f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Enforcement
Region6
1201 Elm Street
Dal las, TX 75270
Technical Support
Document
Revisions
Independence
Steam Electric
Station
Independence County,
Arkansas
-------
REVISIONS
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INDEPENDENCE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, ARKANSAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
DALLAS, TEXAS
OCTOBER, 1978
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
PART 6
PART 7
PART 8
PART 9
GENERAL MATERIAL
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
GEOLOGY
METEOROLOGY/AIR QUALITY
AQUATIC ECOLOGY
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
ARCHEOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMICS
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
Page
1
2
3
6
7
.... 8
9
10
18
.... 19
-------
TABLES
Page
Table 2.1-2 Major Historical Floods on White River
(Batesvilie to Newport)
Table 2.3-1 Effects of Slowdown Discharge on Chemical
Water Quality Parameters
-------
REVISION 1
INTRODUCTION
The original Technical Support Document (TSD), was a two-volume
document that, along with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), presented the environmental study for the Independence Steam
Electric Station. The Technical Support Document, Volume 1 and Volume
2, presented the background information on the methodology used in the
environmental analysis and field efforts, pertinent regulations, and
other data utilized in the preparation of the DEIS. These TSD volumes
are, in essence, reference documents for the DEIS.
This Revision of the Technical Support Document includes only
those additions and/or modifications to the original two volume TSD.
The reader is referred to these documents for full analysis of the
environmental issues. The page changes are paged as in the TSD with any
additionally required pages having the number followed by a letter
designation (a, b, c, etc.). Pages with a number at the bottom indicate
modifications to the original documents while the other pages are for
information only. Each page change will have the word "REVISION" placed
in the upper right-hand corner with text changes or additions indicated
with a "line" in the left-hand margin. This procedure should allow, if
desired, the addition of these revision pages to the original document.
-------
REVISION
PART 1
GENERAL MATERIAL
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
REVISION 3
PART 2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The following list presents the page, table, and figure changes
to this part of the Technical Support Document:
Page 2.1-17 (Table 2.1-2)
2.3-8 (Table 2.3-1)
-------
Table 2.1-2
Major Historical Floods on White River
(Batesville to Newport)
Date
White River at
Batesville,
datum 237.72,
Mile 300.1
Elevation
1915
1916
1927
1933
1938
1939
1943
1945
1949
1950
Apr 4, 1957
May 9, 1961
Feb 1, 1969
Mar 17, 1969
Apr 3, 1969
Apr 28, 1970
Apr 1973
a Estimated
b
269.3
269.6
269.1
262.6
265.1
259.3
265.7
267.1
263.4
262.5
257.5
--
—
--
--
—
——
,-T..« ^f ion C M
White River at
Oil Trough,
datum 200.00,
Mile 277.3
Elevation
238.4
238.0
237.7
236a
237.2
237.4
2369
222.5
222.3
230.2
236°
White River at
Newport,
datum 194.09,
Mile 257.6
Elevation
,7
.2
,5
228.0
228.4
229.
226.
227.
224.4
228.8
230.0
228.1
226.2
224.25
224.1
212.2
214.8
219.8
226.9
Discharge
at
Batesville
(cfs)
373,000
382,000
369,000
220,000
260,000
165,000
281,000
324,000
236,000
216,000
124,000
--
—
Discharge
at
Newport
(cfs)
280,000
303,000
387,000
199,000
259,000
144,000
304,000
343,000
260,000
194,000
—
130,000
125,000
73,100
247,000
Note: cfs = cubic feet/second
73
m
<
i—i
GO
i—i
O
-------
Table 2.3-1
Effects of Slowdown Discharge on Chemical Water Quality Parameters
(1)
Parameter
Chemicals
Chloride
Calcium
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmium
Copper
Aluminum
Barium
r\3 Chromium
L> Boron
oo Strontium
Titanium
TDS
TSS
(2)
Surge Pond Effluent
After Treatment
Min. Max.
Present In Drainage
10. 50.
40. 60.
125. 175.
0.033 0.033
0.042 0.042
0.024 0.024
0.15 0.15
1.78 1.78
0.024 0.024
0.29 0.29
2.94 2.94
0.026 0.026
700. 750.
50. 100.
Makeup
River
Min.
3.5
27.
2.
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.093
0.0
<0.1
0.102
<0.1
127.
3.
Chemical Additives
Chlorine
pH
Sulfate
N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A.
125. 175.
0.0
7.51
2.
(3)
from White
(ambient)
Max.
Note: All concentrations expressed in mg/liter
* = not measured; N.A. = not applicable
Prior to the application of sulfuric acid
Indicated under "Chemical Additives"
8.
50.
14.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
196.
78.
0
021
006
016
219
115
003
14
126
1
0.0
8.33
14.
(4)
Combined Makeup
Min. Max.
(5)
Slowdown
Min. Max.
4.20
28.4
15.2
0.004
0.005
0.003
<0.105
0.275
0.003
<0.120
0.408
<0.092
189.
8.1
N.A.
N.A.
15.2
12.5
51.1
31.3
0.022
0.010
0.017
0.212
0.294
0.005
0.156
0.429
<0.092
256.
80.4
N.A.
N.A.
31.3
16.8
114.
61. Oa
0.014
0.018
0.010
<0.422
1.099
0.010
<0.482
1.631
<0.368
755.
32.2
0.0
6.5
437.
50.1
204.
125a
0.089
0.040
0.067
0.846
1.177
0.021
0.625
1.716
<0.368
1023.
321.
0.5
7.0
624.
(6)'
White River
After Mixing
Min. Max.
3.90
29.6
b
0.0004
0.0005
0.0003
-------
REVISION
PART 3
GEOLOGY
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
REVISION
PART 4
METEOROLOGY/AIR QUALITY
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
REVISION 8
PART 5
AQUATIC ECOLOGY
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
REVISION
PART 6
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
REVISION 10
PART 7
ARCHEOLOGY
The following Part 7 should replace the total Part 7 of the
Technical Support Document previously submitted with the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
-------
REVISION 11
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
PART 7
ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
FROM
ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR THE INDEPENDENCE
STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION
Extracted From A Report
By
Cathy Moore - Jansen and Thomas J. Padgett
Arkansas Archeological Survey
March 1978
Report submitted to Arkansas Power & Light Company
Little Rock, Arkansas
-------
REVISION 12
ABSTRACT
The study of the Independence Steam Electric Generating Station
•included an intensive archeological survey and test excavations of
archeological sites as an aid in determining the significance of the
archeological resources and the impact that construction of the gener-
ating plant will have upon those resources. A total of 152 sites were
located within the project boundaries: 20 historic period sites, 98
prehistoric sites, and 34 sites with historic and prehistoric components.
All of these sites were surface collected and systematically shovel
tested while three were partially excavated and subjected to detailed
controlled surface collections. Most of the prehistoric sites appear to
be satellite hunting camps and special activity areas such as lithic
workshops for manufacturing stone tools from localized cobble sources
and nearby quarry areas. None of the sites meet National Register
criteria, but two sites should be retested if project plans cannot be
modified so that these sites are avoided.
7.0-1
-------
REVISION 13
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This is the final report of archeological investigations
conducted by the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the proposed site
(site A) of the AP&L Independence Steam Electric Station in Independence
County, Arkansas. This report outlines the methods and procedures
used in the archeological survey and testing project and details the
results of the study. Recommendations are made to insure that the
construction project will impact archeological sites as little as
possible.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The goals of the archeological project were: to document fully
the cultural resources within the project area, as evidenced by surface
deposits of cultural materials; to conduct subsurface tests to determine
the presence or absence of buried deposits and to estimate the extent of
cultural deposits; and to evaluate the significance of the cultural
resources. In addition, the study sought to determine the impact that
construction of the power plant will have on the cultural resources,
and suggest means of mitigating any unavoidable adverse impacts.
CONSTRAINTS ON THE INVESTIGATIONS
Since this study was conducted before the land acquisition process
was completed by AP&L, all of the archeological investigations were
conducted with the prior approval of individual landowners or tenants.
This was handled through the local AP&L office in Newark, and the
archeological fieldwork was scheduled and designed to accommodate
7.0-2
-------
REVISION 14
agricultural use of the area. Although fields could be surveyed as they
were harvested, the use of heavy equipment such as backhoes and graders
was proscribed, since agricultural use of the land will continue for
several seasons. After discussions with AP&L officials at Newark it
was decided that large test excavations might disrupt local farming
activities. Therefore, all subsurface testing was done through shovel
tests and test pits no larger than 2 m square.
RESULTS
A total of 154 artifact loci were given field numbers during the
project. Of these, nine were isolated finds of cultural material and
will not be assigned state site numbers or entered in the Arkansas site
files. In addition, seven sites had been previously recorded in a
preliminary survey of the area. Of the 152 sites (145 found in this
survey, plus 7 previously recorded sites) which have been given state
site numbers, 20 are historic period sites, 98 are prehistoric sites,
and 34 have both historic and prehistoric components.
The prehistoric sites are all characterized by lithic artifacts
and debris. Only one example of prehistoric ceramics was found, although
some of the chipped stone artifacts are contemporaneous with the later
prehistoric cultures which are known to have produced pottery. This
suggests, for the later prehistoric period at least, that these sites
are satellite camps or special activity areas associated with village
sites located out of the project area. Several village and/or burial
mound sites are known to be in the vicinity.
Site 3IN216 was reinvestigated after the initial shovel tests
uncovered a layer of charcoal which may be a hearth feature. Test pits
7.0-3
-------
REVISION 15
at the site revealed no other features, and subsurface deposits extended
only to a depth of 30 cm, approximately 15-20 cm below the plowzone. Tests
at 3IN262 recorded some cultural material to a depth of 60 cm, but no
soil stratification or other features were noted below the plowzone. ' Tests
at other sites indicated that almost all of the cultural deposits were
limited to the u'pper soil layer, where disturbance from plowing has
obliterated any remains of house patterns, other structures, or features
of any kind which might have been present at the sites.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESOURCES
No prehistoric or historic sites which qualify for inclusion to
the National Register of Historic Places were located, although several
sites were located outside the main plant area which should be investigated
further to determine their significance if they are to be affected
through construction of access roads, spoil piles, or the water intake
and outlet lines. The survey resulted in considerable data being collected
on lithic utilization patterns, which have applicability to other
archeological and geological studies in the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Arkansas Power and Light should keep the State Archeologist's office
notified of construction plans and changes, so that areas which may be
impacted, but which were not included in this study, can be checked. Two
study sites (3IN173 and 3IN282) in the vicinity of the proposed routes
for the water intake and discharge lines should be tested further if they
are included in the land to be impacted by AP&L. This can be accomplished
7.0-4
-------
REVISION 16
most effectively by stripping the top layer of soil (the plowzone) by
mechanical means and inspecting the upper subsoil for archeological
features, a procedure which could not be carried out while the land
was in private ownership and being cultivated. If these sites are
found to be significant, the impact may be mitigated by recovering
the archeological data or by altering the project plans.
7.0-5
-------
REVISION 17
THIS PAGE OF THE DRAFT EIS NO LONGER NEEDED
7.0-6
-------
REVISION 18
PART 8
SOCIOECONOMICS
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
REVISION 19
PART 9
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
THIS SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
------- |