- TC 424 t * ---- --- --- - -º-º-º- -- -- . O5 º º lºº- º º ---- ºº P53 sº * - 1985 WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOR EAST-CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MARCH 1985 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 4-6-4 southwest REGION we UNMinsm of MCHCAN uBRARA GUIDE TO PHOTOGRAPHS ON REPORT COVER A farmstead, small feed lot, and modest water ge storage structure illustrate the agricultural and rural dependence on adequate supplies of good water. This gas-fired generating plant uses flows of the North Candian River for cooling water. Note the intake works in the river. Municipality in the background is Weleetka in Okfuskee County. Located in the extreme northwest of the study area, beautiful Sooner Lake serves as a cooling water reservoir for Oklahoma Gas and Electric large coal-fired generating plant. Lake Holdenville's sky-blue waters serve as a municipal water supply source and also support operations of a State-owned fish hatchery. Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooºooºxxxxxxxxx; PLANNING GUIDE TO WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOR EAST – CENTRAL OKLAHOMA PREPARED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SOUTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE AMARILLO, TEXAS MARCH 1985 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXC DISCLOSURE THIS PLANNING GUIDE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A WORKING DOCUMENT LEADING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S FINAL REPORT OF THE EAST-CENTRAL OKLAHOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY. ALL DATA ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO REVISION. PUBLICATION OF THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS HEREIN SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTING EITHER THE APPROVAL OR Disapproval of THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. THE PURPose OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION , THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES, STATE AND Local AGENCIES, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. ABBREVIATIONS bbl - barrel COEDD - Central Oklahoma Economic Development District Corps - U.S. Corps of Engineers CR - cultural resources FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ITRAD - Industrial Technology Research and Development Center KEDDO - Kiamichi Economic Development District Młft3 – thousands of cubic feet M&I - municipal and industrial mi2 – square miles m . s. 1. - mean sea level NED - National Economic Development NRHP - Nation Register of Historic Places ODWC - Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation OESC – Oklahoma Employment Security Commission OG&E – Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company OSU - Oklahoma State University OTRD - Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department OWRB - Oklahoma Water Resources Board RED - Regional Economic Development RedArk - RedArk Development Authority REDC - Rural Enterprise Development Corporation RIDA - Regional Industrial Development Association RV - recreational vehicle SCORP - State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SEDIP - Successful Economic Development Initative Plans SODA - Southern Oklahoma Development Association SCS - Soil Conservation Service T or E – threatened or endangered TWA - Tennessee Valley Authority 7. 4/ , - /* / Č. / ! - 2% , 231 2, 3 // S. gº TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 A. Description of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 • Location • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 2 - Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 B - Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I–1 C - Authority and Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 1 - Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I–2 D. Previous Investigations . . . . . e 6 e o e o e e e e e e E. Relationship of Study Area to Local Planning Districts and Regions . . . . . . . . I-2 CHAPTER II - HUMAN RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–1 A • Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–1 B - Socioeconomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–2 C. Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–7 D. Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–7 CHAPTER III - CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–1 A • Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–1 B. Review of Specific Site Data for Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–3 1 - Pawnee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–3 2. Payne County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–3 3. Lincoln County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3 4. Okfuskee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–4 5. Pottawatomie County • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–4 6. Seminole County • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–4 7- Hughes County • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–4 8. Pontotoc County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–4 9- Coal County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–5 C. Conclusion - Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–5 CHAPTER IV - HUNTING, FISHING, RECREATION, AND TOURISM RESOURCES O Gº O © O © O e o O O IV-1 A • Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 B. Inventory of Existing Recreation and Tourism Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 C. Fishing and Hunting Recreational Supply, and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 D. Special Need for Additional Study Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 E. Regional Outdoor Recreation Facility Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 F. Problems, Needs, and Opportunities . IV-6 CHAPTER V - ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W–1 A. Vegetational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 1. Post oak-blackjack oak forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 2. Tallgrass prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 3. Bottom land (flood plain) forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 B. Fish and Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 1 - Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 2. Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W-2 3. Reptiles and amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 4. Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 C. Threatened or Endangered (T or E) Species • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 D. Unique and Sensitive Environmental Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W–4 E • Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W–4 F. Environmental Impact Considerations • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W-5 CHAPTER VI - MINERAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-1 A • Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-1 B. Petroleum and Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-1 C - Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-3 D. Nonmetallic Industrial Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 E. Metallic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-5 F - Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5 CHAPTER VII – LAND, AGRICULTURAL, AND FORESTRY RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII–1 A • Land Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII–1 B. Agricultural Characteristics • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII–1 C - Potential Irrigation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7 1 - Present use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII–7 2. Future irrigation development potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-8 D - Forestry Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-8 E. Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII–13 CHAPTER VIII - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 A • Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 B. Manufacturing Employment Characteristics • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 1 - Analysis of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 a • Apparel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 b - Wood products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 c • Printing and publishing - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 d : Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 e - Rubber and plastics products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 f : Stone, clay, and glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–1 g. Fabricated metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2 h - Nonelectrical machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2 2. General conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page CHAPTER VIII – INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (Continued) C - Industrial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2 1. Introduction/Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2 2 - Extent of the resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-3 3. Barriers to industrial development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-4 a • Transportation networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII–4 b - Labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-4 C - Existing infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-4 d. Housing and other social factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-4 e - Industrial promotion for the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-5 4. Recommendations to stimulate industrial development . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-5 CHAPTER IX - WATER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-1 A. Surface Water Hydrology (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-1 B. Ground Water Hydrology (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-4 1 - Geological background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX—4 2. Location and description of aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-6 a • Quaternary alluvial and terrace aguifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-6 b - Garber-Wellington Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-6 c. Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer (Pennsylvanian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-7 d. Minor bedrock aquifers (Pennsylvanian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-7 e © Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer C © © © O © © O © © O © © O O Q © © O O O © © © © IX-8 3. Existing ground water supply capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-8 C - Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-8 1 - Surface water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-8 2. Standard for drinking water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-10 3. Ground water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-11 4. Brine-water degradation of surface and ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-14 D. M&I Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-14 1. Municipal-rural water user entity problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-14 2. Existing water supplies, current M&I use, and present shortages . . . . . . . IX-16 a • Firm or dependable yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-16 b - Water treatment plant capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-16 c - Storage capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-16 (1) Coal County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-21 (2) Hughes County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-21 (3) Lincoln County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-22 (4) Okfuskee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-22 (5) Pawnee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-23 (6) Payne County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-23 (7) Ponto toc County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-24 (8) Pottawatomie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-24 ( 9 ) Seminole County © O © O © O O © © © © © © O O Q O O O O © © © © © O O IX—25 3. Projected future M&I water demands . . . . . © C C C C C C C C C C C C C C, IX-25 4. Preliminary estimates of need for additional M&I water supplies . . . . . . . IX-48 5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-48 E. Irrigation Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-48 F. Other Water Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-52 G. Soil Conservation Service Small Watershed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-52 H. Potential Water Supplies to Meet Current and Projected Needs . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 1 - Ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 2 - Surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 a . Additional supplies available from existing reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 (1) Coalgate Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 (2) Kickapoo Nation Watershed Site 1M (Chandler) . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 (3) Okemah Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 (4) Lake Carl Blackwell and McMurtry (Stillwater) . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 b. Possible potential irrigation water supplies in SCS floodwater - retarding structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-56 c. Potential water supply reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-57 I. Hydropower Potential for the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-57 J. Problems and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-57 1 - Data acquisition • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-57 2. Local system deficiencies • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-60 3. Water quality problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-60 4. Unmet present and future M&I water supply needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-60 5. Irrigation needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-60 6 - Hydropower needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-60 7. Undetermined needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-60 CHAPTER X - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y-1 A • Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1 B. Conclusions • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y-4 Human needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-4 Water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-4 Land, agricultural, and forestry resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-4 Environmental resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5 Cultural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y-5 Recreation and tourism resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5 Mineral resources • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5 Industrial development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y-5 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page CHAPTER X – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (Continued) C. How the Findings and Conclusions Will be Carried Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y-5 1 - Planning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5 2. Public involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5 3 • Study organization and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5 4. What the interested citizens and groups should do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-6 REFERENCES TABLES No. I-1 Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 I-2 Local Planning Districts and Regions Involved With the Study Area . . . . . . . I-4 II-1 Present Census and Historical Population Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–1 II-2 Percentage Analysis of Major Racial Composition of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–1 II–3 Population of Study Area Counties by Urban and Rural Residence, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–2 II–4 Comparison of 1977 and 1982 Per Capita Income for Study Area • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–2 II-5 Study Area Earnings By Industry Sector: 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–3 II-6 1983 Average Employment, Unemployment, and Labor Force Characteristics for Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–5 II-7 Selected Characteristics of Study Area Labor Force • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6 II-8 Selected Education Statistics for th Study Area, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6 II-9 Summary of Comparative Population Projections for Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–8 II-10 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Coal County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9 II-11 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Hughes County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–10 II-12 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Lincoln County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–11 II-13 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Okfuskee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © Q Q O © O © II–12 II–14 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Pawnee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © O O O © © Q II–13 II-15 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Payne County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–14 II-16 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Pontotoc County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–15 II-17 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Pottawatomie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–16 II-18 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Seminole County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II–17 III-1 National Register of Historic Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–2 III-2 Total Cultural Resource Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III–3 IV-1 Locally Owned and Operated Recreation and Tourism Facilities . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 IV-2 State/Federal Recreation Areas and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 IV-3 Hunting and Fishing Supply, Demand, and Needs - SCORP Regions 4 and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3 IV-4 Fishing and Hunting by State Wildlife Management Region - Population 16 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4 IV-5 Outdoor Recreation Facility Needs in Planning Region 5 (COEDD) . . . . . . . . . IV-5 IV-6 Outdoor Recreation Facility Needs in Planning Region 4 (SODA) . . . . . . . . . . IV-6 V-1 State Sensitive Wildlife Species - East-Central Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 WI-1 Value of Study Area Mineral Production by County, 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-1 VI-2 Production of Petroleum and Natural Gas by County, 1980 and 1981 . . . . . . . . VI-2 WI-3 Summary of Remaining Bituminous Coal Resources and Net Recoverable Reserves by County as of January 1, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-3 WI-4 Tonnage of Nonmetallic Industrial Mineral Production by County, 1980 . . . . . . WI-5 VII-1 Acres for All Study Area Counties: Arable and Nomarable Land, By Major Soil Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2 VII-2. Number of Farms by Size, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3 VII-3 Land in Farms, According to Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5 VII-4 Type of Farm by Number and Value of Agricultural Products Sold - Study Area, 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-9 VII-5 Analysis of 1981 Reported Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII–11 IX-1 Streamflow Records In and Around the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-2 IX-2 Existing Water Supply Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-3 IX-3 Previously Identified Potential Reservoirs - Storage and Yield Estimates . . . . IX-5 IX-4 Preliminary Estimates of Existing Ground Water Supply Capability . . . . . . . . IX-9 IX-5 Oklahoma Primary (A11owable) and Secondary (Recommended) Drinking Water Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-10 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) TABLES (CONTINUED) No. Page IX-6 Water Quality of Finished Water Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © O O O IX-12 IX-7 Municipal-Rural Water Entity Problems Listed by TVA . . . . . . . . . . © O © O IX-15 IX-8 Existing Water Supplies and Present M&I Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O © O © IX-17 IX-9 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Coal County . . . . . © O O O IX-26 IX-10 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Hughes County . . . . © G O © IX-28 IX-11 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Lincoln County . . . © O © O IX-30 IX-12 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Okfuskee County . . . © O © O IX-32 IX-13 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pawnee County . . . . C O © O IX-34 IX-14 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Payne County . . . . © O O © IX-36 IX-15 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Ponto toc County . . . © O O. O. IX-38 IX-16 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pottawatomie County . tº e o e IX-40 IX-17 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Seminole County . . . © O O © IX-42 IX-18 Summary of Comparative Water Demand Projections for Study Area . . . . . . . . . IX-44 IX-19 Comparison of Available Water Supplies – With Mid- and Long-Range Water Demand Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX—46 IX-20 Summary of Preliminary Findings of Study Area Need for Additional M&I Water Supplies From the Present Through the Year 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . IX-49 IX-21 1981 Reported Irrigated Acreage and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-51 IX-22 1984 Status of SCS Watershed Projects (Public Law 83–566) in Study Area . . . . . IX-53 IX-23 Estimated Firm Yield and Preliminary Cost Estimate For Previously Identified Potential Damsites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-58 IX-24 Projected Need for Additional Generating Capacity to Meet SPP Load Growth . . . . IX–58 IX-25 Previously Identified Potential Hydropower Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-59 MAPS 1484-500-25 Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . precedes I-1 1484-500-26 Relationship of Study Area to Sub-State Economic Development Planning Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows I-4 1484-500-27 Relationship of Study Area to State Water Resource Planning Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows I-4 1484-500-28 Relationship of Study Area to RedArk Development Authority . . . . . follows I-4 1484-500-29 Relationship of Study Area to Oklahoma Congressional Districts . . . follows I-4 1484-500-9 National Register of Historic Places - Selected Sites . . . . . . . follows III-2 1484-500-20 Indian Territory, 1830 - 1855 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows III-2 1484-500-21 Indian Territory, 1855 – 1866 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows III-2 1484-500–22 Indian Territory, 1866 – 1889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows III-2 1484-500-11 Recreation and Tourism Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows IV-1 1484-500–33 Relationship of Study Area to SCORP Planning Region . . . . . . . . follows IV-2 1484-500–34 Relationship of Study Area to Wildlife Management Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows IV-2 1484-500-35 Absence of Recreation Area Development in Most of the Study Area - Statewide and Planning Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . follows IV-5 1484-500-18 Environmental Quality Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows W-4 1484-500-13 Generalized Oil and Gas Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows WI-2 1484-500–17 Nonpetroleum Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows VI-4 1484-500-10 Land Resources Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows VII-l 1484-500-12 General Areas of Greatest Irrigation Potential . . . . . . . . . . . follows VII-12 1484-500–36 Existing Industrial Sites and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-3 1484-500-23 General Hydrologic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows IX-1 1484-500–24 Stream Gauge Locations Relative to Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . follows IX-1 1484–500–6 Existing Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows IX-2 1484-500-8 Previously Identified Potential Multipurpose and Hydropower Damsites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © O O © follows IX-4 1484-500-16 Generalized Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © © O © follows IX-5 1484-500-14 Ground Water Resource Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . O © O © follows IX-6 1484–500–15 Identified Sites of Water Quality Degradation by Brine O © O © follows IX-14 1484-500-7 Water User Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © © O © follows IX-16 1484-500–19 Soil Conservation Service Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (Public Law 566) Showing Status of Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . O © O © follows IX-52 DRAWINGS 1484-500–30 Graphic Comparisons of Population Projections Showing: Total Study Area, Coal and Ponto toc Counties . . . . O O © Q follows II-18 1484-500-31 Graphic Comparisons of Population Projections Showing: Pottawatomie, Payne and Seminole Counties . . . . . . © O O. O. follows II-18 1484-500–32 Graphic Comparisons of Population Projections Showing: Pawnee, Hughes, Lincoln and Okfuskee Counties . . . . O O © O follows II-18 iv. 96° 5th Stondard Porollel 4th Standard Parqllel 3rd Stondard Parallel 2nd ^- Standard Porollel lst "- Standard Purgllel B ease Line EXPLANATION _ º TO KAW RES sº aº º N. / Soon º Lake \* K/PEA. es cº --- T + º Lone / - C/eve/and APes º Fanch %. - Chimney sº < * - - 272 Lake o - t- º \º ºn Nº. 2 - º *. &- | Car/ - B/ockweſ/ º s º s - C- Chand/er Loke --. handler A. A: Q *- : * ) º - Shawnee ^, ^ Tecumseh Ares. ſ *AP OTT A WAT O M | E ºs ºf Thunderbºrg Lake Q County Seot * Lokes or Reservoirs Within the Study Ared Lokes or Reservoirs sº Outside the Study Area A-E YSTO/Ver LA A. E. § A foºd Apes. 2O A/ O K L A H O M A - Gº || c |O O IO I I I l I ! - I I SCALE OF MI LES LOCATION MAP |O O p 2O 3O | | | | | | | | | | 1 I SCALE OF KILOMETERS ; U/V/7′ED STATES DEAAA'74/E/v7 OA 7//E //V7 ER/OF 60/A’EAU/ OF AfECL 4 MA7/O/W EAST-CEA/7 RAL OKLA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY STUDY AREA MAP Amari//o, Texas January, /985 36° 35° Map Wo. /484–500–25 CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION A. Description of the Study Area 1. Location The nine-county study area is an elongated strip approximately 152 miles long and 66 miles wide located in east-central Oklahoma as shown in the frontispiece map No. 1484–500–25 (Study Area Map). Counties included are Coal, Hughes, Lincoln, Okfuskee, Pawnee, Payne, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, and Seminole. 2. Characteristics The study area has a land area of 6,298 square miles (mi”) (9.2 percent of the State area), a 1980 census population of 251,160 (8.3 percent of the State population), and a population density of 39.9 persons per square mile compared to the State figure of 44.1. About 48.7 percent of the study area population is rural, compared to the State percentage of 32.7. The study area climate is moist and subhumid to humid. Recorded temperature extremes have ranged from a minimum of -6° F to a maximum of 113° F , with average annual temperatures ranging from 60–63° F. Average annual precipitation in the study area ranges from 34 to 40 inches. May is usually the wettest month; and rainfall decreases through the summer until fall, the second wettest season. January ranks as the driest month. Elevations in the study area range from 1,215 to 200 feet mean sea level (m. s.l.), with the higher elevations along the western edge gently sloping to the lowest elevations along the eastern and southern edges. Harvey Bolinger, Executive Director of The RedArk Water Resources Task Force RedArk, explains a plan concept to Congressuan engaged in one of the meetings that Wes Watkins of the Third Oklahoma District. planned the work to be done in the East- Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study. B. Background On December 28, 1981, Congressman Wes Watkins (Third Congressional District of Oklahoma) convened a meeting of key representatives of several development agencies in Poteau, Oklahoma. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a general concensus on the economic development needs of southeastern Oklahoma and to devise a means to assess the region's economic potential, formulate plans of devel- opment, and implement developmental plan strategies. A study team was formed to conduct an orderly review of all resources in the area and a comprehensive assessment of their development potential. RedArk Development Authority (RedArk) was established at McAlester as a State public trust with the overall responsibility of guiding the comprehensive assessment, coordinating the activities of the participating members, and implementing any development plans. RedArk; the Central Oklahoma Economic Development District (COEDD) at Shawnee; the East-Central Water Association at McAlester, along with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB); Governor George Nigh; and Congressman Wes Watkins sought and obtained the authorization and funding for the East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, which was begun in October 1984. I-1 - -- - - --- º: ---- - - -- - - - - - - º -- º -º-º- - - º - º º Red Ark- McAlester, Oklahoma, is the headquarters for the The RedArk 1 ogo is coming to be a RedArk Development Authority. familiar sign in the 24-county development area as a result of its many economic development initiatives. In April 1984, prior to congressional enactment of authority and funding for this study, the OWRB requested that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) inventory available surface and ground water resources in east-central Oklahoma under its Technical Assistance to States Program. Reclamation agreed to prepare a limited (human and fiscal resources) inventory during the remaining 5 months of fiscal year 1984. In July of 1984, the 4-year study for the east-central area was authorized and funded. This action made additional resources available to extend the inventory effort past September 1984 and enhanced the inventory effort by adding several more months of preliminary work or identification of problems and needs for the study area. This planning guide report thus represents the results of 5 months' inventory work completed under the Technical Assistance to States Program and 3 months of problems and needs assessment under the east-central water supply study. In addition to meeting the commitment made to OWRB and RedArk in the spring of 1984, this document will provide supporting data to complement the East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study. This document will complement Reclamation's report to be completed at the end of the 4-year study. C. Authority and Purpose of Study 1 - Authority This study was authorized by Public Law 98-360, dated July 16, 1984, entitled "Appropriation for Energy and Water Development for FY 1985." 2. Purpose This study will address the maximum amount of economic development that can be achieved in the study area by water resource development. The results of the study will be used as a guide toward the most beneficial development of east-central Oklahoma water resources for municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply systems, hydroelectric power, navigation, irrigation, flood control, recreation, and environmental enhancement purposes. In order to do this, the study will focus on (1) assessment of the natural resources which have potential for development that can contribute to the national and regional economic development; (2) determination of what existing and potential water supplies are available or needed to facilitate regional development and which supplies might be available for needs outside the area; (3) formulation, analysis, and recommendation of a comprehensive plan of water resource development for each stage of future regional growth; and (4) identification of which projects or project components in the plan can be best developed by private, local, State, or Federal means. D. Previous Investigations Many of the water planning activities for the State are conducted by three Federal agencies-- Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Table I-1 provides information on previous investigations that included the study area. The SCS has 26 watershed plans (Public Law 566) that involve the study area. They are not included in table I-1 but are discussed and displayed in Chapter IX, Water Resources. E. Relationship of Study Area to Local Planning Districts and Regions The study area includes a 11 or portions of two Sub-State Economic Development Districts, four State water resource planning regions, and RedArk, as detailed in table I-2. Color maps Nos. 1484-500–26 through -29 display these relationships as well as how the study area relates to three of the State's congressional districts. I-2 Table I-1 Previous Investigations (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Revised March 85) Title Central Oklahoma Project (Navigation) Water, The Key to Oklahoma's Future Red River Below Denison Dam (Irrigation Development) Oklahoma State Water Plan - Southwest 20 Counties Parker Lake (Red River Below Denison Dam) Tupelo Lake (Central Oklahoma Project) Central Oklahoma Project (Water Conveyance) Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Oklahoma State Water Plan – Phase I - Southern 33 Counties Oklahoma State Water Plan - Phase II - Northern 44 Counties Resource Assessment and Development Strategies Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma Wellston Lake (Central Oklahoma Project) Regional Water Distribution Investi- gation Parker Reservoir Central Oklahoma Pipeline Study Level of Study/Date Agency Feasibility – 1964 Appraisal - Oct 1966, Revised: Feb 1967 Appraisal - Part I – July 1966 Part II – Jan 1967 Appraisal - Jan 1975 Feasibility – Nov 1975 Feasibility – Mar 1978 Feasibility - 1978 Comprehensive Study – Jan 1980 Appraisal - Oct 1980 Appraisal - Oct 1980 Assessment - Oct 1982 July 1984 Feasibility Appraisal Subappraisal Corps Reclamation Reclamation Reclamation Corps Corps Corps OWRB Reclamation Reclamation Corps, Reclamation, SCS, and Tennes See Valley Authority (TVA) TVA Corps Reclamation Reclamation Conclusions Study investigated feasibility of extending navi- gation from the McClellan-Kern Navigation System into Eufaula Lake and then to Oklahoma City. Numerous routes were studied. The project was not economically justified . Water is available in the State to supply all needs for at least the next 100 years. The supply can be met by proper development of available surface and ground water resources and by redistribution of surface water available for this purpose. Part I - Conclusion that construction was economi- cally justified at that time under conservative appraisals. Irrigation development on selected areas could be done by private interests or as a Federal project. Part II - Conclusion that areas meeting economic and financial requirements might be developed by local interests with private financing. The most technologically reasonable alternative for providing the bulk of water deficiency is redistribution of current supplies within the State . Project would develop the maximum dependable yield for the basin (42 Mgal/d) at the damsite. Water supply planned for use by Ada, Oklahoma, and other communities in central Oklahoma. This project would function as a water supply source for the Central Oklahoma Project. Would produce a dependable yield of 90 Mgal/d to meet long-range needs. Eleven alternative plans were studied to transfer surplus water from southeastern Oklahoma to meet future water needs in central and southwestern Oklahoma. Inadequate distribution systems are a statewide problem requiring immediate attention. There are adequate supplies of water, unevenly distributed . To meet projected water deficits of central and western Oklahoma, construction of a statewide water conveyance system consisting of a northern system for the Arkansas River Basin and a southern system for the Red River Basin should be considered. Presented a plan to redistribute surplus water to water-deficient areas through a major canal system in the Red River Basin. Presented a plan to redistribute surplus water to water-deficient areas through a major canal system in the Arkansas River Basin. The study area is rich in resources which have not been developed to their optimum potential - The study area is not homogeneous. Different areas contain different resources, problems, and opportunities. Different development strategies will need to be developed. Studied 24-county area (southeast Oklahoma). Identified problems ranging from inadequately treated water storage to inadequate new water sources, from insufficient water pressures to insufficient funds, and from poor distribution to poor quality. To provide navigation water releases for the Deep Fork route of the Central Oklahoma Project. Studies halted when navigation system proved eco- nomically infeasible. To facilitate the efficient distribution of water from available sources to area of need . The study is continuing - A pipeline system (84 miles) would transport water from proposed Parker reservoir to Lake Thunderbird, Shawnee Reservoir, and Tecumseh Lake to aid in supplying municipal and industrial water needs in the central area system. Table I-2 Local Planning Districts and Regions Involved With the Study Area (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Name and Location Central Oklahoma Economic Development District - Headquarters: Shawnee Southern Oklahoma Development Association - Headquarters: Ardmore North Central Water Resource Planning Region 1/ Central Water Resource Planning Region 1/ East-Central Water Resource Planning Region 1/ Southeast Water Resource Planning Region 1/ RedArk Development Authority - Headquarters: McAlester 1/ Not distinct, organized entities. convenient planning regions to facilitate work on the State Water Plan. Number of Counties Represented in Study Area 7 Name of Counties Hughes, Lincoln, Okfuskee, Pawnee, Payne, Pottawatomie, and Seminole Coal and Ponto to c Lincoln, Pawnee, and Payne Pottawatomie Hughes, Okfuskee, and Seminole Coal and Ponto to c Coal, Hughes, Lincoln, Okfuskee, Pawnee, Payne, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, and Seminole The Oklahoma Water Resources Board divided the State into I-4 93 – OOG – ÞÁ? Þ/ （o/w do W ç96/ ‘Muonuoſºsoxº / 'o////ou/ſ/ S_19/8/1S/C7 9/V/W//ſ/7c/ _1/V57WºO 757/A5707 0/WOWO957 E/1/1S-87/QS O_/ W378/7 AG7/7_1S +/0 c////S/VO/_/ 77572/ „(O/?/S „(7ø/ø//?S A/B//|//M !7/VO//ſ^7}/O 7 ſººſ/ ^/ 70-_/Sºğ/B7 /VO/_/ ſy/ſy ſy 70372/ ../ O /?$/， /ay/067 &/0/&/37_/ ^// 37/// ->/O _//|/37/_/&/ſ/e/，767 S3 / 7 / S (737_/////? su 3.13 w OT |X| 3. O 3 TV109 |-№-№-№. Og Ov OG OZ OI O Oſ Sr2 ºn l w ：） O ran wºo S ■!）-(=O）-） OºOº OºOlOOl fºs！）^SV/X31 } �„“Gaeº, „º· |k_º'\ ،NW AM 0ºnyºs_3^º_i~)- iAAV-7A100||H. O----- ĞãÄÄ，N OSM 3.-， 43 ſº# 0- - - -oou ou noa | N | Aww.9|| （) _）~~~ü, ?NO||LV|OOSSV LN|EWeļOTEAEJO 20·|||--------i vs.! 9§§§-iſ öſſöğķī£È VOOS : |38 OT1 º 3 "1º wawil vi !98 nº S.L 1 l d Nīvī55） ||-r\/AAO|X}waawº ----| ·.：A0V 89i 2 2--J! ø ± 3||----- :{-{ºººººº! Ë Ï Ë��| || … ~--~~~~ | • !（ 1 ） _ - ~~| 3 || 3»,·. . ·010 181S1C] LNBWNdOTEABO pººg）----| 5| 3****--~~_i i vaeva | ****olwonoï'ïöğı，ſºğģī£§ 00300 !！！！）į·!！!！!）- - - -|·į –––––. . FTIT; i Hvaonoas\i---- →33XS nº X. O|QQ300w woHvıxo ; Nviov Nwo|-| \， ,aabosna ſaasınaxoi| wiosni-----|------| 83.1 S T O| sının baºoº ;+\!V \Q 01S •„ ， !· ·.- - - - - 7|\73.8\1 \ ●--~~~~\~i ------||||－Il 7-ºs, 2 vivos)~+TT xaawo- - -"Zºº" ſvahsiaen!»）anivna |ABAW 30 ·/Uſº : !133XO： 3 HO\,vanovº,|3. NAV||.|-NO||L\/NW/Tlc3X E \|-|-<--- _; vsınīI]~ ~ ! d–i––––1––––––1–––1–––.! Ķījāſ|·|-33 NMVd L.!|Mae Oſºw W|į sinna| \|S 3 AV W|•••••ziº ~10ON|O TEJI-JŌvº)|------{（~~|••••••••|-SV XB 1| }!· ^ )· ----- ------ -- -- ------------- —…- .-.-.- | *<！-----|———į į \ —•—•—•—.| *ºl i----# !39 v S O_º||vaivanv |N-|.& 3 A || % |!|vivmon |ğ |fº| 1N w 89 ;· SOOO'^A\waagvº |v B 8|SWX B 1|NO&& v w I o: Owww.110||Điwaelo ;| * |· A\， X||-|- |-| C）·. |\|| ×————————•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•————————. 7||-|-|-ł.|-----·l-SwSNwX~ ~ ~- - - - 1 _ _ r--- | -- | !--- - * - - - - -r- – - | CIMARRON | EXPLANATION STUDY AREA CENTRAL EAST CENTRAL NORTH CENTRAL SOUTHEAST | --- |-- ~~~) TILLMAN |-- . A ... r STEPHE NS H MU R RAY _--T . - - | \-- º *e h COTTON –––. CARTER N-3so l *-*. y-- errerson - & TT shal-L isºv-Uº º - ~ f JOHN 3O 40 so scALE OF M I LES Jo O IO 20 30 40 50 t-i-Eh-tº-d scALE OF KILOMETERS - K A N s A s ----- - -- -- r- - --------------------------- -- ... --! : - CRA1G | OTT O TEXAS BEAVER | Harper Y- WOO–DS GRANT KAY | 5 * t—- % - | |ALFALFA | £ | -: | | | \ t - ! — OSAGE |# !---- I -----------—--—- TT – | * --- TEXAS : woodward ~ :-- T carrieLD NOBLE : H- º | waves | | Ellis ..., |NöRTH CENTRAL.” fº - - fT - Tºn PAWN - - - º - - - — ---T | | | T------Tº-Tº-ºw. Ttººl.ºz. – - | | : WAGONER º CHEROKEE1 t i/l / L DEWEY |eLane ~~ Logan TTT C RE EK -i-Hº ~! *\ N-- i I | - –- -- . - - - - - | - + H 1. | Lincoln lokwulgee wuskogee | T • ROGER MILLs CUSTER | | | - - CANADAN okLA Homa OKFUSKEE SEQUOYAH r—- — - - ; : H ---- CENTRAL" * L^-” F-5 Mc INTosh Y-SU/~. º BECK HAM was HITA N- º, | : º |----- ~ſ; ººzell rº . l O - - : J tº º, A-EAST CENTRAL –– Q- — — — — `, I nº s º ſºughes / ---T º – T - | | grao, -- - ; PIT TSBURG ! ! LE FLORE ! --- greer Ç K|OWA 1– McCLAIN - | | LATIMER I. -- . - - - - - - - - # ‘l rº ſ – -l GARV N PONTOTOC | ; : T. - COMANCHE H---- T - r" i-N | Jackson *L. I ºſ- | coal- P - -- -- - Arok, Pushmataha º southEAST Hºara, P----|-- - CHOCTAw | - - - UAV/7′E O S 747"E.S. OAAA/774/E/V7" OA: YA/E /A/7 era'ſ OA” APU//?&AC/ O/º Are CLAMA 7/OA/ ATAS7–CA://7/74/ OA L.A.//OMA WA78TA’ SO//w/º. Y S 70/OY AºELA 7/O/VS////2 OF S7 UDY AAPEA 7TO STATE WA7 ER AºESOURCE PLA/V/V//VG AºEG/OMS Amarf//o, 7 exas January, 1985 Map Wo. /484 - 500–27 - : 8? --OOg – ÞÁ? Þ/ （o/w do W 986/“Audnuons oxº /‘o////bu/ſ/su 313 w On 1 x 30 3 nºvo 9 A_1/&/O/////b/_1/V57/WºO 757/A5707 XV8/VC7572/·|-|-（…” O_1 b/578/7 AG7/7_1S -VO cſ/A/S/VO/_/ \/7372/！=======, „(O/?/S „{7a/º/?S A/37/W/M Þy/VO//ſ/ 7X/O 7，7€////379-_/Sºſº/37 /VO/_/ º /ſ/ º 70372/ 70 /?!?！? ay/067 &/O/8/37_(AV/ 37/// ->/O _//|/37/ ae/ºeſ/，767 S3 / º / S (737_/////? SV/X31 № №. €º _º'\ ~)~/~*~ N OSM 3.-， 33 ſº†（~~~, – – – – NOll00|- 0 |N w WTT I 1\，r _,--^T,·~~） SN 3 Hºd 31S|-rº|----}}TND, !\ | Nous who • •---- SwSNv× ---- №!№.------- HON v W O O|（3） nosxovº| ; } :~~~~ ~~|-j \,） ſi, ſ × i №j，\\-–----|-| z | wſiw n \\NIwno ow ;..vaea O1×|- :\ T\•·………!\,| oveº || |}（ 33 ！! 9---- ·（}--~~~~!）}′ºººº!!! #（（[\$\\]',N || «… ~--~~~~ ! ∞№i inax svaeſ ）N\\ſ\\¿№?>·. ·WvH × OB \\\\\\\NN\\ \\\, （ ）· · · -\ \ \_…：（（--~i）.|\71||HSV AA|8 → \\ \\\\\\|\ !I- — - — - — -----NOI. LO IQS|}][\[" )\ll \JOHln\7\\ HvA.On O303i----|-¿sºlº·••••••••!N v10 v Nw O|-|-LNB.W.dOTl3A3C] X\\]\7C]B （JN \-|-|\\）\\\\|-|（3.1 S T O| STTI W 839 o 8 wJ - - --- aabosna ſaasınaxe■-------|-------||0 |------~\}|№||-------vagv Agnus . . u--~~~~ ~ ·\\\\\\\\\\\\|.– ~） --- -\，\！\\ \\|--/* \，|-|-H|-waHsiaºnix !anivnº |A BAWA 30| /Uſº : ·33XO83 HO ( 83 NO9VAA !.· \i4–-|U – –!||NO||L\/NW/Tlc3XE ·------• v Sºl (n.1- — — -- -1-—|-----—|-• |—||—||—~~~~| `--+ | ~~~~）;|–—,0 ！|i i■|■otº w W||SITTE| |S3 Aww l S839O}} } }O T3I → ww9 {(~~）; i quvadoow !0SWXB 1 ● ·-j[#1\,|----- ~~）;||----------- ------| ----|-----! ± %«^- - -|— - — - — - —I* T - - - - - - -_ _ _ -i+----† % |2---- – — — - — — — ||.- ！/O _//W37%/_/&/º/e/，70 S3_/ ， / S (737_/////? fºs！） H - | ++ —ſ i. | H. | Aſh OSS I W T –L J ſ sae 3.13 w OT |x| + 0 3 Two S ■）-（–）-(=） og Ov Ow Oz OI O Oſ Sr. m. 1 w · O ſº 'n vºoS ■!-q-q=）-(=q OºOwOº02OloOı N OSM 3-2（~~*< |∞;~~ · .1-–— noluoo i0 .| Nous N Horſ----\|_.||-N w WTT 11\，r 0| wwwl.www.smd|vxo;----|–.----~~į.·~~） 0||dTl____ ] **** QALsnahasus ſ-f.--}} r- -.·- |- ––––1–·[!NOSX10 v ſº0 |-.T~~~）;TvOO}L-----3 HON w W O O; ; 0-V - - -，|-|-20 ► ►|-----|į___ſ solo， noeNI A （v.9· .* ， 2：0·-|- !-----+|-·?! : |º wawuva ||（~~`N）. Nivno ºn ;.vaea Ol X}waawº ---- z :38 OT13||（）| 98 ng SI. Lld !: • •|－|A0w/ 89|-– i – --J} sabºnºmaenOÇ>\,.·· ∞·}！|}**,·|O00 v O|-------+----! ■>0|3·§º, `N·. |0 ∞ →~）;| ſ | №°>, {| wLIHsv ſw|W wyſº X. OB 8 ·| 4-. -}įºsolniºn ------1 #1 :!||---— ----+ •. |- -|－- - ·o N«·pºU33*snºxooſynxo ſº Nwlow Nwo|-–-| HwÀOnò30\|---- →\_____||8.3.1. S no| STTI W 839 OM • ----+---+aasoxsnº ſaasınaxoiNTOON IT! --- – – – –-----.|0 ·|··|----- - - · ..--.– ~） \„j trºv.••••• !.…………!T! Zºº, 24 !133×O （3HO\,（3 NO9VAA|·. U –· |–4–|--vS-101–––i–––––--—|--• L—-·. *A – -|----|T—;–0 – –|－|- （3ww.ºwn30!|||woºw W|9| sınız| \| savº|S8390）|___|3. Tº ONO TEIaevº)|----(~~） |ī£wadoow !0 ··-T.–^ -'||---- ！· 83. Av 38 S3TX10|N NOO NB8O8 º T1 O HAVO Suo! Du 9S HS|T10NE NNE T19U|49 SOJ MJW MAQE WEXO|W 'HI NIAJWWUļļ 9 \Q \}[^09 W BAVOUļļ tº SNIX LVNA BOWMA ABT1SENA9.12 }}\/NÅS NIN AT TEVHO|Wpu2 SENON ’J SEWWINļS | 9^\\0\u0sºldº M.401-14S4C] \73 \!\7 AC101S NO]. LV/NW/Tlc3X E |SWX:31 × CHAPTER II – HUMAN RESOURCES A. Population Characteristics The State of Oklahoma has experienced only modest population losses during two decades of the last 50 years. Whereas most of the counties have experienced 30 or 40 years of population losses out of the last 50 years as shown in table II-l. Present Census and Historical Population Trends + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Percent Change 1980 1970 to 1960 to 1950 to 1940 to 1930 to Total Net Change Counties Population 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 – 1980 Coal 6,041 9.3 - 0.4 –31.2 –37. 1 11.8 —47.6 Hughes 14,338 8.4 -12.7 –26. 7 –29. 2 — 3.8 —52.7 Lincoln 26,601 36.5 3 - 7 —15.0 –25.2 -12.5 –21.2 Okfuskee 11, 125 4.1 — 8.7 –30. 9 –35. 5 – 9.4 –61 .. 7 Pawnee 15,310 35.0 4.2 –20. 1 –21.7 -12.5 —23. O Payne 62,435 23.3 14.5 - 4.7 28.8 – 2.3 69 - 2 Ponto to c 32,598 17.0 - 0.8 – 9 - O –22.4 22.6 0.4 Pottawatomie 55,239 28. 1 4.0 - 4.7 –20.0 —18.3 —17.0 Seminole 27,473 9.3 -10.4 –31.0 –33.5 —23. 1 –65. 5 State 3,025, 290 18.2 9.9 4.3 - 4.4 - 2.5 26.3 1/ Source: U.S. Census 1980. The atypical, significant positive growth of Payne County over the past 50 years is probably due to the location of Oklahoma State University (OSU) in Stillwater, the county seat. The table also shows that three counties (Seminole, Okfuskee, and Hughes) lost over half of their population since 1930 and that Coal County has come close to doing so. Table II-2 shows that the study area has a 3.1 percent smaller total minority representation than does the State. American Indians have greater proportional numbers than do Blacks in all of the study area except in Payne County. People of Spanish origin do not have sufficient numbers to be a major study area minority. Table II-2 Percentage Analysis of Major Racial Composition of the Study Area 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) All American Spanish County White Minorities. 2/ Black Indian Origin Coal 86. 7 13.3 1.0 11.9 0.8 Hughes 83. O 17. O 3.1 13.6 O. 9 Lincoln 93. 1 6.9 3.0 3.4 0.9 Okfuskee 72. 1 27. 9 12.5 14.6 0. 5 Pawnee 92.1 7. 9 1.0 6.5 0.6 Payne 91.6 8.4 3.0 2.5 1.6 Ponto to c 89.2 10.8 2. 7 7.5 0.8 Pottawatomie 89. 8 10.2 2.0 7.3 1.2 Seminole 78.1 21.9 7. 9 13.5 0.8 Study area 88.1 11.9 3.5 7. 1 1.1 State 85. O 15.0 6.7 5. 6 0.9 1/ U.S. Census 1980. 2/ This number is not the sum of all minority percentages since the analysis does not list all "other" minorities, and some of Spanish origin are counted as White or Black in other analysis. In displaying urban-rural residence characteristics of the study area, table II-3 shows the contrast between the more urbanized Payne, Pottawatomie, and Seminole Counties and the more rural counties of Lincoln, Pawnee, and Coal, the latter of which is classified as 100-percent rural. In should be noted that the U.S. Census currently includes municipalities of 2,500 or less along with areas normally perceived as rural under the heading of "Rural." Most other areas fall under the "Urban" category. The significance of the relatively large number of study area residents living in small municipalities and on farmsteads will become more evident when the problems of trying to plan for adequate supplies of inexpensive, good quality water for rural residents are encountered. II–1 Table II–3 Population of Study Area Counties by Urban and Rural Residence, 1980 l/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Urban é! Rural * Places of Places of less Other County Total Percent Total Percent 1,000 to 2,500 than 1,000 Rural Coal –0– tº tº 6,041 100 2,001 1,198 2,842 Hughes 5,469 38. 1 8,869 61.9 1,725 1,540 5,604 Lincoln 6,065 22.8 20,536 77.2 3,240 4, 280 13,016 Okfuskee 3,381 30.4 7,744 69. 6 1, 195 1,001 5,548 Pawnee 2,972 19.4 12,338 80. 6 1,688 2,681 7,969 Payne 45,988 73. 7 16,447 26.3 3,414 953 12,080 Ponto to c 15,902 48.8 16,696 51 .. 2 –0– 3,513 13, 183 Pottawatomie 35,690 64.6 19,549 35.4 3,388 2,737 13,424 Seminole 14,070 51.2 13,403 48.8 2,081 1,450 9,872 1/ Source: U.S. Census 1980. 2/ None of the study area population falls under the "Inside Urbanized Areas" category. All study area urban populations are listed under the "Outside Urbanized Areas" category. B. Socioeconomic Characteristics Congressman Wes Watkins, RedArk, the Southern Oklahoma Development Association (SODA), COEDD, and various State agencies have frequently pointed out that the study area is part of a region which has not benefited from economic development to the same degree as other regions of the State and Nation. Most frequently cited examples to illustrate this condition are higher than average unemployment rates, lower than average per capita incomes, and outmigration of the well-educated and trained young people seeking better economic opportunities. These conditions are said to create barriers that make it difficult to get the economic development that would solve many of the region's problems. Frequently mentioned barriers are somewhat overage, undereducated and under trained work force; inadequate local and regional tax base to finance needed economic development components; over-reliance on earnings from nongrowth or declining economic sectors; etc. With these indicators to look for, the following textual and tabular description of socioeconomic characteristics is presented . Although per capita income nearly doubled (75- to 90-percent increase) in the study area counties during the 5 years between 1977 and 1982, all remained significantly below the State and national figure as can be seen in table II-4. The fact that per capita income in two-thirds of the study area counties ranged from over 20 to nearly 40 percent below the State and national figure should be noted . Table II-4 Comparison of 1977 and 1982 Per Capita Income for Study Area (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) County Per Capita Income 1/ 1/ Compared to 1977 - 1982 – State – 1982 Increase 1977–1982 Coal $3,659 $ 6,946 38.2% less $3,287 90% more Hughes $4,196 $ 7,863 30.1% less $3,667 87% more Lincoln $5,058 $ 8,910 20.8% less $3,852 76% more Okfuskee $3,927 $ 7,326 34.9% less $3,399 87% more Pawnee $4,966 $ 8,838 21.4% less $3,872 78% more Payne $4,951 $ 8,671 22.9% less $3,720 75% more Ponto to c $5,431 $ 9,802 12.8% less $4,371 80% more Pottawatomie $5,660 $10,022 10.9% less $4,362 77% more Seminole $5,057 $ 9,542 15.2% less $4,485 89% more State $6,306 $11,247 $4,941 78% more United States $6,984 $11,100 $4,116 59% more l/ Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 1972 standard industrial code. Estimates based on Table II-5 displays 1982 earnings by industry sector for the study area. Analysis of the data in table II-5 provides a great deal of information about study area economic activity, which is summarized in Analysis of Table II-5, Summary Tabulations. II-2 Industry Farms Nonfarm Private Agricultural services, forestry, fish, etc. 2/ Mining Construction Manufacturing 5/ Transportation and public utilities Trade 6/ Finance insurance and real estate Services Public - U. S. Government and Government enterprises 7/ 1/ Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 2/ Includes fishing, hunting, trapping, and wages and salaries of United States residents working for international organizations in the United states. Estimates are included in totals. Tab1e II-5 Study Area Earnings By Industry Sector: East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985 1982 ($1,000) Counties Coal Hughes Lincoln Okfuskee Pawnee Payne Pontotoc POttawatomie Seminole 949 1,066 2,226 980 4, 156 4,221 2,117 3,488 769 14,034 42,876 83,088 36,398 51,687 368,396 203,135 286, 112 171,232 9,633 31,300 67,676 26, 128 38,993 223,999 156,460 240, 176 147,448 175 6.79 309 3/ 305 609 456 791 278 774 10,055 10,848 7,493 7,980 25,913 21,793 28,258 65,697 674 1,326 5,479 3,458 4,395 19,692 10,633 22,349 5,074 2,327 3,463 11,522 3,581 1,469 49,018 34,905 54,861 19,038 749 2,335 5,719 3/ 3,360 21,082 10,927 24,535 13,752 1,806 6,718 17,481 5,174 11,037 54, 841 40,752 49,355 23,841 413 1,860 6,597 1,373 2,058 11,583 7, 175 13,721 6,205 2,715 4,864 9,721 3,226 8,389 41,261 29,819 46,306 13,563 4,401 11,576 15,412 10,270 12,694 144,397 46,675 45,936 23,784 3/ Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information. 4 / Estimate does not include Okfuskee County because data were not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information. 5/ Includes nondurable and durable goods. 6/ Includes wholesale and retail trade. 7/ Includes Federal (civilian and military), State, and local. Estimates based on 1972 standard industrial code. Study Area 19,972 1,256,958 941,813 3,602 4/ 178,811 73,080 180,184 82,459 4/ 211,005 50,985 159,864 315, 145 Estimates are included in totals. The estimates of military earnings reflect revisions which have not been made for earlier years. State 704,909 24,834,591 20,332,780 74,241 3,397,322 1,375,632 4,248,408 2,010,769 4,264,996 1,239,993 3,721,419 4,501,811 United States 33,474,000 1,793, 161,000 1,483,665,000 7,469,000 37,268,000 96,583,000 445,930,000 144,658,000 297,544,000 112,520,000 341,693,000 309,496,000 ; Analysis of Table II-5, Summary Tabulation SUMMARY ANALYSES Relationship of Farm Earnings to Total Area Study area State Nation Relationship of Private Sector Earnings to Nonfarm Totals COUNTY ANALYSES County with greatest percentage of farm earnings Percentage of Total Pawnee (7.4%) County with least percentage of farm earnings : Seminole (0.4%) - Counties having a private sector component exceeding the Area Study area State Nation Relationship of Public Sector Earnings to Non farm Totals public sector component Percentage of Non-farm Totals Lincoln (Trade) Pottawatomie (Manufacturing, trade, and services) 74.8 Seminole (Mining and trade) 81.9 82.7 Counties where public sector component earnings exceed Area Study area State Nation Trade Lincoln County Pawnee County Payne County Pontotoc County Study area largest private sector component Study area falls into this category. Percentage of Coal Non-farm Totals Hughes Okfuskee 25.1 18.1 NOTE: 17.3 Pawnee Payne Pontotoc Most Important Private Sector Components Mining (including oil and gas) Hughes County Okfuskee County Seminole County Manufacturing Pottawatomie County Oklahoma State University (middle right center of photo) located in Stillwater, is the State's land grant college. As such, it has a vital role in all phases of agriculture development. II–4 - - - - - - - Aerial photo of Ardmore, Oklahoma, which serves as the headquarters for the South- Services Coal County east Oklahoma Development Association (SODA). Data concerning the 1982 tax base for the study area is presented in the tabulation below. The tabulation shows that the study area as a whole has a tax base that is $590 per capita less than the State. In turn, three counties have a smaller per capita tax base than the study area. They are Hughes - $54 less, Payne - $246 less, and Pottowatomie - $421 less. Conversely, two study area counties have per capita tax bases greater than the State's . They are Pawnee - $27 greater; Coal - $746 greater. Study Area Tax Base - 1982 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) 1982 Net Net Assessed Net Assessed County Assessed Valuations Valuations Valuations (per capita) (per square mile) Coal $ 20,744, 193 $3,434 $ 39,893 Hughes $ 29,300,121 $2,044 $ 36,398 Lincoln $ 55,941,074 $2,103 $ 58,030 Okfuskee $ 27,824, 443 $2,501 $ 44,306 Pawnee $ 41,562,994 $2,715 $ 75,432 Payne $ 115,619, 220 $1,852 $167,322 Ponto to c $ 73,368,285 $2,251 $102,327 Pottawatomie $ 92,633,803 $1,677 $118,306 Seminole $ 69,885,792 $2,544 $109,367 Study area $ 526,879,925 $2,098 $ 83,658 State $8,132,285,225 $2,688 $118,451 l/Source: Directory of Oklahoma: 1983-84, Oklahoma Department of Libraries. When net assessed valuations are analyzed on a per-square-mile basis for considerations like ability to build and maintain county roads, a somewhat different picture emerges. The study area has $34,793 less tax base per square mile than does the State. Five study area counties have per-square-mile tax bases that are less than the study area's. They are: Pawnee - $8,226 less, Lincoln - $25,628 less, Okfuskee – $39,352 less, Coal - $43,765 less, and Hughes — $47,260 less. Pottawatomie County's per-square-mile net-assessed valuation of $118,306 approximates the State's. Only Payne County exceeds the State by $48,871 per square mile, which is significantly greater. The fact that the 1983 average annual unemployment rate for the study area was 9.6 percent, which was the same as the Nation's and only 0.5 percent greater than the State's , is true but quite misleading as shown in table II-6. Table II-6 1983 Average Employment, Unemployment, and Labor Force Characteristics for Study Area 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Unemployment County Employment Unemployment Labor Force Rate (Percent) Coal 1,807 415 2,222 18, 7 Hughes 4,791 1,173 5,964 19.7 Lincoln 9,652 1,367 11,019 12.4 Okfuskee 3,765 572 4,337 13.2 Pawnee 5,778 911 6,689 13.6 Payne 30,835 2, 106 32,941 6.4 Ponto to c 14,869 1,381 16,250 8.5 Pottawatomie 29,537 2,396 31,933 7.5 Seminole 10,733 1,563 12,296 12.7 Study area 111,767 11,884 123,651 9.6 State 1,405,000 140,000 1,544,000 9. 1 United States 100,834,000 10,717,000 111,550,000 9.6 1/ Sources: Employment Security Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dallas, Texas. As can be seen in table II-6, the three counties having the largest labor force populations also have the lowest unemployment rates, thus disguising the fact that two-thirds of the study area's counties have unemployment rates ranging from more than 12 to nearly 20 percent. II–5 Table II-7 shows selected characteristics of the study area labor force. The median age data would seem to support the contention that outmigration of young people has resulted in a somewhat overaged work force in some counties. The labor force participation data would seem to indicate that some counties within the study area do not have a large potential labor force that could be tapped for large-scale economic development. Table II–7 Selected Characteristics of Study Area Labor Force 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Median Age- Additional Employment Total Total Labor Force - Needed to Equal State County Population Population Labor Force Participation Rate Papticipate Rate 1983 average) (Percentage) Coal 6,041 35 - 2 2,222 36.8 858 Hughes 14,338 38.4 5,964 41.6 3,384 Lincoln 26,601 32.5 11,019 41.4 2,254 Okfuskee 11, 125 36.0 4,337 40.0 1,224 Pawnee 15,310 33.6 6,689 43.7 2,587 Payne 62,435 23.8 32,941 52.8 exceeds State Ponto to c 32,598 32.2 16,250 49.8 391 Pottawatomie 55,239 31.6 31,933 57.8 exceeds State Seminole 27,473 33.5 12, 296 44.8 1,703 Study area 251, 160 N/A 123,651 49.2 12,401 State 3,025, 290 30. 1 1,544,000 51 ... O N/A United States 26,545,805 30.0 111,550,000 49.2 N/A 1/ Sources: U.S. Census 1980, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Questions have been raised in the past about whether the study area population has reached an adequate level of educational development to be readily trainable in new high-technology skills needed if economic development initiatives are to succeed in attracting new businesses and industries. Table II-8 displays selected educational statistics that appear to indicate that the study area has a smaller percentage of high school graduates than the State or Nation. Although Payne County exceeds the State and Nation by over 8 percent, the remaining eight counties have 5-percent to over 40-percent fewer high school graduates. Table II-8 Selected Education Statistics for the Study Area, 1980 l/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Persons 25+ Persons 25+ Median School Years With at Least a High With Less Than 5 Years Completed of County School Education of Elementary School Person 25+ (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Coal 42.6 8.2 10 - 7 Hughes 47.0 6.7 11.6 Lincoln 57.7 2.7 12.2 Okfuskee 46.4 8.5 11.5 Pawnee 61.5 2.5 12.3 Payne 74.6 1.8 12.8 Ponto to c 58.8 4.2 12.3 POttawatomie 61.8 3.0 12.3 Seminole 54.7 4.8 12.1 State 66.0 3.1 12.5 United States 66.5 3.6 12.5 1/ Sources: Bureau of the Census - 1980 Census of Population, Volume I, Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Oklahoma and United States. II-6 C. Population Projections Any long-range planning and development effort needs to project what the future would be like if (1) long-range development objectives actually came to be as planned and (2) nothing were done and things continued on much as they had been. Part of this process of forecasting the future with and without the proposed economic development involves making population projections to determine an infinite number of future needs such as how much additional housing will be needed, how many more classrooms will be needed, or will the hospitals be large enough? This particular study will need to determine such things as how much additional water supply will be needed and where, what will the future needs for flood control be, how much need will there be for hydroelectric power, or what sort of water-based recreational facilities will people need 50 years from now? Ten population projection tables follow. Table II-9 is the summary table for the study area. Tables II-10 through II-18 present detailed population projections for each study area county, in alphabetical order. Drawings Nos. 1484-500-30, -31, and -32 present a less complex graphic portrayal of the study area summary in table II-9. Each table provides projections for each decade from the year 1990 through the year 2040. Each decade on every table will compare two population projections labeled SEDIP (Successful Economic Development Initative Plans) and OESC (Oklahoma Employment Security Commission). The SEDIP projections show the population forecast for conditions resulting from successful regional economic development initiatives, while the OESC projections forecast the future population resulting from regional conditions going much as they have been. The Corps' projections shown in tables II-9 through II-18 are only preliminary; therefore, they may be updated after more detailed studies have been completed. D. Problems and Needs Reclamation's mission is not primarily in the area of education or social welfare even though Reclamation has a long historic involvement in developing and teaching improved methods of irrigation management and in widely recognized successful management of Job Corps programs. However, human resource problems and needs must be listed and recognized for two reasons. First, it is impossible to develop alternative plans for long-range water resource development without recog- nizing and taking these problems and needs into account, because they function as constraints on the future as long as they are unmet. Second, meeting these problems and needs will put demands on the public sector human and financial resources just like every other component in any long-range, overall economic development plan. Meeting these human resource problems and needs will require tradeoff or allocation of resources decisions during the entire course of establishing and achieving a long-range economic development plan. Human resource problems and needs briefly touched upon in this chapter are summarized as follows: 1. Per capita income in the study area is significantly below State and national levels. 2. Private sector economic activity is limited in much of the study area, resulting in public sector payrolls (local, State, and Federal government) providing more earnings in six out of nine counties than any single private sector component such as trade, manufacturing, mining (including extraction of oil and gas), and services. 3. Much of the study area has unemployment rates significantly higher than the State or Nation. 4. Lack of economic opportunity has resulted in long-term outmigration in much of the study area, which has resulted in more than a 50-percent population loss in some cases. 5. The better educated young people with current high-technology job skills training needed for economic development initiatives are the very people leaving the study area. 6. The remaining local labor force appears to be somewhat older with less formal education than State and national norms. 7. Some counties in the study area appear to be very limited in additional labor force potential that might be needed for economic development initiatives. 8. There appears to be a very limited tax base to finance all components of a comprehensive long-range development plan. 9. Population projections show that continuation of historic and present trends (OESC projections) will result in the continued decline of some of the study area counties and stagnation or eventual decline for many communities during the next 50 years. 10. The SEDIP population projections show that a sustained, 50-year coordinated economic development effort by study area communities, interest groups, counties, economic development planning districts, and RedArk could result in healthy growth of the region. This growth could alleviate many of the problems and provide the study area with an opportunity to participate equally with the rest of the State in future prosperity. 11. Problems and needs listed above clearly indicate conditions associated with significant economic underdevelopment and validates the need for comprehensive economic development for the study area. 12. Further analyses need to be undertaken to determine whether the study area's socioeconomic problems would support a request for authority to formulate plans of development for Regional Economic Development (RED) objectives instead of the normally required formulations for National Economic Development (NED) objectives. II–7 Table II-9 1 Summary of Comparative Population Projections for Study Area 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OESC 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Study Area - Counties Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Coal 6,500 6, 100 6,900 6,000 7,300 5,800 7,700 5,600 8,000 5,200 8,300 4,800 Cities (3,780) (3,550) (4,260) (3,700) (4,780) (3,800) (5,380) (3,900) (5,930) (3,850) (6,580) (3,800) Balance of County (2,720) (2,550) (2,640) (2,300) (2,520) (2,000) (2,320) (1,700) (2,070) (1,350) (1,720) (1,000) Hughes 15,400 14,000 16,400 13,000 17,300 11,900 18, 100 10,600 18,800 9,200 19,400 7,900 Cities (9,750) (8,850) (10,790) (8,550) (11,700) (8,050) (12,650) (7,400) (13,490) (6,600) (14,260) (5,800) Balance of County (5,650) (5,150) (5,610) (4,450) (5,600) (3,850) (5,450) (3,200) (5,310) (2,600) (5, 140) (2,100) Lincoln 33,700 32,500 40,100 36,800 45,900 41,000 51, 100 44,500 55,800 47,000 60,000 49, 200 Cities (16,700) (16,100) (19,830) (18,200) (22,740) (20,300) (25,600) (22,300) (28,390) (23,900) (31,090) (25,500) Balance of County (17,000) (16,400) (20,270) (18,600) (23,160) (20,700) (25,500) (22, 200) (27,410) (23,100) (28,910) (23,700) Okfuskee 11,500 10,800 11,900 10,000 12, 200 9,200 12,500 8,300 12,800 7,400 13,000 6,600 Cities (6,230) (5,850) (6,850) (5,750) (7,690) (5,800) (8,500) (5,650) (9,600) (5,550) (10,840) (5,500) Balance of County (5,270) (4,950) (5,050) (4,250) (4,510) (3,400) (4,000) (2,650) (3,200) (1,850) (2,160) (1,100) Pawnee 19,300 17,900 22,900 20, 100 26, 100 22,300 29,000 24, 400 31,600 26, 100 34,000 27,600 Cities (8,300) (7,700) (8,780) (7,700) (9,070) (7,750) (9,310) (7,820) (9,380) (7,750) (9,460) (7,680) Balance of County (11,000) (10,200) (14,120) (12,400) (17,030) (14,550) (19,690) (16,580) (22,220) (18,350) (24,540) (19,920) Payne 74,200 70,700 84,800 76,300 94,400 81,000 103,000 83,800 110,700 84,700 117,700 85,500 Cities (60,140) (57,300) (69,230) (62,300) (77,740) (66,700) (85,810) (69,800) (93,380) (71,450) (100,630) (73,100) Balance of County (14,060) (13,400) (15,570) (14,000) (16,660) (14,300) (17, 190) (14,000) (17,320) (13,250) (17,070) (12,400) Ponto to c 37,300 35,200 41,500 36,200 45,300 36,800 48,700 36,500 51,800 35,300 54,600 34,200 Cities (22,240) (21,000) (25,150) (21,950) (27,880) (22,650) (30,670) (23,000) (34,270) (23,350) (37,850) (23,700) Balance of County (15,060) (14,200) (16,350) (14,250) (17,420) (14,150) (18,030) (13,500) (17,530) (11,950) (16,750) (10,500) POttawatomie 67,300 63,100 78,200 68,500 88,000 73,200 96,800 76,300 104,700 77,300 111,800 78,300 Cities (50,880) (47,700) (58,870) (51,551) (66,230) (55,100) (73,630) (58,050) (82,150) (60,650) (90,320) (63,250) Balance of County (16,420) (15,400) (19,330) (16,949) (21,770) (18,100) (23,170) (18,250) (22,550) (16,650) (21,480) (15,050) Seminole 26,800 28, 100 28,900 27,400 30,800 26,300 32,500 24,600 34,000 22,300 35,400 20, 200 Cities (17,770) (18,650) (19,880) (18,850) (21,730) (18,550) (23,780) (18,000) (26,670) (17,500) (29,790) (17,000) Balance of County (9,030) (9,450) (9,020) (8,550) (9,070) (7,750) (8,720) (6,600) (7,330) (4,800) (5,610) (3,200) 1/ Source: 2/ SEDIP = 3/ OESC Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. ; Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Coal County - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OESC 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Coal County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Bromide (part) 50 50 O O O O O O O O O O Centrahoma 210 200 230 200 250 200 280 200 310 200 350 200 Coalgate 2,290 2,150 2,530 2,200 2,770 2,200 2,960 2,150 3,080 2,000 3,200 1,850 Lehigh 270 250 290 250 250 200 280 200 230 150 170 100 Phillips 270 250 290 250 380 300 480 350 620 400 78O 450 Tupelo 690 650 920 800 1,130 900 1,380. 1,000. 1,690 1,100. 2,080 1,200. City Subtotal 3,780 3,550 4,260 3,700 4,780 3,800 5,380 3,900 5,930 3,850 6,580 3,800 Balance of County 2,720 2,550. 2,640 2,300 2,520. 2,000. 2,320 1,700 2,070 1,350 1,720 1,000 County Total 6,500 6, 100 6,900 6,000 7,300 5,800 7,700 5,600 8,000 5,200 8,300 4,800 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. Z/ SEDIP 3/ OESC Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. Table II-11 1/ Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Hughes County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OEsc 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Hughes County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Allen (part) 110 100 190 150 220 150 340 200 410 200 490 200 Calvin 330 300 320 250 360 250 340 200 310 150 250 100 Dustin 550 500 630 500 650 450 770 450 820 400 860 350 Gerty 170 150 190 150 220 150 260 150 31 O 150 370 150 Holdenville 6, 160 5,600 6,810 5,400 7,410 5, 100 8,030 4,700 8,580 4,200 9,090 3,700 Lamar 110 100 130 100 150 100 90 50 100 50 120 50 Stuart 280 250 250 200 290 200 260 150 310 150 370 150 Wetumka 1,870 1,700 , 2,080 1,650 2, 180 1,500 2,390 1,400 2,450 1,200 2,460 1,000 Yeager 170 150 190 150 220 150 170 100 200 100 250 100 City Subtotal 9,750 8,850 10,790 8,550 11,700 8,050 12,650 7,400 13,490 6,600 14, 260 5,800 Balance of County 5,650 5,150 5,610 4,450 5,600 3,850 5,450 3,200 5,310 2,600 5,140 2,100. County Total 15,400 14,000 16,400 13,000 17,300 11,900 18, 100 10,600 18,800 9,200 19,400 7,900 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP * - = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. i Table II–12 1/ Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Lincoln County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OEsc 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Lincoln County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Agra 410 400 490 450 500 450 570 500 590 500 610 500 Carney 830 800 1,140 1,050 1,400 1,250 1,720 1,500 2,080 1,750 2,440 2,000 Chandler 3,320 3,200 3,600 3,300 3,810 3,400 3,900 3,400 4,040 3,400 4, 150 3,400 Devenport 1, 140 1,100 1,250 1,150 1,290 1,150 1,320 1,150 1,370 1,150 1,400 1, 150 Fallis O º: O º: O º: O º: O º: O O Kendrick 160 150 110 100 110 100 110 100 120 100 120 100 Meeker 1,350 1,300 1,740 1,600 2,130 1,900 2,530 2,200 2,850 2,400 3, 170 2,600 Prague 2,800 2,700 3,270 3,000 3,810 3,400 4,250 3,700 4,750 4,000 5,240 4,300 Sparks 1,140 1,100 1,580 1,450 2,130 1,900 2,810 2,450 3,560 3,000 4,330 3,550 Stroud (part) 3,840 3,700 4,580 4,200 5,260 4,700 5,860 5, 100 6,290 5,300 6,710 5,500 Tryon 570 550 760 700 900 800 1,090 950 1,250 1,050 1,400 1,150 Warwick 210 200 220 200 220 200 230 200 240 200 240 200 Wellston 930 900 1,090 1,000 1,180 1,050 1,210 1,050 1,250 1,050 1,280 1,050 City Subtotal 16,700 16, 100 19,830 18,200 22,740 20,300 25,600 22,300 28,390 23,900 31,090 25,500 Balance of County 17,000 16,400 20,270 18,600 23, 160 20,700 25,500 22, 200 27,410 23,100 28,910 23,700 County Total 33,700 32,500 40,100 36,800 45,900 41,000 51,100 44,500 55,800 47,000 60,000 49, 200 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. º: The area contained less than 25 persons. i Table II–13 1 Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Okfuskee County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OEsc 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Okfuskee County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Boley 430 400 360 300 330 250 300 200 350 200 390 200 Castle 160 150 120 100 130 100 150 100 170 100 200 100 Okemah 3,940 3,700 4,640 3,900 5,300 4,000 6, 170 4, 100 7,090 4, 100 8,080 4, 100 Paden 480 450 540 450 600 450 600 400 690 400 790 400 Weleetka 1,220 1,150 1,190 1,000 1,330 1,000 1,280 850 1,300 750 1,380 700 City Subtotal 6,230 5,850 6,850 5,750 7,690 5,800 8,500 5,650 9,600 5,550 10,840 5,500 Balance of County 5,270 4,950 5,050 4,250 4,510 3,400. 4,000 2,650. 3,200 1,850 2,160 1,100. County Total 11,500 10,800 . 11,900 10,000 12,200 9,200 12,500 8,300 12,800 7,400 13,000 6,600 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. i Table II–14 1/ Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Pawnee County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OESC 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Pawnee County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Blackburn 110 100 110 100 120 100 120 100 120 100 120 100 Bough O º: O * O º: O • ?: O :* O O Calida O 3: O º: O º: O º: O º: O O Cleveland . 3,560 3,300 3,990 3,500 4,330 3,700 4,520 3,800 4,720 3,900 4,930 4,000 Cuchee O º: O º: O º: O º: O º: O O Empy O º: O º: O º: O * O º: O O Hallett 270 250 280 250 350 300 420 350 420 350 430 350 Jennings 380 350 400 350 410 350 360 300 360 300 370 300 Leander O º: O º: O * O º: O º: O O Leroy O ºk O * O º: O *k O 3: O O Maramec 110 100 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 Oak Grove 750 700 800 700 760 650 800 670 730 600 650 530 Pawnee 1,670 1,550 1,480 1,300 1,290 1,100 1,070 900 850 700 620 500 Peterman Ridge O º: O º: 0 º: O * O * O O Quay (part) 50 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 Rabornville O º: O º: O º: O * O º: O O Ralston 590 550 630 550 640 550 650 550 670 550 680 550 Rigsby 50 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 Shady Grove O º: O º: O * O * O 3: O O Sha-To-She O º: O º: O º: O º: O º: O O Skedee 110 100 110 100 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 Terlton 220 200 230 200 230 200 300 250 300 250 31 O 250 Timberlane O º: O º: O º: O º: O º: O O Wes 50 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 Westport 380 350 510 450 640 550 770 650 910 750 1,050 850 City Subtotal 8,300 7,700 8,780 7,700 9,070 7,750 9,310 7,820 9,380 7,750 9,460 7,680 Balance of County 11,000 10,200 14, 120 12,400 17,030 14,550 19,690 16,580 22,220 18,350 24,540 19,920 County Total 19,300 17,900 22,900 20, 100 26, 100 22,300 29,000 24,400 31,600 26, 100 34,000 27,600 SEDIP OESC ſ - ; Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. The area contained less than 25 persons. Table II–15 1/ Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Payne County - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000. Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OEsc 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Payne County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Cushing 8,290 7,900 8,670 7,800 8,860 7,600 9,100 7,400 9,410 7,200 9,640 7,000 Drumright (part) O * O 2k O * O * O * O O Glencoe 630 600 830 750 990 850 1, 170 950 1,370 1,050 1,580 1, 150 Perkins 2,470 2,350 3,220 2,900 4, 200 3,600 5,290 4,300 6,530 5,000 7,850 5,700 Quay (part) O 3k O º: O * o 3: O 2k O O Ripley 580 550 720 650 930 800 1, 110 900 1,310 1,000 1,510 1,100 Stillwater 46, 180 44,000 53,460 48, 100 60,140 51,600 66,250 53,900 71,620 54,800 76,680 55,700 Yale 1,990 1,900 2,330 2,100 2,620 2,250 2,890 2,350 3, 140 2,400 3,370 2,450 City Subtotal 60,140 57,300 69,230 62,300 77,740 66,700 85,810 69,800 93,380 71,450 100,630 73, 100 Balance of County 14,060 13,400 15,570 14,000 16,660 14,300 17, 190 14,000 17,320 13,250 17,070 12,400 County Total 74,200 70,700 84,800 76,300 94,400 81,000 103,000 83,800 110,700 84,700 117,700 85,500 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. º: The area contained less than 25 persons. : Table II-16 Yetailed Comparative Population Projections for Pontotoc County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) — Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OEsc 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Pontotoc County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Ada 18,010 17,000 20,060 17,500 21,910 17,800 23,880 17,900 26,410 18,000 28,900 18, 100 Allen (part) 950 900 970 850 98O 800 1,000 750 1, 100 750 1,200 750 Byng 1,270 1,200 1,830 1,600 2,460 2,000 3,200 2,400 3,820 2,600 4,470 2,800 Francis 420 400 520 450 63 () 500 730 550 880 600 1,040 650 ROff 850 800 970 850 1,050 850 930 700 1,030 700 1,120 700 Stonewall 740 7OO 800 700 860 700 930 700 1,030 700 1,120 700 City Subtotal 22,240 21,000 25, 150 21,950 27,830 22,650 30,670 23,000 34,270 23,350 37,850 23,700 Balance of County 15,060 14,200 16,350 14,250 17,420 14, 150 18,030 13,500 17,530 11,950 16,750 10,500 County Total 37,300 35,200 41,500 36,200 45,300 36,800 48,700 36,500 51,800 35,300 54,600 34,200 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. SEDIP OESC # # Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. Table II-17 1/ Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Pottawatomie County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OESC 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Pottawatomie County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Asher 910 850 1,200 1,050 1,560 1,300 1,900 1,500 2,300 1,700 2,710 1,900 Bethel Acres 3,200 3,000 4,230 3,701 5,410 4,500 6,600 5,200 8, 130 6,000 9,710 6,800 Brooksville 50 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 70 50 70 50 Earlsboro 270 250 290 250 300 250 250 200 270 200 290 200 McCloud 5,330 5,000 6,740 5,900 8, 170 6,800 9,640 7,600 11,380 8,400 13, 140 9,200 McComb 50 50 60 50 60 50 60 50 70 50 70 50 Maud (part) 1,280 1,200 1,430 1,250 1,560 1,300 1,650 1,300 1,760 1,300 1,860 1,300 Oklahoma City (part) 110 100 110 100 120 100 130 100 140 100 140 100 Pink 1, 170 1, 100 1,480 1,300 1,800 1,500 2,160 1,700 2,440 1,800 2,710 1,900 Remus 160 150 170 150 180 150 190 150 200 150 210 150 St. Louis 160 150 170 150 240 200 250 200 270 200 290 200 Shawnee 30,930 29,000 34,480 30, 200 37, 150 30,900 39,960 31,500 43,340 32,000 46,400 32,500 Tecumseh 6,400 6,000 7,530 6,600 8,660 7, 200 9,770 7,700 10,700 7,900 11,570 8, 100 Tribbey 270 250 290 250 240 200 250 200 270 200 290 200 Wanette 590 550 630 550 720 600 760 600 810 600 860 600 City Subtotal 50,880 47,700 58,870 51,551 66,230 55, 100 73,630 58,050 82,150 60,650 90,320 63,250 Balance of County 16,420 15,400 19,330 16,949 21,770 18, 100 23, 170 18,250 22,550 16,650 21,480 15,050 County Total 67,300 63,100 78,200 68,500 88,000 73,200 96,800 76,300 104,700 77,300 111,800 78,300 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. i Table II-18 1/ Detailed Comparative Population Projections for Seminole County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ OEsc 3/ SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC SEDIP OESC Seminole County Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Projections Bowlegs 520 550 580 550 640 550 730 550 840 550 96.O 550 Cromwell 330 350 370 350 410 350 460 350 530 350 610 350 Konawa . 1,670 1,750 1,790 1,700 1,820 1,550 1,920 1,450 1,980 1,300 2,020 1,150 Lima 240 250 320 300 350 300 330 250 380 250 440 250 Maud (part) 380 400 420 400 410 350 460 350 460 300 440 250 Sasakwa 330 350 370 350 410 350 460 350 530 350 610 350 Seminole 8,770 9,200 9,910 9,400 11,010 9,400 12, 150 9,200 13,720 9,000 15,420 8,800 Wewoka 5,530 5,800 6, 120 5,800 6,680 5,700 7,270 5,500 8,230 5,400 9,290 5,300 City Subtotal 17,770 18,650 19,880 18,850 21,730 18,550 23,780 18,000 26,670 17,500 29,790 17,000 Balance of County 9,030 9,450 9,020 8,550 9,070 7,750 8,720 6,600 7,330 4,800 5,610 3,200 County Total 26,800 28, 100 28,900 27,400 30,800 26,300 32,500 24,600 34,000 22,300 35,400 20, 200 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OEsc Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. : However, human resource problems and needs must be listed and recognized for two reasons. First, it is impossible to develop alternative plans for long-range water resource development without recog- nizing and taking these problems and needs into account; because they function as constraints on the future as long as they are unmet. Second, meeting these problems and needs will put demands on the public sector human and financial resources just like every other component in any long-range, overall economic development plan. Meeting these human resource problems and needs will require tradeoff or allocation of resources decisions during the entire course of establishing and achieving a long-range economic development plan. Human resource problems and needs briefly touched upon in this chapter are summarized as follows: 1. Per capita income in the study area is significantly below State and national levels. 2. Private sector economic activity is limited in much of the study area, resulting in public sector payrolls (local, State, and Federal government) providing more earnings (in six out of nine counties) than any private sector component such as trade, manufacturing, mining (including extraction of oil and gas), and services. 3. Much of the study area has unemployment rates significantly higher than the State or Nation. 4. Lack of economic opportunity has resulted in long-term outmigration in much of the study area which has resulted in more than a 50-percent population loss in some cases. 5. The better educated young people with current high-technology job skills training needed for economic development initiatives are the very people leaving the study area. 6. The remaining local labor force appears to be somewhat older with less formal education than State and national norms. 7. Some counties in the study area appear to be very limited in additional labor force potential that might be needed for economic development initiatives. 8. There appears to be a very limited tax base to finance all components of a comprehensive long-range development plan. 9. Population projections show that continuation of historic and present trends (OESC projections) will result in the continued decline of some of the study area counties and stagnation or eventual decline for many communities during the next 50 years. 10. The SEDIP population projections show that a sustained, 50-year coordinated economic development effort by study area communities, interest groups, counties, economic development planning districts, and RedArk could result in healthy growth of the region, alleviating many of the problems and providing the study area with an opportunity to participate equally with the rest of the State in future prosperity. II -18 YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4O 450,000 __ * 400,000 2 S H. < —l -> d- 2 350,000 OESC Projections 300,000 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (251,160) 250,000 TOTAL STUDY AREA YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O40 7500 2 C H. < 65OO —l F O 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (6041) d- 55OO 4500 COAL COUNTY YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4.O 3 48,000 H. < —l *) d- O 0. 40,000 - 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (32,598) 32,000 - PONTOTOC COUNTY va, reos rares of eaarawerar of rawé ſawré Azoº IP = S ful E ic Devel t Initiqtive Plans ºwaveravoºr ºf ca. 444/AO& SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative asr-CE A. OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission *Areº stºpºly 370/07 GAAAA/C coupé/º/SOA'S OF POPULATIOM PROJECTIOMS SHOW/AWG: TOTAL STUDY AREA, COAL and POW/OTOC COUM7/ES Amari//o, Texas January, 1985 Drawing Wo. 1484-500-30 1980 |S90 YEAR 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4O 97,500 2 S H. < —l R 82,500 O Cl- 67,500 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (55,239) 52,500 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4O 105,000 2 C H. 90,000 d- O D- 75,000 1980 CENUS BASE LINE (62,435) 60,000 PAYNE COUNT Y YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4. O 35,000 2 9 30,000 H. < —l - R _-> 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (27,473) O — - *- d- &ce - ºscº, 25,000 9ns `s º 20,000 L/Ay/ ſº 0 < 74 ya S * SEM.INOLE COUNTY of earrºw; or rºº ºrganoz 80/a^* 40 oar awarcº A & A. raday SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans &AST-CEA/TRAL O&LA/#O&A OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission Mºrº SUMPALY STUOY GR4/2/#/C COMP4/?/SOA/S OF POPULAT/OA/ Prové crows Show/wg: Porrawarowſe, P4YWE and SEM/A/OLE COUAV7/ES Andrſ//o, Texas January, /985 Drawing Mo. /484-500-3/ YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4O 36,000 z 28,000 C H. essee. d- ro ecº O ons 0- 11,500 7500 HUGHES COUNTY YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4O 62,500 z 55,000 C H. < —l -> Cl- O 0– 40,000 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (26,60) 25,000 1. LINCOLN COUNTY YEAR 1980 1990 2OOO 2OIO 2O2O 2O3O 2O4O 15,000 seop Projectiºn: 9 1980 CENSUS BASE LINE (11,125) H. s O F. SSC Pro scº, O Ons 0- 9000 6OOO SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans OESC = Oklahomo Employment Security Commission OKFUSKEE COUNTY way/re O S 747 & 5 OATA’4& 747& Ayr Or ſave /Ayre-A’zoº 80/AVA 4 U OA. Avºca 4.4/4 yaow &ASY-C&AVTRAL OA LºyoAwa ºrs & SUMPALY STUDY 6648/#/C COMP4/??Sows of Popula 7T/OA/ Pºovecrows show/wg: Pawes, avgaſes, L/AVCOLAV and OACA USACEE COUAV7/ES. Amari//o, Texas January, /985 Drawing Wo. /484-5OO-32 CHAPTER III - CULTURAL RESOURCES 1/ A. Introduction and Background The purpose of the brief overview which follows is to identify the types of resources known/reported and those which are likely in the study area • As the study progresses, additional effort will supplement this information. The varying levels of cultural resources (CR) investigations completed in and published information readily available for the area allow only a general picture to be drawn of the quantity and impor- tance of the CR near specific potential damsites. Even so, the variety, complexity, and yet similarity of CR within the nine-county study area is apparent. The overview is organized by county or watershed within the county. Much of the information is taken from the results of surveys conducted for SCS projects (see map No. 1484-500–19). The Oklahoma Conservation Commission's indexes of these investigations and copies of pertinent reports were very useful. 2/ Other sources checked include Oklahoma Archeology: A 1981 Perspective; Pre- history of Oklahoma; Historical Atlas of Oklahoma; Ghost Towns of Oklahoma; The Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners, 1897; The National Register of Historic Places, and various Feports on surveys of related/pertinent areas. The National Register of Historic Places - 1972 includes only one entry for the nine counties of the east-centraſokTahoma Tstudy area. This single entry does not reflect the importance or quality of the resources but rather the fact that little historical and archeological research has been done in the area and that little emphasis has been placed on recognizing those resources identified. Table III-1 lists sites within the study area which were on or nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as of November 9, 1984. Many of these are within the boundaries of towns; those which are outside settlements are plotted on map No. 1484-500-9. Some of these sites are located in the general vicinity of proposed damsites. None of the currently known NHRP sites should be affected by the development of a particular damsite. Nuyaka Mission, which falls in Okmulgee County, is included because of its proximity to the Nuyaka and Morse damsite locations. With rare exception, the NHRP properties represent Oklahoma's recent history-–the period beginning during the 1890's--and its Anglo culture. Several are missions which served as bases for missionary efforts as well as for education of the various Indian tribes. A few, such as the Moses Keokuk home and the Jim Thorpe House, recognize the accomplishments of Indians within the Anglo culture. Only the Roulston-Rogers Site represents the prehistoric period. The missions listed are some of those established to educate and minister to the Indians who were relocated to the Oklahoma Territory from their homes in other parts of the United States. The order and point in time at which the groups settled within the Indian Territory and the study area reflect the order and timing of Anglo-American expansion through the country. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 included the study area; at that time the Osage and to a lesser extent the Wichita, Caddo, and Quapaw occupied the area. In 1825 the United States obtained land between the Red River and the Kansas River from the Osage. Within a year the relocation of the Southeastern tribes began. The Creek were removed from Alabama and Georgia into the area which includes today's Lincoln, Creek, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, and Hughes Counties. In 1833 portions of the Seminole of Florida joined the Creek (by invitation); some resisted removal until the early 1840's. Today's Pontotoc and Coal Counties were included in lands "given" to the Choctaw in exchange for their land in Mississippi and Alabama; removal was largely completed by the mid-1830's. In January of 1837, Chickasaw and Choctaw commissioners agreed on relocation of the Chickasaw from Mississippi to the western section of Choctaw lands (see map No. 1484-500–20). After 1855 the Chickasaw assumed complete control of this area, and their right to separately govern themselves was acknowledged (see map No. 1484-500-21). The Creek and Seminole Tribes' sympathies lay with the Confederacy during the Civil War. After the Confederacy was defeated, the U. S. Government negotiated unilateral changes in the treaties which had established the tribes' land rights. The western half of Creek lands was taken from them, and the Seminole were assigned an area with roughly the same boundaries as present Seminole County. The remaining lands were distributed among the Sac and Fox, Pottawatomie, Shawnee, Iowa, and Kickapoo Tribes, groups from the Northern Plains and lower Great Lakes (see map No. 1484-500–22). The Cherokee had been allotted land along the northern edge of the East-Central Oklahoma Study area which could be sold by them or for their benefit to friendly Indian tribes. By 1889 the Pawnee were present in that area on lands now incorporated in Pawnee County. Lands of today's Payne County were part of those designated "unassigned" which were opened for non-Indian settlement. The Indian Appropriations Bill of 1889 provided for allotment of communally held lands to individual tribal members and allowed the sale of all but a small portion by the individual. These "excess" lands were opened for settlement by land runs as early as 1891 (see map No. 1484-500–22). 1/ For references, see section at end of report • 2 / A11 of the several reports were reviewed. The gist of their data is incorporated into the general statements below, although not all are referenced. The generous assistance of Charles Wallis, Jr. and Christopher Lintz is appreciated. III–1 Table III-1 National Register of Historic Places (Properties Within Towns in the East-Central Oklahoma Study Area) County Pawnee Payne Lincoln Okfuskee Pottawatomie Seminole Hughes Ponto to c Coal * Listed on the Register. + Nominated to the Register. Town/city Pawnee º: º: º: + Cleveland + Stillwater º: º: º: º: ºk º: + Yale º: Stroud º: º: º: Prague º: Chandler + + + + + + + + + + + + + Boley º: Okemah º: + Shawnee º: º: º: º: º: º: º: + Seminole - º: - + Sasakwa * Wewoka º: * Holdenville º: º: Stuart º: Ada + Property Name Arkansas Valley National Bank Pawnee Indian Agency Corliss Steam Engine Pawnee County Courthouse Mullendore Mansion Old Central, Oklahoma State University Berry, James E. , House Citizens Bank Building Hoke Building Seph Building Walker Building Payne County Courthouse Thorpe, Jim, House Graham Hotel Stroud Trading Company Building Stroud, James W., House Z. C. B. J. Lodge No. 46 Boston Store Building at 1014 Manvel Ave. Building at 720 Manvel Ave. Building at 812 Manvel Ave. Building at 814 Manvel Ave. Chandler Bookstore Clapp-Cuningham Building Feuquay Building Milly Building Murphy Building Oleson-Crane Building St. Cloud Hotel Wolcott Building Boley Historic District Guthrie, Woody, House Okfuskee County Courthouse Santa Fe Depot St. Gregory's Abbey and College Beard Cabin Governor's Mansion Kerfoot House Nuckolls House Walker House Pottawatomie County Courthouse Grisso, W. E., Mansion Seminole County Courthouse Brown, Alice, House Seminole Whipping Tree Brown, Jackson, House Holdenville City Hall Turner, John E. , House Stuart Hotel Ponto toc County Courthouse (none within town limits) III-2 5th Standard Porollel 4th Standard Porqllel 3rd ^- Stondard Parqllel 2nd "- Standard Porqllel lst Standard Parallel -Bose Line Arcado Lake - & | <^ 42 º º º: C4/V44 º Sºon/ey SCS - º ( Oroper Site /M C -- Lake Shawnee lºes. Show nee º o - | K sº G +6 ---, 2 Center C º - - Ao/ Al M \ \–º ^ | 74% Ares. v * ºr. P o TTA w A To MIE |> - Sportsman \! EXPLANATION Q County Seat Asºº Within the Study Ared Lokes or Reservoirs ~! Outside the Study Area - Previously identified - Potential Multipurpose Sites - Previously identified Potential Hydropower Sites - General Location of Selected The National Register of Historic Places Blue Hawk Peak Ranch 2. lºvings castle 3. Hopkins Songstone House B. Formstead * Tilghman, Marshall william M. Homestead 5 Keokuk, Moses, House 6 Show.nee Friends Miss ; i 9.79 To KAW REs,” Soone Lake º º o 2- º º º - º Lake Lone C/eve/and A’es - Chimney º - == Ranch º * | < t- - o \ º |T º -- s - LA | Nº CNG O L N Aa///s e -º- - SC޺ Chand/e Kendrick - Sife Loke /// - hond ler +5 °, ºr Davenoor Meeker Lake S. Cr - L r1L: Little River ^ near Tecumseh \ \ £4 442/4// Lokes or Reservoirs Sering creek i ( Sites Listed in 7. So cred Heart Mission Site 8 Mekosukey Academy e Roulston-Rogers Site O Levering Mission | smallwood, Benjamin Franklin House 2. Nuyoko Mission LOCATION MAP O K L A H O M A i ; |O O IO I 1–1–1–1–1– scALE of Mile |O O IO | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 96° *EYSTO/we LA A. E. Okemoh O \ <> ſº cº, Aenryeºg 32. = sº Nº We/eetka o Lake > icko I Lake Wefunko Ridge ry 2. --- ſº (Weleetka Ousſºn 3:2 - ake S 2O SCALE OF KILOMETERS : ; ; U/V/7′ED S 747 ES DEAAAP7TME/V7" OA 7THE //V7TE A*/OA’ BUA’EAU/ OF Are CLAMA 7/OAV EAST-CEAV774L OALA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY WAT/OWAL REG/STER OF HISTOR/C PLACES-SELECTED S/TES Amari//o, Texas January, /985 36° 35° Map Wo. /484–500–9 103 37 102 101 lux) - --. Under control of Mexico until 1836 -- 39 38 9. inder control of Texas f 18. - º ...?....” – “... N CHEROKEE OUTLET – __ Beat er - CHEROK (EE 103 r t T vº 102 101 w Fort Waynew & & o no 2 o' 3- -C -- Study Area SOURCE: HiSTORICAL ATLAS OF OKLAHOMA Inion Mission 35- º ~ A:ork ºn_y Washtº CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW Warren's Trading Post aw: v Camp Mason Chouteau's Trading Post Fort Arbucklew CREEK AND SEMINOLE *Tahlequah © Park Hill Fort Gibson Creek Agency Mackey's Salt Works O Dwight Mission Greenleaf's Store º -T w North Fork Town Fort Coffee Camp Holmes -35 e Perryville Nanih.Waiya River e Boggy Depot Fort Washita Eagletown O pºaksville evºort Towºn way/ TED S 74 rºs OeAAA’74/EAyr of rayº ſavy EA/OA- 80//? E 40/ OA' A'ECL 44/47/OW EAST-CEA/TRAL OALAMOMA tº Arº SUPPLY STUDY. //VD/A/V TEAPR/TORY /83O-55 Amari//o, Veros January, /965 Map Avo. /464 - 500–2O 37 102 101 100 9a 98 35 37 NO MAN'S LAND e=T- x l l 2–~ \ CHEROKEE OUTLET ~ 2. |\ He i 2/ 102 1ö. SEMINOLE NATIONTR Cz, º 36 36- º, sº Tahlequah _--" • Park Hill CREEK NATION ... •)” º, ſº Creek Council Grounds e Webbers Falls ºur, ~~~~ º lºsºpistrict * * *-ſ º -º- º: Agency Skullyvillee 35- GREER \º fºr "A- ºf he campºº CHOCTAW NATION -35 COUNTY Edwards” . Perryville 0 10 20 30 so so CHICKASAW NATION Raº r^^^__ Study Area 100 Fort Arbuckle v SOURCE: HISTORICAL ATLAS OF OKLAHOMA Tishomingo Fort Washitay O Boggy Depot V Fort McCulloch × Armstrong Academy Doaksville **** © v Fort Towson F34 way/rºo Granºs de-a/aa-rºwe Ayr of rawe ſayre w/OA” 60//?eau oar werca 44/407/OW Easr-cºAV774. O&LAMOMA Mººre/º Supply 370/07 //VD/AAW TERR/TORY /855-66 Amari//o, Texas y, 1985 January Map wo. /484 - 500-2/ 95 37 103 37+- 102 101 1(x) 99 98 97 96 NO MAN'S LAND _ 7 - —T- T U CHEROKEE OUTLET 7. OSAGE | CHEROKEE -3 nassigned to any State or Territory © Beaver City § 2- S. Z s' 8 Pawhuska O - º - ; º º s §2. : # sº > 1. PEORLA 'antonme - t - - - - --- 36- vantonment Gº \ UNASSIGNED 35 2. QUAPAW : ! 3. MODOC cHEYENE AND ARAPAHO || 2 v Fort Gibson 4. OTTAWA * 5. SHAWNEE Dariºnºton - * Okmulgee 6. WYANDOTTE witHRA v Port Reno e Webbers º 7. SEN - º Seger Colony & AND -- WA º CADDO º 9. PONCA -> 10, OTO AND MISSO à § HOCTAW tº .* - URI 35 - - ~ .* H35 *] GREER COMANCHE Ž . º * ºr " o lc 20 3- -- -- COUN TY KIOWA AND \, */ S d A Fort Sill v. CHICKASAW º k Tuskahoma tudy Ared 1x) APACHE º w SOURCE: HISTORICAL ATLAS OF OKLAHOMA º ; Tishomingo / Eagletown O way/red sy47ES DEPA/Praſe wrof rawé ſaw?"ER/ow 60//weaty of AºECL 4&AWAOW - EAST-ceMTRAL O&LAMOMA ºreº SºpLY STUDY //WD/AW TERR/TORY 1866-89 y, /985 Amari//o, Texas Map Wo. /484-500-22 The Indians who were relocated to the Oklahoma Territory, including the study area, followed much the same lifestyle as they had in their homelands. Those who had already accepted the Anglo way-of- life were successful in establishing trading and population centers, primarily along major streams. Others settled in rural areas and lived simple lives. The archeological sites created by these dif- ferent settlement types are distinctive. In the rural areas where proposed damsites are placed, the simple lifestyle leaves little physical evidence; and it is often difficult to distinguish between historic Indian and historic Anglo sites. Barr (1963:36) notes that in Lincoln and Creek Counties near the Sac and Fox Agency, ". . . numerous structures of these people dot the countryside in various stages of decomposition," but that much of the material associated is identical to that of Anglo homesteads. Given the rapid and unusually structured settlement of the study area, the potential for both historic Indian and historic Anglo archeological sites throughout the study area is good. The specifics may vary depending on which group settled the particular area and the nature of the remains, but all are important. Many of the sites may be "unimpressive," small scatters of debris. Thoughtfully oriented studies of these could, however, yield important insights into the processes at work in the early settlement period - The prehistory of the study area is known from survey, a limited amount of testing, and the results of a small number of widely scattered excavations. With the exception of the Paleolndian period, all of man's time of residence in the New World is represented, including the gatherer-hunter stage of the Archaic, the transitory Woodland horticulturists, the horticultural-agricultural Caddoan and Plains Villagers, and the Late Prehistoric hunters. The Paleolndian/Early Archaic material has largely been limited to surface finds. That these early people lived in or used the resources of the area is virtually sure; the residue of that use is illusive. Sites of this period are often deeply buried and are without structural remains. Many small lithic scatters without diagnostics, which are noted in the specific county site data below, attest to use of the area. Individually these provide little information; plotted over a broad area and sampled using a thoughtfully developed and rigorously defined program of research, their potential is considerable. Just as the historic resources of the area have the potential to provide a picture of recent past processes, the virtually unstudied prehistoric resources may reveal the lifestyles of more distant people. B. Review of Specific Site Data for Study Area The bulk of data on specific resources within the study area has been accumulated since 1970 in conjunction with highway and water resource development; very little testing/excavation has been completed. Table III-2 shows the number of prehistoric and historic sites shown in Oklahoma Archeology: A 1981 Perspective for each of the nine counties. The brief statement of kinds of resources located in the counties/watersheds which follows incorporates some data which postdates that included in The Perspective but should not contradict it. Table III-2 Total Cultural Resource Sites (Recorded by County for the East-Central Study Area) County Number of sites Pawnee 175 Payne 52 Lincoln 66 Okfuskee 40 Pottawatomie 66 Seminole 76 Hughes 56 PO Into to C 157 Coal 63 1. Pawnee County. Sites recorded during surveys in Upper and Lower Black Bear Creek Watersheds for specific impoundment projects included small prehistoric lithic workshops without diagnostic materials, but which probably include Archaic or Plains Woodland materials, a possible Plains Villager site, and historic sites. In the general area of the Lela damsite the remains of a 1943 copper mine, a pre-1930's homestead, a copper prospecting area, and a lithic scatter were found. In 1952, the University of Oklahoma investigated the Terlton burial which was located at a depth of 11.6 feet. A 1952 survey of Keystone Reservoir area identified 84 sites and 24 possible sites, while a shoreline survey in 1980 defined 83 historic sites and 198 prehistoric ones. 2. Payne County. Surveys, largely in Stillwater Creek Watershed, have recorded materials identified as Early Archaic through Late Historic • Many sites consist of scattered lithic debris without diagnostics. Historic 1900's farmsteads are among the more common resources. 3. Lincoln County. Surveys of impoundments in the Kickapoo Nations, Robinson Creek, and Quapaw Creek Watersheds and testing of some located sites have identified materials ranging from the Early to Late Archaic to Woodland and Plains Willager and Late Historic. A number of small prehistoric lithic scatters have contained no diagnostic materials. At Site lm on Bellcow Creek in the Kickapoo Nations Watershed, testing revealed a prehistoric camp with materials from the Late Archaic through the Late Plains Villager Period, as well as two historic farmsteads. III–3 Approximately 10 miles to the east of the Davenport damsite and just north of the Paden damsite (in Creek County), a historic Indian cemetery with suprastructures was identified. The Iowa Mission, listed on the Oklahoma Landmarks Inventory, is near the Wellston damsite. An 1892 map (Wallis 1981) which includes much of Lincoln County shows towns whose names are those of the proposed damsites of Fallis, Wellston, and Davenport. Wellston was established as a trading post by 1880. Many other small communities sprang up along the early railroads which served the county from 1892-1903 until 1924. Historic farmsteads, many of which were associated with these communities, were among the most common sites identified in all three Lincoln County watersheds. In the general vicinity of the Quapaw damsite, Early and Middle Archaic and Late Historic materials were again second in frequency only to unidentified lithic scatters/workshops. A number of Plainview-like points were also recovered at a Kickapoo homestead site in the - vicinity of the Quapaw damsite. 4. Okfuskee County. Survey within the Okfuskee County Tributaries Watershed has recorded sites in the general vicinity of the Paden, Morse, Tuskegee, and possibly the Welty damsites . In addition the historic data includes reference to the fact that the towns of Weleetka, Boley, and Paden were established along the route of the abandoned Fort Smith and Western Alabama Railroad (Wallis 1979). Known historic sites include Honey Springs, an 1880 homestead; Fort Holmes, established in 1834 and possibly in service until the Civil War; and Edwards Trading Post, which also served from the 1830's until the Civil War. Included in the archeological sites are several prehistoric, limited occupation camps and lithic resource areas, Woodland Period burned rock mound sites, and a number of Late Historic homesteads. Two late 1800's-early 1900's Creek cemeteries are notable. One (OF-23) with sandstone vaulted graves, overlooks the Buckeye Creek flood plain in the general area of the Tuskegee damsite, approximately 4 miles from the Deep Fork. The other (OF-24) is a family cemetery found with a late 1800's Creek homestead. 5. Pottawatomie County. The results of survey in the Pott-Sem-Turkey Creek Watershed, which includes some of Seminole County, and in the Salt Creek Watershed follow the pattern of a few Late Archaic and Late Prehistoric materials along with many sites of unknown Prehistoric affiliation and Late Historic sites. The Wan Schuyver site in south Pottawatomie County is a Late Prehistoric campsite with a number of bison bone tools and clay figures and pipes dating to approximately A.D. 1100-1400. East and north of the Asher damsite and north of the Byng damsite, there is an area of early 1900's oil development. The location of the Jesse Chisholm Trading Post which was established in 1818 is reported to be approximately 2 miles east of Asher; and the Sacred Heart Mission site, shown on map No. 1484-500-9, lies approximately 10 miles from the Asher damsite. 6. Seminole County. The Roulston-Rogers Site, a burned rock mound dating to A.D. 640-680, which is listed (as noted above) on the NRHP and shown on map No. 1484-500-9, is located in southeast Seminole County on the Little River. Approximately 5 miles north of the Byng damsite there is a historic Indian cemetery believed to be either Creek or Seminole which has graves with suprastructures similar to those noted above in Lincoln County. Other sites in the county include Prehistoric lithic scatters and Late Historic homesteads. 7. Hughes County. In the survey of the Parker damsite (Hughes and Coal Counties) in 1972, 24 prehistoric sites were discovered representing the Late Paleolndian/Early Archaic through Late Archaic periods, though most materials fell in the Middle to Late Archaic. Three historic cemeteries were located including 2 with 20+ and 40+ graves. Another survey in the county has identified a number of sites of unknown Prehistoric age, several Late Historic sites, one Caddoan site, and materials identified as being from the "post-Archaic" period. Materials of Creek derivation are likely, though not specifically noted. 8. Pontotoc County. Survey in the Upper Clear Boggy and Sandy Creek Watersheds has located a number of sites of unknown Prehistoric affiliation, a few of Late Archaic age, possible Woodland materials, at least one Caddoan and one Early Mississippian site, as well as Late Historic sites. (In 1979, there were 78 known sites in the Ponto toc County portion of Sandy Creek.) In the general area of the Vanoss and Spring Creek damsites (west of Ada, Oklahoma), the Pickett-Switch Site, which was excavated during the 1930's, produced apparent late Woodland/early Plains Villager materials, including houses and burials. The George Site to the southeast of Ada also had a house and a burial, plus pottery, cache pits, and arrowpoints of Plains Villager derivation. Materials from the Choctaw and Chickasaw are probable; the towns of Center (near the Wanos's damsite) and Roff were established by the Chickasaw. A number of historic roads and trails apparently crossed the county or followed the Canadian River on its north side, though at this time none are known to cross potential damsites. III–4 In the Steedman damsite area, sites from the Late Archaic, Early Caddoan, and Late Historic have been located. 9. Coal County. The results of survey for Parker Reservoir in Hughes and Coal Counties are noted above. Survey in the Upper Muddy Boggy Creek area revealed relatively few sites in the area of Parker and Non damsites. A Late Archaic and Late Prehistoric site were noted in the general vicinity of the Non damsite, while those in the Parker damsite area include unknown Prehistoric, possibly Early Caddoan, and Late Historic materials. C. Conclusion - Problems and Needs As is so often the case, the known CR of the study area only hint at its use through time by various groups. Enough survey has been completed in the study area during the last 10 years to indicate the diversity of cultural material present, particularly in areas considered as potential water resource development sites. The need to locate/identify presently unknown sites and thoughtfully examine a cross section of these is great. Much has been lost to development, farming, and erosion caused by farming activities during the past 50 years • Future expansion will exacerbate the problem. The opportunity to identify important sites and document their use within the context of the East-Central Oklahoma Study exists. Doing so preserves the past by making it available to today's residents and visitors to the area • A staged program of CR investigations to realize the opportu- nity to identify prehistoric and historic sites would accompany any future Reclamation study or construction in the study area • III–5 CHAPTER IV — HUNTING, FISHING, RECREATION, AND TOURISM RESOURCES A. Introduction The 1982 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) divides the State into numbered planning regions that are the same as the economic development planning districts. Thus, the study area includes all of SCORP Planning Region 5 (COEDD) and two counties (Coal and Pontotoc) of SCORP Planning Region 4 (SODA). B. Inventory of Existing Recreation and Tourism Facilities There are numerous locally operated or private recreational resources within the east-central Oklahoma region. These include small city lakes and local parks; museums; and facilities for camping, fishing, swimming, and other water-related activities. These facilities are widely dispersed within the study area and provide opportunities mainly to a local market area. Some of these attractions and their locations are found in table IV-1. Table IV-1 Locally Owned and Operated Recreation and Tourism Facilities TCEast-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Name of Area Locations Numeric Locations (Community) (on map No. 1484-500–11) Holdenville City Lake Holdenville l Coalgate City Lake Coalgate 2 Coalgate City Park Coalgate 2 Coal County Historical and Coalgate 2 Mining Museum Sooner Lake Watchorn 3 Chandler City Lake Chandler 4 Tilghman Park Chandler 4 Lincoln County Historical Society Chandler 4 Museum of Pioneer History Dustin City Lake Dustin 5 Okemah Lake Okemah 6 Territory Town USA Okemah 6 Weleetka City Lake Weleetka 7 Wetumka Lake Wetumka 8 Lake Wewoka Wewoka 9 Seminole Nation Museum Wewoka 9 Sportsman Lake Seminole 10 Twin Lakes Shawnee 11 Museum of Special Interest Cars Shawnee 11 Pottawatomie County Historical Shawnee 11 Society Museum The Mabee-Gerrer Museum of Shawnee 11 St. Gregory's Abbey and College Foster Park Stroud 12 Stroud City Lake Stroud 12 Stroud Municipal Lake Stroud 12 U. S. Senator Robert S. Kerr's Ada 13 Log Cabin Birthplace Kallihoma Recreation Area Allen 14 Boomer Lake and Park Stillwater 15 Carl Blackwell Lake Stillwater 16 Cleveland City Lake Cleveland 17 East Levi Park Cleveland 18 Triangle Oil and Gas Cleveland 18 Historical Museum Pawnee City Lake Pawnee 19 Pawnee Bill Museum Pawnee 20 Lake Konawa Konawa 27 Cushing City Lake Cushing 28 National Wrestling Hall of Fame Stillwater 29 Meeker Lake Meeker 30 The only State or Federal recreation areas within the study area are those associated with Keystone Lake in Pawnee, Creek, and Tulsa Counties. These facilities are listed in table IV-2. There are three State-operated parks/recreation areas on Keystone Lake, only one of which is located in a study area county. The Keystone Public Hunting Area is operated by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) under license from the Corps. The Corps operates several water-related recreation areas and allows public hunting on Keystone Lake. The ODWC also operates a fish hatchery near Holdenville in Hughes County. IV-1 5th Stondard Porollel 4th Standard Porqllel 3rd Stondard Porqllel 2nd - Standard Porqllel lst Standard Parallel Bose Line ". º TO KAW RES- oke Car/ Backweſ/ o °oº Lake Lone Chimney º 2 O º s < | - º 96° A-E Y's Tower LA A. E. * º ºs º- - . - º o ~ > ~ -- - 36° - 2 9 º 28 S. –’ —— `s - - - oº. N L. I cºo L N e -º- SC޺ Chand/er Sºre Loke ºw 4Y -o-Chandler - o - Arcado º º Lake 46. ) ºpee Sºon/ey ( Oroper - --. Lake Shawnee lºes. —H º - ‘S, vº \- º “N ſº ºes. Thunderbºro * . . . ;P OTT A WA T O M | E O Lake - º Sportsman º We wok - 9 ("Lake - S. SWe woko / º º eelſ \ ſ > - s | Holdenville of 35° & EXPLANATION 3.24v. County Seot Lokes or Reservoirs Within the Study Area Lokes or Reservoirs N_^ Outside the Study Area º Local Facilities | P O N T O T ON, C ~. State Operated Federally Operated ! ; UAV/7′ED STA7 ES DEAAA'7/ME/v7 OF 7//E //V7 ER/OAP BUAPEAU/ OF AfECL 4MAT/OA/ ! EAST-CENTRAL OKLA/HOMA 5 5|3 E|3: A/ O K L A H O M A - Sº I c 3|E # .c 3| |: T |O O IO L–1 l l l I H SCALE OF MILES LOCATION MAP | 3O O O IO 2O l I SCALE OF KILOMETERS Li Lill WATER SUPPLY STUDY A’ECA’EAT/OW A/VD TOUR/SM RESOURCES Amar///o, 7 exas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500–// Table IV-2 State/Federal Recreation Areas and Facilities (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Name of Area Location Numeric Location (community) (on map No. 1484-500-11) Keystone Lake (Corps' parks) Cleveland 21 Appalachia Bay Park Cimarron Park Cowskin Bay Park North Cowskin Bay Park South Pawnee Cove Park North Pawnee Cove Park South Sandy Park Washington Irving Park North Washinton Irving Park South Keystone State Public Hunting Area Cleveland 22 Feyodi Creek Recreation Area Cleveland 23 Walnut Creek State Park 1/ Tulsa 1/ 24 Keystone State Park 1/ ſº- Tulsa I/ 25 Holdenville State Fish Hatchery Holdenville 26 1/ Outside nine-county study area. C. Fishing and Hunting Supply and Needs The public use of fish and wildlife resources, either for consumptive use (hunting or fishing) or nonconsumptive use (nature study or photography) is essentially unaffected by drainage area bounda- ries or political subdivisions such as county lines. Supply, demand, and unmet needs are generally only valid on a more regional basis or as a statewide assessment. There are two basic sources of data which provide a means to identify fish and wildlife resource-use-related problems, needs, and opportunities within the study area. These are the SCORP and the National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation (1980) published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Bureau of the Census. The study area involves an area bounded by county lines and includes Payne, Pawnee, Lincoln, Pottawatomie, Okfuskee, Hughes, Seminole, Pontotoc, and Coal Counties. This area falls mostly within SCORP Planning Region 5 and partially within SCORP Planning Region 4 (see map No. 1484–500–33). The 1980 National Hunting and Fishing survey includes a statistical analysis of hunting and fishing use in various regions in the State . Counties within the study area fall within five of these Regions (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Since recreational use of the fish and wildlife resource is not county related, it is difficult to compile meaningful data directly applicable to the study area from this survey as well as demand/supply data from the SCORP. The relationship of the study area to these regions is displayed on map No. 1484-500–34. Table IV-3 presents data on hunting and fishing supply, demand, and needs extracted from the SCORP. Keystone Lake, partially within Pawnee County, provides the only State or Federal public use or hunting/fishing areas within SCORP Region 5. This region includes seven of the nine counties included in the study area. Region 4 has substantial State and Federal park and wildlife area acreage, but the majority is clustered in the vicinity of Lake Texoma and other Federal or State reservoirs to the south of the study area. The supply, demand, and needs data presented have a number of limitations. These include: 1. Only a relative assessment of scarcity or abundance of recreation resources on a regional level is possible. Local situations are not addressed. 2. Only public facility supply is included. 3. Fishing and hunting estimates are based on acreage requirements; stream fishing use is not addressed separately. 4. Participation and preferences were based on user surveys in 1981 which may have changed. IV-2 | — T-J ---—--—r- ** -------- K A N s A s ----- ----- --—r--- | |-- ----------------------------T-I-T-Y - CIMARRon - \ - KAY j = wata cRAIG |ottawa O - | T Exas BEAVER | Harpes ſº woods GRANT . ~ | 8 |No | - ! : - - - - ALFALFA - , ºr " - -- - J | | | i \ * | C. os AGE # |--—1– r - ----- -- - - --—---— | H - – -— ------ 3 i—- -- - | Tri------—--—--—--—--- T --—— 2 ; F – ; T Exas : woodward NJT — GARFIELD F- ſº i waves | | Ellis | MAJOR | i ſº - - - —” — T-------------- _Musa T-I-2– - EXPLANATION | — - - | ! WAGone R Y CHEROKEE, º - DEWEY BLAINE - l : ^ - KING F is HER - - - - - - > / - - LOGAN CREEK -i-Fi. ~! “\ study AREA - |------ i | \, …— º —i- F : Roger wills' CUSTER - F- ––– - - - - - Lincoln lokwu-see ºuskogee -- ...) | l |-- canaoan or anows 5 | -----, sequoyah [] SCORP9 PLANNING - --- H-—- | -** – ºvskºe ſº | º REGION BOUNDARIES ſ __ ––– --- -—-- # ſº ſi – we intosh is f ~~~ -----E. o * * w --- 27--. - ! secºnaw WASHITA º TU’s ; | # | -- ~ lºsset. r- ; ºn - ºr " - - - - - - - - - CADDO - - --—- - _T Q- - 5 | : | Hughes __r-- | - tº sneer | | cracy * : * : PiT Tsburg Le Flore : : ; : T. Ç KIowa 1– | Latimes r - - y scorp-stars cowpºnsive 5 Sv. - -—- — - - | - ouTDoor RECREATION | : ‘l _ſſ º - | H - PLAN (1982) < TT - - - - - ---- - - : * Jackson ºl | cowanche H- ----L- coal ..] - - TN-- ſº L., series, ---..... Al- —i-—-- *- - -- . . . sterness TuuRRAY : L. : Push-ATAHA | : sº-º-, TILLMAN 5. cot Ton Tu-loanston | ATOx A - | or Ton r--—- - 'S-: , ; l CARTER -—--- “contain *- JEFFERson ~~~ choctaw - | * sº - º "S. : &ve | TExAs ~s J U/w/ 7TED S 747"Es deta4/77A/EA/7" OA rºyer //v7 ER/orº BL//ºº.4L/ or are claw,47/Ow AºA's 7–CEAV774 L OA L.A.//OMA WA7 EAP SUAALY S 7TUDY o o ro -O -o -O •o ti- $C-L-- or - L-3 AfELAT/OWS/H/P OF STUDY AREA To 10 0 to 20 yo -o -o SCOAEP PLAMAW/WG REG/OAVS ti-Ei-ti- scal-E of kiLow-ters Amari//o, Veras January, 1985 Map Wo /484 - 500–33 | —--—-- -- K A N s A s | - º a. " " --------------------------- -------------- * * —--—-- i - | \ - | - cºag lottawa 3. - | N. GRANT . KAY J | 5 Nowata - ! : : CIMARRon | TExAs BEAVER HARPER ſº woods ALFALFA | ,- | ? |- |-L > - - - - - sag E - -- - | | | \ i —-–-------> 2, O |# –––. H.--— - --—---— - - | > - * ------—1-- – -- --—--—--—--- | —, --—- — N- \- 3 : waves | TExAs - woodward | N-. GARFIELD | NOBLE - - - | -: - ! IDEL Aware." | F LLIS | - MAJOR i N-- — -—i-- : -----|--|--— Tulsa — - | - - - PAYNE wagonER ). CHEROKEE: - _EXPLANATION_ ,- DE we Y BLAINE : tº - - - l ADAIR - n / - Kingfishes OGAN T cREEK ` ~! - - - L - ----- - (~ > - – –––. | __- i —l--- - STUDY AREA - | - -1– ----------- Huncoln 4.jeruvist. Musko GEE r" " - \ T - ROGER “ custER l - º r— -EQUOYAH -— - CANADIAN - OKLA HOMA - º WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT | T--—-– + | . . ºf ſº REGIONS ) !--—-- T H L ; : - i. |--- we intos" - - --T-s—-- "3" - º, L.--— - ...] | seckhaw | **** - ‘. | ; a i ºf º - - - & - = ~ --—-- i – º ––-- * ‘. . . . […ſ... tº Ti...] : H- - | GRADY \ - - PIT Tseu RG | LE FLORE - -- greer Q KIowa 1– - |vatives - x | NATIONAL HUNTING, FISHING, ond ! 3 ‘L Sv. F----- — | H - - - - _ſ - ---- - wil-DLIFE RECREATION SURVEY, | & H- \. Pi— --- — | - u.S. Fish and wil-DLIFE SERVICE, 1980 ; : ackson Tº co"Anche ſº —--- | ---- *N. f --- ... r stEPHEN's Tudºra, - ſ rusºwatan, *- _-- - ATOx A - sº-º-, TILLMAN T | ----|Johnston - - corton ---- c.A.RTER —l —- -- curtal:M N--ve - -- --- * ~, y-- JEFFERson 2_ _MART ^-- choctaw - - sºlº Bryan ºxº - ex TExAs way/7 Ed S 747 ES ofaaaraweavr of rºe /w/ ER/05 60/A'eau of RECL 4 M47/0M & AS7–CE//7/74L OAL 4//04/4 WATER SUAALY STUOY to o to -o wo -o 50 tº-ci-ci- RELATIONSHIP OF STUDY AREA T0 -O O to -o wo -o -o WLDLIFE MANAGEMENT REGIONS tº-E-E- - 35 -c--- or x--o-º-T--> Amari//o, "ße Wo. 14.54 -zoº”, /9 sc-L- or - Lt.- Table IV-3 Hunting and Fishing Supply, Demand, and Needs 1/ SCORP Regions 4 and 5 (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Fishing Hunting State Region 4 Region 5 State Region 4 Region 5 Supply Number of sites with activity 93 6 12 39 * 2 7 Total number of sites inventoried 920 85 61 920 85 61 Percent of sites with activity 10. 1 7.0 19.6 4.2 2.3 11.4 Number of acres 505,067 93,835 29,307 537,445 73,241 32,085 Demand To tal number of households participating 663,392 77,539 43,503 277,946 23,014 23,339 Participation rate 43 45 56 21 23 28 Activity occasions 28,412,439 3,465,059 2,418,793 5,972,628 532,656 659,122 Need - Activity occasions 28,412,439 3,465,059 2,418,793 5,972,628 532,656 659,122 Number of acres 505,067 93,835 29,307 537,445 73,241 32,085 Required acres 2/ 378,832 46,200 32,250 853,232 76,093 94, 160 Relative adequacy 3/ 10 5 9 3 Net acres needed +126,235 +47,635 –2,943 –315,787 –2,852 –62,075 1/ Source: SCORP 1982. 2/ Based on 7 activity occasions per acre per year for hunting and 75 activity occasions per acre per year for fishing. 3/ The need for hunting and fishing acreage as compared to the other planning regions. The lower T the number, the highest ranking of need among 11 SCORP regions. With these limitations, the SCORP projects a net need within Region 5 of 2,943 additional surface water acres for public fishing and 62,075 additional acres for public hunting. Region 4 has no net need for additional surface water fishing (primarily due to the influence of Lake Texoma) with a small net need for additional public hunting acreage (2,852 acres). The participation rate (demand) is higher for both hunting and fishing in these regions than for the State as a whole. Table IV-4 presents statistical data extracted from the National Hunting and Fishing Survey. These data are again limited in usefulness for the study area due to regional overlapping and small samples used. The survey was conducted in 1981 and is based on participation by a selected sample of households in hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-oriented recreational areas during 1980. In Oklahoma, 2,260 households were screened and 600 sportsmen were interviewed in person. Sample sizes were designed to provide statistically reliable use data at the State level for fishing and hunting . Using Regions 4 and 5 as the most representative of fishing and hunting use in the study area, it can be seen that 26 to 30 percent of all resident hunting and fishing in the State occurs within the counties of these regions. About 10 to 13 percent of the nonresident hunting and fishing for the whole State occurred in these two regions. The dominant hunting activity in these two regions is small game. The 1980 survey extrapolated total participant resident hunters in the State at 315,800 compared with 280,253 in the 1982 SCORP. Total resident fishing participants were extrapolated to 769, 100 as compared to 583,572 in the SCORP. The SCORP data includes only use of public facilities. Certain data presented in the 1980 Hunting and Fishing Survey are not directly attributable to the study area since they were compiled only on a statewide basis. However, statewide data do provide some insight to the importance of consumptive hunting and fishing and use of public lands and waters. The average daily expenditure for a participant hunting in Oklahoma in 1980 was $26, of which about $7 was travel related. For fishermen, the average daily expenditure was $19, of which $7 was travel related. According to the survey, total expenditures for in-state activities were $359,417,300 for fishing and $165,330,700 for hunting in 1980. IV-3 Type of Sport State Residents All fishermen All hunters Big game Small game Migratory birds Other hunting Nonresidents All fishermen All hunters Big game Small game Migratory birds Other hunting Source: Table IV-4 Fishing and Hunting by State Wildlife Management Region - Population 16 years and older (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Study Area Counties Within Region Region 1 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 State Total (Coal) (Pawnee) (Okfuskee, Seminole, and Hughes) (Lincoln, Pottawatomie, and Payne) (Pontotoc) Participants Days Trips. Participants Days Trips Participants Days. Trips Participants Days. Trips Participants Days. Trips Participants Days Trips (all numbers in hundreds) 7,691 171,220 155,433 839 11,789 9,288 3,102 57,691 55,285 1,204 16,666 14,426 944 12,787 13,316 379 2,480 1,523 3, 158 60,826 60,542 610 7,534 6,531 889 14,418 13,993 415 7, 138 7,085 476 4,049 4, 125 127 k 700k 615 1,657 11,410 9,558 406 1,900 1,102 414 2,909 2,707 21.6% 1,803% 1,700% ſ 65 141 141 28 48 28 2,657 37,460 37,954 400 3,829 3,645 664 6,913 6,505 346 5,269 5,259 441 3,654 3,640 70 542 477 879 7,452 7,333 69 965 965 2O7% 2,246%. 2, 24.6% 28 97 97 T 14.0% 34.4% 3.30% 29 104 104 509 5,666 5,697 77 891 820 147 k 2,535* 2,535% 24 29 29 15 15 15 6 6 6 2,403 18,682 14,411 34.2% 3,546%. 2,688% 197% 1,427% 98.1% | 97 244 128 f 22.9% 1,142* 1,185* 399 3,264 3, 172 406 3,485 3,752 52 390 261 63 984 973 O O O 39 155 220 17 101 50 88 291 118 13 73 13 6 17 6 O O O O O O O O O 307% 2,945* 2,050% 39 317 129 44 839 839 O O O 39 487 96 O O O 49 452 419 O O O 13 128 128 O O O 6 124 124 17 67 34 83 1,512 1,166 30 149 119 O O O O O 0 O O O 17 34 17 º: Sample size less than 25 but greater than 10. Ti Sample size less than 10. 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, Oklahoma. f Since there is only one major impoundment bordering the study area and only a limited number of small public lakes, much of the fishing activity is restricted to the larger streams and farm ponds on a widely dispersed basis. Within Oklahoma, about 36 percent of the fishermen utilized rivers and streams, 42 percent utilized small ponds or lakes (under 10 acres), and 73 percent utilized impound- ments (greater than 10 acres). Also, based on the statistical survey, 42.9 percent of all Oklahoma hunters utilized public land, primarily for deer, small game, and waterfowl. Within the study area, hunting and fishing activity is largely restricted to private lands since there are few public (State/Federal) areas available. D. Special Need for Additional Study Planning Activities Previous discussions in this chapter have referred to the fact that existing State and Federal recreational developments are clustered around Keystone Lake in the extreme northeast of the study area and Planning Region 5 as well as around Lake Texoma south of the study area in the southern portion of Planning Region 4. Further investigation of distribution of these facilities on a statewide basis again shows a fairly reasonable distribution of recreation facilities in most areas of the State; the most notable exception is the study area, especially when its sizeable population is considered. This situation can be readily seen in map No. 1484-500–35. The significance of what one sees on the map is that summary data for the State or the planning regions may reflect an ample supply of regional facilities for certain recreational activities, but there may be more localized needs which are not addressed. This fact is abundantly clear to a family residing in the middle of the study area when they have to travel 80 or more miles across several counties to use these facilities. All ongoing or future studies in this area should recognize, assess, and plan for hunting, fishing, recreation, and tourism facility needs on a localized basis as well as an overall regional basis. E. Regional Outdoor Recreation Facility Needs The SCORP Planning Region 5 (COEDD) includes all but the two most southerly study area counties. As shown previously on map No. 1484-500-33, nearly all of the State and Federal recreational facility developments are concentrated around Keystone Lake in the extreme northeast of the study area. Although Region 5 has less than 2 percent of the State's total parkland, it is relatively well developed in terms of regional analysis of recreation facility needs. The most significant facility needs in the region are for golf, baseball, picnicking, and hunting as shown in table IV-5. Table IV-5 Outdoor Recreation Facility Needs in Planning Region 5 (COEDD) 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Unit of |Facilities Facilities Facilities Relative Activity Measurement Required Existing Needed 2/ Adequacy 3/ Backpacking Trail miles 8 13 + 5 6 Baseball Diamonds 178 64 tº 114 3 Biking Trail miles 633 26 º 607 7 Canoeing Trail miles O O O 7 Fishing Water acres 32,250 29,307 – 2,943 5 Golfing Holes 466 54 º 412 3 Hiking Trail miles 6 13 + 7 9 Horseback riding Trail miles 370 12 gº 358 5 Hunting Acres 94, 160 32,085 – 62,075 3 Motor boating Water acres 2,265 29,285 + 27,020 7 Picnicking Picnic tables 1,568 321 - 1,247 3 Sailing Water acres O 29,285 + 29, 285 6 Softball Diamonds 53 47 tº- 6 11 Swimming Pools 198 18 º 180 6 Tennis Courts 124 117 tº- 7 8 Tent camping Sites 120 630 + 510 10 Vehicle camping Sites 142 155 + 13 5 Waterskiing Water acres 1,220 29,285 + 28,065 8 1/ Source: 1982 scorp. 2/ (-) Indicates level of need. (+) Indicates surplus level. 3/ As compared to other planning regions: (1) Indicates the highest level of need of all planning regions. (11) Indicates the lowest level of need of all planning regions. IV-5 !--- | " * - - - - ----- | CIMARRON | TEx as - | A --— -- - - - - T Exas EXPLANATION STUDY AREA OKLAHOMA TOURISM ond RECREATION DEPARTMENT OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT of W!LDLIFE CONSERVATION O A FEDERAL HOLDINGS K A N s A S -- ---- -----------------------------Hz. T s HARPER \ © GRANT | KAY *A 3 BEAver N woods - - º | ‘O *** C. OSAGE -- - ºf . Y H-------> * **** is ----- GARFIELD NOBLE . S- : *2 -A | Ellis MAJOR - – i. &; i = - T------ .------- º' TºI. |s – DE we Y º | - | : n / - - * lºng-sites: loss, T ~ : - cººr i. —ll- ` ----- ! s - | 1–-—-------- T :***** *** a custer is - *" – \ A. -- © e i -— H canadian **** | | cºuscº S * º :- —-- T - - - - : ; Fºlº Lº- - - ~~~ - - - : - -- - | Beckham was "TA | aſ —E. *...* g º | – - : • Jº..... Nº. - r- – sº- - - - - - GADDo - *a s | : ſººnesſ *.* |-- GREER º sºap .* ºr ºn . Fºse : ims s KIOWA - ------ *** NAN-J–1 * | # "L_ſ ( .. ſº -l GARV in cowroroc - : ; : | Jackson * - C CºmANCHE H---- n ----L- | * . – *N. # sº-º-, TILLMAN T º H - * - ‘s `, 25. ºr reason - ! º J - o o lo 2O *O 40 so tº- sca Lt of M. Lts 10 0 to 20 *o 40 -o ti-t-t-i- sca L.E or k l Low ETERs RECREATION AREAS (SCORP 1982) EXPLANATION STUDY AREA O STATE OPERATED RECREATION FACILITIES O FEDERAL OPERATED RECREATION FACILITIES RECREATION AREAS IN . . . st EPHENs Twº - Tw-lºohnston | - A _- – - T | Af Corton --—- c ARTER A O - A. #. # A. -----1- º ºr - c CU e fºr. Pl A. T A. O TExAs - Tº sile |N OKLA HOMA : SCORP REGION # 4 EXPLANATION O PAWNEE º - OKFUSKEE ----- STUDY AREA STATE OPERATED RECREATION FACILITIES FEDERAL OPERATED RECREATION FACILITIES RECREATION AREAS IN SCORP REGION # 5 UAW/7′ED S 747 eſs DEaarrºwe wr or 7-ye WAV7-e-A’ſo/º 80/854U OA are cº-AAwarzow E4S7-CE/V774. OA-LAA/OMA W47EAE SUAALY STUDY ABSEWCF OF RECREAT/ow DEVELOPMEWT //w Mosſ OF STUDY AREA (STATE WIDE & ALAMW/WG D/STR/CTS) Amari//o, Texas Wovember, /984 Drawing Wo. /484 - 500-35 The SCORP Planning Region 4 (SODA) comprises a 10-county area, of which only 2 are included in the study area (Ponto toc and Coal). Region 4 is considered the best developed area in the State in terms of satisfying total recreational needs, which is primarily due to recreational development in and around the Lake Texoma area. On a regional basis, increased canoeing, hiking, and recreational vehicle (RV) camping facilities are the only significant needs identified. Region 4 recreation facility needs are displayed in table IV-6. Table IV-6 Outdoor Recreation Facility Needs in Planning Region 4 (SODA) 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Unit of Facilities Facilities Facilities Relative Activity Measurement Required Existing Needed 2/ Adequacy 3/ Backpacking Trail miles 3 11 + 8 7 Baseball Diamonds 114 44 e-º 70 7 Biking Trail miles 481 2 § - ºn 479 11 Canoeing Trail miles 1 O tº 1 2 Fishing Water acres 46,200 93,835 + 47,635 10 Golfing Holes 118 37 tº 81 10 Hiking Trail miles 35 11 o 24 2 Horseback riding Trail miles 359 15 344 7 Hunting Acres 76,093 73,241 – 2,852 - 9 Motor boating Water acres 9,559 89,469 + 79,910 10 Picnicking Picnic tables 1, 182 1,945 + 763 10 Sailing Water acres 473 89,469 + 88,996 10 Softball Diamonds 62 52 gº 10 10 Swimming Pools - 171 17 § - 154 7 Tennis Courts 64 101 + 37 10 Tent camping Sites 592 698 + 106 8 Vehicle camping Sites 1,453 7.59 ſº tº e 694 2 Waterskiing Water acres 5,035 89,469 + 84,434 11 1/ Source: 1982 ScoRP. 2/ (-) Indicates level of need. (+) Indicates surplus level. 3/ As compared to other planning regions: (1) Indicates the highest level of need of all planning regions. (11) Indicates the lowest level of need of all planning regions. F. Problems, Needs, and Opportunities In summary, regional analyses of the study area indicate a range of priority needs for golfing, baseball, picnicking, hunting, canoeing, hiking, and RV camping facilities development. Nearly all of the nine-county study area has no easily accessible State or Federal recreation facility development. Ongoing investigations should recognize and address these regional recreational needs as well as localized needs which may be satisfied through multipurpose water resource development. Federal agencies presently control more than 50 percent of all public lands in Oklahoma, with about half of this acreage administered by the Corps in major water resource projects. Reclamation and U.S. Forest Service also provide substantial publicly owned acreage in Oklahoma. About 42 percent (over 307,000 acres) of the total lands managed by the ODWC Game Division was obtained through license of lands acquired for Federal water resource development projects. In addition, all six national wildlife refuges operated by the FWS in Oklahoma were obtained through multipurpose water resource development. The Federal Government, therefore, has had a major role in providing public outdoor recreation and lands for fish and wildlife purposes. Within the East-Central Oklahoma Study area, however, there is presently only one federally owned project providing public recreational opportunity such as fishing or hunting (Keystone Lake). The role of Federal water resource agencies is to (1) provide protection for environmental and recreational resources of identified national significance, (2) preserve outstanding natural areas, and (3) provide for outdoor recreation opportunity on existing or proposed Federal land and water resource projects. The State also has a role in environmental quality and provision of outdoor recreation opportunities. Responsibilities include acquiring, protecting, and developing the State's natural resources into a system of parks, forests, natural areas, wildlife management areas, reservoirs, landmarks, trails, and scenic rivers. To accomplish this, the State has a planning and coordination responsibility both upward through Federal activities and downward through local government and nongovernment activities to cooperatively achieve a coordinated development plan. IV-6 With ultimate development of both economic resources and supportive water resources within the east-central Oklahoma region, the roles of both Federal and State agencies should be one of avoid- ance or protection of sensitive environmental resources at the national and State level of signifi- cance and incorporating into development plans those provisions which will preserve, enhance, or create opportunities for public use of natural resources. The State of Oklahoma, and in particular southeast Oklahoma, has a good outdoor recreational resource base. The vast majority of the Federal and State recreational holdings within Oklahoma have been acquired as a direct result of past Water resource development and are clustered around impoundments. The State of Oklahoma has utilized the opportunities afforded by multiple-use development of water resources to obtain and manage numerous areas for public outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing. Federal agencies, particularly the Corps and Reclamation, have also provided recreational facilities, public hunting areas, and preserves in the form of refuges and natural areas on existing water resource projects. The study area is undeveloped in terms of major impoundments, with most existing water-oriented recreation resources located to the east, southeast, and south. However, major recreational areas available outside the east-central region are often underutilized. All of southeast Oklahoma is within tourism range of the major market areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. Therefore, additional facility development within the east-central resource area may serve primarily to transfer existing use to new lakes without any significant overall increase use and economic benefits to the larger region. However, additional water resource development within the study area would serve to increase the local recreational resource base. New reservoirs also offer an opportunity for optimum natural resource preservation and recreational development not usually possible on older existing reservoirs. In conjunction with any proposed water resource development, opportunities exist to preserve or enhance wildlife habitat through land acquisition of areas needed for project operation, mitigation land, recreation areas, or environmental quality features. While these lands are small and restricted to the vicinity of the projects, they can provide publicly accessible fishing and hunting areas to satisfy needs identified in the SCORP. There is an identified need for additional water acreage for public fishing in this area, which is relatively unique among SCORP recreation regions. IV-7 CHAPTER V - ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 1/ A. Vegetational Resources The game-type habitat map prepared by Duck and Fletcher (1943) divides the vegetation of the State of Oklahoma into 14 major historical associations. However, within the study area, three major types occur. These are the post oak-blackjack oak forest, the tallgrass prairie, and the bottom land (flood plain) forest. The eastern oak-hickory forest barely extends into the extreme eastern portions of Okfuskee and Hughes Counties. 1. Post oak-blackjack oak forest. This association is by far the most extensive type within the east-central resource region as well as the type covering the most land area within the State. It is an upland forest type, occurring in a drier climatic zone than the eastern woodland deciduous forests to the east (such as the oak-hickory and oak-pine forests). The number of woody forest species is greatly reduced due primarily to the less favorable moisture conditions. Dominant tree species are post oak, blackjack oak, and black hickory. Persimmon and various hackberries are also C ODIn OI) e. Frequent small tree and understory plants include chittamwood, Mexican plum, dogwood, Southern blackhaw, and coral berry. Herbaceous plants within the upland forest is not notably diverse. Much of the original upland forest has been cleared in small tracts or blocks for agri- cultural use (primarily for grazing). This type presently has limited commercial forest value but has relatively high value as wildlife habitat, particularly when associated with agricultural fields or bottom land hardwood forests • Most of the forested area is privately owned and in small tracts. 2. Tallgrass prairie. Within the east-central resource region, almost all the upland area not forested with the post oak-blackjack oak association was once tallgrass prairie. While the tall- grass prairie becomes the dominant vegetation association immediately to the north and west of the study area counties, within the east-central region it is historically restricted to several large blocks where soil conditions were more favorable to grassland development than forest. It is also the vegetation type found in clearings and savannah situations throughout the upland forest areas. Dominant native grasses in the association are big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, and switchgrass. Characteristic shrubs include lead plant, dwarf chinquapin oak, and Chickasaw plum. Many herbaceous species are present, particularly on disturbed areas. Due to favorable soil charac- teristics, most of the tallgrass prairie has been converted to agricultural use within the study a Tea • 3. Bottom land (flood plain) forest. This vegetation association is highly variable in species composition and areal extent throughout the State. Major rivers trend east-west or northwest- southeast within Oklahoma, causing this association to be found crossing many of the other vegeta- tional types (which broadly occur in north-south bands due to the reduction in precipitation from east to west). Within the study area, the bottom land association occurs principally along the flood plains of the Canadian and North Canadian Rivers, Cimarron River, Deep Fork River, Clear Boggy Creek, Muddy Boggy Creek, and larger tributary streams. While the areal extent of this vegetation type is small in comparison to other associations, it is important for several reasons. The combi- nation of alluvial soils and high moisture regime along the flood plains allows eastern woodland species to populate these corridor areas much farther to the west than they normally would occur. This provides a mixing and extension of eastern woodland habitats into the western prairie regions, which creates a diversity of plant species and associated wildlife. The bottom land types are essential corridors for the movement of many austroriparian (eastern) species into the more western areas of the State. Black willow, cottonwood, western soapberry, American elm, and ash dominate in the western areas of the region, with gradation to more eastern bottom land species such as various oaks, sycamore, and pecan-walnut-hickory in the eastern counties of the study area. Where protec- tion from flooding occurs, much of the bottom land wooded area within the region has been partially or completely cleared for agricultural use and hardwood timber. Along tributary streams which have no well-developed flood plain or in regrowth areas of former bottom land forest, a subtype of the bottom land forest occurs. This growth has been termed riparian, which denotes habitat along streams and transitional to either the bottom land forest, upland areas, or both . Since the riparian vegetation blends with other habitats, it provides habitat diversity and supports a wide variety of both plant and animal species (USDI 1984). Within the bottom land vegetative association are also found wetland types of the Riverine and Palustrine systems. The bottom land wooded areas fall primarily within the Palustrine deciduous forested wetland class, with scrub-shrub wetlands and emergent wetlands also present (Cowardin et al. 1979). Bottom land wooded/wetland areas of large size are known to exist along the Deep Fork and North Canadian Rivers in Okfuskee County • B. Fish and Wildlife Resources The eastern deciduous forests of the United States reach their westernmost limits in central Oklahoma. Similarly, the western grassland and prairies meet their easternmost limits here also. Consequently, a large number of wildlife species occur within the study area representing both the eastern and western states' animal assemblages • However, due to the fact that these species are on the edge of their suitable range, populations may not be great. 1/ For references, see section at end of report • 1. Mammals. Several species of bats, the eastern mole, armadillo, Opossum, several shrews, numerous rodents, and several species of skunks and rabbits represent the small mammal assemblage in the study area. Larger mammals include the whitetail deer, raccoon, bobcat, gray fox, and beaver in woodland areas and along streams and the coyote and badger in prairie areas. Principal game mammals are the whitetail deer, fox squirrel, and cottontail rabbit. The eastern chipmunk and eastern wood rat reach their western limit in the area and the kangaroo rat, grasshopper mouse, and jackrabbit near their eastern limits. 2. Birds. Bird species commonly associated with the post oak-blackjack oak-tallgrass prairie vegetative associations are the turkey vulture, broad-winged hawk, barred owl, hairy woodpecker, eastern wood pewee, tufted titmouse and Carolina chickadee on woodland areas; and red-tailed hawk, killdeer, mourning dove, flicker, scissor-tailed flycatcher, eastern kingbird, eastern meadowlark, dickcissal, and lark sparrow on prairie or savannah habitats. Resident upland game birds include bobwhite quail and wild turkey. Migratory birds include many species of ducks, geese, and shore- birds utilizing the Central Flyway and the mourning dove. Many of these species are classified as migratory game. Again, many species of birds are on the edge of their eastern or western range limits in the central Oklahoma region. 3. Reptiles and amphibians. The reptiles and amphibians of east-central Oklahoma represent another interface between eastern and western forms. The majority of amphibians, and many reptilian species, are limited to areas near water (ponds, rivers, streams, or lowland areas). Representative reptiles include the snapping turtle, red-eared turtle, yellow and Mississippi mud turtle, three- toed and ornate box turtle, six-lined racerunner, eastern-collared lizard, several species of skinks and fence lizards, eastern yellow-bellied racer, rat snakes, hognose snake, and several species of kingsnakes, coach whips, garter snakes, and water snakes. Poisonous snakes found in east-central Oklahoma include the copperhead, cottonmouth, and several species of rattlesnakes • Spadefoot toads, Rocky Mountain toad, Upland and Strecker's chorus frogs, Great Plains toad, bullfrog, leopard frog, and several species of salamanders are representative amphibians. 4. Fish. The study area includes drainage areas of both major river systems found in Oklahoma, the Arkansas and Red Rivers. From a fisheries viewpoint, the nine-county area is unique in Oklahoma in that the area is almost devoid of major impoundments. Manmade reservoir development in Oklahoma has had a profound influence on fish distribution and abundance. However, within the study area, there are no impoundments on the major streams and only a few small impoundments (generally less that 1,000 acres) on tributary streams. Keystone Lake on the Arkansas River bordering Pawnee County, is the only major impoundment and is only partially within the study area. Therefore, the fish species present and population status are more dependent on the natural fluctuations and perma- nency of flow within the river systems, quality of water, and exotic introductions. Common river species include gizzard shad, fathead minnow, sand shiner, red shiner, river carpsucker, bullhead and channel catfish, green sunfish, and bluegill. Species occurring primarily in lakes and ponds, but also occurring in rivers in the region, include the largemouth bass, white crappie, warmouth, carp, buffalo, freshwater drum, and white bass. Some, but not all of the riverine species previously listed, also do well in impoundments. C. Threatened or Endangered (T or E) Species There are no federally listed T or E mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or fish with a known range in the nine counties of the East-Central Oklahoma Study area. There are three migratory (or wandering) bird species which possibly could be found in the study area at certain times of the year. The whooping crane migrates through Oklahoma in spring and fall, and the study area is on the eastern fringe of the migratory corridor. The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) has been recorded in southeast-central Oklahoma during winter migrations. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a winter resident in Oklahoma but is not commonly found in the study area. These two species are usually associated with major impoundments. Bald eagle concentrations occur annually at Keystone Lake and on the Arkansas River, with occasional sightings elsewhere in the study area. The interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) was proposed for listing as federally endangered on May 29, 1984. This species breeds irregularly and locally on sandbars, riverbeds, and barren shores of impoundments throughout Oklahoma. Oklahoma does not have an official State list of endangered species. An informal listing (Lewis et al. 1975) of State species of concern is used as a general guide for identifying sensitive species. However, this listing is strictly unofficial and species so listed do not have any formal State or Federal protection except through the wildlife laws of the State of Oklahoma or indirect Federal statutes. The ODWC administers to these species under its general mandate to manage all fish and wildlife resources of the State. Species recorded in this informal listing and possibly occurring within the study area are listed in table V-1. There are no federally listed T or E plants occurring in the study area or in Oklahoma. There are a number of candidate species under Federal review for potential listing. None of those species have any official status at this time, though they should be considered in planning activities to avoid potential future conflicts. A number of listings of plants which may be endangered or threatened have been compiled from 1975 to 1983 and used in reviews conducted by FWS. These include reports by the Smithsonian Institution (1975), Ayensu and DeFilipps (1978), and listings of species under review published in the Federal Registers of December 15, 1980, and November 28, 1983. Data on endangered plants in Oklahoma were published by Zanoni et al. 1979. Two species included on Federal review lists and on the latter reference list (Alnus maritima - seaside alder, and Vicia reverchonii – hairy podvetch) are noted from counties in the study area. Both of these species are no longer under review for Federal listing (Federal Register, December 15, 1980). Definitive range studies on other species of plants which are under review and may possibly occur with the study area have not been conducted . Common Name State Endangered 2/ Swamp rabbit River Otter Cougar Bald eagle Peregrine falcon Swallow-tailed kite Shovelnose sturgeon State Rare - 12/ Desert shrew Golden eagle Scarlet snake Pallid shiner River shiner State Rare - 2 2/ Ringtail Night snake Hurter's spadefoot Least darter Highfin carpsucker Status Undetermined 2/ Goldeye Least tern Table V-1 State Sensitive Wildlife Species 1/ fº East-Central Oklahoma (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Scientific Name Silvilagus aquaticus Lutra Canadensis Felis concolor Haliaeetus leucocephalus Falco peregrinus Elanoides forficatus Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Notiosorex crawfordi Aquila chrysaetus Cemophora coccinea Notropis amnis Notropis blennius Bassariscus astutus Hypsiglena ochrorhynca Scaphiopus hurteri Etheostoma microperca Carpiodes velifer Hiodon alosoides Sterna antillarum Remarks Game species with hunting season Extant in Le Flore County (unlikely to occur) Okfuskee County Historic Record Federally endangered Federally endangered Wooded areas (west to Woodward County) may no longer occur in State Eastern Oklahoma only Southwest of 11ne, Harper to Pushmataha County Small numbers in Central Oklahoma Seminole County Record Red River system west to Clear Boggy Creek, also in Arkansas system Arkansas and Red Rivers, major tributaries Ponto toc County Record Ponto toc County westward Eastern one-half of Oklahoma Spring-fed streams - Blue River and Eastern Arkansas drainage Larger streams, Arkansas and Red River drainages Impoundments, Arkansas and Red River drainage (west to Ft. Cobb Lake) Proposed federally endangered 17 Source: Rare and Endangered Vertebrates and Plants of Oklahoma, Lewis et al., 1975. 1 2/ Key to Categories: Endangered - Threatened with extinction in State. May be abundant elsewhere. Rare 1 - Not presently threatened with extinction but found in small popu- lations within the State. Rare 2 - May be abundant in certain areas but has restricted range within State . Status Undetermined - Suggested as rare or endangered but insufficient information to confirm status. D. Unique and Sensitive Environmental Areas The nine-county study area includes one State recreation area (Feyodi Creek, Keystone Lake) and one State wildlife management area (Keystone), both in Pawnee County. The ODWC operates a fish hatchery at Holdenville in Hughes County. The Corps also provides Federal recreation facilities and public hunting areas on Keystone Lake. The headwaters of the Blue River extend to near Roff in southern Ponto toc County. This river was identified in the Natural Rivers Inventory (Natural and Free-flowing Phase) compiled by the Heritage and Conservation Service, now a part of the National Park Service (USDI 1982). The Blue River has a total length of about 128 miles in Bryan, Johnston, and Pontotoc Counties with about 20 miles within the study area. - The inventory process was a first phase to identify river segments which remain relatively free flowing and undeveloped for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under section 2, Public Law 90–542. However, inclusion of rivers on the Phase 1 list does not mean that a11 or any of the rivers so identified would be ultimately included in the national system. The second phase of the inventory process remains uncompleted (study for actual listing potential). The Blue River was also studied for potential State listing as a scenic river under the State Scenic Rivers Act (82 O.S. Supp. 1979, section 1452) (OTRD 1982). However, at the present time, it has no official protected status under either State or Federal legislation. Additional nonpublic resources which are considered environmentally sensitive include wetlands, riparian and bottom land forests, remaining native prairie areas, and stream habitats. The more significant of these features and the above-described environmental areas are displayed on map No. 1484-500-18. These resources are important to fish and wildlife because they are usually highly productive, support a diversity of both plant and animal species, are limited in extent, and have been extensively modified through 1and use change and water resource development. The Oklahoma Natural Heritage Program has identified several tracts of post oak/blackjack oak forest, bottom land hardwoods, and native tallgrass prairie within the region which should be preserved. At least five tracts identified in the inventory process occur within the study area (one each in Pontotoc, Coal, Seminole, Lincoln, and Pawnee Counties). Exact locations of these tracts are available from the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department (OTRD). Nearly a 11 perennial and intermittent streams within the study area support some flood plain vegetative communities important to fish and wild- life. Wetland areas are provided a degree of protection through provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217) as they relate to water quality maintenance and the overall public interest. Wetland areas and bottom land hardwoods of considerable extent occur in over flow areas along the Deep Fork River in Lincoln and Okfuskee Counties. The FWS has identified these areas as environmentally important though there are many other smaller areas within the region which may be equally important locally (USDI 1984). Created wetlands occur along much of the Deep Shallow manmade impoundments along the Fork in eastern Lincoln County as a result of Deep Fork provide wetland-wildlife past agricultural development of the flood plain. habitat during nonflood stages. E. Problems and Needs The nine-county study area is almost totally rural in nature and notably lacking in presently identified unique, sensitive, or public environmental resources of national or regional signifi- cance. Noted environmental problems relate more to a trend of general wildlife habitat loss and water quality-streamflow regulation problems than to environmental resources given specific protec- tion by Federal or State law. There are no federally listed endangered or threatened species (except for migrants) and a limited number of existing publicly owned resources of an environmen— tally sensitive nature. However, the area lies on the fringes of the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas, is crossed by major interstate access routes (I-40 and I-44), and has great W–4 Wetlands º 96° lºcº/19 O | -- *E Y's Tower Lake Lone 5th - ––. Stondord º Porollel º t- - Nº || --- º º º | || 36° 4th Standord Porollel ºo- L\ | Nº CX O L N ~ o | \º - ºr \ ©. --- Chand/ --- *x, 7% er So/f /// - oº: --- cº *** o - Arcadio º Løke D Tº - - O -- O - º CO O. To Ac §§ s $º $ 2%- 3rd § S- §, s —- Stondard § Q) - Porqllel O K F 29.5 K Lake | Okemoh Cr. 42 Awaaß2. - O º Lake ºpe C4/V44 ſº cº, ſºye, º Sºon/ey fºre 3. = N Oroper - CŞ. Sºo co We/eefko Q § Lake Shawnee Show nee º -- «ſ So Lake ^, % wº Lake ººz - S. \– ‘’’ ^ | Tecumseh Aves. v Koz ſ= } Dustyn o dke Thunderbird - ?, ?P OTT A WA TO MLE C- Aish. Lake *s, Sportsman |Lake --- Cr. | 2nd 242 O º £8 Stondard We wok Cº-º O N Lake s ſo -" Porqllel swevokgº - *. - S E M | N O * ſ O --~ o Qo O tº. Holdenville S. º O Q H U G H E S & //o/a/envºſ/e º Lake | 35° A onowo O EXPLANATION o Nº. O County Seat |st - I Ø <> St Lakes of Reservoirs & sº sº * Wºn the sºles & •º - C. Lokes or Reservoirs N_/ - sº Outside the Study Area º-s, Cº 9 --- --- Public/Institutional features | ( P O N T O T O 1. Keystone WMA (ODWC) 2. Free-flowing Inventory Stream (NPS) 3. Holdenville Hatchery (ODWC) --- Technical/lnstitutional features I 4foka Bose l A’es. Line Bottomland Hordwood Tracts Ine - source National wetly § Inventory (FWS) c 1 -- E|3: A/ O K L A H O M A - Gº || c #|É 35 |O O |O 1–1–1–1– I - I I SCALE OF MILES LOCATION MAP 2O 3O |O O p L1-1-1-1+1-1+1-1 I SCALE OF KILOMETERS ; U/V/7′ED S 747 ES O EAAA'74/E/v7 OA 7//E //V7 ER/OA’ EU/A’E4U O/º APECL 4 MA 7/OW EAST-CEM7TWAL OKLA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY &WV/ROMMENTAL QUAL/TY FEATURES Amar///o, Texas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500–/8 potential for future economic development. Land use changes, due to agricultural, mineral, or industrial development, have modified much of the presettlement wildlife habitat within the region. Surface water pollution from oilfield brine disposal and urban effluent has affected and will probably continue to affect the species assemblages and productivity of area streams. Potential water resource development may cause additional losses of important fish and wildlife habitats but also may provide the means for preservation or restoration of modified habitat through multiple resource development and management. Opportunities for conservation of endangered/threatened species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act may also be realized with Federal water resource development within the study area. Bald eagles concentrate during winter around major rivers and large impoundments. They are particularly attracted to areas where large rough fish populations or waterfowl occur. Water resource development may provide additional overwintering roost areas for this species in associa- tion with new impoundments. The interior least tern (proposed endangered) utilizes barren shore- lines of major impoundments and also sandbars in major rivers. Water resource development may provide opportunities to develop additional nesting colony habitat for this species through reser- voir development or river regulation to maintain barrem sandbar habitat. Creation or maintenance and protection of wetland areas in association with the major rivers or any proposed new impound- ments may also provide additional means of conservation to the whooping crane population, which utilizes the study area in isolated instances. F. Environmental Impact Considerations \ Site-specific environmental studies must be conducted for any new proposed water resource develop- ment within the east-central resource area. Until studies are conducted (along with engineering and economic feasibility studies), environmental concerns, impacts, and opportunities can be addressed only at the generic level. Construction of any proposed new reservoirs will result in losses of terrestrial wildlife and stream fishery habitats. As a partial tradeoff, lake aquatic habitat will be gained. Changes in streamflow regulation and development of water supply yield will affect downstream aquatic resources and have potential to affect the quality and quantity of downstream wetlands, bottom land hardwoods, and riparian habitats due to changes in flooding patterns or induced land use changes. The latter indirect impacts may be either adverse or beneficial, depending on the quality of the existing resources and the operational features incorporated into reservoir regulation plans. The signifi- cance of the losses and the potential to offset the losses through habitat mitigation depends on the quantity and quality of the resource lost, its value to fish and wildlife, and its scarcity or replaceability. Site-specific impacts on uniquely productive wetland areas, bottom land or riparian habitats, native prairie, or valuable stream reaches cannot be fully determined without specific studies in proposed reservoir sites. None of the potential damsites identified for possible future water resource development in the east-central Oklahoma region would affect any rivers included in either State or Federal wild and scenic rivers inventories • None of the potential damsites identified would be located in the vici- nity of any existing State or Federally operated parks, recreation areas, wildlife management areas, refuges, or other presently recognized sensitive publicly owned resources. Endangered species of possible occurrence along the streams of the study area include the bald eagle and whooping crane, neither year-round residents. The interior least term, a species proposed for endangered status, is also possible in the study area. No Federally listed, T or E plant species occur in the region nor are any species presently under review for listing known to occur in the counties of the study area. No specific range studies have been conducted to determine the probability of occurrence in the study area of any species under review. General terrestrial habitat which would be inundated by any new reservoir project in the east-central region would include bottom land hardwood and riparian, upland post oak-blackjack oak woodland, and pasture-cropland. Of these types, the most significant to wildlife resources within the region is the bottom land hardwood/riparian due to diversity of plant and animal species and general scarcity. Two large tracts of bottom land hardwoods have been tentatively identified within the study area by FWS (Brabander and Masters 1984) as part of a survey of remaining significant tracts in Oklahoma. One of these is along the North Canadian River in Okfuskee County in the vicinity of the Hickory Ridge damsite. The other tract is along the Deep Fork River, also in Okfuskee County. Damsites possibly affecting the latter tract include Tuskegee, Welty, and Nuyaka . All of the potential multipurpose reservoirs would affect smaller tracts of bottom land hardwoods or riparian/wetland ecosystems of local importance to wildlife. New impoundments within the region would provide additional surface water fishery acreage for adaptable native species and for introduced game species. The SCORP shows a need for additonal sur- face water fishing acreage wibin the COEDD region. The development of either a Federal or State multipurpose reservoir would also provide public land and access to lake and stream areas (i.e., tail water, downstream or upstream corridors) • Public lands adjacent to a new reservoir could be utilized for park facilities or game management/public hunting purposes to meet needs identified in the SCORP. The extent to which fishing and hunting needs would be met by an individual project and to which associated benefits would accrue is dependent on the lands and supporting facilities which may be incorporated in a multipurpose plan; agreements with local sponsors, the ODWC and OTRD; and the quality (from a recreational/fish and wildlife perspective) of the resources which can be placed in public ownership. Early and continuing coordination with all Federal, State, or local agencies having an interest in multipurpose water resource planning by either law or expertise can result in optimum benefits being realized for a given reservoir site. 5th Stondord Porollel 4th Standord Porollel 3rd Stondord Porollel 2nd Stondord Porollel |st Standard Porql ſel Bose Line 97 – 7 º -- º wº Ranch Anº º Cſ. C/eve/and APes º Arcad/a Løke ) *4 pe Shawnee Thunderbºrg Lake EXPLANATION Go County Seot Lokes or Reservoirs Within the Study Ared Lokes or Reservoirs Outside the Study Area : i --- Chand/er Sºe Loke /// - handler A. - -- Q º, \e. . cº - L | N º \º e- SC Site 4M °22, 0. L N \ º º o %cº Q º | Stroud º Lake I P OTT A WAT O M | E Show nee ſecumseh hºes. A onowo Sportsman We wokb Lake - - We wok q_/ M | N O LTETT 3. 96° A. E. YSTO/WE LA A. E. º Holdenville º \ wº CŞ - & º - º § > - § ºf O 4foka A’es. O K L A H O M A LOCATION MAP *| 5 § 5 ~ 1.- - I - ‘5 | E 3| E CD 1 – ~ || - - I do -> —L vo I- 5|: | O O IO |-|--|--|- - I I SCALE OF MILES |O O p 2O 3O Li . . . ] l SCALE OF KILOMETERS ! ; U/V/7′ED STA7 ES DEAAAP7TME/v7" OA 7THE //V7 EA’/OA’ BU/A’EAU/ OF AfECL 4 AMA 7/OAV EAST-CEM7TRAL OKLA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY STUDY AA’EA MAA’ Amari//o, Texas Map Wo. /484–500–25 January, /985 36° 35° CHAPTER VI – MINERAL RESOURCES A. Introduction Most of the material for this chapter has been abstracted from chapter 5 of Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. The project area has significant mineral resources. Most important of the minerals currently being extracted are petroleum and natural gas. Significant tonnages of nonmetallic industrial minerals are also being mined. Methane gas contained in coal beds and fly ash from coal-fired powerplants offer possible potential for future development. Metallic minerals occur in various locations, but their commercial potential has not been adequately investigated . Mineral production plays a significant role in the economy of the study area. In 1975 approximately $209,976,000 worth of minerals was extracted. This amount was approximately 9.3 percent of the entire State's production, and it equates with the study area having 9.2 percent of the State's land a Céa • The economic benefits from mineral production are not uniformly distributed within the study area as shown in table VI-1. All of the westerly counties, especially in the southwest, show the greatest production value, while the three most easterly counties tend to produce very little. Table WI-1 1/ Value of Study Area Mineral Production by County, 1975 - (East-Central Oklahoma Water SUPETy Study, January T355) County Value Minerals Produced in Order of Value ($1,000) Coal 4,948 Petroleum, natural gas, and stone Hughes 9,383 Petroleum, natural gas, and sand and gravel Lincoln 19, 142 Petroleum, natural gas, and natural gas liquids Okfuskee 8,649 Petroleum, natural gas, and natural gas liquids Pawnee 10,314 Petroleum, stone, natural gas, and sand and gravel Payne 20,532 Petroleum, stone, natural gas, and sand and gravel Ponto to c 62,786 Petroleum, cement, stone, sand and gravel, natural gas, clays, and natural gas liquids Pottawatomie 22,333 Petroleum, sand and gravel, and natural gas Seminole 51,889 Petroleum, natural gas liquids, stone, natural gas, sand and gravel, and clays Study Area Total 209,976 State Total 2,267,095 17 Source: Dikeman, Earley, and others (1980), Table 10.01, as published in Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. B. Petroleum and Natural Gas The actual amounts of petroleum and natural gas in the region are not known. Resources, defined as amounts present, are probably huge. Reserves, the amounts which can actually be recovered economi- cally, are certainly much smaller. The recent historical ratio between State-proved reserves of petroleum and production is about 8:1 (but slowly declining) and the ratio for natural gas is about 6:1 (also declining until 1980), thus it is likely that sufficient petroleum and natural gas reserves exist in the study area for at least 10 and perhaps 20 years at present or slowly declining rates of production. In addition to the standard deposits of petroleum and gas, the study area also contains resources of natural asphalt deposits in Ponto toc County. Asphalt was mined until about 1960, but today's asphalt is supplied more economically from petroleum refining. It is likely that this resource will be mined in the future when dwindling petroleum reserves again make it cost competitive. WI-1 º Natural gas production is a major contributor This petroleum storage complex north to the study area economy as symbolized by of Cushing, Oklahoma, illustrates this compressor plant. petroleum production of the region. Oklahoma has long been one of the major petroleum and natural gas producing states in the Nation. In 1979 it was fifth in petroleum and third in natural gas. The study area contributes unevenly to the State's production. Locations of study area oil and gas fields are shown on map No. 1484–500–13. In 1981 the area produced 21, 552,394 barrels (bbl) of petroleum, representing about 14:22 percent of the State's total. Natural gas production was 56,978,975 thousands of cubic feet (Młft’) or about 2.8 percent of the State's total. Table VI-2 shows that study area production increased in 1981 over 1980 by 13 percent for petroleum and by nearly 19 percent with natural gas. Analysis of table VI-2 reveals that Pontotoc, Seminole, and Pottawatomie Counties are the leading petroleum producers; Coal, Okfuskee, and Hughes Counties produce the smallest amounts. Natural gas production is somewhat the reverse. Hughes and Lincoln Counties are the 1eaders, Coal dropped significantly, and Pawnee showed an astronomical 517 percent surge in production. Table WI-2 1/ Production of Petroleum and Natural Gas by County, 1980 and 1981 - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year County Petroleum Natural Gas (bbl.) (Mift”) 1981 Coal 241,094 8,608,013 1980 Coal 215,012 12,991,439 1981 Hughes 1,078,218 12,490,839 1980 Hughes 779,483 11, 184,470 1981 Lincoln 1,914,491 10,269,985 1980 Lincoln 2,041,299 7,618,013 1981 Okfuskee 982,729 6, 114,667 1980 Okfuskee 795, 358 5,641,393 1981 Pawnee 1,336,670 8,084, 228 1980 Pawnee 1,067, 454 1,310,829 1981 Payne 2,536, 136 4,903,288 1980 Payne 1,993,951 4, 117, 176 1981 Ponto to C 5,560,819 1,387,560 1980 Ponto to C 5,554,874 1,246,740 1981 Pottawatomie 3,500, 248 2,501,976 1980 Pottawatomie 2,353,406 1,449, 510 1981 Seminole 4,371,989 2,618,419 1980 Seminole 4,222,978 2,436,806 1981 REGION TOTAL 21,522,394 56,978,975 1980 REGION TOTAL 19,023,815 47,996,376 17 Source: Rick Conner, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, as published in Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. WI–2 5th Stondard Porollel 4th Standard Porqllel 3rd Stondard Parqllel 2nd Stondord Porollel |st Standard Porqllel Bose Line | EXPLANATION G) County Seat [ ] Area of oil and /or gos production FITTSG D Giant oil field O Gas processing plant A Oil refinery Source : Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, April 1980 ... / | N---' |N -- | -º-º-º-º-º- I P A Y |N E ſº A - * - _o. C._ſ) estillwater | - \ S-, • , , , , , \/\, Nº. a - A ~ : º *** WATO Ultimate recovery of more than 100 million borrels) i <\ ~y O _- -- SEMNPLE | O” | º "Tº Holde LITTLE RIVER O K F U S O "e” - W k | No 9: T Q 96° -) f - - | N- I |-- K. E. E. T - _- — ºne-tº- nville * ſ slä - - E|3: A/ O K L A H O M A - Gº || c Go || - #|É #|É 3|: – al: §|: #|: U/V/7′ED S 747 ES T ſ DEAAA'7ME/V7 OA 7//E //V7 ER/OF |O |O 2O BUA’EAU/ OF Are CLAMA 7/OA/ |-1-1-1– H _l EAST-CEM7TA’AL OKLA/HOMA SCALE OF MILES WATER SUPPLY STUDY LOCATION MAP |O O p 2O 3O GEMERAL/ZED O/L AMD GAS RESOURCES ^. i- I J SCALE OF KILOMETERS Amar///o, 7 exas January, /985 36° 35° Map Wo. /484–500–/3 C. Coal Coal has been mined commercially in Oklahoma since 1872. Until 1915, all coal mining in the State was underground. By the 1940's, strip mining accounted for half of the production, and in 1980 no deep mines were active. In 1920 production in the State reached 4.85 million tons, an amount not exceeded until 1977. After 1930, coal production dropped sharply--first because of the depression and them because of replace- ment by natural gas for space heating and by diesel fuel for locomotives. Until 1970, coal produc- tion remained between 1.5 and 3.5 million tons per year, but production has risen steadily since then as more coal has been used by utilities • In 1980, mining totaled approximately 5.5 million tons, which makes Oklahoma the 20th-largest coal-producing State in the Nation. Although Coal and eastern Okfuskee contain significant amounts of coal (see map No. 1484-500-17 in section D, "Nonmetallic Industrial Minerals"), there are no production figures to indicate that either contrib- uted to the 1980 State totals. The coalbeds in the study area are known as the Arkoma Basin, which is in the southern part of the western region of the Interior Coal Province of the United States. There are at least eight major coalbeds in the general region. They range in thickness from 1 to 7 feet and are generally folded and frequently faulted. Dips in the beds range from 3 degrees to nearly vertical, and depths range from surface outcrops to over 3,000 feet. Due to this complex geometry, only about 3 percent of the region's resources are strippable • Not all of the coal resources can be mined. About 50 percent of the coal in deep mines must be left as roof supports and is lost in preparation, and about 20 percent is not recoverable even in strip mining. Only about 50 percent of the coal in deep mines and 80 percent of the coal in strip mines can actually be produced (in amounts known as recoverable reserves). Also, thin coal seams at great depth or badly faulted coal seams are uneconomical to mine. Federal safety regulations prohibit mining of coal under towns and a certain border around deep mines. Environmental regulations prohibit mining in fragile areas. Coal underlying land with multiple owners usually cannot be mined. The study area's net recoverable reserves, the amount of coal likely to be mineable in the near future after all of these factors are taken into account, total only 36.4 percent of the resource or 135,552,000 short tons as shown in table WI-3. This percentage is more favorable than the State's 28.8 percent. However, it should be noted that coal production will play a very limited role in the study area's economic development due to the fact that the study area contains only 6.1 percent of the State's net recoverable reserves, most of which are located in Coal County. Table WI-3 Summary of Remaining Bituminous Coal Resources and Net Recoverable Reserves by County as of January 1, 1979 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January T535) County Resources Recoverable Reserves Net Recoverable Reserves (Thousands of Short Tons) Coal 292,875 148,017 115,929 Okfuskee 79,351 41,390 19,623 Study Area Total 372,226 189,407 135,552 State Total 7,773,613 3,779,487 2,238,777 1/ Source: Friedman 1974, Tables 2, 59–72; Friedman and Hemish 1981, as published in Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. All of the coal in the study area is bituminous. It tends to be low and medium volatile and fairly low in sulfur, and it has a high Btu (British thermal unit) content. Though all of the coal can be burned by utilities and industries with proper equipment, the majority or about 66 percent of the net recoverable resources is best suited for coke manufacture. The nature of the region's coal and its location are barriers to its further development as a resource and as a replacement supply of energy for the study area as petroleum supplies dwindle and become more costly. It cannot be easily strip mined, and deep mines are 60 percent more costly than strip mines. Deep mining is particularly difficult because of high levels of methane gas, which is difficult to vent adequately to avoid explosions. Much of the coal is best suited as coking coal which is more expensive than normal steam coal; its demand has declined with the heavy industry that uses it. Lastly, these coal supplies are poorly located to be price competitive to supplies located near large demand centers. WI-3 D. Nonmetallic Industrial Minerals The study area has large amounts of nonmetallic industrial minerals as shown in map No. 1484-500-17. They include limestone, dolomite, sandstone, sand and gravel, clay and shale, and fly ash. The major limestone formation is associated with the Arbuckle Mountains, with significant amounts found in Pontotoc County. Smaller deposits occur in thinner beds in Seminole, Payne, and Pawnee Counties. The limestone is primarily suitable for crushing for cement, highway and concrete aggre- gate, and railroad ballast; but some can be quarried in large blocks and will take a high polish, making it desirable as dimension stone in building. - As illustrated, limestone mining is an important Cement production is a major use of industry in portions of the study area. limestone as illustrasted by this plant in Ada. Dolomite, which is a carbonate rock-like limestone but contains magnesium as well as calcium, is found in the Arbuckle Mountain area including Ponto toc County. Due to its high purity, dolomite is used for fluxing stone, glass manufacture, refractories, and magnesium metal. Other common uses include feed, soil conditioner, dolomitic lime for fertilizers, and dimension stone. Sandstone, a common rock type, occurs in all parts of the study area. In the study area, it is quarried as a concrete and highway aggregate. Sand and gravel, like sandstone, are extremely common throughout the study area, primarily in terraces along streams and rivers. They are used in making concrete and as railroad ballast. In addition, extensive deposits of very fine-grained high-silica sand, which actually is a loosely consolidated rock formation, are found in the Arbuckle Mountain area including Ponto toc County. These deposits are mined for glass manufacture. Clay and shale are used for manufacturing brick and tile. An additional clay resource which has received some study is underclay found below coal seams. Small amounts are used for making fire bricks and refactory material. They appear suitable for making high-quality pottery and ceramics. Fly ash is the very fine-grained waste material entrained in combustion gases when coal is burned. Very little of it is produced by burning Oklahoma bituminous coal which fuses and forms a coarse bottom ash, but large amounts are formed when subbituminous Wyoming coal is burned in the Oklahoma powerplants. Normally this ash, except for the smallest size particles which are trapped by electrostatic precipitators and baghouses, is simply placed in land fills. Recently, however, concern about the large amount of land required for disposal has generated interest among utilities to use it in fill, soil stabilizers, and cement. Tests show that it can be substituted for propor- tions up to 30 percent. However, questions have been raised about such cement being corrosive to metal reinforcing bars embedded in such concrete. Fly ash also has potential for recovery of metallic resources, which will be discussed under the next heading. Nonmetallic industrial minerals have been developed to a considerable degree in some of the study area counties such as Pontotoc, Seminole, Pawnee, and Payne as shown in table VI-4. However, Lincoln and Okfuskee Counties do not produce these minerals; Hughes County produces an insignificant amount. This limited production results in the study area producing only 8.0 percent of the State total. WI–4 5th Stondard Porollel 4th Standord Porqllel 3rd Stondard Pard IIel 2nd 9.79 TO KAw REs. | ea & S- | A w N E Yº | - } Po winee s_ſ 96° ^ F-- →– - | L | N C O L N | O Chandler I | | I | |- O K F U S K E A - - C | | & /- Okemdh ~~ - - Sºlº V Show nee \, A | | V V | !- ^, *AP OT TA W A T O M | E « | ^ | woko & | ^ Holdenville * ^ O ^a H U G H E S | 35° EXPLANATION ATN *~ Go County Seat E *, underſon by bºom - - I Areas underloin by bituminous coal or lignite Gloss Sond Principal outcrop ored 2 Limestone dnd Dolomite 2 Principal outcrop dred A Asphalt deposit O Brick, cloy, or pottery plont () Chemicol plant Dimension - stone quarry I Iron and / or titanium deposit M Manganese deposit A Sond and gravel pit U Uronium deposit V Volcanic - dish deposit - A Quarry º Source: Oklahomo Comprehensive c c - 6B Cement plant 3|E Water Plon, April 1980 C Copper deposit E|-> A/ O K L A H O M A QoI - a 5 #| 5 E| c E|3 3|É 3|E — vo I- 5|: rol - U/W/7′ED S 747 ES T DEAAA'7ME/v7 OF 7//E //V7 ER/OF 2O BUA’EAU/ OF Are CLAMA 7/OW Stondard Porqllel |st Standard Porqllel Bose ^- Line | O O |O | 1 l l l I I scALE of MiLES LOCATION MAP |O O p 2O Lill-il I SCALE OF KILOMETERS I EAST-CENTRAL OKLAHOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY 3O AVOMPETA’OLEUM M//VERAL APESOURCES Amar///o, Texas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–5OO–/7 Table VI-4 Tonnage of Nonmetallic Industrial Mineral Production by County, 1980 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Limestone/ Dolomite/ Sand/ Clay/ County Sandstone Granite Gravel Shale Total Coal 47,994 * > tº e tº- 47,994 Hughes e- tº 2,875 º 2,875 Lincoln tº º tº-e tºº tº- O Okfuskee gº tº-. tºº * - O Pawnee 318,379 Gº tºº º 318,379 Payne 179,659 tº e 115,690 tº e 295,349 Ponto to c 1,604,131 tº 372,455 6,326 1,982,912 Pottawatomie tº º tº-e 97,559 tºº 97,559 Seminole 673,473 tº 155,000 tº-e 828,473 Region Total 2,823,636 –0– 743,579 6,326 3,573,541 State Total 27,820,468 6,999 9,450,006 597,341 44,760,836 1/ Source: Qualls 1981, as published in Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. E. Metallic Resources The study area has no presently mined metals or known commercially mineable ore deposits under current economic conditions. There are, however, a number of occurrences of metals as seen in map No. 1484–500-17. Mining has occurred in the past. In Pawnee, Payne, Lincoln, Okfuskee, and Pottawatomie Counties, there are occurrences, old prospects, and mined-out small deposits of copper; there are also some uranium occurrences in sandstones of Permian age (see map No. 1484-500-16 in chapter IX). Coal County has manganese deposits. The Arbuckle Mountain region has a number of metal deposits; iron and uranium are found in Pontotoc County. The iron has been mined for use in special cements. One final metallic resource is fly ash. This material contains significant amounts of aluminum and iron as well as smaller amounts of strategic metals such as chromium, cobalt, and manganese. F. Problems and Needs Current forecasts indicate that the study area's presently known oil and gas reserves will become depleted within the next 10 to 20 years. Deep wells, isolated deposits, and additional secondary and tertiary recovery from old fields, heretofore too costly to undertake, will become cost feasible when depleting World supplies result in rising prices. These same high prices will also constrain output to a fraction of present production, which will be a disastrous blow to the study area's and State's economic vitality. A great deal of effort will be required to generate enough economic development to replace the earnings and tax base that will be lost to the study area. Neither study area county having coal deposits is presently producing any commercial tonnage. Given constraints of type of coal and location, the downturn in domestic steel production, and cost factors associated with antipollution equipment needed to burn this coal, there appears to be little economic incentive to reinstitute active coal mining in the two study area counties. Unless future technology provides less costly emission controls for power-generating plants or escalating energy prices make methane gas recovery or synthetic fuel production commercially feasible, there appears to be little hope for substantive development of coal production in the study area. With dwindling available supplies of petroleum and natural gas at much higher prices and serious questions about the region's coal being able to replace it at an economical price, the study area needs to concern itself with how it will replace its own energy needs at an affordable price. The one largely untapped energy resource in the study area (other than solar energy), which is in ample supply, is moving water which has the additional advantage of being a constantly renewable resource. A serious, comprehensive effort needs to be undertaken immediately to determine how hydroelectric power might be used to supply the study area with low-cost electric power as a replacement for fossil fuel energy • WI-5 ~~3+,2- ***** CHAPTER VII – LAND, AGRICULTURAL, AND FORESTRY RESOURCES A. Land Characteristics The study area has 4,075,582 acres of land area, which represents 9.3 percent of the State total. Soils in the study area developed under relatively humid conditions where leaching is intense. Generally, these soils are low in phosphorus, lack adequate potassium, and range from moderately to strongly acid. Soil associations occur together naturally in a defined proportional pattern on an unique type of 1andscape. These associations are comprised of several series whose characteristics, including climate, parent materials, and natural vegetation, are similar. The study area contains six major land resource areas based on the major soil associations. These areas are graphically displayed on map No. 1484–500–10, and the associated soils are briefly described in the following tabulation: Land Resource Areas 1/ 1. Cross Timbers – Light-colored sandy soils with reddish subsoils on various sandy materials developed under oak-hickory forests with prairie openings (savannah). 2. Reddish Prairie - Dark soils with clayey subsoils developed under tall grass mostly in clayey Red Beds. - 3. Grand Prairie - Dark loamy and clayey soils with clay subsoils developed in marine clay and 1imestones under tall grasses • 4. Cherokee Prairies - Dark-colored soils mostly with clayey subsoils developed on shales, sand- stones, and limestones under tall grasses. 5. Ouachita Highlands - Light-colored acid sandy to loamy soils with heavier subsoils and shallow soils developed on sandstones and shales under oak-hickory-pine forests. 6. Bottom lands - Nearly level, deep sandy to clayey bottom land soils. Some areas flood fre- quently, most flood occasionally, and some rarely. Soils are developed under lowland hardwoods which decrease in density from east to west. 1/ Source: Soil Map of Oklahoma, published by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Based on surveys by the Soil Survey Staff of the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Agronomy Department, Oklahoma State University. Approximately 66.8 percent of the study area is classified as arable (tillable). Of the 33.2 percent monarable (nontillable) acres in the study area, Seminole County has the most with 228,533 nomarable acres, which is over half its total (56.5 percent). Percent of monarable acres for the remaining study area counties in descending order are: Ponto toc - 43.8 percent, Hughes - 36.9 percent, Lincoln - 34.6 percent, Pawnee - 33.2 percent, Pottawatomie – 31.2 percent, Coal - 26.0 percent, Payne – 20.7 percent, and Okfuskee - 13.0 percent. Table VII-1 displays the data for arable and monarable land in the study area by major soil groupings. B. Agricultural Characteristics Table VII-2 displays data concerning the number and size of farms in the study area. Analysis of this data reveals that the study area has a predominance of small farms. Half of the farms in the area account for only 12.5 percent of the land in farms, while only 14.4 percent of the large study area farms account for 57.0 percent of farmland • Largest in percentage of land in farms is Coal County with 84.3 percent, while Seminole County has the smallest percentage of 63.7. The study area average is 70.8 percent. Lincoln County has the largest number of farms with 1,731; Coal County records the smallest number with 589. Total number of farms for the study area is 9,224. Coal County again leads with the largest average size farms with 477 acres, while the study area average is 310 acres and Pottawatomie County has the smallest average with 232 acres. Table VII-3 provides data on how study area farmland is used. Analysis of this table (1982 use) and the total land in farms from table VII-2 make it clear that cropland is not abundant in the study area, ranging from about one-fifth to slightly over one-third of total land in farms. In addition, a majority of study area farmers elect to use more than 50 percent of their limited cropland for pasture only. The net result is that approximately 74 to 87 percent of the total farmland in study area counties is used as pastureland as shown the following tabulation: Selected Analyses of Land Use on Study Area Farms in 1982 (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Total Cropland as a Cropland Used for Pasture only Pastureland - A11 Types as a Percentage of Land in Farms as a Percentage of Total Cropland Percentage of Land in Farms Pottawatomie - 38.2 Seminole - 61.0 Coal – 86.9 Payne – 35.8 Ponto toc - 60.6 Ponto to c – 85.3 Seminole - 34.7 Lincoln - 55.6 Okfuskee – 80.8 Lincoln - 33.0 Coal - 54.5 Seminole - 79.5 Okfuskee – 30.8 Okfuskee – 53.7 Pawnee - 79.4 Hughes – 28.8 Hughes - 52.5 Lincoln - 78.7 Pawnee - 26.1 Pottawatomie — 51 .. 3 Hughes - 78.0 Ponto toc – 26.0 Payne - 40.1 Pottawatomie - 76.4 Coal – 22.4 Pawnee - 33. 1 Payne – 73.5 VII-l 96° 5th Stondord Porollel 36° 4th Standord Porollel o Chandler I | 3rd | Stondord Porollel gº- O K F U S K E | - I J i o Show nee | | y |..., WAT O M E 2nd K Stondord Porollel ^ gº!. ^ SI E M I N O LE | TT Holdenville | Y. N: H 59: & | I ^% 35° & EXPLANATION /T_`. - 2 - 82. N-2 Nº. \ ^^ ſ Go County Seot - \y 1st - D \Xi, Standard Cross Timbers * Porqllel I ^% Grand Prairie Qºº & I - - c - Cherokee Proirie º - ouachita Highlands P O N AR-O TTT ON, C. ſº C º O A L - N. - Coolgate Bose Line | _/\ *~, 5 F- 5|E E|3: A/ O K L A H O M A - sº c Go || - * | 5 Sº || 5 E| a E|3 3|E G| a 92|| 5 $2| is E|3: —L 2|: §l: rol - U/V/7′ED S 747 ES º T DEAAA’7 ME/V7" OA 7THE //V7TE A*/OAP | O O |O 2O BUA’EAU/ OF AfECL 4 MA 7/OW |-1–1–1–1–1 H I EAST-CEAV7ſºAL OALA/HOMA SCALE OF MILES WATER SUPPLY STUDY LOCATION MAP *...i 9 * * LA WD AfESOURCE AA’EAS Amar///o, Texas January, /985 SCALE OF KILOMETERS Map Wo. /484–500-ſo Table WII-1 1/ Acres for All Study Area Counties: Arable and Nonarable Land , = By Major Soil Groupings. 2/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Ouachita Highlands Grand Prairie Flood Plains 3/ Cross Timbers Cherokee Prairie Reddish Prairie Terrace & Footslopes 3/ Total Acres Arable Nonarable Arable Nonarable Arable Arable Nonarable Arable Nonarable Arable Nonarable Arable Coal {-, - - - 16,832 6,732 43,763 70,691 74,064 117,824 6, 732 - * Gº- empº- 336,638 Hughes 43,545 174, 183 gº ºs -- 41,472 - - *- 153,965 17, 107 -- Ecº- 88, 128 518,400 Lincoln - - - *- º emº *- - 103,884 82,944 154,040 Gº tº -- 182,984 61,211 37,657 622,720 Okfuskee - - - * *Eº º --- 27,820 119,232 31,795 158,976 19,872 501 º ºgº- 39,243 397,439 Pawnee - - - * tº amº - - 52,982 6,545 53,944 91,699 44,467 63,543 27,234 37,824 378,238 Payne -- tº smºe sº sº -- 47, 360 26,571 12,725 35,986 - - 169,146 79,000 73,401 444, 189 Ponto to c - - --> 56,610 90,630 69,060 35,970 101,490 60,000 9,000 -seme *E--> 36,800 459,560 Pottawatomie - - * = cº-º º * - 82,227 36,720 112,316 * -- E--> -- 173, 175 47,810 61,670 513,918 Seminole --> --> — - - 60,672 27,504 178,602 14, 157 6,067 29, 122 43,864 44,492 404,480 To tal 43,545 174, 183 73,442 97,362 529, 240 406,177 718,976 632,607 103,245 618,471 259,119 419,215 4,075,582 4./ 1/ Terms arable and nomarable are used in this table in the traditional sense of tillable and nontillable. Terms are not used as specialized Reclamation terminology having to do with potential irrigability. 2/ Source: Oklahoma Soil Surveys and Dr. Jim Stiegler, Department of Agronomy, Oklahoma State University. 3/ Headings of "Flood Plains" and "Terraces & Footslopes" are physiographic rather than soil groups. Acres listed under these headings lie along all study area streams and include lands from all of the major soil groupings. 4/ This total includes 2,722,697 arable acres and 1,352,885 nomarable acres of land. ; Table VII-2 1/ Number of Farms by Size, 1982 + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Coal County Hughes County Lincoln County Okfuskee County Pawnee County No. Farms Acres. No . Farms Acres. No. Farms Acres. No . Farms Acres. No . Farms Acres. Total farms 589 908 1,731 745 643 Land in farms 280,677 338,367 404,393 268,687 280,641 Average size of farm 477 373 234 361 436 Approximate land area 333,081 515,552 617,081 402,003 352,947 Proportion in farms (percent) 84.3 65.6 65.5 66.8 79.5 Land in farms (by size) 1 to 9 acres 13 48 20 56 48 162 16 41 22 76 10 to 49 acres 61 1,877 91 3,081 217 6,260 87 2,677 66 1,974 50 to 69 acres 25 1,451 22 1,264 88 5, 176 22 1,293 21 1,232 70 to 99 acres 48 3,862 115 9,386 280 22,536 101 8,051 50 4,046 100 to 139 acres 56 6,449 86 10,0s. 123 14,412 67 7,816 30 3,494 140 to 179 acres 61 9,506 129 20,261 305 48,475 89 14, 112 92 14,487 180 to 219 acres 26 5, 190 44 8,507 89 17,583 54 10, 548 31 6, 134 220 to 259 acres 49 11,589 65 15,456 103 24,471 47 11, 187 43 10, 105 260 to 499 acres 118 41,824 173 61,361 298 105,300 122 44,509 140 50,814 500 to 999 acres 73 49,736 102 68,425 135 92,636 81 58,906 93 66,426 1,000 to 1,999 acres 36 45,686 44 61,457 37 45,534 45 58,644 33 45,485 2,000 acres or more 23 103,459 17 79,062 8 21,848 14 50,903 22 76,368 1/ Source: 1982 Census of Agriculture, tables 1 and 4. ; Total farms Land in farms Average size of farm Approximate land area Proportion in farms (percent) Land in farms (by size) 1 to 9 acres 10 to 49 acres 50 to 69 acres 70 to 99 acres 100 to 139 acres 140 to 179 acres 180 to 219 acres 220 to 259 acres 260 to 499 acres 500 to 999 acres 1,000 to 1,999 acres 2,000 acres or more (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Payne County No . Farms 1,123 60 167 53 153 76 171 A7 60 170 123 35 Acres 305,027 272 441,990 69. O 218 4,433 3,072 12,381 9, 142 27,019 9,215 14, 211 61,434 84,989 48,042 30,871 1/ Source: 1982 Census of Agriculture, tables 1 and 4. Table VII-2 (Continued)1/ Number of Farms by Size, 1982 + Pontotoc County Pottawatomie County No . Farms Acres. No . Farms Acres. 1,048 1,407 394,487 326,704 376 232 458,841 501,318 86. O 65.2 32 86 62 259 187 5,324 248 6,990 58 3,301 75 4,220 99 8,014 219 17,684 134 15, 511 137 16,326 97 15, 123 172 27, 171 64 12,637 76 14,937 62 14,652 65 15, 461 163 56,587 195 68,629 94 64,439 108 76,278 32 43,422 43 57,335 26 155,391 7 21,414 Seminole County Study Area No. Farms Acres. No . Farms Acres. 1,030 9,224 256,094 2,855,077 249 310 408,646 4,031,459 62.7 70.8 34 105 307 1,051 199 6,636 1,323 39,252 52 3,099 416 24, 108 123 9,942 1, 188 95,902 129 15,210 838 98,411 113 17,596 1,229 193,750 81 15,895 512 100,646 47 11, 145 541 128,277 166 57, 108 1,545 547,566 53 34,936 862 596,771 19 23,401 324 429,006 14 61,021 139 600,337 ; Land in Farms, According to Use - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Coal County Hughes County Lincoln County Okfuskee County Pawnee County Farms Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) (1978) (1982) Land in farms according to use Total cropland 424 415 63,720 62,980 717 711 96,989 97,609 1,226 1,258 140,065 133,507 604 570 87,032 82,720 505 488 81,640 73,291 Harvested cropland 337 321 23,622 22,962 551 504 37,585 37, 155 926 918 52,998 50,359 448 400 32,673 32,203 431 380 47,250 44,936 By acres harvested 1 to 9 31 18 175 2/ 53 41 221 233 92 108 424 511 54 40 213 212 26 34 118 166 10 to 19 54 35 711 472 92 99 1,219 1,299 166 168 2,232 2,217 68 63 867 806 55 43 735 574 20 to 29 48 59 1,080 1,323 76 73 1,765 1,610 126 147 2,833 3,358 56 70 1,248 1,502 52 37 1, 180 836 30 to 49 60 72 2,220 2,539 118 87 4,263 3,195 206 179 7,492 6,557 80 60 2,893 2,238 91 71 3,439 2,701 50 to 99 76 75 5, 109 5,162 107 103 7,474 7,090 177 181 11,525 12,254 92 83 6,276 5,685 82 68 5,570 4,777 100 to 199 44 36 5,908 4,446 64 51 8,997 6,538 115 97 15,243 12,569 61 47 7,880 6,410 58 71 7,802 9,931 200 to 499 19 23 5,064 6,569 36 42 9,969 12,275 40 33 10,800 8,848 31 30 8,339 9,491 48 42 14, 213 12,923 500 to 999 5 2 3,355 2/ 5 8 3,677 4,915 4 4 2,449 2/ 5 6 2/ 2/ 15 8 9,087 4,945 1,000 or more --> 1 ** 2/ -- --> -- -- -- 1 -- 2/ 1 1 2/ 2/ 4 6 5, 106 8,083 Cropland used only 214 209 39,083 34, 342 354 363 45,629 51, 197 653 660 75,796 74, 165 318 329 45,276 44,385 205 213 30,341 24, 288 for pasture Other cropland 24 38 1,015 5,676 178 123 13,775 9,257 250 209 11,271 8,983 123 87 9,083 6, 132 89 79 4,049 4,067 To tal woodland 191 250 38,569 34,483 385 393 58, 522 65,339 735 799 52,830 63,351 348 326 37, 179 35,952 198 190 21, 192 14,647 Woodland pastured 167 225 33,458 30,779 317 335 48,364 49,261 642 699 47,695 53,386 296 280 30,843 30, 220 178 165 17,382 12,144 - Woodland not pastured 36 45 5, 111 3,704 96 105 10, 158 16,078 147 192 5, 135 10,965 92 70 6,336 5,732 41 42 3,810 2,503 Other land 412 443 179,417 183,214 679 640 196,441 175,419 1,280 1,377 213,820 207,535 536 549 105,623 86,974 552 523 214,635 192,703 Pastureland, all types 512 552 245, 106 243,794 816 831 282,408 264,000 1,477 1,613 322,643 318,084 683 695 225, 129 217,090 602 596 256,248 222,902 1/ Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1978 and 1982. 2/ Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. ; Payne County Land in farms according to use By acres harvested Woodland pastured Woodland not pastured Total cropland Harvested cropland 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 or more Cropland used only for pasture Other cropland Total woodland Other land Pastureland, all types Farms 819 647 66 94 81 119 120 87 67 13 446 151 357 289 102 879 970 833 632 68 93 81 102 129 79 61 19 421 143 399 323 105 931 989 Acres 1. 8 106,263 109,300 56, 108 57,671 272 331 1,224 1,223 1,829 1,831 4,437 3,815 8,582 9,202 11,942 10,778 20, 151 19,523 7,671 10,968 43,981 43,857 6,174 7,772 25,636 28,497 19,599 23,307 6,037 5, 190 184, 190 167,230 239,381 224, 214 1/ Source:TU.S. Census of Agriculture, 1978 and 1982. 2/ Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. Table VII-3 (Continued) Land in Farms. According to Use = (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Pontotoc County Pottawatomie County Farms 1978 757 543 57 98 74 107 120 57 25 427 90 320 283 57 728 912 1 790 547 83 113 83 100 91 55 14 458 79 356 309 75 729 941 Acres 1978 93,707 33,369 307 1,247 1,675 3,874 7,916 7,854 7,476 3,020 55,821 4,517 36,351 30, 119 6,232 233,288 306,431 102,537 31,327 9, 114 37,216 30,921 6,295 254,734 336,441 Farms (1978) (1982) 967 1,023 661 646 88 90 117 106 91 80 119 127 112 106 69 79 48 44 17 12 gº tº 2 554 597 167 188 488 546 409 444 121 153 918 1,067 1,160 1,261 Acres 1978) 1982 119, 177 124,790 49,913 49,635 383 429 1,513 1,323 2,056 1,754 4,400 4,643 7,579 7,353 9,532 10,802 13,972 13,453 10,478 2/ tº gº 2/ 60,321 63,988 8,943 11, 167 41,693 34,961 32,992 29,044 8,701 5,917 161,450 166,953 244, 556 249,459 Seminole County Farms (T573) (T557) 727 719 496 467 67 51 95 106 82 82 94 104 93 64 45 38 14 16 4 3 2 3 437 451 101 99 371 396 322 323 74 101 664 712 884 908 Acres (T575)—CT557) 93,680 88,774 30,993 27, 204 315 238 1,252 1,336 1,818 1,836 3,435 3,853 6, 193 4, 145 5,634 5,080 3,655 3,736 2/ 1,900 2/ 5,080 57,651 54, 182 5,036 7,388 31,328 36,574 25,879 29,619 5,449 6,955 138,901 130,746 214,044 203,632 ; Table VII-4 presents data on type of farm by number and value of agricultural products sold in 1982. Average value of per farm sales shows very uneven distribution in the study area with Seminole County lowest at $10,275 per farm and Pawnee County highest at $28,681, which is 279 percent greater than average Seminole County sales. The average per farm income for the study area is $15,744, which is 45 percent of the $34,886 State average. Livestock poultry-type enterprises dominated in the study area, ranging from 97.3 to 67.5 percent of the total sales value, while crop sales ranged from 2.7 to 32.5 percent of total sales value. Details are presented in the tabulation below: Analysis of Farms by Value of Agricultural Products Sold in 1982 (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Type of Enterprise Livestock, Poultry Average Per Farm and their Products Crops (Dollars) • (Percentage of total value) (Percentage of total value) Pawnee 28,681 Coal 97.3 2. 7 Payne 21,012 Ponto to c 95.3 4.7 Ponto to c 19,204 Lincoln 88.9 11.1 Coal 17,799 Seminole 85. O 15.0 Study area 15,744 Study area 84.6 15.4 Pottawatomie 13,802 Pawnee 83.8 16.2 Okfuskee 13,786 Okfuskee 82.7 17.3 Hughes 13,718 Payne 81.0 19.0 Lincoln 12,376 Pottawatomie 78.9 21. 1 Seminole 10,275 Hughes 67.5 32.5 Data and analyses of the socioeconomic characteristics of farm proprietors and operators are not presently available since Reclamation has just initiated its social assessment of the study area. However, since the study area counties comprise nearly 40 percent of the 24-county RedArk region, highlights of socioeconomic findings in the 1982 Resource Assessment and Development Strategies have relevance and are paraphrased here for general information. Part-time farming is predominant in the region. Sixty-eight percent of farmers worked at jobs other than farming in 1978. Nearly 60 percent worked off the farm 100 days or more; about one-half worked off the farm 200 days or more. Only a third of all farm operators listed farming as their principal occupation. Over two-thirds of the farm operators lived on the farms they operated . The average age of all farm operators was 52 years; over two-thirds of these operators were over 45 years of age; and 20 percent were over 65 years of age. Sixty-three percent of the farm operators were full owners of their farms, 29 percent part owners, and 7 percent tenants. However, part owners operated 48 percent of the land in farms, full owners 45 percent, and tenants only 7 percent. Over 92 percent of all farms operated were individual or family organizations controlling over 86 percent of the farmland. Farm employment accounted for 14 percent of total employment in the region in 1979. Net farm proprietor's income for the region has consistently lagged behind that for the State; for example, in 1979, average net farm proprietors' income per proprietor for the region was 36 percent ($2,856) of the State average of $7,850. C. Potential Irrigation Resources 1. Present use. Irrigation is relatively new in the study area. Although the area receives an ample amount of rainfall each year, it is unevenly distributed by seasons; and drought periods adversely affect crop yields and pasture performance. Supplemental irrigation is reported to be generally profitable. 1/ There are no Federal irrigation projects in the study area. In 1981 Reported Water Use (OWRB 1984), 13,055 acres were reported as irrigated in the study area, which represents only 0.5 percent of the area's tillable acres. Surface water application predomi- nated with 9, 235 acres, which represents 70.7 percent of the total. Ground water applications exceeded surface water in Payne and Seminole Counties only. Hughes County led the study area with 4,024 acres irrigated followed by Pottawatomie with 3, 254 acres, Ponto toc with 2,260 acres, Okfuskee with 1,487 acres, Payne with 770 acres, Seminole with 571 acres, Lincoln with 264 acres, and Pawnee with 235 acres; and Coal with 190 acres. Peanuts, with 3,999 acres, was the leading irrigated crop in the study area for 1981, representing 30.6 percent of the acres irrigated. Second was pasture with 2,510 acres (19.2 percent), followed by alfalfa with 1,753 acres (13.4 percent), wheat with 1,334 acres (10.2 percent), and soybeans with 894 acres (6.8 percent). These 5 crops, out of the 13 reported, accounted for 80.2 percent of the irrigated acreage. Irrigator preferences for energy source for pumps (number of units) were propane - 82, natural gas - 20, electricity - 18, diesel - 17, and gasoline - 11. Types of irrigation systems used were gravity - 13, trickle-drip - 4, center pivot sprinklers - 14, and other sprinklers - 111. Table VII-5 presents a detailed analysis of 1981 reported irrigation information. 1/ Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. VII–7 2. Future irrigation development potential. Professionals in the region have indicated there is a potential for many more acres of crops and pastures to be irrigated if additional research on more efficient application and utilization of water were provided to farmers in the area. 1/ TO that end, RedArk has been advocating that State and Federal agencies involved with its comprehensive economic development planning (a) develop and demonstrate state-of-the-art irrigation management methods, especially supplemental irrigation; (b) investigate development of specialty crop enterprises; and (c) investigate potential for project-type irrigation. A proposal by Dr. James Nelson, OSU, for evaluating the economic potential of water development for specialty crop (fruits and vegetables) irrigation in the RedArk region is presently under considera- tion. Objectives of the proposed research effort are (a) identify and evaluate the potential of land resources for vegetable production as well as the availability and costs of surface and ground- water supplies and (b) estimate the economic impacts which would accrue to local economies in southeastern Oklahoma with the development of a fresh vegetable production and processing industry. Based on existing Reclamation and SCS data, potentially irrigable lands have been inventoried in the study area. These lands are scattered throughout the study area, but the better quality lands are adjacent to the major streams as shown on map No. 1484-500–12. Potentially irrigable land includes those lands that appear to be capable of sustained irrigation production, assuming there are no limiting factors such as soils, topography, drainage, and availability of an adequate supply of acceptable quality water. Before specific delineations of irrigable lands can be determined, more detailed analysis will be necessary. It is not probable that all lands identified in this report are suitable for sustained irrigation. There are areas with favorable conditions that warrant further considerations. Scattered throughout the study area are small acreages with possibilities of irrigation development by individual farmers or small groups. There are many areas that should be considered for future development if feasible. Future irrigation development and expansion should not be eliminated from 10ng-range development plans considering advancements in technology, changing economic conditions, improved crop varieties, introducing specialty crops, and implementing better management. The following tabulation displays the inventory of potential irrigable land: Inventory of Potentially Irrigable Lands (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) County Greatest Irrigation Potential (Total acres) Coal 23,000 Hughes 31,700 Lincoln 24,800 Okfuskee 28,000 Pawnee 18,000 Payne 22,400 Pontotoc 23,600 Pottawatomie 26,700 Seminole 22,400 Study Area Total 220,600 D. Forestry Resources Major forest areas are located in Coal County. About 49,000 acres of commercial forest land are found in the county--86 percent hardwood and 14 percent mixed stands of hardwood and softwood. No commercial forest land data are available for the eight other counties in the study area. Information provided to RedArk indicates that there are five primary forest products industries located in the study area--three located in Hughes County and one each in Seminole and Lincoln Counties. These industries process logs into such products as lumber, posts, poles, and wood chips. No information was provided as to the name of firm, location, number employed, or specific products. Specific information was provided concerning the 10 secondary forest products industries, employing 717 people in the study area. This information is provided in the following tabulation: 1/ Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. VII-8 Table VII-4 1/ Type of Farm by Number and Value of Agricultural Products Sold - Study Area, 1982 - Study Area Totals Coal County Hughes County Lincoln County Okfuskee County No . Farms Value No . Farms Value No . Farms Value No. Farms Value No . Farms Value * -º- ºr - - - - - -ºº º *Tºny — †ºny — *Tºny — ††† — (STOOO) Crops. 1,977 22,610 81 289 218 4,050 425 2,387 178 1,776 Grains 1,292 11,400 2O 111 137 888 273 1, 191 87 918 Cotton and cottonseed- 9 16 5 16 tº tº º ºr a tºº g- º gº tº tº sº "— Field seeds, hay, and silage 1,038 3,505 52 99 58 155 208 666 78 185 Vegetables, sweet corn, and melons 62 84 3 2/ 2 2/ 8 2/ 12 2/ Fruits, nuts, and berries 119 314 9 28 7 6 23 140 8 2/ Nursery and greenhouse products 29 748 * tº sº 1 2/ 5 241 tº-º E- tºº other crops * 209 5,131 3 2/ 94 2,984 13 2/ 23 493 Livestock, poultry, and their products 8,067 124, 190 547 10, 195 79.2 8,406 1,505 19,036 674 8,494 Poultry and poultry products 228 1,210 9 4./ 17 1 55 9 19 2/ Dairy products 238 19,520 18 604 7 2/ 82 8,203 11 296 Cattle and calves 7,654 90,984 538 9,463 771 7,662 1,438 9,841 646 7,693 Hogs and pigs 4.52 2,926 27 2/ 55 292 72 677 33 2/ Sheep, lambs, and wool 263 212 1 2/ 17 42 41 35 3 2/ other 2/ 535 5,590 23 35 33 2/ 104 272 35 2/ To tal farms 9,324 589 908 1,731 745 Market value of agricultural 146,800 10,483 12,456 21,423 10,271 products sold Average per farm $15,744 $17,799 $13,718 $12,376 Ö $13,786 1/ Source: 1982 Census of Agriculture. Individual items are conservative estimates because of nonavailability and disclosure problems, thus individual items do not add up to totals. 2/ Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. 3/ Not possible to determine type of crops. 4/ Amount reported is less than half the unit value. 5/ Fish and other aquaculture products included in this category. ; Table VII-4 (Continued) 1/ Type of Farm by Number and Value of Agricultural Products Sold - Study Area, 1982 + Pawnee County Payne County Pontotoc County Pottawatome County Seminole County products sold Average per farm 1/ Source: 2/ Withheld to avoid discTosing data for individual farms. 1982 Census of Agriculture. $28,681 $21,012 $19,204 $13,802 No . Farms Value No . Farms Value No . Farms Value No. Farms Value No . Farms Value ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) Crops. 267 2,986 409 4,487 151 946 302 4,097 164 1,592 Grains 221 2,702 318 3,427 43 222 157 1,468 36 473 Cotton and cottonseed º º - - 2 2/ º º tº º 2 2/ - º mº mºre Field seeds, hay, and silage 91 246 158 549 107 407 170 884 116 314 Vegetables, sweet corn, and melons 8 21 9 15 2 2/ 14 48 4 2/ Fruits, nuts, and berries 7 2 11 2/ 14 138 25 2/ 15 2/ Nursery and greenhouse products º º - - 7 11 3 71 7 425 6 2/ Other crops 3/ 3 15 12 86 4 90 43 1,222 14 241 Livestock, poultry, and their products 568 15,456 984 19, 110 921 19, 180 1, 190 15,322 886 8,991 Poultry and poultry products 22 5 38 2/ 15 842 44 353 19 2/ Dairy products 3 2/ 51 4,902 29 2,769 30 2,427 7 319 Cattle and calves 543 14,952 910 12, 295 858 14,560 1, 106 7,663 84.4 6,855 Hogs and pigs 21 113 83 920 55 227 73 356 33 341 Sheep, lambs, and wool 22 28 41 83 12 17 13 4 13 3 Other 40 2/ 75 2/ 73 764 96 4,519 56 2/ Total farms 643 1,123 1,048 1,407 1,030 Market value of agricultural 18,442 23,597 20, 126 19,419 10,583 $10,275 Individual items are conservative estimates because of nonavailability and disclosure problems, thus individual items do not add up to totals. 3/ Not possible to determine type of crops. 7/ Fish and other aquaculture products included in this category. ; Table VII-5 1/ Analysis of 1981 Reported Irrigation = (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Study Area Summary Coal County Hughes County Lincoln County Okfuskee County Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Ground Water Surface Water Study Area Total Ground Water Surface Water County Total Ground Water Surface Water County Total Ground Water Surface Water County Total Ground Water Surface Water Study Area Total Crop Alfalfa 561 1,192 1,753 O O O O 65 65 25 O 25 O 85 85 Grain corn 20 O 20 O O O 20 O 20 O O O O O O Silage corn O 200 200 O O O O O O O O O O O O Cotton 10 O 10 O O O O O O O O O O O O Horticulture 3 58 61 O O O O O O O O O O O O Pasture 705 1,805 2,510 O 40 40 185 205 390 O 112 112 O 275 275 Peanuts 1,303 2,696 3,999 O 150 150 542 1,547 2,089 O 54 54 O 53 53 Wheat 300 1,034 1,334 O O O 50 120 170 O O O O 750 750 Small grain 20 116 136 O O O 20 O 20 O O O O O O Soybeans 190 704 894 O O O O 419 419 O O O O 250 250 Grain sorghum 51 624 675 O O O 20 240 260 O O O O 34 34 Forage sorghum 356 315 671 O O O 289 69 358 O 60 60 O O O Other crops 301 491 792 0. O O 110 123 233 12. l 13 0. 40 40 To tals 3,820 9,235 13,055 O 190 190 1,236 2,788 4,024 37 227 264 O 1,487 1,487 Types of Power Study Area Summary Coal County Hughes County Lincoln County Okfuskee Count (Used for Irrigation) (No. of Units) (No. of Units) (No. of Units) (No. of Units) (NOTSFTURTES) Propane 82 1 31 1 4 Electric 18 O O 3 O Natural gas 20 O 9 2 1 Gasoline 11 1 2 1 O Diesel 17 O 7 O O Types of Systems rużny Gravity 13 2 1 l O Trickle-drip 4 O O O O Center pivot sprinkler 14 O 3 2 O Other sprinklers 111 O 39 4 ð 5 I? Source: 1981 Reported Water Use, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1984. : Crop Alfalfa Grain corn Silage corn Cotton Horticulture Pasture Peanuts Wheat Small grain Soybeans Grain sorghum Forage sorghum Other crops Totals Types of Power (Used for Irrigation) Propane Electric Natural gas Gasoline Diesel Types of Systems (Used for Irrigation) Gravity Trickle-drip Center pivot sprinkler Other sprinklers Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Pawnee County Table VII-5 (Continued) l Analysis of 1981 Reported Irrigation (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Payne County Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Pontotoc County Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Pottawatomie County Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres Seminole County Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres TFFIga EETAEFes Ground Water Surface Water Study Area Total Ground Water Surface Water County Total Ground Water Surface Water County Total Ground Water Surface Water County Total Ground Water Surface Water Study Area Total O 135 135 166 48 214 150 220 370 220 639 859 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 200 200 O O O O O O O O O 10 O 10 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 6 O O O 3 52 55 O O O O 100 100 10 60 70 510 515 1,025 O 338 338 O 160 160 O O O 30 O 30 102 O 102 476 84.4 1,320 153 48 201 O O O O 53 53 40 51 91 O 60 60 210 O 210 O O O O O O O 80 80 O 36 36 O O O O O O 10 O 10 O O O 180 35 215 O O O G O O 20 O 20 11 140 151 O 210 210 O O O O O O O O O 67 146 213 O 40 40 O O O O O O 179. 178. 357. —% —é —é —% 121 121 —” —% —% o 235 235 425 345 770 880 1,380 2,260 879 2,375 3,254 363 208 57.1 Pawnee County. (No. of Units) : : I? Source: 1981 Reported Water Use, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1984. Payne County (No. of Units) : i Pontotoc County. (No. of Units) : 1 : Pottawatomie County (No. of Units) 3 : 3 : Seminole County (No. of Units) i : i º ~ - 96° To Kaw Resº º, ~~ *E Y's Tower º C/eve/and ºes LA A. E. 5th * - Stondord Fanch Porollel Lake - < º * º - - w - d - 4% I cº- B/ockweſ/ -- o | lº - - ºn o > 36° 4th Standord Porollel / LA I O L N | e -º- --- Chand/e *º Loke r /// --- hond ſer o Arcado º, ºr Lake 3rd Stondard Porqllel \–º º I Wecumseh ºes. N ** ºp OTT A WAT O M E Aſsº. date -- - 2nd *22 sº Stondord s º \ - Porollel Q.- ><. -" ºn : M | N O L. * § ~ S) “ _X - \ ** º & 35° \ %, Lake A on dwo EXPLANATION Q County Seat --- º Hº R - Standard gºes of Reservoirs Porqllel Within the Study Area Lokes or Reservoirs sº Outside the Study Area I A foºd Bose Ares. Line - o clº c --- G| > E|- O K L A H O M A - $| = 3| E | 35 3|= —L al: 5|: #|3: U/V/7 a D S 747"E.S. T DEAAA’7 ME/v7" OA 7//E //V7 EA’/OA’ |O O |O 2O BU//re 4U 0/-. AfECL 4 MA 7/OA/ |-1–1–1–1–1 - I EAST-CEAV774L O/CLA/HOMA SCALE OF MILES WATER SUPPLY STUDY GEWERAL AREAS OF GREATEST LOCATION MAP 8. º º 29 39 /RR/GAT/OAV poſe AVT/AL SCALE OF KILOMETERS Amar///o, Texas January, /985 Map Wo /484–500–12 Secondary Forest Products Industries (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Name and Number of Products County Location of Firm People Employed Produced Hughes Boise Cascade Corporation 150 Manufactured homes Holdenville, Oklahoma Payne Custom Production Company 5 Pallets and hose reels Stillwater, Oklahoma Glencoe Manufacturing Company 7 Cellulose fiber loose- Glencoe, Oklahoma fill insulation and cellulose fiber spray-on insulation The Lee Company 40 Wood products, windows, (J. G. Industries, Inc.) mirrors, ladders, and Stillwater, Oklahoma scaffolding Ponto to c Brockway Glass Company, Inc. 458 Corrugated paper boxes Ada, Oklahoma Chief Pallet Corporation 5 Hardwood pallets and Roff, Oklahoma skids Greens Glass and Decorating 9 Wood products, mirrors, Ada, Oklahoma and picture frames Scott Manufacturing Company 13 Church furniture Ada, Oklahoma Pottawatomie Bison Lumber & Hardware, Inc. 12 Wood cabinets Shawnee, Oklahoma Shawnee Planing Mill, Inc. 18 Architectural woodwork Shawnee, Oklahoma Based on information provided by RedArk, optimum development of forestry resources has been restricted because little is known about the ownership, location, and use of privately owned forest lands; the region lacks hardwood timber markets; few furniture industries are found in the region, thus most of the quality hardwood lumber produced is shipped out of the area; and there is no regional group or organization actively promoting timber utilization and forest industry development. E. Problems and Needs Agriculture has not been developed as much in the study area as it has in other areas of the State. The average value of agricultural products sold per farm in the study area in 1981 equalled only 45 percent of the State average. Agricultural experts l/ maintain that excessive numbers of small and inefficient farms, the large number of part-time farm operations, and the predominant over- emphasis on livestock production are major causes of the area's poor agricultural income perform- ance. Most recommended solutions involve increased and more efficient production of harvested crops as a primary solution with increased efficiency in livestock production as a secondary solution. Within this context, the problems, needs, and solutions Reclamation plans to address during the remaining 3-1/2 years of this study are: 1. Investigate potential for development of irrigated specialty crop enterprises. Reclamation will work with OSU, SCS, county agents, and other agriculturalists in this area. 2. Continue to investigate the potential for Federal project-type irrigation development in the study area and make appropriate recommendations based on findings. 3. Investigate, develop, and demonstrate more efficient irrigation management methods. 4. Fully investigate the potential for development of forest products. Although the potential for primary forest products industries may be limited due to limited forest resources, there is a need to encourage additional secondary forest products industries in the study area since it presently contains one-third of the State's firms engaged in such enterprises. 1 / Source: Resource Assessment and Development Strategies, RedArk, October 1982. VII–13 CHAPTER VIII – INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT A. Introduction Reclamation's 9-county study area included in this planning guide is part of RedArk's 24-county project area. To see the relationship between the two areas, refer back to map No. 1484–500–28 in chapter I. As part of its ongoing efforts in comprehensive economic development, RedArk published the report Resource Assessment and Development Strategies in October of 1982. Although large por- tions of Reclamation's east-central study are relatively well off compared to the southeastern portion of RedArk's project area, many of the characteristics, problems, and solutions apply to varying degrees in the east-central study area. Therefore, the material in this chapter is taken from two parts of the above report. The first portion deals with manufacturing employment charac- teristics, which suggest manufacturing sectors that hold promise for additional development or revival in the study area. The second portion deals with the topic of industrial development. B. Manufacturing Employment Characteristics 1. Analysis of data. Accurate time series comparisons of detailed industry classifications are impossible at this time due to lack of complete, comparable data. 1/ However, some generalizations are possible by use of the data which are available. Significant, identifiable trends appear in eight industries: (a) apparel; (b) wood products; (c) printing and publishing; (d) petroleum; (e) rubber and plastics products; (f) stone, clay, and glass; (g) fabricated metals; and (h) non- electrical machinery. a • Apparel--Cut and sew apparel manufacturing accounted for a minimum of 17.8 percent of total manufacturing employment in 1969. By 1979, apparel's share had fallen to 9.6 percent of total. In the United States, apparel captured 6.3 percent of manufacturing employment during 1979. Apparel manufacturing is a necessary part of the United States industrial structure; but at the same time, apparel manufacture is a low-skill/low-wage industrial group. b. Wood products--Sawmills employed 3.1 percent of the area's manufacturing workers in 1979, with other wood products industries accounting for another 2.5 percent. At least 7.8 percent of 1969 manufacturing employment was in wood products. Therefore, wood products manufacture is significantly less important to the area's economy than it was in the previous decade. This is surprising in light of the slight growth of the furniture sector estimated during the period. c • Printing and publishing--This sector exhibited astounding growth in the project area during 1969 to 1979. In 1969, this sector represented at most 4.0 percent of manufacturing employ— ment, but by 1979 its importance had grown to 14.4 percent. In the United States during 1979, printing and publishing accounted for only 5.9 percent of manufacturing employment. The printing and publishing industry pays average annual wages slightly below the manufacturing average and was impacted much less by the 1974-1975 recession than the overall manufacturing sector. 2/ The printing and publishing industry is expected to grow at a real rate of about 3.0 percent per year through the mid-1980's and, hence, may outpace the growth of the United States economy. d. Petroleum--The petroleum industry's share of manufacturing employment fell considerably in the 1969–1979 period, accounting for at least 4.0 percent of 1969 employment and for only 2.0 percent in 1979. This trend is serious since petroleum is the highest wage-manufacturing industry in the United States, paying average annual wages of $19,400 in 1978. In addition to high wages, the United States petroleum industry has had stable employment growth throughout the 1969–1979 period except for 1974-1975 when employment fell by 1.5 percent. 3/ There is no reason to expect this favorable trend to end in the near future. In short, the project area should attempt to revive a sagging petroleum sector to secure the high-pay/high-growth benefits associated with the industry. e. Rubber and plastics products--The rubber and plastics products industry, like the petroleum industry, saw its share of the project area economy halved in the decade of the 1970's, falling from 5.7 percent in 1969 to only 2.8 percent in 1979. This industrial group pays wages below the manufacturing average and was one member of the nondurable goods grouping which was severely affected by the 1974-1975 recession, falling 12.5 percent in terms of employment. The industry did not recover to prerecession employment levels until 1977. Although the rubber and plastics products industry does not have outstanding growth characteristics or potential through the 1980's, southeastern Oklahoma is fortunate to have a disproportionate share of the miscellaneous plastics products industry. This segment of the industry grew at a 6.9 percent annual rate in the 1972–1978 period, and the use of miscellaneous plastics products in almost every manufacturing industry should ensure the long-term growth of this detailed industry grouping. While the rubber and plastics products industry will not be an outstanding growth industry through the 1980's, the project area's concentration of miscellaneous plastics products employment should provide the basis for stable long-term growth in this sector of the economy. f . Stone, clay, and glass--This group is the largest sector of the manufacturing base of the project area, accounting for 14.6 percent of total manufacturing employment in 1979. This sector accounted for as little as 4.7 percent of manufacturing employment during 1969. The stone, 1/ Data limitations necessitate a bracketing of many industries' employment as a percent of total for 1969, with wood products as one. More than 7.8 percent and less than 14.0 percent of manu- facturing employment was in wood products during 1969. 2/ Employment in manufacturing fell 8.7 percent in the 1974–1975 period, compared to only 2.5 percent in the printing and publishing industry. 3/ Recall, however, that overall manufacturing employment fell by almost 9.0 percent during this recessionary period. VIII-1 clay, and glass industry ranks below the overall manufacturing average annual wage and is considered a low-skill industry in spite of the fact that several segments of the group are operated by skilled craftsmen (i.e., glassblowing and tombstone carving). The industry seems to be very susceptible to national business cycles as industry employment fell 11.1 percent in the national recession of 1974–1975. The majority of stone, clay, and glass employment located in southeastern Oklahoma is in the ready- mixed concrete industry, which is tied strongly and directly to the construction industry. Therefore, the project area should be prepared for a period of instability in this sector as the construction industry tries to recover from the recession of the early 1980's. g. Fabricated metals--The fabricated metals industry accounted for 9.3 percent of manufacturing employment in 1979 with no comparable figure available for 1969. 1/ The industry is very cyclical, with employment falling by 11.0 percent during 1974-1975. The industry pays wages slightly above the manufacturing average, and skill levels are commensurate with the industry wage. However, a major factor for the industry in southeastern Oklahoma is the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in Pittsburg County. The Oklahoma State Industrial Directory, 1982 lists employment at this plant as 800, making it the largest fabricated metals employer in the project area. This installa- tion is essentially Government in nature and is not responsive to activity in the United States economy. Thus, the fabricated metals industry's growth in southeastern Oklahoma is difficult to predict and depends primarily upon the national defense budget. h. Nonelectrical machinery--This industry saw its share of project area manufacturing employment grow from 1ess than 2.0 percent in 1969 to slightly more than 8.0 percent in 1979. The industry is a high-wage/high-skill group which has posted good historical growth and is forecast to continue this trend. Notable among the detailed industries present in southeastern Oklahoma are farm machinery, oilfield machinery, and machine tool accessories, all of which have good growth prospects through the 1980's. 2. General conclusions. The manufacturing sector of the southeastern Oklahoma economy is playing a larger role in the overall economic activity of the region today than it did in 1969. However, this region still trails the Nation in industrial activity. Several "growth" sectors are present such as nonelectrical machinery, instruments, and electrical machinery. These industries should be actively recruited since they are the type of industry which has located in the region during the last decade and, at the same time, can contribute most to productivity and income growth in the project area. C. Industrial Development 1. Introduction/Methodology. The economy of the 24-county RedArk project area is less developed than that of the State or the United States as a whole. There are substantially fewer employment opportunities in the manufacturing and trades and services sectors of the project area economy, which have kept per capita incomes significantly below State and national averages. Higher than average percentages of employment exist in agriculture and State and local government as a result of this phenomenon. Working age residents are continuing to leave the project area in search of employment, especially those who have earned high school and post-high school degrees. In order to strengthen the economy of the project area, more effort needs to be focused on the creation of new job opportunities in the manufacturing sector which will, in turn, generate more employment in the trades and services sector and improve the balance and overall health of the area economy. The three Sub-State Planning Districts--COEDD, the Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma (KEDDO), and SODA--assisted in assessment of the project area's existing industrial development patterns and strategies and in investigation of the potential for stimulating more activity. The districts were asked to conduct inventories of (a) existing industrial sites, including the number of acres and utilities available to each location, (b) local industrial development organizations in the district, and (c) existing manufacturing firms in the area and the employment levels for each firm. ---------- º - -- º: - - º * * * º º --- - -- - - - - - - º --- This oil refinery makes a vital contribution The Southern portion of Stillwater's to the economy of the surrounding community. industrial park illustrates several com— ponents of economic development such as water supply (Boomer Lake in upper right), several new industrial facilities, a new housing development (top center), and railway transportation (upper right). T Actually, County Business Patterns lists no employment in the fabricated metals industry for the subject counties in 1969 due to disclosure and classification problems. VIII-2 Interviews were conducted with officials of the State Department of Economic and Community Affairs and Department of Economic Development to gain a better understanding of their roles in stimulating additional job opportunities in the project areas. Corporation (REDC) and the Industrial Technology Research and Development Center (ITRAD) were also interviewed to ensure that any recommendations made took into consideration the innovative job creation efforts recently undertaken by these groups. 2. Extent of the resource. Principals of the Rural Enterprise Development The inventory of existing manufacturing activity and infrastructure to support additional industrial development indicates that the project area is not homogeneous. Map No. 1484-500–36 indicates the location of existing industrial sites and manufacturing employment in Reclamation's nine-county east-central study area. in the 24-county area. The western portion of the project area, There is a dichotomy which presently exists in the immediate vicinity of Interstate 35, the corridor between Oklahoma City and Dallas, and the larger population bases in the area have naturally had better success in attracting manufacturing activity than the remaining coun- ties. The western counties have also made more investments in additional industrial acreage, presumably because they have witnessed the benefits of new manufacturing activity to their local economies. P A w \ N E £ --- * Ca - * – T-- Iul's —— N E | . i L. l I N CI O L N - -- . º w H---— |-- . O K F u s K E E T i - - {\ſ Q--- jºo's ſºlº —l . --- | | - \, Q) . . —s -- * OTFA WATOºſe TN__ |N : ^ s E M I N ^. Moºd-will- ſ' U Q E → I K I I I EXPLANATION |- - k \ - pºss- e - 100 acres \D. ~~ e IOO-500 acres *. I - ; : o N §I I – l * [. INDUSTRIAL SITES - -o º 1 — -cal- or ----- º -- or -i-o-º-T--- SOURCE: RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, REDARK 1982 H---— |- O K F u s K E E - Hoklakows city ^ s E - I N S. Mo-lu- - I c I u G H E & ! EXPLANATION |- - k \ ,-- --- e -: 100 people I Sy-TV • 100-500 people 1. > 500 people I c O A L - I * -- L H EMPLOYMENT SITES UAV/7′E O S 747ES 0& A487 MEA/7" OA 7//E /A/7&A"/OA- 80/A’& 4 U OA' A' ECL 4 MA 7/OA/ EAST-CEAV7 RAL OKLAHOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY EX/ST//VG //VDUSTR/AL S/TES AMD EMALOYMENT 4 marf//o, Texas January, /985 Map Wo. /484-500–36 VIII–3 This dichotomy exists because the western portion of the project area has natural advantages which other parts of the project area do not--good access to highway transportation networks, relatively large concentrations of population, and available investment capital which springs from past development successes. This phenomenon requires that different development strategies be employed–– a more basic effort in those counties without the above advantages and a more advanced effort in those counties which have already experienced some success in industrial development. The REDC and ITRAD have been established in recognition of the fact that much of the project area has not benefited from traditional industrial development recruitment efforts. These organizations focus on more innovative ways to create job opportunities. Among the strategies employed by REDC and ITRAD are the creation of new businesses based on the development of new technology or tech- nology transfer, assistance to existing businesses trying to expand in the project area, stimulating the creation of new jobs by obtaining vendor contracts from 1arge industries, providing financial consultations and packaging assistance, and providing sources of debt and equity capital to help finance new ventures. In addition, REDC has established three industry incubators in area voca- tional technical schools to help train prospective employees before new firms are established to help increase the success rate of new enterprises in the region. An entrepreneurship curricultm has also been established in the vocational technical schools to promote a greater understanding of the free enterprise system. The REDC and ITRAD represent bold new initiatives in economic development which take into account the problems with the project area economy and attempt to focus resources on areas which can create jobs despite the economic development barriers which exist. This report focuses on still other means to stimulate the creation of new employment opportunities in the project area. The reasons that traditional industrial development efforts have not succeeded throughout the region are analyzed and ways to improve the use of existing resources to strengthen the region's economic base are discussed. 3. Barriers to industrial development. Industrial development is a highly competitive process. When a manufacturing firm decides to expand or relocate, it can choose among any number of areas which are fully prepared to meet the firm's requirements for sites--transportation of both raw material and finished products, energy, and a properly trained labor force. In most instances, the firm can also secure financial or tax inducements which lower the cost of relocation. Today's national economic difficulties have made this process even more competitive. Most communities in the project area are presently at a competitive disadvantage in attracting new firm locations or expansions because of some or all of the following barriers: a . Transportation networks--Poor transportation networks severely limit the desirability of much of the eastern portion of the project area. The lack of four-lane, divided United States highways or interstates into the project area from major metropolitan areas such as Tulsa, Oklahoma City, or Dallas negatively affects the marketability of sites in far southeastern Oklahoma. b. Labor force--Lack of a sufficiently large and well-trained labor force also presents a barrier to the development of many communities in the project area. Those few communities with populations over 10,000 in the project area dramatically underscore this point. c. Existing infrastructure--Lack of existing infrastructure such as industrial sites with water, sewer, natural gas, electricity, and rail access also serves to hinder the area's competitive posture. The western portion of the area is far better prepared in this regard than other areas of the project area. d. Housing and other social factors--Lack of local amenities such as adequate housing, good public or private schools, and social and recreation opportunities also poses a significant barrier to some of the area's smaller communities. Firms traditionally show considerable interest in this matter because of the concerns of management employees typically imported to manage operations. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - A good transportation network is vital to The Seminole, Oklahoma, industrial park economic development. Pictured is the was designed to integrate into the total Highway 18 - Turner Turnpike (I-44) inter- community. section. Note to 11 gate in the center foreground and rest area in the upper right section. VIII–4 e. Industrial promotion for the study area--Lack of an organized industrial promotion effort for the project area is another major barrier. No single agency or group actively promotes the project area for industry location. The State Department of Economic Development provides loca- tion services and shows any prospective sites throughout the State, which often brings to light the competitive disadvantages of communities in the project area. Some local industrial development groups in the area are active in recruiting, but most are limited financially in the ability to actively promote the community. 4. Considerations to stimulate industrial development. In view of the project area's need to stimulate new employment opportunities and taking into account the dichotomy which exists within the project area itself, the following considerations are made: a . Since the far eastern portion of the project area and several other small communities are at a much more serious competitive disadvantage with regard to stimulating new job opportuni- ties, a basic approach to economic development preparedness could be demonstrated in one or two communities next year. The demonstrations should involve organizing the community's leadership, assessing the community's resources and specific barriers which are preventing economic growth from occurring, and working with the community leadership to determine a logical sequence of development efforts which can place the community in a more competitive position. The Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and development districts have ongoing technical assistance programs which should be integrated into these demonstrations. b. A Regional Industrial Development Association (RIDA) could be established to work with interested counties and communities in the project area to aggressively promote the creation of new jobs in the area. The RIDA concept has been successful in other areas of the country, especially the Tennessee Valley, in augmenting the ongoing efforts of existing State and local efforts. A small professional staff of trained industrial developers should be assembled and an annual operating budget of approximately $100,000 should be elicited from local governments interested in participating. The RIDA staff's primary responsibility would be to serve as the primary interface between industrial prospects and candidate communities, working to provide prospects with pertinent information and to help communities put their "best foot forward" in the recruitment effort. The RIDA can also assist REDC and ITRAD in efforts to secure vendor contract work for communities in the project area and can make valuable use of the financial packaging assistance and financial resources being assembled by these organizations. c. Training seminars could be developed and conducted for interested communities and local industrial groups, explaining ever-changing financing arrangements; ways to emphasize a community's advantages and commitment to development, services, and facilities which most prospects require; etc. These seminars could be conducted by the RIDA in conjunction with the outreach efforts of REDC and ITRAD. d. Arrangements could be made with an area university or research center to provide market analyses and feasibility studies in support of an aggressive industrial promotional effort. These services are often critical in attracting industrial firms and must be available on a timely basis. e. Members of the educational system in the project area should be involved in any industrial development efforts so they would have adequate notice to establish curricula and specific training programs which would enhance the area's labor force availability for specific prospects. VIII-5 CHAPTER IX – WATER RESOURCES A. Surface Water Hydrology (General) The following data are for average climatic and hydrologic conditions in the study area: 1. Rainfall averages about 36 inches (see map No. 1484-500–23), acre-ft/yr. 2. Runoff averages 300 2 or 5.5 inches (map No. 1484–500–23), mi 3. Pan evaporation averages 70 inches (map No. 1484-500–23), 4. Lake evaporation averages 50 inches, 5. Growing season averages 210 days, and 6. Mean annual temperature is about 61° F . Thunderstorms produce a large portion of the annual rainfall. However, some of these thunderstorm systems become violent and capable of producing damaging winds, hail, and tornados. Several major streams traverse the study area. The Arkansas River makes up the northeastern border of Pawnee County. Keystone Lake on the eastern edge of Pawnee County regulates the flow of the Arkansas and the next major stream, the Cimarron River. The Deep Fork, North Canadian, and Canadian Rivers all flow west to east across the area. These streams are all part of the Arkansas River Basin. Coal County and part of Pontotoc County are within the Red River Basin. The Arkansas River, a major study area stream, The Cimarron River, another major stream, as it enters Keystone Lake. Note powerplant that as it traverses the middle portion of uses the reservoir for cooling water supplies. Payne County. Streamflow, rainfall, and reservoir yield rates increase from west to east and from north to south in the study area. Except for Keystone Lake, there are no large reservoirs in the area. There are many small to modest size reservoirs that serve the needs for recreation, M&I water supply, livestock water, powerplant cooling, etc. Table IX-1 summarizes surface water gauge records in and around the area. Map No. 1484-500–24 shows the location of many of these gauges. Not a 11 of the stream records 1 isted in the table are in the study area. However, the data in the table represent the data available for use in analyzing streamflow and reservoir yield in the study area. acre-ft As mentioned before, runoff averages about 300 ==#/ºr in the study area. This ranges from about 150 ==##º in northwestern Payne and Pawnee Counties to about 650 =#º in southeastern Coal County. This wide variance in runoff is mirrored by the rainfall distribution in the area. Map No. 1484-500–6 shows the location of existing surface water resources in the study area. As can be seen, Keystone Lake is the only large lake in the study area. There are numerous small to modest size reservoirs in the area that serve to meet recreation and water use needs. Table IX-2 1 ists the principal reservoirs in the study area and some pertinent data for each site. Reservoir yield estimates have been derived for these reservoirs. The values represent total firm yield 1/ at the 1/ Firm yield is the largest amount of water that can be annually withdrawn from a reservoir of specific size based on the inflow patterns established during the worst drought of record. This definition applies to the calculated values shown in table IX-2. Estimated values shown in the table are not the result of specific inflow studies and reservoir operations. They are an estimation of firm yield based on comparison with calculated values in the surrounding area. IX-1 —n - - o 4 º' us k E E : 7– Average Annual Precipitation Period 1951-80 Average Annual Pan Evaporation Average Annual Runoff acre-feet/sq. mile/year UAV/7 E D S 747 & 5 O EAAA’7A/E/v7r OA 7//E /A/7 &AW/O/º 80/A2 & 4 U OA' A' & CL 4 AMA 7 /OA/ A 4,57-CE//7/741 OA L.A.//OMA WA78TA’ SUAEALY STUDY GEMERAL/ZED //YDAPOLOG/C CHAA’ACTER/ST/CS Amari//o, Veras January, /985 Drawing Wo. /484 - 500-23 96° 5th Stondard Porollel 4th Standard Porqllel 3rd Stondard Porqllel 2nd Standard Porqllel |st Standard Porqllel Bose Line ake Lone clevelangºes/ A-E YSTO/Ver LA A. E. %. - Chimney o * - -- Ranch - <32: °oº an Lake - g < McMurtry -> V - o - - \ ºn - º * º, Sº I ~ - > IO —- v- St. N º º Car/ s | cº- A B/ockweſ/ Stillwoter - 7 8 --- 9 º Z. sº /\ - - | - s P \ -. - ºn o > --- º >~ 36° Arcado Lake Meeker Lake /4 42 Awaari. - Lake ) ºpe C4/V4 ſº or ". Henryeº fg -> - Sºon/ey - <2– - - ( Draper --" Ç Sºo s **** -- Shawnee º ( > - - | sº 69 l ^, % º tº ºz - º - 7. ~ v --- Dusºn ^N | ecumseh ºes. 3:2 ~) ake h - C- sh. * ºf P o TTA w A To MIE 2 - 17 #" « *oº Sportsman Lake º - | Wewok Cº - CŞ wº LÉ Lake CŞ. -- |r1 13 | QWe wokº wn *. S E M | N O Lº sº § ~ - s O | º Holdenville of ºs t 92 ^ 35° \ ^oº County Seot Lokes or Reservoirs Within the Study Area Lokes or Reservoirs Outside the Study Area Indctive Surface Woter Stotion O * ~1 © © ^ A Active Surface Water Stotion Note: Number with gauging station symbol is index numb for associated data in Table TX-1. ; i O K L A H O M A LOCATION MAP Indctive Surface Water and Water Quality sº Active Surface Water and Water Quality Station Afoka APes. #|É #|É #|É 92|| 5 g|5 E|3: —L ºl: 5|: rºl - U/V/7′ED STATES T DEAAA'7ME/V7 OF 7//E //V7 ER/OF |O O |O 2O BUA’EAU/ OF Are CLAMA 7/OW 1–1–1–1–1–1 F-1 I EAST-CEA/774L OKLA/HOMA SCALE OF MILES WATER SUPPLY STUDY STREAM GAUGE LOCAT/OWS ſº º p 29 39 RELAT/VE 7TO STUDY AAPEA SCALE OF KILOMETERS Amar///o, 7 exas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500– 24 Index for map No. 1484-500-24 Stream Gauge Arkansas River Basin l 2 4 Red River Basin 28 Arkansas River at Ralston Black Bear Creek at Pawnee Cottonwood Creek at Seward Cimarron River near Guthrie Skeleton Creek near Lovell Cimarron River near Perkins Council Creek near Stillwater Cimarron River at Oilton Cimarron River at Manford Arkansas River at Tulsa Polecat Creek below Heyburn Dam Walnut Creek at Purcell Little River near Tecumseh Little River near Sasakwa Canadian River at Calvin North Canadian River near Harrah North Canadian River near Wetumka Deep Fork near Arcadia Bellcow Creek at Chandler Dry Creek near Kendrick Deep Fork near Beggs Washita River near Pauls Valley Wildhorse Creek near Hoover Rock Creek at Dougherty Washita River near Dickson Blue River at Milburn Coal Creek near Lehigh Muddy Boggy Creek at Atoka Chicksaw Creek near String town McGee Creek near String town McGee Creek near Farris Muddy Boggy Creek near Farris Clear Boggy Creek near Caney Total Noncontributing Drainage Area Drainage area (mi”) (mi”) 54,465 7,615 576 * 316 &-><--> 16,892 4,926 410 ºº: 17,852 4,926 31 +--> 18, 669 4,926 18,849 4,926 74,615 12,541 123 202 456 865 27,952 13,501 14, 290 105 46 69 2,018 :e-, : : 5,330 * * 604 * gº 138 º 7,202 Gºº 203 {-ee- 445 *º-º-º-º: 32.7 tºº 86.6 e-º- 176 *º-º-º: 1,087 tº-ºo- 720 tº-º- Table IX-1 Streamflow Records In and Around the Study Area (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) USGS Station No. O7152500 O7153000 O7159.750 07.160000 O7160500 O7161000 07.163000 O7163500 O7164000 O7164500 07.165500 O722.93.00 O7230500 07:231000 O7231,500 O724.1550 O724.2000 O7242350 O7242 500 O724.3000 O7243500 O7328.500 O732.9700 O7329900 O7331000 07332400 O7332900 O7332950 07333,500 07333800 07333910 O7334000 O7335000 Average Streamflow Unregulated (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 3,496,000 123,200 90,560 644, 100 82,590 835,300 7,820 900,600 1,292,300 4,745,000 48,470 32,240 107,900 288,400 1,098,000 46,370 9,000 14,420 565,800 489,800 118, 100 46,000 978,800 94, 180 2,050 131,700 22,000 65,000 95,900 626,000 336,200 Regulated 2,494,000 4,919,000 35,140 52,450 166,600 197,000 469,500 Period of Record Oct 1925 to present, regulation since 1975 by Kaw Reservoir. July 1944 to present. March 1973 to present. Oct 1937 to Sept 1976. Oct 1949 to present. June 1939 to present. March 1934 to present. Oc t Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct 1934 to 1948 to 1925 to 1943 to 1950 to 1943 to Sept 1945. Sept 1950 and Oct 1959 through June 1963. present, regulated since 1964 by Keystone Reservoir. Sept 1979, regulated since 1950 by Heyburn Reservoir. Sept 1955, Oct 1958 to Sept 1965 (occasional records), and Oct 1965 to present. present, regulation since March 1965 by Lake Thunderbird. Sept 1942 to present, regulation since March 1965 by Lake Thunderbird. July 1944 to present. Oct 1968 to present, regulated by Lakes Canton and Overholser. Oct 1937 to present, regulation by Lakes Overholser (1917) and Canton (April 1948). Oct 1969 to present. July 1948 to Sept 1955. Oct 1955 to present. Sept 1938 to present. Oct 1937 to present, some regulation by Fort Cobb Reservoir (1959), Foss Reservoir (1961), and SCS structures. Oct 1969 to present. March 1956 to June 1967. Aug Oct Oct Oc t Oct 1928 to 1965 to 1977 to 1978 to 1955 to present, some regulation by Fort Cobb Reservoir (1959), Foss Reservoir (1961), Arbuckle Reservoir (1963) and SCS structures. present. Sept 1981. Sept 1981. Sept 1968. April 1956 to Sept 1968. Oct 1977 to May 1982. Oct 1937 to present, some regulation by Atoka Reservoir since June 1959. Oct 1942 to present. º 5th Stondord Porollel 4th Standord Porollel 3rd Stondard Porollel 2nd Stondard Porqllel lst Standard Porql ſel Bose Line º -º To Kaw Resº- º Lake Lone Chimney 96° -- date Car/ Backweſ, o | - - - --- | Tecumseh Resº - *** WAT O M | E Thunderbºrg Lake |- ^ ºS lºſ ^ | ^. \ _X > * % £4 442/4// EXPLANATION Q County Seot º Lokes or Reservoirs Within the Study Area º Lokes or Reservoirs Outside the Study Area ; i O K L A H O M A i ; O I keys Tower LA A. E. I 1 l l 1 |O I Lake | `-- *|| We woko / Q.- * - º § ..] Hold | º, ſ oldenville G ſº- o – ` H U G H E S -- Lake TN._ºn/e LOCATION MAP |O O | 1 , , ill SCALE OF KILOMETERS scALE of Miles #|É 3|: §§ §|# UW/7′ED STATES DEAAA'7ME/V7 OF 7//E //V7 ER/OF 2O 50/APEAU/ OF Are CLAMA 7/OW I EAST-CEAV7 FAL OKLA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY 2O 3O Ex/ST/AVG SURACE WA7 ER RESOURCES Amar///o, Texas January, /985 36° 35° Map Wo. /484–500–6 Table IX-2 Existing Water Supply Reservoirs (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Revised March 1985) Principal Contributing Water Usage Water Conservation Flood Control Permit Water Use Total Firm Supplies Available In County/Reservoir Name Drainage Area Purpose 1/ Surface Area Storage Storage Usage Entity Firm Yield 1/ Study Area. Before 1990 (mi”) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) (Mgal/d) Coal County Coalgate 14 M 352 3,000 4,974 3,000 Coalgate E 2,000 2,000 1. 785 Hughes County Dustin 2.2 M 28 205 440 -- 5/ Dustin E 150 150 0.134 Henryetta 20.4 M 616 6,660 11,550 10,585 Henryetta 2./ E 4,000 45 2/ 0.040 2/ Ho 1denville 9. 3 M 550 11,000 15,600 3, 150 Holdenville E 2,300 2,300 2.053 We tumka 4.2 M 185 2,000 3,260 3O7 Wetumka E 800 800 0.714 Lincoln County Chandler 5. 3 M 330 2,778 4,334 882 Chandler E 530 530 0.473 Meeker 11.4 M, R, FW 117 1,548 3/ 3,739 67 Meeker C 201 201 O. 179 Kickapoo Nations Site – 1M 32.6 M gº- tº 5/ 8,390 –– 5/ * = -º 5/ Chandler (under constr.) C 4,557 4,557 4.068 Robinson Creek Site – 4M 6.7 M, R 225 1,700 1,680 –– 5/ Prague C 550 550 0.491 Sparks .58 M 16 150 174 22 Sparks C 27 27 0.024 Stroud 16.2 M, R, FW 586 8,000 3/ 4,994 500 Stroud C 1,300 1,300 1. 161 Okfuskee County Okemah 20. 2 M 720 10,800 26, 200 1,779 Okemah E 3,300 3,300 2.946 Weleetka 2.1 M 60 385 620 233 Weleetka E 200 200 O. 179 Pawnee County Cleveland 21.6 M 64 2,212 - E- 2,450 Cleveland E 750 750 O. 670 Keystone 22,351 M, FC, P, FW 55,320 20,000 1,218,500 22,400 Corps of Engineers C 22,400 -- 4/ -- 4 / Lake Lone Chimney 26. 3 M, FC 550 4, 210 6,490 – 5/ Tri-County Dev. Auth. C 2,507 2,507 2. 238 Pawnee 13 M 257 3,855 *=-ºº-ºº 560 Pawnee E 950 950 0.848 Sooner –– 5/ P, FC, R –– 5/ 149,000 47,500 3,600 Oklahoma Gas & Electric -- 6/ -- 6/ –– 6/ Payne County Boomer 9 P 260 2,486 tº tº -- 5/ Stillwater –– 6/ – 6/ -- 6/ Carl Blackwell 75 5/ M, R 3,380 55,000 O 7,000 7/ OSU at Stillwater C 7,000 7,000 6. 249 Cushing —— T M 440 4,567 tº º mº 3,250 Cushing E 1,800 1,800 1. 607 McMurtry 25.27 M, FC, R 1,155 13,500 5,000 3,000 Stillwater C 3,000 3,000 2. 678 Kaw 7,250 M, FC, P, FW 17,000 428,600 1,348,000 -- 5/ Corps of Engineers 8/ C 187,000 14,560 8/ 13.000 8/ Pontotoc County - NONE Pottawatomie County Shawnee 32.5 M 2,436 34,000 O 8,000 Shawnee E 3,700 3,700 3.303 Tecumseh 4.8 M 127 1, 118 2,370 455 Tecumseh E 350 350 O. 312 Seminole County Konawa 11.8 P 1,100 12,500 41,000 8,000 Oklahoma Gas & Electric -- 6/ – 6/ –– 6/ Sportsman 12.7 FW, R 355 4,000 5,430 3,000 Oklahoma Fish & Game E 1,800 –– 9/ * = e º 'º 9/ Wewoka 12.. O M 200 3,301 9,070 998 Wewoka E 1,000 1,000 O. 893 1/ Abbreviations: M = municipal, FC = flood control, P = power cooling, R = recreation, FW = fish & wildlife; E = estimated; and C = calculated. 2/ Lake is in Okmulgee County. Salem RWC purchases water to serve four counties, two of which are in study area (Hughes and Okfuskee). Assumed only 0.040 Mgal/d available due to treatment plant capacity limits. Reservoir capability to meet future demands not yet evaluated . 3/ Data provided included specific storage allocation for recreation and/or fish and wildlife. 4./ Extreme fluctuation of reservoir pool during normal operations would require pipeline at dam outlet works near Tulsa, which has thus far been found cost prohibitive. 5/ Not yet determined or readily available. 6/ Cooling reservoir. 7/ Permitted maximum withdrawal rate. 8/ Reservoir is in Osage County. Stillwater has contract to purchase and import up to 50 Mgal/d. Present plans for the future are to import up to 13 Mgal/d. 9/ Exclusively built for purposes of fish, wildlife, and recreation. No municipal supply allocation. sites. A separate column shows the amount of the yield available in the study area (the full yields of Kaw and Henryetta Reservoirs are not listed because they are located outside the study area, and other demands are placed on their supplies). As denoted on the table, some of the yields are the result of calculations that were done when the sites were planned and constructed. However, most of the yields were estimated by making use of the limited amounts of data available for the various sites. These preliminary estimates will be reviewed as the study progresses and will be revised as necessary based on any additional data that may be found. Water permit amounts are also shown in the table. These amounts generally differ from the yield estimate because they reflect approved permit applications and the application may be based on anticipated needs rather than analysis of the source capability. The Deep Fork is another important stream in the study A scenic reach of the North Canadian area, shown here as it flows through the middle of River in Okfuskee County. Note Weleetka Lincoln County. Note stockwater dugout and flood pro- Lake in the upper center. tection embankment in the lower left. Information for previously identified potential reservoirs is displayed in table IX-3. Location of their associated damsites may be found on map No. 1484-500–8. These are sites that have been iden— tified in the past as possible locations for development. The list is not meant to be the final word on potential sites. As the study progresses and demand centers are more firmly defined, other new sites may become more attractive for development. The estimates of yield and conservation storage were developed in a very general manner except for Lela, Parker, and the SCS North Deer Creek Watershed Site 1M. These sites have existing reservoir yield studies, and those results are reflected in the table. Detailed studies for the remaining reservoirs will be undertaken only for the sites that are required after the analysis of demand is completed, demand centers are identi- fied, and water supply alternatives are formulated. Yield and storage estimates shown in table IX-3 may differ from other published or documented estimates. The values shown are not the final results. They are initial planning estimates calcu- lated by areal estimating procedures. They show the potential for yield at each site, but the esti- mates do not account for extenuating conditions in the watersheds such as water rights or the operation of downstream reservoirs. For example, the effects of such potential reservoirs as Atwood and Welty on the operations at Eufaula were not considered at this time. If needed, those analyses will be done in future studies. Also, the effects of the tributary reservoirs above such sites as Welty were likewise not considered. Those refinements were not a part of these initial estimates. In summary, these are generic estimates of water development potential that will be refined as firm plans emerge. B. Ground Water Hydrology (General) 1. Geological background . Ground water aquifers are geological formations containing sustained quantities of water. It is appropriate, therefore, to provide some general geological background to assist in understanding the description of each aquifer. The information presented has been abstracted from the 1980 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan. Map No. 1484–500–16 shows the geologi— cal formations in the study area as well as a geologic time scale. Most of the rocks that outcrop in Oklahoma are of sedimentary origin, consolidated from sediments deposited during the Paleozoic era and covering about 75 percent of the state. Locally, some Paleozoic formations achieve a thickness of 40,000 feet. The oldest of these are the Precambrian granites and rhyolites formed 1.05 to 1.35 billion years ago. Precambrian and Cambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks underlie all of the state, and provide the 'floor' upon which all younger rocks rest. The three principal mountain belts--southern Oklahoma's Ouachitas, Arbuckles and Wichitas--were formed by folding, faulting and uplift during the Pennsylvanian period. North of these mountain uplifts lie the deep Anadarko and Arkoma basins, and still farther north, the relatively undisturbed shelf areas of northern Oklahoma. IX—4 5th Stondord Porollel 4th Standord Porollel 3rd Stondard Pord ||el 2nd Stondard Porollel |st Stondard Porqllel Bose Line 36° - AP * - ſ s o RQN & a cº º `-sº º º | º - º oke º º | L J N C Co L N - Aa///s 2 - -- - \ Q. Chand/en Kendrick --- Sºe Loke So/? tº \. hond ler ©º - o: --- ~ | o: 5,6 - - We/f º º - Davenpor --- e/ry Wuyoko o –– - Vuskegee 99. Adden O Morse |G| º º - O Acº º º O sº º § CŞ Skº S I 2%- - \\ § S. | S & º S. º, S. sº º º & S - _n(**** S. § s , --- %cºs & O K F \ U K Sºme ºf º | N Meeker Lake Bo/ | |- - - o/e : | >< y Okemoſh Cr. º 4// º Lake ~ ) *|ce & º 4. ſº º, Henryeºg Sºon/ey SC º 32. – - S. Draper Sife º - Sº • We/eerko Q sº Sh Af Show nee º -- º S. ºe - --- dºwnee lºres. G) * º/ I — --" | */ G \e ºne º 5. A ^, Center - } 0 º — — - Ridge \–º \\ Ao/n/ v º- (Weleetka Dusºn º ^N I ſecºnseh ºes. Cºo date - C- - º AP OT TA W A T O M | E - Alsº e Lake --- Cr. l |- --~ Oxbo º an Cr N. ºrg/. º | rº Little Aºver ^ near Tecumseh | t >9: - º K& | Mountain TN, //o/denvºſ/e o ~ - - . N %. Lake Sasakwa | 35 * - £4 \ Ac S. EXPLANATION -º || - zººlºgy Go County Seot Asher ºn - º * Lokes or Reservoirs | yº | Within the Study Area º º Lokes or Reservoirs N_/ Spring creek sº Outside the Study Area cº- 4 O % - --- º --- da _ Previously identified P O T O T ON, C Potential Multipurpose Sites | Vanoss ~. I - Previously identified Potentin Hydropower Sites º 96° kE YSTO/wº LA A. E. date Car/ B/ockweſ/ o | º - - - I #|: A/ O K L A H O M A a 5 $| = $| 5 #|É 35 3|: —L º : § # Rºl = U/V/7′ED STATES T DEAAA'7ME/v7 OF 7//E //V7 ER/OF O O |O 2O BUAPEAU/ OF AfECL 4/M47/OA/ *— H I EAST-CENTRAL OKLA/HOMA SCALE OF MILES WATER SUPPLY STUDY AREV/OUSLY /DEA/7/F/ED AOTEAV7/AL LOCATION MAP |O O |O 2O 3O MULT/PURPOSE A/VD HYDROPOWER | 1 , . . . . . 1–11 l l I DAM S/7′ES SCALE OF KILOMETERS Amar///o, 7 exas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500–8 Tab1e IX-3 Previously Identified Potential Reservoirs - Storage and Yield Estimates (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Average Basin Estimated Damsite Drainage Area Precipitation Estimated Storage Firm Yield (mi”) (inches) (acre-feet) (acre-ft/yr) Lela 545 32 199,200 48,400 1/ Fallis 94 33 33,000 9,900 T Wellston 58 33 25,000 7,700 Kendrick 82 35 28,000 7,800 Davenport 176 36 67,000 18,500 Quapaw 69 34.5 33,000 9, 200 Paden 39 37 19,000 5,200 Welty 1,387 35 600,000 166,000 2/ Tuskegee 1,500 35 650,000 180,000 2/ Morse 84 39 58,000 16,000 T Centerpoint 7.4 35 3,000 7OO Boley 1,575 33 680,000 189,000 2/ Hickory Ridge 1,789 33 775,000 215,000 2/ Oxbow 343 40 265,000 74,000 Tate Mountain 342 37 180,000 44, 500 Sasakwa 6.13 37 325,000 80,000 Asher 21,660 (est.) 30 500,000 400,000 2/ Byng 21,960 (est.) 30 500,000 400,000 2/ Atwood 22, 110 (est.) 30 500,000 400,000 2/ Steedman 27 40.5 24,000 6,600 Spring Creek 46 39 31,000 8,700 Wanoss 63 39 43,000 12,000 Ada 195 39 135,000 37,000 Parker 172 41 114,650 47,000 3/ Non 94 41.5 71,000 27,000 T Tupelo 380 40.5 280,000 93,000 3/ Nuyaka 2, 146 35 -- –– A/ North Deer Creek 38.5 35 10,082 2,020 5/ Site – 1M - Pecan Creek 32 35 15,000 3,360 6/ Little River near 200 35 175,000 16,800 6/ Tecumseh - 1 / Information from Reclamation studies for State Water Plan. 2/ These yield and storage estimates were made without consideration for existing downstream reservoir operations (Eufaula Power, Arkansas Navigation, etc.) 3/ Corps of Engineers yield study results. 4/ Yield and storage not estimated; this site will be evaluated for hydropower potential. 5/ Yield and storage data from SCS critical yield studies. 6/ Data from Water Supply Study, Shawnee, Oklahoma, June 1981 by Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc., The aerial view of the Canadian River, north of Ada, shows the Oklahoma City Aqueduct as Dense forest nearly obscures the Little River as it flows through lower Seminole it crosses the river. The aqueduct conveys County. water from Atoka Reservoir to Stanley Draper Lake. IX-5 5th Stondord Porollel 4th Stondord Porollel 3rd Stondord Porollel 2nd Stondord Porollel 1st Stondord Porollel Bose Line To KAW REs. 97 ° 96° ^ I P A w ) N E E \/\, - Stillwoter I P A Y ri lokLAHOMA | CITY EXPLANATION Go County Seot | LOCATION MAP - Pownee - r 6 4. le -- - | I T CIMARRON | | I 5. | E lie GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE GEOLOGIC ERA GEOLOGIC PERIOD BEGINNING (MILLION 36° 33 - | YEARS AGO) - - Cenozoic Quaternary l - Tertiary 70 177 - Gs) Mesozoic Cretaceous 135 Jurassic 180 ss | Triassic 220 I Paleozoic Permian 270 L | Pennsylvanian 320 N C O L N Mississippian 350 | Devonian 400 Silurian 430 Ordovician 490 Chondler I Cambrian 600 I ~ Precambrian 4,500 I | |- O K F U S K E E | _^ | NJ S 62 I | º ſº Okemoh - Ge) -_^* 1./J 40 H275)— 757.1 º | % Shownee º - > I - Z - Weleetko 9 27 O TT A W A).T O M | E ^ | ^ 177 ^ Holdenville 35° § # § 3 o § º, g S - cº- ro UAV/7′ED STATES DEAAA'7/MEA/7 of 7//E //V7 ER/OA’ |O O IO 2O 60/APE40 of AºECL 4MAT/OW l 1–1–1 I | SCALE OF MILES EAS7–CE/V7 AºAL O/CLA/HOMA W.47 ER SUAALY S7 UDY g º p 2O 3O GEAVERAL /ZED GEOLOGY 1–1–1–1–1 I SCALE OF KILOME TERS Amari//o Texas Wovember, /984 Drawing Wo. /484 - 500-/6 Nonmarine shales and sandstones characterize the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of Oklahoma. Shallow seas covered southern and western Oklahoma during some of the era's Cretaceous period, and marine deposits resulted in limestone and shale. Since the beginning of the Tertiary period, none of the state has been covered by sea Water • Oklahoma's land surface sloped down to the east and southeast, and extensive deposits of Tertiary sand and gravel were washed in by large rivers flowing from the newly formed Rocky Mountains. The Quaternary period through the present is characterized as a time of erosion. Rocks and loose sediment at the surface are being weathered to soil, then the soil particles are carried away to streams and rivers. In this way, hills and mountains are worn down, and the sediment is either carried to the sea or at least temporarily deposited on the banks and in the bottoms of rivers and lakes. 2. Location and description of aquifers . Principal ground water aquifers in the study area are shown on map No. 1484-500-14. Descriptive information on the aquifers have been taken from the July 1984 draft TVA report entitled Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma. The report covered the 24 Redark counties, which includes the 9 counties in the study area for this report. a • Quaternary alluvial and terrace aquifer--Alluvial and terrace deposits of sand and gravel to the major streams in southeastern Oklahoma make up one of the most productive aquifers in the study area (Bingham and Bergman 1980). Because of the similarity of the water-bearing prop- erties of the alluvium and terrace deposits, they are combined and referred to as the alluvial and terrace aquifer. These aquifers range in thickness from 50 to 200 feet and range in width from 1 to 5 miles. The aquifer is connected with the perennial streams in the area and is composed of sand and gravel in the lower part of the alluvium. Ground water generally is at shallow depths within the reach of plant roots. The alluvial material above the sand and gravel varies from fine sand to silt and clay; consequently, the water in the aquifer may be under water table or semiconfined conditions. Well yields in the alluvial aquifer are largest in those areas where the saturated coarse sand and gravel are thickest. Where the basal coarse sand and gravel zone is thick, the aquifer yields 150 to 500 gallons per minute (gal/min); where the basal coarse sand and gravel zone is thin or absent, well yields are less than 50 gal/min. The alluvial aquifers located along minor streams are composed of fine-grained sand containing varying amounts of silt and clay; thus, the permeability is generally low. Well yields range from less than 25 gal/min to a maximum of 50 gal/min. Development and use of wells in the alluvial aquifer located along streams can result in a severe reduction or even depletion of streamflow or deterioration in ground water quality. Some of the water pumped from wells in the alluvial aquifers is the same water that would have discharged to the streams, and pumping from wells near the streams may induce water into the aquifer from the affected stream. Inducing recharge from a stream may cause a deterioration of water quality in the alluvial aquifer. During periods of base flow, water in the major streams contains more dissolved minerals and more natural and manmade pollutants than water stored in the adjacent alluvial aquifer. Ground water use by 20 water systems in the Quaternary aquifer in 1982 totaled approximately 2.22 million gallons per day (Mgal/d). The average use per well ranged from about .01 to .03 Mgal/d. The aquifer has the potential use per existing wells to develop about 8.0 Mgal/d as an additional supplemental supply for existing or new water systems in the 24-county study area (TWA study area). The cost effectiveness of developing this alternative future source of water supply should be determined to verify this option. Analyses indicate that water from the alluvium generally contains less than 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) dissolved solids. The water is of the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type. Locally, the alluvium along some of the minor streams contains more than 1,000 mg/L dissolved solids. A large variation in water quality of the alluvium probably is the result of pumpage, which increases the inflow of poor quality water from the nearby stream. Additional water quality data are needed to characterize the variable quality of water of the alluvial aquifer in the study area • Generally, the quality is suitable for potable supplies with minimal treatment. However, replacement water supplies are needed or specialized treatment is required to reduce brine nitrates and, in some cases, heavy metal contamination problems in some areas. b. Garber-Wellington Aquifer--The Garber-Wellington Aquifer in western Lincoln and Pottawatomie Counties includes all of the water-bearing units of Permian age in the study area (Bingham and Moore 1975). The aquifer consists of fine- to medium-grained sandstone beds irregu– larly interbedded with shale. The thickness of individual sandstone beds ranges from a feather edge to as much as 50 feet within short lateral distances. The combined maximum thickness of the forma— tions is more than 500 feet. The transmissibility of the fine-grained sandstone is not high and drawdowns in wells are great, but some wells yield as much as 100 to 200 gal/min. The sandstone grains of the aquifer are loosely cemented, and ground water occurs in fractures and bedding planes between the sandstone and shale beds. In the outcrop area, ground water is uncon- fined and occurs under water table conditions. Where the sandstone beds are overlain by shale units, the aquifer is partially confined; but most of the water-bearing beds are hydrologically connected . IX-6 96° 5th Stondord Porollel 4th Standard Porqllel 3rd Stondard Pard ||el 2nd Stondard Porollel |st Stondard Porqllel Bose Line Go º ~! [[III] º º º º º º *EYSTOWE 36- ) sº Shawnee Thunderbºrg Lake \ \ County Seat Lokes or Reservoirs Within the Study Area Lokes or Reservoirs Outside the Study Area Quoternary Alluvium Gorber Sandstone and Wellington Formation Add-Vamooso Formation Simpson Group Arbuckle Group Minor Bedrock ; i ExPLANATION -º || O K L A H O M A o - - - º - 9 \,, H U S H E S ºr K | - º - & | Y º º - º %. Fº º o 36° Lake Henryeºg We/eefko l :--> dke Lake werumkº // /// Kege º - º º ^ C- PQ TTA w A To MIE |>.º. - { - *º- % Sportsman Lake R - - º s º Wewoº Cº º ºvº º // Lake - Q.- HQ rtº | - QWe woko º S/E M 1/N O - * y º - º º Holdenville S. º / - //o/denvºſ/e - 35° A/ a 5 #| 5 to 1.- - I - ‘5 | E 3| E 2|5 E|3: —L vo I- & |> |O O |O | 1 1–1–1–1 | I SCALE OF MILES |O O |O 2O 3O ; U/V/7′ED STA7 ES DEAAA'7ME/v7 OA 7//E //V7 ER/OR BUAPEAU/ OF AfECL 4 MA7/OA/ EAST-CEAV7ſ54L OALA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY LOCATION MAP 11-1-1-1+1-1+1-1 l I I SCALE OF KILOMETERS GAZOUWD WA7 ER AfESOURE EAS/WS Amar///o, Texas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500–/4 Ground water use by four water systems in the Garber-Wellington Aquifer in 1982 totaled approximately 0.27 Mgal/d. The average use per well ranged from about .07 to . 17 Mgal/d. The aquifer has the potential use per existing wells to develop about 0.2 Mgal/d of additional water which could serve as supplemental or sole sources of supply for existing or new water systems in the 24-county study area (TVA study area). The cost effectiveness of developing this alternative future souce of water supply, however, should be determined to verify this option since it would require the construction of six new wells. The development and use of large capacity wells in this aquifer, however, might result in the deterioration of water quality because of the saline water in some sandstone units in the area. Also, large pumping amounts would exceed recharge, resulting in mining of water and a lowering of the water level. The water quality of the Garber-Wellington is generally good in most of the outcrop area. The water is moderately hard and of the sodium-bicarbonate type. Downdip, the water becomes highly mineralized . Additional water quality data are needed to characterize the quality of water of the Garber- Wellington. c. Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer (Pennsylvanian)--The Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer is the major aquifer in Pawnee, Payne, Lincoln, Seminole, and Ponto toc Counties (Bingham and Moore 1975). The aquifer consists of fine- to coarse-grained sandstone beds irregularly interbedded with shale. The thickness of the sandstone beds varies considerably within short lateral distances. The combined maximum thickness of the Ada-Vamoosa Formations is about 600 to 750 feet with a saturated sandstone bed thickness of 150 to 200 feet. Deep wells which penetrate the maximum thickness of saturated sandstone commonly yield 100 to 150 gal/min. Shallow wells which penetrate only some of the sandstone beds generally yield only 25 to 50 gal/min. The sandstone grains of the aquifer are cemented, and ground water occurs in fractures and bedding planes between the sandstone and shale beds. In most of the area, ground water is unconfined and occurs under water table conditions. Saltwater from oilfield activities has impacted water in some sandstone units of the Ada-Vamoosa. The location and extent of the aquifer brine contamination has been studied by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and will be discussed later under water quality. Ground water use by 21 water systems in the Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer totaled approximately 7.2 Mgal/d in 1982. Two-thirds of this use was supplied by the Ada municipal system, which is the largest ground water user in the study area. The average well use ranged from .01 to .07 Mgal/d except for the Ada well system. The aquifer has the potential to develop about 4.4 Mgal/d of additional water, which could serve as supplemental or sole sources of supply for existing or new water systems in the study area. The cost effectiveness of developing this alternative future source of water supply, however, should be determined to verify this option. The development and use of large capacity wells in this aquifer might result in the deterioration of water quality because of the saline water in some sandstone units of the aquifer. The quality of water from the Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer varies from good to poor. The water is hard or very hard and generally contains less than 500 mg/L dissolved solids. Locally, the water contains sulfate and chloride in excess of 250 mg/L, the maximum recommended for drinking water. Some mineralization of the water might be due to contamination by oil well brines, particularly in the vicinity of the many oilfields. Such contamination may result from seepage from waste pits, defec- tive well casing, defective well abandonment, water flooding operations, or improper brine disposal. Additional water quality data are needed to characterize the quality of water of the Ada-Vamoosa and to determine the location and extent of brine contamination of the aquifer. d. Minor bedrock aquifers (Pennsylvanian)--With the exception of the Ada-Vamoosa aquifer, all of the geologic formations of Pennsylvanian age in the study area comprise a minor bedrock aquifer which underlies about three-fourths of the area (Marcher 1969). This aquifer consists of shale, siltstone, coal, limestone, and clay units interbedded with fine- to coarse-grained sandstone. Ground water occurs under water table conditions in fractures, faults, and bedding planes between the sandstone and shale beds. Ground water yields depend upon the number and interconnection of the openings in the sandstone because the sandstone grains are cemented. Commonly, ground water yields range from a fraction of 1 gal/min to less than 20 gal/min. Ground water use by 24 water systems in the minor bedrock aquifer to taled approximately 1.5 Mgal/d in 1982. The average well use ranged from .01 to .03 Mgal/d. The aquifer has the potential use per existing wells to develop about 0.8 Mgal/d of additional water which could serve as supplemental or sole sources of supply for existing or new water systems in the 24-county study area (TWA study area). These systems are located generally in the interstream areas where there are problems with inadequate water quantities. The cost effectiveness of developing these potential future supplies may be severely limited because of the low available quantity of ground water. The cost effec- tiveness of developing these sources should be determined before planning additional wells in the minor bedrock aquifer. The quality of water from the minor bedrock aquifer generally is good. The water is hard or very hard and generally contains less than 500 mg/L dissolved solids. Some local mineralization of the water might be due to contamination by oil well brines, particularly in the vicinity of the many oilfields. Additional water quality data are needed to characterize the quality of water from the minor bedrock aquifer. IX-7 e. Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer--The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer occurs in parts of Pontotoc, Murray, and Johnston Counties (Hart 1974). The aquifer consists of dolomite, limestone, and fine- grained, friable, loosely cemented sandstones. The aquifer is about 300 to 500 feet thick. Yields of 200 to 500 gal/min are common in the outcrop area of the aquifer. Ground water occurs under water table conditions in fractures and cavities in the carbonate units of the aquifer. Ground water use by four water systems in the aquifer was about 1.5 Mgal/d in 1982. The average use per well ranged from about .01 to .26 Mgal/d. The aquifer has the potential use per existing wells to develop about 1.1 Mgal/d of additional water which could serve as supplemental or sole sources of supply for existing or new water systems in the 24-county study-area (TWA study area). The cost effectiveness of developing these potential future supplies, however, should be determined before planning additional wells in this aquifer. The quality of water from the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer is generally good and is usually of the bicarbonate type. The dissolved solids content is generally less than 500 mg/L. Some local min- eralization of the water might be due to contamination by oil well brines, particularly in the vicinity of the oil fields. 3. Existing ground water supply capability. Capability in this text is defined as the best estimate of the amount of water that can be produced by the existing in-place well system. The capability values are not referring to the maximum available local ground water production quan- tities. Very preliminary estimates have been made of the existing ground water supply capabilities of the study area's respective well systems. Sources of information include (1) Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, draft report, TVA, July 1985; (2) Rural Water Systems in Oklahoma, OWRB, September 1980; (3) staff at SODA; and (4) telephone calls to water user entities. Some entities do not have any data on their well capacities. The TVA noted that a number of entities reported well capacities that were questionable in light of other known data. The number and size of wells seem to be dynamic, with a number of changes within the study area when data of 1 or more years difference are compared. A number of changes have been noted during the few brief months this study has been underway. Water withdrawal rate permits are also shown in table IX-4. They are not based on well- pumping capacity, but rather approval of the amount requested by the water user entity in terms of anticipated needs rather than existing capabilities. Other factors sometimes used in making esti- mates were average daily use, peak demand, storage capacity, and reported shortage data . Table IX-4 displays these preliminary estimates of existing ground water supply capability. Estimated total for the study area is about 16.6 Mgal/d, 64 percent of which belongs to the cities of Ada (8.16 Mgal/d) and Seminole (2.38 Mgal/d). It is interesting to note that Ponto toc is the only study area county to depend exclusively on ground water supplies. C. Water Quality 1. Surface water quality. As in most of the other parts of the State, the quality of surface waters in the study area fluctuates widely. A principal problem hindering surface water develop- ment in western and central Oklahoma is water quality. In western Oklahoma and the major river basins flowing into central and eastern Oklahoma, most of the the surface water quality problem is due to natural brine and gypsum contamination from ancient Permian geological salt formations that pollute the surface water supplies. Reclamation Service began study of these natural brine contamination springs and seeps in the early 1900's . During the 1960's, the U.S. Public Health Service, precursor to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), made several excellent reports of the gypsum and brine contamination problems in the region. Later the Corps developed engineering and economic evaluations of possible pollution by the natural brines. The Corps' study plans have not yet been developed beyond experimental or small scale demonstration projects. The Cimarron River is severely polluted by brine springs, seeps, and salt outcroppings shortly after reentering Oklahoma from Kansas near Buffalo, Oklahoma. The brine salt levels probably render the main stem of Cimarron River unfit for surface water development for municipal purposes (without extensive treatment) through the study area. High evaporation rates and low flows, causing high salt levels during the summer months, hinder utilization of the North Canadian and Canadian Rivers. On the North Canadian River above, through, and below Oklahoma City, wastewater discharges, especially during base flows, have adversely affected the potential surface water development of this major river. Urban runoff from the Oklahoma City metropolitan area also has adversely affected the surface water quality of the upper Deep Fork, North Canadian, and the upper Little River drainages. Future development of these streams would require water quality analyses prior to municipal water development. As will be noted later, brine contamination from older, unregulated oilfield development also contributed to limiting areas suitable for surface water and ground water development and, in some cases, may preclude cost- effective development of otherwise suitable reservoir sites. An example of oilfield contamination hampering surface water development is what has been noted by Reclamation's study of the Sasakwa reservoir site. Water quality data and consultations with State personnel pointed to brine con- tamination of Salt Creek and the lower Little River drainage basins. Salt levels are probably suf- ficient to preclude economic development of Sasakwa damsite through normal reservoir operations and water quality treatment processes. However, Reclamation is studying the Tate Mountain damsite above the Salt Creek tributary on the Little River that apparently has salt levels much less than in the Sasakwa area. Reclamation is participating with USGS in collecting water data to further define quality for the Tate Mountain damsite area. Another possible alternative damsite on the Little River was proposed by Benham-Blair IX-8 Preliminary Estimates of Existing Ground Water Supply Capability = (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Revised March 1985) Number of Reported State Permitted Daily Estimated Total Water User Entity Wells Formation Capacit Withdrawal Rate Existing Capability tºº-º-º-º-º-º-º-e # (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) COAL TCoalgate PWA 4 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone 0.13 0.2 0. 130 Lehigh, city of 6 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone 0.16 0.03 0.045 Tupelo PWA 8 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone 0.04 0.18 0.050 (more under construction) COAL COUNTY TOTAL O. 225 HUGHES Calvin, town of 2 wells Canadian River Alluvium 0.108 0.72 0.070 RWD No. 2 (Stuart) 3 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone O. 11 0.11 O. 110 HUGHES COUNTY TOTAL 0. 180 LINCOLN Big Creek RWC 7 wells Ada-Wamoosa O. 37.2 0.14 0.140 Carney, city of 3 wells Garber-Wellington 0.09 0.06 0.090 Prague, city of 8 wells Ada-Vamoosa 0.626 0.49 0.626 Tryon, city of 2 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone Unknown Unknown 0.026 Wellston, city of 3 wells Garber-Wellington 0.36 Unknown 0.075 LINCOLN COUNTY TOTAL 0.957 OKFUSKEE RWD No. 1 (Boley) 6 wells Ada-Vamoosa O. 12 Unknown O. 120 Paden, town of 2 wells Ada-Vamoosa 0.24 Unknown 0.050 OKFUSKEE COUNTY TOTAL O. 170 PAWNEE Blackburn-Skedee Water, Inc. 2 wells Ada-Wamoosa 0.10 Unknown 0. 102 Hallett PWA 3 wells Ada-Vamoosa 0.192 1. 14 0.192 Jennings, town of 3 wells Ada-Wamoosa Unknown 0.070 0.070 RWD No. 1 2 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone Unknown Unknown 0.093 RWD No. 2 (Terlton) 3 wells Ada-Vamoosa Unknown Unknown O. O.75 Ralston PWA 3 wells Arkansas River Alluvium 0.204 0.29 0.290 Westport UAT 4 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone 0.03 0.10 0.015 PAWNEE COUNTY TOTAL 0.837 PAYNE Cushing, city of 9 wells Ada-Wamoosa 0.36 3.18 0.360 Glencoe, town of 6 wells Minor Pensylvanian Sandstone 0.05 0.14 0.050 Perkins, town of 13 wells Cimarron River Alluvium 0.36 0.64 O. 360 Ripley PWA 5 wells Cimarron River Alluvium 0.05 0.09 0.050 RWD No. 3 4 wells Cimarron River Alluvium O. 12 Unknown O. 120 Yale, city of 4 wells Cimarron River Alluvium 0.60 Unknown 0.600 PAYNE COUNTY TOTAL 1.540 PONTOTOC Ada PWA Bird's Mill Springs Ada-Vamoosa 8. 16 8.64 8. 160 and 3 wells Allen PWA 4 wells Canadian River Alluvium O. 47 0.72 O. 170 Francis, city of 4 wells Canadian River Alluvium O. 12 0.06 0. 115 Roff, town of 2 wells Arbuckle-Simpson 0.36 1.05 O. 118 Stonewall, town of 5 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock 0.04 0.45 0.070 PONTOTOC COUNTY TOTAL 8.633 POTTAWATOMIE Asher, city of 2 wells Canadian River Alluvium 0.07 O. 1 7 0.025 Earlsboro Water, Inc. 3 wells Ada-Wamoosa 0.18 0.29 0.300 McLoud, city of 4 wells Garber-Wellington 0.31 0.54 0.306 Maud, city of 4 wells Ada-Wamoosa 0.144 0.46 O. 180 St. Louis Utility Authority 2 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock 0.05 O. 19 0.020 Tecumseh, city of 5 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock 0.54 Unknown O. 170 Wanette, city of 2 wells Canadian River Alluvium 0.05 0.33 0.050 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY TOTAL 1.051 SEMINOLE Bowlegs, town of 1 well Ada-Vamoosa 0.03 Unknown 0.030 Bowlegs-Lima Water District 3 wells Ada-Vamoosa 0. 12 0.06 0.200 Konowa, city of 5 wells Canadian River Alluvium Unknown 0.36 0.200 Sasakwa, city of 1 well Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock Unknown 0.02 0.018 Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation 2 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock Unknown Unknown 0.028 Seminole, city of 16 wells Ada-Wamoosa 2. 38 3. 89 2.380 SEMINOLE COUNTY TOTAL 2.856 GRAND TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA 16. 602 l/ Sources: Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, Draft Report, TVA, July 1984; Rural Water Systems in Oklahoma, OWRB, September 1980; Staff of SODA; and telephone calls to water user entities. Note: Estimates of capability made by Reclamation are very preliminary in nature. IX-9 and Affiliates, Inc. Their Tecumseh damsite is upstream of Reclamation's Tate Mountain site and is described in their June 1981 Water Supply Study, Shawnee, Oklahoma. Most of the major rivers--Cimarron, North Canadian, and Canadian--in the east-central area have water quality problems (in the case of the Cimarron River) which hinder normal surface water development for municipal water supply purposes. Marginal water quality of the North Canadian and Canadian Rivers is probably a principal reason these basins have not been developed to their full yield potential. However, there are numerous tributaries of the larger rivers that, with standard water treatment, yield very good quality of water. These tributaries are not being utilized to their full development potential. This investigation and other future water development studies will need to address the water quality of these tributaries on a case-by-case basis, which will require development of additional water quality and flow information. Although the water quality of the previously mentioned major streams appears to limit development possibilities for drinking water supplies, these rivers may still be considered for other water development purposes such as irrigation, power generating plant cooling water, hydropower genera- tion, navigation, flood control, recreation, as well as fish, wildlife, and environmental enhancement. 2. Standards for drinking water quality. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the attendant Federal and State regulations provide a strong legal basis for protecting public health. All water supply systems which have at least 15 service connections and regularly serve at least 25 individuals are regulated by water quality standards. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act established primary and secondary drinking water standards for the Nation's water supplies. These standards are contained in the Oklahoma State Department of Health's "Rules and Regulations Governing Operation of Public Water Supply Systems" as maximum allowable levels and recommended maximum levels. Compliance with the maximum allowable levels (primary standards) is mandatory. Systems which do not comply must establish a plan and schedule for correcting deficiencies and be granted a variance or an exemption. They must also notify system users of their noncompliance. Recommended maximum levels (secondary standards) are not mandatory rejection levels and do not require public notification; however, in applying for permits for new systems or revisions to existing systems, public water supplies must address the feasibility of meeting recommended maximum levels in the preliminary engineering report submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The Public Water Supply Monitoring Program is administered by the Environmental Health Services of the Oklahoma State Department of Health under EPA Grant No. F-006204-83–0. Table IX-5 displays the Oklahoma Standards for drinking water quality that are referred to in subsequent discussions: Table IX-5 Oklahoma Primary (Allowable) and Secondary (Recommended) Drinking Water Standards (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Maximum Allowable Levels (Primary Standards) Constituent Level Inorganic chemicals Arsenic 50 jug/L Barium 1,000 jug/L Cadmium 10 Jug/L Chromium 50 jug/L Lead 50 Jig/L Mercury 2 Jug/L Nitrate (as nitrogen) 10 mg/L Selenium - 1 Jug/L Silver -- 50 jug/L Fluoride 1.6 mg/L Organic chemicals Chlorinated hydrocarbons Endrin 0.2 yºg/L Lindane 4 pg/L Methoxychlor 100 jug/L Toxaphene 5 jug/L Chlorophenoxys 2.4-D 100 jug/L 2. 4.5-TP (silvex) */ 10 ug/L To tal trihalomethanes — 100 yug/L Chloroform Bromoform Bromodichloromethane Dibromochloromethane Turbidity 5 NTU */ Standard applies only to systems serving populations greater than 75,000 and is based upon the average of the most recent four quarters. IX-10 Table IX-5 (Continued) Oklahoma Primary (Allowable) and Secondary (Recommended) Drinking Water Standards (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Recommended Maximum Levels (Secondary Standards) Constituent Level Chloride 250 mg/L Color 15 color units Copper 1,000 pg/L Corrosivity noncorrosive Foaming agents 0.5 mg/L Hydrogen sulfide 0.05 mg/L Iron 300 pg/L Manganese 50 pg/L Odor 3 threshhold odor number pH 6.5-8.5 Standard units Sulfate 250 mg/L Total dissolved solids 500 mg/L Zinc 5,000 pg/L 3. Ground water quality. The most commonly used aquifer in the study area is the Ada-Vamoosa Formation. The Ada-Vamoosa and Garber-Wellington Aquifers (where available) and the minor Pennsylvanian sandstone aquifers generally meet water quality criteria and standards. However, it is not uncommon to find localized levels of iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids (TDS) that exceed recommended levels in the above aquifers. Many of the smaller towns and community well systems utilize alluvial aquifers near their local rivers. These alluvial aquifers experience quality problems that frequently exceed the secondary drinking water criteria for dissolved salts, chlorides, iron, manganese and recommended pH limits and, in some cases, exceed the primary drinking water standards for nitrates, fluoride, and barium. The available data indicate that, although these alluvial aquifers do not exceed maximum contami- nant levels of heavy metals, the occurrence of heavy metals in the alluvial formations is higher than the typical ground water aquifers of the study area. The alluvial aquifers associated with the major rivers probably suffer pollution due to the same reasons that their surface water is degraded, as previously discussed in the surface water quality evaluation. Table IX-6 is an analysis of data taken from the Oklahoma State Department of Health's Public Water Supply Report 1982 and data listed in the OWRB's Rural Water Systems in Oklahoma, September 1980. Although the data in these publications is thought to be accurate, there were not enough samples taken to evaluate the data on a statistical basis. Not all constituents were sampled for every water system and in the case of total chloroform, only the larger systems were sampled. The table is a representation of one to five individual samples. If more than one sample was available, all data was used to display the average condition in the table. Only data that exceeded recommended standards or criteria is displayed in the table. Lack of displayed data does not imply that the individual systems do not have any water quality concerns. Although not an enforceable standard for smaller communities, chloroform levels above 50 mg/L are shown in the table where data was available. Chloroform is a measure of tri-halomethames in water and are known carcinogens caused by the chlorination of organic compounds primarily found in surface water supplies. As shown in table IX-6, the wells located in alluvial aquifers of the Cimarron, North Canadian, Canadian, Deep Fork, and Arkansas Rivers all experience some water quality problems. The towns of Wanette and Konawa have experienced excessive barium levels that should be monitored for potential drinking-water-derived health problems. The town of Perkins and the Eastside Mobile Home Park should monitor their Cimarron River alluvial wells for excessive nitrates in their drinking water. Also, the community of Meadow Ridge should monitor its nitrate levels from the North Canadian River alluvium. Excessive levels of nitrates may cause methemoglobinemia (blue babies) in children and pregnant Women • In the Bowlegs and Maud regions of Seminole County, fluoride levels exceed maximum allowable drinking water levels in the Ada-Wamoosa Aquifer. The Ada-Wamoosa Aquifer also experiences local- ized brine pollution problems from previous oil industry development (USGS Open-File Report 84-445). Recent newspaper articles have reported current problems Sasakwa has been experiencing with brine contamination of its existing wells and their attempted new wells. There is a need for communities and rural water systems having water quality problems, especially those whose samples exceed established standards and criteria, to replace their present water supply. Studies should be done to determine if the best solution to the problem is to (a) treat the existing water supply, (b) purchase a new supply from a community or rural water system having available good quality water, or (c) join with a group developing a new source of supply of suitable TualſTEy. IX-11 Table IX-6 Water Quality of Finished Water Supplies [Only known potential problem constituents shown] (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Maximum Allowable Levels Recommended Maximum Levels Source (Primary Standards) (Secondary Standards) Ground Barium Nitrate-Nitrate Flour ide Iron Manganese Sulfate Total Dissolved Chloride Sodium Chloroform Entity With Own Water Supply Surface Number of Wells Formation * --> Total Total as N Total Total Total pH Total Solids (TDS) Total Total Total (yg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ng/L) Qug/L) (units) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (pg/L) COAL Coalgate PWA (95%) Coalgate Lake (5%) 4 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone tºº In Compliance gº gº gºsº tº º e-8 - sºº tº º gº º tº E: * = Lehigh, city of e = 6 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone ** In Compliance tºº tºº sºmeº sº º gº º sº tº * * tº º sº tº Tupelo PWA (3.5% Lake Coalgate) (65%) 8 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone tºº In Compliance gºº 1,050 580 gºº gº tº ** * = HUGHES Calvin, town of &= - Eº 2 wells Canadian River Alluvium tº sºme In Compliance ºgº 4-º-º-º: •º º 6.4 sºmeº {-º- º <--> *- tº mº * = Dustin, town of Dustin Lake * * tº º *E º In Compliance gºº 442 232 5.9 *º gº º tº-: 4-> sº me sº tº Hickory Hills Hickory Hills Lake gºme gº gº º Eºº In Compliance gº ºg 455 83 6.2 gºº tº-º º 4-8 tº tº gº * = Holdenville, city of Lake Holdenville GE & E. * = º ºgº In Compliance gº gº * * gº º {-, --> tº º *º sº. sº-º tº sº tº tº º RWD No. 2 (Stuart) gº º 3 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone gº º In Compliance tº º ** * * * * * --> º tº º 8-> --> sº tº * = tº º Wetumka, city of Lake Wetumka sº sº. gº º tº º In Compliance tº-> -º {-º- *-** - sº tº º º * * gº tº * = &- --> LINCOLN Big Creek RWC {-º Eº 7 wells Ada-Vamoosa gº ºs In Compliance tº me * * º º e- tº- *º º tº º tº º £º º * == Carney, city of * - 4 -º 3 wells Garber-Wellington emº º In Compliance gºº. ** * * tº º sº º e-8 -º *º- ºr sº tº º º Chandler, city of Chandler Lake tº smºs tº Gº- tº º In Compliance *sºme tº º * = tº sº. º sº sºme sº * == * =e º gº Meeker, city of Meeker Lake $ºº q=gº º * * In Compliance tº me * * º ºg &-> *-3 tº gº tº-> --> *º º- tº º 107 Midway Trailer Park Gº Gº 2 wells Deep Fork Alluvium tº º In Compliance {-> <-º ** º ºg * -º º * = e-ºº-e e--, -º * =g tº º Miller Trailer Park tº gº 2 wells Ada-Wamoosa gººms gº gº 2. 3 Gº-e * = sº tº sº tº * = tº º º º sº sº Prague, city of †- ºg 8 wells Ada-Wamoosa * = gº In Compliance emº ºme º º * = * = º º *- : *- e-8 tº º ºg tº º RWD No. 1 (Sparks) Sparks Lake **E= tº-º º tº sº In Compliance tº gº sº tº º ºg * * tº º sºme tº sº tº sº tº *- : *- Sac and Fox tº E tº 2 wells Deep Fork Alluvium e-8 4-> In Compliance gº gº * = sº sº * -º º tº sº gº ºf * = tº º *-* --> Stroud, city of Stroud Lake 13 wells – Ada-Wamoosa 4- tº- In Compliance gº gº tº º tº-º º e-º º tº tº gº tº e-8 tº º * = * = abandoned early 80's Tryon, city of GE Eº 2 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone *º No Data tº ºme sº º * = * * tº-8 tº * = sº º sº sº tº-> --> Wellston, city of gº º 3 wells Garber-Wellington gº º gººs 2. 1 sº º gº tº 8.8 sº gº 1,024 {-8 4-e 313 º-e sº OKFUSKEE Boley State School gº tº º 4 wells North Canadian River Alluvium tºº- In Compliance gº-> * gºº tº E: 6.1 tº e = * = *E=º º gº º * = . Okemah UA Okemah Lake gº tº tº e = ** In Compliance sº tº sº- gº º * --> --> sº sº tº º * * sº tº Gº º Paden, town of g-º gº 2 wells Ada-Vamoosa &Eº- In Compliance esºº tº º tº º * > * sº mº sº gºe gº gº tº EE. tº º RWD No. 1 (Boley) gº ºme 6 wells Ada-Vamoosa tº gº In Compliance {--> sº * = tº sº sº gº tº º * * * - 4 - tº º Weleetka, town of Weleetka Lake tº gº tº gº tº º In Compliance tº gº gº gº 50 {-, --> gº º tº gº tº-> --> tº º 99 PAWNEE Ballerina-Edgewater MHP eme º 2 wells Arkansas River Alluvium gº tº In Compliance tº-º-º: sº tº gº º tº-> -º tºº tº gºe tº-º º- gº tº tº gºs Blackburn-Skedee Water, Inc. *E* tº 2 wells Arkansas River Alluvium {-º-º-º: In Compliance gºº. 470 935 tº gº * * 609 * -et- smº mº tº º Cleveland, city of Cleveland Reservoir * = ± tº-e sº- *E=º º In Compliance ->{- ** tº sº gº tº º E º º gº tº º º 130 Hallett, town of tº-e sº 3 wells Ada-Wamoosa tº gº In Compliance gº º 1,935 {-e:- gº-> --> gº º sº tº *-* --> gº º sº º Hill and Dale * = - 4 wells Unknown & 8 & 8 In Compliance wº-ºº: *E º tº-ºº-º sº º **E= 599 gºº. gº tº tº gº Jennings, town of gº tº gº 3 wells Ada-Vamoosa gº º In Compliance tºº tºº tº sº. º gº gº º 567 sº º gº Eº sº gº Pawnee, city of Pawnee Lake gº tº tº sº- tº º In Compliance *º gº º tº º º ºg tº º sº º º gº gº tº Gº tº RWD No. 1 {E gº ? wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone tº e ∈ In Compliance º-ºº 350 340 smºº tº-º-º: tº º gº tº 9 -- tº gº RWD No. 2 (Terlton) (707 city of (30%) 3 wells Ada-Vamoosa {-º º In Compliance 4-3-8 1,810 580 tºº gº º * * tº Gº sº me *Eº º Cleveland) Ralston PWA GE gº 3 wells Arkansas River Alluvium tº-º-º-> In Compliance * = ± sºº tº º sº- gºeº 550 * - sº E_* º gº º Westport UAT * = º º 4 wells Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone eme sº In Compliance 4-8-8 essº sºmeº tº gº $º º- gº º sº gº gº tº *E º : Table IX-6 (Continued) Water Quality of Finished Water Supplies [Only known potential problem constituents shown] (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Maximum Allowable Levels (Primary Standards) Nitrate-Nitrate Total as N In In In In In In In In In In Entity. With Own Water Supply PAYNE Country Club Heights Cushing, city of East side MHP Glencoe, town of Perkins, town of Ripley PWA RWD No. 3 Southern Oaks Stillwater, city of Twin Hills Yale, city of PONTOTOC Ada, city of Allen PWA Francis, city of Roff, town of Stonewall, town of POTTAWATOMIE Asher, city of Country Estates MHP Earlsboro Water, Inc. McLoud, city of Meadow Ridge Rainbow Valley Shady Valley Shawnee, city of St. Louis, city of Tecumseh, city of Town and Country MHP Wanette, city of SEMINOLE Bowlegs, town of Bowlegs-Lima Water District Konawa, city of Lakeside Addition Lakeview MHP Maud, city of Peels MHP Sasakwa, city of Surface Source Number of Wells Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation tº sº Seminole, city of Wewoka, city of Mill Springs g-e Gº- 1 (90%) Cushing Lake (10%) 9 *E=º º 1 {-, - 6 * = 13 gº ºne 5 * = 4 * º gº 2 Lakes Carl Blackwell and McMurtry ºme me 2 gº tº 4 tº gº Bird's and 3 • E. Eº 4 * - e. 4 tº tº 2 cº-> -º 5 {- E- 2 tº º 1. tº gº 3 eme me 4 tº º 1 * * * 2 tº e - e. 3 Shawnee Reservoir tº a tº 2 (73%) Tecumseh Res. (27%) 5 **E= 2 sºme º 2 tº Eº l * = Gº 3 {E} = 5 tº Eº 1 gº º 2 * = E: 4 tº º 2 gº tº l 2 gº ºs 16 Wewoka Lake well wells well wells wells wells wells wells wells wells wells wells wells wells wells wells well wells wells well wells wells wells wells wells wells well wells wells well wells wells wells well wells wells * One sample in 1981 exceeded drinking water standard (1,323 ug/L). Ground Formation Ada-Vamoosa Ada-Vamoosa Cimarron River Alluvium Minor Pennsylvanian Sandstone Cimarron River Alluvium Cimarron River Alluvium Cimarron River Alluvium Stillwater Creek Alluvium Cimarron River Alluvium Cimarron River Alluvium Ada-Wamoosa Canadian River Alluvium Canadian River Alluvium Arbuckle-Simpson Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock Canadian River Alluvium North Canadian River Alluvium Ada-Vamoosa Garber-Wellington North Canadian River Alluvium North Canadian River Alluvium North Canadian River Alluvium Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock North Canadian River Alluvium Canadian River Alluvium Ada-Wamoosa Ada-Wamoosa Canadian River Alluvium Canadian River Alluvium Ada-Vamoosa Ada-Wamoosa Ada-Vamoosa Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock Minor Pennsylvanian Bedrock Ada-Vamoosa Barium Total (yg/L) In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In (mg/L) Compliance Compliance 10.4 Compliance 10. 1 Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance 23.6 Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Flouride Total (mg/L) Recommended Maximum Levels (Secondary Standards) Iron Manganese Sulfate Total Dissolved Chloride Sodium Chloroform Total Total pH Total Solids (TDS) Total Total Total Qug/L) (yg/L) (units) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Qug/L) 460 90 * = tº sºme º tº gº gº tº tº E mº E gº tº tº º º tº º Eº º tº ſº. * --> 51 gº e. *E º gº gº gº º 517 tºº * = º ºsmº tºº- 285 --> º **g 568 *E_º Gºº-ºº: *-* - 305 gº-ºº: ºmsºme 304 966 tº-º-º-º: Gº º E-gº sºsº gº- sº gº º ºg e 1,377 556 tº-º-º-º: tº gº tº º gº tº 6.4 gº-ºº- {-> --> tº-> -º tº º *º-º-º: gºº gºº 9. O tº-º-º: 842 gººms {-, --> Gºtº º 350 * tº º tº gº º gº gº tºº sº smº E-º-º-º: 300 gº tº gº tº tº sº-> gºgº &=º gº E-º-º: * * gº tº gº ºs tº-º-º: ºgº 506 tº-º-º-e tº me tº º gºº egºsº 5.9 eme sº- smºº º ºgme tº gº * = e tº a tº- 2,220 * = * = tºº 1,146 298 -º- G. : E → gº tº 345 <--> -º gº Gº 612 tº º * = ± = } gº tº * = º eº tº 8.4 * * * * 917 tº-º-º: * tº º E-º-º: gº tº º tº º 8.8 tº-º-º: 720 * * = } gºº tºº gºº --><= } ºtº- tº º 1,080 373 gºº tºº 2,300 280 * --> tº-º-> Gº º Q-º-º: gº tº * - tº g-ºf-> 170 * * *- gº tº tº Eº tºº- tºº tºº tºº tºº 8.8 tº gº 1,098 * = ± tº º Eºº-> tº-º-º: tº-º-º: *E ºr tº tº 682 tº sº- tºº tºº gº 120 tºº {-º-º-º: Gºº- * > * > * gº tº tºº * = Pº 150 tº-º-º: * tº gºº tºº tº cº-º-º: gºº tº sº º Gº- º * - º tº-ºº- g- > --> 57 i 4. Brine-water degradation of surface and ground water. The USGS and the Oklahoma Geological Survey are in the process of publishing Open-File Report 84-445. This is an excellent study entitled "Effects of Brine on the Chemical Quality of Water in Parts of Creek, Lincoln, Okfuskee, Payne, Pottawatomie, and Seminole Counties, Oklahoma." The study indicates that 63 of 168 surface water sites and 20 of 180 ground water sites investigated were degraded by oilfield brines, mostly in the Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer area. The two most reliable indicators of brine contamination were found to be chloride equal to or greater than 400 mg/L and bromide equal to or greater than 2 mg/L. Map No. 1484-500–15 shows the areas determined by Reclamation's evaluation of the report to have been degraded by brine. The study also refers to a D'Lugosz and McClaflin (1981) report that demonstrated mineralized water entering the upstream reach of Wewoka Creek during August of 1975. Preliminary examination of the brine-degraded areas illustrates that the Oxbow damsite (Wetumka) on Wewoka Creek and the Paden, Welty, and Tuskegee damsites in the Deep Fork River Basin could have possible problems with higher than expected dissolved salt levels. Future water development projects in the study area should avoid the noted surface and ground water brine-degraded areas. There is a need to evaluate the remaining parts of the study area not included in the USGS study so that there is a complete picture of brine-water degradation problems. | Clear Boggy Creek and tributary in Coal County The major rivers in the study area have are typical of tributary streams having good quality problems with water quality degradation. flows. from natural and manmade sources. Here, oil wells are shown located in the bed of a river. D. M&I Demands 1. Municipal-rural water user entity problems. In mid-1984, TVA completed a 2-year study of short-term (up to year 1990) water system problems that included a11 of the study area. The study included an analysis of delivery system problems as well as the more traditional type of water supply study. Delivery system problems analyzed included an inadequate water treatment plant capacity, insufficient storage capacity, undersized mains and lines (pressure loss), problems with leaks, and age deterioration. These factors can contribute to a system's inability to deliver enough water during peak demand periods as much as an inadequate water supply. In their report (appendix C) 1/, TVA tabulated water system entity problems which indicated that this 9-county study area contained 92 water user entities (municipal and rural systems) of which 60 were sources of their own water supplies, with the remaining 32 purchasing water supplies from source entities. The TVA data indicated that 22 percent of the 60 source entities had water treatment plants having capacities too small to handle peak demands. Of the 92 water user entities, 32 percent had insuf- ficient storage, 35 percent had serious problems with leaks, 17 percent had serious loss of pressure due to water mains and water lines being undersized for the number of customers being served, and 22 percent reported that their entire system needed to be replaced due to age deterioration. In addition, the TVA data included information on reported water shortages and known water quality problems for the 60 water supply source entities which indicated that 50 percent had reported seasonal (one reported frequent) water shortages; 35 percent were listed as having one or more water quality constituents that exceeded standards; and 37 percent were listed as being vulnerable to potential contamination by agricultural, energy, and mining activity as well as being unprotected (legislatively) from inadequate waste disposal, according to State health department evaluations. Table IX-7 displays the TVA data for the study area. Similar but somewhat less detailed information was included on a county-by-county basis in OWRB's January 1982 report entitled Report to Governor George Nigh. On Community Water Problems and Funding Needs. One advantage of the OWRB report was that it contained cost estimates which are critical to the decisionmakers and political leaders who must attempt to find funds needed to alleviate all the problems. A mechanism needs to be found whereby one agency has the responsibility and resources (both human and fiscal) to keep this sort of information on a continuous, up-to-date basis. 1/ Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, draft report, TVA, July 1984. IX-14 →→ ģ3 ∞ ---- • • Ž ž se ë Ë Ē º ir ā Ē ē ĒKs，_Qae |- <--_ -->----\，S<， se § 5 ºg ſº º§ → · §>È § § ） …»----º •8 eºu …∞LŲ SR QS. 2-- ：)o ſº > º =§§Ñ Ñ Ñ SQ --_-, ， ， ， , º§§§ § € 5 Odº ----º º 3 − „ .~ cſo S S}< |- …> - - - - - ~~ſºoS •!J§ © （）, º5 ） Ğ * E =ºr∞ →№ ſu S \， |-ő – ）, ， ， ; 5 5\！& §udſp|ua w § § § © »） <ſ|- _un 5 （ b +=QR----##### $ $ $ （, § →----，！= <！ №. o = ∞Qºpinº puç (o ），§§ º–21 ºg º º5 ！ = 、 º ，�QQ. ob2ſ 2 ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± 5 º* ·Ģ Ģ Ķ Ķ $ o ！č. 3, 5 （ º ）|-----§ § § § Ù; –∞±5 do º un·Q|-Q >R ----…»ſ + … = „ſº�~^|-È È È È CL：-o…»do № º 5 2 :-^~.→SS ſu <ī|-~] © 5O eup|p119 wcu º £ © ®rTā5īñ575ūE pųnº puz vo C –ł uJ –1 ！ u- O uJ –1 -----：…»• 0~```…»-Eup!puſO ！Sun - v^ <，E …N！-----I. N�----– <0----~ \\S§< （;----5 ×- -o 0----º >-o→u- |- o>>----<ſ �to ~-o， -->~---- Q5 QQ№ º5 5 5 × =o.•·–1 -:S Švo -（75 C/>o∞---- o ºu（oO_： _ - oE：O §§S- (/)5 ±o que----o5：→ ~ JSH->vo ：vo ſº5*…*;dd <ſc© ：→ un.------------- so- -------- ----o•----o. 23 º £ º 5 3--> =----.ae ~<ſCD — J_J O O，<，∞<，± O–1 ： ：Cl-O|- <∞×~ =LLI~ « »---- Yº --ºd L.ºd L.º .º L ğ º5 №5 №5 £5 -5 （2 5E E（2 ETE E 25 £| 5 5El 5 5E| 52 5E| 52 5+|52 5#| 2 uol do Cl- - tº tº-s tº- - - Study Area Totals 1 29 21 9-AA 32 16 20 29 13 60 sources (41 total) (11 with multiple problems) 10–EM (92 entities) 3–UW 1/ Source: 1984 TVA Draft Report: Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma. 2/ Potential contamination evaluations by State Health Department: AA = Agricultural activity contamination. EM = Energy and mining activity wastes. UW = Unprotected (1egislatively) from inadequate waste disposal. i 2. Existing water supplies, current M&I use, and present shortages. Table IX-2 presented estimates of firm yields of existing surface water (reservoir) supplies. Table IX-4 presented pre- liminary estimates of existing ground water (well) capability. This information has been combined with data from the TVA study into a single table displaying all the more critical factors affecting water user entities experiencing water shortages to customers. Before the table and a summary analysis are presented, several important concepts will be reviewed to assure proper interpretation of the table and understanding of the analysis text. a . Firm or dependable yield--Most people have observed ponds, lakes, or reservoirs whose water levels have dropped dramatically or completely dried up during periods of drought. Water resource development planners have to plan reservoirs that will dependably deliver the required amount of water even during the worst of long droughts such as central Oklahoma experienced during the early and middle 1950's. This is accomplished by adding what is called carryover storage to the storage required for a normal year. Carryover storage is the amount of water needed to meet supply requirements for a period equal to the longest drought for which there are records. There are firm yield surface water supplies listed in the table that are smaller than the peak demands or even the average daily use being consumed. This indicates that carryover storage is being used to meet demands during nondrought periods. The result of this type of operational procedures will be a less than full reservoir when the drought begins (insufficient carryover storage), and reservoir yield will be less than the firm yield. This concept can also be applied to ground water. The aquifers are similar to giant underground reservoirs. When precipitation stops, there is no water percolating down into the aquifer from the surface to recharge the supply, and the water table in the aquifer drops, slowly diminishing the amount of water a well is able to pump to the surface. b. Water treatment plant capacity--This amount has to be an amount equal to or preferably greater than peak demands. A treatment plant incapable of delivering a sustained peak demand during a 10-day hot, dry spell will result in shortages at a time when the water is most needed. c. Storage capacity--Requirements for storage capacity in standpipes, temporary storage reservoirs, and towers can vary between systems; however, TVA mentioned a factor of 1-1/2 times the peak demand. Extra storage to handle such things as firefighting or downtime for maintenance or emergency repairs of the waterworks are easy to understand. The extra storage required for peak demands is more complicated. A system that has peak demands of 0.240 Mgal/d and water treatment plant capacity of 0.240 Mgal/d may appear to have just enough capacity; however, this is not the case. The water treatment plant is capable of producing 0.010 million gallons per hour (Mgal/h) for each of the 24 hours. The peak demand does not work that way because it is caused by human activity, resulting in little demand during the night, and may be as high as 0.030 or 0.040 Mgal/h during the late afternoon and early evening, which would exceed the treatment plant capacity. Standpipes (on the left) and elevated tanks are the most common water storage Structures . Table IX-8 displays the existing water supplies, presents M&I use, and associated information discussed above. Because it presents detailed information for each of the nine counties in the study area, it covers four pages (sheets 1 to 4). Map No. 1484-500-7 displays most of the water user entities listed in table IX-8. A county-by-county analysis of short-term water supplies is provided in the following paragraphs. IX-16 5th Stondord Porollel 4th Standard Porqllel 3rd Stondord Porqllel 2nd Stondord Porqllel |st Stondord Porqllel Bose Line 2/ 2/ 36° 35° y 96° TO KAW REs. | RURAL WAIER ENLIIIES Yºr SUPPLIES SELF AND OTHER ENTITIES PAWNEE CO. l, RALston Rwc 2/ A SUPPLIES SELF ONLY 2, Rwd # 3 2/ O INDIVIDUAL Eus (No DisſRIBUTION system 3, BLAckburn - skEDEE Rwc 4, Rwd # 2, Inc. O SUPPLIED BY OTHERS 5, Rwd # 1 PAWNEE CO. HUGHES CO, 6, RWD # 2 2/ l, clevel AND 57. Holdenville 2. Pawnee 38, wetuºka 3, RALston 39. cALvin PAYNE CO, 4. HALLETT 40. Dustin - - 9, YALE Rwc 2/ 5, JENNINGs Hl, GERTY º 10, 51-East water º ) 6, WESTPoRT 42, YEAGER | 13 11, MARR WATER INC, (NOBLE Co. 7, TERLſon 43. LAMAR 12. sº 1 2/ 8. BLACKBURN 44. ATwood 13, Rwc # 3 2/ 9, skEDEE 45. AshLAND 14, Rwd # 3 10. MARAMEc 46, HAYwood LINCOIN CO. 15, Big creek Rwc ll. QUAY 47. HickoRY HILLs PAYNE (0. 48. STUART º º: 2/ • Rwd 12, STILLWATER SEMIMOLE CO, OKFUSKEE CO, 13. YALE 49, we woka 8 # 3 / 14, cushing 50, Konowa 18. RWD 2 19, Rwd # 2 2/ 15, GLENCOE 51. Sasakwa 20, Rwd # 1 16. PERKins 52. SEMinoLE PONIOIOC CO, | 25 - 21, SALEM Rwc (okºul GEE co.) 17. RiPLEY 53. Bowlegs 70, ADA O SEMIMOLE CO. LINCOIN CO, 54. LIMA 71. ALLEN 24. 22, Rw & swººd # 3 18, CHANDLER 55, CROMWELL 72, FRANcis A 23, Rwd #2 19, cARNEY POLIAWAIOMIE CO, 73, Roff 24 20, MEEKER 56, shAWNEE 74. STONEwALL , Rwd # 1 21. PRAGUE 57. Asher 75. Byng | 18 25. Bowlegs - LIMA water District 22, stroup 58. MccLoud COAL CO 26, . SASAkwa Rwd 1/ 23. TYRON 59, MAUD 76. CoALGATE -- 27, Rwd # 5 1/ POLIAWAIOMIE CO, 24, wellston 60, TEcumseh 77. LEHigh 28 25, FALLIS 61. WANETTE 78. Tupelo | 2. EARLSBORO WATER co, Inc. 26, KENDRick 62. BETHEL Acres 79, centrations | 58 35. 3. RWD # 1 (BETHEL AcREs) 27, WARick 63. Brooksville 80, Phillies A - O • ST. LOUIS UTILITY AUTHORITY 28, SPARKs 64, MA.comb 8l. TRi-county 29, Davenport 65, Pink DEVELOPMENT QKFUSKEE CO, 66, TRIBBEY AuTHORITY 30, okEMAH 67. REMus \, A* 51. PADEN 68, EARLSBOR0 ^, 65. 32. WELEETKA 69, St. Louis Sº, 33, casTLE zerº A row 34, clearview 35, PHAROH 36. Boley 2/ 2/ EXPLANATION 2/ O County Sect 2/ 37, RWD # 2 2/ 58, Rwd # 1 2/ 39, Rwd # 5 2/ 40. RWD # 4 2/ 41. RWD # 3 2/ 42, RWD # 8 2/ 43. RWD # 6 2/ 44. RWD # 9 1/ 2/ COAL CO. 45, Rwd # 2 2/ 47, Rwn 1 2/ 48, Rwd # 5 : i O K L A H O M A i ; i i |O O |O 2O l l/ LOCATION NOT PLOTTED 46, clarita - olney water Inc. 2/ 2/ PURCHASE WATER supply FROM other ENTITIES ! ; U/V/7′ED STATES DEAAA'7A/E/v7 OF THE //V7 ER/OR BUA’EAU/ OF AfECL 4 MA7/OAV scALE of MiLES LOCATION MAP |O O IO 2O 39 L1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-11 I SCALE OF KILOMETERS Amar///o, 7 exas EAST-CENTRAL OKLA/HOMA WATER SUPPLY STUDY WATER USER EMT/7/Es January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500–7 Table IX-8 1/ (Sheet 1 of 4) Existing Water Supplies and Present M&I Use + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) data: Surface, table IX-2; and ground water, table IX-4. 2/ Treatment plant capacity of Coalgate PWA is currently being doubled. 3/ Originates in Okmulgee County; also serves in Okfuskee County. 4/ Also serves in Pittsburg County. 5/ Also serves in Payne County. No data for Okfuskee County portion. 1/ Source of use data: Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, draft report, TVA, July 1984, as occasionally modified with data from State agencies, SODA, and water user entities. Population Estimated Yield of Existing Water Supplies Average Gallons Per Capita Treatment Storage Water User Entit Source of Water Suppl Served Surface Ground Water Daily Use Peak Demands Per Day Plant Capacity Capacity y pply (Mga.T/d) (Mga.T/ā) (Mga]7ā) (Mga.Tſä) (Mgal/d) (Mgal) COAL 2/ Coalgate PWA (95%) Coalgate Lake (5%) wells 4,066 1. 785 * = ** = . 0.430 0. 500 106 0.432 – O. 280 Clarita-Olney Water Company, Inc. City of Coalgate (600) * = Pº- {-º º (0.055) Gº- 92 * = &º 0.097 C.C. RWD No. 1 (Phillips) City of Coalgate (750) *E_º - (0.048) * = º 64 *-ºs º- None C. C. RWD No. 2 (Centrahoma) City of Coalgate (550) tºº {E_** = e (0.030) * = ºº 55 tºº 0. 195 Lehigh, city of Wells 350 tºº 0.045 0.045 0.050 128 0.060 0. 195 Tupelo PWA (35%) City of Coalgate (65%) wells 357 tºº 0.050 0.032 O. O.35 84 ** 0.060 HUGHES Allen, town of (reported under Ponto toc County) Calvin, town of Wells 349 tºº 0.070 0.067 O. O.87 192 None 0.250 Dustin PWW Dustin Lake 496 0.134 * = <--> 0.013 0.015 26 0.0072 0. 120 Holdenville, city of Lake Holdenville 4,490 2.053 tº-ºº- 0.900 1.000 200 1.000 2.060 H. C. RWD No. 1 3/ City of Wetumka (825) tº gº * = e tº (0.030) (0.035) 36 tº gº O. 150 H. C. RWD No. 2 (Stuart) - Wells 700 0. 110 tº- tº 0.030 0.035 43 None O. 251 H. C. RWD No. 3 (Lamar) City of Holdenville (490) ºº º- º (0.046) (0.075) 94 tº Eº 1. 200 H. C. RWD No. 4 (Atwood) 4/ City of Holdenville (500) * * * * * *E= º (0.055) tº sº 110 tº tº 0.062 Salem RWC (Okmulgee County) - City of Henryetta (150) tº-º-e tº gº (0.020) tºº 133 * =>º 0. 170 Wetumka, city of Lake Wetumka 3,825 0.714 tºº 0.311 0. 500 81 O. 750 O. 575 LINCOLN 5/ Big Creek RWC - Wells 2,100 {-º 0.143 0.142 O. 165 68 G-e tº º 0.185 Carney, city of Wells 800 tººge 0.090 O. O70 O. 130 88 * = &mº O. 100 Chandler, city of Chandler Lake 5,500 0. 473 tº-º-º-º: 0.634 0.990 115 1 - 250 0.340 Davenport, city of City of Chandler (900) gº º wºme sº (0.040) (0.142) 57 ſº-sº 0.200 L. C. RWD No. 1 (Sparks) Sparks Lake 350 0.024 tº º 0.026 0.049 74 0.060 0.027 L. C. RWD No. 2 City of Chandler (440) {-ºº- tº º (0.022) (0.030) 50 tºº O. 135 Meeker, city of Meeker Lake 1,080 O. 179 tº gº 0. 110 0.207 102 0.215 0. 500 Prague, city of Wells 2,500 tºº 0.626 0. 576 0.981 230 gº tº 0.682 Stroud, city of Stroud Lake 3,200 1. 161 tº-sº 0.388 0.730 121 O. 750 0.350 Tryon, city of Wells 435 * = ** * > 0.026 0.026 O. O.28 60 * = º 0.085 Wellston, city of Wells 750 tºº O. O75 0.074 0.126 99 *E_* º O. 230 Source of existing water supply 6/ No data reported for Okfuskee County portion of service area for Salem RWC nor Okfuskee County portion of service area for Rural Water and Solid Waste Management District No. 3 (Seminole County); however, data is incorporated with Okemah. 10/ Includes data for area served in Pawnee County. 16/ Data includes area served in Okfuskee County. 7/ No data reported for Pawnee County portion of service area for Yale RWC (Payne County). 8/ Includes area served in Payne County. 9/ Small areas served by Morr Water, Inc. (Noble County) and RWD No. 3 (Pawnee County). II/ Small areas served by RWD No. 1 (Garvin County) and RWD No. 1 (Murray County). 12/ Includes data for area served in Hughes County. 13/ Data includes area served in Seminole County. 14/ Data includes area. of town served in Seminole County. T5/ Data for areas served by Earlsboro RWD (Water, Inc.) and city of Maud are reported in Pottawatomie County. No Payne County data reported. No Ponto toc County data reported. Area served by Big Creek RWC reported under Lincoln County. Source of RWD No. 2, Inc., water supply is in Creek County (Mannford). : Table IX-8 (Continued) 1/ (Sheet 2 of 4) Existing Water Supplies and Present M&I Use + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Gallons Per Capita Treatment Storage Population Estimated Yield of Existing Water Supplies Average Water User Entity Source of Water Supply Served Surface Ground Water Daily Use Peak Demands Per Day Plant Capacity Capacity (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal) OKFUSKEE 6/ Okemah, city of (UA) Okemah Lake 8,447 2.946 º GE E- 1 - 082 1. 200 128 1.000 0.645 O. C. RWD No. 1 (Boley) Wells 500 e = O. 120 O. O.19 0.024 38 0.144 O. 106 O. C. RWD No. 2 City of Okemah (1,300) tº-> <--> tº º º (0.089) (0.099) 68 º ºgº 0.212 O. C. RWD No. 3 City of Okemah (1,245) tº-3 tº tº mº (0.115) (0.140) 93 tº E tº 0.123 Paden, town of Wells 500 eº º 0.050 0.041 0.046 82 None 0.087 Weleetka, town of Weleetka Lake 1,800 O. 1 79 * =e 0.191 O. 332 106 O. 270 0.087 PAWNEE 7/ Blackburn-Skedee Water, Inc. Wells 850 sºme º O. 102 0.040 0.060 47 Gº tº O. 120 Cleveland, city of Cleveland Reservoir 5,376 O. 670 * = º 0.440 O. 650 74 1 - 500 1.000 Hallett PWA Wells 280 tº- ( --> 0.192 O. O.35 0.060 125 None 0.059 Jennings, town of Wells 350 gº tº O. O70 O. O.17 O. O.29 48 None 0.090 Pawnee, city of Pawnee Lake 3,600 0.848 tº º 0.526 O. 600 164 1. 500 0.400 P. C. RWD No. 1 Wells 1,820 gº tº me 0.093 0.093 O. 100 51 None 0.200 P. C. RWD No. 2, Inc. City of Mannford (Creek County) (450) tº º g-º º (0.031) (0.038) 67 {- tº- 0. 150 P. C. RWD No. 2 (Terlton) (70%) City of Cleveland (30%) wells 252 GE gº O. O.75 0.020 O. O.25 81 None 0.200 P. C. RWD No. 3 8/ City of Pawnee (600) tº º gº Gº- tº (0.066) (0.081) 110 • E3 = None Ralston PWA T Wells 560 G-: * sº O. 290 0.050 0.080 90 None 0.055 Ralston RWC (Water, Inc.) City of Ralston (125) * = x ∈ *E sº (0.021) (0.033) 165 tºº 0.022 Westport UAT Wells 263 tº gº 0.015 0.015 0.027 57 None 0.100 1/ Source of use data: Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, draft report, TVA, July 1984, as occasionally modified with data from State agencies, SODA, and water user entities • Source of existing water supply data: Surface, table IX-2; and ground water, table IX-4. 2/ Treatment plant capacity of Coalgate PWA is currently being doubled . 3/ Originates in Okmulgee County; also serves in Okfuskee County. No data for Okfuskee County portion. A / Also serves in Pittsburg County. 5/ Also serves in Payne County. 6/ No data reported for Okfuskee County portion of service area for Salem RWC nor Okfuskee County portion of service area for Rural Water and Solid Waste Management District No. 3 (Seminole County); however, data is incorporated with Okemah. 7/ No data reported for Pawnee County portion of service area for Yale RWC (Payne County). Source of RWD No. 2, Inc., water supply is in Creek County (Mannford). 8/ Includes area served in Payne County. 5/ Small areas served by Morr Water, Inc. (Noble County) and RWD No. 3 (Pawnee County). No Payne County data reported. Area served by Big Creek RWC reported under Lincoln County. 10/ Includes data for area served in Pawnee County. TT/ Small areas served by RWD No. 1 (Garvin County) and RWD No. 1 (Murray County). No Pontotoc County data reported. 12/ Includes data for area served in Hughes County. 13/ Data includes area served in Seminole County. TA/ Data includes area of town served in Seminole County. 15/ Data for areas served by Earlsboro RWD (Water, Inc.) and city of Maud are reported in Pottawatomie County. I6/ Data includes area served in Okfuskee County. f Table IX-8 (Continued) Existing Water Supplies and Present M&I Use - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) 1. Surface (Mga I/a) 607 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Source of use data: Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, draft report, TVA, July 1984, as occasionally modified No data for Okfuskee County portion. Estimated Yield of Existing Water Supplies - Ground Water Mga 360 O50 120 360 O50 600 with data from State agencies, SODA, and water user entities. Average Daily Use (Mga.Tſä) 1. 200 (0.106) 0.035 (0.054) (0.140) 0.063 0.148 0.032 6. 150 0.292 (0.043) Peak Demands Mga 3. 700 (0.180) 0.050 (0.091) (0.193) 0.073 0.231 0.043 10.240 0.361 (0.106) Gallons Per Capita Per Day (Sheet 3 of 4) Treatment Plant Capacity (Mgal/d) 4.000 None None None None 12.000 12.000 None – OSU - city Storage Capacit (Mga.T) 2.000 0.200 0.050 0.055 0.614 0.048 O. 133 0.140 6.000 O. 175 0.092 Source of existing water supply No data reported for Okfuskee County portion of service area for Salem RWC nor Okfuskee County portion of service area for Rural Water and Solid Waste Management District No. 3 (Seminole County); however, data is No data reported for Pawnee County portion of service area for Yale RWC (Payne County). Includes area served in Payne County. Small areas served by Morr Water, Inc. (Noble County) and RWD No. 3 (Pawnee County). Includes data for area served in Pawnee County. Data for areas served by Earlsboro RWD (Water, Inc.) and city of Maud are reported in Pottawatomie County. PAYNE - Cushing, city of Water User Entity 9/ 51 East Water, Inc. (corporation) Glencoe, town of P. C. RWD No. 1 P. C. RWC No. 3 (corporation) P. C. RWD No. 3 Perkins, town of Ripley PWA Stillwater, city of Yale, city of 10/ Yale RWC (corporation) + 11/ PONTOTOC - Ada, city of (PWA) Allen PWA 12/ Francis, city of P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. P. C. RWD No. Source of Water Supply Roff, town of Stonewall, town of (90%) Cushing Lake (10%) wells City of Stillwater Wells City of Stillwater City of Stillwater Wells Wells Wells Lakes Carl Blackwell and McMurtry Wells City of Yale Bird's Mill Springs & wells Wells Wells City of Ada City of Ada City of Ada City of Ada City of Ada City of Ada City of Ada City of Ada Wells Wells Population Served 8,600 (1,200) 520 (470) (1,400) 1,000 2,100 486 41,888 2,400 (600) 23,763 1,200 420 (574) (2,075) (1,833) (250) (158) (800) (800) (1,500) 800 800 data: Surface, table IX-2; and ground water, table IX-4. Treatment plant capacity of Coalgate PWA is currently being doubled. Originates in Okmulgee County; also serves in Okfuskee County. Also serves in Pittsburg County. Also serves in Payne County. 118 O70 3. 873 O. 170 0.060 (0.048) (0.186) (0.146) (0.056) (0.013) (0.074) (0.092) (0.082) 0.118 0.068 7.060 O. 230 0.065 (0.050) (0.190) (0.149) (0.059) (0.015) (0.080) (0.095) (0.085) O. 118 O. O.71 163 142 143 84 90 80 224 82 93 115 55 148 85 1.000 0.415 0.080 0.103 O. 208 None None None 0.185 None 0.380 0.055 0. 160 incorporated with Okemah. Small areas served by RWD No. 1 (Garvin County) and RWD No. 1 (Murray County). Includes data for area served in Hughes County. Data includes area served in Seminole County. Data includes area of town served in Seminole County. Data includes area served in Okfuskee County. No Payne County data reported. No Pontotoc County data reported . Area served by Big Creek RWC reported under Lincoln County. Source of RWD No. 2, Inc., water supply is in Creek County (Mannford). : Table IX-8 (Continued) 1/ (Sheet 4 of 4) Existing Water Supplies and Present M&I Use - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Population Estimated Yield of Existing Water Supplies Average Gallons Per Capita Treatment Storage Water User Entity Source of Water Supply Served Surface Ground Water Daily Use Peak Demands Per Day Plant Capacity Capacity (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal) POTTAWATOMIE Asher, city of (UDA) 13/ Wells 450 * - sº- 0.025 0.021 O. 031 46 None 0.052 Earlsboro RWD (Water, Inc.) + Wells 2,500 * = ee- O. 300 O. 205 O. 300 82 None O. 547 McLoud, city of Wells 1,550 {-ºº- 0.306 O. 110 0.200 73 None 0. 550 Maud, city of 14/ Wells 1,550 g-º- O. 180 0.164 O. 175 106 None 0.285 P.C. RWD No. 1 (Bethel) City of Shawnee (1,000) {-}{= } gº tº (0.058) (0.078) 58 * = gº tº 0.18O Shawnee, city of Shawnee Reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2 25,000 3.303 GE Eº 3. 406 5. 792 139 8.000 2.000 St. Louis, city of (UA) Wells 260 * > --> 0.020 0.013 O. O.18 50 None 0.030 Tecumseh, city of (73%) Tecumseh Reservoir 5,128 O. 312 O. 170 0. 555 O. 620 108 1.000 1. 100 (27%) Wells Wanette, city of Wells 478 tº-ºº-ºº 0.050 0.030 O. O70 63 None 0.075 SEMINOLE 15/ Bowlegs, town of Wells 450 * > --> 0.030 0.017 0.028 30 None 0.0037 Bowlegs-Lima Water District Wells 1,755 tºº 0.200 0.148 O. 290 85 None 0.360 Cromwell, city of RWD No. 3 (300) tºº E. : E > (0.021) (0.024) 70 g- > --> 0.040 Konawa, city of Wells 1,750 tºº 0.205 O. 205 O. 239 117 None O. 300 Sasakwa, city of Wells 442 tº gº 0.018 0.018 0.020 40 None 0.060 Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation Wells 200 † - 4 - 0.028 0.022 0.025 108 None None Seminole, city of Wells 8,600 * * * * 2.380 1 - 150 1.760 134 None 2.750 S. C. RWD No. 1 City of Wewoka (400) * - tº- q = E = ? (0.017) (0.032) 43 * = º 0.025 S. C. RWD No. 2 16/ City of Wewoka (418) º-º-º: Gº Gº (0.027) (0.031) 68 tº gº None S. C. RW&SWMD No. 3 - City of Okemah (Okfuskee County) (606) tº º cº- (0.042) (0.048) 70 * -º tº e 0.040 S.C. RWD No. 5 City of Wewoka (150) * = ººº- * = e = - (0.006) (0.018) 40 tº gº None Wewoka, city of Wewoka Lake 6,458 0.893 sº sº O. 687 1.306 106 1. 400 1.925 1/ Source of use data: Water Supplies of Southeastern Oklahoma, draft report, TVA, July 1984, as occasionally modified with data from State agencies, SODA, and water user entities. Source of existing water supply data: Surface, table IX-2; and ground water, table IX-4. 2/ Treatment plant capacity of Coalgate PWA is currently being doubled. 3/ Originates in Okmulgee County; also serves in Okfuskee County. No data for Okfuskee County portion. A/ Also serves in Pittsburg County. 5/ Also serves in Payne County. 6/ No data reported for Okfuskee County portion of service area for Salem RWC nor Okfuskee County portion of service area for Rural Water and Solid Waste Management District No. 3 (Seminole County); however, data is incorporated with Okemah. 7/ No data reported for Pawnee County portion of service area for Yale RWC (Payne County). Source of RWD No. 2, Inc., water supply is in Creek County (Mannford). 8/ Includes area served in Payne County. 9/ Small areas served by Morr Water, Inc. (Noble County) and RWD No. 3 (Pawnee County). No Payne County data reported. Area served by Big Creek RWC reported under Lincoln County. 10/ Includes data for area served in Pawnee County. 11/ Small areas served by RWD No. 1 (Garvin County) and RWD No. 1 (Murray County). No Pontotoc County data reported. 12/ Includes data for area served in Hughes County. T3/ Data includes area served in Seminole County. 14/ Data includes area of town served in Seminole County. 15/ Data for areas served by Earlsboro RWD (Water, Inc.) and city of Maud are reported in Pottawatomie County. 16/ Data includes area served in Okfuskee County. ; Supply values presented in the following county and local narrative must be considered preliminary. They have been gathered from various sources and were determined at different levels of detail or accuracy. The values are shown in Mgal/d to three decimal places. This in no way implies a three- decimal point accuracy. It was done only for ease in comparison of estimated supply to demand. It also shows the 1,000 Mgal/d value for small users. Storage in the following narrative refers only to temporary storage as defined in section D. 2. c above. (1) Coal County--Water supply problems reported for Coalgate were apparently restricted to water treatment plant capacity, which has just been expanded to 1 Mgal/d. Reclamation's firm yield estimate for Coalgate Reservoir shows a dependable supply 415 percent greater than current average daily use. Lehigh reports well capacity at 0.160 Mgal/d but also reports shortage problems with average daily use and peak demands at 0.045 and 0.050 Mgal/d, respectively. Treatment capacity and storage appear adequate. Reclamation estimates that dependable ground water capability is 0.045 Mgal/d, which is consistent for six wells in the minor Pennsylvanian sandstone aquifer. Because of the limited capability of this aquifer, purchase of supplemental or total supplies from Coalgate appears to be the most logical solution. Data for Tupelo are correct for the present but will change shortly. The city has undertaken an ambitious program of constructing additional wells, a water treatment facility, additional storage, and a newly designed system of delivery mains and lines. It plans to be self-sufficient in water supply, maintaining its connection with Coalgate via RWD No. 2 for emergency supply only. (2) Hughes County--The town of Calvin reports well capacity of 0.108 Mgal/d but experiences episodes of required rationing with average daily use at 0.067 Mgal/d and peaks at 0.087 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate. Since the wells are in the Canadian River alluvium, Reclamation has estimated dependable well capability at 0.070 Mgal/d. Alluvial aquifers in this region tend to "drain out" during drought periods with resultant lower water tables that are much more likely to experience drawdowns when heavily pumped. Although additional wells will provide additional water, it is quite possible they will experience limited yield capability and not provide a good long-term solution. Calvin may wish to explore a longer range alternative of obtaining a dependable surface water supply, possibly from Holdenville. Dustin PWW reports shortages with rationing which appear to be associated with a treatment plant capacity of only 7, 200 gallons per day (0.00072 Mgal/d). Average daily use is reported at 0.013 Mgal/d with peaks at 0.015 Mgal/d, nearly double the plant capacity. Storage is adequate and Reclamation's firm yield estimate for the reservoir is more than 10 times greater than present use. Holdenville has experienced water shortages which have been partly due to an old treatment plant with 1.000 Mgal/d capacity. This is being replaced by a new plant. Storage is adequate for average daily use of 0.900 Mgal/d and 1.000 Mgal/d peaks. Reclamation's estimated firm yield for Lake Holdenville is 2.053 Mgal/d, which is not consistent with the record of reported very low reservoir levels during drought periods. Reclamation will put a high priority on determining the reason for Lake Holdenville not producing yields near estimated firm yield expectations and will identify solutions to whatever the problem might be. Supply seems to be adequate with RWD No. 2 (Stuart) with no readily identifiable water supply problems. Wetumka has an average daily use of 0.311 Mgal/d and has peaks at 0.500 Mgal/d. Water treatment plant capacity is adequate and storage is minimally adequate. The city has consistently reported peak shortages due to inadequate reservoir yields in Lake Wetumka. Reclamation's firm yield estimate is 0.714 Mgal/d which indicates actual reservoir yield lower than estimated expectation. The reason for this lower reservoir yield needs to be determined, and additional supplies for mid- and long- range demands will be investigated. - - - - - Coalgate, county seat of Coal County, has an ample Holdenville, the county seat of Hughes supply of water from Coalgate Reservoir, seen in the County, provides a source of water supply upper right center. for several rural water districts. IX-21 (3) Lincoln County--Big Creek RWC has been using its own ground water supply, which has experienced shortages. Average daily use has been 0.142 Mgal/d, and peak demands have been 0.165 Mgal/d. Big Creek RWC is a member of Tri-County Development Authority and will be purchasing treated surface water supplies from the Tri-County Development Authority when its new waterworks and conveyance system become operational in late 1985 or early 1986. Storage is barely adequate. The city of Carney uses a daily average of 0.070 Mgal/d and experiences peak demands of 0.130 Mgal/d. Storage is not adequate for peak demands. Wells logs indicate a capacity of 0.090 Mgal/d, which seems unlikely in that the city reports no shortage experiences. Dependable well capability data needs to be determined before Carney's future water supply needs can be assessed. Chandler, with 0.634 Mgal/d average daily use and 0.990 Mgal/d peak use, is a classic case of using drought carry- over storage for normal year operations as indicated by Reclamation's firm yield estimate of only 0.473 Mgal/d. There is ample treatment capacity, but storage is only one-third of peak demands. The city has been working with SCS to develop a new supply reservoir (Kickapoo Nations Watershed Site 1M) which will have a firm yield of 4.068 Mgal/d. Construction activities have begun with acquisition of damsite and reservoir rights-of-way. The RWD No. 1 (Sparks) appears to have a water supply problem. Reclamation's firm yield estimate for Sparks Lake is 0.024 Mgal/d, while average daily demands are 0.026 Mgal/d and peak use is 0.049 Mgal/d. Treatment capacity is adequate, but storage is not. RWD No. 1 has a high-priority, short-term problem, especially if the 75 percent of the Sparks community who are on individual wells should wish to obtain water service from the district. The city of Meeker uses an average of 0.110 Mgal/d with peak use at 0.207 Mgal/d. Treatment plant capacity of 0.215 Mgal/d is nearing its limits. Storage is adequate. Meeker has a high-priority, short-term need for additional water supplies based on Reclamation's firm yield esti- mate of 0.179 Mgal/d for Meeker Lake, which shall be addressed as this study progresses. Prague presently has a well system that produces an estimated capacity of 0.626 Mgal/d. It uses 0.576 Mgal/d on an average daily basis and has peak uses of 0.981 Mgal/d. Storage is somewhat inadequate. The city has sponsored the completed SCS construction of new reservoir (Robinson Creek Watershed Site 4M) having a firm yield of 0.491 Mgal/d which, combined with the ground water supply, is adequate for short-term needs. As of yet, the city has not constructed the necessary water treatment plant. The city of Stroud apparently has unresolved water supply problems. They pres– ently obtain their water from Stroud Lake, which has an estimated firm yield of 1.161 Mgal/d. The city reports average daily use of 0.388 Mgal/d and peak demands of 0.730 Mgal/d. Treatment plant capacity is 0.750 Mgal/d, which is adequate for the immediate short term. Although they have not had to ration water, the city has apparently experienced shortages sufficient to cause them to drill 13 wells into the Ada-Vamoosa Aquifer. All of these wells were abandoned because of extremely low yields. Storage is only half of the peak demands, which may be part of their problem. Reclamation plans to follow up soon to determine if a supply problem exists and, if so, what its magnitude and nature are so that solutions may be formulated. Tryon has an average daily use of 0.026 Mgal/d with peaks at 0.028 Mgal/d. Estimated capacity of their wells is 0.026 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate but seasonal shortages have been reported. Tryon should have a high priority in determining how to best alleviate their short-term needs. Cost–benefit studies need to be done to determine if well produc- tion should be increased or whether it would be wiser to import water from another source such as Big Creek RWC or Chandler. The Wellston community has two problems. The quality of its water exceeds several secondary standards, and it experiences shortages. Its well field is estimated to have a capacity of 0.075 Mgal/d although it has produced peaks of 0.126 Mgal/d and average daily use of 0.074 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate. High priority should be given to determine whether or not it is more cost effective to expand well production and treat the water to improve quality or whether it is better to develop a new source of supply. (4) Okfuskee County--Okemah has a total average daily use of 1.082 Mgal/d with 1.200 Mgal/d peaks. Its treatment plant capacity of 1.000 Mgal/d is inadequate as is its 0.645 million-gallon storage. The estimated firm yield of Okemah Lake is 2.946 Mgal/d, which is 2-1/2 times current peak demands. With peak demands of 0.332 Mgal/d and average daily use of 0.191 Mgal/d, the city of Weleetka needs supply improvements. Treatment plant capacity of 0.270 Mgal/d is being exceeded during peak periods. Storage at 0.087 million gallons is inadequate. The Weleetka Lake firm yield estimate is 0.179 Mgal/d. Weleetka needs to establish a high-priority in solving its immediate water supply and facilities deficiencies. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - º: - - - - - - - º - --- *** *****. - ** -- - - - º --- º - - * - - --- - º - Chandler, county seat of Lincoln County, is one of the Okemah is another municipality that has few municipalities in the study area that will have adequate supplies of water for future water supplies adequate to meet future needs. needs in Okemah Lake. It is also the county seat of Okfuskee County. IX-22 (5) Pawnee County--Current ground water supplies appear adequate for Blackburn-Skedee Water, Inc. However, there are plans to switch over to a surface water supply from the previously discussed Tri-County Development Authority in late 1985. The city of Cleveland uses 0.440 Mgal/d on an average daily basis and 0.650 Mgal/d at peak usage. It has a treatment plant capacity of 1.500 Mgal/d and they have adequate storage. Reclamation estimates a firm yield of 0.670 Mgal/d for Cleveland Lake. At first glance, the firm yield may seem too high for the reported 2 feet of water remaining in the reservoir in 1981; however, current use figures are now nearly 0.100 Mgal/d lower than at that time when the city still supplied RWD No. 1. Nonetheless, the city will soon need a supplemental water supply. They have been negotiating for such a supply with the Tri-County Development Authority which has water available. The towns of Hallett and Jennings both have adequate ground water supplies. Hallett, however, needs additional storage. Pawnee has experienced water distribution or supply shortages in providing 0.526 Mgal/d average daily use and 0.600 Mgal/d for peak demands. Treatment plant capacity is adequate at 1.500 Mgal/d. The 0.400 Mgal/d storage is inadequate and may be part of the problem. It would appear that Pawnee Lake is not producing up to Reclamation's estimated firm yield of 0.848 Mgal/d. This is not critical since Pawnee will soon be receiving a supplemental supply of water from Tri-County Development Authority. The RWD No. 1 now obtains its water from wells although it formerly purchased water from the city of Cleveland. The estimated 0.093 Mgal/d of well capability is barely adequate to supply an average daily use of 0.093 Mgal/d with peaks at 0.100 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate. Should the city actually obtain additional supplies from Tri-County Development Authority, the solution would be for RWD No. 1 to resume purchase of water from the city of Cleveland. If not, RWD No. 1 might attempt purchase of its own supply from Tri-County Development Authority. The RWD No. 2, Inc., purchases water from the city of Mannford in Creek County. Water supplies are presently adequate as is its storage. Followup evaluations are needed to assure Mannford will have supplies for the district's long-term needs. The RWD No. 2 (Terlton) has adequate storage. It supplies 30 percent of its use with well water and the remaining 70 percent is purchased from the city of Cleveland. The adequacy of this supply portion is dependent upon the city of Cleveland resolving its own water problems. Ralston PWA has a ground water production capability of 0.290 Mgal/d, which is 363 percent greater than peak demands of 0.080 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 0.050 Mgal/d. Storage is inadequate. Westport UAT has a high-priority, short-term water supply need. It uses 0.015 Mgal/d on a daily average and .027 Mgal/d during peaks. Storage is adequate, but its estimated well production capability is only 0.015 Mgal/d. The restricted water supply situation at Westport and RWD No. 1 will require followup evaluations to determine their best a1ternatives. The county seat of Pawnee County is the city of Stillwater, county seat of Payne County, Pawnee, which will assure its future water supply with has assured its future water supply by supplemental supply purchases from the Tri-County building a pipeline to deliver supple- Development Authority. mental water from Kaw Reservoir. (6) Payne County--The city of Cushing depends on Cushing Lake for 90 percent of its supply which has an estimated firm yield of 1.607 Mgal/d, and 10 percent ground water which has an estimated dependable capability of 0-360 Mgal/d, for a total supply of 1.967 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 1.200 Mgal/d and peaks are at 3.700 Mgal/d. Treatment plant capacity is possibly adequate at 4.000 Mgal/d, but antiquated facilities need renovation or replacement. Storage facilities are inadequate at 2.000 million gallons. The city of Cushing has a high-priority immediate problem with water supply since its estimated total water supply is only 53 percent of current peak demands. The city should explore the most timely and cost-effective solutions to its water supply problem. The city of Glencoe is at the capacity of its present ground water supply and has inadequate storage. Its supply problems will be solved when it begins taking delivery of Tri-County Development Authority water in late 1985. The RWC No. 3 uses a ground water supply whose estimated capacity is 0.120 Mgal/d, which supplies an average daily 0.063 Mgal/d and peak use of 0.073 Mgal/d. The supply is more than adequate, but storage is not sufficient for emergency needs. The town of Perkins also IX-23 has inadequate storage but more than adequate ground water supplies. Ripley PWA has more than adequate storage and a ground water supply adequate for present peak demands. The city of Stillwater presently utilizes water supplies from Lakes Carl Blackwell and McMurtry having firm yields of 6.249 and 2.678 Mgal/d, respectively, for a total firm yield of 8.927 Mgal/d. Oklahoma State University holds the water rights to Carl Blackwell, and the city holds the water rights for McMurtry. Average daily use has been 6.150 Mgal/d with 10.240 Mgal/d peaks. The city is constructing a new water treatment plant which will equal the 12 Mgal/d capacity of the existing OSU plant for a combined total of 24.000 Mgal/d. Because their existing total firm water supply was less than their peak demands, the city contracted for an additional supply of water from Kaw Reservoir. A 36-inch pipeline will initially deliver up to 13.000 Mgal/d to the new treatment plant. This will make the new total supply nearly 22.000 Mgal/d. Approximately 75 percent of the city's total peak demand is expected to be met with water supplies from Kaw Reservoir. Lake McMurtry will be held in reserve for future growth and peak demands. The OSU needs are approxi- mately 25 percent of the combined water supply demand and will be met with supplies from Lake Carl Blackwell. Stillwater's storage is inadequate. Currently, the city of Yale has adequate ground water supplies and inadequate storage. However, they are replacing their ground water with treated surface water supplies from Tri-County Development Authority. (7) Pontotoc County--Ada PWA supplies the city of Ada, several outlying communities, and eight rural water water districts. Average daily use is 3.873 Mgal/d, and 7.060 Mgal/d is the peak demand. Estimated ground water capabilities are 8.160 Mgal/d which is adequate for present needs. Storage facilities appear to be inadequate. Ada's water is very hard. In the past, the city has shown an interest in replacing its supply with good quality surface water. Reclamation would be willing to assist the city in developing such plans should the city indicate a desire to have Reclamation do so. Allen PWA obtains its ground water supply from Canadian River alluvium. Estimated capable water supply is 0.170 Mgal/d. The system provides average daily supplies of 0.170 Mgal/d and peak supplies of 0.230 Mgal/d. Storage is more than adequate. The city experi- ences shortages during some peak demands which may be due to significantly lowered water tables in the alluvium during drought periods. Allen has a high-priority need to develop an adequate, fully dependable water supply. The city of Francis has adequate water supply and storage facilities. The town of Roff has a dependable water supply capability of 0.118 Mgal/d. Average daily use and peak demands are the same at 0.118 Mgal/d. The town has a high-priority need for additonal water supplies for itself and to enable the town to supply additional customers in the surrounding rural area. Roff also needs additional storage. The town of Stonewall also has an inadequate ground water supply capability at 0.070 Mgal/d which may not meet their 0.068 Mgal/d average daily use and 0.071 Mgal/d peaks. Storage is adequate. Stonewall also has a high-priority need to develop addi- tional water supplies. (8) Pottawatomie County--Asher UDA provides 0.031 Mgal/d peak demand and 0.021 Mgal/d average daily use with ground water supplies from Canadian River alluvium having an estimated capability of 0.025 Mgal/d. As might be expected, it experiences peak demand shortages during drought periods. Storage is adequate. As her has a high-priority need to develop a fully dependable additional water supply. Earlsboro Water, Inc., uses a ground water supply with an estimated capable supply of 0.300 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 0.205 Mgal/d and peak use is 0.300 Mgal/d. No shortages have been reported. Storage is adequate. Earlsboro has a need to develop additional near-term supplies to meet increasing peak demands. The city of McLoud has an adequate supply of ground water to supply average daily use of 0.164 Mgal/d and peak use of 0.175 Mgal/d. Storage is also adequate. The city of Maud supplies peak demands of 0.200 Mgal/d and an average daily use of 0.110 Mgal/d from a ground water supply estimated to have a capable supply of 0.306 Mgal/d. Storage is also adequate. The city of Shawnee has the most critical present-term water supply problem in the entire study area. It is also one of the more complicated to explain. Shawnee is currently obtaining its water from Shawnee Reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2 (which are interconnected), which have an estimated firm yield of 3.303 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 3.406 Mgal/d and peak demands are 5.792 Mgal/d. Under sustained drought conditions over several years, Shawnee could not even meet average daily needs. The city has built a pipeline turnout from the Oklahoma City Aqueduct (which conveys water from Atoka Reservoir to Stanley Draper Lake) to Shawnee Reservoir No. 1. No firm amount of supply can be listed because the plan is for Shawnee to purchase emergency supplemental supplies when needed if supplies are available from Oklahoma City. There is no assurance that Oklahoma City could spare enough water to meet all of Shawnee's needs during a prolonged drought. The Pottawatomie County Development Authority has been working with SCS in developing plans for a water supply reservoir at North Deer Creek Watershed Site 1M. The SCS calculates the potential critical year yield (similar to firm yield) at 1.803 Mgal/d. Pottawatomie County Development Authority's present proposed allocation is that Shawnee would receive 75 percent and the city of Tecumseh would receive 25 percent of the water, with the stipulation that the city of Shawnee would supply Pottawatomie County Development Authority with up to 0.850 Mgal/d treated water for devel- oping rural water systems in the more remote parts of the county. The additional firm supply realized by Shawnee would be 1.803 Mgal/d times 75 percent minus 0.850 Mgal/d or a new total of 0.502 Mgal/d. This amount when added to the existing 3.303 Mgal/d would provide a total firm yield of 3.805 Mgal/d, which still would be inadequate to meet current peak demand needs. The Pottawatomie County Development Authority had hoped to have the North Deer Creek plan approved and funded within the next 2 or 3 years. The Administration in Washington has proposed reductions is SCS appropriations and reducing its mission to a role of providing technical advice. Should this proposal be implemented, it is doubtful that SCS will be able to develop the reservoir on North Deer Creek. Either way, Shawnee's present water supply situation remains extremely critical. The St. Louis UA has an estimated capable ground water supply of 0.020 Mgal/d which is adequate for near- term 0.13 Mgal/d average daily use and peaks of 0.018 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate. Tecumseh pres– ently uses a combination of surface and ground water for its supply. Estimated capable well supplies is 0.170 Mgal/d while the firm yield of Tecumseh Reservoir is estimated at 0.312 Mgal/d for a total supply of 0.482 Mgal/d. This is also a critical situation since average daily use is IX-24 Ada is the county seat of Ponto toc County, which is the only county relying exclu- sively on ground water supplies. Ada PWA supplies water to several communities and eight rural water districts. Shawnee is county seat of Pottawatomie County and serves as headquarters for the Central Oklahoma Economic Development District and the Pottawatomie County Development Authority. Seminole is the county seat of Seminole County. Wewoka is one of the municipalities that needs additional water supplies. IX-24a - - - - - Weleetka is located in southeast The city of Meeker, Lincoln County, Okfuskee County. This community, like has identified a high-priority, short- many others in the study area, has term need for a supplemental water supply. immediate water supply and facilities deficiencies. The Arkansas River meanders along the View of the Hickory Ridge area along northern boundary of Pawnee County. the North Canadian River. Typical This major stream is a valuable resource scene of the terrain features in east- to the State and the general study central Oklahoma. a rea • IX-24b 0.555 Mgal/d with peaks of 0.620 Mgal/d. If the North Deer Creek Watershed Site lºſ is developed and if Tecumseh receives the proposed 25 percent allocation, 0.451 Mgal/d would be added to the city's supply, making Tecumseh's total water supply, of 0.933 Mgal/d which is more than enough for near-term needs. However, Tecumseh's water supply problems must be given a high-priority until development of North Deer Creek is assured. Wanette is supplied by two wells having an estimated capable supply of 0.050 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 0.030 Mgal/d with peaks at 0.070 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate. The supply from the two wells in service is inadequate. However, the city has developed two new wells which should result in a plentiful water supply when they are integrated into system operations. (9) Seminole County--The town of Bowlegs has a minimally adequate ground water supply whose capability is estimated at 0.030 Mgal/d. Peak demands are 0.028 Mgal/d with 0.017 Mgal/d used on an average daily basis. Storage is adequate. The existing wells of the Bowlegs-Lima Water District have an inadequate estimated capable supply of 0.200 Mgal/d to meet peak demands of 0.290 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 0.148 Mgal/d. The district is planning to develop two additional wells in the Ada-Wamoosa Formation, one to meet peak demands and one for emergency standby. This should take care of their short-term needs. Storage is adequate. The city of Konawa obtains its water from wells in the Canadian River alluvium. Estimated capable supply is 0.205 Mgal/d which is inadequate for peak demands of 0.239 Mgal/d and 0.205 Mgal/d average daily use. There are reported water quality problems. Although additional wells would provide short-term water supply relief, the addition of needed water treatment facilities to improve quality might make it more cost effective to obtain a new, better quality water supply from a regional supply source. Storage is adequate. The city of Sasakwa obtains an estimated capable supply of 0.018 Mgal/d from its wells which is inadequate for peak demands of 0.020 Mgal/d and average daily use of 0.018 Mgal/d. Storage is adequate. The Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation also uses ground water to provide 0.022 Mgal/d average daily use and 0.025 Mgal/d for peaks. Estimated capable supply is 0.028 Mgal/d, which is marginal. The district has no storage. Both the city and the district were featured in newspaper articles during the winter of 1984–1985 describing the shortage and water quality problems both entities were experiencing. The articles described the frustration at being unable to develop new wells supplies because water could not be found or, when it was, it was brine contaminated and unsuitable for use. Both entities have a high-priority need to import an adequate supply of suitable quality water. The city of Seminole appears to have an adequate water system. Its wells produced an estimated capable supply of 2.380 Mgal/d. Average daily use is 1.150 Mgal/d with 1.760 Mgal/d peak demands. Storage is adequate. The 1.400-Mgal/d-capacity Wewoka treatment plant provides treated water supplies for an average daily use of 0.687 Mgal/d and peak demands of 1.306 Mgal/d. Reclamation's estimated firm yield for Wewoka Lake is 0.893 Mgal/d which is inade- quate for present demands. Storage is adequate • Wewoka has a need for additional supply develop- ment • 3. Projected future M&I water demands. Since Reclamation's 4-year special study was only begun several months ago, social assessment has just begun that will help determine what the most likely future for the study area will be. This special study has not yet obtained enough information to attempt making population projections, the projections in chapter II were obtained from the Corps, who has been studying a number of counties around and near the study area for several years. These projections are preliminary, so Reclamation may modify or improve these projections after it has had an opportunity to complete more detailed studies • For the same reasons, projected future water demand (based on population projections) data from the Corps was utilized in developing the water demand projections. As in the population projections in chapter II, two different projections are displayed for each decade for comparison purposes. The SEDIP projection stands for "Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans" which is the Corps' forecast of conditions resulting from overall achievement of the RedArk Comprehensive Economic Development Plan. The OESC (Oklahoma Employment Security Commission) projection is a forecast of the future based on continuation of historic and present trends. Tables IX-9 through IX-17 provide detailed comparative water demand projections for the decades 1990 through the year 2040 for each of the study area counties. Table IX-18 provides the same information as a summary table for the study area. These tables are organized and work differently than the population projections in chapter II, which list all of the communities in a county and their projected population. Tables IX-9 through IX-17 list communities and rural water districts as water user entities. Populations listed are popula- tions served with water by the entity, which is usually different than the exact census count. The communities and districts that purchase their water are listed under the entity from whom water is obtained. Populations served and projected water demands are included in the totals of the source entity. In other words, these tables are organized on a sources of water supply basis for each county. Projected populations served are multiplied by the number of gallons per capita per day in calculating the projected water demand in thousands of gallons per day. This, then, is divided by 1 million to convert the number to Mgal/d which is the standard unit of measure for M&I water supplies. These tables are useful for detailed analyses in planning work for each entity, but they do not lend themselves to easy reference in a generalized discussion of projected mid-range (year 2010) and 1ong-range (year 2040) needs. Table IX-19 was developed for this purpose. It lists the SEDIP and OESC water demand projections for the years 2010 and 2040, which were taken from tables IX-9 through IX-17. They also list the available water supplies that exist or that are under construction and will be in use before the first projection decade (year 1990). This allows easy comparison of pro- jected demands against available supplies. Only those entities that have sources of water supply for themselves and/or others are listed. Most of the entities have maximum projected water demands IX—25 Year 1990 Gallons SEDIP 2/ Projections OESC 3/ Projections Table IX-9 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Coal County (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) 1/ Coal County Average Population Per Capita Population Average Water User Entity Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Coalgate PWA (supplies RWD Nos. 1, 2, 0.426 4,625 92.0 4,338 0.399 and 5, Clarita-Olney Water Co., Inc., and Round Hill Water Co., Inc. No. 4) 4/ RWD No. 1 (includes Phillips) (0.044) (820) (54.0) (760) (0.04.1) RWD No. 2 (includes Centrahoma) 5/ (0.043) (609) (70.0) (573) (0.040) RWD No. 5 (0.018) (220) (84.0) (210) (0.018) Clarita-Olney Water Co., Inc. (0.047) (590) (79.0) (550) (0.043) Round Hill Water Co., Inc. No. 6/ (0.010) (236) (44.0) (225) (0.010) Lehigh PWA 0.042 340 124.0 320 0.040 Tupelo PWA J/ 0.043 690 63.0 650 0.041 County Total 0. 511 5,655 5,308 0.480 1/ Source / SEDIP / OESC Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. : / Corps' data modified to remove population served and water supplied to Tupelo. / All data for this entity added. Not reported by the Corps. activities are completed, relying on Coalgate solely as an emergency back-up supply. / Tupelo is in the process of obtaining additional ground water supplies, constructing a treatment facility, and adding to treated storage capability. Corps' data modified to reflect the same. Year 2000 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.488 5,035 97.0 4,394 0.426 (0.048) (820) (59.0) (710) (0.042) (0.060) (800) (75.0) (700) (0.053) (0.019) (210) (89.0) (190) (0.017) (0.048) (570) (84.0) (500) (0.042) (0.011) (225) (49.0) (204) (0.010) 0.048 370 129.0 320 0.041 0.063 920 68.0 800 0.054 O. 599 6,325 5,514 0. 521 Year 2010 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average *###; Served Per Day Served *###5 0. 560 5,487 102.0 4,355 0.444 (0.057) (890) (64.0) (700) (0.045) (0.078) (973) (80.0) (773) (0.062) (0.019) (200) (94.0) (160) (0.015) (0.048) (540) (89.0) (430) (0.038) (0.012) (214) (54.0) (172) (0.009) 0.043 320 134.0 250 0.034 0.082. 1,130. 73.0 900. 0.066. 0.685 6,937 5,505 0. 544 / Corps' data modified to remove people served and water supplied to Tupelo and further modified to add populations served and water supplies provided to RWD No. 5 and Round Hill Water Co., Inc. No. 4. It plans to be 100 percent self-supplied when these ; Table IX-9 (Continued) 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Coal County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ Projections Gallons OESC 3/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Coal County Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Water User Entity Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Coalgate PWA (supplies RWD Nos. 1, 2, 0.632 5,905 107 - O 4, 296 0.460 0.704 6,288 112.0 4,086 0.458 O. 786 6,715 117.0 3,887 O. 455 and 5, Clarita-Olney Water Co., Inc., and Round Hill Water Co., Inc. No. 4) 4/ RWD No. 1 (includes Phillips) (0.066) (950) (69.0) (690) (0.048) (0.076) (1,030) (74.0) (670) (0.050) (0.088) (1,120) (79.0) (650) (0.051) RWD No. 2 (includes Centrahoma) 5/ (0.100) (1,182) (85.0) (855) (0.073) (0.129) (1,436) (90.0) (937) (0.084) (0.167) (1,755) (95.0) (1,010) (0.096) RWD No. 5 (0.019) (190) (99.0) (140) (0.014) (0.018) (170) (104.0) (110) (0.011) (0.015) (140) (109.0) (80) (0.009) Clarita-Olney Water Co., Inc. (0.047) (500) (94.0) (370) (0.035) (0.045) (450) (99.0) (290) (0.029) (0.038) (370) (104.0) (220) (0.023) Round Hill Water Co., Inc. No. 4 6/ (0.012) (203) (59.0) (151) (0.009) (0.012) (182) (64.0) (119) (0.008) (0.010) (150) (69.0) (87) (0.006) Lehigh PWA 0.049 350 139.0 250 O. O.35 0.042 290 144.0 190 O. O.27 0.031 210 149.0 130 O. O.19 Tupelo Pua 1/ O. 108 1,380 78. O 1,000 O.078 0.140 1,690 83. O 1,100 O.091 O. 183 2,080 88. O 1,200 0. 106 County Total 0.789 7,635 5,546 O. 573 O. 886 8,268 5,376 0. 576 1.000 9,005 5,217 0. 580 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 4 / Corps' data modified to remove people served and water supplied to Tupelo and further modified to add populations served and water supplies provided to RWD No. 5 and Round Hill Water Co., Inc. No. 4. 5/ Corps' data modified to remove population served and water supplied to Tupelo. 6/ All data for this entity added. Not reported by the Corps. 7/ Tupelo is in the process of obtaining additional ground water supplies, constructing a treatment facility, and adding to treated storage capability. It plans to be 100 percent self-supplied when these activities are completed, relying on Coalgate solely as an emergency back-up supply. Corps' data modified to reflect the same . : Hughes county 4' Water User Entity Calvin Dustin Gerty (all individual wells) Holdenville (supplies RWD Nos. 3 & 4) 5/ RWD No. 3 (serves Lamar Lamar RWD No. 4 (includes Atwood) Wetumka (supplies RWD No. 1) 6/ RWD No. 1 Yeager (all individual wells) RWD No. 2 (includes Ashland, Haywood, Hickory Hills, and a small area in Pittsburg, CO) (serves Stuart) Stuart County Totals Table IX-10 l Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Hughes County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Hughes County portion of the town of Allen reported under Pontotoc County. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. A/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. Year 1990 Year 2000 º º SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A7 Frojections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) O. O73 370 196 330 O. O.65 0.072 360 201 275 0.055 0.017 590 28.4 535 0.015 0.022 670 33. 4 535 0.018 0.006 170 34 150 0.005 O. O.O7 190 39 150 0.006 1.040 7,075 147 6,405 0.942 1. 194 7,855 152 6, 165 O. 937 (0.048) (500) (96)" (410) (0.039) (0.051) (500) (101) (400) (0.040) (0.013] [140] [96] [100] [0.010] (0.017] [170] [101) [100] [0.010] (0.057) (510) (112) (460) (0.052) (0.060) (510) (117) (400) (0.047) 0.345 2,735 126 2,525 0.318 0.394 3,005 131 2,465 O. 323 (0.034) (850) (40) (760) (0.030) (0.038) (840) (45) (700) (0.032) 0.006 170 34 150 O. O.O.5 0.007 190 39 150 0.006 0.035 720 48 740 O. O.36 0.038 710 53 600 0.032 (0.019) (350) (54) (250) (0.014) (0.018) (310) (59) (200) (0.012) 1, 522 11,830 10,835 1. 386 1. 734 12,980 10,340 1. 377 No data provided for area served by Salem RWC, which originates in Okmulgee County. 5/ Corps' populations reduced by 325 to correct water service to RWD Nos. 3 & 4, instead of RWD Nos. 2 & 3. 6/ Populations increased by 375 to reflect total population of RWD No. 1 and gallons per capita were increased to reflect 1982 average daily use of 311,000 gal/d as reported by TVA. RWD No. 5 is under construction--no data available. Gallons per capita were increased to reflect 1982 average daily use of 900,000 gal/d as reported by TVA. Year 2010 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average *###; Served Per Day Served *###; O. O.82 400 206 275 0.057 O. O.27 700 38.4 490 O. O.19 0.010 220 44 150 0.007 1. 346 8,575 157 5,805 O. 911 (0.053) (500) (106) (400) (0.042) [0.021 ) [200] [106] [100] (0.011 ) (0.062) (510) (122) (340) (0.04.1) 0.462 3, 135 136 2,375 O. 323 (0.042) (840) (50) (570) (0.029) 0.010 220 44 150 O. OO7 0.04.1 710 58 600 0.035 (0.023) (360) (64) (200). (0.013) 1.978 13,960 9,845 1. 359 . Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 2/ SEDIP 3/ Projections Gallons OESC 4/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Hughes County = Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Water User Entity Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Calvin 0.080 380 211 220 0.046 0.076 350 216 165 0.036 0.059 280 221 110 0.024 Dustin 0.036 820 43.4 480 0.021 0.043 880 48.4 430 0.021 0.049 920 53.4 370 0.020 Gerty (all individual wells) 0.013 260 49 150 O. O.07 0.017 310 54 150 0.008 0.022 370 59 150 0.009 Holdenville (supplies RWD Nos. 3 & 4) 5/ 1 .. 509 9,315 162 5,325 0.863 1.667 9,985 167 4,715 O. 787 1.822 10,595 172 4, 115 0.708 RWD No. 3 (serves Lamar) (0.053) (480) (111) (200) (0.022) (0.055) (470) (116) (200) (0.023) (0.056) (460) (121) (200) (0.024) Lamar [0.013] [120] [111] [50] [0.006) [0.015] [130] [116] [50] [0.006) [0.019) [160] [121 ) [50] [0.006) RWD No. 4 (includes Atwood) (0.062) (490) (127) (290) (0.037) (0.063) (480) (132) (230) (0.030) (0.064) (470) (137) (180) (0.025) Wetumka (supplies RWD No. 1) 6/ O. 479 3,395 141 2,245 O. 317 0. 507 3,475 146 1,995 O. 291 O. 526 3,485 151 1,735 0.262 RWD No. 1 (0.045) (820) (55) (470) (0.026) (0.047) (790) (60) (380) (0.230) (0.050) (770) (65) (300) (0.020) Yeager (A11 individual wells) O. O.O8 170 49 100 O. O.05 0.011 200 54 100 O. O.05 O. O15 250 59 100 0.006 RWD No. 2 (includes Ashland, Haywood 0.043 690 63 450 0.028 0.046 670 68 450 0.031 0.047 650 73 450 0.033 Hickory Hills, and a small area in Pittsburg, CO) (serves Stuart) Stuart (0.022) (320) (69) (150) (0.010) (0.028) (380) (74) (150) (0.011) (0.036) (460) (79) (150) (0.012) County Totals 2. 168 15,030 8,970 1.287 2. 367 15,870 8,005 1. 179 2. 540 16,550 7,030 1.062 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Hughes County portion of the town of Allen reported under Pontotoc County. No data provided for area served by Salem RWC, which originates in Okmulgee County. RWD No. 5 is under construction--no data available. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. # ſ Table IX-10 (Continued) 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Hughes County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Corps' populations reduced by 325 to correct water service to RWD Nos. 3 & 4, instead of RWD Nos. 2 & 3. Populations increased by 375 to reflect total population of RWD No. 1 and gallons per capita were increased to reflect 1982 average daily use of 311,000 gal/d as reported by TVA. Gallons per capita were increased to reflect 1982 average daily use of 900,000 gal/d as reported by TVA. i Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Lincoln County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Rev. 2/85) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 2/ SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Lincoln County = Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Water User Entity Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Carney 0.092 1,010 91.5 970 0.089 0.134 1,390 96.5 1,280 0.124 O. 173 1,700 101 .. 5 1,520 0.154 Chandler (supplies Davenport & RWD No. 2) 0. 543 4,450 122 4,290 0. 523 0.613 4,830 127.0 4,430 0. 563 O. 675 5, 110 132 4,560 0.602 Davenport (0.070) (1,140) (61) (1,100) (0.067) (0.083) (1,250) (66.0) (1,150) (0.076) (0.092) (1,290) (71.0) (1,150) (0.082) RWD No. 2 (0.033) (620) (54) (600) (0.032) (0.044) (740) (59.0) (680) (0.040) (0.054) (840) (64.0) (750) (0.048) Fallis (all individual wells) 0.002 50 34 50 0.002 0.002 50 39.0 50 0.002 0.002 50 44 50 0.002 Kendrick (all individual wells) 0.005 150 34 º 150 O. O.05 0.004 100 39 - O 100 0.004 0.004 100 44 100 0.004 Meeker O. 150 1,350 110.8 1,300 0.144 0.201 1,740 115.8 1,600 0.185 O. 257 2,130 120.8 1,900 O. 230 Prague 0.711 3,040 234 2,930 0.686 0.848 3,550 239.0 3,250 0.777 1.020 4,130 244 3,690 0.900 Sparks (767 on individual wells with 0.029 866 34 836 O. O.28 0.047 1,200 39.0 1, 100 0.043 O. O.71 1,620 44 1,440 Q. 063 remaining 247 served by RWD No. 1) 5/ Stroud 0.374 3,780 99 3,640 0.360 0.469 4, 510 104.0 4, 130 0.430 0.563 5, 180 109 4,630 O. 505 Tryon 0.034 520 66 500 O. O.33 0.050 700 71 - O 640 0.045 0.063 830 76 730 0.055 Warwick (all individual wells) 0.010 280 34 270 0.009 0.011 290 39.0 270 0.011 0.013 290 44 270 0.012 Wellston 0.088 850 104 820 O. O.85 O. 108 990 109. O 910 0.099 0.123 1,080 114 960 O. 109 RWD No. 1 (includes 24% of Sparks) 0.034 430 79 420 0.033 0.044 520 84.0 470 0.039 0.053 590 89 530 0.047 County Total 2.072 16,766 16, 176 1.997 2. 531 19,870 18,230 2. 322 3.017 22,810 20,380 2.683 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Big Creek RWC is reported in Pawnee County under Tri-County Development Authority, which will be its water supply source. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to show that about 76 percent of Sparks is served by individual wells with the remainder included in RWD No. 1. : Lincoln County 2/ Water User Entity Carney Chandler (supplies Davenport & RWD No. 2) Davenport RWD No. 2 Fallis (all individual wells) Kendrick (all individual wells) Meeker Prague Sparks (76% on individual wells with remaining 24% served by RWD No. 1) 5/ Stroud Tryon Warwick (all individual wells) Wellston RWD No. 1 (includes 24% of Sparks) County Total Table IX-11 (Continued) 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Lincoln County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Rev. 2/85) Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC 4/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) *###; 0.223 2,090 106.5 1,820 0.194 0.282 2,530 111.5 2, 130 O. 237 O. 346 2,970 116.5 2,430 0.283 O. 717 5,230 137 4,560 0.625 O. 770 5,420 142 4,560 0.648 O. 819 5,570 147 4,560 0.670 (0.100) (1,320) (76) (1,150) (0.087) (0.111) (1,370) (81) (1,150) (0.093) (0.120) (1,400) (86) (1,150) (0.099) (0.064) (930) (69) (810) (0.056) (0.074) (1,000) (74) (840) (0.062) (0.083) (1,050) (79) (860) (0.068) 0.002 50 49 50 O. O.O2 O. 003 50 54 50 0.002 O. 003 50 59 50 0.003 0.005 100 49 100 O. O.O.5 O. O.05 100 54 100 0.005 0.006 100 59 100 0.006 0.318 2,530 125.8 2,200 O. 277 0.373 2,850 130.8 2,400 0.314 0.430 3, 170 135.8 2,600 O. 353 1. 150 4,610 249 4,010 O. 998 1. 310 5, 150 254 4,340 1. 100 1. 470 5,680 259 4,660 1.210 O. 105 2, 140 49 1,860 O. O.91 0.146 2,710 54 2,280 0.123 0.194 3,290 59 2,700 O. 159 0.658 5,770 114 5,020 0. 572 O. 737 6, 190 119 5,220 0.621 0.818 6,600 124 5,410 0.671 0.081 1,000 81 870 O. O70 0.099 1,150 86 960 O. O.83 O. 116 1,280 91 1,050 O. O.96 0.015 300 49 270 0.013 0.017 320 54 270 0.015 O. O.19 320 59 270 0.016 0.131 1,100 119 960 0.114 0.141 1,140 124 960 O. 119 0.151 1, 170 129 960 0.124 0.061 650 94 570 0.054. 0.069. 700 99 590 0.058. O. O77 740 104 600 0.062 3.466 25,570 22,290 3.015 3.952 28,310 23,860 3. 325 4. 449 30,940 25,390 3. 653 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Big Creek RWC is reported in Pawnee County under Tri-County Development Authority, which will be its water supply source. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. */ OESC - Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to show that about 76 percent of Sparks is served by individual wells with the remainder included in RWD No. 1. f Okfuskee County 2/ Water User Entity Okemah (supplies RWD Nos. 2 & 3 and Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3) 5/ RWD No. 2 (serves Castle) Castle RWD No. 3 (includes Clearview & Pharoah) Seminole RW&SWMD No. 3 (serves Cromwell) Cromwell Paden Weleetka RWD No. 1 (serves Boley) Boley County Total Table IX-12 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Okfuskee County l/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ No data reported for Okfuskee County portion of service area for Salem RWC (Okmulgee County). 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to include RWD No. 2 (including Castle), RWD No. 3 (including Clearview and Praroah), and Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3 (including Cromwell) in Okemah totals. Year 1990 SEDIP 3/ Projections Gallons OESC 4./ Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.803 8,540 94 8, 130 0.764 (0.115) (1,550) (74) (1,460) (0.108) [0.009] [160] [56.2 ) [150] [0.008) (0.118) (1,210) (97.2) (1,140) (0.111) (0.062) (850) (73.5) (900) (0.066) [0.018] [330] [54] [350] [0.018] 0.037 540 68 500 0.034 0.204 1,850 110.1 1,750 O. 193 0.022 490 44 450 0.020 (0.019) (430) (44.7) (400) (0.018) 1.066 11,420 10,830 1.011 Year 2000 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) O. 905 8,990 100. 7 7,640 O. 769 (0.092) (1,160) (79) (970) (0.077) [0.007 ) [120] [61.2 ) [100) [0.006) (0.115) (1,130) (102.2) (950) (0.097) (0.070) (890) (78.5) (840) (0.066) [0.022) [370] [59] [350] [0.021) 0.044 600 73 500 0.037 O. 229 1,990 115.1 1,670 0.192 0.020 410 49 340 O. O.17 (0.018) (360) (49.7) (300) (0.015) 1 - 198 11,990 10, 150 1.015 Includes data for Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3 & town of Cromwell, which is not included in Seminole County. Year 2010 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average *###, Served Per Day Served *#; 1.044 9,850 106 7,550 O. 800 (0.106) (1,260) (84) (970) (0.081) [0.009] [130] [66.2 ) [100] [0.007] (0.110) (1,030) (107.2) (780) (0.084) (0.078) (930) (83.5) (800) (0.067) [0.026] [410] [64 ) [350] [0.022 ) O. OS2 670 78 500 0.039 0.243 2,020 120. 1 1,520 O. 183 0.021 380 54 280 0.015 (0.018) (330) (54.7) (250) (0.014) 1. 360 12,920 9,850 1. O37 : Okfuskee county 4' Water User Entity Okemah (supplies RWD Nos. 2 & 3 and Pa We Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3) 5/ RWD No. 2 (serves Castle) Castle RWD No. 3 (includes Clearview & Pharoah) Seminole RW&SWMD No. 3 (serves Cromwell) Cromwell den leetka RWD No. 1 (serves Boley) Boley County Total Table IX-12 (Continued) 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Okfuskee County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. No data reported for Okfuskee County portion of service area for Salem RWC (Okmulgee County). SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. Corps' data modified to include RWD No. 2 (including Castle), RWD No. 3 (including Clearview and Praroah), and Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3 (including Cromwell) in Okemah totals. Year 2020 SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A/ Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 1 - 230 11,060 111.2 7,440 O. 827 (0.130) (1,460) (89) (970) (0.086) [0.011) [150] [71.2 ) [100] [0.007] (0.103) (920) (112.2) (610) (0.068) (0.085) (960) (88.5) (730) (0.065) [0.032] [460] [69] [350] (0.024 ) 0.056 670 83 450 0.037 0.243 1,940 125. 1 1, 290 0. 161 0.020 340 59 230 0.014 (0.018) (300) (59.7) (200) (0.012) 1.549 14,010 9,410 1. O39 Includes data for Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3 & town of Cromwell, which is not included in Seminole County. Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 1.423 12, 200 116.6 7, 150 0.834 1. 635 13,480 121. 3 6,890 0.836 (0.155) (1,650) (94) (970) (0.091) (0.192) (1,940) (99) (970) (0.096) [0.012] [170] [76.2 ) [100] [0.008] [0.016] [200] [81.2 ) [100] [0.008] (0.086) (730) (117.2) (420) (0.049) (0.061) (500) (122.2) (250) (0.031) (0.089) (950) (93.5) (630) (0.059) (0.092) (930) (98.5) (540) (0.053) [0.039] [530] [74] [350] (0.026] [0.048] [610] [79 ) [350] [0.028] O. O.68 770 88 450 0.040 O. O82 880 93 450 0.042 0.256 1,970 130. 1 1,140 0.148 0.282 2,090 135. 1 1,060 0.143 0.026 400 64 230 0.015 O. O30 440 69 230 0.016 (0.023) (350) (64.7) (200) (0.013) (0.027) (390) (69.7) (200) (0.014) 1. 773 15,340 8,970 1. O37 2.029 16,890 8,630 1. O37 : Pawnee County 2/ Water User Entity Cleveland (supplies RWD No. 2) RWD No. 2 (includes Terlton) Hallett Jennings Pawnee (also buying supplemental supply from Tri-County Development Authority) 5/ Ralston (supplies Ralston RWC) Ralston RWC Westport RWD No. 1 RWD No. 2, Inc. (supplied by Mannford in Creek County) 6/ Tri-County Development Authority 7/ (supplies 9 entities listed below) + Glencoe 8/ 5/ Pawnee (supplemental supply only) - Yale 8/ 9/ Big Creek RWC (includes Agra) - Blackburn-Skedee RWC Blackburn Sked ee 51 East Water, Inc. 8/ Morr Water Co., Inc. 10/ 11/ Pawnee County RWD No. 3 Yale RWC (includes Maramec and Quay) 12/ Maramec Quay County Total l/ Source: Table IX-13 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pawnee county / (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Rev. 2/85) Year 1990 Year 2000 SEDIP 3/ Projections Gallons OESC 4/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.395 4, 160 95 3,860 O. 367 0.466 4,660 1 OO 4,090 0.409 (0.094) (1,100) (85) (1,020) (0.087) (0.122) (1,360) (90) (1,200) (0.108) O. O.35 380 93.3 350 0.033 0.038 390 98.3 350 0.034 0.021 380 55.4 350 O. O.19 0.024 400 60.4 350 O. O.21 0.212 1,310 162 1,210 O. 196 0.194 1,160 167 1,020 O. 1 70 0.042 590 70. 7 550 O. O39 0.048 630 75. 7 550 0.042 (0.028) (160) (172) (150) (0.026) (0.037) (210) (177) (180) (0.032) O. O.23 380 60.6 350 O. O.21 0.033 510 65.6 450 O. O.30 0. 1 31 2,380 55. 1 2,210 O. 122 O. 183 3,050 60. 1 2,680 0. 161 ((0.042)) ((590)) ((70.7)) ((550)) ((0.039)) ((0.058)) ((760)) ((75.7)) ((660) ) ((0.050)) 1.054 11,252 94 10,771 1 - 007 1.233 12,768 97 11,504 1. 111 (0.048) (640) (75.2) (610) (0.046) (0.067) (84.0) (80.2) (760) (0.061) (0.204) (1,260) (162) (1,170) (0.190) (0.185) (1,110) (167) (980) (0.164) (0.227) (2,100) (108) (2,010) (0.217) (0.280) (2,460) (114) (2,220) (0.253) (0.199) (2,235) (89) (2,235) (0.199) (0.238) (2,530) (94.0) (2,530) (0.238) (0.046) (1,040) (44) (990) (0.044) (0.063) (1,280) (49) (1,160) (0.057) [0.003 ] [110] [29] [100] [0.003 ] [0.004 ) [110] [34] [100] [0.003) [0.006) [110] [55.3 ] [100] [0.006) [0.007 ) [110] [60.3 ] [100] [0.006) (0. 113) (1,370) (82.3) (1,300) (0.107) (0.132) (1,510) (87.3) (1,360) (0.119) (0.122) (1,337) (91) (1,256) (0.114) (0.146) (1,518) (96) (1,154) (0.111) (0.044) (590) (75.1) (550) (0.04.1) (0.061) (760) (80.1) (660) (0.053) (0.051) (680) (75.7) (650) (0.049) (0.061) (760) (80.7) (680) (0.055) [0.006) [110] [53.5) [100] [0.005] (0.004) [60] [58.5) [50] [0.003 ) [0.003] [50] [64 ) [50] [0.003] [0.004] [60] [69] [50] [0.003]. 1.913 20,832 19,651 1. 804 2. 219 23,568 20,994 1.978 Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Includes entities serving in Lincoln, Noble, and Payne Counties, where water supply source is Tri-County Development Authority in Pawnee County. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Z/ oesc 6/ Supplied by Mannford in Creek County. 8/ Supply source in Pawnee County, but entire service area is in Payne County. mºs = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Will purchase "50 percent or less" supplemental supply from Tri-County Development Authority. * -º Not included in county to tals. 7/ Has no service population of its own other than a few families near Lake Lone Chimney and water treatment plant . into service in very late 1985 or early 1986. 9/ Supply source in Pawnee County, but service area is in Lincoln and Payne Counties. 10/ Supply source in Pawnee County, but service area is in Noble County plus several sections in Payne County. 11/ Includes an area served in Payne County. 12/ Supply source in Pawnee County. Supplies treated water to member entities. Primary service area is in Payne County but also serves rural area and municipalities of Maramec and Quay in Pawnee County. Year 2010 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0. 531 5,060 105 4, 320 0.454 (0.152) (1,600) (95) (1,370) (0.130) 0.051 490 103.3 420 0.043 O. 027 410 65.4 350 O. O.23 0.174 1,010 172 860 0.148 O. 052 640 80. 7 550 0.044 (0.046) (250) (182) (220) (0.040) 0.045 640 70. 6 550 0.039 0.240 3,680 65. 1 3, 150 O. 205 ((0.073)) ((910)) ((80.7)) ((780)) ((0.063)) 1. 407 14,047 100 12,060 1. 206 (0.086) (1,010) (85.2) (860) (0.073) (0.167) (970) (172) (830) (0.143) (0.330) (2,770) (119) (2,380) (0.283) (0.279) (2,815) (99) (2,815) (0.279) (0.079) (1,460) (54) (1,270) (0.069) [0.005] [120] [39] [100] [0.004 ) [0.004) [60] [65.3 ] [50] [0.003 ] (0.150) (1,620) (92.3) (1,390) (0.128) (0.170) (1,682) (101) (1,035) (0.105) (0.077) (910) (85.1) (780) (0.066) (0.069) (810) (85.7) (700) (0.060) [0.004) [60] [63.5) [50] [0.003 ) [0.004] [60] [74] [50] [0.003] 2. 527 25,977 22,260 2. 162 For projection purposes, will assume 51 percent self-supplied and 49 percent supplemental supply. Corps' data modified to include this new development which should go ; Pawnee County 2/ Water User Entity Cleveland (supplies RWD No. 2) RWD No. 2 (includes Terlton) Hallett Jennings Pawnee (also buying supplemental supply from Tri-County Development Authority) 5/ Ralston (supplies Ralston RWC) Ralston RWC Westport RWD No. 1 RWD No. 2, Inc. (supplied by Mannford in Creek County) 6/ Tri-County Development Authority 7/ (supplies 9 entities listed below) – 8/ Glencoe – Pawnee (supplemental supply only) 5/ Yale 8/ Big Creek RWC (includes Agra) 9/ Blackburn-Skedee RWC Blackburn Skedee 51 East Water, Inc. 8/ 10/ Morr Water Co., Inc. - 11 Pawnee County RWD No. 3 11/ Yale RWC (includes Maramec and Quay) 12/ Maramec Quay County Total Table IX-13 (Continued) Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pawnee County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Rev. 2/85) 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 6/ Supplied by Mannford in Creek County. into service in very late 1985 or early 1986. 8/ Supply source in Pawnee County, but entire service area is in Payne County. 5/ Supply source in Pawnee County, but service area is in Lincoln and Payne Counties. 10/ Supply source in Pawnee County, but service area is in Noble County plus several sections in Payne County. II/ Includes an area served in Payne County. 12/ Supply source in Pawnee County. Primary service area is in Payne County but also serves rural area and municipalities of Maramec and Quay in Pawnee County. Supplies treated water to member entities. 2/ Includes entities serving in Lincoln, Noble, and Payne Counties, where water supply source is Tri-County Development Authority in Pawnee County. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4./ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Will purchase "50 percent or less" supplemental supply from Tri-County Development Authority. Not included in county totals. 7/ Has no service population of its own other than a few families near Lake Lone Chimney and water treatment plant. Year 2020 Year 2030 SEDIP 3/ Projections Gallons OESC 4/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0. 581 5,280 110 4,440 0.488 O. 635 5,520 115 4,560 0. 524 (0.188) (1,880) (100) (1,580) (0.158) (0.219) (2,090) (105) (1,720) (0.181) 0.064 590 108. 3 490 0.053 0.067 590 113. 3 490 0.056 0.025 360 70. 4 300 0.021 O. 027 360 75.4 300 0.023 0. 149 840 177 700 0.124 O. 122 670 182 550 O. 100 0.056 650 85.7 550 0.047 0.061 670 90.7 550 0.049 (0.054) (290) (187) (250) (0.047) (0.063) (330) (192) (270) (0.052) 0.058 770 75. 6 650 0.049 O. O73 910 80. 6 750 0.060 0.299 4,270 70. 1 3,590 0.252 0.361 4,810 75. 1 3,970 0.298, ((0.090)) ((1,050).) ((85.7)) ((890)) ((0.076)) ((0.108)) ((1,190)) ((90.7)) ((980) ) ((0.089)) 1. 571 15, 129 104 12,409 1.285 1.724 16,006 107 12,546 1. 346 (0.107) (1,190) (90.2) (960) (0.087) (0.132) (1,390) (95.2) (1,070) (0.102) (0.143) (810) (177) (680) (0.120) (0.116) (640) (182) (530) (0.096) (0.382) (3,060) (125) (2,490) (0.311) (0.432) (3,320) (130) (2,540) (0.330) (0.314) (3,020) (104) (3,020) (0.314) (0.343) (3,145) (109) (3,145) (0.343) (0.098) (1,660) (59) (1,430) (0.084) (0.118) (1,840) (64) (1,570) (0.100) [0.005] [120] [44] [100] [0.004) [0.006) [120] [49] [100] [0.005] [0.004) [60] [70.3 ] [50] [0.004) [0.005] [60] [75.3 ) [50] [0.004) (0.162) (1,670) (97.3) (1,360) (0.132) (0.172) (1,680) (102.3) (1,290) (0.132) (0.194) (1,829) (106) (899) (0.095) (0.218) (1,961) (111) (781) (0.087) (0.095) (1,050) (90.1) (890) (0.080) (0.113) (1,190) (95.1) (980) (0.093) (0.076) (840) (90.7) (680) (0.062) (0.080) (840) (95.7) (640) (0.061) [0.004) [60] [68.5) [50] [0.003] [0.004 ) [60] [73.5) [50] [0.004) [0.047.] [60] [79] [50] [0.004] [0.005] [60] [84 ) [50] [0.004] 2 - 803 27,889 23, 129 2. 319 3.07.0 29,536 23,716 2.456 For projection purposes, will assume 51 percent self-supplied and 49 percent supplemental supply. Year 2040 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.691 5,760 120 4,670 0. 560 (0.251) (2,280) (110) (1,850) (0.204) O. O.72 610 118.3 490 0.058 0.030 370 80. 4 300 0.024 0.092 490 187 390 0.073 0.065 680 95.7 550 O. O53 (0.071) (360) (197) (300) (0.059) O. O.90 1,050 85.6 850 0.073 0.425 5,300 80. 1 4,300 0.344 ((0.125)) ((1,310)) ((95.7)) ((1,060)) ((0.101)) 1. 877 16,795 111 12,644 1.403 (0.160) (1,600) (100.2) (1,170) (0.117) (0.088) (470) (187) (380) (0.071) (0.484) (3,560) (136) (2,590) (0.352) (0.372) (3,265) (114) (3,265) (0.372) (0.139) (2,020) (69) (1,690) (0.117) [0.006) [120] [54] [100] [0.005) [0.005] [60] [80.3 ] [50] [0.004) (0.178) (1,660) (107.3) (1,210) (0.130) (0.241) (2,080) (116) (679) (0.078) (0.131) (1,310) (100. 1) (1,060) (0.106) (0.084) (830) (100.7) (600) (0.060) [0.005] [60] [78.5) [50] [0.004) [0.005] [60] [89] [50] [0.004] 3.342 31,055 24, 194 2.588 Corps' data modified to include this new development which should go ; Table IX-14 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Payne county 4' (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Rev. 2/85) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 2/ SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Payne County = Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Water User Entity Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Cushing 1. 323 9, 190 144 8,760 1.261 1.432 9,610 149 8,650 1.289 1. 512 9,820 154 8,430 1 .298 Perkins 0.207 2,760 75 2,630 O. 197 0.288 3,600 80 3,240 O. 259 0.399 4,690 85 4,020 O. 342 Ripley 0.044 580 75 - 1 550 0.041 O. O58 720 80. 1 650 O. O.52 0.079 930 85.1 800 O. O.68 Stillwater (supplies RWD No. 1 and 7.478 48,560 154 46,260 7. 124 8.921 56, 110 159 50,480 8.026 10. 330 62,990 164 54,050 8.864 RWC No. 3) 5/ RWD No. 1 (0.037) (540) (67.8) (510) (0.035) (0.043) (590) (72.8) (530) (0.039) (0.049) (630) (77.8) (540) (0.042) RWC No. 3 (0.117) (1,490) (78.7) (710) (0.056) (0. 139) (1,660) (83.7) (1,490) (0.125) (0.157) (1,770) (88.7) (1,520) (0.135) RWD No. 3 0.075 740 100. 9 1,420 0.143 0.087 820 105.9 740 0.078 0.098 880 110.9 750 0.083 County Totals 9. 127 61,830 59,620 8.766 10. 786 70,860 63,760 9. 704 12.4 18 79,310 68,050 10. 655 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ No data included for small areas served by Morr Water, Inc., (Noble County) and RWD No. 3 (Pawnee County). Area served by Big Creek RWC reported under Pawnee County. 51 East Water Co., Inc., and Yale RWC are reported in Pawnee County under Tri-County Development Authority, which will be their water supply source. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to include RWD No. 1 and RWC No. 3 in Stillwater totals. Municipalities of Glencoe and Yale as well as ; Table IX-14 (Continued) Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Payne County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water supply study, January 1985, Rev. 2/85) Year 2020 SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC 4/ Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 1. 604 10,090 159 8,210 1. 305 0. 532 5,910 90 4,800 0.043 O. 100 1,110 90.1 900 0.081 11. 700 69,230 169 56,320 9. 518 (0.054) (650) (82.8) (530) (0.044) (0.171) (1,830) (93.7) (1,490) (0.140) O. 105 910 115.9 740 0.086 14.041 87,250 70,970 11. O33 2/ No data included for small areas served by Morr Water, Inc., (Noble County) and RWD No. 3 (Pawnee County). Year 2030 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 1. 711 10,430 164 7,980 1. 309 O. 693 7,290 95 5,590 0. 531 O. 125 1,310 95. 1 1,000 0.095 13.066 74,660 175 57,120 9.996 (0.579) (660) (87.8) (500) (0.044) (0.182) (1,840) (98.7) (1,410) (0.139) O. 110 910 120. 9 700 O. O.85 15. 705 94,600 72,390 12.016 51 East Water Co., Inc., and Yale RWC are reported in Pawnee County under Tri-County Development Authority, which will be their water supply source. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Payne county & Water User Entity Cushing Perkins Ripley Stillwater (supplies RWD No. 1 and RWC No. 3) 5/ RWD No. 1 RWC No. 3 RWD No. 3 County Totals 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to include RWD No. 1 and RWC No. 3 in Stillwater totals. Area served by Big Creek RWC reported under Pawnee County. Year 2040 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 1. 807 10,690 169 7,760 1. 311 O. 877 8,770 100 6,370 O. 637 O. 151 1,510 100. 1 1,100 0. 110 14.350 79,720 18O 57,910 10. 424 (0.060) (650) (92.8) (470) (0.044) (0.188) (1,810) (103.7) (1,320) (0.137) 0.113 900 125.9 650 0.082 17. 298 101,590 73,790 12.564 Municipalities of Glencoe and Yale as well as : Pont Wate otoc County 2/ r User Entity Ada PW Byng RWD RWD RWD RWD RWD RWD RWD RWD Allen Franci RO f f A (includes Anloso and Latta plus supplies Byng and eight rural water districts) No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 (includes Fittstown, Jesse, and Harden City) No. 7 No. 8 pua 2 S Stonewall PWA C ounty Totals 1/ So Table IX-15 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pontotoc County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) urce: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. DIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. SC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 2/ No data included for small areas served by RWD No. 1 (Garvin County) and RWD No. 1 (Murray County). 3/ SE 4/ OE 5/ Includes data for small area served in Hughes County. Year 1990 Year 2000 SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 5. 515 28,270 195. 1 26,680 5. 205 6.293 31,450 200. 1 27,440 5. 491 (0.100) (1,270) (79) (1,200) (0.095) (0.154) (1,830) (84.0) (1,600) (0.134) (0.057) (650) (88.1) (610) (0.054) (0.065) (700) (93.1) (610) (0.057) (0.218) (2,330) (93.6) (2,200) (0.206) (0.249) (2,530) (98.6) (2,210) (0.218) (0.172) (2,060) (83.7) (1,940) (0. 162) (0.199) (2,240) (88.7) (1,950) (0.173) (0.062) (280) (220.4) (270) (0.060) (0.070) (310) (225.4) (270) (0.061) (0.015) (180) (83.4) (170) (0.014) (0.017) (190) (88.4) (170) (0.015) (0.086) (900) (96) (850) (0.082) (0.099) (980) (101.0) (850) (0.086) (0.108) (900) (119.9) (850) (0.102) (0.122) (980) (124.9) (850) (0.106) (0.180) (1,690) (106.7) (1,590) (0.170) (0.204) (1,830) (111.7) (1,600) (0.179) O. 182 1,250 145.6 1, 190 O. 173 O. 193 1,280 150. 6 1,120 O. 169 O. O70 470 148.5 450 O. O.67 O. O.91 590 153 - 5 510 O. O.78 0.136 920 147.8 860 O. 127 O. 159 1,040 152.8 920 0.141 0.093 - 820 113.6 770 0.087. 0.104. 880 118.6 —”. 0.091 5.996 31,730 29,950 5. 659 6.840 35,240 30,760 5. 970 Year 2010 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 7. 041 34,330 205 - 1 27,890 5. 720 (0.219) (2,460) (89.0) (2,000) (0.178) (0.074) (750) (98.1) (610) (0.060) (0.280) (2,700) (103.6) (2,190) (0.227) (0.224) (2,390) (93.7) (1,940) (0.182) (0.076) (330) (230.4) (260) (0.060) (0.020) (210) (93.4) (170) (0.016) (0.110) (1,040) (106.0) (850) (0.090) (0.135) (1,040) (129.9) (850) (0.110) (0.228) (1,950) (116.7) (1,590) (0.186) O. 201 1,290 155. 6 1,050 O. 163 0. 111 700 158. 5 560 0.089 O. 178 1,130 157.8 920 0.145 O. 117 950 123.6 —º. 0.095 7. 648 38,400 31, 190 6.212 : Ponto toc County 2/ Water User Entity Allen PWA - Ada PWA (includes Anloso and Latta plus supplies Byng and eight rural water districts) 6 (includes Fittstown, Jesse, and Harden City) 7 8 5/ Stonewall PWA County Totals Byng RWD NO . RWD No. RWD No. RWD No. RWD No. RWD No. RWD No. RWD No. Francis ROff 1/ Source: Table IX-15 (Continued) 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pontotoc County - (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ No data included for small areas served by RWD No. 1 (Garvin County) and RWD No. 1 (Murray County). 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 7. / OFsc 5/ Includes data for small area served in Hughes County. Year 2020 Year 2030 SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 7.755 36,910 210. 1 27,660 5. 811 8. 445 39,260 215. 1 26,750 5. 754 (0.301) (3,200) (94.0) (2,400) (0.226) (0.378) (3,820) (99.0) (2,600) (0.257) (0.078) (760) (103.1) (570) (0.059) (0.080) (740) (108.1) (500) (0.054) (0.299) (2,750) (108.6) (2,060) (0.224) (0.303) (2,670) (113.6) (1,820) (0.207) (0.240) (2,430) (98.7) (1,820) (0.180) (0.245) (2,360) (103.7) (1,610) (0.167) (0.078) (330) (235.4) (250) (0.059) (0.077) (320) (240.4) (220) (0.053) (0.021) (210) (98.4) (160) (0.016) (0.021) (200) (103.4) (140) (0.014) (0.118) (1,060) (111.0) (790) (0.088) (0. 119) (1,030) (116.0) (700) (0.081) (0.143) (1,060) (134.9) (790) (0.107) (0.144) (1,030) (139.9) (700) (0.098) (0.242) (1,990) (121.7) (1,490) (0.081) (0.245) (1,930) (126.7) (1,320) (0.167) 0.212 1,320 160.6 990 O. 159 0.240 1,450 165.6 990 0. 164 0.134 820 163.5 620 O. 101 O. 169 990 168.5 680 O. 115 0.210 1,290 162.8 970 O. 158 0.238 1,420 167. 8 970 0.163 0.132 1,030 128. 6 —”. 0.099 O. 152 1,140 133.6 —4% 0.103. 8. 443 41,370 31,010 6. 328 9.244 44,260 30,160 6. 299 Year 2040 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 9. 108 41,380 220. 1 25,920 5. 705 (0.465) (4,470) (104.0) (2,800) (0.291) (0.079) (700) (113. 1) (440) (0.050) (0.302) (2,550) (118.6) (1,600) (0.190) (0.245) (2,250) (108.7) (1,410) (0.153) (0.076) (310) (245.4) (190) (0.047) (0.021) (190) (108.4) (120) (0.013) (0.119) (980) (121.0) (620) (0.075) (0. 142) (980) (144.9) (620) (0.090) (0.242) (1,840) (131.7) (1,150) (0.151) O. 270 1,580 170. 6 990 O. 169 O. 203 1, 170 173 - 5 730 O. 127 O. 268 1,550 172.8 970 0.168 O. 172 1,240. 138. 6 770 0.107. 10. 021 46,920 29, 380 6. 276 ; Table IX-16 Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pottawatomie county 4' (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 SEDIP 2/ Projections Gallons _OESC 3/ Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.031 590 52.9 550 O. O29 0.093 1,715 54. 1 1,607 0.087 0.002 50 34 50 0.002 0.145 1,510 95.7 1,410 0. 136 O. OO2 50 39.7 50 0.002 O. 199 1,810 109.8 1,690 0. 186 0.042 1, 170 35, 6 1,100 0.039 0.006 160 35. 5 150 O. O.05 4.200 3.960 (3.871) (28,680) (135) (26,890) (3.630) [0.074 ) [1, 190] [62] [1, 120] (0.069] (0.330) (0.330) [0.190) [0.190) [0. 140] [0.140] O. 678 6,460 104.9 6,060 O. 636 0.010 27O 35. 5 250 O. O09 O. O39 590 65. 5 550 O. O.36 O. 253 2,940 86 2,750 O. 237 (0.014) (270) (53.4) (250) (0.013) 0.018 330 54 31 O O. O.17 (0.007) (160) (46.7) (150) (0.007) 5. 718 47,355 44,387 5. 381 Pottawatomie County Water User Entity Asher Bethel Acres (56.8% assumed to be individual wells) 4./ Brooksville (individual wells) McLoud Macomb (individual wells) Maud 5/ Pink (individual wells) Remus (individual wells) */ Shawnee (total M&I) Municipal Use (supplies Bethel Acres RWD No. 1) 7/ Bethel Acres RWD No. 1 (includes 43.2% of Bethel Acres) Industrial Use S IC 30 SIC 32 Tecumseh Tribbey (individual wells) Wanette Earlsboro Water Co. / (supplies Earlsboro) + Earlsboro St. Louis Utility Authority (supplies St. Louis and includes Pearson) St. Louis County Totals 2 / SEDIP 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Data include part of municipal area in Seminole County. 6/ Data added for Remus. Remus missing from Corps' projections. 1/ Corps' data modified to include Bethel Acres RWD No. 1 in Shawnee municipal totals. 8/ Data include area served in Seminole County. 4 / Corps' data modified to assume 56.8% on individual wells with the remaining 43.2% included in Bethel Acres RWD No. 1. Year 2000 Year 2010 = - SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) *###; 0.045 770 57. 9 680 0.039 0.064 1,010 62.9 840 O. O53 0.134 2,266 59 - 1 1,982 O. 117 0.186 2,902 64. 1 2,414 O. 155 0.002 60 39 50 O. O.02 0.003 60 44 50 0.002 0.191 1,900 100. 7 1,670 0.168 0.244 2,310 105.7 1,920 O. 203 0.003 60 44.7 50 0.002 0.003 60 49.7 50 0.002 O. 232 2,020 114.8 1,760 O. 202 0.264 2,200 119.8 1,830 O. 219 0.060 1,480 40.6 1,300 0.053 0.082 1,800 45.6 1,500 0.068 0.007 170 40. 5 150 0.006 O. O.08 180 45.5 150 O. OO7 4.916 4. 360 5. 547 4. 702 (4.490) (32,040) (140) (28,070) (3.930) (5.017) (34,600) (145) (28,770) (4.172) [0.094 ) [1,400] [67] [1,230] [0.082] [0.114) [1,580) [72] [1, 310] (0.094 ) (0.430) (0.430) (0.530) (0.530) [0.240.] [0.240.] [0.290) [0.290) [0. 190] [0.190) [0.240) [0.240.] O. 835 7,600 109.9 6,660 O. 732 1.004 8,740 114.9 7,270 0.835 O. 012 290 40.5 250 0.010 O. O.12 240 45.5 200 O. 009 0.044 630 70.5 550 0.039 0.054 720 75. 5 600 0.045 0.312 3,430 91 3,000 O. 273 0.368 3,830 96 3, 190 0.306 (0.017) (290) (58.4) (250) (0.015) (0.019) (300) (63.4) (250) (0.016) 0.022 370 59 330 O. O.19 0.030 470 64 390 0.025 (0.009) (170) (51.7) (150) (0.008) (0.014) (240) (56.7) (200) (0.011) 6.815 52,916 46,352 6.040 7. 869 58,942 49,024 6. 631 i Table IX-16 (Continued) Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Pottawatomie County 1/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 2020 Year 2030 SEDIP 2/ Projections Gallons OESC 3/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.084 1,230 67. 9 970 0.066 O. 108 1,480 72.9 1,100 O. O.80 0.244 3,538 69. 1 2,788 O. 193 O. 323 4,362 74.1 3,214 0.238 0.003 60 49 50 0.002 0.004 70 54 50 O. OO3 (). 301 2,720 110. 7 2, 150 O. 238 O. 371 3,210 115. 7 2,370 0.274 0.003 60 54. 7 50 0.003 0.004 70 59.7 50 O. OO3 0.292 2,330 124.8 1,830 0.228 0.322 2,480 129.8 1,830 O. 238 O. 109 2,160 50. 6 1,700 0.086 O. 136 2,440 55. 6 1,800 O. 100 0.010 190 50. 5 150 0.008 0.011 200 55.5 150 O. OO8 6. 209 5. O27 6.955 5. 326 (5.579) (37,190) (150) (29,310) (4.397) (6.224) (40,160) (155) (29,650) (4.596) [0.129] [1,680) [77] [1,320] [0. 102] (0.134) [1,640.] [82] [1,210] [0.099] (0.630) (0.630) (0.730) (0.730) [0.330] [0.330] [0.370) [0.370] [0.300] [0.300) [0.360) [0.360] 1. 183 9,870 119.9 7,780 0.933 1 - 350 10,810 124.9 7,980 O. 997 O. O.13 250 50. 5 200 0.010 0.015 270 55.5 200 0.011 0.061 760 80. 5 600 0.048 O. O.69 810 85.5 600 0.051 0.405 4,010 101 3, 160 O. 319 0. 417 3,930 106 2,900 0.307 (0.017) (250) (68.4) (200) (0.014) (0.020) (270) (73.4) (200) (0.015) 0.034 490 69 390 O. O.27 0.037 500 74 370 O. O.27 (0.015) (250) (61.7) (200) (0.012) (0.018) (270) (66.7) (200) (0.013) 8. 951 64,668 50,978 7, 188 10. 133 70,592 52, 114 7. 663 A/ Corps' data modified to assume 56.8% on individual wells with the remaining 43.2% included in Bethel Acres RWD No. 1. Pottawatomie County Water User Entity Asher Bethel Acres (56.8% assumed to be individual wells) 4/ Brooksville (individual wells) McLoud Macomb (individual wells) Maud 5/ Pink (individual wells) Remus (individual wells) 5/ Shawnee (total M&I) Municipal Use (supplies Bethel Acres RWD No. 1) 7/ Bethel Acres RWD No. 1 (includes 43.2% of Bethel Acres) Industrial Use SIC 30 SIC 32 Tecumseh Tribbey (individual wells) Wanette Earlsboro Water Co. / (supplies Earlsboro) + Earlsboro St. Louis Utility Authority (supplies St. Louis and includes Pearson) St. Louis County Totals 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 4 5/ Data include part of municipal area in Seminole County. 6 / Data added for Remus. Remus missing from Corps' projections. 7/ Corps' data modified to include Bethel Acres RWD No. 1 in Shawnee municipal totals. 8/ Data include area served in Seminole County. Year 2040 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.136 1,750 77. 9 1,230 0.096 0.412 5,208 79. 1 3,646 O. 288 0.004 70 59 50 0.003 0.448 3,710 120.7 2,600 0.314 0.005 70 64.7 50 O. OO3 0.353 2,620 134.8 1,830 0.247 0. 164 2,710 60.6 1,900 O. 115 0.013 210 60.5 150 O. 009 7.718 5. 665 (6.848) (42,800) (160) (29,970) (4.795) [0. 136] [1,560] [87) [1,090] [0.094 ) (0.870) (0.870) [0.430] [0.430] [0.440] [0.440] 1. 517 11,680 129.9 8, 180 1.063 O. O.18 290 60.5 200 0.012 O. O.78 860 90.5 600 0.054 0.420 3,780 111 2,640 O. 293 (0.023) (290) (78.4) (200) (0.016) 0.040 510 79 360 O. O28 (0.021) (290) (71.7) (200) (0.014) 11. 326 76,058 53,256 8, 190 Table IX-17 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Seminole County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 Year 2000 Year 2010 2/ SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons OESC A/ Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Seminole County = Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Water User Entity Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) Bowlegs (part not served by Bowlegs-Lima 0.015 440 35. 1 470 0.016 0.020 490 40.1 470 O. O.19 0.025 550 45.1 470 0.021 Water District) Konawa 0.206 1,700 121. 1 1,780 0.216 0.230 1,820 126.1 1,730 O. 218 0.243 1,850 131. 1 1,580 0.2O7 Sasakwa 0.019 430 44.7 460 0.021 0.024 480 49.7 460 0.023 0.030 540 54.7 460 0.025 Seminole 1. 270 8,770 144.8 . . 9, 200 1. 332 1.485 9,910 149.8 9,400 1.408 1. 700 11,010 154.8 9,400 1. 460 Wewoka (supplies RWD Nos. 1, 2, and 5) 5/ O. 720 6,430 112 6,730 O. 753 0.826 7,020 117. 7 6,650 O. 783 0.934 7,580 123.2 6,470 0.797 RWD No. 1 (0.018) (370) (49) (390) (0.019) (0.020) (370) (54) (350) (0.019) (0.022) (370) (59) (320) (0.019) RWD No. 2 (0.029) (390) (73.4) (400) (0.029) (0.031) (390) (78.4) (370) (0.029) (0.033) (390) (83.4) (330) (0.028) RWD No. 5 (0.017) (140) (124) (140) (0.017) (0.018) (140) (129) (130) (0.017) (0.019) (140) (134) (120) (0.134) Bowlegs-Lima Water District 0.144 1,620 88.9 1,690 O. 150 O. 152 1,620 93.9 1,530 0.144 0.16.1 1,630 98.9 1,390 0.137 (supplies Lima and includes part of Bowlegs) Lima (0.021) (240) (88.9) (250) (0.022) (0.029) (310) (93.9) (300) (0.028) (0.034) (340) (98.9) (300) (0.030) Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation 0.021 180 114 190 0.022 0.021 180 119 170 0.020 0.024 190 124 160 0.020 County Total 2.395 19,570 20,520 2. 510 2. 758 21,520 20,410 2. 615 3. 117 23,350 19,930 2. 667 l/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Data for areas served by Earlsboro Water Inc. and city of Maud are reported under Pottawatomie County. 3/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to include RWD Nos. 1, 2, and 5 in Wewoka totals. Data for area served by RW&SWMD No. 3 and town of Cromwell are reported under Okemah in Okfuskee County. ; 2/ Seminole County = Water User Entity Bowlegs (part not served by Bowlegs-Lima Water District) Konawa Sasakwa Seminole 5/ Wewoka (supplies RWD Nos. 1, 2, and 5) + RWD No. 1 RWD No. 2 RWD No. 5 Bowlegs-Lima Water District (supplies Lima and includes part of Bowlegs) Lima Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation County Total 3/ SEDIP Table IX-17 (Continued) 1/ Detailed Comparative Water Demand Projections for Seminole County + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ Data for areas served by Earlsboro Water Inc. and city of Maud are reported under Pottawatomie County. = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 4 / OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 5/ Corps' data modified to include RWD Nos. 1, 2, and 5 in Wewoka totals. Year 2020 SEDIP. 3/ Projections Gallons _OESC 4/ Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) 0.031 620 50. 1 470 0.024 O. 265 1,950 136. 1 1,480 0.201 0.036 600 59.7 460 0.027 1. 940 12,150 159.8 9,200 1. A 70 1.050 8,130 128.7 6, 150 O. 791 (0.023) (360) (64) (270) (0.017) (0.033) (370) (88.4) (280) (0.025) (0.018) (130) (139) (100) (0.014) 0.162 1,560 103.9 1, 180 0.026 (0.033) (320) (103.9) (250) (0.026) 0.023 - 180. 129 — 130 0.017. 3. 507 25, 190 19,070 2.556 Data for area served by RW&SWMD No. 3 and town of Cromwell are reported under Okemah in Okfuskee County. Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections SEDIP Projections Gallons OESC Projections Average Population Per Capita Population Average Average Population Per Capita Population Average Daily Use Served Per Day. Served Daily Use Daily Use Served Per Day Served Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) *###; 0.040 720 55. 1 470 0.026 0.049 820 60.1 470 0.028 0.285 2,020 141.1 1,320 O. 186 O. 301 2,060 146.1 1, 170 O. 171 0.045 690 64.7 460 0.030 0.056 800 69.7 460 0.032 2. 260 13,720 164.8 9,000 1.480 2. 620 15,420 169.8 8,800 1.490 1. 200 8,950 135 5,880 O. 794 1.390 9,850 141 5,620 O. 792 (0.020) (300) (69) (200) (0.014) (0.017) (230) (74) (130) (0.010) (0.029) (310) (93.4) (210) (0.020) (0.024) (240) (98.4) (140) (0.014) (0.016) (110) (144) (70) (0.010) (0.013) (90) (149) (50) (0.007) 0.143 1,310 108.9 860 0.094 0. 115 1,010 113.9 570 0.065 (0.040) (370) (108.9) (250) (0.027) (0.050) (430) (113.9) (250) (0.028) 0.020. —º. 134 — 100. 0-013. 0.015. 110 139 70 0.010. 3. 993 27,560 18,090 2. 623 4.546 30,070 17, 160 2,588 i Table IX-18 1/ Summary of Comparative Water Demand Projections for Study Area + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 1990 SEDIP 2/ Projections OESC 3/ Projections Year 2000 OESC Projections Year 2010 OESC Projections SEDIP Projections SEDIP Projections Average TPopulation Population Average Average Population Population Average Average Population Population Average County. *#; Served Served *#; *#; Served Served *#; *#; Served Served # Coal 0. 511 5,655 5,308 0.480 O. 599 6,325 5,514 0. 521 0.685 6,937 5,505 0. 544 Hughes 1. 522 11,830 10,835 1. 386 1. 734 12,980 10,340 1. 377 1.978 13,960 9,845 1. 359 Lincoln 2.072 16,766 16, 176 1.997 2. 531 19,870 18,230 2.322 3.017 22,810 20,380 2.683 Okfuskee 1.066 11,420 10,830 1.011 1 - 198 11,990 10, 150 1.015 1.360 12,920 9,850 1. O37 Pawnee 1.913 20,832 19,651 1.804 2. 219 23,568 20,994 1.978 2. 527 25,977 22,260 2. 162 Payne 9 - 127 61,830 59,620 8.766 10. 786 70,860 63,760 9. 704 12. 418 79,310 68,050 10. 655 Ponto to c 5.996 31,730 29,950 - 5. 659 6.840 35,240 30,760 5.970 7. 648 38,400 31, 190 6.212 POttawatomie 5. 718 47,355 44,387 5. 381 6.815 52,916 46,352 6. 040 7. 869 58,942 49,024 6. 631 Seminole 2. 395 19,570 20,520 2. 510 2. 758 21,520 20,410 2 - 615 3. 117 23,350 19,930 2. 667 1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. 3/ OEsc Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. * Table IX-18 (Continued) 1/ Summary of Comparative Water Demand Projections for Study Area + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ Projections OESC 3/ Projections SEDIP Projections OESC Projections SEDIP Projections OESC Projections Average Population Population Average Average Population Population Average Average Population Population Average County. *# Served Served *# *#; Served Served *#; *###; Served Served # Coal O. 789 7,635 5,546 O. 573 0.886 8,268 5,376 0. 576 1.000 9,005 5,217 0. 580 Hughes 2. 168 15,030 8,970 1 - 287 2. 367 15,870 8,005 1. 179 2.540 16,550 7,030 1.062 Lincoln 3. 466 25,570 22,290 3.015 3.952 28,310 23,860 3. 325 4. 449 30,940 25,390 3.653 Okfuskee 1. 549 14,010 9,410 1.039 1. 773 15,340 8,970 1.037 2.029 16,890 8,630 1.037 Pawnee 2.803 27,889 23, 129 2. 319 3.07.0 29,536 23,716 2.456 3.342 31,055 24, 194 2.588 Payne 14.041 87,250 70,970 11. O33 15. 705 94,600 72,390 12.016 17. 298 101,590 73,790 12.564 Pontotoc 8. 443 41,370 31,010 6. 328 9.244 44,260 30, 160 6. 299 10. 021 46,920 29,380 6.276 POttawatomie 8.951 64,668 50,978 7.188 10. 133 70,592 52, 114 7. 663 11. 326 76,058 53,256 8. 190 Seminole 3. 507 25, 190 19,070 2.556 3.993 27,560 18,090 2. 623 4.546 30,070 17, 160 2.588 1/ Source: 2/ SEDIP = 3/ OEsc = Corps of Engineers, data sheets, December 1984. Successful Economic Development Initiative Plans. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. º Table IX-19 Comparison of Available Water Supplies 1/ With Mid- and Long-Range Water Demand Projections + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Revised March 1985) Year 2010 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ Available Water Supply OESC 3/ SEDIP Available Water Supply OESC Water User Entity Projection Demand [Prior to 1990] Projection Demand Projection Demand [Prior to 1990] Projection Demand (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) COAL Coalgate PWA (supplies RWD 0. 560 S 1. 785 0.444 0.786 § 1.785 O. 455 Nos. 1, 2, and 5; Clarita- Olney Water Company, Inc.; and Round Hill Water Company, Inc., No. 4) Lehigh PWA 0.043 GW 0.045 0.034 0.031 GW 0.045 O. O.19 Tupelo PWA 0.082 GW 0.050 O. O.66 O. 183 GW 0.050 O. 106 HUGHES TCalvin 0.082 GW 0.070 O. O. 57 O. 059 GW. O. O70 0.024 Dustin 0.027 S 0.134 O. O.19 O. O49 S 0.134 0.020 Holdenville (supplies RWD 1. 346 S 2.053 0.911 1.822 S 2.053 O. 708 Nos. 3 and 4 plus Lamar and Atwood) We tumka (supplies RWD No. 1) 0.462 S O. 714 O. 323 O. 526 S 0.714 0.262 RWD No. 2 (includes Ashland, 0.041 GW. O. 110 0.035 O. O.47 GW O. 110 O. O.33 Haywood, Hickory Hills, Stuart, and a small area in Pittsburg County) LINCOLN Carney O. 173 GW 0.090 0.154 0.346 GW 0.090 O. 283 Chandler (supplies Davenport O. 675 S 4.541 O. 602 0.819 S 4.541 O. 819 and RWD No. 2) Meeker O. 257 - S O. 179 O. 230 0. 430 S O. 179 0.353 Prague 1.020 TTL 1 - 117 O. 900 1. 470 TTL 1 - 117 1.210 (S 0.491) (S 0.491) (GW 0.626) (GW 0.626) Stroud 0. 563 S 1. 161 0. 505 O. 818 S 1. 161 O. 671 Tryon O. O.63 GW 0.026 0.055 0.116 GW 0.026 O. O.96 Wellston O. 123 GW. O. O.75 O. 109 O. 151 GW 0.075 0.124 RWD No. 1 (includes 24 percent (). O53 S 0.024 0.047 O. O77 S 0.024 0.062 of Sparks) OKFUSKEE Okemah (supplies RWD 1.044 S 2.946 O. 800 1 .. 635 S 2.946 O. 836 Nos. 2 and 3 and Seminole County RW&SWMD No. 3 and includes Castle, Cromwell, Clearview, and Pharoah) Paden 0.052 GW 0.050 O. O 39 0.082 GW 0.050 0.042 Welee tka (). 243 S O. 179 O. 183 O. 282 S O. 179 0.143 RWD No. 1 (serves Boley) 0.021 GW. O. 120 O. O.15 O. O.30 GW O. 120 0.016 PAWNEE 4./ Cleveland (supplies RWD O. 531 S O. 670 0.454 O. 691 S O. 670 0. 560 No. 2, which includes Terlton) Hallett 0.051 GW 0.192 0.454 O. O.72 GW 0.192 O. O58 Jennings O. O.27 GW. O. O70 0.023 O. 030 GW O. O70 0.024 Pawnee (buys supplemental O. 1 74 S 0.848 0. 148 0.092 S 0.848 0.073 supply from Tri-County 5/ Development Authority) - Ralston (supplies Ralston RWC) 0.052 GW O. 290 0.044 O. O.65 GW. O. 290 O. O53 Westport (). O45 GW 0.015 O. O 39 O. O.90 GW 0.015 0.073 RWD No. 1 0.240 GW 0.093 O. 205 0.425 0.093 0.344 Tri-County Development Authority 5/ 1. 407 S 2.238 1. 206 1. 877 S 2.238 1. 403 (supplies 9 member entities: Glencoe; Pawnee [supplemental supply only ); Yale; Big Creek RWC; Blackburn-Skedee RWC; 51 East Water, Inc.; Morr Water Company, Inc.; Pawnee County RWD No. 3; and Yale RWC, which in turn supply municipalities of Blackburn, Skedee, Maramec, and Quay) 1/ Available water supply data derived from tables IX-2 and IX-4. Water demand projections derived from tables IX-9 through IX-17. 2/ SEDIP Successful Economic Development Initiative Plan. 3/ OESC Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. 4 / RWD No. 2, Inc., purchases water supply from city of Mannford in Creek County. Capability of Mannford to supply long-range water needs of RWD No. 2 and other eastern T Pawnee County entities needs to be evaluated. 5/ Assumption for water demand projections was that Pawnee would self-supply 51 percent and purchase 49-percent supplemental supply from Tri-County Development Authority. T This table makes it obvious that the supplemental supply percentage needs to be revised to a much lower realistic figure. Note: S = surface water, GW = ground water, and TTL = total. IX-46 Table IX-19 (Continued) Comparison of Available Water Supplies / With Mid- and Long-Range Water Demand Projections + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985, Revised March 1985) Year 2010 Year 2040 SEDIP 2/ Available Water Supply OEsc 3/ SEDIP Available Water Supply OESC Water User Entity Projection Demand [Prior to 1990] Projection Demand Projection Demand [Prior to 1990] Projection Demand (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) PAYNE Cushing 1 - 512 TTL 1.967 1.298 1. 807 TTL 1.967 1. 311 (S 1.607) (S 1.607) (GW 0.360) (GW 0.360) Perkins 0.399 GW 0.360 0.342 0.877 GW 0.360 O. 637 Ripley 0.079 GW 0.050 6/ O. O.68 O. 151 GW 0.050 6/ O. 110 Stillwater (supplies RWD 10. 330 Sº,22.000 – 8.864 14.350 S 222.000 - 10. 424 No. 1 and RWC No. 3) RWD No. 3 O. 098 GW 0. 120 0.083 O. 113 GW 0.120 0.082 PONTOTOC Ada PWA (supplies RWD 7.041 GW 8. 160 5. 720 9. 108 8. 160 5. 705 Nos. 1 through 8 as well as Anloso, Byng, Fittstown, Harden City, Jesse, and Latta) Allen PWA 0.201 GW 0. 170 O. 163 O. 270 GW. O. 170 0.169 Francis O. 111 GW 0. 115 O. O.89 0.203 GW 0. 115 O. 127 Roff O. 178 GW 0.118 0.145 0.268 GW 0.118 0.168 Stonewall PWA O. 117 GW 0.070 0.095 O. 172 GW 0.095 O. 107 POTTAWATOMIE —FFF- 0.064 GW 0.025 0.053 0.136 GW 0.025 0.096 McLoud 0.244 GW 0.306 0.2O3 0.448 GW 0.306 0.314 Maud 0.264 GW O. 180 7 O. 219 0.353 GW 0.180 7/ 0.247 Shawnee (supplies Bethel Acres 5. 547 S 3.303 7/ 4. 702 7.718 S 3.303 – 5. 665 RWD No. 1) Tecumseh 1.004 TTL O. 482 0.835 1. 517 TTL 0.482 1.063 (S 0.312) (S 0.312) (GW 0.170) (GW 0.170) Wanette 0.054 GW 0.050 0.045 0.078 GW 0.050 0.054 Earlsboro Water Co. (supplies O. 368 GW O. 300 O. 306 0.420 GW. O. 300 O. 293 Earlsboro) St. Louis UA (supplies St. Louis 0.030 GW 0.020 0.025 0.040 GW 0.020 0.028 and Pearson) - SEMINOLE Bowlegs 0.025 GW 0.030 0.021 O. O49 GW 0.030 O. O.28 Konawa 0.243 GW O. 200 0.2O7 O. 301 GW. O. 200 0. 171 Sasakwa 0.030 GW 0.018 0.025 0.056 GW 0.018 0.032 Seminole 1. 700 GW 2.380 1.460 2. 620 GW 2.380 1.490 Wewoka (supplies RWD 0.934 S O. 893 0.797 1 - 390 S O. 893 0.792 Nos. 1, 2, and 5) Bowlegs-Lima Water District 0.161 GW 0.200 0.137 O. 115 GW O. 200 0.065 (supplies Lima and part of Bowlegs) Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation 0.024 GW 0.028 0.020 O. O15 GW 0.028 0.010 1/ Available Water Supply data derived from tables IX-2 and IX-4. Water demand projections derived from tables IX-9 through IX-17. 2/ SEDIP = Successful Economic Development Initiative Plan. 3/ OESC = Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. A/ RWD No. 2, Inc., purchases water supply from city of Mannford in Creek County. Capability of Mannford to supply long-range water needs of RWD No. 2 and other eastern Pawnee County entities needs to be evaluated. 5/ Assumption for water demand projections was that Pawnee would self-supply 51 percent and purchase 49-percent supplemental supply from Tri-County Development Authority. This table makes it obvious that the supplemental supply percentage needs to be revised to a much lower realistic figure. 5/ Components of total available supply are 13 Mgal/d from Kaw Reservoir, 6.249 Mgal/d from Lake Carl Blackwell, and 2.678 Mgal/d from Lake McMurtry. City of Stillwell needs are approximately 75 percent of the total demand, which they will meet with supplies from Kaw Reservoir. Lake McMurtry will be held in reserve for future growth and peak demands. The OSU needs are approximately 25 percent of total demand and will be met with supplies from Lake Carl Blackwell. 7/ City of Shawnee has built a pipeline turnout from the Oklahoma City aqueduct (which conveys water from Atoka Reservoir to Stanley Draper Lake) to Shawnee Reservoir T (No. 1). No specific amount of supply can be listed because plan is for Shawnee to purchase emergency supplemental supplies when needed, if supply is available from Oklahoma City. Note: S = surface water, GW = ground water, and TTL = total. IX-47 occurring in year 2040 with the exception of four entities having maximum projected water demands occurring at the year 2010 mid-range point due to their particular pattern of projected population decline. They are Calvin (Hughes County), Pawnee (Pawnee County), Sasakwa (Seminole County), and Sasakwa RWD of the Seminole Nation (Seminole County). It should be noted that demand projections are unrealistically low for Pawnee. This is the result of an erroneous assumption in table IX-9 that Pawnee would purchase 49 percent of its water from Tri-County Development Authority. This percentage should be much lower since Pawnee's projected population decline will not require a large supply of supplemental water. 4. Preliminary estimate of need for additional M&I water supplies. Table IX-20 displays the summary of preliminary findings of need for additional M&I water supplies for the study area from the present through the year 2040. Part A of the table displays the 14 water user entities having water supplies that appear to be adequate to meet projected future needs to the year 2040. Part B lists the 10 entities having need for high-priority investigations to resolve problems with incomplete or conflicting data and to establish urgency of need. A brief listing of each entity's problems is provided. Part C lists the additional M&I water supplies required to meet current mid-range (year 2010) and long-range (year 2040) projected needs for each entity. It also ranks priority of need for each entity. 5. Summary. In summary of preliminary findings, 54 entities in the study area are sources of M&I water supply. Of these, 16 rely on surface water supplies (excluding use of standby wells), 3 use mixed supplies having significant percentages of both surface and ground water, and 35 rely on ground water. In terms of adequacy of water supplies for current through long-range needs, 14 of the 54 entities appear to have adequate supplies through the year 2040 projected needs, 10 need further investigation to determine need and associated priority, and 30 have been determined to need additional supplies. Of the 30 entities with determined needs, 23 have current or near-term (circa year 1990) needs priority, 6 have mid-term (circa year 2010) priority, and 1 has long-term (circa year 2040) priority. E. Irrigation Demands Data on reported irrigation by crops and acres were displayed earlier in table VII-5 (chapter VII). The most recent data on irrigation acreage and water use is for 1981. These data are summarized in table IX-21. As can be seen, the data from the two sources do not match. The following narrative from OWRB describes some of the reasons for the disparity--but not all. IX-48 Table IX-20 Summary of Preliminary Findings of Study Area Need for Additional M&I Water Supplies From the Present Through the Year 2040 (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Part A - Entities Having Water Supplies That Appear to be Adequate to Meet Projected Future Needs to the Year 2040 COAL PAWNEE Coalgate Hallett Jennings HUGHES Pawnee Dustin Ralston 1/ RWD No. 2 (Stuart) Tri-County Development Authority = LINCOLN PAYNE Chandler Stillwater RWD No. 3 OKFUSKEE Okemah SEMINOLE RWD No. 1 (Boley) Bowlegs-Lima Water District Part B - High Priority Investigations Needed to Resolve Problems with Incomplete or Conflicting Data and Establish Urgency of Needs Ada City's usage includes considerable commercial, industrial, and rural usage (Pontotoc County) that cannot be accurately projected using population and gallons-per- capita-per-day factors. This is especially true for the influence this type of usage has on peak demands. Projections for peak demands are needed in order to determine the total additional well capacity needed to assure adequate supplies. This same information would be needed to determine the total replacement supplies needed if the city decides to request that Reclamation also study providing the city with a new water supply. Carney Capacity of three wells is reported to be 0.090 Mgal/d. Peak demands are (Lincoln County) 0.130 Mgal/d. No shortages are reported. Wells are reported to be in Garber-Wellington Formation. The OWRB and TVA maps indicate this could not be true. The TVA map would place wells in low-yielding minor Pennsylvanian sandstone. Dependable well capability information is needed. Cleveland The city is said to be negotiating with Tri-County Development Authority (Pawnee County) for a supplemental water supply. If these negotiations have not reached a substantive agreement by mid-1985, Reclamation will need to address supply needs. Drought of 1980–1981 resulted in exceedingly low (2 feet) reservoir levels. Determination needs to be made on why reservoir is not yielding to estimated firm expectations. Since RWD No. 2 (Terlton) purchases 70 percent of its water from Cleveland, resolution of its having assured future water supplies rests with resolving Cleveland's problem. It will also be necessary to determine if water sales to RWD No. 1 will be resumed when ample supplies of water are again available. Cushing City's peak demands are 308 percent greater than average daily use. (Payne County) Industrial use is said to make up 40 percent of use. Additional study is needed to more accurately determine projected demands, especially peak demands, in order to establish whether additional supplies are needed. Peak demand projections will be needed if the city decides to expand its well field capacity. Holdenville Extremely low reservoir levels reported during drought periods. Estimated (Hughes County) firm yield is 2.053 Mgal/d, which is two times the 1.000 Mgal/d peak use. There is a need to determine why the reservoir is not producing expected yield and what the true firm yield is. Sasakwa and Sasakwa RWD Recent media accounts claimed these entities were experiencing loss of of the Seminole Nation ground water supplies due to dry wells or brine-contaminated supplies were (Seminole County) unsafe for human consumption and that some people were having to haul in their water. Data needs to be gathered to define the exact nature of the problem and formulate the best, most timely solution. Stroud Estimated firm yield of reservoir is 1.161 Mgal/d. Peak demands are (Lincoln County) 0.730 Mgal/d. Treatment plant capacity is 0.750 million gallons. The city has apparently experienced shortages because it has drilled 13 wells for a supplemental supply. All of the wells were abandoned due to very low yields. Entire situation needs to be clarified. We tumka Same problem as Holdenville above. Estimated firm yield for reservoir is (Hughes County) 0.714 Mgal/d, which is 143 percent greater than peak demands. 1/ Assumes sales will not exceed calculated firm yields. IX-49 Table IX-20 (Continued) Summary of Preliminary Findings of Study Area Need for Additional M&I Water Supplies From the Present Through the Year 2040 (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Part C - Additional Water Supplies Required by Entities to Meet Current, Mid-Range (Year 2010), and Long-Range (Year 2040) Projected Needs 2/ Well capability will need to be significantly larger than this figure, in most cases, to meet peak demands. Projections of peak demands will be made in the near future in order to determine this number. Priority Minimum Additional Average Maximum Total Projected Water User Entities of Needs 1/ Daily Supply Needed Average Daily Use (Mgal/d) (Mgal/d) COAL Lehigh l 0.010 2/ 0.055 Tupelo 2 0.133 2/ 0.183 HUGHES Calvin 1. 0.012 2/ 0.082 LINCOLN Meeker 1. O. 251 0.430 Prague 3 0.353 2/ 1. 470 Tryon 1. 0.090 2/ 0.116 Wellston 1 0.076 2/ 0.151 RWD No. 1 (Sparks) ‘l 0.053 0.077 OKFUSKEE Paden 3 0.032 2/ O.082 Weleetka l O. 103 0.282 PAWNEE Westport 1 0.075 2/ 0.090 RWD No. 1 1. 0.332 2/ 0.425 PAYNE Perkins 3 0.517 2/ 0.877 Ripley 2 0.101 2/ 0.151 PONTOTOC Allen PWA 1 0.100 2/ 0.270 Francis 3 0.088 2/ O. 203 ROff 1. 0.150 2/ 0.268 Stonewall PWA 1 0.077 2/ O. 172 POTTAWATOMIE Asher l 0.111 2/ 0.136 McLoud 4 0.142 2/ 0.448 Maud 2 0.173 2/ 0.353 Shawnee 1. 4.415 7.718 Tecumseh 1 1.035 2/ 1. 517 Wanette 3 0.028 2/ O. O78 Earlsboro Water Co. 2 0.120 2/ 0.420 St. Louis UA 2 0.020 2/ 0.040 SEMINOLE Bowlegs 3 0.019 2/ 0.049 Konawa 1 0.101 2/ 0.301 Wewoka l 0.497 1. 390 Seminole 2 0.240 2/ 2. 620 1/ Priority Code: 1 = Needed now for reliable supplies to relieve existing or imminent shortages. 2 = Needed circa 1990. 3 = Needed circa 2010. 4 = Needed circa 2040. IX-50 Table IX-21 1981 Reported Irrigated Acreage and Water Use (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) OWRB Data +/ OSU Extension Data 2/ Ground Water Surface Water Ground Water Surface Water Irrigated Water Use Irrigated Water Use Irrigated Irrigated County (acres) (acre-feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acres) (acres) Coal O O 190 157 O O Hughes 1,236 867 2,788 2,226 5, 145 4,000 Lincoln 37 12 227 135 O 186 Okfuskee O O 1,487 898 O 30 Pawnee O O 235 123 O O Payne 425 176 345 171 240 300 Pontotoc 880 1,474 1,380 1,412 800 1,200 Pottawatomie 879 593 2,375 1,510 280 2,595 Seminole 363 168 208 116 200 1,160 Total 3,820 3,290 9,235 6, 748 6,665 9,471 OWRB Total Acreage = 13,055 OSU Total Acreage = 16, 136 1/ Source: 1981 Reported Water Use, OWRB 1984. 2/ Source: 1981 Irrigation Survey, Oklahoma, Delbert Schwab, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. IX-51 IRRIGATION Water used for irrigation is reported as the amount pumped from the source of supply. It includes conveyance loss, if any, in addition to the amount applied to the area of irri- gated crops. The amount of water applied to each type of crop was determined by multiplying the acreage times the number of irrigation applications during the growing season, times the depth in inches for each application - all as reported on water use report forms returned to the OWRB during the annual survey. For example, five (5) appli- cations of water to 500 acres of corn with an average of three (3) inches per application, and assuming no conveyance loss, would equal 625 acre-feet per year, equivalent to an average daily application of .56 million gallons. Climatic conditions, particularly seasonal and annual variations in the amount and distri- bution of rainfall throughout the state during the growing season, influence the quantity of water withdrawn for irrigation. Source and Reliability of the Data The 1981 growing season was milder than 1980 and as a result, 1981 water use for irriga- tion was expected to be lower. However irrigation acreage reported to the OWRB was con- siderably less than that compiled by the Extension Service at Oklahoma State University, which was published in their biennial survey. Less than half - 47 percent - of the irri- gated acreage reported by OSU was accounted for in the OWRB survey. (Schwab, 1981). Response to the OWRB survey was particularly poor for grain sorghum, grain corn and alfalfa acreage. Returns were also incomplete for cotton, pasture and peanuts. Most of the discrepancy between OWRB reports and the OSU publication can be accounted for in a few counties - Texas, Cimarron, Jackson and Caddo - which together account for almost sixty (60) percent of the state's total irrigated acreage. If adjustments are made to the acreage irrigated for these four counties, 1981 water use for irrigation rises to 975,000 acre-feet, or 871 million gallons per day. Future water use studies will provide estimates of irrigation water use based on the data compiled by OSU's irrigation specialists. These data are shown for illustrative purposes. Irrigation is currently not a major activity in the study area. Given the annual rainfall that normally occurs, irrigation is for a supplemental, not full supply. Projections of future irrigation water requirements have not been made. This work will be done later as the study progresses to the point of formulating future development alternatives. F. Other Water Demands As this study progresses, inventory of existing demands and projected future demands and needs will be completed for other functions in order to complete a comprehensive picture of problems, needs, and opportunities for the study area's water resources. Work remaining to be completed or incorporated includes the functions of hydropower, navigation, recreation, preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife, water quality augmentation and control, and flood control. G. Soil Conservation Service Small Watershed Projects This program is uniquely different from the typical large project missions of the other Federal agencies. Their program is also difficult to summarize. A majority of the existing study area dam structures and associated reservoirs was developed under this program as are a majority of the planned potential structures. It is conceivable that this program could have greater impact on the future of the study area than it presently has. For that reason, this discussion has been placed just before the topic of potential future water supplies. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) was enacted in 1954. The program bridges the resource-development gap between soil and water conservation work of individual landowners and large Federal and State public works projects for water resource development in major river valleys. Typical objectives of these projects are the reduction of sediment and floodwater damages to agricultural flood plains, irrigation development, provision of M&I water supplies, development of recreational resources, and improvement of fish and wildlife resources. Constraints of the program are that a watershed project cannot exceed a total drainage area of 250,000 acres and that individual structures may not exceed 12,500 acre-feet of flood control storage or a total of 25,000 acre-feet of multipurpose storage. Some examples of existing project multipurpose developments would include Coalgate Reservoir; Lake McMurtry; and Meeker, Sparks, Sportsman, and Stroud Lakes. Multipurpose structures under construction or recently completed include Boomer Lake rehabilitation, Kickapoo Nations Watershed Site 1M, Lake Lone Chimney, and Robinson Creek Watershed Site 4M. North Deer Creek Watershed Site 1M has been proposed for development. Map No. 1484-500-19 shows all of the watershed projects in the study area (entirely or partially) and their status. Table IX-22 details the status of planned and completed features for each of the watershed projects. IX-52 º –7 96° to Kaw Res” sº | º | Nºvaz § ºf 25 Lower BLACK BEAR CREEK l LONG BRANCH CREEK - \ *e. º O º -: Lº 49 still water CREEK - - - [...] - º Zºº 7 LITTLE DEEP Fork Creek -- \ - | e - º: A-E Y's Tower 51 SALT-CAMP CREEK 5 º º: Loº O © e/and Fes/ LA A. E. 125 DRY CREEK th * º - tºo º 5 —F Stondord Ranch BEAR-FALL-COOn CREEKS Porollel 97 KICKAPOO NATION 55 QUAPAW CREEK - _ 83 ROBINSON CREEK N- 57 0xFUSKEE county TRIBUTARIES l LITTLE WEWOKA CREEK 2 BIG WewokA-GRAMES CREEK 99 POTT, -SEM, -TURKEY CREEKS 127 NORTH DEER CREEK 36° 92 CENTRAL LITTLE RIVER 8 SALT CREEK 112 COAL CREEK 4th * 56 Standard CIM UPPER MDDY BOGGY CREEK Porollel 52 CANEY-coon Creeks º º 68 MiDOLE MUDDY Boggy Greek - 31 LEADER-MIDDLE CLEAR BOGGY GREEK º º º C 30 UPPER CLEAR BOGGY CREEK º - ºr - º D – 55 DELAwarE CREEK º 5 - *3. Xº O 5| o/* IM O SANDY CREEK CŞ *N-3 o: and Ier A. ~ | UPPER BLUE RIVER 4 - º -- º DE EP - 97 Y ºf . _-1 3rd | Stondord Porqllel 4% Loke º Aenryeº Sºon/ey ( Shawnee — \- º | ſecC s. *º 5, rºp of TA w A To MIE *. 2nd -- « 2 - R Stondord - - 9 - º Porqllel ~S tº | º 3y º º º Me Jºe E. ... ." º ºwn. º - - o, º º - - N - H Lake S & | - //o/denvºſ/e º - 35° EXPLANATION Q County Seot lst Standard Lokes or Reservoirs i. * Within the Study Area Lokes or Reservoirs ~1 Outside the Study Area STATUS OF PROJECTS [T] Application Recieved [ ] Authorized For Planning Work Plon Approved [ ] Under Construction Construction Completed A foºd Ares. Bose O Structure Planned º es Line Indicates Number of - - O Structures Completed or Sites Only – Not Exact Location ºe Controcted ~ O 1 ºf O } c O clºs - c --- #|# \s A/ O K L A H O M A a c Gol c *| 5 S 5 E|.5 E|3 3|E 3| e O 1 - - - U/V/7′ED STATES T DEAAA'7ME/V7 OF THE //V7 ER/OF |O O IO 2O BUA’EAU/ OF Are CLAMA 7/OAV 1–1–1–1–1– H I EAST-CEM7TRAL Okla/HOMA SCALE OF MI LES WATER SUPPLY STUDY SO/L COMSERVATION SERVICE WATERSHED PROTECTION LOCATION MAP AWD FLOOD AREVENT/OW PROGRAM (PUBL/C LAW 566) *…i p 29 39 SHOWING STATUS OF STRUCTURES SCALE OF KILOMETERS Amar///o, 7 exas January, /985 Map Wo. /484–500–/9 Table IX-22 1/ 1984 Status of SCS Watershed Projects (Public Law 83-566) in Study Area + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Index No. on Map No. 1484-500-19 Watershed Projects 25 Lower Black Bear Creek Watershed Planned: 25 floodwater-retarding structures 1 multipurpose structure with municipal water Completed: 17 floodwater sites completed 1 multipurpose structure under construction (Lake Lone Chimney - Site 19M) 4 Long Branch Creek Watershed Project completed in 1977: 11 floodwater-retarding structures 49 Stillwater Creek Watershed Planned: 47 floodwater-retarding structures 5 multipurpose structures with irrigation water supply 2 multipurpose structures with municipal water supply, one of which also includes recreation 6.3 miles of channel improvement Completed: 2 multipurpose structures 26 floodwater-retarding structures 7 Little Deep Fork Creek Watershed Project completed in 1973: 56 floodwater-retarding structures 5.8 miles of channel improvement 51 Salt-Camp Creeks Planned: 1 multipurpose structure for recreation and municipal water 24 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: 1 multipurpose structure 4 floodwater-retarding structures 125 Dry Creek Authorized for planning: September 2, 1977 Status: Final plan - Environmental Statement by July 1985 5 Bear-Fall-Coon Creeks Project completed in 1967: 1 multipurpose structure with irrigation 30 floodwater-retarding structures 97 Kickapoo Nations Planned: 19 floodwater-retarding structures 1 multipurpose structure for flood control, municipal water, and recreation Completed: 1 floodwater-retarding structure Ground-breaking ceremony and some right-of-way acquisition for multipurpose structure 55 Quapaw Creek Planned: 2 multipurpose structures for municipal water with one also having recreation 41 floodwater-retarding structures 8.8 miles channel improvements Completed: 2 multipurpose structures 36 floodwater-retarding structures 83 Robinson Creek Planned: 1 multipurpose structure for flood control, municipal water, and recreation 10 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: 2 floodwater-retarding structures Under construction - 2 floodwater-retarding and 1 multipurpose structure 1/ Source: 1984 Oklahoma Watershed Summary, SCS, Stillwater, Oklahoma. IX-53 Table IX-22 (Continued) 1984 Status of SCS Watershed Projects (Public Law 83-566) in Study Area 1/ Index No. on Map No. 1484-500-19 57 99 127 92 112 56 52 69 31 30 33 (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Watershed Projects Okfuskee County Tributaries se Planned: 1 multipurpose structure for municipal water and recreation 1 multipurpose structure for irrigation water 33 floodwater-retarding structures 14 miles channel improvement Completed: 27 floodwater-retarding structures 2 multipurpose structures Little Wewoka-Graves Creek Project completed in 1972: 16 floodwater-retarding structures Big Wewoka Creek Project Completed in 1967: 1 multipurpose structure including wildlife 41 floodwater-retarding structures Pott-Sem-Turkey Creek Planned: 11 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: None North Deer Creek Authorized for Planning: August 1982 Status: Plan and Environmental Statement submitted for technical review - December 1984 Central Little River Application for planning received and approved by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission Salt Creek Project essentially completed: 35 floodwater-retarding structures installed (14 originally proposed structures deleted from plan) Coal Creek Application for planning received and approved by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission Upper Muddy Boggy Creek Planned : 36 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: 15 floodwater-retarding structures 2 floodwater retarding structures under construction Caney-Coon Creek Project completed in 1975: 2 floodwater-retarding structures 1 multipurpose structure with municipal water Middle Muddy Boggy Creek Application for planning received and approved by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission Leader-Middle Clear Boggy Creek Planned: 43 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: 33 floodwater-retarding structures Upper Clear Boggy Creek Project completed in 1983: 49 floodwater-retarding structures Delaware Creek Project completed in 1979: 13 floodwater-retarding structures 1/ Source: 1984 Oklahoma Watershed Summary, SCS, Stillwater, Oklahoma. IX-54 Table IX-22 (Continued) 1/ 1984 Status of SCS Watershed Projects (Public Law 83-566) in Study Area + (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Index No. On Map No. 1484-500-19 Watershed Projects 3 Sandy Creek Planned: 33 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: 29 floodwater-retarding structures 45 Upper Blue River Planned: 74 floodwater-retarding structures Completed: None 1/ Source: 1984 Oklahoma Watershed Summary, SCS, Stillwater, Oklahoma. IX-55 Deep Fork is shown in flood stage. Flood control Meeker Lake is an example of a SCS is one of the many purposes for water resource multiple-purpose structure, providing planning and development. flood control, municipal water, recre- ation, and fish and wildlife benefits. As mentioned earlier under the M&I water discussion, the Administration has proposed drastic successive budget cuts for the next 3 fiscal years; the end result of which would be the reduction of the SCS mission to nothing more than provision of technical assistance. Since there is no way of predicting to what degree this proposal will be legislatively enacted during the next several years, Reclamation's planning study will need to develop contingency plans for meeting study area needs without contributions from the SCS program. H. Potential Water Supplies to Meet Current and Projected Needs 1. Ground water. Determination needs to be made of how much additional water could be pumped from each of the study area aquifers. An attempt will be made to define those areas where wells are most likely to produce water of suitable quality that does not exceed State primary and secondary drinking water standards. This same work will also allow identification of supplies suitable for irrigation. Reclamation plans to initiate this work soon in coordination with USGS, the Oklahoma Geological Survey, OWRB, and the State Department of Public Health. 2. Surface water a . Additional supplies available from existing reservoirs--Analysis of table IX-19 reveals the following potential available surpluses based on preliminary findings: (1) Coalgate Reservoir—-Maximum projected demands of 0.786 Mgal/d and estimated firm yield of 1.785 Mgal/d appear to show there might be an available surplus of about 1.000 Mgal/d. (2) Kickapoo Nations Watershed Site 1M (Chandler)--Maximum projected demands Of 0.819. Mgal/d for Chandler and a combined (also includes Chandler Lake) total estimated firm yield of 4.541 Mgal/d appear to indicate that there might be a potential available surplus of as much as 3.722 Mgal/d. (3) Okemah Lake—-Projected maximum demands of 1.635 Mgal/d for Okemah and an estimated firm yield of 2.976 Mga.T/d for the lake indicate potential availability of up to about 1.311 Mgal/d. (4) Lakes Carl Blackwell and McMurtry (Stillwater)--The maximum projected demand for Stillwater is 14.350 Mgal/d. If the present plan of operations is continued into the future, Stillwater's 75 percent would be 10.763 Mgal/d, leaving about 2.237 Mgal/d capacity in their Kaw Reservoir pipeline for meeting peak demands. The OSU's 25-percent share from Lake Carl Blackwell would amount to 3.588 Mgal/d. Stillwater plans to hold Lake McMurtry's calculated firm yield of 2.678 Mgal/d in reserve for possible future use in meeting peak demands. Lake Carl Blackwell's calculated firm yield of 6.249 Mgal/d minus OSU's 3.588 Mgal/d share of maximum projected future demands would leave a surplus of 2.661 Mgal/d. Lake McMurtry's supply of 2.678 Mgal/d plus Lake Carl Blackwell's surplus of 2.661 Mgal/d would provide a combined surplus of 5.339 Mgal/d in the two reservoirs, less whatever is needed to supplement the 2.237 Mgal/d excess pipeline capacity in meeting as yet undetermined projected year 2040 peak demands. b - Possible potential irrigation water supplies in SCS floodwater-retarding structures-- These structures do not store floodwaters. They temporarily contain them as they are released at a controlled rate that reduces streamflow so as to lessen downstream flood damage and destruction. Flood storage capacity must be evacuated in order to be ready to contain the next flood event. These structures would lose their flood-retarding capability if the space needed to contain flood flows were allowed to fill with sediments. Therefore, SCS plans a permanent storage space behind these structures to store 100 years' accumulation of sediments (50 years on older structures). Any of this space not yet filled with sediments stores water. Inventory of the amount IX-56 of this water that would be available each decade into the future needs to be accomplished in order to determine how much water might be available for adjacent landowners to use for irrigating pasture; traditional cash crops; and especially for irrigating small acreages of specialty crops such as fruit, vegetables, and berries. c - Potential water supply reservoirs--A search of previous investigations and surveys found 30 previously identified reservoir sites that appear to have potential as multipurpose reser– voirs (see map No. 1484-500-8). Since work on the current study was just recently begun, acquisi- tion of data and completion of analyses has not progressed to the point that viability of any of these sites can be determined. Table IX-23 displays estimated firm yields and preliminary cost estimates for these potential damsites. Preliminary cost estimates for these potential reservoirs are at subappraisal level and were obtained from cost curves and previous studies. The construction costs include 25 percent for contingencies and 25 percent for overhead and administrative costs. These costs do not include flood control storage. Since the plan formulation process is just beginning, layout of distribution systems would be premature. Additional sites may be identified as the study progesses. This view shows the reservoir area for the The dam axis of the potential Hickory potential Tate Mountain damsite in Seminole County. Ridge site crosses the North Canadian River in the right center foreground. The upstream area shown would be part of the reservoir. I. Hydropower Potential for the Study Area Successful realization of comprehensive economic development over a long-range time frame will add to the study area's projected electrical energy needs. If the study area's petroleum and gas pro- duction decline sharply during the next 10 to 20 years as forecast (see chapter VI), the area will also need additional electrical energy to replace these once plentiful and inexpensive supplies. As the study progresses, existing and projected electric power demands will be determined. On a regional basis, projected need for additional generating capacity for the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) is shown in Table IX-24. This need was iterated by the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), which is the agency authorized to market federally generated hydroelectric power and energy in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and part of Texas. In a February 19, 1985, letter to Reclamation, SWPA said: "The demand for Federally generated hydroelectric power in our marketing area far exceeds our existing capability and therefore, we are vitally interested in the development of new Federal facilities." Since the study area has a great deal of flowing water, which is a renewable resource, there is a growing interest in hydropower in the region. Thirteen potential hydropower sites in the study area have been identified and preliminary studies performed in previous investigations. Reclamation's "Western States Inventory of Low-Head Hydroelectric Sites (Phase II), October 1980" identified 10 sites. The Corps, as part of its comprehensive reconnaissance studies of the Arkansas and Red River Basins, reported seven potential hydropower sites in the study area during an interagency planning meeting held in June 1984. Four sites are included in both studies. Table IX-25 presents the results of these studies. Additional damsites identified for this study will also be evaluated for hydropower potential. Map No. 1484-500–8 shows the location of previously identified hydropower sites and some of the addi- tional damsites which will be studies. J. Problems and Needs 1. Data acquisition. Federal, State, and Sub-State agencies all report difficulty in obtaining accurate needed data from smaller municipalities and rural water systems. A specific function within a State agency needs to be given specific clearinghouse responsibility for acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of all information concerning entities providing public drinking water IX—57 Table IX-23 Estimated Firm Yields and Preliminary Cost Estimates For Previously Identified Potential Damsites (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Hydrology 1/ Location Contributing Conservation Estimated Estimated Name of Damsite Stream County Drainage Area Storage Fi-rm Yield Costs 2/ 1:::::s (mi”) (acre-feet) (acre-ft/yr) (dollars) Lela Black Bear Creek . Pawnee 545 199,200 48,400 68,724,000 Fallis Bear Creek Lincoln 94 33,000 9,900 18, 150,000 Wellston Captain Creek Lincoln 58 25,000 7,700 13,750,000 Kendrick Dry Creek Lincoln 82 28,000 7,800 15,400,000 Davenport Dry Creek Lincoln 176 67,000 18,500 33,500,000 Quapaw Quapaw Creek Lincoln 69 33,000 9,200 18, 150,000 Paden Hilliby Creek Okfuskee 39 19,000 5,200 11,400,000 Welty Deep Fork Okfuskee 1,387 600,000 166,000 112,200,000 Tuskegee Deep Fork Okfuskee 1,500 650,000 180,000 110,500,000 Morse Nuyaka Creek Okfuskee 84 58,000 16,000 29,000,000 Nuyaka Deep Fork Okfuskee 2, 146 — 3/ –– 3/ — 3/ Boley North Canadian River Okfuskee 1,575 680,000 189,000 110,840,000 Hickory Ridge North Canadian River Okfuskee 1,789 775,000 215,000 110,050,000 Centerpoint Unnamed POttawatomie 7.4 3,000 7OO 1,800,000 North Deer Creek North Deer Creek POttawatomie 38.5 10,082 2,020 6,049,000 Pecan Creek Pecan Creek POttawatomie 32 15,000 3,360 9,000,000 Little River Little River Pottawatomie 200 175,000 16,800 63,350,000 (near Tecumseh) Oxbow Wewoka Creek Hughes 343 265,000 74,000 80,825,000 Atwood Canadian River Hughes 22, 110 4/ 500,000 400,000 106,000,000 Tate Mountain Little River Seminole 342 180,000 44,500 64,080,000 Sasakwa Little River Seminole 613 325,000 80,000 89,375,000 Asher Canadian River Ponto to C 21,660 4/ 500,000 400,000 106,000,000 Byng Canadian River Ponto to C 21,960 A/ 500,000 400,000 106,000,000 Steedman Muddy Boggy Creek Ponto to C 27 24,000 6,600 13,200,000 Spring Creek Spring Creek Ponto to C 46 31,000 8,700 17,050,000 Wanoss Sandy Creek PO Into to C 63 43,000 12,000 21,500,000 Ada Sandy Creek Ponto to C 195 135,000 37,000 52,650,000 Parker 5/ Muddy Boggy Creek Coal 172 114,650 47,000 47,694,000 Non Caney Creek Coal 94 71,000 27,000 35,500,000 Tupelo Clear Boggy Creek Coal 380 280,000 93,000 83, 160,000 1/ Source: tº- Hydrologic data from table IX-3. 2/ Subappraisal costs for the represented multipurpose dam and reservoir. 3/ Yield, storage, and costs not estimated; this site will be evaluated for hydropower potential. A/ Estimated drainage areas. 5/ Interim feasibility study completed in November 1975, Corps of Engineers. Table IX-24 Projected Need for Additional Generating Capacity to Meet SPP Load Growth 1/ [1992 to 2002] 2/ (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Estimated Peak Required Capabilities Scheduled Net Year Demand Requirements Including Reserves Capability Need (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1992 59,999 74,941 74,941 –0– 1993 61,800 77,250 74,941 2,309 1994 63,650 79,560 74,941 4,619 1995 65,560 81,950 a74,941 7,009 1996 67,525 84,405 74,941 9,464 1997 69,550 86,940 74,941 11,999 1998 71,635 89,545 74,941 14,604 1999 73,675 92,345 74,941 14,404 2000 76,000 95,000 74,941 20,059 2001 78,280 97,850 74,941 22,909 2002 80,630 100,790 74,941 25,849 1/ SPP = Southwest Power Pool which includes the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kansas as well as portions of Mississippi, Missouri, Texas, and New Mexico. 2/ Tabulation from Corps handout at the Second Interagency Planning Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, June 19, 1984. IX-58 Site Lela 1/ Welty # Boley +/ Hickory Ridge l/ (We tumka) 2/ Oxbow - (Wetumka) 2/ Sasakwa T/ Asher 1/ Byng 4 (Konawa) Ada & 2/ Parker I/ 2/ Tupelo I/ Nuyaka 1/ (Weleetka) Stream Table IX-25 Previously Identified Potential Hydropower Sites (East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, January 1985) Location Black Bear [:::::: W Deep Fork Deep Fork Tuskegee 2/ Deep Fork N. Canadian N. Canadian Wetumka 96°50. 6." RM 30.2 35°38. O' 96°23.5" RM 117. 6 T35°26.3' 96°31.7" T35°17.7 96°12.8' Little River RM 24. 1 Canadian Canadian Sandy Creek T34°59.0" 96°32.5" T34°55.9 96°53.5" T34°54.8. 96°39.2" Muddy Boggy RM 127.4 Clear Boggy Deep Fork 1/ Reclamation's Western States Inventory of Low-Head Hydroelectric Sites (Phase II), October 1980. 34°45. O' 96°17. O' RM 73.5 T34°30.0 - 96°21.5" T35°39.0 96°11.0" County Pawnee Creek Okfuskee Okfuskee Okfuskee Hughes Seminole Pottawatomie Seminole Ponto to c Coal Coal Okmulgee Drainage Area Net Head (mi”) (ft) 545 60.4 1,395 43 1,485 48.8 1,510 83 13,970 20 14,290 20 408 43 865 63 869 69 26,900 15.0 26,980 15.0 191 83 172 68 172 66 380 34 380 66 2, 146 59. 1 Average Flow (ft”/s) 167 540 605 580 657 671 200 250 353 1,545 1,550 50 135 145 235 243 875 Plant Average Factor Unit size Annual Energy (%) (mW) (GWh/yr) 15 1.9 2.5 27.0 6.3 14.8 27.0 4.5 10.4 23.2 15. 1 30. 7 31 - O 2.1 5. 7 31.0 2.1 5.8 5. O 12.5 5.5 4.2 27. 1 10.1 22.0 3.3 6.5 25.0 3.6 8.1 25.0 3.6 8.1 3. 3 9. 1 2.6 4.9 14.9 5.9 17.0 2.3 3.3 5.9 9.9 5. 1 26.0 2.5 5.7 36.0 4.1 13.1 2/ Corps of Engineers' "Red River Basin and South-Central and Southeast Oklahoma Comprehensive Studies, Second Interagency Planning Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma," June 19, 1984. IX-59 supplies. This information should include, but not be limited to , legal descriptions of service area boundaries; data on water supply source(s) (reservoirs, wells, pipelines); average daily and peak demand use data; current description data on treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; present rate strucures; current indebtedness; problems with quantity or quality of water supply; anticipated expansion or rehabilitation of facilities along with estimated cost (if available); and information concerning planned expansion or curtailment of service area. 2. Local system deficiencies. Significant numbers of local water systems were found to have serious problems with inadequate treatment plant and storage capacities, leaks, undersized water- mains and lines with associated pressure loss and inability to deliver desired volumes, and age- deteriorated systems or antiquated facilites. These deficiencies are important for three reasons: a . They result in water shortages during peak demand periods, b. The customer has to pay higher water rates for which no benefit is received, and c. Costs of replacement and repair put an additional drain on already limited public sector funds available for water resources. 3. Water quality problems. Much of the study area's available surface and ground water supply has significant water quality problems, making it less likely that plans can be formulated for cost- effective development for public drinking water supplies. Many of the areas water supplies have experienced problems in exceeding primary and secondary drinking water standards. Others have nonhealth-related quality problems such as extreme hardness, taste, odor, and staining. There is a need to assist these entities in determining the most cost-effective or acceptable solution from the choices of treatment, augmentation (dilution) with better quality water, or replacement with a better supply. 4. Unmet present and future M&I water supply needs. Preliminary investigations have identified 30 entities that are sources of M&I water supplies that need additional water supplies to meet current or projected water demand needs. An additional 10 entities have been identified for further investigation to determine the exact amount and priority need . There is potential for identifi- cation of additional water supply needs as water quality investigations progress in determination of need for augmentation or replacement supplies. 5. Irrigation needs . Agriculture holds some of the greatest potential for study area economic development. It appears certain that irrigation will be a component of that development. Further investigation is needed to determine adequacy of existing supplies and need for development of addi- tional supplies. 6. Hydropower needs, Regional needs are already known. Projections of future hydropower needs for the local study area are required if economic development plans are to benefit. 7. Undetermined needs. This study has not progressed far enough to assess needs or incorporate information from other agencies to state study area needs for navigation, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife preservation and enhancement. IX-60 CHAPTER X – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Findings Human resource problems and needs identified are: 1 - Per capita income in the study area is significantly below State and national levels. 2. Private sector economic activity is limited in much of the study area, resulting in public sector payrolls (local, State, and Federal government) providing more earnings (in six out of nine counties) than any single private sector component such as trade, manufacturing, mining (including extraction of oil and gas), and services. 3. Unemployment in the study area is not uniform, with six out of nine counties having signifi- cantly higher unemployment rates than the State or Nation. 4. Lack of economic opportunity has resulted in long-term outmigration in much of the study area which has resulted in more than a 50-percent population loss in some cases. 5. The better educated young people with current high-technology job skills training needed for economic development initiatives are the very people leaving the study area. 6. The remaining local population appears to be somewhat older with less formal education than State and national norms. 7. There appears to be a very limited tax base to finance a11 components of a comprehensive long-range economic development plan. 8. Population projections show that continuation of historic and present trends (OESC projections) will result in the continued decline of some of the study area counties and stagnation or eventual decline for many communities during the next 50 years. 9. The SEDIP population projections show that a sustained, 50-year coordinated economic devel- opment effort by study area communities, interest groups, counties, economic development planning districts, and RedArk could result in healthy growth of the region, alleviating many of the problems and providing the study area with an opportunity to participate equally with the rest of the State in future prosperity. The known cultural resources of the East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study area only hint at its use through time by various groups. Enough survey has been completed in the study area during the last 10 years to indicate the diversity of cultural material present, particularly in areas considered as potential water resource development sites. The need to locate/identify presently unknown sites and thoughtfully examine a cross section of these is great. Much has been lost to development, farming, and erosion caused by farming activities during the past 50 years. Future expansion will intensify the problem. The opportunity exists to identify important sites and document their use within the context of this study. Regional analyses of the study area's recreation and tourism facilities indicate significant, moderate priority needs for golfing, baseball, picnicking, hunting, canoeing, hiking, and RV camp- ing facilities development. Nearly all of the nine-county study area has no easily accessible State or Federal recreation facility development. Ongoing investigations should recognize and address these regional recreational needs as well as localized needs which may be satisfied through multi- purpose water resource development. The nine-county east-central Oklahoma study area is almost totally rural in nature and notably lacking in currently identified unique, sensitive, or public environmental resources of national or regional significance. Noted environmental problems relate more to a trend of general wildlife habitat loss and water quality-streamflow regulation problems than to environmental resources given specific protection by Federal or State law. There are no federally listed endangered or threatened species (except for migrants) and a limited number of existing publicly owned resources of an environmentally sensitive nature. However, the area lies on the fringes of the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas, is crossed by major interstate access routes (I-40 and I-44), and has great potential for future economic development. Land use changes, due to agricultural, mineral, or industrial development, have modified much of the presettlement wildlife habitat within the region. Surface water pollution from oilfield brine disposal and urban effluent has affected and will proba- bly continue to affect the species assemblages and productivity of area streams. Potential water resource development may cause additional losses of important fish and wildlife habitats but also may provide the means for preservation or restoration of modified habitat through multiple resource development and management. Problems with mineral resources appear to be: 1. Current forecasts indicate the study area's presently known oil and gas reserves will become depleted within the next 10 to 20 years. Deep wells, isolated deposits, and additional secondary and tertiary recovery from old fields, heretofore too costly to undertake, will become cost feasible when depleting world supplies result in rising prices. These same high prices will also constrain output to a fraction of present production, which will be a disastrous blow to the study area's and State's economic vitality. A great deal of effort will be required to generate enough economic development to replace the earnings and tax base that will be lost to the study area. 2. Neither study area county having coal deposits is presently producing any commercial tonnage. Given constraints of type of coal and location, the downturn in domestic steel production, and cost factors associated with antipollution equipment needed to burn this coal, there appears to be little economic incentive to reinstitute active coal mining in the two study area counties. Unless future technology provides less costly emission controls for power-generating plants or esca- lating energy prices make methane gas recovery or synthetic fuel production commercially feasible, there appears to be little hope for substantive development of coal production in the study area. 3. With dwindling available supplies of petroleum and natural gas at much higher prices and serious questions about the region's coal being able to replace it at an economical price, the study area needs to concern itself with how it will replace its own energy needs at an affordable price. The one largely untapped energy resource in the study area (other than solar energy), which is in ample supply, is flowing water which has the additional advantage of being a constantly renewable IC e SOUlTC 6 e A serious, comprehensive effort needs to be undertaken immediately to determine how hydroelectric power might be used to supply the study area with low-cost electric power as a replacement for fossil fuel energy. Land, agricultural, and forestry resources present the following problems and needs: 1. Preliminary studies revealed approximately 220,600 acres have potential for irrigation development. Further investigation is needed as to how this potential might be best utilized or developed for optimal contribution to economic development in the study area. Types of development to be evaluated should include both private individual and large project-type developments. Large project type developments evaluated should include both Federal and non-Federal development. Reclamation should make appropriate recommendations based on findings. 2. Investigate potential for development of irrigated specialty crop enterprises. Reclamation will work with OSU, SCS, county agents, and other agriculturalists in this area. 3. Investigate, develop, and demonstrate more efficient irrigation management methods. 4. Fully investigate the potential for development of forest products. Although the potential for primary forest products industries may be limited due to limited forest resources, there is a need to encourage additional secondary forest products industries in the study area since it pres- ently contains one-third of the State's firms engaged in such enterprises. Findings for industrial development are: 1. The economy of the project area is less developed than that of the State or the United States as a whole. There are substantially fewer employment opportunities in the manufacturing and trades and services sectors of the project area economy, which have kept per capita incomes signifi- cantly below State and national averages. Higher than average percentages of employment exist in agriculture and State and local government as a result of this phenomenon. Working age residents are continuing to leave the study area in search of employment, especially those who have earned high school and post-high school degrees. In order to strengthen the economy of the project area, more effort needs to be focused on the creation of new job opportunities in the manufacturing sec- tor, which will then generate more employment in the trades and services sector and improve the balance and overall health of the area economy. 2. The economic analysis and inventory of manufacturing activity indicates that a dichotomy exists within the study area. The western portion of the area has greater population density, better highway and rail access, and available investment capital from past industrial development successes. However, these development amenities are lacking in the eastern portion. The western portion should respond to an intensive job creation program, while the eastern portion of the study area will require more basic economic development efforts to prepare for economic growth in the future. * Several innovative approaches to job creation have been initiated because traditional industrial development efforts have not yielded anticipated results in some of the study area. A REDC and an ITRAD have been established to aid businesses expansion efforts, develop new business based upon innovative technology, stimulate the creation of new jobs through vendor contracts, provide finan- cial consultation and packaging services, and provide a source of new debt and equity capital to help finance these ventures. Additionally, REDC has established industry incubators in area vocational-technical schools to help train prospective employees for new enterprises in the region, and an entrepreneurship curriculum has been created to promote a better understanding of the free enterprise system's expectations and requirements. 3. Industrial development organizations exist in nearly every county and community in the study area, and local commitment is necessary to successfully attract new job opportunities. These local groups can play a very important role in convincing prospective employers that their communities will actively assist and support new development activity. 4. When a firm decides to either expand or relocate, it can choose among any number of areas which are fully prepared to meet the firm's requirements. Some communities in the study area are now at a competitive disadvantage to vie for new firm locations or expansions because of some or all of the following barriers: X-2 a . Poor transportation networks, b. Lack of a sufficiently large and trained labor force, c. Lack of existing industrial infrastructure, and d. Lack of an organized industrial promotion effort. 5. The following recommendations for stimulation of new employment opportunities take into consideration the current range of development efforts ongoing within the project area. A basic approach to preparedness preparation for economic development in smaller, less developed communities should be used to help overcome existing barriers to development. 6. A RIDA should be established to aggressively promote the creation of new jobs in the area • The RIDA can work closely with REDC and ITRAD in reaching this goal. Market analyses and feasi- bility studies provided through a cooperative arrangement with an area university or research center are needed to support this job creation effort • Training seminars for interested communities and local development groups could explain innovative financing, promotional techniques, and industrial service and facility needs. 7. Analyses of manufacturing industry characteristics reveal that growth in certain sectors of the study area's manufacturing industry would be more beneficial to the area's economic development. It was suggested that those leading efforts for study area industrial development should (a) encourage growth in the printing and publishing industry; (b) maintain efforts to revive the petro- leum industry; (c) continue to build on success in developing the rubber and plastics products industry; especially in the area of miscellaneous plastics products; and (d) continue the growth trend in the nonelectrical machinery sector. Findings for water resources are: 1. Federal, State, and Sub-State agencies all report difficulty in obtaining accurate needed data from smaller municipalities and rural water systems. A specific function within a State agency needs to be given specific clearinghouse responsibility for acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of all information concerning entities providing public drinking water supplies. This information should include, but not be limited to, such things as legal descriptions of service area boundaries; data on water supply source(s) (reservoirs, wells, pipelines); average daily and peak demand use data; current description data on treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; present rate structures; current indebtedness; problems with quantity or quality of water supply; anticipated expansion or rehabilitation of facilities along with estimated cost (if available); and information concerning planned expansion or curtailment of service area. 2. Significant numbers of local water systems were found to have serious problems with inade- quate treatment plant and storage capacities, leaks, undersized water mains and lines with associated pressure loss and inability to deliver desired volumes, and age-deteriorated systems or antiquated facilities. These deficiencies are important for three reasons: a. They result in water shortages during peak demand periods, b. The customer has to pay higher water rates for which no benefit is received, and c. Costs of replacement and repair put an additional drain on already limited public sector funds available for water resources. 3. Much of the study area's available surface and ground water supply has significant water quality problems, making it less likely that plans can be formulated for cost-effective development of these sources into public drinking water supplies • Water supplies provided by many of the area's water user entities experience problems in exceeding primary and secondary drinking water standards. Others have nonhealth-related quality problems such as extreme hardness, taste, odor, and staining. There is a need to assist these entities in determining the most cost-effective or acceptable solu- tion from the choices of treatment, augmentation (dilution) with better quality water, or replacement with a better supply. 4. Preliuminary investigations have identified 30 entities that are sources of M&I water sup- plies that need additional water supplies to meet current or projected water demand needs. An addi- tional 10 entities have been identified for further investigation to determine the exact amount and priority of need. There is potential for identification of additional water supply needs as water quality investigations progress in determination of need or desire for augmentation or replacement supplies. 5. Agriculture holds some of the greatest potential for study area economic development. It appears certain that irrigation will be a component of that development. Further investigation is needed to determine adequacy of existing supplies and need for development of additional supplies. 6. Regional hydropower needs are already known. Projections of hydropower needs for the local study area are needed if economic development plans are to benefit. 7. This study has not progressed far enough to assess needs or incorporate information from other agencies to state study area needs for navigation, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife preservation and enhancement. X-3 8. The study area has average annual runoff of 5.5 inches, which assures ample available flows in its numerous streams and rivers. Approximately 30 previously identified potential damsites have been noted and given very preliminary study for ability to provide water supplies. Although some of these sites will probably be eliminated from consideration for economic, engineering, and water quality reasons as well as adverse impacts on the environment or cultural resources, the large number of streams in the study area appear to assure that suitable water supply reservoir sites can be found reasonably near identified demand centers. º B. Conclusions Since this planning guide represents only a few months' efforts at preliminary resource inventory and assessment of problems and needs, the following conclusions represent only a summation of preliminary resource inventory results and initial identification of study area problems and needs that should be addressed during the remaining 3-1/2 years of this study. Human needs. The basic contention underlying all of RedArk's comprehensive economic develop- ment planning and implementation is that the 24-county RedArk project area (which includes the 9 counties in this study) has significantly lagged behind the rest of the State and Nation in economic development. Findings listed earlier in this chapter clearly indicate conditions associ- ated with significant economic underdevelopment, validating the need for comprehensive economic development for the study area. Further analyses should be undertaken to determine whether the study area's socioeconomic problems will support a request for authority to formulate plans of development for Regional Economic Development (RED) objectives instead of the normally required formulations for National Economic Development (NED) objectives. Water resources. There is a need to have a specific function within a State agency charged with the responsibility of acting as an information clearinghouse for all entities providing public drinking water supplies. It should have direct responsibility for acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of accurate, current, and complete information for all entities as discussed in chapter IX. Many of the study area's surface and ground water supplies have significant water quality problems. This results in the need to assist entities in determining the most cost-effective or acceptable solution from the choices of treatment, augmentation with better quality water, or replacement with a better supply. The abundance of undeveloped streams with ample flows and the identification of 30 potential damsites from previous studies assures that water supplies more than adequate to meet all projected needs can be developed reasonably near all demand centers. This will still be true even if it would be necessary to eliminate a number of damsites from further consideration due to water quality, economic, or engineering problems. There are 30 M&I study area entities that are sources of M&I water supplies that need additional water supplies to meet current or projected water demands. There are an additional 10 entities that require additional studies to determine the exact amount and priority of need plus the potential for identification of additional water supply demands as water quality investigations reveal needs for augmentation or replacement supplies. Agriculture holds some of the greatest potential for economic development in the study area; there- fore, further investigation should be carried out to determine adequacy of existing supplies and need for development of additional supplies for individual and project-type irrigation. Projected regional needs, alone, justify additional study of hydropower; and 13 previously identified potential sites assure that likely sites do exist. Determination of present and pro- jected local study area hydropower demands for replacement energy due to declining petroleum and natural gas reserves and additional energy requirements to support economic development need to be accomplished . . As this study progresses, assessment of needs should be completed or incorporated from other agency information to state study area needs for navigation, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife preservation and enhancement for inclusion into the plan formulation process. Significant numbers of local water systems have been found to have serious problems with inadequate water treatment, storage, and distribution systems that must be rehabilitated, expanded, or replaced in order to assure ability to deliver adequate amounts of water when needed. These needs should be incorporated into the comprehensive economic development plans for the study area. Land, agricultural, and forestry resources. Further investigation needs to be made on how the 220,600 acres of land identified as having the greatest potential for irrigation development might be best utilized or developed for optimal contribution to economic development in the study area. There is a need to study how specialty crop enterprises (especially fruits, berries, nuts, and vegetables) might contribute to agriculture's role in economic development. Reclamation plans to work with OSU and SCS activities in this area that involve irrigation, especially if needs for additional irrigation water supplies are identified. Investigate, develop, and demonstrate more efficient irrigation management methods. Fully investigate the potential for development of forest products. Although the potential for primary forest products industries may be limited due to limited forest resources, there is a need to encourage additional secondary forest products industries in the study area since it presently contains one-third of the State's firms engaged in such enterprises. Environmental resources. No public, technical, or institutional environmental quality features have been identified which would constrain new water resource development within the east-central study area if adequate consideration for general environmental resources of high value is given as this study progresses. Cultural resources. Known cultural resources of the study area only hint at its use through time by various groups. There is evidence indicating a diversity of cultural material present that is being lost to development, farming, and erosion. Of particular importance is the evidence of historic Indian settlement throughout the study area. This study presents an opportunity to iden- tify important sites and document their use . Recreation and tourism resources. Ongoing investigations should recognize and address identified regional and, possibly more important, localized needs which may be satisfied through multipurpose water resource development. Mineral resources. There are ample supplies of nonmetallic industrial minerals to sustain present or expanded economic activity. Some current forecasts indicate that the study area's presently known oil and gas reserves will be depleted within the next 10 to 20 years and that prospects for resumption of coal mining in the study area are uncertain. A serious, comprehensive effort needs to be undertaken immediately to determine how hydroelectric power might be used to supply the study area with lower-cost electricity as a replacement for fossil fuel energy. Industrial development. The study area contains a number of municipalities (Stillwater, Shawnee, and Ada) that have already experienced success in attracting or developing new industries as well as some smaller, less-developed communities • RedArk has been instrumental in developing action plans and strategies for the special needs of both types of communities. Analyses of manu- facturing industry characteristics have resulted in formulation of a list of most desirable manufacturing sectors for the study area as a guide for groups promoting industrial development. C. How the Findings and Conclusions Will be Carried Out As stated earlier in this chapter, this report sets forth the results of preliminary resource inventory and initial identification of study area problems and needs that should be addressed during the remaining 3-1/2 years of this study. Additional information concerning the planning process to be followed during the remainder of this study, how the public is to be involved in this process, how the study is organized and managed, and what the interested citizens or groups can do is provided below. 1. Planning process. All Federal water and associated land resource development planning must follow a process set forth in what is known as the Principles and Guidelines (for water resource planning). In this planning process, a designated study area will have its water-related needs identified and its resource capability to meet those needs quantified. With this information, realistic planning objectives are defined. A variety of alternative plans are formulated to meet each objective or combinations of objectives in order to develop a range of choices. Analyses of the alternative plans are made to determine which alternatives are viable plans. The viable alternatives are further refined before undergoing a procedure to select a "preferred" plan. The "preferred" plan then undergoes additional refinement required to become the recommended plan for Federal construction and development. Public involvement and input to the decisionmaking process is required throughout the planning process. 2. Public involvement. Public involvement includes two groups. The first group involves Reclamation's continuous working relationship with State and local government agencies (including rural water districts) as well as regional planning and development groups. The second group will be the general public whom Reclamation will keep informed of study progress by the local news media, study brochures, and public meetings where people will be encouraged to express their views. 3. Study organization and management. This 4-year study is being conducted under the leader- ship of Reclamation--an agency of the Department of the Interior which has the mission to assist other Federal agencies, States, local governments, and regional organizations in stabilizing and stimulating local and regional economies; enhancing and protecting the environment; and improving the quality of life through development of water and related land resources throughout the 17 Western States. Reclamation's Southwest regional office, headquartered in Amarillo, Texas, is con- ducting the study using a study team composed of a study manager and technical experts in the fields of archeology and historical preservation, economics, engineering, environmental science, geology, hydrology, recreation planning, sociology, soil science and land resources, and technical writing. The Reclamation study planning team has assistance available from Oklahoma resource planning agen- cies, local entities, and other Federal agencies. In two counties (Lincoln and Okfuskee) where investigations overlap, Reclamation will lead a joint-study effort with the Corps under terms of a Memorandum of Agreement to assure respective planning activities complement, rather than duplicate, each other. Because of the large size of the study area, Reclamation is using contractors to assist in gathering data on the existing environmental conditions; archeological and historical resources present; and a social assessment that includes identification of public attitudes, values, and ideas on the area's problems and needs. 4. What the interested citizens or groups should do. First, plan to attend the public meetings that will be held in the study area so that more can be learned about the study and views expressed. Second, views should be expressed to elected and appointed officials, community leaders, and local or regional planners. Third, if there is any information which should be considered, any opinions regarding aspects of this study, or a desire to participate in the planning process, an invitation is extended to share these ideas and interests with Reclamation by contacting: Regional Director Oklahoma Representative Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 714 South Tyler, Suite 201 200 Northwest 5th, Room 922A Amarillo, Texas 79101 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 REFERENCES (Ayensu and DeFilipps 1978) - Ayensu, E. S. and R. A. DeFilipps, Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United States, Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution and World Wildlife Fund, Inc., 1978. (Barr 1963) - Barr, T. P., Archeological Survey of Project 12, Camp-Salt Creek Watershed, Lincoln and Creek Counties, Oklahoma, General Survey Report No. 3., University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman, Oklahoma, 1963 (Bell 1984) - Bell, R. E., editor, Prehistory of Oklahoma, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, 1984. (BOIC 1898) - Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners, 1897, Washington Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1898. (Brabander and Masters 1984) - Brabander, J. J. and R. Masters, Bottomland Hardwoods of Eastern Oklahoma, a Special Study of Their Status, Trends, and Values, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1984. (Cheek et al. 1974) - Cheek, A. L. et al., editors, An Archeological Assessment of Proposed Kickapoo Nations and Robinson Creek Watersheds, Lincoln and Oklahoma Counties, Oklahoma, Archeological Research Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1974. (Cheek et al. 1974) - Cheek, A. L. et al., preparers, An Archeological Survey of the Upper Muddy Boggy Watershed, Pontotoc, Coal, and Hughes Counties, Oklahoma, University of Tulsa, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1974. (Cheek and Cheek 1975) - Cheek, A. L. and C. Cheek, editors, A Preliminary Archeological Assessment of the Central Oklahoma Project Area, Archeological Research Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1975. (Cowardin et al. 1979) - Cowardin et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., 1979. (Duck and Fletcher 1943) - Duck, L. G. and J. B. Fletcher, A Survey of the Game and Furbearing Animals of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Game and Fish Commission, State Bulletin No. 3, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1943. (Gettys 1985) - Gettys, Marshall, personal communication, State Historic Preservation Office, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1985. (Lewis et al. 1975) - Lewis, J. C. et al., Rare and Endangered Vertebrates and Plants of Oklahoma, Soil Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1975. (MECA 1972) - Mid-Continent Environmental Center Association, Environmental Inventory and Assessment of the Central Oklahoma Project study Area, Contract DACW56–72-COO62 for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 1972. (Miller and Robison 1973) - Miller, Rudolf J. and Henry W. Robison, The Fishes of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University Press, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1973. (Morris 1977) - Morris, J. W., Ghost Towns of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1977. (Morris et al. 1976) - Morris, J. W. et al., Historical Atlas of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1976. (Neal 1972) - Neal, Larry, "An Archeological Survey and Assessment of the Prehistoric Resources in the Albany and Parker Reservoirs, Oklahoma," Oklahoma River Basin Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, 1972. (Neal 1985) - Neal, Larry, personal communication, "Oklahoma Archeological Survey," Norman, Oklahoma, 1985. (OSCC 1960-1984) - Index to Archeological Survey Reports and Manuscripts from Assessments of USDA Soil Conservation Service Watershed Projects in Oklahoma, Oklahoma Soil Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1960–1984. (OTRD 1982) - Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1982. (SI 1975) - Smithsonian Institution, Report on Endangered and Threatened Plant Species of the United States, U. S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 1st Session, H. Doc. 94-51, 1975. (USDI 1972) - U.S. Department of the Interior, The National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, Washington Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. (USDI 1974) - U.S. Department of the Interior, The National Register of Historic Places. Addendum, National Park Service, Washington Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974. (USDI 1980) - U.S. Department of the Interior, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants of Texas and Oklahoma, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1980. (USDI 1980) - U.S. Department of the Interior, National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife – Associated Recreation, Oklahoma, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Cooperation with Bureau of the Census, 1980. (USDI 1982) - U.S. Department of the Interior, Natural Rivers Inventory, Natural and Free-flowing Phase, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1982. (USDI 1983) - U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places, Annual Listing of Properties – January 1979 through December 1982, National Park Service, Washington Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983. (USDI 1984) - U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places: Annual Supple- mental Listing of Historic Properties, National Park Service, Washington Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1984. (USDI 1984) - U.S. Department of the Interior, Planning Aid Report on the Red River Basin and South-Central and Southeast Oklahoma Comprehensive Study, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa Ecological Services, Tulsa, Oklahoma, October 1984. (USDI 1984) - U.S. Department of the Interior, Planning Aid Report on the East-Central Oklahoma Water Supply Study, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Tulsa, Oklahoma, February 1985. (Wallis 1979) - Wallis, C. S., Jr., Report on the Status of Archeological Survey Work, Okfuskee County Tributaries Watershed Project, Okfuskee County Portion, General Survey: Report (1979: 1), Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1979. (Wallis 1981) - Wallis, C. S., Jr., Archeological and Historical Review of Multi-Purpose Impoundment 4M Robinson Creek Watershed, Lincoln County, General Survey Report (1981: 5), Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1981. (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983) - Wyckoff, D. G. and R. L. Brooks, Oklahoma Archeology: A 1981 Perspec- tive of the State's Archeological Resources, Their Significance, Their Problems and Some Proposed Solutions, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, 1983. (Zanoni et al. 1979) - Zanoni, Thomas A., Johnnie L. Gentry, Jr., Ronald J. Tyrl, and Paul G. Risser, Endangered and Threatened Plants of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1979. III.iii. 9015 02995 |||| ... U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINT ING OFFICE: 1985–- -578-349 4 ºt pºſse gº-013-01 *