Environmental Assessment, Chickasaw Nation, Kingston ...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHICKASAW NATIONKINGSTON CASINO RESORT PROJECT

FEBRUARY 2020

LEAD AGENCY:

US Department of the InteriorBureau of Indian Affairs

Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office3100 West Peak Boulevard

Muskogee, OK 74401

Estimated Total Costs Associated withDeveloping and Producing this EA - $150,000

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHICKASAW NATIONKINGSTON CASINO RESORT PROJECT

FEBRUARY 2020

LEAD AGENCY:

US Department of the InteriorBureau of Indian Affairs

Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office3100 West Peak Boulevard

Muskogee, OK 74401

February 2020 i Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHICKASAW NATION CASINO PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Location and Setting .................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 2 1.4 Chickasaw Nation...................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Overview of the Environmental Review Process ...................................................................... 2 1.6 Regulatory Requirements and Approvals .................................................................................. 3

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 3

2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Casino Development .................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Protective Measures and Best Management Practices ................................................. 6

2.2 Alternative B – Reduced-Intensity Alternative ....................................................................... 10 2.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative .................................................................................... 10 2.4 Comparison of the Alternatives ............................................................................................... 11

2.4.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 11 2.4.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 11

2.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Analysis ...................................................................... 11 2.5.1 Off-Site Alternatives .................................................................................................. 11 2.5.2 On-Site Alternatives ................................................................................................... 11

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Land Resources ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Topography ................................................................................................................ 12 3.1.2 Geology ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.4 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Surface Water ............................................................................................................. 14 3.2.3 Drainage and Flooding ............................................................................................... 16 3.2.4 Groundwater ............................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 17

3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 18 3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 18 3.4.2 Vegetation and Habitat ............................................................................................... 18 3.4.3 Special-Status Species ................................................................................................ 18 3.4.4 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................... 21

February 2020 ii Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 22 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 22 3.5.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 22 3.5.3 Cultural Resources Investigations .............................................................................. 22

3.6 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice ................................................................. 23 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 23 3.6.2 Economy and Employment ........................................................................................ 23 3.6.3 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 24 3.6.4 Housing ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.6.5 Property Taxes ............................................................................................................ 24 3.6.6 Gaming Market .......................................................................................................... 24 3.6.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................ 25

3.7 Transportation/Circulation ...................................................................................................... 25 3.7.1 Roadway System ........................................................................................................ 25 3.7.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 25 3.7.3 Level of Service Standards ......................................................................................... 25 3.7.4 Transit Services and Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............................................. 26

3.8 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 26 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 26 3.8.2 Existing Land Uses ..................................................................................................... 26 3.8.3 Agriculture ................................................................................................................. 27

3.9 Public Services and Utilities .................................................................................................... 27 3.9.1 Water Supply .............................................................................................................. 27 3.9.2 Wastewater Service .................................................................................................... 28 3.9.3 Solid Waste Service.................................................................................................... 28 3.9.4 Schools ....................................................................................................................... 28 3.9.5 Recreation ................................................................................................................... 28 3.9.6 Electricity and Propane .............................................................................................. 28 3.9.7 Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 28 3.9.8 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services ...................................................... 29

3.10 Visual Resources ..................................................................................................................... 29 3.10.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 29 3.10.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 29

3.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 30 3.11.1 Acoustical Background and Terminology .................................................................. 30 3.11.2 Regulatory Environment ............................................................................................ 31 3.11.3 Existing Noise Sources and Ambient Noise Levels ................................................... 31

3.12 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................ 32 3.12.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 32 3.12.2 Hazardous Materials Investigations ........................................................................... 32

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................................... 34

4.1 Land Resources ....................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 35 4.1.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 35

4.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 36 4.2.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 38 4.2.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 38

February 2020 iii Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 38 4.3.1 Methodology and Significance Criteria...................................................................... 38 4.3.2 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 41 4.3.3 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 43 4.3.4 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 44

4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 44 4.4.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 44 4.4.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 46 4.4.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 46

4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 46 4.5.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 46 4.5.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 46 4.5.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 46

4.6 Socioeconomic Conditions ...................................................................................................... 47 4.6.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 47 4.6.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 50 4.6.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 51

4.7 Transportation Networks ......................................................................................................... 51 4.7.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 51 4.7.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 53 4.7.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 53

4.8 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 53 4.8.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 53 4.8.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 54 4.8.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 55

4.9 Public Services and Utilities .................................................................................................... 55 4.9.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 55 4.9.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 57 4.9.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 57

4.10 Visual Resources ..................................................................................................................... 58 4.10.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 58 4.10.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 58 4.10.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 59

4.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 59 4.11.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 59 4.11.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 62 4.11.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 62

4.12 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................ 62 4.12.1 Alternative A – Proposed Project ............................................................................... 62 4.12.2 Alternative B – Reduced Intensity Alternative .......................................................... 63 4.12.3 Alternative C – No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 63

4.13 Cumulative Impacts and Indirect Effects ................................................................................ 63 4.13.1 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 63 4.13.2 Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................... 67

5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 67

5.1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 68 5.1.1 Migratory Birds and Other Birds of Prey ................................................................... 68 5.1.2 American Burying Beetle (ABB) ............................................................................... 68 5.1.3 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................... 69

February 2020 iv Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................................... 69

7.0 PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................... 73

LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Subject Property Parcel Information ................................................................................................ 1 2-1 Proposed Project Components ......................................................................................................... 4 2-2 Reduced Intensity Alternative Components .................................................................................. 10 3-1 Federal and State Water Resources Regulations ............................................................................ 15 3-2 Total Demand by Sector, Lower Washita Region (In Acre Feet) .................................................. 16 3-3 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Air Quality ................................................................... 17 3-4 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Biological Resources ................................................... 18 3-5 Habitat Descriptions....................................................................................................................... 19 3-6 Regionally Occuring Federally Listed Special-Status Species and Their Critical Habitat ............ 20 3-7 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Cultural Resources ....................................................... 22 3-8 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Socioeconomics ........................................................... 23 3-9 Competitive Environment in Marshall and Bryan Counties .......................................................... 24 3-10 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Land Use ...................................................................... 26 3-11 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Visual Resources .......................................................... 29 3-12 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Noise ............................................................................ 31 3-13 Regulatory Policies and Plans Related to Hazardous Materials .................................................... 32 4-1 Proposed Project – Water Demand ................................................................................................ 36 4-2 Greenhouse Gas CO2 Equivalent Conversion ................................................................................ 40 4-3 Constructon Emissions – Proposed Project ................................................................................... 41 4-4 2019 Operational Emissions – Proposed Project ........................................................................... 41 4-5 Project-Related GHG Emissions – Proposed Project .................................................................... 43 4-6 Five Behaviors of Casino Customers ............................................................................................. 49 4-7 Trip Generation Rates .................................................................................................................... 52 4-8 Proposed Project –Solid Waste Generation ................................................................................... 56 4-9 Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 59

APPENDICES Bibliography Appendix A Figures Appendix B Water and Wastewater Systems Memo Appendix C Will-Serve Letters Appendix D Expanded Regulatory Setting Appendix E Record of Consultation Appendix F Biological Resources Documents Appendix G Cultural Resources Study (Bound Separately) Appendix H Economic Impact Analysis Appendix I Traffic Impact Study Appendix J Hazardous Materials Documentation Appendix K Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Files

February 2020 v Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Acronyms Numerals/Special Characters A ABB American burying beetle ADT average daily traffic AES Analytical Environmental

Services AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year

amsl above mean sea level APA American Psychiatric

Association APE Area of Potential Effect ASTM American Society for Testing

and Materials B BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BMP Best Management Practice C CAA Clean Air Act CAP criteria air pollutant CEQ Council on Environmental

Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CTUA Chickasaw Tribal Utility

Authority CWA Clean Water Act

D dB decibel dBA a-weighted decibel

DPM diesel particulate matter DRO diesel range organics

E EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact

Statement EMFAC 2014 Emission Factor Model EMS emergency medical services

EO Executive Order EORO Eastern Oklahoma Regional

Office ESA Environmental Site

AssessmentF FEMA Federal Emergency

Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species

Act

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration G GHG greenhouse gas GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting

Program

gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GRO gasoline range organics

H HCM 2010 Highway Capacity

Manual HVAC heating, ventilating, and air

conditioning HVS HVS Consulting

I IBC International Building Code IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

K KFD Kingston Fire Department

February 2020 vi Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

L Ldn day-night average level noise

descriptor Leq average, or equivalent, sound

level

LID Low Impact Development Lighthorse Police Lighthorse Police Department LOS level of service

M MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCSO Marshall County Sheriff’s

Office MCWC Marshall County Water

Corporation

mg/L milligrams per litesr MHI median household income MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulator Version 2014b mph miles per hour

N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NAGPRA Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act

Nation Chickasaw Nation NEPA National Environmental Policy

Act NGISC National Gambling Impact

Study Commission

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources

Conservation Service NSR New Source Review NWI National Wetland Inventory

O O3 ozone OAS Oklahoma Archaeological

Survey OCC Oklahoma Corporation

Commission ODEQ Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality ODOT Oklahoma Department of

Transportation

OGS Oklahoma Geological Survey OHS Oklahoma Historical Society OHWM ordinary high water mark ONHI Oklahoma Natural Heritage

Inventory OTRD Oklahoma Tourism and

Recreation Department OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources

Board P PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCE passenger car equivalence PGA peak horizontal ground

acceleration PM10 particulate matter 10 microns

in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter

PPV peak particle velocity PSD Prevention of Significant

Deterioration psi pounds per square inch

R REC Recognized Environmental

Condition ROW right-of-way

RRVREA Red River Valley Rural Electric Association

S Secretary Secretary of the Interior sf square feet SHPO State Historic Preservation

Office/r SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide

SORD Southern Oklahoma Regional Disposal, Inc.

SOx sulfur oxide Subject Property 61.7 acres in Marshall County,

Oklahoma SWPPP Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan

February 2020 vii Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

T TEC Traffic Engineering

Consultants, Inc. Terracon Terracon Consultants, Inc. THPO Tribal Historic Preservation

Office/r TIS Traffic Impact Study

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon tpy tons per year TRB Transportation Research Board TTHM total trihalomethane

U US-70 U.S. Highway 70 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S Code USDA U.S. Department of

Agriculture

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank

V VOC volatile organic compound vpd vehicles per day

February 2020 1 Chickasaw Nation Kingston Casino Resort Project Draft Environmental Assessment

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to assess the environmental impacts of taking approximately 61.7 acres in Marshall County (County), Oklahoma (Subject Property), into federal trust status for the Chickasaw Nation (Nation) (Proposed Action). The Nation subsequently proposes to develop the trust parcel with a casino resort (Proposed Project). Pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S. Code (USC) § 5108, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is authorized to acquire land in trust for Indian tribes. The BIA reviews tribal applications to acquire land in trust pursuant to its trust land acquisition regulations at 25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 151. The Nation is seeking to acquire land in trust for gaming purposes. This EA has been completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC § 4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Guidelines for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1500 et seq.); and the BIA’s NEPA Guidebook (59 Indian Affairs Manual 3-H). For the purpose of this EA, the BIA serves as the Lead Agency for compliance with NEPA. This EA provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action and an analysis of the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action. This EA also includes a discussion and analysis of alternatives, including a Reduced Intensity Alternative and a No-Action Alternative. 1.2 LOCATION AND SETTING The 61.7-acre Subject Property is located south of U.S. Highway 70 (US-70), in Marshall County, Oklahoma, approximately 3.0 miles east of the town of Kingston, Oklahoma (Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of Appendix A). The Subject Property consists of the approximately 50-acre East Site, and the approximately 11.7-acre West Site. Table 1-1 shows the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and acreages for each site. Figure 1-3 of Appendix A shows the location of the two parcels comprising the Subject Property.

TABLE 1-1 SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL INFORMATION

Name Assessor’s Parcel Number Acreage West Site 0000-35-06S-06E-0-007-00 11.71

East Site 0000-36-06S-06E-0-004-00 50.00

Subject Property Total 61.71 Source: Marshall County Assessor, 2017

The East Site is within the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, Indian Meridian, of Marshall County, Oklahoma. The northern boundary of the East Site is demarcated by the ODOT right-of-way (ROW) south of US-70, the western boundary by the edge of Section 35, and the eastern boundary by Lake Texoma. The East Site was formerly within the boundaries of the Lake Texoma State Park, and was developed with the Texoma State Resort and multiple building associated with park activities. The site was removed


from the boundaries of the park in 2008, and the majority of the buildings, including the Resort, have since been decommissioned and removed. State Park Road bisects the property in a northwest-southeast direction, and provides access from US-70 road to Catfish Bay marina. North of State Park Road, the East Site currently contains abandoned infrastructure, including vacant buildings, paved surfaces, an unused water storage tank and former water treatment building from the former Lake Texoma State Park operations. South of the road, the site contains remnants of a now overgrown golf course with golf cart paths, water hazards, tees, and some small trees and shrubs. Remnants of the former development, including paved parking areas and building foundations of the former lodge, occupy approximately 10 percent of the East Site, while the rest is undeveloped and consists of cleared fields and vegetation. Adjacent properties include the Chickasaw Pointe Golf Course, across US-70 to the north; Catfish Bay, a private marina, approximately one third of a mile to the southeast; Lake Texoma State Park Airport, a small local airstrip owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2017), approximately 900 feet to the west; and Catfish Bay Marina Mart, a local convenience store and gas station, approximately 300 feet to the northwest. The West Site, located approximately half a mile west of the East Site, is largely undeveloped with the exception of electrical utility lines and unpaved service roads used to access the wastewater lagoons on the adjacent property to the south. The West Site consists mostly of cleared fields in the center; however, most of its border is heavily wooded. Adjacent land south and southwest of the West Site is undeveloped. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The federal Proposed Action is the transfer into trust of the Subject Property pursuant to the Secretary’s authority under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 USC § 5108. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to facilitate tribal self-sufficiency, self-determination, and economic development. This purpose satisfies the Department of the Interior’s (Department’s) land acquisition policy articulated in the Department’s trust land regulations at 25 CFR, Part 151, and is the principle goal of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act articulated in 25 USC § 2701. The need for the Department to act on the Nation’s application is established by the Department’s regulations at 25 CFR §§ 151.10(h) and 151.12. 1.4 CHICKASAW NATION The Chickasaw Nation provides a comprehensive range of governmental services to its citizens such as health care, education, and housing. Since the Chickasaw Nation has virtually no tax base, it relies primarily on commercial enterprises to generate the revenue necessary to support those services. Such enterprises also contribute substantially to the overall economic and municipal health of the region providing meaningful employment to tribal citizens and non-tribal employees and fostering regional economic stability. The acquisition of additional trust lands is a key component of the Nation’s broader economic initiatives to consolidate its land base and establish a long-term, sustainable revenue base. A sustainable revenue base will strengthen the Nation’s government, enhance the quality and quantity of governmental services, create employment opportunities for tribal members and the surrounding community, and provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities. 1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This EA was prepared in accordance with NEPA to analyze and document the environmental consequences of constructing a casino and associated facilities subsequent to the transfer of 61 acres into federal trust status for the Nation. Preparation of this EA included consultation with the FAA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department (OTRD), the Chickasaw Nation Department of Interior Services, Chickasaw Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office/r (THPO), and others. The BIA will use this EA to determine whether or not the Proposed Action would result in adverse effects to the environment. The BIA will also use this EA to determine whether a


Finding of No Significant Impact or an Environmental Impact Statement is appropriate for the Proposed Action. 1.6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS The following direct or indirect federal approvals and actions may occur as a result of the Proposed Action: Transfer of the 61-acre site into federal trust status for the Nation by the Secretary of the

Department of the Interior. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit

for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office/r (SHPO) under Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), if historic properties may be adversely affected by the Proposed Action.

Issuance of a Minor New Source Review (NSR) Permit that may be required in accordance with new regulations under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgates class-specific guidelines or regulations requiring that the Nation obtain one.

Issuance of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit from the USACE for placement of fill into Waters of the U.S. related to re-routing of an intermittent stream that traverses the West Site.

Issuance of an encroachment permit for road construction on State Park Road, which may be required from the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).

SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternatives that are analyzed within this EA. These alternatives include the Proposed Project –Casino Resort (Alternative A), the Reduced Intensity (Alternative B), and the No Action Alternative (Alternative C). Consistent with CEQ guidelines (40 CFR § 1502.14), this section summarizes the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action (described in more detail in Section 4.0 of this EA) and the potential benefits and/or detriments of the project alternatives, as compared to the Proposed Action. Alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in this EA are also described. A reasonable range of alternatives has been selected based on consideration of the purpose and need of the Proposed Action and opportunities for potentially reducing environmental effects. 2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT The Proposed Action consists of transferring the 61.7-acre Subject Property into federal trust status for the benefit of the Nation, and the subsequent development of a casino-resort and associated facilities on the trust property. 2.1.1 CASINO DEVELOPMENT The Nation proposes to develop a casino resort and associated facilities on the site after it is conveyed into federal trust status for gaming purposes (Proposed Project). A conceptual site plan for the Proposed Project is shown in Figure 2-1 of Appendix A. Proposed facilities include a casino-resort, with a gaming


floor, 40-room hotel, restaurant, and retail space, 10 rental cabins along the lake, a parking lot, and ancillary infrastructure. A breakdown of project components is provided in Table 2-1.

TABLE 2-1 PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS

Component Units Approximate Square Footage Casino Resort

Gaming Floor 300 machines 5 tables 9,633

Retail (including tackle store) 1,596 Restaurants (sports bar, kitchen) 2,729 Back of House 8,324 Meeting Space 1,068 Hotel 40 rooms 29,764

Total 53,114 Cabins 10 16,350 Parking 556 spaces

Source: Chickasaw Nation, 2017 The casino-resort would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Proposed Project would create 108 new employment opportunities at the casino-resort. The casino would have 300 Class II and III gaming machines and 5 table games. Approximately 556 surface-level parking spaces would be constructed to accommodate patrons and employees. The casino-resort building would also include a 48-foot decorative tower. Construction Construction of the casino-resort would occur in one phase starting in 2020. Construction of the parking lot, on-site utilities, and landscaping would occur simultaneously with construction of the casino. Construction would be consistent with the State of Oklahoma building codes, including electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, and seismic standards. The proposed facilities would conform to the requirements of the International Building Code (IBC). An indoor sprinkler system would be installed to provide fire protection. Water Supply The estimated average daily water usage for the Proposed Project would be approximately 10,167 gallons per day (gpd) (Appendix B), with a peak hourly water usage of 28.24 gallons per minute (gpm). Water to serve the Proposed Project would be supplied by Marshall County Water Corporation (MCWC). Appendix C contains a letter from Robert Moore, System Manager, confirming MCWC’s intent to serve the Proposed Project at a rate of 30 gpm with a minimum pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi). This letter also mentions that the connection point with existing MCWC infrastructure would be located at the northwest corner of the East Site (Appendix C). No off-site modifications to water supply facilities would be necessary to serve the Proposed Project. There is an existing 4-inch water line that runs parallel to US-70 along the southern ROW, and the Proposed Project would be served from this existing line through a new 2-inch master meter and proposed 4-inch potable water line.


Fire demand for the Proposed Project is estimated at 750 gpm for a minimum of 120 minutes or 90,000 gallons. Therefore, a water tank with a recommended capacity of 112,500 gallons would be located in the southeast corner of the East Site to provide reserve capacity for fire suppression. The tank would be filled by a 4-inch service line connected to the proposed 4-inch potable water line, with pressure transducer and electrical controls regulating the tank’s water level. Fire flow would be supplied through a fire pump that feeds an 8-inch loop around the Proposed Project (Appendix B). Grading and Drainage Construction would involve grading and excavation for building pads and parking lots. Given the relatively flat and previously graded conditions of the site, it is likely that construction can be accomplished with balanced on-site cut and fill; however, some structural-grade fill would likely be imported to meet engineering requirements for roadways, parking areas, and building footings. Structural fill would be transported in accordance with state and county requirements during normal construction hours (6 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and dust suppression Best Management Practices (BMP) would be used for roadways and trucks. Features designed to filter surface runoff and reduce peak storm flows would be incorporated into the project design. Stormwater facilities would be designed to detain stormwater runoff and allow it to be released slowly over a longer period, so that the post-development peak flows do not exceed existing peak flows. These features may include the use of stormwater detention ponds, bio-retention facilities, vegetated filter strips, and possibly permeable pavement. Bio-retention facilities are low points that store runoff and allow it to infiltrate; these would be incorporated between rows of vehicles in the parking lots. The bio-filtration swales are considered a Low Impact Development (LID) technique to reduce impacts to surface waters (USEPA, 2012), which in the case of the Proposed Project would be sheet flow across the relatively flat land. Proposed vegetated filter strips are areas of landscaped vegetation adjacent to impervious areas that would reduce the velocity of runoff and allow pollution to be deposited into the vegetated areas. Permeable pavement, which is an option being considered by the Tribe for parking lot areas, would have a high infiltration rate while accommodating heavy vehicle loads. The Nation would comply with the NPDES general permit and implement stormwater discharge management controls that effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters during construction in accordance with the CWA. In accordance with NPDES general permit requirements, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared prior to construction. The SWPPP would include BMPs to minimize stormwater effects to water quality during construction. Roadway Access The Proposed Project would be accessible via three full-access driveways on State Park Road, at the western edge of the East Site (as shown in Figure 2-1 of Appendix A). The middle drive would be the main entry for patrons and employees. The north drive would be the service drive and for property management. Loading docks would be located on the northeast side of the casino-resort building. The south drive would provide access to the hotel. Health and Safety Standards Implementation of current design standards specified in the IBC would protect public health and safety. For security purposes, the Nation would provide nighttime lighting in parking lots. The Nation would ensure that the proposed casino would comply with all applicable federal regulatory requirements, including those of the National Indian Gaming Commission and the U.S. Public Health Services Food Code. The Chickasaw Nation Gaming Commission would ensure the Proposed Project complies with all applicable federal regulatory requirements.


Law Enforcement The Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police Department (Lighthorse Police) would be the primary agency responsible for law enforcement associated with the Proposed Project. Appendix C contains a letter from Jalinda Kelley, Secretary of the Chickasaw Nation Department of Interior Services, which confirms the intent and ability of Lighthorse Police to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Project. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The Kingston Fire Department (KFD) currently serves the vicinity of the Subject Property. Appendix C contains a letter from James Kuykendall, Fire Chief, which confirms the KFD’s intent and ability to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Project. If necessary, the terms and conditions of KFD’s fire protection services will be further clarified in an agreement with between the KFD and the Nation. A water tank with a recommended capacity of 112,500 gallons would be located near the development to provide capacity for fire suppression at the proposed casino resort facilities (Appendix B). Building plans and specifications would include fire suppression systems, including an indoor sprinkler system. Marshall County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) currently serves the vicinity of the Subject Property. Appendix C contains a letter from Toni Coates, EMS Director, which confirms Marshall County EMS’ intent and ability to provide EMS to the Proposed Project. If necessary, the terms and conditions of Marshall County EMS’ services will be further clarified in an agreement between Marshall County EMS and the Nation. Wastewater Treatment All wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated on the West Site (Figure 2-1 of Appendix A). The wastewater treatment system will utilize a Facultative Lagoon design, consistent with USEPA requirements, the Oklahoma Administration Code § 252:656-11-1 and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regulations. Facultative lagoons have been used in the United Stated for over 90 years to treat municipal and industrial wastewater with over 7,000 facultative lagoons in operation today (USEPA, 2002). Facultative lagoons may be either total retention or flow-through (discharge) to waters of the state. The Subject Property would use a total retention lagoon system (including both primary and evaporation lagoons), and would be sized to meet an anticipated average daily flow of 10,167 gpd. Wastewater would flow out of the south side of the facility into a gravity sewer that would empty into a lift station located in the southeast of the East Site. From the lift station, the wastewater would be pumped to the lagoons on the West Site via a 3-inch force main running along existing utility easements (refer to the pipeline route shown on Figure 2-1 of Appendix A). The primary lagoons would have a total area of 1.08 acres, and the evaporation lagoons would have a total area of 3.52 acres (Appendix B). To accommodate the lagoons, the unnamed intermittent stream running through the West Site will be rerouted around the location of the proposed lagoons. The facilities have been designed to accommodate inflow from the 90th percentile rainfall for the area of impact, which is the maximum yearly rainfall over a 10 year period. The 90 percentile rainfall design would prevent overflow during heavy annual rainfalls (Streebin, 2020). 2.1.2 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Protective measures and BMPs have been incorporated into the project design to eliminate or substantially reduce environmental consequences from the Proposed Action. These measures are discussed below. Land Resources The following BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for effects to land resources:


A grading report will be prepared and submitted with the working design plans. All

recommendations of the report will be adhered to. All site clearing, removal of all unsuitable soil, proper moisture conditioning, review of imported

fill material, fill placement, observation of foundation excavations, and other site grading will be verified during construction to ensure compliance with standard engineering practices.

All structures will meet IBC requirements. A site-specific soil erosion control plan will be prepared and implemented during construction.

Water Resources The SWPPP prepared for the Subject Property may include, but would not be limited to, the following BMPs: Major grading activities will be scheduled during the dry season (April-October). Erosion control blankets or jute netting will be placed in rough-graded ditches and then

hydroseeded. Fiber rolls and straw wattles will be installed around the down-slope perimeters of the

construction site and at the base of all stockpiles. Hay or straw mulch and tackifier will be applied at the manufactures specifications and used as a

temporary measure for stabilizing disturbed areas. Landscaping will be managed to minimize erosion and sedimentation according to the following

practices: Rock filter berms will be placed across roadways. Sediment basins will be installed and will be removed during the final phase of construction. Silt fencing will be placed down-slope of exposed soil areas. Sacked rock filters will be placed around new curbs and drainage inlets until the soils are

stabilized with permanent landscaping. Catch basins, junction boxes, culverts, and outfall structures/energy dissipaters will be used

during grading and construction. Detention basins will be constructed to provide for sediment settling. Ingress/egress points to the Subject Property will be stabilized and graded. Cleaning, fueling, maintenance, and repair of construction vehicles and equipment will be

performed off-site whenever possible. If done onsite, secondary containment will be used to prevent spills.

Check dams will be installed to reduce velocity of water flow during precipitation events. Diversion berms and ditches will be constructed to guide stormwater runoff toward catch basins. The construction contractor will be responsible for all maintenance, inspection, and repair to all

erosion and sediment control measures throughout the construction period, and will ensure that all other protective devices are maintained and repaired in good and effective condition.

LID methods would be implemented as detailed in the Site Grading and Stormwater Drainage Master Plan to mimic the predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate, and detain stormwater runoff. Techniques that would be included in the project design include:

o Bio-retention facilities o Vegetated filter strips o Additional LID methods that may be included, but would be optional include: o Permeable pavement


Air Quality Construction The following BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for effects to air quality resulting from construction: All active construction areas will be watered at least twice daily. All trucks hauling soil and other loose materials will be covered or will be required to maintain at

least two feet of freeboard. All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites will be paved, or

will be subject to twice-daily applications of water or nontoxic soil stabilizers. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites will be swept daily

with water sweepers. Streets will be swept daily with water sweepers if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent

public streets. Excavation and grading activity will be suspended when instantaneous wind gusts exceed 25

miles per hour (mph). Onsite traffic will be restricted to reduce soil disturbance and the transport of material onto

roadways. Dirt, gravel, and debris piles will be covered as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx),

and carbon monoxide (CO) will be controlled whenever reasonable and practicable by requiring all diesel-powered equipment be properly maintained and minimizing idling time to five minutes when construction equipment is not in use, unless per engine manufacturer’s specifications or for safety reasons more time is required. Since these emissions will be generated primarily by construction equipment, machinery engines will be kept in good mechanical condition to minimize exhaust emissions.

Operation The following measures would be implemented to reduce the potential for effects on air quality from operation: Onsite pedestrian facility enhancements such as walkways, benches, proper lighting, and building

access will be provided, which are physically separated from parking lot traffic. Adequate ingress and egress at entrances will be provided to minimize vehicle idling and traffic

congestion. Buildings will be designed to include efficient lighting (such as day lighting) and lighting control

systems. Energy efficient heating and cooling systems as well as appliances will be installed in the casino-

resort and cabins. Clean fuel vehicles will be utilized in the vehicle fleet where practicable, which would reduce

criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the region. Shuttle service to and from population centers shall be provided as feasible, which would reduce

criteria pollutants and GHGs. Water consumption shall be reduced through low-flow appliances, drought resistant landscaping

and the incorporation of “Save Water” signs near water faucets throughout the development. Recycling bins will be provided in publicly accessible areas.

Cultural Resources The following BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for effects to cultural resources:


Any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources shall be subject to Section 106 of the NHPA as amended (36 CFR § 800), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; 25 USC § 3001 et seq.), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC § 470aa-mm). Specifically, procedures for post review discoveries without prior planning pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.13 shall be followed. The purpose of the following mitigation measures is to minimize the potential adverse effect of construction activities to previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources in the case of inadvertent discovery:

All work shall be halted and the Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office (EORO) BIA archaeologist and Chickasaw Nation THPO shall be notified immediately. Construction shall not resume until the EORO BIA archaeologist and THPO assess the significance and size of the find.

If any archaeological find is determined to be significant by the EORO BIA archaeologist and THPO, then the THPO and representatives of the Nation shall meet with the EORO BIA archaeologist to determine the appropriate course of action, including the development of a Treatment Plan and implementation of appropriate provisions, if necessary.

All significant cultural or paleontological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards.

If human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities on Tribal lands, pursuant to NAGPRA, the THPO and EORO BIA archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the Chickasaw Nation THPO and EORO BIA archaeologist have made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains.

Public Services and Utilities – Fire Safety The following BMPs would be implemented during project construction to ensure that there would be no adverse effect to fire protection services: Construction equipment will contain spark arrestors, as provided by the manufacturer. Frequent watering will occur in and around areas where power tools or torches are used.

Visual Resources The following BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for facility lighting to result in effects on the surrounding environment: Placement of floodlights on buildings will be designed so as to not cast light off site. Shielding, such as with a horizontal shroud, will be used for all outdoor lighting so as to ensure it

is downcast. Noise The following BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for noise effects: Construction activities within a half-mile of existing noise-sensitive uses will be limited to

daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). All powered equipment will comply with applicable federal regulations and all such equipment

will be fitted with adequate mufflers according to the manufacturer’s specifications to minimize construction noise effects.

Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment will be shielded to reduce noise. To the extent feasible, pile driving, should it take place, will not occur prior to 9:00 a.m. or after

5:00 p.m.


Hazardous Materials The following BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for hazardous materials effects: The Nation should include the following requirement in construction contract specifications for

construction activities associated with the Proposed Project: o If contaminated soil and/or groundwater are encountered or if suspected contamination is

encountered during project construction, work will be halted in the area, and the type and extent of the contamination will be determined. A qualified environmental professional, in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies, will then assess and develop an appropriate method to remediate the contamination. If necessary, the Nation will implement a remediation plan in conjunction with continued project construction.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative B) consists of the transfer of the 61.7-acre site into federal trust status for gaming purposes for the benefit of the Nation and the subsequent development of a casino resort on the site. As described in Section 2.1.1 for the Proposed Project, the casino resort would include a gaming floor, restaurant, retail space, player’s club, cabins, adjacent parking lot, and ancillary facilities. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is similar to the Proposed Project, except that the casino resort and associated facilities would be reduced in size when compared to the Proposed Project, and no cabins would be developed. A breakdown of the facilities proposed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative is provided in Table 2-2.

TABLE 2-2 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS

Component Units Approximate Square Footage Casino Resort

Gaming Floor 200 machines; 3 tables 6,358 Retail (including tackle store) 1,053 Restaurants (sports bar, kitchen) 1,801 Back of House 5,494 Meeting Space 932 Hotel 30 rooms 9,900

Total 35,055 Parking 367 spaces

Source: Chickasaw Nation, 2017 As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would employ fewer people and attract fewer patrons than the Proposed Project. The casino would have 200 gaming machines and 3 table games. Water supply, wastewater treatment and disposal, grading and drainage, roadway access, public health and safety standards, fire protection, and law enforcement under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project (Section 2.1.1) but with a reduced demand for services due to the smaller development size. Project construction methods and BMPs would be identical to those described for the Proposed Project (Section 2.1.2).


2.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be placed in federal trust for the benefit of the Nation, and no development would occur on-site. The Subject Property would remain undeveloped. 2.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 2.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Among the project alternatives considered, the Proposed Project, which is fully evaluated in Section 4.0, would best meet the Purpose and Need for Action by providing the greatest socioeconomic benefit to the Nation. 2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar effects to the environment as the Proposed Project but would provide the Nation and the community with less economic benefit than the Proposed Project. Potential effects associated with traffic, air, and noise would be less due to the smaller sized casino that would be constructed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. 2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would remain in its existing condition and would not be taken into trust. There would be no environmental effects associated with the construction of the Proposed Project. Under the No Action Alternative, the Nation would not achieve any of the economic benefit that would be achieved with development of the Proposed Project or Reduced Intensity Alternative. Moreover, the Nation would not be able to utilize its landholdings in a manner that would most benefit its members. This alternative would be less preferable than the Proposed Project since it would not meet the stated Purpose and Need for action. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The intent of the analysis of alternatives in the EA is to present to decision makers and the public a reasonable range of alternatives that are both feasible and sufficiently different from each other in critical aspects. Section 1502.14(a) of the CEQ regulations for implementing the NEPA require a discussion of alternatives that were eliminated from further study, and the reasons for their having been eliminated. Alternatives discussed below were considered and excluded from full EA analysis either because these alternatives were deemed infeasible, would not fulfill the stated purpose and need of the Proposed Action, and/or were not sufficiently distinguishable from the Proposed Action that the analysis would offer additional information to assist the BIA in its consideration of impacts under NEPA. 2.5.1 OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES After a private developer bought the East Site in 2008, the Lake Texoma Lodge and Resort was demolished in 2009. However, plans for the construction of a resort fell through during the economic downturn in 2008. The State of Oklahoma approached the Chickasaw Nation about a partnership to restart the development process on the site to create a major tourism and recreation attraction. Because the State approached the Nation with this site in mind for a joint effort to promote the regional tourism industry, and the Nation seeks to work cooperatively with the State, off-site alternatives were eliminated from further consideration as they would not have met the purpose and need stated herein.


2.5.2 ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES A non-gaming alternative, with a resort development but no gaming floor, was considered for analysis. However, a non-gaming alternative would not generate sufficient revenue to be a financially viable alternative and thus would not meet the stated purpose and need.

SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section presents relevant information about the existing environment of the area that may be affected by the Proposed Project and alternatives. The following environmental issue areas are described: Land Resources, Water Resources, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice, Transportation, Land Use, Public Services and Utilities, Visual Resources, Noise, and Hazardous Materials. Additional details on the regulatory setting summarized below are included within Appendix D. 3.1 LAND RESOURCES 3.1.1 TOPOGRAPHY The Subject Property is located within the Red River Valley, which extends along southern Oklahoma. The Valley consists of rolling prairie and forested land. The Red River Valley generally ranges from about 400 to 900 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and is bisected by deep rivers (McGraw Hill, 2017). The topography of the Subject Property and adjacent properties is relatively flat with a downward slope toward Lake Texoma. The elevation on both the 50-acre East Site and 11.7-acre West Site ranges from approximately 660 to 690 feet amsl. A topographic map of the Subject Property is provided as Figure 1-2 of Appendix A. 3.1.2 GEOLOGY Geomorphic regions are broad-scale subdivisions based on terrain, texture, rock type, and geologic structure and history. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) uses a three-tiered classification of the United States, by division, province, and section, to provide a spatial organization for the great variety of the country’s physical features. The Subject Property falls within the Interior Plains major physiographic division, Central Lowland province, Osage Plains region (USGS, 2008). Locally, the Subject Property is within the Bokchito formation. This is described as mostly clay and clay shale, with some tan-colored limestones and fine-grained sandstones (Terracon Consultants, Inc. [Terracon], 2016a). The formation is 140 feet thick, with the lowermost 90 feet being sandy clay shale and 20 to30 feet of sandstone layered above. The top formation is a hard semi crystalline limestone separated by shales (USGS, 2017). Seismic Hazards USGS determines the chance of damage from an earthquake by using the occurrence rate of peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) ground motions along with ground motions correlated with a modified Mercalli Intensity Map for alluvial soil. PGA is defined as the largest increase in velocity recorded by a particular station during an earthquake (USGS, 2010). The acceleration of gravity is


approximately 9.81 meters per second per second. Based on these determinations, the Subject Property is located in an area with a less than one percent chance of damage from an earthquake (USGS, 2016a). USGS defines a fault as “active” if it has moved one or more times in the last 10,000 years (USGS, 2016b). No active faults are located near the Subject Property (USGS, 2016c). The nearest fault to the Subject Property is the southeastern section of the Meers Fault, approximately 106 miles northwest of the Subject Property. The most recent activity on the Meers Fault occurred during the late Quaternary period (≤ 15,000 years; USGS, 2016c). However, in recent years Oklahoma has experienced an increase in the number and severity of earthquakes, which are believed to be triggered by human activity in the region. The most recent earthquake in the vicinity of the Subject Property occurred in 2015, at a site located approximately 14 miles north of the Subject Property (Office of the Secretary Of Energy & Environment, 2016). 3.1.3 SOILS Soil Types and Characteristics The Subject Property was examined on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey website (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], 2017). The Subject Property consists of soils classified in four soil map units: Durant clay loam, Tarrant very cobbly clay, Ferris-Tarrant complex, and Konsil sandy loam (NRCS, 2017). The soil types on the Subject Property are shown in Figure 3-1 of Appendix A and described in detail in Table 1 of Appendix D. The Durant clay loam, Ferris-Tarrant complex, and Konsil sandy loam are moderately susceptible to water erosion, while the Tarrant cobbly clay is slightly susceptible to water erosion (NRCS, 2017). The Durant clay loam and Tarrant cobbly clay are less susceptible to wind erosion, while the Ferris-Tarrant complex and Konsil sandy loam are more susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS, 2017). Soil Hazards Expansive Soils Expansive soils are largely comprised of clays, which may increase in volume when water is absorbed and shrink when dried. Expansive soils are of concern because building foundations may rise during the rainy season and fall during the dry season in response to the clay's action; this action can cause structural distortion. A majority of the soil classifications on the Subject Property have moderate shrink-swell potential. Approximately 3.6 percent of the soils located on the East site have a low expansive potential. Approximately 88.5 percent of the soils located on the East Site are moderately expansive and approximately 7.9 percent of the soils are classified as very highly expansive (NRCS, 2017). Additionally, approximately 44.8 percent of the soils located on the West Site are moderately expansive while approximately 55.2 percent have a low expansive potential (NRCS, 2017). Corrosivity Corrosivity pertains to a soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes concrete or steel. Approximately 64 percent of the soils located on the East are moderately corrosive to concrete. Approximately 96 percent of the soils are classified as highly corrosive to steel and approximately 4 percent are moderately corrosive to steel (NRCS, 2017). Additionally, 100 percent of the soils located on the West site are moderately corrosive to concrete. Approximately 55.2 percent of the soils located on the West Site are moderately corrosive to steel, while 44.8 percent are highly corrosive to steel (NRCS, 2017). The soils on the Subject Property have been assigned a flooding frequency class of “none.” Flooding and ponding on these soils is not probable; the percent chance in any year is near zero (NRCS, 2017). The soils on the Subject Property generally have a moderate saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), with the


Ferris-Tarrant complex having a lower Ksat, and the Konsil sandy loam having a higher Ksat. Saturated hydraulic conductivity refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water (NRCS, 2017). Permeability reflects the ability of water to percolate through soils, as well as the ability of the soils to retain moisture and water. The Durant series has a “very slow” permeability, the Tarrant series has a “moderately slow” permeability, and the Konsil series has a “moderate” permeability (USDA, 1997; USDA, 2011; USDA, 2003). Currently, the Subject Property contains approximately five acres of impermeable surfaces, which are located on the East Site. 3.1.4 MINERAL RESOURCES Various mineral resources are produced in Oklahoma, including coal, granite, gypsum, lead, and limestone (Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS), 2008a). According to the USGS Mineral Resource Data System, several gravel pits and limestone pits are located in the vicinity of the Subject Property. Nine unknown gravel pits are located between 4.0 and 5.0 miles southwest of the Subject Property; four unknown limestone pits are located approximately 8.9 miles west of the Subject Property; and three unknown limestone and gravel pits are located between 7.0 and 8.5 miles northwest of the Subject Property. All of these mining sites are listed as past producers, indicating that they are not currently active (USGS, 2015). Several other mineral sites are dispersed throughout Marshall County that operate as surface-type mines to obtain their primary commodities. No mining operations, past or present, are recorded as being located at the Subject Property. During 2011, wells in Marshall County produced 541,389 barrels (42 gallons per barrel) of oil and 10,374,183 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. These production numbers were approximately 0.70 percent and 0.67 percent of the state’s 2011 production for oil and gas, respectively (OCC, 2011). No oil or natural gas wells are located near the Subject Property, but oil and gas wells are dispersed throughout the County (OCC, 2016). 3.2 WATER RESOURCES The following discussion describes the existing surface water hydrology, flooding conditions, groundwater hydrology, and water quality in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The East Site is sloped downwards toward Lake Texoma, which is located immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Subject Property. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. are discussed in Section 3.4. 3.2.1 REGULATORY SETTING The water resources regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-1, and additional information on the regulatory setting is provided in Appendix D. 3.2.2 SURFACE WATER Water Supply The entire state of Oklahoma is within USGS hydrologic unit number 11, which consists of the Arkansas and Red River Basins before they drain into the Mississippi River (USGS, 2014). The Subject Property is located within the Red River Drainage Basin, which contains 10.75 million acre-feet (AF) of available water. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) subdivided the basin into 18 stream systems; the Subject Property is located within the Lower Washita River Watershed, which contains approximately 422,488 AF of available water (OGS, 2008b). Several reservoirs, used primarily for public water supply and flood control, are located in the Red River Basin, the closest being Lake Texoma, located directly east of the Subject Property. The capacity of Lake Texoma is approximately 2.5 million AF (Texas Water Development Board, 2017). As of April 2017, the volume of water in the reservoir was approximately


2.4 million AF. On average, the reservoir releases water at approximately 11,000 cubic feet per second (OWRB, 2017a).

TABLE 3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE WATER RESOURCES REGULATIONS

Regulation Description

Federal CWA Establishes national water quality goals

Sections 303 and 304 requires impaired water bodies by identified and ranked based on severity Section 401 requires a permit be obtained for discharge into Waters of the U.S. from the USEPA Section 402 requires an NPDES permit be obtained to discharge pollutants into “Waters of the

U.S.” Anti-Degradation Policy

Each state must develop an anti-degradation policy to protect the minimum level of off-Reservation surface water quality necessary to support existing uses

Safe Drinking Water Act

The USEPA sets Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water contaminants of concern to the domestic water supply

Executive Order (EO) 11988

Requires that federal agencies evaluate the potential effects of any actions they may take in a floodplain

Requires agencies proposing that an action be allowed in a floodplain to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects

If the only practicable alternative action requires siting in a floodplain, requires the agency to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain

Potable water is supplied to the vicinity of the Subject Property by MCWC (Search, Inc., 2017). Lake Rex Smith, located approximately 8.3 miles west of the Subject Property, is the primary source of water supplied by MCWC (Moore, 2017). The lake, fed by Buncombe Creek, was built in 1998 to serve 3,600 households in the area (NewsOK, 1998). Its capacity is approximately 2,000 AF of water. There is no limit to the amount of water MCWC can draw from Lake Rex Smith (Moore, 2017). Lake Oteka is located approximately 17.5 miles northwest of the Subject Property and serves as the area’s reserve water source when Rex Smith Lake water levels are too low for use. However, water has only been drawn from Lake Oteka one time (in 2014) in the last approximately fifteen-year time period (Moore, 2017). Water Quality A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a given water body can assimilate daily and still meet state water quality standards (ODEQ, 2012). ODEQ maintains such a list and manages the TMDL program in Oklahoma. As of March 2017, no TMDLs have been completed for waterbodies in the vicinity of the Subject Property (USEPA, 2017a; USEPA, 2017b). The water in Lake Texoma is of very poor quality and not suitable for municipal and industrial uses without treatment. Lake Texoma is classified as an impaired waterbody by the USEPA, but the probable source of contamination is unknown. The lake shows decreasing trends of conductivity and nitrogen levels, while turbidity is increasing. These trends can lead to impacts such as harmful algal blooms and murky clarity. A TMDL is still needed for chloride and dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Texoma (USEPA, 2017a). Approximately 98 percent of Oklahoma’s allocated water from Lake Texoma is used for irrigation purposes. Lake Texoma is classified as a “sensitive public and private water supply,” meaning it is more susceptible to pollution events and requires additional protection. This classification restricts point source discharges to protect against taste and odor problems (OWRB, 2012). Lake Rex Smith has a low susceptibility to contamination. However, in February 2015 the lake was in violation for total trihalomethanes (TTHM). TTHM is most likely a by-product of drinking water chlorination. MCWC corrected this violation by September 2015 (MCWC, 2016). Similar to Lake Rex Smith, Lake Oteka has a low susceptibility to contamination. However, in February 2015 the lake was in


violation of the Maximum Contaminant Level for both halocaetic acids and TTHM. Haloacetic acids and TTHM are both most likely a by-product of drinking water chlorination. MCWC corrected these violations by September 2015 (MCWC, 2016). 3.2.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOODING Stormwater generally flows with the topography of the site, which is relatively flat with downward slopes adjacent to Lake Texoma. As described in Section 3.1.3, the soils of the Subject Property are composed of Durant clay loam (1 to 5 percent slopes), Tarrant very cobbly clay (2 to 15 percent slopes), Ferris-Tarrant complex (5 to 12 percent slopes), and Konsil sandy loam (1 to 5 percent slopes), which are considered well-drained soils (NRCS, 2017). The majority of the Subject Property is not located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) delimited 100- or 500-year flood zones (refer to Figure 3-2 of Appendix A). However, the northeastern edge of the Subject Property, which borders Lake Texoma, is located in Flood Zone A, with a base flood elevation of 647 feet, as described in a USACE finding, included in a letter dated January 10, 2017, as Appendix E. 3.2.4 GROUNDWATER Water Supply Oklahoma contains approximately 320 million AF of groundwater in storage within 23 distinct groundwater basins (OWRB, 1995). The Subject Property is located in Basin 21 of the Lower Washita Watershed; in Basin 21, the majority of groundwater rights are from the Antlers and Arbuckle-Simpson major bedrock aquifers and the Red River major alluvial aquifer. The total groundwater demand for the Lower Washita Region in 2010 was 80,440 acre-feet per year (AFY). Table 3-2 provides the total demand by each water use sector for 2010 and projections for 2030 in the Lower Washita Region. The use of groundwater to meet demand in Basin 21 is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 (OWRB, 2012).

TABLE 3-2 TOTAL DEMAND BY SECTOR, LOWER WASHITA REGION (IN ACRE FEET)

Planning Horizon

Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal &

Industrial Oil & Gas

Self-Supplied Industrial

Self-Supplied Residential

Thermoelectric Power Total

2010 29,100 8,320 31,770 5,970 3,270 3,270 0 80,440

2030 (Projected) 34,250 8,630 40,940 9.610 2,010 3,680 0 99,130 Source: OWRB, 2012.

Marshall County, including the Subject Property, is underlain by the Antlers aquifer, which is comprised of poorly cemented sandstone with some layers of sandy shale, silt, and clay. Aquifer storage in 2010 for Antlers aquifer was estimated at approximately 10.9 million AF, and the available groundwater for new permits was estimated at approximately 1.5 million AFY. The Antlers aquifer yields an average of 100 to 500 gpm and has a recharge rate of 0.3-1.7 inches/year. Areas of high irrigation account for the greatest fluctuation in water levels. Irrigation accounts for most of the consumption of the Antlers aquifer, accounting for 36 percent of water usage, but the aquifer also serves municipalities such as Johnston County (ORWB, 2012a). In Oklahoma, groundwater belongs to the land surface owner and is subject to reasonable use restrictions as regulated by the OWRB. Groundwater basins throughout the state are regulated by “maximum annual yield” limits that provide the total amount of fresh groundwater that can be withdrawn while allowing a minimum 20-year life of a specified groundwater basin. Once the maximum annual yield has been established, the amount of water allocated to each permit applicant can be proportionate to the amount of land owned or leased by the applicant, considered as the “equal proportionate share” (OWRB, 2011).


There are two groundwater monitoring wells located within the Subject Property, both drilled in 2016. One well was drilled to a depth of 26 feet and the other to a depth of 18 feet. Both wells have since been plugged and are no longer in use (OWRB, 2017b). Water Quality There are no significant groundwater quality issues in Basin 21 of the Lower Washita Region (OWRB, 2012). The water of the Antlers aquifer is also generally of good quality (OWRB, 1995). The water is slightly saline in the southern portion of the aquifer, with dissolved solids greater than 1,000 milligramss per liter (mg/L). Water quality is most suitable for industrial, municipal, and irrigation use; however, ODEQ identified elevated nitrate levels in the water and some areas of the aquifer as having low pH values (OWRB, 2012). 3.3 AIR QUALITY 3.3.1 REGULATORY SETTING The air quality and GHG regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-3, and additional information on regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-3 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY

Regulation Description Federal CAA of 1970 CAA created the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air

pollutants (CAP): ozone (O3), CO, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead

States are required to have State Implementation Plans (SIP) for areas that are not achieving the NAAQS (nonattainment areas)

General Conformity Rule requires demonstrating a proposed federal action will conform to the applicable SIP

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program protects Class I areas Tribal minor NSR permits are required if emissions would exceed certain standards

Climate Change The CEQ released guidance in 2016, indicating that reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions should be considered; however, this guidance was withdrawn under EO 13783 released March 31, 2017. There is no approved federal threshold for GHG emissions.

3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The climate and topography of a region can dictate a region’s air quality. Marshall County experiences cool winters and mild summers, with temperatures averaging in the 40s in the winter months and reaching the high 70s at the peak of summer. Average annual precipitation ranges is 42.8 inches per year (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2017). The structure and orientation of terrain features will often influence and even control air motion and mechanical turbulence in the lower atmosphere, which can dictate whether a region will have an increased or decreased concentration of air pollution. The topography in the region is flat with little or no variation in elevation. The main source of air pollution in the vicinity of the Subject Property is vehicles on local roadways, as well as recreational vehicles and airplanes. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the


East Site are two rural residential communities, approximately 0.8 miles west and south of the proposed casino building (Figure 1-3 of Appendix A). The nearest sensitive receptor to the West Site is a residence located approximately 350 feet to the west. The nearest school is Chickasaw Children’s Village approximately three miles northwest of the proposed casino building. Additionally, the Subject Property is located less than five miles east of Kington’s elementary, middle, and high schools. The nearest hospital is the Alliance Health Medical Group Primary Care in Kingston, approximately 10 miles from the Subject Property. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the biological resources that occur within the Subject Property. A biological survey was conducted on January 10 and 11, 2017, to characterize existing onsite habitats. 3.4.1 REGULATORY SETTING The regulatory setting concerning biological resources is summarized in Table 3-4, and additional information on the regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-4 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Federal

Provisions protect federally-listed wildlife and their habitat from take. Requires consultation under Section 7 of the FESA for federal agencies if take of a listed

Federal Endangered species is necessary to complete an otherwise lawful activity. Species Act (FESA) Considers habitat loss an impact to the species.

Defines critical habitat as specific geographic areas within a listed species range that contain features considered essential for the conservation of the listed species.

CWA Section 404 requires a permit the U.S.

from the USACE for discharge into wetlands or Waters of

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Protects migratory birds from take

Wetlands and Waters Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “Waters of the of the U.S. United States” subject to jurisdiction of the USACE. 3.4.2 VEGETATION AND HABITAT A biological survey was conducted on January 10 and 11, 2017, to characterize existing onsite habitats and determine if any special status species are present. A map of the habitat types observed within the Subject Property is provided in Figure 3-3 of Appendix A, and representative photographs of the site are provided in Figures 3-4a and 3-4b of Appendix A. The habitat types identified within the site include ruderal habitat, grassland, oak woodland, pond and riparian. A description of each habitat type is below in Table 3-5. 3.4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Special-status species are those plants and animals that are recognized, because of their rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, by federal, state, or other agencies. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as sensitive by state resource agencies or organizations within Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory (ONHI) and USFWS have identified no state-listed species and five federally listed species as potentially occurring in Marshall County, Oklahoma (Appendix F). Table 3-6 provides a summary of these federally listed special-status species based on the


ONHI and USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation data and provides a rationale for the species’ potential to occur within the Subject Property, based on on-site observations of habitat. As shown in the table, two special-status species have the potential to occur on or near the Subject Property: the whooping crane and the American burying beetle (ABB). These two species are described in detail below.

TABLE 3-5 HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

Habitat Type Habitat Description Ruderal Habitat The East Site is largely comprised of ruderal habitat consisting of previously disturbed areas that contain

weedy or non-native vegetation. South of State Park Road, within the area of the abandoned golf course, the habitat consists of weedy vegetation that grows on compacted or disturbed soils. North of State Park Road, ruderal vegetation borders the former parking lot and abandoned building pads. On the West Site, ruderal habitat includes an open field located in the northeast corner that has been recently disturbed and is full of non-native grasses and bare soil.

Paved/Developed Areas

In both the East and West Sites, there are paved and/or developed areas that do not currently support any vegetation. In the East Site, these areas include State Park Road, the parking lot to the north of the road, buildings, and building pads. In the West site, developed areas include an unvegetated dirt road that bisects the property from east to west.

Grassland There is a small amount of grassland habitat within the West Site. These areas (seen in Figure 3-3 of Appendix A) consist of native grassland species and are adjacent to oak woodlands. No woody vegetation is found in these habitats.

Oak Woodland As shown in Figure 3-3 of Appendix A, there are significant areas of oak woodland across the entirety of the West Site. Additionally, there is a small section of oak woodland in the East Site adjacent to Lake Texoma. These areas are characterized by closed canopy with small amounts of herbaceous vegetation and are dominated by Quercus species, primarily Postoak and Blackjack Oak.

Man-made Pond As shown in Figure 3-3 of Appendix A, there is one man-made pond located within the East Site. This pond is a remnant from the golf course, and this feature does not have any clear inlet or outlet. During the January 2017 site visit, this feature was dry but contained features consistent with recent inundation. It is characterized by a largely unvegetated oval with cracking soils, with a small ring of hydrophytic vegetation around the rim. It appears to be man-made, as the rim of the pond feature is above the elevation of the surrounding landscape.

Riparian There is one area of riparian vegetation in the West Site, as shown in Figure 3-3 of Appendix A. This area is characterized by closed canopy mixed with shrubby vegetation, and contains an intermittent stream running north to south, bisecting the West Site. This unnamed stream contains obvious and continuous bed and bank and an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) through the entire parcel. During the January 2017 site visit, this intermittent stream did not contain any running water. However, there were several persistent pools of water underlain by bedrock within the stream corridor.

Whooping crane (Grus americana) Federal Status: Endangered The whooping crane breeds and nests in wetland habitat within the Wood-Buffalo National Park, Canada, during the summer. Winter grounds are located on the Texas coast within the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. The migratory corridor of the species includes seven states in the Unites States, specific to the Great Plains: eastern Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.


TABLE 3-6 REGIONALLY OCCURRING FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITAT

Common Name (Scientific Name)

Federal Status Distribution Habitat Requirements Potential To Occur On-Site

Birds Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

FT Winters in coastal Texas and Chile, summers in the Canadian Arctic. Passes over Oklahoma during spring and fall migration periods.

In Oklahoma, only 30 incidences of Red Knots have been recorded, mostly during the fall migration.

No. The Subject Property does not provide habitat for this species.

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)

FT Piping plovers occur in three disjunct populations in North America: Northern Great Plains, Great Lakes, and Atlantic Coast. The species migrates through Oklahoma each spring and fall.

Breed on open, sparsely vegetated sand or gravel beaches adjacent to alkali wetlands, and on beaches, sand bars, and dredged material islands of major river systems.

No. The Subject Property does not provide habitat for this species, although they may occur adjacent to the site on Lake Texoma.

Whooping crane (Grus Americana)

FE Whooping cranes pass through western Oklahoma each spring and fall during migration. The Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, near Jet, Oklahoma, is a very important migration stopover area and is designated critical habitat. During migration, whooping cranes sometimes are sighted elsewhere in Oklahoma along rivers, in grain fields, or in shallow wetlands.

The whooping crane breeds, migrates, winters, and forages in a variety of wetland and other habitats, including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural fields.

Yes. May occur on the edge of Lake Texoma, adjacent to the Subject Property, or within the one small pond on the East Site.

Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum)

FE In Oklahoma, least terns may be found on portions of the Arkansas, Cimarron, Canadian, and Red rivers.

Terns live along large rivers and may sometimes be found hunting fish in shallow wetlands and the margins of ponds and lakes. Least terns require bare sand and gravel for nesting and typically nest in small colonies consisting of two to 20 pairs along large rivers on sand bars and scoured bends.

No. The Subject Property does not provide habitat for this species, although they may occur adjacent to the site on Lake Texoma.

Insects American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

FE Found in the eastern part of Oklahoma Can be found in a broad range of vegetative communities, including grasslands, riparian areas, old fields, shrublands, and hardwood forests

Yes. Habitats that contain the beetle’s food source exists on the Subject Property.

FEDERAL STATUS CODES: FE: Endangered – in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FT: Threatened. Source: Appendix F.


The complete corridor is approximately 2,400 miles long by 220 miles wide, and includes 95 percent of known sighting of whooping cranes. The whooping crane is known to start its migration in mid-September, arriving to the Texas wintering grounds between late October and mid-November. Spring migration toward Canada normally occurs between March 25 and April 15 (USFWS, 2017a). The whooping crane utilizes a variety of wetland and other habitats, including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural fields. During migration, the whooping crane uses a variety of habitats; wetland mosaic use is predominant (USFWS, 2017a). It is unlikely that whooping cranes would occur in the project area, as none of the above mentioned habitats exist on the Subject Property other than the intermittently dry pond feature located in the East Site. This pond feature is small and not connected to any other habitats that would normally support whooping cranes. Lake Texoma, adjacent to the East Site, does have appropriate habitat to support whooping cranes. No individuals of this species were observed during the January 2017 biological survey. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Federal Status: Endangered ABB is known from eight states: on Block Island off the coast of Rhode Island, Nantucket and Peninskee Islands off the coast of Massachusetts, eastern Oklahoma, western Arkansas, Sand Hills in north-central Nebraska, Chautauqua Hills region of southeastern Kansas, northeastern Texas, and South Dakota (USFWS, 2014). ABB is known in Oklahoma in Atoka, Bryan, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coal, Haskell, Hughes, Johnston, Latimer, Le Flore, McCurtain, Muskogee, Osage, Okfuskee, Pittsburg, Pushmataha, Rogers, Sequoyah, Tulsa, and Wagoner counties (USFWS, 2014). As of 2015, distribution of the ABB has been extended to include all of Marshall County. ABB is found in various habitat types including oak-pine woodlands, open fields, oak-hickory forest, open grasslands, and edge habitat (USFWS, 2014). ABB prefers open grasslands and open understory oak hickory forests (USFWS, 2014). The ABB’s nocturnal activity decreases or is absent when temperatures drop below 60ºF. ABB nocturnal activity is delayed when temperatures are greater than 75ºF (USFWS, 2014). ABBs locate a carcass and form a burial chamber. Eggs are laid in an escape tunnel adjacent to the carrion and one or both of the adult ABBs remain with the eggs and subsequent larvae until larval development is complete (USFWS, 2014). ABB has the potential to occur throughout the Subject Property. 3.4.4 WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. A wetland and waterway delineation was performed to evaluate any potential jurisdictional waterways and wetlands within the property. Two aquatic resources were observed: one intermittent stream that crosses the West Site from north to south, and one non-jurisdictional pond located in the East Site, each described below. The site was reviewed prior to the site visit using the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapper, which identified the intermittent stream, as well as a small pond within the West Site (USFWS, 2017b; Figure 3-5 of Appendix A). While the intermittent stream on the West Site was observed, the small pond shown in the NWI data was not present within the West Site. There are several mapped wetland features nearby, notably a freshwater pond to the south of the East Site and the edge of Lake Texoma to the north, east, and south of the East Site. Intermittent Stream As described in Section 3.4.2, there is an intermittent stream running north to south, bisecting the West Site. This feature flows southward into Lake Texoma. This feature is characterized by a continuous OHWM and bed and bank through the West Site. During the January 2017 biological site visit, there was no flowing water in the intermittent stream, but there were several ponded areas within the ordinary high water mark underlain by bedrock. This feature has been determined to be jurisdictional by USACE.


Man-Made, Former Golf Course Pond This feature, a former water hazard of the abandoned golf course, is not a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. as regulated by USACE. Although the water feature contained evidence of recent inundation and contains hydrophytic vegetation, there is no upstream or downstream connection to any other Waters of the U.S. The rim of the feature is above the surrounding landscape, and the feature appears to be wholly created out of upland. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING The cultural resources regulatory setting information is summarized in Table 3-7 and more detailed information may be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-7 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO CULTURAL RESOURCES

Regulation Description Section 106 of the NHPA

Federal agencies must identify cultural resources that may be affected by actions involving federal lands, funds, or permitting actions Significance of the resources must be evaluated for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility per criteria defined in 36 CFR § 60.4 If a NRHP-eligible resource will be adversely affected, measures to avoid or reduce adverse effects must be taken

Native American tribes may assume the functions of the SHPO for undertakings on tribal lands

NAGPRA Includes provisions governing the intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American burials and cultural items on federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

Archaeological resources and sites on public and Indian lands are protected resources

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act

Paleontological resources on federal lands are protected resources

3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The prehistoric and historic setting of the Subject Property, as well as Lake Texoma, is described in detail within Appendix G. Additionally, Appendix G provides a summary of the Chickasaw Nation’s history. 3.5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS The Subject Property was assessed using a combination of background research and a site survey, as described below: A record search provided by the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (OAS) found that roadways

within the East Site and all of the West Site had been previously inventoried for cultural resources. Review by Terracon (2016a, 2016b) of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs showed

that at the turn of the century, the East Site was predominantly undeveloped land with a structure near the southeast corner and marsh/swamp land near the northeast. Residential development appeared near the boundaries by the late 1930s, and improvements related to development continued through the 1950s. Commercial development, park buildings, and the golf course appear in the 1970s and 1980s. Similarly, at the turn of the century, the West Site was predominantly undeveloped land with a dirt road appearing in the mid-1950s. A pond and additional dirt roads were present by the late 1960s, and a power line that crosses the site was constructed early in the 21st century.


The University of California Museum of Paleontology (2017) online specimen database indicated that 271 fossils have been recorded in Marshall County, but none from the Bokchito Formation, which underlies the Area of Potential Effects (APE) project.

In early February 2017, Analytical Environmental Services (AES) contacted the Chickasaw THPO, who stated that the convergence of three internal Chickasaw legislative districts was located near the project properties, but that she did not know of any archaeological sites or other cultural resources on the Subject Property.

AES archaeologist Charlane Gross, M.A., RPA, who meets the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology, completed a mixed-method archaeological survey of the two properties on January 11, 2017. The survey combined visual inspection of the ground with a systematic pattern of shovel test pits (STPs); the methodology and results of which are included in the post-survey archaeological report (Appendix G).

The potential for buried archaeological deposits to occur within the Subject Property APE is low. There were no previously recorded cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources identified within the APE. The East Site APE lies over a half-mile from what would have been a steady water source on an elevated land form. The rolling topography offers little opportunity for slopewash, and so the only soil development would result from seasonal vegetative mulching. The construction of the golf course may have resulted in buried archaeological sites in the East Site APE, but the distance to the original course of the Red River over 0.5 miles away) indicates a low likelihood for prehistoric occupation and use of the property. The West Site is similarly dominated by rolling wooded grasslands. The drainage bisecting the APE is a potential source of flooding, but the drainage was not steep, wide, or deep, indicating that water flows are not often severe, or of the type that would result in widespread flood silt deposits, leaving the same primary source of soil development i.e., vegetative mulching. The presence of a water source increases the potential for prehistoric use, but the environment would not promote rapid or deep burial of cultural resources. 3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3.6.1 REGULATORY SETTING The socioeconomic regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-8, and additional information on the regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-8 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO SOCIOECONOMICS

Regulation Description EO 12898 Disproportionately high impacts to minority or low-income populations should be considered.

A minority population is defined as a Census tract containing greater than 50 percent minorities, or a Census tract with a meaningfully greater percentage of minorities than surrounding tracts. Minority races include American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic origin), and Hispanic.

A low-income population is defined as a Census tract with a median household income (MHI) lower than the poverty threshold.

3.6.2 ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT The Subject Property is located in Marshall County, Oklahoma, approximately four miles east of the unincorporated community of Kingston. The average unemployment rate from 2011-2015, the most recent five-year estimate available, was 7.6 percent for Marshall County and 6.3 percent statewide (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The largest industries in Marshall County are manufacturing (18.8 percent), agriculture (7.1 percent), and wholesale trade (5.1 percent; NACo, 2016).


As shown in Table 1 of Appendix H, according to the most recent available U.S. Census data, the annual MHI in inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars was $40,475 in Marshall County, compared with $46,879 in Oklahoma as a whole. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix H, the average household size in Marshall County for 2015 was 2.64 people; the average household size for the state of Oklahoma as a whole was 2.57 in the same year. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015) 3.6.3 DEMOGRAPHICS In 2015, the population of Marshall County was 16,014 and the population of Oklahoma was 3,849,733. Between 2010 and 2015, Marshall County experienced a population increase of 2.5 percent, while Oklahoma as a whole experience a population increase of 4.3 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). A summary of demographics for the State of Oklahoma, Marshall County, and the census tracts encompassing and adjacent to the Subject Property is presented in Table 2 of Appendix H. Census tracts are shown in Figure 3-6 of Appendix A. 3.6.4 HOUSING According to the 2010 U.S. Census Redistricting Data, Oklahoma was estimated to have approximately 1,664,378 housing units, of which approximately 203,928 units (12.3 percent) were vacant. As shown in Table 3 of Appendix H, Marshall County had a vacancy rate almost triple the statewide rate, at 36.7 percent of 10,006 units (3,668 units). (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) 3.6.5 PROPERTY TAXES The Subject Property is located on Marshall County tax parcels 0000-35-06S-06E-0-007-00 (West Site) and 0000-36-06S-06E-0-004-00 (East Site). The market value of the Subject Property is $4,000,042 and the assessed value is $450,005 (Marshall County Assessor, 2017). Until October 2016, the property was owned by the State of Oklahoma, and no property taxes were assessed. Total property taxes collected by Marshall County in 2015 totaled $9,763,525 (Larkin, 2017). 3.6.5 GAMING MARKET Table 3-9 lists existing gaming facilities whose market areas may overlap with the potential market area of the Subject Property. As listed in Table 3-9, gaming operations of two different tribes are located within approximately 13 miles of the Subject Property. The nearest gaming facility to the Subject Property is Texoma Casino, which is located approximately 2.3 miles west of the Subject Property and owned and operated the Chickasaw Nation. The nearest Tribal gaming facility not owned by the Chickasaw Nation is the Durant West Choctaw Travel Plaza, located approximately 12.9 miles east of the Subject Property.

TABLE 3-9 COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT IN MARSHALL AND BRYAN COUNTIES

Casino Facility Ownership Location Distance from Subject Property Machines Tables

Texoma Casino Chickasaw Nation Kingston, OK 2.3 370 -- Madill Gaming Center Chickasaw Nation Madill, OK 9.8 99 -- Choctaw Travel Plaza – Durant West Choctaw Nation Calera, OK 12.9 48 -- Choctaw Travel Plaza – Durant East Choctaw Nation Durant, OK 13.0 54 -- Choctaw Casino Resort Choctaw Nation Durant, OK 13.1 3,362 84 Total 3,933 84 Source: HVS Consulting (HVS), 2017


3.6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE As discussed in Section 3.6.2 above, the most recent MHI for Marshall County and each census tract shown in Table 1 of Appendix H is well above the 2015 poverty threshold for an average three-person household. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.6.3, the minority population is below 50 percent in Marshall County and the census tracts shown in Table 2 of Appendix H. However, the Nation would be considered a minority population that would be affected by the Proposed Action. 3.7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Automobiles are the primary mode of travel for most trips in the vicinity of the Subject Property. This section describes the existing transportation system; traffic volumes; and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems in the project area. Information in this section is summarized from the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the project alternatives by Traffic Engineering Consultants, Inc. (TEC; TEC, 2017; Appendix I). 3.7.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM Existing roadways in the vicinity of the Subject Property are described below: US-70, directly north of the Subject Property, is a major transportation route in Oklahoma that

generally extends in the east-west direction in the southern portion of Oklahoma. US-70 is a five-lane state highway, with a posted speed limit of 65 mph that decreases to 55 mph east of the Subject Property (Appendix I). In the vicinity of the Subject Property, the highway extends east-west with two lanes in either direction, bisected by a turning lane. This route carries regional traffic to the project vicinity from the Kingston area and Oklahoma State Highway 32 to the west and the Durant area and U.S. Highway 69 to the east.

Texoma Park Road is a two-lane north-south major collector street that runs between the East and West sites. This road carries traffic from US-70 to State Park Road. It has a posted speed limit of 35 mph.

State Park Road is a two-lane east/west minor collector street road that passes through the East Site. It has a speed limit of 20 mph and carries local traffic from US-70 to Catfish Bay (Appendix I).

3.7.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES TEC collected existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Subject Property in January 2017. Weekday AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and weekday PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 PM) traffic volumes were collected at all study roadways. Data was collected on a Friday to represent a worst-case scenario regarding traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The average daily traffic (ADT) volume along this segment of US-70 is approximately 9,250 vehicles per day (vpd). Texoma Park Road has an ADT volume of approximately 850 vpd. Additionally, the ADT volume for State Park Road is approximately 1,550 vpd. In addition, 24-hour classification traffic volume data was collected along US-70 and State Park Road (Appendix I). 3.7.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS The intersection capacity analysis measures the volume of traffic that a given intersection can accommodate while maintaining prescribed operational qualities. These operational criteria are defined using levels of service (LOS). This measure qualitatively describes operational conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) identifies acceptable LOS thresholds for various types of facilities (TRB, 2010). Six LOS standards are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from


A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Page 5 of Appendix I summarizes LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. For the purposes of this analysis, an overall intersection LOS D or better and a critical approach LOS E or better were considered acceptable LOS (Appendix I). TEC collected existing traffic volume data in the vicinity of the Subject Property in January 2017. The data were collected during the AM (7:00 to 9:00) and PM (4:00 to 6:00) peak-hour periods on a Friday. Given the area’s traffic characteristics, Friday peak hour periods would represent a “worst-case” scenario with regards to the surrounding roadway’s traffic impact (Appendix I). The background traffic levels serve as a baseline from which the 2019, and 2035 year traffic volume projections are derived (2019 and 2035 year traffic is discussed in Section 4.13). Peak hour traffic delays and LOS for the study intersections under 2017 existing conditions are shown in Table 2 of Appendix I. The critical approach is the approach in a roadway with the lowest LOS. Whereas, the intersection is the average of all the lanes. 3.7.4 TRANSIT SERVICES AND BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The nearest transit service to the Subject Property is a Greyhound bus station located in Durant, Oklahoma, approximately 13 miles to the west. JAMM Transit, a regional public transit service, serves most of southern Oklahoma, including Marshall County. JAMM Transit offers transportation to the general public five days a week based on demand to designated bus stations in Durant and Ardmore, both more than 13 miles from the Subject Property (INCA, 2017). No transit facilities serve the Town of Kingston. The nearest Amtrak train station is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the Subject Property, in Ardmore, Oklahoma (Amtrak, 2017). There are no existing sidewalks or bicycle lanes within roadways located adjacent to the Subject Property. 3.8 LAND USE 3.8.1 REGULATORY SETTING The land use regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-10, and additional information on the regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-10 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO LAND USE

Regulation Description Lake Texoma Master Developed by USACE to guide land use planning in the vicinity of Lake Texoma Plan The Subject Property is not classified by USACE FAA FAA promotes air safety and the efficient use of navigable airspace

FAA conducts aeronautical studies for development in the vicinity of airports Farmland Protection Minimize impacts that federal programs have on the conversion of farmland Policy Act (FPPA) NRCS identifies significant farmland for preservation

3.8.2 EXISTING LAND USES The Subject Property is located in Marshall County, Oklahoma, approximately three miles east of the town of Kingston. East Site From the 1950s to 2008, the East Site was part of Lake Texoma State Park, and included park infrastructure including a lodge, cabins, campsites, picnic areas and shelters, boat rentals, and a gift shop. Due to rising maintenance costs, the State government authorized the sale of the park in 2005 to Pointe Vista Development, who planned to build a hotel and water park on the site. However, various challenges


resulted in the developer abandoning those plans and selling the site back to the state (HVS, 2017). The site was subsequently purchased by the Nation. Portions of the East Site still currently contain unused park infrastructure such as paved surfaces and vacant buildings. The majority of the remainder of the site (approximately 90 percent) is undeveloped and covered in natural vegetation. A water storage tank with an estimated storage capacity of 50,000 gallons is located near the northern site boundary, but is not currently in use (Terracon, 2016a). Lake Texoma borders the East Site to the east. West Site With the exception of unpaved roads and electrical lines running through the property, the approximately 11.25-acre West Site is undeveloped and consists of cleared fields with a heavily wooded border. Adjacent Properties Lake Texoma State Park, which features recreational amenities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and boat docks, borders the site to the south and east. Since the removal of the Subject Property from the park boundaries in 2008, Lake Texoma State Park has remained open to the public; however, many of its former amenities have been removed, demolished, or abandoned, resulting in declining public visits (Investigate West, 2012). Land uses in the vicinity of the Subject Property include US-70 and Chickasaw Pointe Golf Course to the north; Catfish Bay, a private marina, approximately one third of a mile southeast of the East Site; and a small local airstrip between the East and West Sites. Catfish Bay Marina Mart, a local convenience store, is situated approximately 300 feet from the East Site’s northwest border. Adjacent lands to the southwest of the East Site were developed with a golf course, which has since closed and is not maintained. A portion of the former golf course is located within the southern portion of the East Site south of State Park Road. However, the adjacent southwest lands are currently unused and mostly overgrown with natural vegetation. The adjacent property south of the West Site contains existing wastewater lagoons, and a small residential neighborhood is located approximately 500 feet to the west. 3.8.3 AGRICULTURE The majority of the land immediately surrounding Lake Texoma is used for recreation or for natural resource management and preservation as opposed to agricultural activities (USACE, 2017). Neither of the sites that make up the Subject Property have been used for agriculture in the recent past, and there are no current agricultural operations or resources present on either site. All soils present throughout the Subject Property are classified by the NRCS as Not Prime Farmland, and are therefore not subject to FPPA provisions (NRCS, 2017). 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.9.1 WATER SUPPLY Water in the vicinity of the Subject Property is provided by MCWC. MCWC uses Lake Rex Smith, a 200 acre lake, as its primary source of water, with Lake Oteka as a backup (refer to Section 4.2 for more information). Lake Oteka has only had to be used once in approximately the last 15 years, in 2014. MCWC provides approximately 48 million gallons of water per month. Over its entire service area, MCWC has approximately 700 miles of pipeline. (Moore, 2017). There is an existing 4-inch potable water line running in an east-west direction on the south side of US-70, adjacent to the Subject Property (Appendix B).


3.9.2 WASTEWATER SERVICE No public wastewater system is located on-site or in the vicinity of the Subject Property. 3.9.3 SOLID WASTE SERVICE Southern Oklahoma Regional Disposal, Inc. (SORD) provides solid waste collection services for commercial and residential customers; landfill permit number 3510007. SORD owns and operates a municipal solid waste landfill located in Carter County, approximately 30 miles northwest of the Subject Property (SORD, 2017). SORD also operates a waste transfer station in Kingston which would be utilized for project transfer of solid waste. The Kingston transfer station is currently leased from Marshall County (Bradshaw, 2020). In May of 2018, SORD filed a Tier III Permit Modification for expansion of the landfill permit boundary from 120 acres to 200 acres allowing for construction of additional trash protected areas (SCS Engineers, 2018). This permit was approved on August 6, 2019 (Grafton, 2020). The proposed capacity of solid waste will increase from 8,034,959 cubic yards to a total of 23,296,087 cubic yards allowing for long-term stability of the entire landfill (SCS Engineers, 2018). 3.9.4 SCHOOLS The Subject Property is located less than five miles east of Kingston Public Schools, a district that includes one elementary, one middle, and one high school. For the 2016-2017 academic year, the total enrollment in in the district was 1,209 students (Kingston Public Schools, 2017). 3.9.5 RECREATION The Subject Property is not currently used for recreational purposes, although it was formerly part of Lake Texoma State Park. Lake Texoma State Park is currently located adjacent to the Subject Property. Lake Texoma, Oklahoma's second largest lake and a well-known spot for striped bass fishing, offers swimming, camping, picnic areas, wildlife viewing opportunities, watersports, and hiking (OTRD, 2017). The privately operated Catfish Bay Marina, located within the park, offers a fuel dock and striper guide fishing services. The Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately nine miles north of the Subject Property. It offers nature trails, fishing, hunting, wildlife watching, and photography opportunities. 3.9.6 ELECTRICITY AND PROPANE Red River Valley Rural Electric Association (RRVREA) provides electricity to the vicinity of the Subject Property. RRVREA is a member-owned electric cooperative in south-central Oklahoma with a service area of approximately 1,600 square miles through 2,700 miles of transmission line in Carter, Jefferson, Johnston, Love, and Marshall Counties (RRVREA, 2016). The Subject Property is located in District III of RRVREA. The Chickasaw Tribal Utility Authority (CTUA) is a tribally-created utility authority established in 1986 to plan for, provide, and furnish electrical utility services to consumers within the geographic boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation (Appendix C). CTUA also provides water, sewer, and natural gas services to tribal and non-tribal customers. Natural gas lines do not serve the vicinity of the Subject Property; instead, individual propane tanks are utilized. 3.9.7 LAW ENFORCEMENT The Marshall County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), headquartered approximately 10 miles from the Subject Property in Madill, provides law enforcement services to 371 square miles on land and 56 square miles on water. MCSO is staffed by seven full-time officers (including the undersheriff and sheriff), eight reserve officers, and six dispatchers. MCSO is also responsible for the county jail, which is staffed by 12 employees. (Cryer, 2017)


The Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police provides police protection services to Indian lands within the Chickasaw Nation’s boundaries; in the vicinity of the Subject Property, they serve Texoma Casino and Chickasaw Children’s Village, both within three miles of the Subject Property. Lighthorse Police consists of over 40 sworn uniformed and investigative officers over six divisions: patrol, dispatch, investigations, K-9 (three units), dive, and Special Weapons and Tactics (Appendix C). Lighthorse Police is headquartered in Ada, Oklahoma, approximately 54 miles north of the Subject Property. 3.9.8 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES KFD provides fire protection service to its approximately 56 square mile service area in the vicinity of the Subject Property. KFD is staffed by one full-time fire chief and a roster of 16 volunteers. On average, KFD responses to approximately 300 to 350 calls for service annually. Typically, one-third of these calls are for fires and two-thirds are for medical emergencies. Average response time is approximately 9 minutes from when a call comes in to KFD’s arrival at a site. (Kuykendall, 2017) Marshall County EMS is a three-ambulance paramedic service serving the vicinity of the Subject Property (Coates, 2017). Marshall County EMS receives over 2,000 calls for service annually and participates in a mutual aid agreement with adjacent counties (Coates, 2017). Staffed by eight full-time employees, a director, and several part-time employees, Marshall County EMS has three medics and one backup on duty at all times (Coates, 2017). The nearest hospital is AllianceHealth Madill, located at 1 Hospital Drive in Madill, approximately 10 miles northwest of the Subject Property. AllianceHealth provides general and acute health and hospital services, including emergency medicine, surgical services, imaging, primary care, laboratory services, and rehabilitation (AllianceHealth, 2017). 3.10 VISUAL RESOURCES 3.10.1 REGULATORY SETTING The visual resources regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-11, and additional information on regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-11 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO VISUAL RESOURCES

Regulation Description Lake Texoma Prepared by USACE to guide development in the vicinity of Lake Texoma; includes an Master Plan assessment of scenic quality along the lake’s shoreline

Contains objectives to protect the scenic quality of the lake by requiring careful planning, providing maintenance, reducing tree removal, and implementing preventative measures

3.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Figure 3-7 of Appendix A presents photographs taken in January 2017 that represent typical viewsheds in the vicinity of the Subject Property. East Site The East Site is a relatively flat, approximately 50-acre parcel of consisting largely of vacant, previously developed and partially vegetated land. Portions of the East Site contain abandoned park infrastructure such as paved surfaces and vacant buildings; these are remnants of the state park that encompassed the Subject Property from the 1950s until the mid-2000s. The East Site is visible from boats on Lake Texoma to the east, US-70 and the Chickasaw Pointe Golf Course to the north, and the Lake Texoma State Park Airport and Catfish Bay Marina Mart to the west. State Park Road runs through the center of the East Site,


connecting US-70 to Catfish Bay to the south. A partially paved service road runs from the parking lot to the unused water storage tank near the East Site’s northern border. Adjoining lands to the south are predominantly vacant and undeveloped, having also been a part of Lake Texoma State Park. The nearest residences are located in a small residential neighborhood approximately half a mile to the west of the East Site. West Site The West Site is a relatively flat, approximately 11.7-acre parcel of land located approximately half a mile west of the East Site. The site is predominantly wooded and undeveloped; the only manmade features within this site are unpaved roads and overhead electrical lines. An unnamed intermittent stream traverses through a portion of the site. The Catfish Bay Marina Mart and Lake Texoma State Park Airport are located to the east and a residential neighborhood is located to the west. US-70 and the Chickasaw Pointe Golf Course are located north of the West Site. Although portions of the West Site have been cleared, its boundaries remain mostly wooded (heavily so in some areas). As a result, the site is largely obscured from view to viewers outside its boundaries. Additionally, the site is set back from local paved roads and does not contain any structures or features that would stick out to observers. Visits are infrequent and mainly consist of service workers passing through the site on unpaved roads to access the wastewater lagoons to the south. Due to these factors, the West Site would not be considered highly visible. Lighting and Shadows Currently, no permanent stationary sources of light are emitted from either site. Sources of light in the immediate area include light emitted from the Catfish Bay Marina Mart; lighting associated with the airstrip and arriving or departing aircraft; and headlights from vehicles on US-70. Vehicles also have the potential to travel on Texoma Park Road, State Park Road, or the unpaved service roads that pass through the West Site; however, these roads typically experience a significantly lower volume of traffic than US-70, and, subsequently, lighting from vehicles on these lesser-used routes is infrequent. 3.11 NOISE 3.11.1 ACOUSTICAL BACKGROUND AND TERMINOLOGY Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect and is technically described in terms of loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). Community noise is commonly described in terms of the “ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq) over a given period (usually 1 hour). The Leq is the foundation of the day-night average level noise descriptor (Ldn) and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. The Ldn, similar to the Community Noise Equivalency Level, is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 dB weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Human reaction to a new noise can be estimated through comparison of the new noise to the existing ambient noise level within a given environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will likely be judged by the recipients. With regard to increases in A-weighted decibels (dBA), the following relationships occur: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived


Outside of the laboratory, a change of 3 dBA is considered a just-perceivable difference A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response

would be expected A change of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause

adverse response 3.11.2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT The noise regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-12, and additional information on regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-12 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO NOISE


Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Construction Noise Thresholds1

Noise sensitive locations: (Daytime – 7 am to 6 pm) 78 dBA Leq or Baseline+5 (whichever is louder)

Commercial areas: (Daytime) 83 dBA Leq or Baseline+5 (whichever is louder) Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)2

Park and residential areas threshold: 67 dBA Leq Developed areas threshold: 72 dBA Leq

Federal Vibration Standards3 The Federal Transportation Administration’s (FTA) guideline vibration damage criteria for buildings is 0.5 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV).

The FTA’s guideline for maximum vibration at sensitive receptors is 0.1 PPV. Source: 1FHWA, 2006; 2FHWA, 2009; 3FTA, 2006.

3.11.3 EXISTING NOISE SOURCES AND AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS Existing noise generated in the vicinity of the Subject Property primarily comes from traffic on adjacent roadways, including US-70 and Texoma Park Road, which border the Subject Property on the north and west, respectively, and the Lake Texoma State Park Airport. The Lake Texoma State Park Airport is located between the East and West Sites. The public community airport serves Kingston and the surrounding vicinity of Marshall County. The 3,000 feet by 50 feet runway is oriented to north to south. The airport is estimated to have approximately 300 annual aircraft operations (Skyvector, 2017). Other noise sources in the area are generated from the recreational boating area south of the Subject Property. The estimated ambient noise level in the vicinity of the Subject Property is approximately 40 dBA Leq, which is the typical average noise level for rural areas with infrequent traffic noise levels (The Engineering Toolbox, 2017). Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due the types of activities typical to the land use. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and other outdoor recreation areas are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors to the East Site include Joe’s Campground, which is 2,600 feet to the southwest, and two rural residential communities, approximately 3,000 feet to the west and 4,000 feet to the south (Figure 1-3 of Appendix A). The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the West Site is a residence in the western residential community, located approximately 350 feet to the west. The nearest school is Chickasaw Children’s Village approximately three miles northwest of the proposed casino building. Additionally, the Subject Property is located less than five miles east of Kington’s elementary, middle, and high schools. The nearest hospital is the Alliance Health Medical Group Primary Care in Kingston, approximately 10 miles from the Subject Property.


3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.12.1 REGULATORY SETTING The hazardous materials regulatory setting is summarized in Table 3-13, and additional information on regulatory setting can be found in Appendix D.

TABLE 3-13 REGULATORY POLICIES RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


USEPA Regulates the cleanup of sites contaminated with various pollutants Maintains databases of cleanup and contamination sites

Food and Drug Administration Limited role, regulates food additives and contaminations, human drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Regulates the storage, use, and handling of toxic and flammable substances

Consumer Product Safety Commission Limited role, deals mostly with consumer products U.S. Department of Transportation Regulates interstate transport of hazardous materials Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

Provides a Federal Superfund to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites.

3.12.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS East Site 2016 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted by Terracon on April 8, 2016 to determine if any Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC), which are hazardous substances or petroleum products that can indicate a release, past release, or threat of future release, exist on the West Site (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM], 2013). The assessment was performed using the guidelines set forth in ASTM Standard E-1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, and consisted of site reconnaissance; user-provided information; reviews of regulatory databases, historical records, and physical records; and interviews with appropriate authorities. The ESA found evidence of three RECs, two of which were associated with past uses of the site and one of which was associated with an adjacent property: REC 1: Releases from a historic underground storage tank (UST) near the former Lodge building. The releases were discovered during a previous Phase I ESA conducted in 2005. The 2,000-gallon storage tank was removed at that time; however, evidence of releases was still present during the 2016 ESA. REC 2: Releases from elevator hydraulic cylinders and lubricant used in the Lodge building. This REC was also identified during the 2005 ESA, and evidence of past releases was still present during the 2016 investigation. REC 3: Catfish Bay Marina Mart, an adjoining property with USTs dating back to the 1980s, located west of the East Site. Although no evidence of releases from these USTs was observed, the age of the USTs coupled with the Marina Mart’s location upgradient of the site represent enough potential for environmental hazards to constitute a REC (Appendix J). Limited Site Investigation Terracon performed a limited site investigation on June 6, 2016 to determine whether any VOCs were present in on-site soils and groundwater as a result of the three RECs identified in the Phase I ESA. Six soil borings were performed to evaluate the concentrations of contaminants in the soil. Boring locations


were chosen based on proximity to the locations of the identified RECs and the estimated direction of groundwater flow. Three borings (SB-1, SB-2, and SB-3) were performed in the locations of the historical elevators in the Lodge building; two (SB-4 and SB-5) were performed on either side of the location of the historical (removed) UST; and one (SB-6) was performed on the boundary of the site in a location downgradient from the Marina Mart. After boring was completed and soil samples were taken, the borings were converted into temporary groundwater monitoring points. Groundwater samples were taken from SB-1, SB-2, SB-3, and SB-5; groundwater was not encountered within the SB-4 and SB-6 monitoring points. Due to their proximity to former elevator locations where releases of hydraulic fluid occurred, soil samples from SB-1, SB-2, and SB-3 were analyzed for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Groundwater samples taken from the corresponding monitoring points were analyzed for PAHs, PCBs, gasoline range organics (GRO), and diesel range organics (DRO). Soil samples from SB-4, SB-5, and SB-6 were all associated with potential releases from USTs and were analyzed for concentrations of TPH only. The groundwater sample taken from the SB-5 monitoring point was analyzed for GRO and DRO. Sampling methods, quality control and assurance measures, and analytical reports are included in Appendix J. Terracon concluded that soil in the vicinity of the boring locations does not appear to be significantly impacted by historic releases from elevator and UST operations. Groundwater samples from monitoring points SB-1, SB-3, and SB-5 were found to be minimally impacted by Oil Range Organics with detectable concentrations under the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) action level of 1.0 mg/L for TPH in groundwater. However, the sample collected from SB-2 contained an Oil Range Organic concentration of 2.8 mg/L, exceeding the OCC action level (Appendix J). Remedial Action Completion Report The Remedial Action Completion Report dated September 16, 2016, documents the installation of an injection well, a remediation pilot study, full-scale remediation, and post-remediation sampling that were performed by Terracon from August 8 to September 2, 2016. The report concludes that TPH DRO “in the delineated groundwater impact area has been remediated to concentrations less than the applicable OCC/DEQ TPH action levels [and n]o additional groundwater remediation appears warranted at this time” (Appendix J). 2017 Phase I ESA An updated December 2017 Phase I ESA by AES did not reveal evidence of any new RECs on the East Site (Appendix J). West Site 2016 Phase I ESA A Phase I ESA was conducted by Terracon on July 5, 2016 to determine if any RECs exist on the West Site. The assessment was performed using the guidelines set forth in ASTM Standard E-1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, and consisted of site reconnaissance; user-provided information; reviews of regulatory databases, historical records, and physical records; and interviews with appropriate authorities. The Phase I ESA did not reveal evidence of any RECs within the West Site or its adjoining properties (Appendix J). 2017 Phase I ESA An updated December 2017 Phase I ESA by AES did not reveal evidence of any new RECs on the West Site (Appendix J).


SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section assesses the environmental consequences of the Proposed Project, Reduced Intensity Alternative, and No Action Alternative described in Section 2.0. Effects are measured against the environmental baseline presented in Section 3.0. Indirect and cumulative effects are identified in Section 4.13. Measures to mitigate for adverse impacts identified in this section are presented in Section 5.0. 4.1 LAND RESOURCES 4.1.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Topography The topography of the Subject Property is relatively flat, sloping gently upwards toward Lake Texoma. The majority of the structures proposed for development under the Proposed Project would be built north of State Park Road, in the slightly higher-elevation northeast corner (see Figure 2-1 of Appendix A). The Proposed Project would involve grading of the project area within the project footprint discussed in Section 2.1. Topographic features of the site would be altered by earthwork. However, changes to topography resulting from leveling the site will be minimal, as the existing site has gradual surface grade slopes. The grading plan would be in compliance with standard engineering practices. The site has no topographic problems that would affect the grading of the site, such as shallow bedrock, wetlands, or high groundwater conditions. With preparation of and adherence to the measures within a grading plan, development of the Proposed Project would not result in an adverse impact to topography. No mitigation is required. Geology/Soils Approximately 96 percent of the soils located on the East Site are classified as moderately to highly expansive, which indicates that soil reclamation or special design measures may be required (NRCS, 2017). Given that the site was formerly developed by the state with a resort and other park facility buildings, it is likely that existing soils on the site are capable and suitable for the Proposed Project uses. With preparation of and adherence to measures within a grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, these soils would not preclude development of the site and impacts would be less than significant. The soils on the areas of the East Site proposed for development are characterized as being moderately to highly corrosive to steel, and are also characterized as being moderately corrosive to concrete (NRCS, 2017). In anticipation of these soil limitations, project design will incorporate protective measures to minimize adverse impacts relative to soil corrosivity. These measures include non-corrosive materials and/or protective coatings for buried facilities to be used for construction in corrosive soils. With incorporation of these protective measures, impacts resulting from corrosive soils will be less than significant. The Proposed Project could affect soils due to erosion during construction, operation, and maintenance activities. Such construction activities could include clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling. Site grading would further expose soils on the Subject Property to erosion by water and wind. Approximately 13.5 acres of the East Site will become impervious surface. Additionally, 1.08 acres of the West Site will be developed with primary lagoons and 3.52 acres with storage/evaporation lagoons as wastewater and stormwater management.


Section 3.1.3 describes the soil types, erosion potential, permeability, and general gradients for the soil units mapped on the site. The Durant, Ferris-Tarrant, and Konsil soil types are moderately susceptible to water erosion while the Tarrant soil type is only slightly susceptible. Additionally, Ferris-Tarrant and Konsil soil types are susceptible to wind erosion. Both the Durant and Tarrant soil types are less susceptible to wind erosion. Sediment discharge into navigable (surface) Waters of the U.S. is regulated by the CWA, which establishes water quality goals for sediment control and erosion prevention for any project that would disturb more than 1 acre of soil. One of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the CWA is the NPDES permitting program, administered by the USEPA. As part of the NPDES Construction General Permit, a SWPPP must be prepared and implemented. The SWPPP must make provisions for (1) erosion prevention and sediment control and (2) control of other potential pollutants. Construction of the Proposed Project would disturb more than 1 acre; therefore, the Nation is required by the CWA to obtain coverage under, and comply with the terms of, the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction activities subsequent to federal trust property acquisition of the Subject Property. NPDES Construction General Permit requirements would reduce any potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. With regulatory requirements and BMPs described in Section 2.1.2, impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project on soils and geology would be minimal and, therefore, less than significant. Seismic Hazards The Subject Property is not located on any known active fault trace; thus, the risk of fault rupture is low. Meers Fault, the nearest fault, is located approximately 106 miles northwest the Subject Property. Therefore, no adverse impacts due to geologic or seismic conditions on-site would occur. Mineral Resources Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of mineral resources. As discussed in Section 3.1.4, gravel and limestone pits are dispersed throughout Marshall County under surface-type mines to obtain gravel and limestone for construction. The nearest mining operation, a gravel pit, is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the Subject Property and is no longer in operation. No oil or natural gas wells are located on the Subject Property. Therefore, no adverse impacts to mineral resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. 4.1.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Impacts resulting from seismic conditions and mineral resources under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Project. A similar, but smaller, amount of soil and topography manipulation would be required for this alternative when compared to the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would comply with the applicable NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and BMPs described therein, which would ensure that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have minimal impacts on soils within the project area. Impacts resulting from seismic conditions or to mineral resources would be the same as under Alternative A. 4.1.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust and no development would occur on either parcel. The site would remain in its current state. Topographic features and soils would remain undisturbed and the No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts related to land resources.


4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Surface Water Construction Impacts Construction impacts under the Proposed Project would include ground-disturbing activities such as grading and excavation, which could lead to erosion of topsoil. Erosion from construction sites can increase sediment discharge to surface waters during storm events, thereby degrading downstream water quality. Construction activities would also include the routine use of potentially hazardous construction materials such as concrete washings, oil, and grease, which may spill onto the ground and be dissolved in stormwater. Discharges of pollutants, including grease, oil, fuel, and sediments, to surface waters from construction activities and accidents are a potentially significant impact. Regulated construction activities in excess of one acre are required to apply for coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. The provisions of this permit include preparation of a SWPPP, which would be developed prior to any ground disturbance and would include BMPs to reduce potential surface water contamination during storm events. A list of BMPs that may be included in the SWPPP and that would be implemented during construction of the Proposed Project is presented in Section 2.1.2. These BMPs would minimize adverse impacts to the local and regional watershed from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project by reducing detachment of soil particles from bare soil or by preventing movement of loose soil into waterways. With adherence to the NPDES permitting program and implementation of the SWPPP, impacts to surface water quality from construction activities would be less than significant. Operation Water Supply Water supply for the Proposed Project would be provided through MCWC. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, Lake Rex Smith is the primary source of water supplied by MCWC. The lake was estimated to hold 2,000 AF of water, with no limit to the amount of water MCWC can withdraw (Moore, 2017). Assuming an average to peak demand ratio of 4, the Proposed Project would generate an average day water demand of 7.06 gpm, with a peak hour demand of 28.24 gpm, as demonstrated in Table 4-1 below (Appendix B).

TABLE 4-1 PROPOSED PROJECT – WATER DEMAND

Description Water Demand (gpm)

Average Peak Hour Gaming 3.44 13.76 Lodging 3.62 14.48

Total 7.06 28.24 Source: Search, Inc., 2017

Based on an average water demand of 7.06 gpm, the calculated annual use would be 11.89 AF. This value is approximately 0.5 percent of the 2,000 AF of Lake Rex Smith’s storage. Therefore, the demand associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly affect the available supply of surface water in the vicinity of the Subject Property. See Section 4.9 for an analysis of impacts to water providers. Stormwater Runoff Pollutants that accumulate in dry periods, such as oil and grease, asbestos, pesticides, and herbicides, may adversely affect water quality because of their presence in high concentrations during the first storm event of the season. Development of the casino, hotel, parking lot, cabins, and ancillary facilities would result in a greater area of impervious surfaces, approximately 18.19 total acres, potentially increasing stormwater runoff flow rates. An increase in impervious surfaces reduces infiltration of stormwater through the soil,


and can cause an increase in on-site or off-site flooding or erosion by directing water towards or focusing water in areas that typically do not receive concentrated surface water runoff. A completed SWPPP will be developed before construction and will layout all stormwater control measures needed (see Section 2.1.2). Moreover, site design of the proposed casino, hotel, and associated facilities would include stormwater drainage infrastructure adequate to accommodate increased stormwater runoff created by site grading and additional impervious surfacing. Stormwater facilities would be designed to detain stormwater runoff and allow it to be released slowly over a longer period, so that the post-development peak flows do not exceed existing peak flows. These features may include the use of stormwater detention ponds, bio-retention facilities, vegetated filter strips, and possibly permeable pavement. Bio-filtration swales and vegetated filter strips (areas of landscaped vegetation adjacent to impervious areas), which are LID techniques recommended by the USEPA, would be incorporated through the developed areas of the site and parking lot. These features would reduce impacts to surface waters by allowing for infiltration of stormwater into the soil, reducing the velocity of runoff, and allowing pollution to be deposited into the vegetated areas. Accordingly, with the incorporation of these features, no adverse effects due to stormwater runoff would occur. Flooding Impacts to the floodplain or floodplain management could occur if construction of the casino, hotel, and associated components were to place people or structures in a floodplain or change flood elevations. The majority of the site is not within a 100- or 500-year flood zone as designated by FEMA, and no development will occur in the portion of the Subject Property below the base flood elevation (FEMA, 1990). Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not alter the floodplain boundaries or flooding elevations. No adverse impact associated with flooding or floodplain management would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Groundwater Water Supply Water for the proposed development would be supplied by MCWC, which obtains its water from surface water. Therefore, the demand associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly affect the available supply of groundwater in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The Proposed Project would increase impermeable surfaces to 18.19 acres within the Subject Property, including buildings, parking lots, and new roads. The introduction of these surfaces could reduce groundwater recharge, resulting in lower rates of groundwater recharge. As described above under the Stormwater Runoff heading, design of the Proposed Project would include stormwater drainage infrastructure adequate to accommodate increased stormwater runoff. These features may include the use of stormwater detention ponds, bio-retention facilities, vegetated filter strips, and permeable pavement to slow runoff of water to allow infiltration to occur, as described in Section 2.1.2. Therefore, with the incorporation of these features, no adverse effects due to groundwater supply would occur. Water Quality Runoff from project facilities could transport oil, sediment, fertilizers, and grease that accumulate on impervious surfaces into stormwater runoff, which could infiltrate through the soil and potentially affect groundwater. However, a completed SWPPP will be developed before construction and will lay out all stormwater control measures needed (see Section 2.1.2). Moreover, design of the Proposed Project would include stormwater drainage infrastructure adequate to accommodate increased stormwater runoff created by site grading and additional impervious surfacing. Site design features include the use of stormwater detention basins to remove suspended solids such as trash, sediment, and other potential materials that could degrade water quality. Additionally, use of vegetated filter strips would provide additional filtering by capturing sediment and pollutants within the soil matrix before it can enter groundwater. Therefore, the


combination of these measures would filter stormwater before it enters the groundwater table, assuring that the impact to groundwater quality from stormwater runoff would be less than significant. Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated on the West Site as discussed in Section 2.1.1. The primary lagoons would have a total area of 1.08 acres, and the evaporation lagoons would have a total area of 3.52 acres. The Nation would comply with USEPA requirements and would meet local ODEQ Title 252 Chapter 626 Subchapter 7 “Source Development” regulations, which require that all wastewater facilities must be at least 300 feet away from potable water wells. Therefore, no adverse impacts to groundwater quality from wastewater treatment would occur. 4.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Impacts resulting from construction, wastewater facilities, and flooding on water quality would remain the same as under the Proposed Project. Impacts to groundwater supply would also remain the same as under the Proposed Project. However, a similar, but smaller, amount of stormwater runoff would result from this alternative as for the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would comply with the applicable NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and BMPs described therein, which would ensure that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less than significant impacts on water quality within the project area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would require 33 percent less potable water than the Proposed Project, with an approximate average daily water demand of 4.73 gpm. Based on this average water demand, the annual water use would be 7.62 AF. This is less than 0.4 percent of the 2,000 AF available in Lake Rex Smith. Therefore, the surface water supply from Lake Rex Smith would not be adversely affected by water demands associated with the Reduced Intensity Alternative. 4.2.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust, and no development would occur on the Subject Property. The site would remain in its current state. The No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts related to surface water or groundwater resources. 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Construction Analysis Construction activities would consist of mass earthwork, fine grading, building, road work, and parking lot construction. A fleet mix of trucks, scrapers, excavators, and graders would be used to complete construction of the Proposed Project. Effects on air quality during construction were evaluated by estimating the quantity of each criteria pollutant emitted over the duration of the construction period. Particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) are the pollutants of concern resulting during earth-moving and fine grading activities. VOCs, NOX, SO2, CO, GHG, and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions would be emitted from heavy equipment from the combustion of diesel fuel. Mobile source emissions would result from the use of on-road construction vehicles. Emissions from construction trucks and heavy equipment were calculated using USEPA-approved emission factors from the 2014 Emission Factor Model (EMFAC; EMFAC, 2014). A detailed list of the proposed equipment and emissions resulting from the equipment is located in Appendix K. The EMFAC air quality model was used to estimate project-related PM10 emissions (EMFAC, 2011) from equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. The PM10 emission factor in EMFAC is 0.0191 tons per acre-day, and the PM2.5 emission factor is 0.005 tons per acre-day of the PM10 emission. Actual particulate matter emissions from dust generation can vary from day to day, depending on level of activity, specific operations, mitigation measures, and weather conditions. Emissions were estimated assuming that


construction would begin in 2020 and continue at an average rate of 22 days per month for Alternatives A and B. The total construction durations for Alternatives A and B were estimated to be 12 months. Emission results are summarized below and included in Appendix K. Operational Analysis Mobile-Source Emissions Emission factors in grams per vehicle mile traveled were estimated for patron vehicles during January and July (winter and summer) and evaluated using USEPA’s model Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Version 2014b (MOVES; USEPA, 2014). MOVES calculates emissions for gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles, trucks, heavy-duty vehicles, and motorcycles. The model accounts for progressively more stringent tailpipe emission standards over the vehicle model years evaluated. MOVES model input data are site specific, and the output data are provided in Appendix K. Emissions of PM10, NOX, SO2, CO, VOCs, and carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) from vehicles traveling to, from, and within the Subject Property were calculated for each alternative. Calculations were based on emission factors derived from MOVES (USEPA, 2004) and trip generation rates provided in the TIS developed for the project by TEC (TEC, 2017; Appendix I). Average trip lengths were estimated using distance to nearest population centers and are provided in Appendix K. Stationary-Source Emissions For each of the project alternatives, propane would be used as fuel for hot water boilers, space heating, domestic water heaters, steam boilers for food service, cooking equipment, and laundering equipment. Propane use is based on the facilities size and energy intensity per facility provided by Energy Star Portfolio Manager (Energy Star, 2016). Emissions from propane combustion are calculated using emission factors from AP-42 (USEPA, 1995). Federal General Conformity Conformity regulations apply to federal actions that would cause emissions of CAPs above certain levels to occur in locations designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas for the emitted pollutants. As discussed in Section 3.3, the Subject Property is located in an area that is classified as being in attainment for all NAAQS; therefore, a federal general conformity analysis is not required for the proposed alternatives. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis Implementation of the project alternatives would result in emissions of CO. Because CO disperses rapidly with increased distance from the source, emissions of CO are considered localized pollutants of concern rather than regional pollutants and can be evaluated using a “hot spot” analysis. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.123, quantitative analysis is required to be conducted if any of the following criteria are met: For projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the

applicable SIP as sites of violation or possible violation; For projects affecting intersections that are at LOS D, E, or F, or those that will change to LOS D,

E, or F because of increased traffic volumes related to the project; For any project affecting one or more of the top three intersections in the nonattainment or

maintenance area with highest traffic volumes, as identified in the applicable implementation plan; and

For any project affecting one or more of the top three intersections in the nonattainment or maintenance area with the worst LOS, as identified in the applicable implementation plan.


The Proposed Project is not in an affected location, area, or category of sites that have been identified in a SIP (USEPA, 2014). As shown in the TIS (Appendix I), no intersection currently operating at LOS D, E, or F would be affected by project-related traffic and no intersection in the study area would operate at LOS D, E, or F with the inclusion of project traffic. The Proposed Project is not located in a nonattainment or maintenance area (USEPA, 2017c). Therefore, no quantitative analysis of CO concentrations is required. Climate Change The CEQ released a final guidance memorandum on how climate change should be addressed in NEPA documents (CEQ, 2016). As of March 31, 2017, EO 13783 was released, which required the withdrawal of the 2016 CEQ guidance; therefore, there is no approved federal threshold for GHG emissions. The USEPA administers the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), which implements 40 CFR Part 98. The GHGRP requires that sources that in general emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2e per year in the United States must report emissions. Smaller sources and certain sectors such as the agricultural sector and land use changes are not included in the GHGRP. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CO2e is a unit of measure used to compare GHGs other than CO2 by converting them to a CO2-like emission value based on a heat-capturing ratio. As shown in Table 4-2, CO2 is used as the base and is given a value of one. Methane (CH4) has the ability to capture 21 times more heat than CO2; therefore, CH4 is given a CO2e value of 21 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014). Emissions of all GHGs are multiplied by the CO2e value and then combined to arrive at a single GHG emission value. Using CO2e as a common measurement provides a means for comparing the relative overall effectiveness of various emission reduction measures in reducing contributions to global climate change.

TABLE 4-2 GREENHOUSE GAS CO2 EQUIVALENT CONVERSION

Gas CO2e Value Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1

Methane (CH4) 21

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 310

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) 140 – 11,700

Perfluorocarbons (PFC) 6,500 – 9,200

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900

Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Source: IPCC, 2014.

Federal Class I Area If any alternative exceeds the PSD threshold of 250 tons per year (tpy) of any one CAP from stationary sources during construction or operation, then a best available control technology analysis must be conducted by the Nation as required in accordance with Title 1, Part C of the CAA. As stated in Section 3.3, there are no federal Class I areas within 100 kilometers of the Subject Property; therefore, no further analysis is warranted. Tribal New Source Review The Nation would be required to apply for a permit under the newly implemented minor NSR requirements of the CAA if stationary-source operational emissions of regulated pollutants would exceed the thresholds presented in 40 CFR § 49.153, Table 1 (Table 2 of Appendix D). For this analysis, stationary-source project-related operational emissions are quantified and compared to the applicable threshold. Because the


minor NSR rule is newly implemented, it is possible that USEPA may promulgate class-specific guidelines or regulations requiring a minor NSR permit. At this time, no such guidelines have been promulgated and USEPA has not indicated any timeline for proposing such guidelines. 4.3.2 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Construction Emissions Construction of the Proposed Project would result in emissions of PM10, NOX, SOX, CO, VOCs, GHGs, and hazardous air pollutants (primarily in the form of DPM) from the use of construction equipment and grading activities. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2020 and last approximately 12 months. Construction is assumed to occur for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. The construction emission totals for the Proposed Project are shown in Table 4-3 (see Appendix K model output files).

TABLE 4-3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS –PROPOSED PROJECT

Sources Criteria Pollutants (tons per year)

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2020 3.90 21.31 19.00 0.56 1.24 1.16 De Minimis Level N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: N/A = Not Applicable. De minimis attainment (refer to Section 3.3). Source: USEPA, 2016; USEPA, 1995.

levels are not applicable because the project area is in

The Subject Property is in a region classified as being in attainment for all CAPs; therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 93, construction of the Proposed Project would not cause an exceedance of NAAQS. BMPs identified in Section 2.1.2 would minimize construction-related emissions of CAPs and reduce DPM emissions from construction equipment by approximately 85 percent, avoiding potentially adverse effects. Therefore, with the implementation of BMPs, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with the regional air quality environment. The Proposed Project is protective of public health and safety (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][2]) and compliant with mandates for construction emissions (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][10]). Operational Vehicle and Area Emissions Buildout and operation of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of mobile emissions from patron, employee, and delivery vehicles, as well as stationary-source emissions from combustion of propane in boilers, stoves, heating units, and other equipment on the East Site. Estimated mobile-source and stationary-source emissions from operation of the Proposed Project are provided in Table 4-4. Detailed calculations of vehicle and area emissions are included in Appendix K.

TABLE 4-4 2019 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS –PROPOSED PROJECT

Sources Criteria Pollutants (tons per year)

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Stationary 1.39 0.10 0.80 0.09 0.04 0.02 Mobile 10.1 1.0 29.7 0.1 0.8 0.4 Total Emissions 11.40 1.10 30.50 0.19 0.84 0.42 De Minimis Level* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Minor NSR Threshold 10 5 10 10 5 3 Notes: N/A = Not Applicable; de minimis Source: USEPA, 2016; USEPA, 1995.

levels are not applicable due to attainment status (refer to Section 3.4).


The Subject Property is in a region classified as being in attainment for all CAPs. Under the federal CAA (40 CFR Part 93), if a region is in attainment for all CAPs, then the region meets the NAAQS and there are no de minimis levels or thresholds for a project’s emissions. As shown in Table 4-4, operational emissions from stationary sources would exceed the minor NSR thresholds and, therefore, an associated minor NSR permit may be required. If the USEPA promulgates class-specific guidelines or regulations requiring that the Nation obtain a minor NSR permit, then the Nation would apply for and obtain a minor NSR permit in accordance with the USEPA guidelines and NSR regulations. BMPs provided in Section 2.1.2 would minimize CAP emissions resulting from operation of the Proposed Project. With implementation of BMPs, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with the regional air quality environment. The Proposed Project is protective of public health and safety (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][2]) and compliant with mandates for operational vehicle and area emissions (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][10]). Odor The nearest odor sensitive receptor to the West Site is a residence located approximately 350 feet to the west. The proposed wastewater treatment lagoon system would use natural processes to reduce the potential for odors at sensitive receptors. When properly designed, wastewater treatment lagoons do not have odors. Odors occur when the primary lagoon is overloaded, causing dissolved oxygen in the lagoon to drop to zero, and anaerobic processes occur. Search, LLC reported anaerobically overloaded lagoons have never occurred at their wastewater treatment systems designed by for the Chickasaw Nation. In the event of expansion or increased wastewater load, aerators would be installed to increase the capacity of the system and prevent odors (Streebin, 2020). Climate Change Analysis Development of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions related to mobile sources (trips generated), area sources (components of the Proposed Project that directly emit GHGs), and indirect sources (e.g., generation of electricity, wastewater processing, and water transport). GHG Emission Estimates USEPA-approved EMFAC emissions factors were used to estimate direct and indirect project-related GHG emissions. Construction of the Proposed Project would emit 2,046 MT of CO2e (Appendix K). Table 4-5 shows estimated direct and indirect GHG emissions resulting from the Proposed Project is 13,120 MT of CO2e per year. GHG emissions resulting from the Proposed Project are primarily indirect (either indirect mobile emissions from delivery, patron, and employee vehicles or indirect off-site electricity generation, waste pickup, water and wastewater transport, etc.). Direct project GHG emissions would be from the combustion of propane, primarily in boilers and cooking equipment. The federal government has enacted measures that would reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources, some of which have been accounted for in the air quality model used to estimate mobile emissions. BMPs have been incorporated into the project design to reduce the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions (see Section 2.1.2). GHG emissions reduction would occur due to reduced idling of heavy equipment, thereby, reducing CO2 emissions during the construction phase of the Proposed Project. Operational BMPs, which would reduce indirect stationary GHG emissions from electricity use, water and wastewater transport, and waste transport include installation of energy efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems, low-flow appliances, drought resistant landscaping, and providing recycling receptacles. Operational BMPs which would reduce indirect mobile GHG emissions include adequate ingress and egress to minimize vehicle idling and use of shuttles and/or charter buses to reduce project related trips. Therefore, with the implementation of all feasible BMPs provided in Section 2.1.2, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse cumulative impact associated with climate change.


TABLE 4-5 PROJECT-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS –PROPOSED PROJECT

Project Feature Annual GHG Emissions in CO2e (MT)

Direct Construction 2,046 Stationary Sources 765 Indirect Mobile 6,699 Electricity Usage 3,553 Solid Waste 55

Water and Wastewater Treatment 2

Subtotal 10,309 Total Project-Related GHG Emissions 13,120 Source: EMFAC, 2011; USEPA, 2014; Electricity land use project, 2017; Solid Waste - CalRecycle, Search, Inc., 2017.

- based on 966 kW load for similar 2016; Water/Wastewater -

This EA also analyzes the effect of climate change on the project. Globally, climate change is expected to result in more erratic weather patterns, more frequent droughts, floods, and wildfires. More locally, it is also expected to cause regional and local impacts such as increased drought periods, reduced water tables, and flooding (IPCC, 2014). Average temperature in Marshall County could increase, resulting in projected extreme heat days, and wildfire risk in forest near the Proposed Project may increase. An increase in extreme heat days could result in higher peak energy demand during peak events, and potentially increase energy prices and even result in power-outages. In the event that power to the Subject Property is lost, this effect would be temporary and would not have a long-term impact on the Proposed Project. The intensity of these effects is uncertain and depends on future GHG emissions worldwide. No characteristics of the Proposed Project are unique or especially vulnerable to the impacts from climate change. The effects of increasing temperatures and frequency of extreme heat days will be dampened by the use of on-site air conditioning. The Subject Property is located near rivers, lakes, forest, and agricultural land at approximately 700 feet amsl. The Subject Property is located on undeveloped land surrounded by trees and developed and paved areas, which is adequately served by emergency services and therefore, is not uniquely sensitive to increased risk from wildfires as a result of climate change. 4.3.3 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Construction Emissions Construction emissions for the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result from the same sources as those described above for the Proposed Project. Construction emission totals for the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be reduced from those emissions presented for the Proposed Project (Table 4-5) because of the reduction in size of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. The Subject Property is in a region classified as being in attainment for all CAPs; therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 93, construction of the Proposed Project would not cause an exceedance of NAAQS. BMPs identified in Section 2.1.2 would minimize construction-related emissions of CAPs and reduce DPM emissions from construction equipment by approximately 85 percent, avoiding potentially adverse effects. Therefore, with the implementation of BMPs, construction of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with the regional air quality environment. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be protective of public health and safety (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][2]) and compliant with mandates for construction emissions (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][10]).


Operational Vehicle and Area Emissions Buildout and operation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the generation of mobile emissions from patron, employee, and delivery vehicles, as well as stationary-source emissions from combustion of propane in boilers and other equipment on the Subject Property. Estimated mobile-source and stationary-source emissions from operation of the Proposed Project would be reduced due to the reduced size of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. BMPs described in Section 2.1.2 would minimize CAP emissions from operation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. With implementation of BMPs to minimize emissions of CAPs, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with the regional air quality environment. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is protective of public health and safety (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][2]) and compliant with mandates for operational vehicle and area emissions (40 CFR § 1508.27 [b][10]). Climate Change The impact to global climate change would be less for the Reduced Intensity Alternative than as described for the Proposed Project because construction and operation of the project would have fewer construction equipment requirements and operational vehicle trips due to the reduced size of the project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement the same BMPs as those described under the Proposed Project. Therefore, with the implementation of all feasible BMPs provided in Section 2.1.2, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in a significant adverse cumulative impact associated with climate change. As with the Proposed Project, no characteristics of the Reduced Intensity Alternative are unique or especially vulnerable to the impacts from climate change; therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is not uniquely sensitive to increased risk from wildfires as a result of climate change. 4.3.4 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken in trust and no development would occur. No construction or operational, mobile-source or stationary-source emissions of CAPs, GHGs, or DPM would be generated under this alternative; therefore, no adverse impacts would occur. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Sensitive Communities No unique or sensitive ecosystems or biological communities are present within the Subject Property boundaries, as indicated by the information provided in Section 3.4. The East Site is primarily comprised of land disturbed by past land uses, including former park uses, a lodge and a golf course that existed on the site for many years. This parcel is characterized by extensive ruderal (weedy and disturbed) habitats with the exception of a thin stand of oaks running along the eastern boundary, adjacent to Lake Texoma. The West Site is relatively undisturbed and is bisected by an intermittent stream running north to south. It is characterized by relatively intact stands of oak. The Subject Property contains no natural communities that could be adversely affected during Subject Property development associated with the Proposed Project. Special-Status Species For the purposes of this assessment, “special status” has been defined to include those species that are listed as endangered or threatened under FESA, or are formally proposed for or are candidates for listing. Potential adverse effects to special-status species would be considered significant and require mitigation. Informal consultation with USFWS was conducted to determine potential effects to federally listed special status species and the USFWS conclusion was that formal consultation was not required. A summary of consultation is provided in Appendix E.


Federally Listed Plants and Wildlife No potential habitat was identified by ONHI and USFWS for federally listed plants within the Subject Property. A site reconnaissance survey on January 10 and 11, 2017 confirmed that no federally listed plant species exist within the Subject Property. Thus, the Proposed Project would result in no effect to federally listed plants. As discussed in Section 3.4.3, the Subject Property provides potential foraging habitat for two federally listed wildlife species: the whooping crane and ABB. Whooping Crane The Subject Property is located within the migratory corridor for whooping crane, which has the potential to fly over the Subject Property during its biannual migration between the Texas coastline and Canada. The development of the East Site would impact the intermittently filled 1.59-acre man-made pond within the East Site. However, this small pond is disconnected from any other suitable habitats, and the entire site is adjacent to Lake Texoma, which represents higher quality habitat. Properties adjacent to the Subject Property are predominantly undeveloped. The loss of 1.59 acres of low quality foraging habitat would not be a significant impact that would jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane. Thus, the Proposed Project would have no effect on the federally listed whooping crane. American Burying Beetle There is potential habitat for the federally endangered ABB within the ruderal, grassland, and oak woodland habitat areas of the Subject Property shown on Figure 3-3 of Appendix A. Portions of the ruderal habitats shown in Figure 3-3 of Appendix A are paved and would be completely unsuitable for use by ABB. However, the balance of the ruderal habitats contains vegetation and substrate that may be suitable for use. A feeding habitat generalist, the ABB has been found in grasslands, pasture, riparian zones, and all types of forests found across Oklahoma. The entirety of Marshall County is within 18.6 miles of a documented occurrence of the ABB. The USFWS has survey protocols in place to determine presence/absence of ABB. In 2015 (the last year of data for ABB surveys), there were 21 surveys for ABB in Marshall County, and all surveys were negative. ABB presence within the property has not been confirmed through a presence/absence survey but their presence is considered possible based on the observed habitat. Therefore, mitigation measures are presented in Section 5.0 to require surveys for ABB prior to construction and to ensure that impacts are avoided, should this species be identified within the Subject Property. With implementation of mitigation measures, this alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, any federally listed wildlife species. Federally Protected Migratory Birds Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to disturb federally protected migratory birds and other birds of prey. The East Site is mostly disturbed and contains a mix of native and non-native vegetation with a strip of oak trees along its eastern boundary. One former water feature from the abandoned golf course is present on the East Site. It is possible that federally protected migratory bird species could utilize the East Site for nesting purposes. The West Site is relatively undisturbed and contains a large number of mature hardwood trees. These trees may be utilized by federally protected migratory bird species for nesting. As outlined in Section 5.0, a pre-construction survey would be conducted for migratory birds during the avian breeding season (March 1 through September 1) within 500 feet of all construction activities before vegetation removal and/or earthwork activities begin. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.0, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory bird species and other birds of prey. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. One jurisdictional water feature, an intermittent stream, transects the West Site (Figure 3.3 of Appendix A). As shown on Figure 2-1 of Appendix A, under the Proposed Project, wastewater lagoons would be built in the center of the West Site, impacting up to 550 linear feet of this feature. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation, including adherence to federal permitting requirements in


accordance with Section 404 of the CWA as outlined in Section 5.0, would reduce potential adverse impacts to Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. to less than significant. 4.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE As discussed in Section 4.4.1, no unique or sensitive ecosystems or biological communities are present in the Subject Property, and it does not provide habitat for any federally-listed plants. Thus, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have no effect on sensitive communities or federally-listed plants. As stated in Section 4.4.1, the Subject Property contains marginal habitat for the federally-listed whooping crane and potential habitat for the ABB, as well as federally-protected migratory birds. Impacts to these species under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same as those described in Section 4.4.1 for the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to special-status species under the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 3.4, and in Section 4.4.1, there is one jurisdictional wetland/Water of the U.S. feature located within the project site that could be disturbed by the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures discussed in Section 5.0 would reduce potential adverse impacts to Wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. 4.4.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust, and no development would occur. The No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts to any biological resources. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT As discussed in Section 3.5, no historic properties or known archaeological sites or cultural materials are located within the Proposed Project’s APE for either the East Site or West Site, and the potential for buried archaeological deposits to occur within either APE is low. No known historic, cultural, religious, or archaeological resources would be affected by the Proposed Project. There is always a possibility, however, that previously unknown archaeological resources could be encountered during construction. With implementation of BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2 regarding unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials and human remains, no adverse effects to previously unknown cultural resources would occur. 4.5.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE As discussed in Section 3.5, no historic properties or known archaeological sites or cultural materials are located within the Proposed Project’s APE for either the East Site, West Site, or pipeline corridor. No known historic, cultural, religious, or archaeological resources would be affected by the Proposed Project. There is always a possibility, however, that previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources could be encountered during construction. With implementation of BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2 regarding unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, no adverse effects to previously unknown cultural resources would occur. 4.5.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust and no development would occur in the near-term. No change in land use is proposed, and the Subject Property would remain in its current state. No significant cultural or paleontological resources effects would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.


4.6 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 4.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Economy and Employment As described in the Economic Impact Analysis of the Kingston Gaming Development (Appendix H) study developed by Professor James Rauch of Oklahoma’s East Central University, the Proposed Project would result in a variety of benefits to the regional economy, including increases in overall economic output, and employment opportunities. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would generate substantial temporary and ongoing employment opportunities and wages that would be primarily filled by the available labor force in Marshall County. According to Appendix H, the total estimated economic impact on the regional economy from the Proposed Project in year one is approximately $58 million. The five-year total estimated economic impact on the regional economy from the Proposed Project is approximately $168 million. In addition, under the Nation’s Tribal-State Compact with the State of Oklahoma, the Nation would pay exclusivity fees ranging from $332,900 to $492,000 during the first year of operation to the State of Oklahoma for the right to operate compacted gaming. New one-time employment opportunities throughout Marshall County would be generated during the construction phase of the Proposed Project. Operation of the Proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 174 new full-time employment positions. These employment figures are net any loss of employees from the Nation’s existing Texoma casino (discussed further under the Tribal Casino Gaming Market Substitution Effects subsection below). Of the 174 jobs generated, 108 would be a direct result of the Proposed Project, while the remaining 66 consist of indirect and induced employment opportunities (Appendix H). Employment opportunities generated at the proposed casino would include entry-level, mid-level, and management positions. Average salaries offered are expected to be consistent with those of other tribal gaming facilities and competitive in the local labor market. The anticipated increase in employment opportunities throughout Marshall County could result in employment and wages for persons previously unemployed, which would increase the ability of the population to obtain health and safety services and would contribute to the alleviation of poverty among lower income households. However, a significant impact to the local unemployment rate would not be anticipated to occur. Nonetheless, overall, the Proposed Project would result in beneficial impacts to the regional economy. For additional details regarding the economic impacts anticipated to be generated by the construction and operation of the Proposed Project, please refer to Appendix H. Tax Impacts The Proposed Project would result in a variety of fiscal impacts. The Nation would not pay corporate income taxes on revenue or property taxes on tribal land. The Proposed Project would also increase demand for public services, resulting in increased costs for local governments to provide these services (refer to Section 4.9 for an analysis of these impacts). However, potential effects due to the loss of state and federal tax revenues resulting from the operation of the Proposed Project would be offset by increased local, state and federal tax revenues resulting from construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Tax revenues would be generated for federal, state and local governments from activities including secondary economic activity generated by tribal gaming (i.e., the indirect and induced effects of the economic impact analysis). The taxes on secondary economic activity include corporate profits tax, income tax, sales tax, excise tax, property tax, and personal non-taxes, such as motor vehicle licensing fees, fishing/hunting license fees, other fees, and fines. The Proposed Project would involve increased state and federal income taxes from employment generated by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is estimated to provide $367,919 in annual payments to


Social Security and Medicare through employer and employment contributions. In addition, annual federal income tax withholdings from employees at the casino and hotel are estimated to be $260,397, and annual State income taxes withholdings from employees at the casino and hotel are estimated to be $79,209 in the first year of operations (Appendix H). As stated in Section 3.6.5, the State of Oklahoma owned the Subject Property until October 2016, and therefore no property tax was assessed until the land was sold at that time. As the Subject Property was not generating property tax revenue while it was owned by the State, the removal of the Subject Property from the Marshall County tax rolls once the property is taken into trust would not be a significant impact. Housing Based on the information presented in Section 3.6.4, the Marshall County housing market consisted of 10,006 total units and had a 37 percent vacancy rate, or 3,668 vacant units (Table 6 of Appendix D). As indirect and induced employment opportunities would be dispersed among a variety of different businesses throughout the region, it is expected that available employees would already be located near these locations and would not require relocation. Due to the large number of vacant homes in Marshall County, the increase in employment generated by the Proposed Project would have a negligible potential to impact regional housing stock. Based on regional housing stock data (Table 6 of Appendix D), it is anticipated that sufficient vacant homes would be available to accommodate any potential increase in population resulting from impacts to the regional labor market under the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to stimulate regional housing development. A significant impact to the housing market would not occur. Potential indirect effects resulting from growth inducement are discussed further in Section 4.13. Social Effects Pathological and Problem Gambling Gambling, in one form or another, is now legal in every state except Hawaii and Utah. According to a study done by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), approximately 86 percent of Americans report having gambled at least once during their lifetimes, and 63 percent report having gambled at least once during the previous year (NGISC, 1999). This estimate is based on participation in all forms of gambling, including lotteries, poker, Internet gambling, betting, and casino gambling. As described in Table 4-6, behaviors of casino customers can be broken down into five categories. Gaming customers are motivated to visit a casino for a variety of reasons, and some of those reasons may be viewed as criteria that define an individual as a problem gambler. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) describes pathological gambling as an impulse control disorder characterized by “persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior that disrupts personal, family, or vocational pursuits. The gambling pattern may be regular or episodic, and the course of the disorder is typically chronic” (NGISC, 1999). The APA has established 10 criteria for diagnosing a pathological and problem gambler: preoccupation, tolerance, withdrawal, escape, chasing, lying, loss of control, illegal acts, risked significant relationship, and financial bailout. At-risk gaming participants typically meet one or two of these criteria; problem gamblers typically meet three or four of these criteria; and pathological gamblers typically meet at least five of these criteria. Collectively, both pathological and problem gambling are referred to as “problem gambling.”


TABLE 4-6 FIVE BEHAVIORS OF CASINO CUSTOMERS

Behavior Type Characteristics

Recognition Seekers Small share of total players. Have high expectation of recognition from the property they patronize. The reward to the casino is an intensely loyal and frequent visitor.

Escapists Seek a getaway that does not resemble their everyday routine. Prefer to remain anonymous. Require minimal maintenance in the form of personal attention and complimentary services from the casino.

Reward Seekers Driven by casino’s play rewards program or promotions that their play. Gamers will play at the casino with the best deal.

compensate them for

Socializers Visit a casino to be around others. Once they identify with a particular property, they become very loyal, with high levels of visitation.

Professionals Pay very close attention to the types of games a casino offers. Generate large coin handle and accumulate voluminous amounts of slot club points. Loyalty goes to the casino where they can make the most money.

Source: Information compiled by AES in 2010.

Three studies, two completed in 1997 and one completed in 1998, estimated that the percentage of American adults classified as pathological gamblers ranged from 1.2 to 1.6 percent (NGISC, 1999). The NGISC noted that pathological gambling often occurs in conjunction with other behavioral problems, including substance abuse, mood disorders, and personality disorders. Even if it were possible to isolate the effects of problem gambling on people who suffer from these types of additional problems, it is difficult to then isolate the effects of casino gambling from other forms of gambling. As discussed, casino gambling is only one form of gambling. In fact, the most prevalent forms of gambling are those found in most neighborhoods: scratch-off lottery cards, lotto, and video lottery terminals. Residents of Marshall County have already been exposed to many forms of gambling, including the existing casinos in surrounding areas mentioned in Section 3.6. Construction and operation of an additional casino in Oklahoma under the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the prevalence of problem gamblers, and is therefore not expected to increase costs to the surrounding community of treatment programs for compulsive gambling. Furthermore, a portion of the Nation’s Tribal-State Gaming Compact payments to the State of Oklahoma would be dedicated to a fund supporting the operation of problem gambling treatment programs. These payments made by the Nation would further reduce the already less than significant impacts to problem gambling. Thus, the impact is less than significant and no further mitigation measures are warranted Crime There is a general belief that the introduction of legalized gambling into a community increases crime. However, this argument is based more on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence. Whenever large volumes of people are introduced into an area, the volume of crime would also be expected to increase. This is true of any large-scale development. Taken as a whole, literature on the relationship between gambling and crime rates suggests that communities with casinos are as safe as communities without casinos. The National Opinion Research Center (1999) found that insufficient data exists to quantify or determine the relationship between casino gambling within a community and crime rates. The Proposed Project would result in an increased number of patrons and employees traveling/commuting into the community on a daily basis. As a result, under the Proposed Project, criminal incidents may increase in the project area, particularly at the East Site, as with any other development of this size. This may result in an increase in the calls for law enforcement service. See Section 4.9.1 for an analysis of effects to law enforcement. As the will-serve letter from the Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police indicates, the


department is willing and able to provide services (Appendix C). Moreover, increased tax revenues resulting from the Proposed Project would fund expansion of law enforcement services required to accommodate planned growth. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with crime. Tribal Casino Gaming Market Substitution Effects HVS performed a detailed review of competitive gaming facilities based on identification of local and regional gaming facilities and a review of economic and demographic data to evaluate demand levels and consumer gaming habits (HVS, 2017). Based on this review, potential substitution effects of the Proposed Project on other gaming facilities were calculated. The analysis included collecting background information, quantifying supply and demand factors in the relevant market, and forecasting future gaming revenue capture. As indicated in Table 8 of Appendix D, existing regional gaming facilities with the greatest potential to be affected by the project include two other facilities owned and operated by the Chickasaw Nation (Texoma Casino and Madill Gaming Center) and three Choctaw Nation-run facilities (Choctaw Travel Plaza – Durant West, Choctaw Travel Plaza – Durant East, and Choctaw Casino Resort), with distances of between 2 and 13 miles from the Subject Property (HVS, 2017). Based on this analysis, it is projected that the only facilities that would experience a decrease in the amount of gaming revenue captured would be the Chickasaw-owned and operated Texoma Casino and Madill Gaming Center (refer to Figure 4-21 in HVS, 2017). Any decreases in revenue experienced by the Nation at these facilities would be offset by the increase in revenue generated by the Proposed Project. None of the Choctaw-run facilities would experience a significant decrease in revenue from gaming machines. Therefore, the operation of the Proposed Project would not cause a significant impact, as it would not affect the ability of the Choctaw Nation or any other tribal government to provide essential services and facilities to its membership, or result in the closure of any of the competing gaming facilities. Environmental Justice for Minority and Low Income Populations As discussed in Section 3.6, there are no identified low-income or minority census tracts in the vicinity of the Subject Property; however, the Chickasaw Nation is considered a minority community for the purpose of this environmental justice analysis. As described throughout Section 4.0 of this EA, after mitigation, all environmental impacts of the Proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not displace any residential populations in the vicinity of the Subject Property. Effects to the Nation (a minority population identified in Section 3.6) would be positive and include an increased revenue base for strengthening the Nation’s government and enhancing the quality of life for Chickasaw members, as discussed further below. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects to minority or low-income communities, including the Chickasaw Nation. Effects to the Chickasaw Nation As discussed in Section 1.4, the Proposed Project would provide important economic and social benefits to the Chickasaw Nation by generating the revenues needed to further the social, political, cultural, and economic welfare of the Chickasaw people by enhance the quality and quantity of education, healthcare, housing programs, and other tribal governmental programs. The Proposed Project would have a long-term beneficial impact on the Chickasaw Nation by helping the Nation develop a sustainable revenue base that will strengthen the Nation’s government and provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities. 4.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative includes the construction and operation of similar project components as those of the Proposed Project, but the casino resort under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be approximately 33 percent smaller than that under the Proposed Project. Socioeconomic effects, such as


social effects and effects to the tribal casino gaming market would be reduced proportionally to the size of the development. Similarly, beneficial socioeconomic effects including output to the local economy, employment rates, and effects to the Chickasaw Nation, would be reduced proportionally to the size of the development. 4.6.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust, and no development would occur. None of the potential effects identified under the Proposed Project or the Reduced Intensity Alternative would occur. 4.7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 4.7.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Methodology Study Intersections A TIS was conducted by TEC in February 2017 to determine the effects the proposed development would have on the adjacent street system, review the available access to the development, and provide recommendations for improvements that may be necessary to accommodate the traffic expected to be generated by the development. The TIS is provided as Appendix I to this EA. Traffic analyses were completed to evaluate the operational conditions of the following five study intersections: US-70 and State Park Road State Park Road and Texoma Park Road State Park Road and Drive #1 State Park Road and Drive #2 State Park Road and Drive #3

To assess project-related impacts on the transportation system, future background traffic conditions were estimated for the year 2019, which corresponds to the timing of buildout of the Proposed Project. As described in Appendix I, the 2019 background traffic conditions were determined by applying an average annual growth rate of 2 percent to the 2017 existing traffic described in Appendix I. Table 2 of Appendix I shows the operating conditions of the study intersections under 2019 baseline conditions. As shown therein, both of the existing study intersections would operate at LOS A or B during the morning and evening peak hours. The study area intersections were analyzed using procedures published in the HCM and Synchro 9.1, 2015, a computer-based traffic analysis program developed by Trafficware (Appendix I). Estimated traffic generated by the Proposed Project was added to the 2019 background traffic to determine whether the Proposed Project would cause the study intersections to operate at an unacceptable LOS. As described in Section 3.7, for the purposes of this analysis, an overall intersection LOS of D or better and a critical approach LOS of E or better were considered acceptable (Appendix I). If an intersection operates at LOS E or F without the addition of the Proposed Project, a significant impact would occur if the intersection delay is greater than the intersection delay in the without project condition. These thresholds applies to all study intersections (HCM, 2010). Trip Generation Rates Trip generation relates land uses to the number of vehicles entering or exiting the site and the directional splits of inbound/outbound traffic. A trip is defined as a vehicle either entering or exiting the site. The daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates were derived for the Proposed Project based on information published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9th Edition of Trip Generation


Manual as well as previously collected data by TEC (ITE, 2012; Appendix I). The ITE Manual provides empirical data, based on field observations for trip generation characteristics of similar land uses. The ITE hotel land use was selected to determine the trip generation rates for the proposed hotel. The ITE trip generation rates provided for casino land use is based on facilities with less than 2,500 square feet (sf), which is significantly smaller than the proposed casino, which would consist of approximately 21,000 sf. As a result, TEC utilized previously collected traffic volumes from vehicles entering and exiting three comparable casino developments located in Tahlequah, Lawton, and Thackerville, Oklahoma, to create comparable trip generation rates. The casinos ranged in size from 20,000 sf to 73,000 sf and the traffic volumes were averaged to provide representation for the proposed casino. Table 4-7 provides a summary of the trip generation of both the proposed casino and hotel.

TABLE 4-7 TRIP GENERATION RATES

Building Type (Land Use)

1,000 sf or Rooms

Daily Trip Generation Rate (vpd)

Daily Trips1

(veh/day)

AM Peak Hour Trip Generation

Rate (vph2)

AM Peak Hour (vph)

PM Peak Hour Trip Generation

Rate (vph)

PM Peak Hour (vph)

In Out In Out Casino 21.582 115.77 2,499 3.87 45 39 9.02 101 94 Hotel/Cabins 50 1.50 75 0.53 16 11 0.60 15 15 Sub-Totals 117.27 2,574 4.4 61 50 9.62 116 109 Reduction (50%) 38 8 6 8 8 Total Trips 2,536 53 44 108 101 Notes: 1 – Total trips equals the sf 2 – vehicles per hour Source: Appendix I

or rooms multiplied by the trip generation rate.

A reduction adjustment to the total trips is used based on the types of facilities on the site. Due to the close proximity of the casino and hotel, and their shared access, there would be a high percentage of vehicles that visit the hotel and then proceed to the casino and are therefore not counted as new trips for each use. This is referred to as internal capture, which affects both the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site, as well as the vehicles added to the surrounding street system. A conservative internal capture reduction of 50 percent was used. Trip Distribution Estimated traffic generated by the Proposed Project was distributed on the surrounding street system based on anticipated site use. Figure 6 in the TIS (Appendix I) shows the traffic volumes and distribution for the Proposed Project. The directional distribution of traffic generated by the Proposed Project is expected to be: 45 percent to/from US-70 west of the development 35 percent to/from US-70 east of the development 15 percent to/from Texoma Park Road southwest of the development 5 percent to/from State Park south of the development

Study Intersections Table 2 of Appendix I provides a summary of the future LOS at each study intersection with the addition of traffic from the Proposed Project. With the addition of traffic generated by the Proposed Project, LOS of all intersections, including the three proposed driveways, would operate at an LOS B or better. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to LOS at any of the study intersections and no mitigation is required.


Transit Services and Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are currently no public transit systems that serve the project area. As described in Section 3.7, JAMM Transit offers transportation to designated bus stations in Durant and Ardmore. It is not anticipated that this transportation service would be extended outside of those city limits to include pick-up/drop-off from the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an adverse impact on local transit systems. As described in Section 3.7, there are currently no bicycle paths or pedestrian walkways present in the vicinity of the project site. Because sufficient parking would be available on-site and sidewalk and bicycle facilities do not currently provide direct access to the project site, no significant adverse impacts would occur to pedestrian facilities as a result of the Proposed Project. 4.7.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Methodology The methodology for the Reduced Intensity Alternative is the same as the analysis of the Proposed Project (refer to Section 4.7.1). Trip Generation and Trip Distribution The trip generation rates and distribution for the Reduced Intensity Alternative are the same as those applied to the Proposed Project (refer to Section 4.7.1). As described in Section 2.2, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be 33,055 sf, which is approximately 33 percent less than the 53,114-sf casino under the Proposed Project. Therefore, the traffic generated by the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be approximately 33 percent less than for the Proposed Project. Study Intersections As shown in Table 2 of Appendix I, projected LOS for the 2019 projected combined traffic volumes would not exceed established thresholds with implementation of the Proposed Project. Since the Reduced Intensity Alternative would generate approximately 33 percent less traffic than the Proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would also have no adverse impacts related to the transportation network. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Systems Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative, which is located on the same site, would have no adverse impacts on local transit systems or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 4.7.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust and no development would occur in the near term. No change in land use is proposed, and the Subject Property would remain in its current state. The traffic conditions under the No Action Alternative would continue as described in Section 3.7.1 for the baseline without project conditions, and no traffic would be added to local intersections. No significant traffic effects would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. 4.8 LAND USE 4.8.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use Compatibility As described in Section 2.1, the Proposed Project includes the transfer of the approximately 50-acre East Site and the approximately 12-acre West Site from fee to trust status, and the subsequent development of a casino–resort, cabins, and ancillary infrastructure, including wastewater treatment lagoons. Once the federal government acquires the property in trust for the Nation, the parcels would no longer be subject to County land use regulations but would be under the civil regulatory jurisdiction of the Nation and the


federal government. However, as a general matter, the Nation plans to operate in a manner that is as consistent as possible with applicable local regulations and standards, and to enact appropriate land use ordinances in furtherance of responsible environmental stewardship. The Subject Property is on unzoned rural land outside of the incorporated limits of any municipalities in Marshall County, and the County does not have any zoning ordinance or other restrictions applicable to such rural unincorporated areas (Croasdale, 2017). As such, the land would be compatible with the County’s regulatory regime for land use. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of a casino-resort facility and cabins within the East Site, which was formerly developed with Lake Texoma State Park amenities, including a lodge and cabins. The proposed commercial and lodging uses within the site would be compatible with regional recreational uses in the area, including golfing, fishing, boating, camping and tourism activities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the addition of lagoons for holding treated wastewater effluent on the West Site. As the adjacent property contains existing wastewater lagoons, the Proposed Project would not result introduce a new land use in the area that would be incompatible with neighboring land uses. Development of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in land use compatibility impacts with nearby sensitive receptors, including the residential neighborhood approximately 500 feet west of the West Site, private residences within Catfish Bay Marina, approximately 1,250 feet south of the East Site, and other recreational areas within Lake Texoma State Park. Impacts may include, but are not limited to, air quality and noise impacts from construction activities and operational traffic (Sections 4.3 and 4.11, respectively) and alteration of the visual resources and aesthetics of the project site, including an increase in lighting (Section 4.10). Implementation of protective measures and BMPs identified in Section 2.1.2 and mitigation measures identified in Section 5.0 would reduce potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. Although the proposed commercial land uses within the site would differ from adjacent rural and recreational land uses, the proposed development would not physically disrupt neighboring land uses, prohibit access to neighboring parcels, or otherwise significantly conflict with neighboring land uses. Therefore, Alternative A would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with land use conflicts and compatibility. Lake Texoma State Park Airport FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, was submitted for the proposed development on January 19, 2017. On June 8, 2017, the FAA determined there would be no hazard to Air Navigation from Alternative A (Appendix H). Agriculture As discussed in Section 3.8.3, there are no agricultural operations on or in the vicinity of the Subject Property. None of the soils on either site are considered prime farmland, unique farmland, or land of statewide or local importance (NRCS, 2017). The Proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture and farmland in the vicinity of the project sites under the Proposed Project. 4.8.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Land Use Compatibility As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the transfer of the two project sites, totaling approximately 62 acres, from fee to trust status, as well as the subsequent development of a casino and hotel with recreational facilities. The Reduced Intensity Alternative differs from the Proposed Project in that the proposed development is significantly reduced in size, taking up about half of the total land area compared to development proposed under the Proposed Project. As previously


discussed, the Nation and the federal government would have jurisdictional authority over the land once it is taken into trust. As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative has the potential to result in land use compatibility impacts with nearby sensitive receptors as discussed in detail in the other topical sections of this EA. Implementation of protective measures and BMPs identified in Section 2.1.2 and mitigation measures identified in Section 5.0 would reduce potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. The proposed development would not physically disrupt neighboring land uses, prohibit access to neighboring parcels, or otherwise significantly conflict with neighboring land uses. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with land use conflicts. Agriculture As with the Proposed Project, there are no agricultural resources or significant farmland in the vicinity of either project site. The Proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture as a result of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. 4.8.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the property would not be taken into trust and would remain in its current condition. No project-related development would take place on any part of the Subject Property. The East Site would continue to be open for public access. No land use conflicts would occur. The No Action Alternative would not result in adverse impacts related to land use. 4.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.9.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Water Supply The estimated average daily water usage for the Proposed Project would be approximately 10,167 gpd, or 7.06 gpm (Appendix B), with peak hourly water usage of 28.24 gpm. Water to serve the casino resort development would be supplied by MCWC from a connection point that would be located at the northwest corner of the East Site (Appendix C). Appendix C contains a letter from Robert Moore, System Manager, confirming MCWC’s intent and ability to serve the Proposed Project at a rate of 30 gpm with a minimum pressure of 35 psi. No off-site modifications to water supply facilities would be necessary to serve the Proposed Project. As stated in Section 2.1.1, there is an existing 4-inch water line that runs parallel to US-70 along the southern ROW, and the Proposed Project would be served from this existing line through a new 2-inch master meter and proposed 4-inch potable water line. Fire demand for the Proposed Project is estimated at 750 gpm for a minimum of 120 minutes or 90,000 gallons. Therefore, a water tank with a recommended capacity of 112,500 gallons would be located in the southeast corner of the East Site to provide reserve capacity for fire suppression. The tank would be filled by a 4-inch service line connected to the proposed 4-inch potable water line, with pressure transducer and electrical controls regulating the tank’s water level. Fire flow would be supplied through a fire pump that feeds an 8-inch loop around the Proposed Project. (Appendix B) MCWC has stated it is willing and able to provide water service to the Proposed Project (Appendix C); thus, no significant impacts would result from extending potable water service to the site. Wastewater Service Under the Proposed Project, wastewater generated by the project would be treated by the lagoons located on the East Site, described in Section 2.1.1. Since no connection to a public wastewater system is proposed, no impact to municipal wastewater treatment systems would occur. Impacts associated with water quality from operation of the wastewater system are described in Section 4.2.


Solid Waste Service Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in waste generation. The waste stream would consist of excess construction materials. Waste that cannot be recycled would be disposed of at the SORD landfill. The minimal adverse effects on solid waste services during construction would be considered less than significant. As shown in Table 4-8, based on similar facilities, the operation of the Proposed Project would generate an estimated 0.34 tons of solid waste per day, or 122.02 tpy. Under the Proposed Project, the Nation would contract with SORD to provide solid waste collection, transfer, and recycling services for solid waste generated at the Proposed Project. The daily amount of solid waste generated by the Proposed Project is equivalent to approximately 0.068 percent of lowest estimate of tons of solid waste accepted by SORD per day, which is a negligible increase to the solid waste stream that the facility could easily accommodate. Fees paid to SORD pursuant to the contract would compensate for expansion of services to the Subject Property. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts to solid waste service would occur.

TABLE 4-8 PROPOSED PROJECT – SOLID WASTE GENERATION

Waste Generation Source Waste Generation Rate1 Units Value Total Waste (lb/day) Casino (other services)1 3.12 lb/100 sf/day 179.57 560.26

Restaurant 0.005 lb/sf/day 2,729 13.65 Hotel (including Cabins) 2 lb/room/day 50 100 Retail 2.5 lb/1,000 sf/day 1.596 3.99

Total lb/day 677.89 Total ton/day 0.34

Total ton/year 122.02 Note: 1To be conservative, back of house square footage is included. Source: CalRecycle, 2016

Schools The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in population or housing, as discussed in Section 4.6.1. Therefore, demand for additional schools or additional classroom capacity would not increase substantially under the Proposed Project. The minimal impact to schools is less than significant. Recreation Lake Texoma State Park is a regional recreational facility in the vicinity of the Subject Property. While the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in population or housing, as discussed in Section 4.6.1, operation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in increased tourism, which could result in increased demand and visitation at the state park. However, fees paid for recreational activities in the park (including day use, camping, and recreational vehicle parking fees) would ensure minimal adverse impacts to Lake Texoma State Park. Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge, also located in the region, is unlikely to experience a significant increase in demand and visitation due to its distance from the Subject Property; however, USFWS limits on hunting and fishing would prevent an adverse effect on the refuge. Electricity and Propane Under the Proposed Project, electricity would be obtained from the CTUA, which has stated it is willing and able to serve the Proposed Project (Appendix C). Therefore, adequate capacity to serve the Proposed Project exists and no upgrades are needed to avoid affecting the service of existing customers. Payment for service and any infrastructure necessary to extend service to the Subject Property would be negotiated


through an agreement with the CTUA. No significant impact would occur. Gas service in the vicinity of the Subject Property is provided by individual propane tanks, not a utility company; therefore, no impacts to gas providers would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Law Enforcement An analysis of the impact of casino gambling on local crime rates is included in Section 4.6. As described in Section 2.1.1, the Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police would provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Project. Lighthorse Police has stated that it is willing and able to provide this service with existing staffing and equipment (Appendix C). If necessary, payment for law enforcement services may be provided through an agreement with Lighthorse Police. Thus, no significant impact would result. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Equipment and vehicles used during construction activities may create sparks, which could ignite vegetation on the Subject Property. The use of power tools and acetylene torches may also increase the risk of fire during construction. BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2 would ensure that construction of the Proposed Project would not create a substantial fire hazard. Structural fire protection would be provided through voluntary compliance with International Fire Code requirements for commercial structures, including requirements for water storage as described in Section 2.1.1, sprinkler systems, and fire extinguishers. KFD would provide fire protection service to the Proposed Project. KFD has stated that it is willing and able to provide this service, and that the Proposed Project would not exceed KFD’s capacity to serve or impair its ability to continue providing fire protection services to the area (Appendix C). The minimal increase in demand for fire protection services are not anticipated to trigger the need to construct new facilities; therefore, environmental impacts would be considered less than significant; however, if necessary, the Nation and KFD may enter into further agreements regarding provision of services, and no significant impact to KFD would occur. EMS would be provided by Marshall County EMS. Marshall County EMS has stated that it is willing and able to provide these services without exceeding its capacity or impairing its ability to continue providing service to the area (Appendix C). The minimal increase in demand for emergency medical services are not anticipated to trigger the need to construct new facilities; however, if necessary, payment for EMS may be arranged through an agreement. Thus, no significant impact to Marshall County EMS would occur. 4.9.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative involves the construction and operation of similar project components as the Proposed Project, but the casino resort would be approximately 33 percent smaller than under the Proposed Project. Service providers for the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same as those under the Proposed Project. As the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have reduced demand for services due to the smaller scale of development, impacts would be similar to those described under Section 4.9.1 for water supply, wastewater supply, solid waste service, schools, recreation, electricity and propane providers, law enforcement, and fire protection and EMS, though to a lesser extent. With incorporation of the BMPs provided in Section 2.1.2, public services impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant. 4.9.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust, and no development would occur. No additional public services would be extended to the site. No increase in demand for any public services would occur under the No Action Alternative.


4.10 VISUAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Aesthetics Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in development of a casino resort on the East Site, which would constitute a change to the existing visual setting. In general, views of undeveloped, vegetation-covered land and abandoned park infrastructure would change to views of more modern commercial development. The most visible element of the completed development would be the approximately 48-foot decorative tower affixed to the top of the casino resort. This tower would likely be visible to nearby residences, as well as to boats traveling on Lake Texoma east of the Subject Property. However, while the tower would be highly visible, it would not obscure views of Lake Texoma, the most significant scenic resource in the area. The nearest residences to the proposed casino resort location are within a small residential neighborhood located approximately 0.6 miles west of the East Site. A thick tree buffer exists between the neighborhood and the Subject Property, which would block views of the proposed development from the viewshed of these residences. The decorative tower, described above, may be visible over the tops of the trees; however, it would not block views of any existing scenic resource. The West Site would be developed with lagoons to hold treated wastewater effluent. The lagoons would not be considered highly visible because they would be below the land surface and surrounded by a significant tree buffer, as shown in Photo 6 of Figure 3-7 of Appendix A. The lagoons would not be visible to the residences located approximately 350 feet west of the West Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with visual resources. Lighting The Proposed Project would introduce new sources of light to the East Site that would potentially be visible from the residences west of the Subject Property and recreational areas within Lake Texoma State Park. On-site lighting would be provided for aesthetic and security purposes at the facility and throughout the parking lot. This lighting associated with the Proposed Project would constitute an increase over the existing ambient light levels on the East Site. However, with the incorporation of BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2, including downcast and shielded lighting, no significant adverse impacts associated with lighting would occur. 4.10.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Aesthetics Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative is a reduced-intensity alternative, visual impacts related to development under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Project, but would be diminished in scope due to the smaller size of proposed facilities, taking up just under half of the total sf occupied by development under the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the only feature that would be likely to be visible to nearby sensitive receptors would be the decorative tower, which would not block views of any scenic resource. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with visual resources. Lighting As with the Proposed Project, lighting associated with the Reduced Intensity Alternative would constitute an increase over the existing ambient light levels on the East Site. However, with the incorporation of BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2, no significant adverse impacts associated with lighting would occur.


4.10.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust, and no development would occur. The sites would remain in their current state. The No Action Alternative would have no impact related to visual resources. 4.11 NOISE Assessment Criteria and Methodology The assessment of project effects is based on the FHWA construction noise level thresholds in its 2006 Construction Noise Handbook, as well as the Federal NAC standards used by FHWA. The assessment of vibration noise is based on the FTA standards of 0.5 PPV for structures and 0.1 PPV for annoyance of people (FTA, 2006). Adverse noise-related effects would occur during construction and operation if the following occurs: Project construction results in an increase in the ambient noise environment of greater than 78 dBA

Leq, or a 5-dBA increase in the ambient noise level above the existing noise level. Project operation results in an increase in the ambient noise environment of greater than 67 dBA

Leq, or would result in an audible increase in ambient noise level at sensitive receptor locations including residential housing adjacent to the Subject Property. See Section 3.11 for a definition of sensitive receptors.

Construction or operation of the Proposed Project exceeds the FTA vibration standards of 0.5 PPV for structures and 0.1 PPV for annoyance of people (FTA, 2006).

4.11.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Noise-sensitive receptors are land uses associated with indoor and outdoor activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise, including educational, health care, and residential areas. Scattered rural residences are located west and south of the Subject Property. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the East Site are Joe’s Campground, located approximately 2,600 feet (0.5 mile) to the southeast, as well as a residential community, located approximately 3,000 feet (0.6 mile) to the west. The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the West Site is the same residential community, located approximately 350 feet (0.07 mile) to the west. Construction Noise Construction noise at the East and West Sites would result from two general types of sources: (1) construction equipment and activities, and (2) vehicle traffic, which consists of trucks hauling materials and workers entering and exiting the East Site. Activities associated with construction at the Subject Property would result in temporary periods of elevated noise levels, typically generating maximum noise levels ranging from 78 dBA to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, as indicated in Table 4-9. These noise levels may vary depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment.

TABLE 4-9 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS

Construction Phase Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA) Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89 Source: FHWA, 2009.


Vehicle traffic consists of truck trips and worker vehicle trips. During construction, approximately 100 worker trips per day would occur. Material haul trips have the potential to raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and the types of vehicles used. It is conservatively estimated that two material hauling trips would occur each day during construction. Because trucks are louder than passenger cars, a passenger car equivalence (PCE) multiplier of 10 cars per truck was used. Therefore, the material hauling PCE trips per day would be 20. With the addition of worker vehicle trips, the total trips added to area roadways would be 120 vehicle trips. The existing traffic volume on US-70, 9,250 vpd, is greater than 2,059 vpd added by the Proposed Project; therefore, construction trips would be substantially less than existing traffic volumes. Thus, construction traffic would not result in an audible increase in the existing ambient noise level (Appendix I; FHWA, 2009). Noise from stationary point sources attenuates (lessens) at a rate of 6-9 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (e.g., atmospheric conditions, noise barriers). A conservative attenuation factor of 7.0 dBA per doubling of distance is appropriate for the East Site given the relatively flat topography and presence of ground cover on and surrounding the project site. Based on the estimates of construction noise described above, the maximum construction noise level at the project site would be 89 dBA at 50 feet. Using an attenuation factor of 7.0 dBA, the noise level at the nearest sensitive noise receptor, Joe’s Campground, located approximately 2,600 feet from the East Site, would be 54 dBA. This noise level would be below the federal noise construction threshold of 78 dBA (Table 11 of Appendix D). Assuming maximum construction noise levels from the West Site would also be 89 dBA at 50 feet, the noise level at its nearest sensitive receptor would be 69.4 dBA. Similar to the East Site, this noise level would be below the federal noise construction threshold of 78 dBA (Table 11 of Appendix D). Construction noise BMPs identified in Section 2.1.2 would further reduce noise during construction activities and would limit construction to daytime hours to ensure compliance with the federal NAC. Therefore, because of the distance of sensitive noise receptors to the Subject Property, short-term and temporary nature of construction noise, and implementation of BMPs to reduce construction noise levels to the extent feasible, there would not be a significant adverse impact due to construction noise. Construction Vibration Earthmoving equipment can produce detectable or damaging levels of vibration at nearby sensitive land uses, depending primarily on the distance between the source and the nearby sensitive land use. Generally, physical damage is only an issue if construction requires the use of equipment that is operated near sensitive receptors (within 25–100 feet) or if the equipment creates high vibration levels (e.g., compactors, large dozers). Due to the distance of the nearest sensitive receptors (approximately 350 feet from the West Site and 2,600 feet from the East Site) and because the project would not require the use of equipment that creates high vibration levels, there would not be a significant adverse impact due to vibration. Operational Noise The Proposed Project would result in an increase of on-site operational noise, primarily resulting from traffic and parking-related activities in parking lots; use of fans for HVAC; and truck loading and unloading. Traffic Noise The level of traffic noise depends on three things: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of the traffic. It is not anticipated that traffic speed or the mix of trucks in project-area traffic would change during the operational phase; however, implementation of the Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes. As discussed in Section 3.11.3, the primary source of


noise in the project area is traffic on US-70, however, State Park Road and Texoma Road are considered noise sources as well. The estimated ambient noise level in the vicinity of the Subject Property is approximately 40 dBA Leq (The Engineering Toolbox, 2017). US-70 The primary source of noise in the project area is generated by traffic on US-70. There are approximately 9,250 vpd on US-70 adjacent to the Subject Property. Operation of the Proposed Project would add approximately 2,059 additional vpd to the existing traffic volume (Appendix I). The increase in traffic from operation of the Proposed Project would result in a 0.87 dBA Leq ambient noise level increase, which is not audible. With implementation of the Proposed Project and subsequent increase in traffic volumes, the ambient noise level at the sensitive receptors to the south of US-70 would be 45.87 dBA, Leq, which is less than the NAC threshold of 67 dBA Leq for residential sensitive receptors (Table 12 of Appendix D). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with traffic noise levels for sensitive noise receptors located along US-70 in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. State Park Road State Park Road bisects the East Site, approximately 4,000 feet east of the nearest sensitive noise receptors. The Proposed Project will have three access driveways located on State Park Road. The existing traffic volume on State Park Road is approximately 1,536 vpd in the vicinity of the Subject Property (Appendix I). The increase in traffic from operation of the Proposed Project would result in a 0.35 dBA Leq ambient noise level increase, which is not audible. With implementation of the Proposed Project and subsequent increase in traffic volumes, the ambient noise level at the sensitive receptors to the west of State Park Road would be 45.35 dBA Leq, which is less than the NAC threshold of 67 dBA Leq for residential sensitive receptors (Table 12 of Appendix D). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with traffic noise levels for sensitive noise receptors located along State Park Road. Texoma Road Texoma Road bisects the West and East Sites, approximately 2,300 feet east of the nearest sensitive noise receptors. The existing traffic volume on Texoma Road in the vicinity of the Subject Property is 850 vpd (Appendix I). The Proposed Project would add 368 vpd to Texoma Road (Appendix I). The increase in project traffic to Texoma Road would result in a 1.56 dBA Leq ambient noise level increase. With implementation of the Proposed Project and subsequent increase in traffic volumes, the ambient noise level at the sensitive receptors to the west of State Park Road would be 46.56 dBA Leq, which is less than the NAC threshold of 67 dBA Leq for residential sensitive receptors (Table 12 of Appendix D). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with traffic noise levels for sensitive noise receptors located along Texoma Road. Airport Noise The Subject Property is located adjacent to the Lake Texoma State Park Airport. Development of the casino resort and associated facilities would place sensitive receptors within 2,000 feet of airborne aircraft noise and vibration. Given that the airport has an average of less than one aircraft operation per day and that the Subject Property is not directly within the flight path, exposure of hotel patrons to noise from aircraft is not considered a potentially significant impact as a result of the Proposed Project (Skyvector, 2017). Operational Vibration and Other Noise Sources Noise due to traffic in parking lots is limited by low speeds and, as a result, is not expected to represent a significant source of noise. Human activity in parking lots can also produce noise, including talking, yelling, and opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities can occur any time, but frequently occur in the daytime and evening. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a


maximum noise level of 60–65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice. The casino would be equipped with HVAC units that would most likely be mounted on the roof. The HVAC equipment would have noise shielding and other industry-standard noise abatement measures would be installed. Due to the location of the proposed HVAC equipment and the incorporation of standard noise abanationalement measures, noise from HVAC equipment would not be audible past the Subject Property boundaries or at the nearest sensitive receptor. Loading areas for food and other supplies are potential noise sources. Although trucks on-site would be moving at low speeds, the engine noise could be audible at nearby locations. As discussed in Section 2.1.1, loading docks would be located on the northeast side of the casino building, approximately 4,600 feet from the nearest residence and approximately 3,600 feet from Joe’s Campground. Maximum noise levels from truck movements at the loading docks would be in the range of 50–55 dBA and would be shielded by the casino building, further reducing the noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. Wastewater lagoons, such as would be developed on the West Site, are not a significant source of noise. Therefore, the West Site would not result in significant adverse effects associated with noise at sensitive receptors. Commercial uses do not include sources of perceptible vibration. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would not result in vibration and noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors that would exceed the federal NAC, no significant adverse impacts would occur. 4.11.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in operational noise levels similar to those presented for the Proposed Project because the scope of the Reduced Intensity Alternative is similar to the Proposed Project and the increase in traffic volumes would be approximately 33 percent of those for the Proposed Project (refer to Appendix I). Additionally, construction duration and activities would be similar but reduced because the Reduced Intensity Alternative is approximately 66 percent of the size and intensity of the Proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to the ambient noise environment. 4.11.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust and no development would occur on the Subject Property. No construction or operational noise from mobile or stationary sources would occur; therefore, no adverse impacts would occur. 4.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.12.1 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED PROJECT Incidents associated with hazardous materials that would be most likely to occur during construction include the incidental release of fuels, oil, and grease during the operation of construction equipment, as well as accidental releases associated with handling and transferring hazardous material-containing substances. Typical construction management practices limit the incidence of such accidental releases. In addition, the CWA requires that stormwater management BMPs be implemented during construction in accordance with a SWPPP. The SWPPP would further ensure that incidental releases of hazardous materials would not migrate offsite during a storm event. During operation of the Proposed Project, small quantities of cleaning materials, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, and paints would be stored and used throughout the proposed facilities. These materials are


common to most commercial operations and do not pose any unusual or substantial threat to public health and safety, even if stored or used improperly, because of the relatively small quantities involved. Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the conversion of the West Site into wastewater lagoons for treated effluent storage and disposal. Concentrations of sodium hypochlorite, a bleach used in wastewater treatment, laundry detergents, and paper industries, may be present in treated wastewater. Implementation of BMPs identified in Section 2.1.2, which constitute standard means to control access and exposure to wastewater disinfectants and means of emergency treatment if any individuals are exposed to them, would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. With incorporation of BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2, no significant impact associated with hazardous materials would occur during construction or operation of the Proposed Project. 4.12.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project with regards to construction-related hazardous materials impacts; however, these impacts would be somewhat diminished in scope due to the reduced size of development proposed under this alternative. BMPs included in Section 2.1.2 would minimize the risk of inadvertent releases and minimize the adverse effects from existing RECs and potential future contamination in the event of a contingency. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in most aspects related to potential operational impacts from hazardous materials. Therefore, as with the Proposed Project, no significant impact associated with hazardous materials would occur during construction or operation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. 4.12.3 ALTERNATIVE C – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property would not be taken into trust and no development would occur. The No Action Alternative would have no impact related to hazardous materials. 4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 4.13.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are defined by the CEQ as effects “on the environment which result from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” (40 CFR Section 1508.7). There are no major development projects proposed, planned, and/or currently being constructed in the region containing the Subject Property (Marshall County, 2017; Town of Kingston, 2017). The cumulative impact analysis within this EA and associated technical studies (including the TIS provided as Appendix I) conservatively assumed a two percent annual growth rate for the population of the surrounding region until 2030 (Appendix I). Cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area are discussed below. Land Resources The principal effects to land resources associated with any future development in the vicinity of the Subject Property would include localized topographical changes and soil attrition. Other projects in the area would be required to implement measures consistent with local permitting requirements for construction to address any regional geotechnical, seismic, or mining hazards. It is anticipated that approved developments would follow appropriate permitting procedures; therefore, implementation of the project alternatives would not result in cumulatively considerable adverse impacts to land resources. Water Resources Effects related to water supply for the project are discussed in Section 4.2. MCWC has an adequate supply of surface water within the Lake Rex Smith to serve additional projects along with the existing water supply uses. Accordingly, the demand associated with the Proposed Project and future developments would not draw from nor significantly affect the groundwater supply in the vicinity of the Subject Property.


Furthermore, projects that may be constructed in the vicinity of the Subject Property are required to comply with the CWA as it relates to stormwater and point source discharges. Compliance with USEPA’s stormwater pollution prevention requirements and adhering to BMPs listed in Section 2.1.2 would prevent offsite development and development associated with the Proposed Project from causing cumulatively considerable adverse stormwater-related effects. Therefore, implementation of the project alternatives would not result in cumulatively considerable adverse impacts to water resources. Air Quality Because the entire State of Oklahoma is in attainment for all criteria pollutants established by USEPA, and because any future development in the vicinity of the Subject Property would be subject to state and federal regulations, no cumulatively considerable adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. Cumulative impacts associated with climate change are discussed in Section 4.3, which is, by nature, a cumulative issue. Biological Resources The Subject Property does not contain any unique or sensitive ecosystems or biological communities. No federally listed plant species have the potential to occur on the site, but two listed animal species have the potential occur on site. Mitigation measures discussed in Section 5.0 would require that the Subject Property be surveyed before construction activities begin during the migratory bird breeding season, and that surveys for the endangered ABB take place before any ground-disturbing activities occur. The development of the Proposed Project would permanently eliminate the potential use of the man-made pond within the Subject Property by migratory birds and ABB. However, properties adjacent to the Subject Property are predominantly undeveloped and are available for use by migratory birds and ABB. Any impacts to wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. will be permitted activities through the USACE and these activities will be required to have mitigation to replace the value of the disturbance. Therefore, implementation of the project alternatives would not result in cumulatively considerable adverse impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources BMPs have been included in Section 2.1.2 to address unknown cultural resources found during project construction, and similar measures would be required for any development in the vicinity of the Subject Property. No cumulatively considerable adverse impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the project alternatives. Socioeconomic Conditions Cumulative socioeconomic effects could occur in the project area as the result of developments that affect the lifestyle and economic well-being of residents. When considered with other growth in Marshall County, there may be cumulative socioeconomic effects including impacts to economy, employment, housing availability, problem gambling, and crime. These effects would occur as the region’s economic and demographic characteristics change, as the population grows, and as specific industries expand or contract. Both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in beneficial impacts to economic output, tax revenues, and employment, as well as various beneficial impacts to the Chickasaw Nation. Further, planning documents for the region will continue to designate land uses for businesses, industry, and housing, as well as plan public services to anticipate and accommodate growth in the region. Therefore, no significant cumulative socioeconomic effects would result.


Transportation/Circulation 2035 Traffic Volumes An annual growth rate of 2 percent per year was applied to the 2017 baseline traffic data to obtain the traffic projections for 2035. Although vehicular growth along US-70 has been stagnant since 2005, a conservative growth rate was used based on recommendations by ODOT conservative recommendation (Appendix I). Figure 8 of the TIS shows traffic volumes for adjusted cumulative baseline conditions (2035) plus implementation of the Proposed Project (Appendix I). 2035 Intersections Table 2 of Appendix I provides a summary of the LOS at each study intersection under adjusted cumulative baseline (2035) conditions without implementation of the Proposed Project. The Table shows that all study intersections are projected to operate acceptably under 2035 baseline conditions (refer to Section 4.7 for acceptable operation criteria). Table 2 of Appendix I provides a summary of the LOS at each study intersection under adjusted cumulative baseline (2035) conditions plus implementation of the Proposed Project. The study intersections would not exceed the intersection threshold of LOS “D” or critical approach threshold of LOS “E” with the addition of traffic generated by the Proposed Project in the cumulative 2035 projection. Therefore, the Proposed Project in the cumulative 2035 projection would not have a significant adverse impact on the transportation network in the vicinity of the Subject Property. Land Use If taken into federal trust, the Subject Property would not be subject to state or local land use jurisdiction. Development on the Subject Property would not disrupt neighboring land uses or prohibit access to neighboring parcels. As such, the project would not result in changes to local land use patterns. Any changes to area land use patterns would be attributable to County policies only. There are no agricultural resources in the vicinity of the Subject Property and no agricultural operations currently occurring on-site. No cumulatively considerable adverse land use impacts would occur. Public Services Water Supply The Proposed Project would receive water from MCWC, which has stated it is willing and able to provide service. Payment for these services include fees for future growth and expansion, should the system require either in the future. All MCWC customers pay similar fees. Implementation of the Proposed Project or Alternative B would have no cumulatively considerable adverse effect on municipal water supply. Wastewater Service Both the Proposed Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative would use on-site wastewater lagoons instead of connecting to municipal wastewater services. Therefore, the project alternatives would not have a cumulatively considerable adverse effect on wastewater service. Solid Waste Service Due to the likely excess capacity at SORD landfill, neither the Proposed Project nor the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a cumulatively considerable adverse effect to solid waste service. Schools Implementation of the Proposed Project or Reduced Intensity Alternative would not substantially increase enrollment or otherwise adversely affect public or private schools. Since there is no major foreseeable


cumulative development in Marshall County, no cumulatively considerable adverse effect would occur to the Kingston Public Schools. Recreation Development of the Proposed Project or the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not adversely affect any recreational activities. Fees paid for recreational activities inside the nearest recreation area, Lake Texoma State Park, would continue to be assessed. No cumulatively considerable adverse effect would occur. Electricity and Propane There are no approved developments in the vicinity that would demand electricity in excess of current capacity provided by CTUA, which has stated it has capacity to provide electric service to the Proposed Project. There are no natural gas providers in the vicinity of the project. Individual projects would be responsible for paying development, connection, or user fees to the utility if necessary, to receive services, and the utilities would be compensated for any capital improvements through user rates. Implementation of the Proposed Project or Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in cumulatively considerable adverse effects to energy providers. Law Enforcement Increased demand for law enforcement services resulting from cumulative developments may require additional facilities, equipment, or employees. However, since there are no significant development projects planned in the area, no cumulatively considerable adverse effect would occur. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services KFD and Marshall County EMS would provide service to the Proposed Project. Cumulative developments may impact KFD and Marshall County EMS if the increased demands require additional facilities, equipment, and staffing. It is not expected that the Proposed Project or Reduced Intensity Alternative would require fire department services that would trigger the need to construct new facilities, and KFD and Marshall County EMS currently have the capacity to provide service to the Proposed Project (Appendix C). Since there are no other planned development projects in the area that are likely to substantially increase demand for these services, no cumulatively considerable adverse effect would occur. Visual Resources Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in development of a casino resort on the East Site, which would lead to views of undeveloped, vegetation-covered land and abandoned park infrastructure changing to views of more modern commercial development. However, the development, including the decorative tower, would not obscure views of scenic resources, and a tree buffer between the Subject Property and sensitive receptors would mostly block the development from view. Wastewater lagoons on the West Site would not be highly visible. As there are no other significant development projects planned in the area, there would be no cumulatively considerable adverse effect to visual resources. Noise Approved projects in the vicinity of the Subject Property would be required to comply with any applicable noise regulations during construction and operation. In the cumulative year 2035, Proposed Project traffic volumes would not increase over the projected 209 vehicles per peak hour in 2019 (Table 4-7); however, there would be an increase in background traffic volume on local roadways, as captured in ODOT’s estimated two percent annual growth rate (Appendix I). The Proposed Project’s contribution to traffic volumes under cumulative conditions would not double the current traffic on local roadways and thus would not result in an audible increase in ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors (refer to Section 4.11.1). The Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would therefore be less than significant.


Hazardous Materials Any future cumulative development projects in the vicinity of the Subject Property would be required to comply with applicable federal and state regulations concerning hazardous materials management. With the implementation of BMPs outlined in Section 2.1.2, no cumulatively considerable adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would occur as a result of the project alternatives. 4.13.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS According to CEQ regulations, indirect effects are removed in time or in distance from a project, but are caused by the project and are reasonably foreseeable. These include growth-inducing effects, as well as changes in land use, population density, and related effects on natural systems (40 CFR 1508.8). Construction of Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements Implementation of the Proposed Project or the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not require any roadway improvements. A pipeline connection from the lift station on the East Site to the wastewater lagoons on the West Site will be constructed as part of the Proposed Project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative, as shown on Figure 2-1 of Appendix A. The pipeline route was surveyed using two transects to examine a 7-meter wide corridor on either side of the pipeline route. No historic properties or known archaeological sites or cultural materials are located within the proposed pipeline route. This proposed pipeline passes through mainly ruderal habitat, crossing the northern edge of the existing active airstrip area. Once construction is complete, the pipeline corridor will be regraded and the disturbed soils will be seeded. This will ultimately result in no net loss of habitat, and will not result in adverse impacts to biological resources. Adherence to federal and state environmental regulations during utility construction would avoid any potentially significant indirect effects from off-site utility construction. Growth-Inducing Effects A significant number of new employees would not move to the community from out of the area (refer to Section 4.6); as such, no new housing, schools, or other facilities would be constructed as a result of development on the Subject Property. There would be no change in off-site land use and no change in population density in the vicinity of the Subject Property. No significant adverse indirect effects, including growth-inducing effects, relevant to any environmental issue area would occur.

SECTION 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

NEPA requires that, if a project would have significant adverse effects on the environment, mitigation for those impacts must be identified. Mitigation consists of:

avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20).


Mitigation measures to be implemented during construction and operation of the Proposed Project are summarized below. All mitigation is enforceable because it is 1) inherent to the project design; and/or 2) required through provisions of federal or state statute, where applicable. BMPs incorporated into the project description would minimize the project’s effects on land resources, water resources, air quality and GHG emissions, cultural resources, visual resources, and noise. No mitigation is warranted. Further, no mitigation is warranted for impacts to socioeconomic conditions, transportation networks, land use, public services and utilities, and hazardous materials. 5.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that the Proposed Project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to biological resources. 5.1.1 MIGRATORY BIRDS AND OTHER BIRDS OF PREY For vegetation removal and/or earth-disturbing activities that start during the avian breeding season

(March 1 through September 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of all potential nesting habitat within 500 feet of construction activities for migratory birds.

If pre-construction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required. Shrubs and trees that have been determined to be unoccupied by special status birds or that are located 500 feet from active nests may be removed.

If active nests of special-status birds, migratory birds, or raptors are found during pre-construction surveys, an appropriate buffer (based on the species observed) shall be established by a qualified biologist, as follows: (1) A 500-foot no-disturbance buffer will be created around active raptor nests during the breeding season or until it is determined that all young have fledged, and (2) a 100- to 250-foot buffer zone will be created around the nests of other migratory or special-status birds and all other birds that are protected by the MBTA. Buffers zones for these species will be established based on recommendations by the survey biologist. These buffer zones are consistent with USFWS avoidance guidelines and USFWS buffers required on similar projects; however, the buffer zones may be modified in coordination with USFWS based on existing conditions at the project site.

If vegetation removal activities are delayed or suspended for more than two weeks after the pre-construction survey are conducted, the areas should be resurveyed.

5.1.2 AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE A pre-construction presence/absence survey shall be conducted by an individual holding a USFWS

10(a)(1)(A) permit for ABB. If presence/absence surveys are not completed prior to construction then presence should be assumed. The window for the surveys is approximately May 26 to August 31, although surveys can occur any time of year after five consecutive nights where the minimum temperature is 60 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. Surveys shall follow the guidelines outlined in USFWS (2015) ABB Nicrophorus americanus Oklahoma Presence/Absence Live-trapping Survey Guidance.

o If no ABB is detected during the required pre-construction survey, a finding of no effect will

be warranted and no mitigation measures are needed. o If presence of ABB is detected or assumed through lack of surveying, then the eight primary

BMPs in Appendix A of the USFWS (2016) American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews shall be adhered to. This includes leaving the root zone intact, returning surface soils to approximate pre-construction conditions, using native seed mix, and educating all workers. In addition, mitigation will be required for impacts following Appendix B of the


USFWS (2016) American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews. As the Subject Property occurs outside of the ABB Conservation Priority Area but within the ABB’s range, impacts will require an onsite mitigation ratio of 1:0.25 acre for temporary impacts, 1:0.5 for permanent cover change, and 1:1 acre for permanent impacts. Alternatively, mitigation land can be purchased at a ratio of 1:1.5 acre for temporary impacts, 1:2 for permanent cover change, and 1:3 acre for permanent impacts to the degree such banks are available and approved by the USFWS.

5.1.3 WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. Any proposed construction activities that would result in “discharge or fill” within jurisdictional

Waters of the U.S. will be conducted during the dry season to further reduce the quantity of potential sedimentation within the watershed.

A Section 404 CWA permit shall be obtained from USACE to address the impacts described in Section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. The impacts to Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. shall be mitigated consistent with the agreements between the USACE and the USEPA that are in effect at the time of development. Since a Section 404 permit is required, the Nation shall also obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the USEPA and mitigations defined in the CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines shall be implemented. These mitigations include “no net loss of value”, 1:1 acreage replacement, either on site or through purchasing mitigation credits through a USACE approved mitigation bank or following the mitigation of aquatic resource impacts as outlined by the Tulsa District of the USACE.

SECTION 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This section lists persons and agencies consulted during the preparation of this EA. Persons consulted for this EA that are associated with an agency or organization are listed underneath their agency or organization. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Summary of Consultation and Coordination: The USFWS was contacted to obtain a list of federally listed special status species with the potential to occur in the project area and the USFWS Oklahoma On-Line Project Review Process was completed. The completed Project Review Package, including the Online Concurrence Letter request (included in Appendix F), was emailed to USFWS on March 6, 2017. The package requests concurrence with a determination of “not likely to adversely” affect federally listed special status species and critical habitat. Per On-Line Project Review procedures, if no response is provided by USFWS within 60 days of submittal of the online form, then informal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA is considered complete.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Ira Hight, Project Officer/Tribal Liaison Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The USEPA was contacted to provide a general environmental review of the Proposed Project. Mr. Hight stated that the USEPA did not have any immediate concerns with the Proposed Project. A copy of the email correspondence is provided in Appendix E.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District

Bryan Noblitt, Natural Resources Specialist Andrew R. Commer, Regulatory Office Chief Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

Project information was provided to the USACE. On August 16, 2017, USACE concluded that the East Site does not contain any jurisdictional Wetlands or Waters of the U.S. subject to Section 404 of the CWA, while the unnamed intermittent stream on the West Site was determined to be jurisdictional. The letter containing USACE’s jurisdictional determination is included in Appendix E.

Federal Aviation Administration Vee Stewart, Specialist Gayle Ellsworth, Technician Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The FAA was consulted to obtain a no hazard determination through the obstruction evaluation/airport airspace analysis online system in January 2017. In June 2017, the FAA determined there would be no hazard to air navigation from the Proposed Project. Documentation is included in Appendix E.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Lloyd Kirk, Director of External Affairs Quiana Fields, Administrative Programs Officer Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The ODEQ was asked to complete a general environmental review of the Proposed Project. A copy of the email correspondence sent to ODEQ is included in Appendix E. No response has been received.

Martha Grafton Land Protection Division - Solid Waste Section - Underground Injection Control Unit Summary of Consultation and Coordination: The ODEQ was contacted regarding the SORD landfill Tier III permit, approval dates, and lifespan. A copy of the email correspondence from the ODEQ is included in Appendix E.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation

Siv Sundaram, Assistant Division Engineer, Environmental Programs Division Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The ODOT was contacted to obtain input in regards to the potential for the Proposed Project to result in impacts to the transportation network. The materials sent to ODOT, including project description information and a copy of the draft traffic study, are provided in Appendix E. In a phone call in January 2018, ODOT indicated that they had no comments.


Oklahoma Water Resources Board Bill Cauthron, Water Quality Programs Division Chief Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The OWRB was asked to complete a general environmental review of the Proposed Project with a focus on water resources. Mr. Cauthron stated that with the proper incorporation of mitigation, OWRB would not have any water quality concerns with the Proposed Project. A copy of the email correspondence is included in Appendix E.

Oklahoma Department of Recreation and Tourism Susan Henry, Grant Administrator

Summary of Consultation and Coordination: Oklahoma Department of Recreation and Tourism was consulted regarding the current and former boundaries of Lake Texoma State Park.

Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory Todd Fagin

Summary of Consultation and Coordination: The OHNI reviewed occurrence information on federal and state threatened, endangered or candidate species, as well as non-regulatory rare species and ecological systems of importance for the project location. No occurrences of relevant species in the vicinity of the Subject Property was found, as stated in a letter included in Appendix F.

Oklahoma Historical Society/State Historic Preservation Office Catharine M. Wood, Historical Archaeologist Lynda Ozan, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Summary of Consultation and Coordination: Consultation letters were sent by the BIA to representatives of the Oklahoma Historical Society (OHS)/SHPO. OHS/SHPO responded in a letter dated January 11, 2018, which is included in Appendix E. Additional information was provided in response to OHS/SHPO’s comment letter within a revised cultural report, dated January 2018, that was transmitted by the BIA to OHS/SHPO. In a letter dated March 13, 2018 (included in Appendix E), OHS/SHPO found that there are no known historic properties affected within the project’s area of potential effect.

Oklahoma Archeological Survey Kary L. Stackelbeck, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

Consultation letters were sent by the BIA to representatives of the OAS. OAS responded in a letter dated January 16, 2018, which is included in Appendix E. Additional information was provided in response to OAS’s comment letter within a revised cultural report, dated January 2018, that was transmitted by the BIA to OAS. In a letter dated March 21, 2018 (included in Appendix E), OAS stated they would not request additional research or fieldwork and deferred comment on project effects to OHS/SHPO.

Marshall County Water Corporation Robert Moore, System Manager Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The MCWC was contacted regarding the ability to provide service to the Proposed Project. A letter, in which the system manager confirms that MCWC can provide water to the project, is included in Appendix C.


Marshall County Emergency Medical Services District Toni Coates, EMS Director Debbie Rogers, Office Manager

Summary of Consultation and Coordination: The Marshall County EMS was consulted regarding ability to provide EMS to the Proposed Project. A letter, in which the EMS director confirms that providing service to the Proposed Project would not exceed their capacity or impair their ability to continue providing services to the area, is included in Appendix C.

Kingston Fire Department James Kuykendall, Fire Chief Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The KFD was consulted regarding its ability to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Project. A letter, in which the fire chief confirms KFD would be able to serve the Proposed Project without exceeding capacity or impairing their ability to continue providing services, is included in Appendix C.

Kingston Floodplain Administrator James Kuykendall, Floodplain Administrator Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The Kingston Floodplain Administrator was contacted regarding the potential for the project to result in impacts to the floodplain. A copy of the email correspondence is included in Appendix E. No response has been received.

Chickasaw Tribal Utility Authority Frank S. Johnson, Executive Director and Chairman of the Board Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The CTUA was consulted regarding its ability to provide electric service to the Proposed Project. A letter, in which the executive director and chairman of the board states that CTUA would be able to provide electric service to the Proposed Project, is included in Appendix C.

Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police Department Jalinda Kelley, Secretary, Department of Interior Services Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

The Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police was consulted regarding its ability to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Project. A letter, in which the Lighthorse Police Secretary confirms the police force would be able to serve the Proposed Project, is included in Appendix C.

Native American Tribes Bill Anoatubby, Governor, Chickasaw Nation

Karen Brunso, THPO, Chickasaw Nation Geoffrey Standing Bear, Chief, Osage Nation Dr. Andrea Hunter, Director, THPO, Osage Nation Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

Consultation letters have been sent by the BIA to representatives of the Chickasaw Nation and Osage Nation.


Southern Oklahoma Regional Disposal, Inc. Julie Bradshaw, Chief Financial Officer Summary of Consultation and Coordination:

Julie Bradshaw was consulted on February 13, 2020 to discuss the lifespan of the Kingston station and SORD via phone call.

SECTION 7.0 PREPARERS ANALYTICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (AES)

Name Qualifications Participation BS, Civil Engineering; 30 years of

David Zweig, P.E. experience; Registered Professional Principal-in-Charge, Phase I ESA Engineer (P.E.)

Ryan Lee Sawyer, AICP

BA, Environmental Studies and Geography; 13 years of experience; American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)

Project Director, EA Author

Deputy Project Manager, Executive Summary, BS, Environmental Science and Introduction, Alternatives, Socioeconomics,

Katherine Green Management; BA, English; 4 years of Land Use, Public Services/Utilities, Visual experience Resources, Hazardous Materials, Growth-

Inducing Effects

Laura Zajac BS, Environmental Science and Management; 3 years of experience

Land Resources, Water Resources, Transportation/Circulation

Nick Bonzey, CPESC, QSD

BS, Ecology and Environmental Science; 10 years of experience; Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC); Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD)

Biological Resources

Erin Quinn BS, Chemistry; 11 years of experience Air Quality, Climate Change, Transportation/Circulation, Noise

Charlane Gross, RPA

BA, Anthropology; MA, Anthropology; 29 years of experience, Registered Profession Archaeologist (RPA)

Cultural Resources

Dana Hirschberg 16 years of experience Graphics

Glenn Mayfield BA, Geographic Information Systems;13 years of experience Graphics

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Name Qualifications Participation B.J. Hawkins, PTOE (Project Manager)

BS, Civil Engineering; PE; Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) Transportation/Circulation

Environmental Assessment, Chickasaw Nation, Kingston ...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Assessment, Chickasaw Nation, Kingston ...