Pine Mountain project comes with extraordinary obstacles

story by Michael Tilley

When the River Valley Regional Water District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 8 announced an agreement to study a future water supply source in western Arkansas, there were some interesting items missing from news release outlining the project management plan.

There was no mention of lower Lee Creek as a potential water source. Ditto for Cedar Creek. And there was not a hint of concern about the Extraordinary Resource Water designation of the upper Lee Creek that is being considered to create the Pine Mountain reservoir. Ditto for potential opposition from Oklahoma officials.
 
The RVRWD was formed in June 2000 for the purpose of building a long-term water
supply for western Arkansas. While initial engineering studies have identified Lee Creek (Pine Mountain Dam) as a suitable location, NEPA requires a thorough analysis of all “reasonable alternatives,” the RVRWD noted in its May 8 press release.

PREVIOUS STUDY
A thorough analysis of some of the “reasonable alternatives” concluded in 1997 after four years of exhaustive research, public input and independent review. That analysis, conducted by Kansas City, Mo.-based Burns & McDonnell on behalf of the city of Fort Smith, found five potential long-term water resources in western Arkansas. The list, prepared for a water supply task force of people from Arkansas and Oklahoma, included the following possibilities:
• Arkansas River (direct withdrawal)
• Cedar Creek (new impoundment)
• Lake Fort Smith (enlargement of existing impoundment)
• Lee Creek (enlargement of existing impoundment)
• Webber Creek (new impoundment)

The task force narrowed the alternatives down to three, with the enlargement of Lake Fort Smith ranked highest, followed by the enlargement of Lee Creek and the third choice being a new impoundment of Cedar Creek.

The task force in late 1997 recommended the city of Fort Smith go with the expansion of Lake Fort Smith. In October 2006, the new Lake Fort Smith dam — 100 feet taller than the previous structure — that would hold back a 1,400-acre lake was formally dedicated. The approximate 27.7 billion gallons of water behind the dam was and is estimated to serve the needs of the region to 2050. The dedication marked the end of a $200 million project and more than 13 years of studies, planning, interagency negotiations, politics and construction.

But the task force also pushed proposals for expanding the regional water supply beyond the Lake Fort Smith expansion.

“Once the Lake Fort Smith project is permitted and under construction, the City should begin work to obtain Oklahoma approval for a project to enlarge Lee Creek to its maximum feasible size as a water supply reservoir,” noted recommendation No. 3 in the September 1997 report from the task force. “If Oklahoma approval is not received by 2005, the City should move forward to permit a new impoundment on Cedar Creek. By no later than the end of 2000, the City should establish a bi-state Task Force to secure Oklahoma’s permission to enlarge the Lee Creek Reservoir.”

REINVENT THE WHEEL?
The RVRWD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreement is expected to lead to detailed studies, public involvement, independent expert review and costs for the environmental study process, according to the May 8 RVRWD statement.

“The agreement specifies the steps necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to follow strict guidelines in deciding when, where and how projects with a federal interest can be built,” informed the RVRWD statement.

In addition to Pine Mountain, the new plan between the RVRWD and Corps mentioned the following sites as options for a long-term water supply: the Arkansas River; drilling wells north of Van Buren; Clear Creek; Webber Creek; Beaver Lake; Table Roc;, Blue Mountain; expansion of Lake Fort Smith; Wister Lake; and Tenkiller Ferry Lake.

“The Corps will also consider all reasonable sites identified by anyone during the public comment period,” according to RVRWD.

However, it is uncertain if any of the research findings and recommendations of the 1997 report will be considered.

Mark Yardley, project manager for RVRWD, said the Corps is using upper Lee Creek (Pine Mountain) as a “baseline” because earlier studies suggested it was the most likely location for a long-term water supply.

“We would have liked to use the studies the Corps had previously prepared. But unfortunately, federal law requires that these studies be done again since so much time has elapsed,” Yardley said in the May 8 press release.

EXTRAORDINARY OBSTACLES
But the earlier studies — some as far back as the 1960s — may not have factored in water issues between Arkansas and Oklahoma, the emergence of new water supplies like the expanded Lake Fort Smith, contracts between water user associations in the Fort Smith/Van Buren region and a mountain of new federal environmental regulations.

“With regard to Cedar Creek, I assume that it will be reviewed,” Yardley said when asked by The City Wire about the omission of lower Lee Creek and Cedar Creek in the recently announced plan. “In the past the Corps has grouped Webber and Cedar creeks. I have placed a call to determine what the status is. My opinion is that the preliminary study must include Cedar Creek.”
 
Yardley also acknowledged that building Pine Mountain will require the legally and politically cumbersome and costly task of removing the Extraordinary Resource Water designation now placed on the upper Lee Creek.

More than 35 bodies of water in Arkansas are named Extraordinary Resource Waters, which prevents mining, construction, dams and other activities that would alter the quality or nature of the water. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, The Nature Conservancy, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arkansas Heritage Commission and the Sierra Club are on record opposing Pine Mountain.
 
“Should Lee Creek be selected as the preferred alternative in the final Record of Decision for the (environmental impact studies), then (the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality) will evaluate the extensive studies to determine whether or not the ERW designation should be removed,” Yardley noted when asked about knowingly going after a project with so much opposition on the front end.

That’s possibly underestimating the problem. The ERW designation is clear in that if a feasible alternative exists, then the ERW designation cannot be lifted.

According to the ERW regulation, lifting the designation requires two triggers: “(1) the sole purpose for the funding and construction of the reservoir is to provide a domestic water supply; and (2) there are no feasible alternatives to constructing a reservoir in order to meet the domestic water needs of the citizens of the State of Arkansas.”

In this case, there are several feasible — economically, geographically and otherwise — alternatives to building Pine Mountain dam.

And then there’s the Oklahoma problem.

“The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office has indicated it would oppose construction
of a reservoir on Lee Creek at Pine Mountain because of water quality concerns. Lee Creek originates in Arkansas, flows into Oklahoma, then back into Arkansas before entering the Arkansas River. If constructed, Pine Mountain Dam would be upstream of the Oklahoma portion of Lee Creek,” according to an e-mail response to The City Wire  from P.J. Spaul, spokesman of the Corps office in Little Rock.
 
SEEKING PARTNERS
The lengthy process to find a new water supply in western Arkansas is complex. A site selection and economic feasibility study, expected in 2014, would be followed by review and approvals from the ADEQ director and the Arkansas Pollution and Ecology Commission. Review and approvals would also be needed from various Oklahoma agencies with watershed oversight. Approvals at the state level would then require review and approvals from the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The Corps estimates that the Independent External Peer Review process will cost
$200,000 and will run from May of 2009 through July 2011. The review period could
run longer if schedule delays, caused by funding shortages or other factors, occur. 

Yardley notes construction on the Pine Mountain project could take up to eight years if it is selected and approved.

More importantly, Yardley said the RVRWD will seek input and support from officials in Fort Smith and other regional communities.

Fort Smith declined an invitation to join the RVRWD when it was formed in 2000. The thinking by Fort Smith officials at the time was the city was underway with a long-term water supply (Lake Fort Smith expansion) and “didn’t have a need to invest in another one at the time,” Gosack noted.

“Absolutely,” Yardley said when asked if Fort Smith officials would be pulled into the project. “Under the best-case scenario construction could not be completed until 2021 or 2022. I predict that at some point between now and then the vast majority of our regional leadership will be joined in matrimony. To succeed as a regional economy, it is essential. It just takes a little time for old wounds to heal.”

Deputy Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack said the city has a neutral position on the RVRWD effort.

“The RVRWD is pursuing what it thinks is best for meeting the water needs of the residents and businesses it serves. We’ll certainly cooperate with any requests for information they make of us,” Gosack said.