany listed

Threatened,Endangered,Protected,or SpeciesofState

Concern.

TheM


lternativew

ouldlikely

have no significant on

anylisted


Concern. D

ueto the

increasein


andW

ildlifeM

anagementlands,there

may

besom

epositive

benefitsto anyor allthe

listedspecies.

Them


Alternative

would

likelyhave no

significant onany

listedThreatened,

Endangered,Protected,or SpeciesofState

Concern. D

ueto the

increasein


andW

ildlifeM


may

besom

epositive


listedspecies

TheLim

ited Grow

th Alternative

would

likelyhave

littleto no

impacts

onany

specieslisted Threatened,

Endangered,Protected,orSpeciesofState

Concern

TheM

aximum

Conservation A

lternative couldhave

asignificant

positive impacton


Concern, due

to thefactthat

this alternativew

ouldelim

inate all low

density lands reducing the potential for future developm

ent. There

would

bepositive effects on

lakesideflora

andfauna

dueto

shoreline protection.

31

R

esourceC

ategory

A

lternative1

(No A

ction)

A

lternative2

Moderate

Conservation

Alternative

2 Modified

Moderate C


A

lternative3

Lim

ited Grow

th

Alternative

4M

aximum

C

onservation

A

rchaeological &

Historic

Resources

Underthe

No

Action

Alternative,the

greatestpotentialforeffectsto culturalresourcesandhistoric

propertieswould

occurinthe

areasclassified asLowD

ensity,High

Density,

andN

o Allocation.

TheM


lternativew

ouldlikely

have no significant on

anylisted


Concern. D

ueto the

increasein

Environmentally

Sensitiveand

Wildlife

Managem

entlands,there

may

besom

epositive


listedspecies

Them


Alternative

would

likelyhave no

significant onany

listedThreatened,

Endangered,Protected,or SpeciesofState

Concern. D

ueto the

increasein


andW

ildlifeM


may

besom

epositive


listedspecies

Implem

entationofthe M

oderate C

onservation Alternative

would

resultin

some reduction in negative air quality

impactsascom

pared to theN

oA

ctionA

lternative due to a decrease in Low

Density acreage and thereby a decrease

in future development.

Underthe

Limited G

rowth

Alternative,the

amountofLow

D

ensityacreagew

ould increase.Thisalternative w

ouldslightly

raise thepotentialforim

pactsonculturalresource

sitesorhistoricproperties.

TheM

aximum

Grow

th Alternative

would have

thehighest potentialto

avoid and decreaseim

pactson culturalresource

sitesandhistoric

properties com

paredto allthe alternativesdue

to the

reclassification of all Low D

ensity acreage to Environm

entally Sensitive lands.

A

irQ

uality

Underthe

No

Action

Alternative,the

air quality

aroundthe

lake w

ouldrem

ainthe

same

as currentlyexists.

There couldbe

anincrease

invehicular

exhaustemissionsdue

to localizeddevelopm

ent, andassociated constructionequipm

ent. No

violationsofthe currentN

ationalAm

bientAir

Quality

Standards(N

AA

QS)established

by theEPA

would be

expectedunderthis

alternative.

Implem

entationofthe M

oderate C


would

resultinsom

e reduction in negative air quality

impactsascom

pared to theN

oA

ctionA


Density acreage and thereby a

decrease in future development.

Implem

entationofthe M

oderate C


would

resultin

some reduction in negative air quality

impactsascom

pared to theN

oA

ctionA


Density acreage and thereby a decrease

in future development.

Implem

entationofthe Lim

ited G

rowth

Alternative

would

resultinless potential im

pactto existingair

qualitycom

pared to the No A

ction A


Density acreage and thereby a

decrease in future development.

Implem

entationofthe M

aximum

C

onservationA

lternativew

ouldhave the

greatest positiveim

pactto air quality

ofallthe evaluatedalternativesdue to the elim

ination of Low

Density lands and thereby a

decrease in future development

32

R

esourceC

ategory

A

lternative1

(No A

ction)

A

lternative2

Moderate

Conservation

Alternative

2 Modified

Moderate C


A

lternative3

Lim

ited Grow

th

Alternative

4M

aximum

C

onservation

Socio-econom

ics

TheN

o Action

Alternative

would

likely have the most

impacton the

socio-econom

ic situationin

thecounties surrounding

Bull

ShoalsLake due to the

potential for future developm

ent in the Low

Density and H

igh Density

land classifications.

TheM


lternativew

ouldlikely

have minim

alim

pactonthe socio-econom

icsituationin

thecounties surrounding

Bull

ShoalsLake since this alternative

reflects how the lake is currently

managed and operated.

Them


Alternative

would

likelyhave m

inimal

impacton

the socio-economicsituation

inthe


ull ShoalsLake since this alternative reflects how

the lake is currently m

anaged and operated.

Alternative 3

could have some

positive effecton the socio-economic

situation in the counties surrounding B

ull ShoalsLake

due tothe potential

for future development in the Low

D

ensity land classification.

TheM

aximum

ConservationA

lternative may

havenegative

impactson

thesocio-econom

icsituation

inthe countiessurrounding

Bull ShoalsLake

due to the reclassification of all Low

Density

lands to Environmentally Sensitive

acreage.

R

ecreationR

esources

Provisionofrecreational

facilitiesandservices

would

continueatB

ull ShoalsLake

withoutan

updateto the

Bull Shoals

LakeM

asterPlan. H

owever,the m

aster plan w

ouldnotaccurately

reflectthecurrentstatusof

projectfacilities.Landsw

ithno classification

would rem

ainunclassified.

The Moderate C

onservationA

lternative would

reclassify shoreline acreage to reflect current uses. Im

plementation of this

alternative would

allow continued

public use of the lake while

sustaining the natural, cultural, and socio-econom

ic resources of the area. C

urrent unclassified lands w

ould havea land

classification.

The modified M


Alternative w

ouldreclassify shoreline

acreage to reflect current uses. Im

plementation of this alternative

would

allow continued public use of

the lake while sustaining the natural,

cultural, and socio-economic

resources of the area. Current

unclassified lands would have a land

classification.

TheLim

ited Grow

th Alternative

would

havesom

e positiverecreation

impactas potential

opportunitieswould

beincreased, due to an

increasein

Low D

ensity lands.

Underthe M

aximum

Conservation A

lternative, areas aroundB

ull Shoalsw

ouldreceive greater protection since

all Low D

ensity lands would be

reclassified as Environmentally

Sensitive. This may enhance the

recreational experience for wildlife

viewing, hunting, fishing, and lake

aesthetics.

33

R

esourceC

ategory

A

lternative1

(No A

ction)

A

lternative2

Moderate

Conservation

Alternative

2 Modified

Moderate C


A

lternative3

Lim

ited Grow

th

Alternative

4M

aximum

C

onservation

H

ealth&

Safety

TheN

o Action

Alternative

would

retain current land classifications, in w

hich potential developm

ent could

impact w

aterquality.C

ontinued developm

entmay

leadto

increasedw

atertraffic, w

iththe

potentialforincreased

accidents and pollution.

The Moderate C

onservationA

lternative would still allow

potential developm

ent opportunities, but not to the degree to cause significant boat congestion or increase

water related accidents.

The increase in Environmentally

Sensitive and Wildlife M

anagement

areas could result in an increase in hum

an exposure to insects and w

ildlife. The availability of recreational opportunities, balanced w

ith conservation of natural environm

ent could lead to better health, both m

ental and physical, of visiting populations.

The modified M


Alternative w

ould still allow potential

development opportunities, but not to

the degree to cause significant boat congestion or increase

water related

accidents. The increase in Environm

entally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent areas could result in an increase in hum

anexposure to insects and w

ildlife. The availability of recreational opportunities, balanced w

ith conservation of natural environm

ent could lead to better health, both m

ental and physical, of visiting populations.

Underthe

Limited G

rowth

Alternative,accessto B

ull ShoalsLake

would be enhanced, w

ith a potentialforan increase

in water-

basedrecreational opportunities.

Land-basedrecreational

opportunities,suchashiking,

hunting,and wildlife

observationcould also be

slightly altered.

TheM

aximum

ConservationA

lternativew

ouldm

ostlikelyprom

ote asaferlake environm

ent,by indirectly reducing boat traffic due to the conversion of all Low D

ensity lands to Environm

entally Sensitive. Recreational boating

experiencesand boatersatisfaction

may

beim

pacted.

A

esthetics

Underthe

No

Action

Alternative

thevisual

characteristics surrounding the B

ull Shoals Lake

landscapecould

potentially changedue

to continued developm

ent in High and

Low D

ensity land classifications.

Under the M


Alternative, the

wide

panorama

ofB

ull ShoalsLakeand

thenearby

shorew

ould continueto convey

asense

ofenormity

ofthe lake,and the lim

ited development w

ould continue to prom

ote thesense

of arelatively

pristineshoreline.

The developed areas are, for the m

ost part, shielded from

the lake view, w

hich preservesthe view

scapesofthoserecreating

onthe

lake.

Under the m

odified Moderate

Conservation A

lternative, thew

idepanoram

aofB

ull ShoalsLakeand

thenearby

shorew

ould continueto convey

asense

ofenormity

ofthe lake,and the lim

ited development w

ould continue to prom

ote thesense

of arelatively

pristineshoreline.

The developed areas are, for the m

ost part, shielded from the lake

view, w

hich preservesthe viewscapes

ofthoserecreating

onthe

lake.

The Limited G

rowth A

lternativew

ould allow m

ore potential developm

ent, but not to a degree that w

ould significantly impact the

scenic beautyand/oraesthetics of

thelake.

Under the M

aximum

Conservation

Alternative, the

conversion of all Low

Density lands to

Environmentally Sensitive w

ouldenhance

theunspoiled

anduntam

ed aesthetic

ofthis landscape.This alternative

would m

aintain the area of pristine shoreline and preserve regions of boulders,bluffs,and

mature

forestflora

that currentlydom

inateview

s.

34 5.1 Clim

ate

5.1.1 No-A

ction (A

lternative 1)

Therecould be som

e potentialimpact to

climate

as aresult ofim

plementation ofthe

No A

ction alternative. O

f the 56,348 total land acres, 40,268.1 acres are classified as either High D

ensity or Low

Density lands under this alternative. This potential for developm

ent could modify the

vegetation component near the shoreline, allow

ing more sunlight penetration. G

reater temperature

fluctuations generally occur when w

oody vegetation is removed from

an area. Reduced ground

cover could cause an increase in sedimentation

during rainfall events, which could increase the

turbidity of the water, resulting in a potential for a sm

all increase in water tem

perature. 5.1.2 M

odified Moderate Con

servation (Selected A

lternative 2)

Them

odified Moderate C


is more protective than the

No A

ction Alternative

in terms ofpotential im

pacts on air and water tem

perature modification. A

conversion of both High

Density and Low

Density lands to Environm

entally Sensitive lands would reduce the potential for

development, w

hich reduces the potential impact on clim

ate due to vegetation removal. This

reclassification would provide a better buffering effect w

hich would result in storm

watervelocity

reduction andactas a

filtering mechanism

. This would help reduce

erosion andsedim

ent deposition in the

lake. 5.1.3 M


(Altern

ative 2) The

Moderate C

onservationA

lternativeis m

ore protective thanthe

No A

ction Alternative

in terms

ofpotential impactson

air and water tem

perature modification. A

conversion of both High D

ensity and Low


entally Sensitive lands would

reduce the potential for developm

ent, which reduces the potential im

pact onclim

atedue to vegetation rem

oval. This reclassification w

ouldprovide a better buffering effect w

hich would

result in stormw

atervelocityreduction and

actas afiltering m

echanism. This w

ould help reduceerosion and

sediment

deposition in thelake.

5.1.4 Limited G

rowth (A

lternative 3)

The Limited G

rowth A

lternativeallow

s for more

potential development, but still less than the N

o A

ction Alternative,and should have

a greater, but still insignificant,impacton

climate

around Bull

Shoals Lake. The most significant change from

Alternative 2 is the conversion of 4,167 acres of

Environmentally Sensitive lands to Low

Density, resulting in 11,911.4 acres in this classification,

and with the 3,480.3 acres of H

igh Density lands in this alternative, the com

bination represents27%ofavailable

acreagearound the

lake. 5.1.5 M

aximum

Conservation

(Altern

ative 4) The M

aximum

Conservation A

lternativeis the m

ost protective alternative in terms ofpotential

impacts on

climate. W

hile this alternative retains 3,714.6 acres of High D

ensity lands,31,952 acres of Low

Density lands w

ere converted to either Environmentally Sensitive or W

ildlife Managem

ent lands.

The combination represents93%

ofavailableacreage

around thelake w

hich protects the shoreline from

vegetation modification. This reclassification w

ouldprovide the best buffering effect

of any alternative, which w

ouldresult in storm

watervelocity

reduction andactas a

sediment

filtering mechanism

.

35 5.2 T

opography, Geology an

d Soils

5.2.1 No-A

ction (A

lternative 1)

Soil erosion would persist due

to development being

allowed underthis alternative.

Approxim

ately72%

ofavailableacreage (56,348

acres)aroundthe

lakeis currently

classifiedasH

ighand

LowD

ensityrecreation (15%

and 57%,respectively).

High

Density

acreagew

ould allow developm

ent ofintense

recreational activities includingcam

pgrounds, parks, marinas, resorts and otherpublic

development infrastructure. This developm

ent results insoil disturbance,vegetation rem

ovalandtransform

ing some pervious surfaces to im

pervious areas. It also promoteserosion during

construction activitiesand increasedrunoffvelocity

afterdevelopment is com

pleted. Therem

aining pervious surfacesaround these

developedareasw

ouldbecom

em

oreim

pervious dueto increased

foot traffic

from recreational activity. O

ftheactivitiesassociated w

ithLow

Density

landclassification—

primitive

camping,fishing, hunting, trails, w

ildlifeview

ingand shoreline

useperm

its—the

shoreline use

permits w

ouldtypically have

thegreatest im

pactson soil disturbancedue

to potential vegetation rem

ovalandconversion ofpervious surfaces to im

pervious. 5.2.2 M



lternative 2)

Them

odified Moderate C


is more restrictive than the

No A

ction Alternative

in terms ofpotential im

pacts to topography, geology and soils. Therew

ould belittle

to no change in im

pacts on theexisting conditions regarding

thesefeatures due to the fact that this alternative

reflects current lake usage patterns. High

Density

Recreation acreage

would be

reduced from the

No A

ction Alternative

(8,310.9acres) to 3,937.9 acres,and the

LowD

ensityrecreation acreage

hasbeen

reduced from 31,957.2 to 7,272.1

acres. These lands would be reclassified to Environm


ildlife Managem

ent lands, which provide a vegetated lake buffer area. This

vegetation helps to reduce stormw

atervelocityand

actsas afiltering m

echanism. This w

ould help reduce

erosion andsedim

ent deposition in thelake.

5.2.3 Moderate Con

servation (A

lternative 2)

TheM


Alternative

is more restrictive than the

No A

ction Alternative

in terms

ofpotential impactsto topography, geology and soils.

Therew

ouldbe

littleto no change in im

pactson

theexisting conditions regarding

thesefeaturesdue to the fact that this alternative reflects

current lake usage patterns. High

Density

Recreation acreage

would

bereduced from

theN

o Action

Alternative

(8,310.9acres)to 3,714.6 acres,and the

LowD


has beenreduced

from 31,957.2

to 7,254.8acres. These lands w

ould bereclassified to Environm


ildlife Managem

ent lands, which provide a vegetated lake buffer area. This

vegetation helps to reduce stormw

atervelocityand

actsas afiltering m

echanism. This w

ould help reduce

erosion andsedim

ent deposition in thelake.

5.2.4 Limited G

rowth (A

lternative 3)

The Limited G

rowth A

lternativew

ould decrease Low D

ensity lands by 20,043.3acresascom

pared to the N

o Action A

lternative, but would increase Low

Density by 4,659 acresover the M

oderate C

onservation Alternative. This w

ould allow potential developm

ent on theadditional Low

Density

acreage, but due to the fragmentation of this acreage around the shoreline, there w

ould be littleto no

impacton

the topography, geology and soils. High D


would decrease

by 234

acres, which w

ould further minim

ize the potential for soil erosion due to development. The

combination of H

igh Density and Low

Density

recreation landsrepresents only 27%ofavailable

acreagearound the

lake. With Environm

entally Sensitive and Wildlife M

anagement lands

36 com

prising am

ajorityofthe

shorelineacreage,m

inimal im

pacts from erosion and sedim

entation w

ould result from the

implem

entation ofthis alternative. 5.2.5 M

aximum

Conservation

(Altern

ative 4) The M

aximum

Conservation A

lternativeis differentfrom

the No A

ction Alternative

in terms of

potential impacts to topography, geology and soils. There

would

beless im

pact to theexisting

conditions regarding thesefeatures. H

ighD


would rem

ain at3714.6acres,

representingless than 7%

ofthe lakeshore

acreage,while the Low

Density

have been reclassified to Environm

entally Sensitive lands. Under this alternative the com

bination of Environmentally


anagement lands w

ould represent93%ofavailable

acreagearound the

lake.This alternative

would have

significant positiveeffects due

to reduced erosionand lake

sedimentation due

to vegetation retention. This additional buffer helps reducestorm

watervelocity

and surfacescourduring storm

events.

5.3 Aq

uatic Environ

men

t 5.3.1 H

ydrology and G

roundw

ater

5.3.1.1 No-Action (Alternative 1) The hydrology and groundw

ater components of B

ull ShoalsLake would

not change from the

existing condition due to the implem

entation of a No A

ction Alternative. The potential for

additional development under this alternative w

ould have some effect on reducing percolation

through the soil layers due to ground cover removal, and potentially increasing storm

water

velocity. W

etlandareasare

relativelylim

ited within B

ull ShoalsLake

and throughout theadjacent

government property

surroundingthe

lakeand

would

not undergoany

significant changefrom

existingconditions due

to implem

entation oftheN

o Action A

lternative. 5.3.1.2 M

odified Moderate Conservation (Selected Alternative 2)

Them

odified Moderate C


is different than theN

o Action A

lternativein

terms ofpotential im

pacts to thehydrology

andgroundw

atercomponents ofthe

aquaticenvironm

ent. Thehydrology

andgroundw

aterconditions are generally a function of thew

atersheddrainage

andexisting

geologyofthe area, but having only 19%

of the shoreline classified as High

and Low D

ensity lands in the modified M


lternative, as compared to over

71% in the N

o Action A

lternative, would enhance rainfall absorption and slow

runoff velocity due to retention of Environm


anagement land shoreline vegetation.

5.3.1.3 Moderate Conservation (Alternative 2)

TheM


Alternative

is different than theN

o Action A

lternativein term

s ofpotential im

pactsto thehydrology

andgroundw


aquaticenvironm

ent. Thehydrology

andgroundw

aterconditions are generally a function of thew

atersheddrainage

andexisting

geologyofthe area, but having

only 19%of the shoreline classified as H

igh and Low

Density lands in the M


Alternative, ascom

pared to over 71% in the N

o A

ction Alternative,w

ouldenhance rainfall absorption

and slow runoff velocity due to

retention of

37 Environm


anagement land shoreline vegetation.

5.3.1.4 Limited Grow

th (Alternative 3)The

Limited G

rowth A

lternativeis w

ouldhave

apositive

impacton

thehydrology

andgroundw

atercomponentsofthe

aquaticenvironm

entas compared to the N

o Action A

lternative.The

High and Low

Density lands com

prise 27% of the shoreline in this alternative, w

ith the rem

ainder dominated by Environm


anagement lands w

hich enhance hydrology

andgroundw

aterconditions and function. 5.3.1.5 M

aximum

Conservation (Alternative 4) The

Maxim

um C

onservationA

lternativeis likely to be m

ore protective than theN

o Action

Alternative

in terms ofpotentialim

pactonthe

hydrologyand groundw


aquaticenvironm

ent. Thehydrology

andgroundw

aterconditions are generally controlled by thew

atershed drainageand

existinggeology

of thearea, but w

hen 93% of the shoreline is classified as

Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent, rainfall would be

much m

ore likely to be absorbed, thereby replenishing the groundw

ater to a greater degree. There

would

belittle

to no changein the

wetland status from

theexisting

condition due to im

plementation ofthe

Maxim

um C

onservationalternative. M

ost ofthelim

ited wetland

acreagehasbeen identified in the

lowerreaches ofthe

majortributary

streams, therefore

the limited H

igh D

ensity shorelinedevelopm

ent near the lower end of the lake, as reflected in this alternative,

would

havelittle

impact to this resource.

5.3.2Water Q

uality 5.3.2.1 No Action (Alternative 1) Lake

fluctuations, associated with pow

erproductionand

flood control procedures, result in change

in theenvironm

ent alongthe

shorelineofthe

lake. Turbidityfrom

heavy rainfall has atem

porary,adverseeffecton

Bull ShoalsLake. D

uringthese

periods ofincreased runoff, urbanareasand otherparts ofthe

terrain, especiallythose

that havehad the

protectivevegetation rem

oved,contribute

silt and othersuspended particles to thetributaries. W

hileim

plementation ofthe

No

Action A

lternativeis relatively

independent oftheexisting

watershed drainage

on thelake

water

quality,potential continueddevelopm

ent around thelake

shorelinew

ouldexacerbate

waterquality

issues due to potential increasederosion, localized increasesin turbidity

and increasedsedim

entation in the lakefollow

ingstorm

events.U

ndertheN

oA

ction Alternative, H

ighD

ensityrecreation land

classificationw

ouldbe

8,310.9acres(15%

oftotalavailablearea),Low

Density

recreation lands would

be31,957.2

acres(57%), Environm

entallySensitive

lands include11,895.7

acres(21%),W

ildlifeM

anagement lands total3,953.5

acres(7%), w

hile169

acres haveno

current classification.

Based on the current classification, thepotentialexists forcontinual degradation of

shorelinevegetation due

to potential increased development and subsequent vegetation rem

ovaland m

owing

activities. This would

result innegative

impacts to w

ater quality due to increasedstorm

w

ater velocity, scour and sedimentation.

5.3.2.2 Modified M

oderate Conservation (Selected Alternative 2) Im

plementation of the

modified M


lternative may result in positive benefits to

water quality due to a reduction in both H

igh Density and Low

Density acreage by 4,373.1

and 24,685.2

acres respectively as compared to the N

o Action A

lternative. There is a corresponding major

38 increase in Environm

entally Sensitive acreage, from 11,895.8

acres to 29,048.5acres, w

hich represents a gain of 17,152.8 acres. These land reclassifications w

ouldserve to lim

it development on these lands,

thereby reducing impacts to ground disturbance and subsequent increased erosion. W

ildlife M

anagement lands increased from

3,953.5 acres to 15,997.9acres, representing a gain of 12,044.4

acres. These factors would

reduce erosion sedimentation and pollutants scoured from

reduced im

pervious surfaces, with additional benefits of retention of m

ore shoreline vegetation, better fishery habitat, increased w

ater clarity and cooler water tem

perature conditions due to thedecrease of turbidity

and sediment deposition.


Implem

entation of the Moderate C

onservationA

lternative may result in positive benefits to w

ater quality due to a reduction in both H

igh Density and Low

Density

acreage by 4,596.3 and 24,699.7acres respectively as com

pared to the No A

ction Alternative. There is a corresponding m

ajor increase in Environm

entally Sensitive acreage, from 11,895.7 acres to 29,369.4 acres, w

hich represents a gain of 17,473.7 acres. These land reclassifications w

ouldserve to lim

it development on these lands,

thereby reducing impacts to ground disturbance and subsequent increased erosion. W

ildlife M

anagement lands increased from

3,953.5 acres to 15,917.3 acres, representing a gain of 11, 963.8 acres. These factorsw

ouldreduce erosion sedim

entation and pollutants scoured from reduced

impervious surfaces, w

ith additional benefits of retention of more shoreline vegetation, better fishery

habitat, increased water clarity and cooler w

ater temperature conditions due to

the decrease of turbidity and sedim

ent deposition.

5.3.2.4 Limited Grow

th (Alternative 3) The

Limited

Grow

th alternativew

ould reduce Low D

ensity acreage by 20,043.3 (62%) and H

igh D

ensity acreage by 4,830.6 (6%) com

pared to the No A

ction Alternative. This alternative

represents a 44% reduction in potentially developable shoreline acreage, w

hichw

ouldhave a

positive effect on lake water quality due to the rainw

ater filtering benefits from shoreline

vegetation buffer associated with Environm


anagement lands.

These land classifications would represent 73%

of the shoreline acreage underthe Limited G

rowth

Alternative. Sim

ilar to the Moderate C

onservation Alternative, these land reclassifications w

ouldserve to lim

it development on these lands, thereby reducing potential im

pacts fromground

disturbance and subsequent increased erosion.

5.3.2.5 Maxim

um Conservation (Alternative 4)

TheM

aximum

Conservation A

lternative would

result in the greatest degree of water quality

protection, as compared to the N

o Action A

lternative. Potentially developable lands inthis

alternative consist of only 3,714.6 acres of High D

ensitylands, representing only7%

of the available shoreline acreage. The rem

aining 93% is classified as Environm

entally Sensitive (65%)

and Wildlife

Managem

ent (28%).

There would be no acreage in the Low

Density land

classification under this alternative.These land classifications w

ould retain the highest amount of

vegetated shoreline and create the greatest potential for the maintenance of w

ater quality ofall evaluated alternatives.

5.3.3Fish Species and H

abitat

5.3.2.1 No Action (Alternative 1) The

fishery of Bull Shoals Lake m

ay have potentialminor im

pactsfrom the

implem

entation oftheN

o Action alternative, w

hich has72% of available shoreline acreage classified as H

igh and Low

Density lands.

Implem

entation oftheN

oA

ction alternativew

ouldallow

potentialdevelopment

39 around

much ofthe

shoreline.D

evelopment often results in vegetation rem

oval down to w

ater’sedge, w

hich impactsshoreline stability,rem

ovesfish coverprovidedby

overhangingvegetation,

treetrunks and

roots, andexacerbatesstorm

watererosion and sedim

entation. During

thespring

spawning

season this sedimentation has the

potential to disrupt spawning

activityand

productivityin the

covesand lakearm

s where

spawning

comm

onlyoccurs.

5.3.2.2 Modified M


plementation ofthe

modified M


lternativew

ould havea

positiveeffecton

the lake fishery resourceascom

pared tothe

No A

ction Alternative. There

is a24,685.2 acre

reduction inLow

Density

recreation landclassification (-44%

), a 4,373.1 acre reduction in High

Density lands (-8%

), a 30%increase

in Environmentally

Sensitivelands classification (29,048.5

totalacres)andan increase

in Wildlife

Managem

ent lands from 3,953.5

acres to 15,997.9 acres,w

hichresults in

28%ofavailable

acreageclassified

asWildlife M

anagement lands. The

increasesin lands classified in these

two

areas would serve

asadditional protection forlakesidevegetation

and preservation of overhanging vegetation, which provides cover for fish, reduces storm

flow

velocity, reduces erosion scour, and reduces sedimentation. These factors im

prove spawning

habitat, thereby potentially enhancing fish population dynamics in the lake.


Implem

entation oftheM


Alternative

would

havea

positiveeffecton

the lake fishery

resourceascom

pared tothe

No A

ction Alternative. There

is a24,699.7

acre reduction inLow

Density

recreation landclassification (-44%

),a 4,596.3 acre reduction in High D

ensity lands (-8%

), a 31%increase

in Environmentally

Sensitivelands classification (29,369.4

totalacres)andan

increasein W

ildlifeM

anagement landsfrom

3,953.5acres to 15, 917.3

acres,which

results in28%

ofavailableacreage

classifiedasW

ildlife Managem

ent lands. Theincreases in lands classified

in these

two

areaswould

serveasadditional protection forlakeside

vegetationand preservation of

overhanging vegetation,which provides cover for fish, reduces storm

flow velocity, reduces erosion

scour, and reduces sedimentation. These factors im

prove spawning habitat, thereby potentially

enhancing fish population dynamics in the lake.

5.3.2.4 Lim

ited

Growth (Alternative 3)

TheLim

itedG

rowth alternative

is similarto the

Conservation

Alternative

in terms ofpotential

positive benefitsto thelake fishery. A

comparison w

ith the No A

ction Alternative show

s a reduction of 20,043.3 acres of Low

Density lands, as w

ell as a reduction of 4,830.6 acres of High

Density lands. In this alternative, 73%

of the available shoreline acreage would be

classified as Environm


anagement lands, preserving a m

ajority of the natural shoreline vegetation along the shoreline.

Similar to the positive effectsdiscussed in the M

oderate C

onservation Alternative, this alternative should have a beneficial effecton the fish and fish habitat

of Bull Shoals Lake.

5.3.2.5 Maxim


TheM

aximum

Conservation A

lternative would

enhance the fish resources in Bull Shoals Lake to the

greatest degree of all evaluated alternatives. A com

parison with the N

o Action A

lternative shows a

4,596.3 acre reduction inH

igh Density

lands, with all Low

Density lands being converted to

Environmentally Sensitive lands. The resulting acreage (36,624.3 acres) represents 65%

of total shoreline acreage. A

long with the 15,917.3 acres of W

ildlife Managem

ent lands in this alternative, 93%

ofthe total shoreline acreage would

retain its natural shoreline vegetation. Shorelinevegetation provides a buffer area that w

ouldattenuate storm

water runoff, reduce scour and sedim

entation, improve fish cover

40 and spaw

ning habitat, and provide a cleaner substrate for macro-invertebrate colonization, w

hich im

proves the food supply for fish.

5.4 Terrestrial R

esources

5.4.1 Wildlife

5.4.1.1 No Action (Alternative 1)U

ndertheN

oA

ction Alternative,shoreline lands w

ould be classified into High

Density

recreation lands(8,310.9

acres, or15%oftotalavailable

area),Low D

ensityrecreation lands (31,957.2

acresor57%

), Environmentally

Sensitivelands (11,895.7

acresor21%),and

Wildlife

Managem

ent lands (3,953.5

acresor7%), w

hile169

acres haveno

current classification.Based on the current

shoreline classification, thepotentialexists forcontinual degradation ofshoreline

vegetation dueto

increased development and

potentialvegetation removaland m

owing

activities. Unclassified lands

arepotentially

developable,resultingin over 72%

oftheshoreline

acreagesubject to possible

increased ornewdevelopm

ent. This would

result innegative

effectsto wildlife

dueto potential

removal oftreesand understory

vegetation(w

ith the highest potential in the High D

ensity lands),thusaltering food sourcesand m

igratorypatterns of insects, birds and m

amm

al species. 5.4.1.2 M

odified Moderate Conservation (Selected Alternative 2)

Implem

entation ofthem

odified Moderate C


would have

apositive

effectonterrestrial resources, w

hen compared to

theN

o Action alternative. There

would be

a24,685.2

acrereduction in

Low D


classification (to 7,272.1acres), a 4,373.1 acre reduction

in High D

ensity lands (to 3,937.9 acres), a30%

increasein Environm

entallySensitive

lands classification (29,048.5 totalacres)and

an increasein W

ildlifeM

anagementlands from

3,953.5 acres to 15,997.9 acres. This w

ould result in28%

ofavailableacreage

classifiedasW

ildlifeM


increases in lands classified as Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife M

anagement land w

ould provide additional protection forlakesidevegetation,and preservation of

habitatforwildlife

andm

igratorybird species. The bufferofnatural vegetation that rem

ains alongthe

shorelinefrom

this designatedacreage w

ould potentially enhance migration and feeding

activities for many species of w

ildlife. 5.4.1.3 M

oderate Conservation (Alternative 2) Im

plementation ofthe

Moderate C

onservationA

lternativew

ouldhave

apositive

effecton terrestrialresources,w

hencom

pared tothe

No A

ction alternative. Therew

ould bea

24,699.7acre

reduction in

Low D


classification (to 7,254.8acres),a 4,956 acre reduction in H

igh D

ensity lands (to 3,714.6), a31%

increasein Environm

entallySensitive

lands classification (29,369.4 totalacres)and an increase

in Wildlife

Managem

ent landsfrom 3,953.5

acres to 15,917.3acres. This w

ould result in28%

ofavailableacreage

classifiedasW

ildlife Managem

ent lands. Theincreases in lands classified

as Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent land would

provide additional protection forlakesidevegetation,and preservation of habitatforw

ildlifeand

migratory

bird species. The bufferofnatural vegetation thatremainsalong

theshoreline

fromthis

designatedacreage

would

potentially enhance migration and feeding activities for m

any species of w

ildlife. 5.4.1.4 L

imite

d Grow


Limited

Grow

th alternativeis m

ore similarto the

Conservation

Alternative

than the No A

ction A

lternative in terms ofpotentialeffectsto the

terrestrialresourcesand land usepatterns. A

proposed

decreasein

Low D

ensity lands of20,043.3acres, w

ould result in 21%ofavailable

41 acreage

classified asLow D

ensity, which w

ould potentially be available for development. This

amount of Low

Density land w

ouldlikely

havesom

e, but stillinsignificant effect, on wildlife

species and activity.In spite

ofthis increasein

LowD

ensitylands over the M


Alternative, the m

ajority of natural shoreline vegetation would

likely remain in the Low

Density

acreage. High D

ensity lands are reduced by 4,830.6 acres from the original 8,310.9 acres in the N

o A

ction Alternative. G

ood habitat for wildlife w

ouldstill be abundant under this alternative.

5.4.1.5 Maxim


TheM

aximum

Conservation

Alternative

would convert all of the existing Low

Density

landsto Environm


anagement acreage.

Based on this reclassification, this

alternativew

ould result in significant positive effectsonterrestrialresourcesaround the shoreline of

the lake.W

hite-tailed deer and eastern wild turkey are com

mon gam

e animals found and hunted in

the Bull Shoals Lake

area. Black bear have

also become com

mon in the area and are hunted on the

areas of Bull Shoals Lake located in A

rkansas. Gray and fox squirrels are com

mon in upland

wooded areas and are also popular w

ithsportsm

en. All these w

ildlife species fare better in a natural, undeveloped vegetation cover. This alternative w

ouldprovide the m

ost wildlife benefits in

this regard. Some habitat m

anagement activities, including

wildlife food plot plantings, rem

oval of exotic species and application of prescribed fire w

ouldpotentially benefit these populationsas w

ell.

5.4.2Vegetation

5.4.2.1 No Action (Alternative 1)U

ndertheN

oA

ction Alternative,shoreline lands w

ould be classified into High

Density

recreation lands(8,310.9

acres,or15%oftotalavailable

area),Low D

ensityrecreation lands (31,957.2

acresor57%

), Environmentally

Sensitivelands (11,895.7 acresor21%

),and Wildlife

Managem

ent lands (3,953.5

acresor7%), w

hile169

acres haveno

current classification.Based on this, the

potentialexists forcontinued

degradationofshoreline

vegetation dueto increased developm

ent andsubsequent vegetation rem

ovaland mow

ingactivities. U

nclassified lands arepotentially

developable,resultingin over 72%

oftheshoreline

acreagesubject to

possible increased ornewdevelopm

ent. This would

result inpotential negative

effects to the natural shoreline vegetation com

position dueto potentialrem

oval oftreesand understoryvegetation, thuspossibly altering food

sourcesand migratory

patterns of insects, birds and mam

mal species, as w

ell as increasing apotential for increased storm

water erosion effects.

5.4.2.2 Modified M


plementation ofthe

modified M


lternativew

ould havea

positiveeffecton

the shore line vegetation,when com

pared tothe

No A

ction alternative. Therew

ould be a24,685.2

acrereduction in

Low D


classification (7,272.1acres), a 4,373.1 acre

reduction in High D

ensity lands (3,937.9 total acres), a30%

increasein Environm

entallySensitive

lands classification (29,048.5 totalacres)andan increase

in Wildlife

Managem

ent lands from

3,953.5acres to 15,997.9 acres,w

hichresults in

28%ofavailable

acreageclassified

asWildlife

Managem

ent lands. Theincreases in lands classified as Environm

entally Sensitive and Wildlife

Managem

ent land would serve

asadditional protection forlakesidevegetation

and subsequent preservation of habitatforw

ildlifeand

migratory

bird species. The bufferofnatural vegetation that rem

ains alongthe

shorelinefrom

this designatedacreage w

ould enhance migration and feeding

activities for many species of w

ildlife, as well as m

ediate storm w

ater velocity and scour.

42 5.4.2.3 M

oderate Conservation (Alternative 2) Im

plementation

oftheM


Alternative

would

havea

positiveeffecton

the shore line vegetation,w

hencom

pared tothe

No A

ction alternative.There

would be a

24,699.7acre

reduction inLow

Density

recreation landclassification (7,254.8

acres), a 4,956 acre reduction in H

igh Density lands (3,714.6), a

31%increase

in Environmentally

Sensitivelands classification

(29,369.4 totalacres)and an increasein W

ildlifeM

anagement lands from

3,953.5 acres to 15,917.3 acres,w

hichresults in

28%ofavailable

acreageclassified

asWildlife M


increases in lands classified as Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent land would

serveasadditional protection forlakeside

vegetationand subsequent preservation of habitatfor

wildlife

andm

igratorybird species. The bufferofnatural vegetation that rem

ains alongthe

shorelinefrom

this designatedacreage

would

enhance migration and feeding activities for m

any species of w

ildlife, as well as m

ediate storm w

ater velocity and scour. 5.4.2.4 L

imite

d Grow


Limited

Grow

th alternativeis m

ore similarto the

Conservation

Alternative

in terms of

potentialeffectsto thelakeshore vegetation than that of the N

o Action A

lternative. A proposed

decreasein

Low D

ensity lands of20,043.3acres, w

ould result in 21%ofavailable

acreage for potential developm

ent,would

likelyhave

some, but stillinsignificant effect, on shoreline

vegetation.H

igh Density lands w

ould bereduced by 4,830.6 acres from

the original 8,310.9 acres in the N

o Action A

lternative. In spiteofthis increase

inLow

Density

lands over the Moderate

Conservation A

lternative, the majority of natural shoreline vegetation could

be relatively unaffected

in the Low D

ensity acreage, based on the type of development proposed.

5.4.2.5 Maxim


TheM

aximum

Conservation

Alternative

would convert all the existing

Low D

ensitylandsand

4,596.3 acres of High D

ensity landsto Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent acreage. B

ased on this reclassificationof 36,553.5 acres, this alternative

would result in significant

positive effects onthe vegetation resourcesaround the shoreline of the lake

due to the restrictions placed on vegetation m

odificationactions under the m

ajority of the land classifications remaining.

Some habitat m

anagement activities, including w

ildlife food plot plantings, removal of exotic

species and application of prescribed fire would

still take place under this alternativeand could

potentially be beneficial to the area.

5.5 Threaten

ed and En

dangered Sp

ecies 5.5.1 N

o Action

(Alternative 1)

Ofthe

species listed inTable

4.1ofSection 4.0, A

FFECTED

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT, tw

o species would

be most affected by im

plementation of the N

o Action A

lternative. TheG

rayB

at, Myotis

grisescens,and the Tumbling C

reek Cavesnail, Antrobia culveri, are located in areascurrently

classified as Low D

ensity lands. Potential development could occur in this land classification that

mighthave a significantim

pactonthe ecology of Tum

bling Creek C

ave, in which these species

live.TheBald Eagle,H

aliaeetus leucocephalus, wasrem

ovedfrom

thethreatened listing

in2007

bythe

USFW

S, butit still remains a

protected species. While

there havebeen

reports ofnestingin

some

locations around thelake

perimeter,this species is not confined to a particular area around the

lake, and should not be significantly affected byim

plementation of this alternative.

43 5.5.2 M



lternative 2)

Them

odified Moderate C

onservation Alternative w

ould likelyhave

littleto no negative effects on

anylisted threatened, endangered, protected,orspecies ofstate

concern based on thedocum

entation and justification noted in theN

o Action A

lternative. Due

to thereclassification of

29,058.3 acres from H

igh and Low D

ensity lands to Environmentally

Sensitive(including the

Tumbling C

reek Cave area) and

Wildlife M

anagement lands classifications, there

may

bepotential

positive benefits to anyorall the

listed species, and possiblyotheryet undiscovered

species thatm

ayexist in the

area. This is due to the higher level of protection offered by the Environmentally


anagement land classifications.

5.5.3 Moderate Con

servation (A

lternative 2)

TheM


Alternative

would

likelyhave

littleto no negative effectson

anylisted

threatened,endangered,protected,orspecies ofstateconcern based on the

documentation and

justification noted in theN

o Action A

lternative. Due

to thereclassification of 29,296.0

acresfrom

High and Low


entallySensitive

(including the Tumbling C

reek Cave

area) andW

ildlifeM

anagement lands classifications, there

may

bepotential positive benefits to

anyorall the


species that may

exist in thearea.

This isdue to the higher level of protection offered by the Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife M

anagement land classifications.

5.5.4 Limited G

rowth (A

lternative 3)

Similarto A

lternative2, the

Limited G

rowth alternative

would

likelyhave

littleto no effectson

any listed Threatened,Endangered,Protected, orSpecies ofStateC

oncernbased on the

proposed reduction of potentially developable acreage

from the am

ount listed in theN

o Action A

lternative.A

proposed decreasein

Low D

ensity lands of20,043.3 acres, resultingin 21%

ofavailableacreage

for potential Low D

ensity development. This m

ay result in some

potential minornegative

effectsto listed

speciesbased on possible development activity in Low

Density lands.

5.5.5 Maxim

um Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

TheM

aximum

Conservation

Alternative

would

likelyprovide the m

ost protection for anyspecies listed

as Threatened, Endangered,Protected, orSpeciesofStateC

oncerndue

to thereclassification of 29,298.6acresfrom

High and Low


entallySensitive

andW

ildlifeM

anagement lands. Potentially developable lands under this alternative

include only 3,714.6 acres of High D

ensity lands, representing 7% of available shoreline

acreage. Due

to thesignificant increase ofEnvironm

entallySensitive

andW

ildlifeM

anagement acreage

from the

No A

ction landclassifications, there

may

bepotential positive

benefits to anyorall the


species that may

exist in thearea.

44 5.6 A

rchaeological and H

istoric Resources

5.6.1 No-A

ction (A

lternative 1)

Underthe

No-A

ction Alternative

therew

ould beno

changein the

current MasterPlan land

classifications as designated underthe1975 M

P.Underthis alternative, the

greatest potentialfor effects on

culturalresourcesand historicpropertiesw

ould occurin theareasclassified

asLow

and High

Density

Recreation and those

lands with no classification. C

ulturalResources

undertheN

o Action A

lternativew

ould be atrisk ofdisturbancein

areaswhere the land

classification would allow

forintensivedevelopm

ent.Any

newground disturbing

activities on U

SAC

E lands would require

aperm

it to beissued priorto com

mencem

ent oftheactivity.

Through thesite

reviewprocess priorto

issuanceofa

permit or any federal action, unknow

n sites w

ould be identified, and known sites w

ould beevaluated

fortheirsignificanceand

eligibilityforthe N

ationalRegisterof H

istoric Places pursuant to 36 CFR

Part 800 oftheN

ational Historic

Preservation Act. C

ulturalResource

sites within

Low D

ensity or High

Density

classificationareascould potentially

undergo them

ost severe impact due

to thefact

thatactivities suchas boatdock

construction and shorelineuse

permits result in a

degreeof

ground disturbancew

hichcould pose

athreat to intactcultural deposits.

Potential mitigation

for impact to cultural or historic sites w

ould be the requirement for a cultural or historic

resource site evaluation. If evaluation of site identifies a cultural or historic resource, avoidance of the action w

ould be recomm

ended. 5.6.2 M



lternative 2)

Underthe

modified M


lternative,the area classifiedas Environm

entallySensitive

andW

ildlifeM

anagement w

ould increase. With the

proposed increases in both the W

ildlife Managem

ent Areas and Environm

entally Sensitive Area classifications, there

would be

minim

al potentialforgrounddisturbing

activitiesalongthe

shoreline, thus decreasing the potential for effects on

culturalresources.Inareasthat w

ereclassified as Low

Density under the N

o Action

Alternative and that have no perm

its or houses, and undeveloped lots, would be changed to

Environmentally

Sensitive in effort to preservethe scenic, historical, archaeological, scientific,

waterquality, orecological value

oftheoverall project. In areas w

here the land has been previously classified as H

igh Density, but it has not yet been identified for developm

ent, these lands w

ould be converted to Environmentally Sensitive or W

ildlife Managem

ent. 5.6.3 M


(Altern

ative 2) U

ndertheM


Alternative,the area classified

asEnvironmentally

Sensitiveand

Wildlife

Managem

ent would increase.W

ith theproposed increases in both the W

ildlife M

anagement A

reas and Environmentally Sensitive A

rea classifications, therew

ould be minim

al potentialforground

disturbingactivitiesalong

theshoreline, thus decreasing the potential for

effects onculturalresources.In

areasthat were

classified as Low D

ensityunder the N

o Action

Alternative and that have no perm

itsorhouses, and undeveloped lots, would be changed to

Environmentally

Sensitive in effort to preservethe scenic, historical, archaeological, scientific,

waterquality, orecological value

oftheoverall project. In areas w

here the land has been previously classified as H

igh Density, but it has not yet been identified for developm

ent, these lands w

ouldbe converted to Environm

entally Sensitive or Wildlife M

anagement.

45 5.6.4 Lim

ited Grow

th (Altern

ative 3) U

nderthe Limited G

rowth A

lternative, High D

ensity Recreation classifications w

ould be decreased

around Bull Shoals Lake; Low

Density w

ould also be decreased, but less than under he Preferred A

ction, while Environm


anagement A

reas would be

increased,thusretaining a limited approach to developm

ent. This alternative, while having a

largerpotential for developmentas com

pared to the Preferred Action, w

ould still result in abenefit to cultural resourcesbased on the large decrease in the Low

Density land classification

as com

pared to the No A

ction Alternative.

5.6.5 Maxim

um Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

The Maxim

um C


would result in the greatest benefit to preservation of

cultural resource sites and historic properties. Under this alternative, there w

ould not be any areas identified as Low

Density and approxim

ately 93% of all land w

ould be classified asEnvironm

entallySensitive

andW

ildlifeM

anagement. This alternative

is verypreservation-

orientedand w

ould constitutethe

best opportunityto m

inimize

anypotentialeffectsto cultural

resourcesites and historic

properties. High D

ensityrecreation w

ould decrease by 4,596.3 acres to approxim

ately 7 % of the land coverage. This w

ould minim

izethe

amount of developm

entpotential on lands adjacent to B

ull Shoals Lake, and subsequentlym

inimize

adverseeffects on

culturalresources.

5.7 Socio-Econom

ic Resources

5.7.1 No A

ction (A

lternative 1)

TheNo A

ction Alternativem

ay havethe mosteffecton thesocio-econom

icsituation in thecountiessurrounding B

ull ShoalsLakedue to the fact that 72% of the available shoreline acreage is classified

as either High or Low

Density lands. W

hile the potential for some developm

ent exists around the lake,current population grow

th and thedem

ographicm

akeupof

thepopulation are expected to

remain sim

ilarto thecurrent rates

and percentages thearea

experiences now. H

ousingunits and

theirvalues

would

not beaffected if

theN

o Action alternative

isim

plemented.It is likely that

changesin the

socio-economic

conditions oftheB

ull Shoals areaw

ouldbe

theresult ofoutside

influences, and not thosecreated

bythe

No A

ction alternative. 5.7.2 M



lternative 2)

Them

odified Moderate C

onservationA

lternativew

ould likelyhave

less of a positiveeffect on the

socio-economic

situation in the counties surroundingB

ull ShoalsLake

than the No A

ction A

lternative. Population would be expected to stay the sam

e or decline slightly dueto the decreasedH

igh D

ensityacreage

andthe

conversion of

24,685.2acres

ofLow

Density

lands to

Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent lands.Although under the Preferred A

ction, the

demographic

makeup ofthe

population would likely

beunaffected. Total housing

units would

stay the same or decrease dueto thedecreased

availabilityofrecreation at thelake, but it is unlikely

that housingvalues w

ould changeas a result of the alternative. The

economy

ofthearea

would

likelystay the sam

e or have a slight decline if this alternative is implem

ented.

5.7.3 Mod

erate Conservation

(Altern

ative 2) The

Moderate C

onservationA

lternativew

ouldlikely

haveless of a

positiveeffecton the

socio-econom

icsituation in the


ull ShoalsLake

than the No A

ction Alternative.

Population would be expected to stay the sam

e or decline slightly dueto the decreased H

ighD

ensityacreage

andthe conversion of 24,699.7

acres ofLowD

ensitylands to Environm

entally

46 Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent lands.Although

under the Preferred Action, the

demographic

makeup

ofthepopulation w

ould likelybe

unaffected. Total housingunits w

ouldstay the sam

e or decrease due

to thedecreased

availabilityofrecreation at the

lake, but it is unlikely that housingvalues w

ould changeas a result of the alternative. The

economy

ofthearea

would likely

stay the sam

e or have a slight decline if this alternative is implem

ented. 5.7.4 Lim

ited Grow

th (Altern

ative 3) The Lim

ited Grow

th Alternative

would

result in asim

ilarsocio-economic

situation as Alternative

2, but possibly would have less of a positive effectas com

pared to the No A

ction Alternative.

LowD

ensityacreage

in this alternative would be

11,913.9 acres, representing 21% of available

shoreline acreage. Theeconom

yin the

areacould possibly grow

slightly dueto a potential

increased opportunityforrecreation.

5.7.5 Maxim

um Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

The Maxim

um C


would

havean

effecton thesocio-econom

icsituation in

thecountiesthat surround

Bull Shoals Lake

dueto the decreased H

ighD

ensityacreage

and thereclassification ofall Low

Density

lands to Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent acreage. A

nindirectim

pactfrom this alternative

would

bea

reduction in taxrevenue

to localcounties, essentially

reducingtheireconom

ic development, due

to thefact that the

Corps w

ouldnote

grantnewperm

itsallowing

expansion ornew developm

ent. Total housingunits w

ould likelystay

thesam

edue

to the decreasedavailability

ofrecreation(private shoreline uses)at the

lakeresulting

in minim

al new developm

ent, but it is unlikely thatpropertyvalues w

ould change.It is unlikely thatotherfacets ofsocio-econom

ics would change

due to the implem

entation of this alternative.

5.8 Recreation

Resources

5.8.1 No-A

ction (A

lternative 1)

Provision ofrecreationalfacilitiesand services would continue

atBull Shoals Lake

without an

updateto the

Bull Shoals

LakeM

asterPlan. How

ever, theplan

byw

hichthe

Resource

Managerand staffoperate

would not accurately

reflectthecurrent status ofprojectfacilities.

Norw

ould therebe

additionalmeasures in place, such

as trailcorridorsandadditional land use

designations, to betteraccomm

odaterecreational needs w

hileprotecting

thenaturalresources.

Currently, there

areseveral boat docks outside

ofareas currentlyzoned

for them and

under theN

o Action A

lternative these uses would rem

ain inconsistent with the M

aster Plan. A total of

169 acres of shoreline would rem

ain unclassifiedgenerating confusion about w

hich uses are allow

ed in these areas. 5.8.2 M



lternative 2)

Underthe

modified M


lternative,all lands would be

classified and some of

the existing classifications would be changed. This proposed update

in classification would be

structured to achievea

balance based on the presentpublicuse

ofthelake

while

sustainingthe

natural, cultural, and socio-economic

resourcesofthearea and reflecting the current m

anagement

and operation of lands at Bull Shoals Lake.

UnderA

lternative2, the current H

igh and Low

Density lands, com

prising 71% of available shoreline acreage, w

ould be reduced to 20%, w

hile Environm


anagement lands, at 21%

and 7%, respectively, w

ould

47 increase to 52%

and 28% of shoreline acreage. These classifications reflect current lake usage,

with fishing, boating, hunting and w

ildlife viewing dom

inating the recreational activity on the lake. The proposed increase

inW

ildlifeM

anagement and Environm

entallySensitive

classifiedlandsaction

would assist in forging partnerships betw

een publicand private

entitiesforrecreationaland w

ildlifeconservation opportunities. The

retention of a major percentage of the

natural shoreline vegetation would lead to im

proved waterquality,due to the buffering and filtering

capability of this vegetation. 5.8.3 M


(Altern

ative 2) U

ndertheM


Alternative,all lands w

ouldbe

classifiedand som

e of the existing classifications w

ould be changed.This proposed updatein classification

would

be structured to achieve

abalance

based on the presentpublicuse

ofthelake

while

sustainingthe

natural, cultural, and socio-economic

resourcesofthearea

and reflecting the current managem

ent and operation of lands at B

ull Shoals Lake.U

nderAlternative

2,the current High and Low

D

ensity lands, comprising 71%

of available shoreline acreage, would

be reduced to 20%, w

hile Environm


anagement lands, at 21%

and 7%, respectively, w

ouldincrease to 52%

and 28% of shoreline acreage. These

classificationsreflect current lake usage, w

ith fishing, boating, hunting and wildlife view

ing dominating the recreational activity on the

lake. The proposedincrease

in Wildlife

Managem

ent and Environmentally

Sensitiveclassified

landsactionw

ouldassist in forging partnerships betw

eenpublic

and privateentitiesfor

recreationalandw

ildlifeconservation opportunities. The

retention of a major percentage of the

natural shorelinevegetation w

ould lead to improved w

aterquality,due to the buffering and filtering capability of thisvegetation.

5.8.4 Limited G

rowth (A

lternative 3)

The Limited G

rowth A

lternativew

ouldnot deviate

significantlyfrom

theC

onservation A

lternativein term

s of provision of recreational opportunities on the lake. The 4,259.1 acres of shoreline thatw

ould bereclassified to

Low D

ensityrecreation from

Environmentally

Sensitivelands w

ouldallow

forthepotential to

haveadditional private

boat docks forfishing and lakeaccess, as w

ellas the potential to develop naturetrails and w

ildlifeview

ingareas, thuspotentially

increasingrecreational traffic along

Bull Shoalsand itsadjacent lands.

5.8.5 Maxim

um Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

Underthe

Maxim

um C

onservationA

lternative, some

recreation opportunitieswould

bereduced,

suchas private

boat docks,dueto an increase

in the area classified as Environmentally

Sensitive,w

hich doesnot allow m

ost types ofdevelopment. This alternative

would

also limit com

mercial

opportunitiesbased on the proposed 3,714.6 acres of High

Density

classification. Although it

minim

izes potentialfordevelopment, it w

ouldim

proveland-based

recreational opportunities suchas hunting, hiking,bird w

atching. This alternativealso w

ouldim

proveview

scapesalong thelake

sinceitw

ouldallow

fornative floraand

faunato thrive.

5.9 Air Q

uality 5.9.1 N

o Action

(Altern

ative 1) U

ndertheN

oA

ction alternative, theairquality

around thelake

would

remain

thesam

eas

currentlyexists. There

would

likelybe

increases in vehicularexhaust emissions due

tolocalized

development, and the

associatedconstruction equipm

ent and trafficin the

area.H

owever, no

violations ofthecurrentN

ational Am

bient AirQ

ualityStandards (N

AA

QS)established

byEPA

48 w

ould beexpected

as aresult of the

implem




lternative 2)

Implem

entation ofthem

odified Moderate C


would also result in no

change inairquality

impactsas noted under the

No A

ction Alternative.

Sincethis

alternativew

ould incorporate more shoreline acreage into the Environm


ildlife Managem

ent land classification, there would likely be a reduction in potential

development, local vehicularexhaust em

issions, and construction equipment activity,

which w

ould avoid or reduce potential impacts on localized air quality. N

o violations ofthe

current NA

AQ

Sestablished

byEPA

would be expected

as aresult ofthe

implem



(Altern

ative 2) Im

plementation ofthe

Moderate C

onservationA

lternativew

ould also result in no change inairquality

impactsas noted

undertheN

o Action A

lternative.Since

this alternativew

ould incorporate m

ore shoreline acreage intothe Environm

entally Sensitive and Wildlife

Managem

ent land classification, there would likely be a reduction in potential developm

ent, localvehicularexhaust em

issions, and construction equipment activity, w

hich would avoid

or reduce potential impacts on

localized air quality.N

o violations ofthecurrent N

AA

QS

establishedby

EPAw

ould beexpected

as aresult ofthe

implem

entation ofthis alternative. 5.9.4 Lim

ited Grow

th (Altern

ative 3) M

irroringthe

Conservation A

lternative, theLim

itedG

rowth A

lternativew

ould result in fewerair

qualityeffects as com

pared to theN

o Action A

lternative. This alternativew

ould reclassifyless

Low D

ensityto

Environmentally

Sensitiveas com

pared to the Preferred Action, resulting in

approximately 4,659 m

ore acres of Low D

ensity under Alternative 3 as com

pared to the Preferred A

ction. This additional Low D

ensity acreage would result in a greater potential for additional

development, w

hich could lead to increased local vehicular exhaustemissions. H

owever, this

effect would not be significant based on the sm

all amount of change that could result from

this developm

entand increased lakeusage activities. N

o violations ofthecurrent N

AA

QS

establishedby

EPAw

ould beexpected

asaresult ofthe im

plementation ofthis alternative.

5.9.5 Maxim

um Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

Implem

entation oftheM

aximum

Conservation

alternativew

ould result in less ofan impact to

existingairquality

dueto the

reduction in lands classifiedfordevelopm

ent around theB

ull ShoalsLake shoreline.Since

them

ajorityofthe

availableacreage

would be

classifiedas Environm

entallySensitive and

Wildlife

Managem

ent lands (93%oftotalavailable

acreage), this would result in

much lesspotential vehiculartraffic,boat traffic, construction equipm

ent usage,and mow

erexhaust em

issions on theselands.

5.10 Health &

Safety 5.10.1 N

o Action

(Alternative 1)

Safetyofproject visitorsand project staffare

highest priorityin daily

project operations. The

No A

ction Alternative

would have

72% of available shoreline acreage classified for H

igh and Low

Density developm

ent, would allow

for the highest potential for a reduction in lake water

quality, as describedin Section 5.3.2..

Therecould potentially be an increase in boat traffic on the

49

lake and a possible increasein congestion, creating additional safety issues. The

lakecould

experienceincreased user conflict, forexam

ple, boats vs. personal watercrafts. U

ndertheN

o A

ction Alternative, populations w

ho recreateat the

lakecould be

exposed to health risks associated w

ith impaired w

aterquality, suchasE. coli,and potential hazardous run offdue to the

overall potential for increased recreation at the lake. 5.10.2 M



lternative 2)

Therecreational opportunities, balanced w

ith conservation ofnaturalenvironment could lead to

betterhealth, both m

entaland physical, of

thevisiting

population. Implem

entation of the m

odified Moderate C

onservation Alternative w

ould likely result in reduced trafficcongestion

onthe

water,and a low

er potential for water

related incidents. Theincrease

in Environmentally

Sensitiveand

Wildlife

Managem

ent Areas

could potentially increaseexposure

to insects andanim

als, which is generally understood by the

public who utilize these lands.

5.10.3 Moderate Con

servation (A

lternative 2)

Therecreational opportunities, balanced w

ith conservation ofnaturalenvironment could lead to

betterhealth, both m

entaland physical, of

thevisiting

population. Implem

entation of the M


Alternative w

ould likely result in reduced trafficcongestionon thew

ater,and a low

er potential for waterrelated incidents.The

increasein Environm

entallySensitive

and W

ildlifeM

anagement A

reascould potentially increaseexposure

to insects andanim

als, which

is generally understood by the

publicw

ho utilize these lands. 5.10.4 Lim

ited Grow

th (Altern

ative 3) Sim

ilarto the

impacts in

Alternative

2, theLim

itedG

rowth A

lternativecould

also createa

potentialforadditional boat docksbeingbuilt due

to a greater amount of Low

Density lands than

in the Preferred Action. This alternative

would potentially

result in asm

all increaseof

trafficcongestion on the

water,thus w

aterrelated incidents could potentially become

an issueunderthis

alternative, but to a lesser potential in comparison to the N

o Action A

lternative. 5.10.5 M

aximum

Conservation

(Altern

ative 4) This alternative

limits developm

ent to 3,714.6 acres of High D

ensity lands, which w

ould im

ply that there would be m

ore limited access to B

ull ShoalsLake,potentially

causing a decrease

in water-based

recreationalopportunities. Although

water-based

activitieswould

beim

pacted,there would be an

increasein land-based

recreation opportunities suchas

hiking, huntingand

wildlife

observation. Therecould also be

some

partnership opportunitiesw

ith conservation-based organizations within the

region. Thedecrease

in rateof

development could

also havepositive

impacts on w

aterqualityby

reducingrunoffquantity

and velocity from rainfall events, w

hich would increase sedim

entation and shoreline contam

inants to the water.

5.11 Aesthetics

5.11.1 No-A

ction (A

lternative 1)

Aesthetics is an im

portantfeaturethatenhances the

recreationalexperience.Landsaround

Bull

Shoals Lakeprovide

anatural setting

that is aestheticallypleasing

aswellasbuffering

thelake

from view

s of development and

clearings.

50 U

ndertheN

o-Action A

lternativethe

visualcharacterofthelandscape

would slow

lychange

dueto

potentialcontinued developmentincreasing the am

ount of land with view

s of development

and human structures. This w

ould increase the amount of visual contrast betw

een the natural and developed landscapes around the lake. V

isual contrast is a measure of im

pact on visual quality and aesthetics. D

ock development w

ouldelim

inatethe

unspoiledand untam

edaesthetic

ofthis landscape.R

oadand utility

linecorridorsalso im

pactaestheticsand visualresourcesatB

ull Shoals. Sincethe

lakeis partially surrounded

bypockets of residentialand

comm

ercialdevelopm

ent, these demands w

ould continue toincrease.

Inm

anyinstances,requestsfor new

shoreline use perm

its arein areas w

herethe

natural vegetation and landscapew

ould bedisturbed.

5.11.2 Modified M

oderate Conservation (Selected Altern

ative 2) The

wide

panorama

ofBull Shoals Lake

and thenearby

shoreconveys

asense

ofenormity

to the lake, and the conversion of 24,685.2 acres of Low

Density lands and 4,373.1 acres of H

igh Density

lands to Environmentally Sensitive and W

ildlife Managem

ent acreage would continue

to preservethe

senseofrelatively pristine

shoreline. Thenatural vegetation alongthe shoreline

would enhance

theview

scapes ofthepeople

recreatingon the

lake, while

potentially impeding

theview

ofthe

lakefrom theshore. U

nderthis proposed alternative, propertyow

nerscould work w

ith Corps staff

todeterm

inethe

appropriatevegetation m

anagementm

easuresfortheir specificproperty location

adjacent to the shoreline of the lake. 5.11.2 M

oderate Conservation (Altern

ative 2) The

wide

panorama

ofBull Shoals Lake

and thenearby

shoreconveys

asense

ofenormity

to the lake,and the conversion of 20,041.5

acres of Low D

ensity lands and 4,830.6 acres of High D

ensity lands to Environm


anagement acreage w

ouldcontinue

to preservethe

senseofrelatively pristine

shoreline. Thenatural vegetation alongthe shoreline

would enhance

theview

scapes ofthepeople

recreatingon the

lake, while

potentially impeding

theview

ofthe

lakefrom theshore. U

nderthis proposed alternative, propertyow

nerscouldw

ork with C

orps staffto

determine

theappropriate

vegetation managem

entmeasuresfortheir specific

property location adjacent to the shoreline of the lake.

5.11.3 Limited

Grow

th (Altern

ative 3) Im

plementation ofthe

Limited G

rowth A

lternativew

ould besim

ilarin regards toaestheticsas the

Moderate C

onservation Alternative.

Under A

lternative 3 there would be

4,259.2m

ore acres of Low

Density

lands compared to the Preferred A

ction, which w

ould havethe

potentialforadditional boat dock

constructionand vegetation m

odification permits, but no significant im

pacts to aesthetics w

ould beexpected.

5.11.4 Maxim

um Con

servation (A

lternative 4)

Implem

entation of the Maxim

um C


would m

inimize

allactivities which

could disturb thescenic

beautyand

aesthetics ofthelake. This alternative

would be

them

ost aesthetically

pleasing forthoserecreating

alongthe

lake, but could potentiallybe

ahindrance

to property

ownersand theirview

shedofthe

lake. Theuserexperience

in areas suchasC

orps parks w

ould still berelatively

peaceful atmost tim

es, with the aesthetic

ofdomesticated

nature.H

owever, som

eofthe

more

developedand heavily

used parks could experienceannualw

earanddeterioration ofacreage

andexisting

facilitiesdue to the potential increased usage of these parks.

51 5.12 Cum

ulative Impacts

Cum

ulativeim

pacts are those that may result from

theincrem

ental impact ofthe

evaluated alternativesadded

to thoseofotherpast, present, orreasonably

foreseeablefuture

actions in thelocalarea. The M

asterPlanforB

ull Shoals Lakew

as last approved in 1975; this wasfollow

edby

multiple supplem

ents overthelast40

years. During

that time, public

usepatterns have

remained

similar, but trends, facility and service dem

ands have shifted in the past 40 years due tothe need

for alternative experiences inrecreation

and tourism.

Visitation to the lake has decreased from

2000 to 2010; how

ever, the demand for high quality recreational experiences rem

ain.B

ull ShoalsLake

receives pressureforboth private

shorelineand public

recreation use, resulting in m

anagement concernsregarding the overall sustainability of the lake.

With public

useat project

facilitieschanging,reallocations ofservicesat thesefacilities need to

beaddressed.

Changes

involvingrecreation area

closuresand improvem

ents haveoccurred during

thelast fourdecadesto

meet the

evolving public use.In

addition, cooperativeagreem

ents are being considered in order to operate

and maintain facilities, w

hich would

reducethe

financial burdenon the

taxpayers.

Two m

ain themescam

eout ofthe

scopingprocess, w

hich was a

cumulative

exerciseinvolving private

and publicentities, and local, state

andfederalagencies—

improved

water

qualityand

maintenance of the environm

ental setting around the lake.Preservation of the

natural shoreline and lack of extensive development has enhanced and m

aintained good w

ater quality since the lake was constructed. The A

rkansas Departm

ent of Environmental

Quality has classified B

ull Shoals Lake as an Extraordinary Resource W

aterand the M

issouri Departm

ent of Natural R

esources has designated it as a Class A

waterbody.

Existingconditions at the

lakeallow

forsome

degreeofdevelopm

ent on 71%ofavailable

acreage, with an

additional169 acres havingno specific

landclassification, but it should be

noted thatreclassification of lands undertheSelected A

lternativew

ouldenhance

water

qualityby

restricting LowD

ensityrecreation

development, increasing the

amount of

Environmentally

Sensitiveand

Wildlife

Managem

ent acreage, therebyretaining

more

ofthenatural shoreline

vegetation. Approxim

ately80%

ofthe linearshorelinew

ouldhave

anatural

vegetatedshoreline

dueto these

landreclassificationsidentified in the Selected A

lternative.There w

ould be insignificant impacts to clim

ate, topography, geology and soils under this alternative. The aquatic environm

ent of the lake should benefit froma potential reduction in

storm w

ater runoff velocity, reduced sedimentation, im

proved water quality, and a cleaner

substrate for macroinvertebrate production and fish spaw

ning activity. This alternative would

also enhance wildlife foraging and m

ovement patterns, offer m

ore protection for threatened and endangered species that inhabit the area, and

result in minim

al impacts to cultural

resources. A provision for additional potential developm

ent opportunities coupled with an

abundance of lands remaining in their natural condition w

ouldbalance and enhance

recreational experiences, which w

ould potentially stimulate the socio-econom

ics of the area. This balanced approach should provide a safe and aesthetically pleasing recreational experience for the public that visits and/or lives at B

ull Shoals Lake.

Continued collaboration and

coordination with state

andfederalresource

agencies, aswellas

localagencies and watershed

groups, isnecessaryto m

onitor,evaluateand

remediate

aginginfrastructure, failing

septicsystem

s around theshoreline,and potential w

aterqualityim

pacts. Coordination w

ith theseentitiescould also evaluate

and promote

watershed

enhancement program

s that would serve

to institutestream

bank stabilization, landim

provement and

conservation programs, and im

plementation ofbest m

anagement practices

toreduce

watershed

runoffanderosion.

52 A

s managem

ent ofBull Shoals Lake

ensues, theC

orpswould

continueto coordinate

with

Federal, State,and localagenciesto avoid, minim

izeorm

itigatepotential im

pacts.

53 6.0 EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

L COM

PLIA

NCE

Com

pliancew

ith FederalActs and Executive

Ordersare

summ

arized in thefollow

ingtable.

A

ct/ExecutiveO

rderStatus

Com

plianceW

etlands(EO11990)

No effect

CPrim

e/UniqueFarm

landsN

/AN

/AFloodplain

Managem

ent(EO11988)

N/A

N/A

Clean

WaterA

ct

Section

404N

oeffect

N/A

Section401

No

effectN

/AN

PDES

No

effectN

/AFish

andW

ildlifeC

oordinationA

ctN

oeffect

CEndangered

SpeciesAct

No

effectC

NationalH

istoricPreservation

Act

No

effectC

EnvironmentalJustice

(EO12898)

No

effectC

Clean

AirA

ctN

oeffect

CC

omprehensiveEnvironm

entalResponse

Com

pensationand

LiabilityA

ct(CER

CLA

)N

/AN

/A

Resource

Conservation

andR

ecoveryA

ct(RC

RA

)N

/AN

/AW

ildand

ScenicR

iversAct

N/A

N/A

Riversand

HarborsA

ctN

/AN

/AN

/A—

notapplicableC

--Com

pliantT

able6:FederalA

ct/ExecutiveO

rderC

ompliance

6.1 Fish and W

ildlife Coordination

Act

TheC

orps is required tocoordinate

with the

USFW

Sand M

DN

Runderthe

Fish andW

ildlifeC

oordination Act(FW

CA

)(48Stat. 401, asam

ended; 16 USC

661et. seq.).

Coordination w

as initiated with a

scopingnotice; no

concerns were

raisedby these

agencies.R

eviewofthe

Environmental A

ssessment w

as completed during the draft

release;noconcerns w

ere identified. 6.2 En

dangered Species A

ct The

EndangeredSpecies

Act(ESA

)requires thedeterm

ination ofpossibleeffects on species or

degradation ofhabitatcritical to Federally-listedendangered

orthreatenedspecies.

Implem

entation ofan updated MasterPlan

is not likely to affect threatened orendangered

species. Individualrequests foruseofproject lands w

ouldbe

evaluated to ensure

compliance

with this A

ct. 6.3 En

vironm

ental Justice

ExecutiveO

rder12898,Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice

in Minority

Populations and LowIncom

ePopulationsrequiresFederalagencies to prom

ote “nondiscrim

ination in Federal programs substantially

affectinghum

an health andenvironm

ent”.Inresponse

to this directive,Federal Agenciesm

ust identifyand

address a disproportionatelyhigh

andadverse

human health and

environmental

effects oftheirprograms, policies, and

activities onm

inorityand low

-income

54 populations. The

final step in the environmental justice

evaluation process is to evaluate

theim

pact oftheproject on the population and to ascertain w

hethertarget populations are

affected more

adverselythan other residents.

Implem

entingthe

MasterPlan

Revision

would not disproportionately

affectminority orlow

-incom

epopulations.

6.4 Cultural Resource R

equirem

ent

Section 106 oftheN

ational Historic

Preservation Act of1966

requires theC

orps to identifyhistoric

propertiesaffectedby

theSelected A

lternativeand to evaluate

theeligibility

ofthosepropertiesforthe

NationalR

egisterofHistoric

Places. Section 110 oftheA

ctrequires the C

orps to assume

responsibilityforthe

preservation ofhistoricproperties in its ow

nership. The A

ctalso requiresFederalagencies to providethe

Advisory

Council on H

istoricPreservation an

opportunityto com

menton undertakings through

theprocess outlined in the

Council’s

regulations (36C

FR800).

Therew

ould beno

effectonculturalresources w

ith implem

entation ofan updated Master

Plan.Individualrequests foruse

ofproject lands would be

evaluated on acase-by-case

basis to ensure

compliance

with this act.

55 7.0 Scoping and P

ublic Concern 7.1 In

troduction

N

o singleagency

hascomplete

oversight ofstewardship activities on the

publiclands and

waterssurrounding

Bull Shoals Lake.

Responsibility

fornaturalresourceand

recreation m

anagement falls to severalagenciesthat ow

n orhavejurisdiction overthese

publiclandsand

waters.

Increasingly,competition forthe

useofthese

landsand watersand theirnaturalresources

cancreate

conflicts andconcerns am

ongstakeholders. The

need to coordinatea

cooperative approach to protectandsustain these

resources iscompelling. M

anyopportunitiesexist to increase

theeffectivenessofFederal program

s throughcollaboration

among

agenciesand to facilitatethe

process ofpartneringbetw

eengovernm

ent and non-governm

ent agencies.To sustain healthy

and productivepublic

lands and waterw

ith them

ost efficient approachrequires individuals and

organizations to recognizetheirunique

abilityto

contributeto

comm

onlyheld

goals. Thekey

to progress is buildingon the

strengths ofeach sector,achieving goals collectively

thatcould not bereasonably

achieved individually. Given the

inter-jurisdictional natureofB

ull Shoals Lake, partneringopportunitiesexist and

canprom

otethe leveraging

oflimited

financialand human

resources. Partneringand

identification ofinnovative approaches to deliverjustified levels ofservicedefuse

polarization among

interestgroups, and lead to acom

mon understanding

andappreciation

ofindividualroles, priorities, and

responsibilities. To the

extent practical, this MasterPlan

and aproactive

approach to partneringw

ouldposition B

ull ShoalsLaketo aggressively

leverageprojectfinancialcapability

andhum

anresources in orderto identify

andsatisfy

customerexpectations, protectand sustain natural

andculturalresourcesand

recreational infrastructure,and programm

aticallybring

Corps

managem

ent efforts and outputs up to ajustified level ofservice.

Publicinvolvem

ent andextensive

coordination within the

Corps ofEngineersand w

ith otheraffectedagenciesand

organizations is acriticalfeature

required in developingorrevising

aProject M

asterPlan. A

gencyand public

involvement and

coordination havebeen a

keyelem

entin everyphase

ofthe

Bull Shoals

LakeM

asterPlanrevision.

7.2 Scoping

One

agencyand

five publicscoping

workshops w

ereheld in late

August2014

with 776 people

registering theirattendance. To prepareforthe

scopingw

orkshops,theC

orps contracted with

CD

M-Sm

ith.

From the scoping process, a Scoping R

eport was finalized in D

ecember 2014. The report

summ

arizes the public participation process for, and the public comm

ents resulting from, the

Bull Shoals Lake M

P Revision public scoping w

orkshops and comm

ent period. “Scoping” is the process of determ

ining the scope, focus, and content of a NEPA

document. Scoping w

orkshops are a useful tool to obtain inform

ation from the public and governm

ental agencies. For a

56 planning process such as the M

P revision, the scoping process was also used as an opportunity

to get input from the public and agencies about the vision for the M

P update and the issues that the M

P should address where possible. The Scoping R

eport is located on the Bull Shoals Lake

Master Plan w

ebsite, http://w

ww

.swl.usace.arm

y.mil/M

issions/Planning/BullShoalsLakeM

asterPlanRevision.aspx

7.3 Focus Grou

ps The

PDT m

adethe

decision to work w

ith focusgroups duringthe

scoping process, in part dueto

thehigh interest in the

MasterPlan

revision processfrom otheragenciesand the

public. The focusgroups w

ereform

ed in responseto the

top threeconcerns heard

fromthe

publicduring

the scopingprocess: W

aterQuality,Environm

ental,andR

ecreation. The

initialfocus groupm

eetingswere

held on the24

thand25

thofFebruary2014

at theM

t. H

ome Project O

ffice. A‘cross talk’focusgroup m

eeting, which included team

leaderschosenfrom

each ofthethree focusgroups, w

asheld on the2

thofApril2014. The

ideabehind this

meeting

was to allow

all threefocus groups to hearfrom

each otheronfeedback

andcom

ments

given to that point on the preliminary

draft masterplan.

Afinalfocusgroup

meeting

washeld on A

pril 2, 2015 to allow the

PDT to discuss w

ith the focusgroups on how

theirfeedbackand

comm

ents were

included into thedraft M

P. 7.4 D

raft Master P

lan/D

raft Environ

men

tal Assessm

ent.

The Draft M

aster Plan/Draft Environm

ental Assessm

ent was released to the public on July 27,

2015. A public review

period was held from

July 27 through September 11, 2015.

Similar to the Scoping w

orkshops, a contract with C

DM

-Smith w

as established to help with the

facilitation of the draft documents release. C

omparable w

orkshop support documentation w

as developed, such as post card notification, com

ment cards, new

s articles, news releases, Fact

sheets, and poster boards.

Public workshops w

ere held the week of A

ugust 3rd; in total, five public w

orkshops were held

around Bull Shoals Lake, including M

ountain Hom

e, Flippin, and Harrison, A

R; Theodosia and

Forsyth, MO

.The w

orkshops were scheduled from

4PM to 7PM

to accomm

odate public attendance. A

short movie (10-m

inute video) was show

n to attendees that provided background inform

ation about Bull Shoals Lake and the M

aster Plan revision process.

The video briefly described the 4 alternatives that were form

ulated during the process. A

ttendees were then free to m

ove on to an adjoining room w

here maps w

ere available to look at and C

orps representatives were on hand to ask questions of and discuss key issues. C

opies of the draft M

aster Plan/draft EA, fact sheet, com

ment card, and video w

ere also made available on

the Bull Shoals Lake M

aster Plan website:

http://ww

w.sw

l.usace.army.m

il/Missions/Planning/B

ullShoalsLakeMasterPlanR

evision.aspx

During the draft release, over 500 attendees participated in the public w

orkshops held around B

ull Shoals Lake. Post public review period, the C

orps received a total of 263 comm

ent

57 subm

ittals (Com

ment cards, Fax, Letters, Em

ail, and Oral com

ments). A

complete breakdow

n of com

ments can be found in the D

raft Com

ment A

nalysis Report.

7.5 Final M

aster Plan

/Final EA

. The Final M

aster Plan wascom

pleted inJanuary 2016.

A series of w

orkshops will be held at the end of January 2016

to unveil the final Master Plan

and answer any questions the public m

ay have about the plan. No com

ments w

ill be accepted as this is the final version.

A sim

ilar public workshop form

at will be used for the Final M

aster Plan unveiling.

58 8.0 Conclusion

s The

MasterPlan

forBull ShoalsLake

was last approved in 1975; this w

asfollowed

bym

ultiple supplements overthe

last40years. D

uring that time, public use patterns have

remained sim

ilar, but trends, facility and service demands have shifted in the past 40 years due

to the need for alternative experiences in recreation and tourism. V

isitation to the lake has decreased from

2000 to 2010; however, the dem

and for high quality recreational experiences rem

ain. Bull Shoals Lake receives pressure for both private shoreline and public recreation

use, resulting in managem

ent concerns regarding the overall sustainability of the lake. With

publicuse

at projectfacilitieschanging,reallocations ofservicesat thesefacilities need to

beaddressed.

Changesinvolving

recreation areaclosuresand im

provements have

occurredduring

thelast fourdecadesto m

eet theevolving public use.

Inaddition, cooperative

agreements are being considered in order to operate

and maintain facilities, w

hich would

reducethe

financial burdenon the

taxpayers

TheM

asterPlan is not intended to address thespecifics ofregional w

aterquality,shoreline m

anagement, orw

aterlevel managem

ent; theseareasare

covered in aproject’s

shoreline managem

ent plan orwaterm

anagement plan. H

owever, specific

issuesidentified through the

MasterPlan

revisionprocess can still be

comm

unicatedand

coordinated with the appropriate

internalCorpsresource

(i.e. Operationsforshoreline

managem

ent)orexternalresourceagency

(i.e. Missouri D

epartment ofN

aturalResources

and Arkansas D

ept. of Environmental Q

uality forwaterquality)responsible

forthatspecific

area. To facilitatethis action, the

current MasterPlan developm

ent evaluatedfouralternativesrelative to theirpotential im

pacts on theland

and waterresources ofB

ull Shoals Lake.

Thesealternatives spanned the

gamut ofincreased shoreline

protection toincreased

shoreline development and the

potentialeffects on thehum

an, terrestrial, andaquatic

environment from

theirimplem

entation. A no action alternative

lookedat leaving

thelake

as it currentlyexists in

terms ofdevelopable

areasandprotected

areas. Ofthe

56,348acres

ofavailable landaround the

lake, 71%ofthis is classified

asHigh

and Low density

recreation (15%high), w

ith potentialfuturedevelopm

ent occurring.W

hile21%

ofavailable

acreageis classified

as Environmentally

Sensitivelands, 169 acres of land

currentlyhas no

classification.U

nder each of the action alternatives, the lands with no

classification are allocated to one of the land classifications. The

action alternatives includeda

Modified M

oderate Conservation, M


Alternative, a

Limited D

evelopment A

lternative,anda

Maxim

um C

onservation Alternative.

TheM

aximum

Conservation A

lternative(A

lternative 4)shifted them

ajorityofthe

availableshoreline

acreagetow

ardfuture

preservation, with 7%

classifiedas H

igh Density

recreation, 65%

classified as Environmentally Sensitive, and 28%

classifiedas W

ildlife Managem

ent lands. Potentialeffects from

this would

bedecreased vegetation rem

ovaland a reduction in soil erosion due

to the reclassification of lands previously included as high and low density

lands, having the potential for construction andconversion ofpervious surfacesto im

pervious. This construction activity is generally detrim

ental to waterquality

and terrestrialandaquatic

wildlife

species. Developm

ent has the potential to increase the number of boats on the

lake,

59 increased health and

safetyissues,aesthetic

impacts, and im

pairedrecreationalexperiencesfor

many

visitors. TheM

odified Moderate C

onservation and Moderate C

onservationA

lternatives(both A

lternative2)also include

the7%

High D

ensitylands, w

hilereducing the 57%

of Low

Density lands to 13%

, with the 44%

difference going to the Environmentally

Sensitiveand

Wildlife M

anagement classifications. This action w

ould preserveshoreline vegetation, reduce

stormw

aterrunoffquantityand

velocity,resultingin less in-lake sedim

entation and turbidity,and im

provew

aterquality. This action also has the potentialto improve

health and safetyissues,aesthetics, terrestrialand

aquaticw

ildlifehabitat. The C

onservation Alternative seeks

to balanceallcom

ponents oflakeusage, including the provision forgrow

th andrecreation

potential, while

protecting and preservingterrestrialand

aquaticresources. A

detaileddescription ofthe m

odifications is located in Chapter5 ofthe

MasterPlan.

60 9.0 B

ibliography A

rkansasDepartm

ent ofParks and Tourism. 2009.Statew

ideC

omprehensive

Outdoor

Recreation Plan.January

2009 throughD

ecember2013.

ExecutiveO

rderNo. 13112.Invasive

Species. 3February

1999.

ExecutiveO

rderNo. 11987. Exotic

Organism

s. 24 May

1977. Executive

OrderN

o. 13148. Greening

theG

overnment Through

Leadership in Environmental

Managem

ent. 21 April 200.

ExecutiveO

rderNo. 13423.Strengthening

Federal Environmental, Energy,and Transportation

Managem

ent. 24 January2007.

ExecutiveO

rderNo. 13514.FederalLeadership in

Environmental, Energy,and Econom

icPerform

ance. 5 October2009.

How

ard, Lynn, E.1963. Archeological Survey in B

ull Shoals Region of A

rkansas.Report on file

at the U.S. A

rmy C

orps of Engineers, Little Rock D

istrict. K

asul, Richard,D

anielStynes,LichuLee,W

en-HueiC

hang,R.Scott Jackson, C

hristine W

ibowo, Sam

Franco,and Kathleen

Perales. Characterization ofPark V

isitors, Visitation

Levels, and Associated

Economic

Impacts ofR

ecreation atBull Shoals, Norfork,and

Bull

Shoals Lakes. Novem

ber2010.

Lee, Aubra Lane. 1986. C

ultural Resources Investigations atB

ull Shoals Lake, Arkansas.

Report on file

at the U.S. A

rmy C

orps of Engineers, Little Rock D

istrict.

Novick, Lee and C

harles Cantlry.1979. B

ull Shoals Lake: An A

rcheological Survey of a Portion of B

ulls Shoals Lake Shoreline. Report on file at the U

.S. Arm

y Corps of

Engineers, Little Rock D

istrict.

Missouri D

epartment ofC

onservation. 1997. “MissouriW

aterShedProtection Practice”

Spears, Carol, N

ancy Myer, and H

ester Davis. 1975. W

atershed Summ

ary of Archeological

and Historic R

esources in the White R

iver Basins, A

rkansas and Missouri.R

eport on file at the U

.S. Arm

y Corps of Engineers, Little R

ock District.

U.S. A

rmy

Corps ofEngineers(U

SAC

E). 1975.B

ull ShoalsDam

andR

eservoir,White

River,

61 M

issouriand Arkansas,U

pdated MasterPlan

forReservoirD

evelopment and M

anagement,

Design

Mem

orandum 17-E.

USA

CE. 2013. EngineerR

egulation 1130-2-550,Project Operations, R

ecreation Operations and

Maintenance,G

uidanceand

Procedures.HQ

USA

CE.

USA

CE. 2013. EngineerPam

phlet 1130-2-550,Project Operations, R

ecreation Operations and

Maintenance,G

uidanceand

Procedures. HQ

USA

CE.

USA

CE. 2008. EngineerR

egulation 1130-2-540,EnvironmentalStew

ardship Operations and

Maintenance

Guidance

andProcedures.H

QU

SAC

E. U

SAC

E. 2008. EngineerPamphlet 1130-2-540, Environm

entalStewardship O

perations andM

aintenanceG

uidanceand

Procedures.HQ

USA

CE.

USA

CE. 2013. U

SAC

E Dam

SafetyProgram

. Accessed

at:w

ww

.usace.army.m

il/Missions/C

ivilWorks/D

amSafetyProgram

/ProgramA

ctivities.aspx U

SAC

E. 1993. White

RiverB

asin, Arkansasand

Missouri, W

aterControlM

asterManual.

USA

CE. 2007. B

ull Shoals Operational A

ction Planfor2007

LowD

issolved Oxygen

Season.

USA

CE. 2013.Little

Rock D

istrictWaterM

anagement w

ebsite. Accessed

at:ww

w.sw

l-w

c.usace.army.m

il U

nitedStatesC

ensus Bureau. 2013. EasyFacts W

ebsite. Accessed

at:http://w

ww

.census.gov/easystats/

62 10.0 List of P

reparers

EA Preparation•

RobertSingleton, Biologist, C

ESWL-PE

•R

odneyParker, D

istrictArcheologist, C

ESWL-PE

•C

raig Hilburn, B

iologist, CESW

L-PE•

Dana

Coburn,C

hiefEnvironmental B

ranch,CESW

L-PE

Master Plan and EA

Review

•B

ennie Rorie, O

PM, G

reers Ferry Lake, CESW

L-OP-G

F•

Rebecca Shortt, R

eal Estate, Table Rock Lake, C

ESWL-R

E-M•

Rodney R

aley, Chief R

anger, Table Rock Lake, C

ESWL-O

P-TR•

Tiffany Smith, C

hief Ranger, D

ierks Lake, CESW

L-OP-M

W-I

•W

illiam Penn, G

IS Program M

anager, Planning and Environmental D

ivision,C

ESWL-PE

•Jerry Fuentes, Sacram

ento District, C

ESPK-PD

•N

ancy Sandburg, Sacramento D

istrict, CESPK

-PD-R

A•

Daw

n Sullo, Sacramento D

istrict, CESPK

-PD•

Kate Stenberg, C

DM

-Smith

M

asterPlanPreparation

•D

anaC

oburn/Project Manager,C

ESWL-PE

•Jon H

iser, Operations Project M

anager,CESW

L-OP-M

H

•Tony Porter, D

eputy OPM

, Millw

ood/Tri-Lakes, CESW

L-OP-M

W•

Jason Gram

lich, NaturalR

esourceSpecialist, C

ESWL-O

P-O•

JT Townsend,Public

Affairs, C

ESWL-SP

•Jam

esFisher, A

ttorney,CESW

L-OC

•K

eith Loos,Realty

Specialist, CESW

L-RE-M

•Tricia

Tannehill, GIS

Specialist, CESW

L-OP-TR

•B

ruce Caldw

ell,ChiefofN

aturalResources

•M

ark Case,C

hiefofRecreation and

O&

M•

Brack Perser, Park R

anger, CESW

L-OP-M

H•

Vonda

Rogers, C

ontracting,CESW

L-CT

•Bob

Singleton, Environmental, C

ESWL-PE

•R

odneyParker, Environm

ental, CESW

L-PE•

Craig H

ilburn, Environmental, C

ESWL-PE

•TylerH

erriman,Planning,C

ESWL-PE

•R

uss Wallace, Planning, C

ESWL-PE

•C

herrie Lee Phillip, Natural R

esource Specialist, CESW

L-OP-O

final bull shoals lake environmental assessment 1-75 · final environmental assessment bull shoals...

Documents