FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

FORT SCOTT LAKE .

Prepared by

U.S. Army Engineer Distrist Kansas City,

December 1971 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

FORT SCOTT LAKE MARMATON RIVER. KANSAS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para. No. Title Page

Summary sheet A 1 Project description 1 2 Environmental setting without the project 1 3 Environmental impact of the proposed project 2 a. Impacts 2 b. Discussion of impacts 3 c. Discussion of efforts to lessen adverse impacts 6 4 Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the project be implemented 6 5 Alternatives to the proposed action 6 6 The relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity 7 7 Any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented 7 8 Coordination with others 8 a. Public participation 8 b. Government agencies and conservation organizations 8 Fort Scott Lake, Marmaton River, Kansas

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City, Missouri

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative.

2. Description of the Action: Initiate construction on receipt of funds of a dam and lake in Bourbon County, Kansas, 5 miles west of Fort Scott, Kansas.

3. a. Environmental Impacts: Provide flood protection, water quality control, water supply storage, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhance­ ment; inundate 25 miles of stream while encouraging intensified agricul­ tural practices downstream and residential and commercial development in the immediate area of the lake and in the flood protected area downstream from the dam.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: The lake would inundate 5,000 acres of land and eliminate 25 miles of Marmaton River and tributary streams and associated fish and wildlife habitat. Additionally, agricultural land would be taken out of production.

4. Alternatives:

a. Levees and channel modification on Marmaton River in Fort Scott. b. Limited channel work on Buck Run Creek in Fort Scott. c. No action. d. Flood plain zoning and regulation. e. Small upstream impoundments.

5. Comments Requested:

U.S. Department of the Interior Kansas Water Resources Board Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Wildlife Commission Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Kansas State Park and Reservoir Bureau of Mines Authority National Park Service Kansas State Extension Forester U.S. Department of Agriculture Kansas Highway Commission Forest Service Kansas Geological Survey Soil Conservation Service State Soil Conservation Committee Environmental Protection Agency State Biological Survey Kansas Ornithological Society Kansas Wildlife Federation, Inc.

6. Draft statement to CEQ 29 July 1971 ___ . Final statement to CEO | y MAR 1372 _' FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

FORT SCOTT LAKE MARMATON RIVER, KANSAS

1. Project description. The Fort Scott Lake project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 7S0, 33rd Congress) . Preconstruction planning for the project is almost complete. The project, with a benefit- cost ratio of 1.08 at 1970 price levels, provides for the construction of a multipurpose lake on the Marmaton River in Bourbon County, 5 miles west of Fort Scott, Kansas. It would be accessible from U.S. Highways 69 and 54. Primary purpose of the project is flood control with supplemental benefits of water quality control, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The project would control the drainage of 279 square miles creating a lake of 5,000 acres with 97 miles of shoreline at multipurpose pool and 11,700 acres at full pool. The project would involve the purchase of 19,500 acres in fee simple acquisition and 600 acres in flowage easements. Necessary road relocations would be made in the vicinity of the lake to furnish a road network serving the lake as well as private land owners in the area. The town of Redfield would be relocated to a new site imme­ diate] v adjacent to the existing town.

The dam would consist of an earthfill embankment 75 feet high and 7,200 feet long with an uncontrolled limited service spillway in the left abutment. A multilevel outlet would be included for water quality and water supply releases. For water quality control and for fish and wildlife purposes, a minimum release of 15 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) would be provided from October through March and 45 c.f.s. from April through September.

Recreation development would include seven public use areas, one of which would be a Kansas State park. These public use areas would comprise 2,698 acres including 272 acres above normal acquisition lines. The Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission has made a preliminary recon­ naissance of the lake area and has indicated interest in managing lands in the upper reaches of the lake.

An archeological survey has been completed under the sponsorship of the National Park Service. No sites of unique significance were located.

A 12-inch pipeline crossing exists on the site of the arm of the lake. To preclude pollution problems posed by the pipeline, that por­ tion of the line subject to inundation would be replaced with heavy weight pipe, coated with protective wrappings, and provided with cathodic protection.

2. Environmental setting without the project. The Marmaton Basin is within the physiographic province known as the Osage Plains, a subdivision

1 of the Central Lowlands Province, the surface sloping generally east and southeast. The topography is rolling. The vegetation is similar to that of the transition area between the temperate grasslands and deciduous forest, with most of the timber of the area occurring in the flood plain or low areas. However, it is semi-Ozarkian with a somewhat higher quality of vegetation than typical edge environment in southeast Kansas. The river, flowing generally eastward, is a slow moving warmwater stream with a relatively wide flood plain. The streambanks and nearby uncleared slopes are characterized by heavy stands of deciduous trees and woody shrubs. Fish in the stream include channel and flathead catfish, bull­ heads, large-mouth and spotted bass, carp, freshwater drum, red horse suckers, green sunfish, and bluegills. Although not important on a national basis, the stream supports a fair amount of fishing for local and regional fishermen.

Wildlife predominant in the area includes white-tailed deer, upland game, furbearers, waterfowl, and a variety of songbirds. Farmlands along the river bottom support good populations of bobwhite quail, rabbits, foxes, squirrels, and mourning doves. Waterfowl, both geese and ducks, from the Central and Mississippi Flyways use the basin during spring and fall migrations. Waterfowl use of the basin complements the use of the Marais des Cygnes State Waterfowl Refuge located in Linn County about 30 miles north of the Fort Scott Lake site. Both the lake site and the flood plain land downstream support hunting for deer, upland game, waterfowl, and other wildlife.

The basin is primarily an agricultural area with most uplands used for grazing. Bottom lands are in small grains and feed grains. Agriculture is limited by the shallow rocky soils.

Fort Scott, the largest town in the immediate area, has a population of 8,800 and is a local service and trade center. Both Fort Scott and the project site are within the Economic Development Region. This region has not kept pace with the national economy and indications are that this situation will worsen unless action is taken to overcome the area's problems, which are reflected in population loss, low income, unemployment and underemployment, educational lag, inadequate access, and lack of public facilities and services. In the future without remedial action there would be continued deterioration of the local economy; under this condition, the natural setting would not be changed appreciably in the future.

3. Environmental impact of the proposed project.

a. Impacts.

(1) The project would provide flood control in downstream areas of the Marmaton, lower Osage, Missouri, and basins.

(2) Water supply storage would be included for the city of Fort Scott, Kansas.

2 (3) Low-flow augmentation would be provided in the lower Marmaton River.

(4) Recreation sites for general recreation and for fishing, hunting, bird watching, and similar activities would be made available to the general public.

(5) The lake would inundate 25 miles of streams destroying fish and wildlife habitat and agricultural land within the lake area.

(6) Clearing of timber and brush and intensified agricultural practices downstream would destroy additional wildlife habitat.

(7) Residential and commercial development would be encouraged in the surrounding area.

(8) Mud flats would develop in upper reaches of the lake.

(9) The project would cause change of ownership of lands from private to public.

(10) The road network would be changed,

b. Discussion of impacts.

(1) The project would provide flood protection for the low-lying areas of the city of Fort Scott. In addition, the downstream flood protection would allow a higher economic production for the affected agricultural units through reduction of crop losses caused by flooding. The project would provide flood protection for 100 acres of urban property and 37,400 acres of agricultural land along the Marmaton River above the headwaters of Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir. It will also provide supplemental protection to 30,300 acres of agricultural land along the lower and 160,000 acres of agricultural land along the lower . Additionally, the project would share in the flood control system benefits along the Mississippi River.

(2) Storage allocated to water supply in the proposed lake would be sufficient to meet the future needs of the city of Fort Scott. Fort Scott has furnished assurances for 3,100 acre-feet of storage. To help minimize conflict between water supply and recreation uses, swimming and other water contact uses would bi prohibited in the area of the water intake. Sanitary facilities would be provided in all public use areas to control possible pollution by recreation users.

(3) Low flow augmentation releases would improve the stream environment downstream of the lake, thus enhancing stream fisheries and general water quality. Historically, the Marmaton River has rarely gone dry. The average annual streamflow has been 295 c.f.s. while the mini­ mum annual daily flow has been 23 c.f.s. Minimum streamflow requirements for fish and wildlife would require 15 c.f.s. from October through March and 45 c.f.s. from A)ril through September. A total of 23,500 acre-feet of storage would be required.

3 Because of the possibility of lake stratification, based upon experiences in surrounding lakes, a multilevel outlet would be provided to allow mixing for downstream releases. Approved water quality standards for the Marina ton River state that discharges into the stream shall not elevate the temperature of the stream above 90° F. In addition, genera] criteria require that pollutional substances will be maintained below maximum permissible concentrations which would be detrimental for public water supplies, recreational requirements, agricultural needs, industrial needs, or other established beneficial use. Waste discharges to the Marmaton River will be guided by the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service drinking water standards except that for substances toxic to fish, standards generally accepted for fishery environment will be considered. There is no criterion for minimum dissolved oxygen concentration. Selective releases from the lake would make possible release of water to meet the approved water quality standards for the Marmaton River.

(A) The water surface created by Fort Scott Lake would provide 5.000 surface acres for recreation uses. In addition, approximately 2,698 acres would be developed as public use areas. The Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission has made a preliminary reconnaissance of the lake area and indicated an interest in managing lands in the upper areas of the lake. Thus, the project would result in a change from an unmanaged area to a controlled area where land use would be administered for public benefit.

The estimated annual visitor-day use at the lake is 600,000 initially while 1,200,000 visitor-days annually could be expected ultimately. Of this use, there would be about 125,000 fishing-days initially and 310.000 fishing-days ultimately. There would also be significant hunt­ ing opportunities provided by the lake and project lands for waterfowl and upland game. Management of the fisheries of the lake and hunting on project lands would be coordinated with the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission.

Inflows into the lake should be of good quality with the possible exception of nitrates. An excessive nitrate concentration could cause undesirable algae blooms. Much of the nitrate would come from existing feedlot oper­ ations in the watershed above the lake. The trend in Kansas has been for increased control of effluents from feedlots. Thus, it is believed that the nitrate concentration would remain at an acceptable level in the lake.

(5) The lake would inundrte 25 miles of free-flowing and inter­ mittent streams. Stream habitat would be destroyed and associated warm water fisheries would be replaced with a lake-type fishery. The lake would inundate 5,000 acres at top of the multipurpose pool thus, affect­ ing land, timber, and brush. All of the existing deer, upland game habitat, and most of the fur animal habitat would be destroyed within the multi­ purpose pool. Significant acreage would be inundated also during flood storage periods. Along with loss of stream fishing and hunting opportu­ nities would be loss of general recreation associated with fish and wild­ life habitat. (6) The downstream flood control in agricultural areas would allow more intensive farming practices in the flood plain. Increased clearing and cultivation along the wooded streambanks would destroy addi­ tional wildlife habitat and reduce the quality of fisheries habitat along the banks of the river.

(7) Because of its proximity to Fort Scott, the lake could be expected to encourage residential development adjacent to the flood plain between the dam and the city. In addition, the lake could be expected to draw residential and commercial development to other adjacent areas.

These developments would further reduce wildlife habitat and populations in the area. Proper control and management of sanitary wastes from these developments would be required to prevent water quality problems. In this connection, however, Kansas statutes require that all facilities constructed within the reservoir sanitary zone, which is established within 3 miles of the top elevation of the conservation pool, have plans approved by the State Department of Health for providing water and disposal of sewaee. Thus, there is reason to believe that water quality problems arising from residential and commercial developments around the lake would be at a minimum.

(8) Siltation and pool fluctuation in the normal operation of the lake could be expected to create mud flats, particularly in the upper reaches of the lake. Approximately 900 acres of mud flats would be exposed based on 2-year frequency drawdown of pool level. The mud flats would be somewhat unsightly when reservoir drawdowns are severe. During the waterfowl migration season, the mud flats would serve as valuable resting areas for ducks and geese. During some years, the flats could be expected to grow up into emergent and semi-aquatic plants such as smartweed and wild millet, thus producing foods of value to wildlife. Upstream management of the watershed for improved land-use practices and installation of floodwater retarding structures could offset some of the problems associated with formation of mud flats but could not solve the adverse effects completely.

(9) The project would result in a change of ownership of approxi­ mately 19,500 acres of land from private to public. This would mean dis­ placement of some 395 people from farm units, suburban residences, and the town of Redfield. Although the displaced families would be assisted to the fullest extent possible in relocating to new places, family ties to the land would be broken. The town of Redfield, present population of which is about 140, would be relocated to a new site immediately adjacent to the existing town.

(10) Bourbon County’s existing road system is comprised of Federal-aid secondary roads, county roads, and township roads. In the area of the lake, some of the county and township roads as well as State Highway K-3 would be affected. All of the affected roads would be relo­ cated to furnish a road network which would serve the needs of the area at least as well as existing facilities. Traffic generated by the lake would in all likelihood increase maintenance costs and could pose dust problems at certain times of the year.

5 c. Discussion of efforts to lessen adverse impacts.

(1) To partially mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat caused by the project, a large portion of project lands above the multipurpose would be dedicated to wildlife management purposes. It could be expected that the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission would manage these lands for optimum wildlife populations. Management would include habitat plantings, agricultural production, controlled public use, road and trail construction, fencing, and other improvements.

(2) Without adequate releases from the lake, there would be frequent periods of zero flow in the Marmaton River downstream from the dam. Fish populations would be adversely affected and sport fishing would be reduced significantly. A storage allocation of 23,500 acre-feet would be provided in the lake to make possible minimum releases during normal low-flow periods. Releases would be made to provide a minimum flow of 15 c.f.s. from October through March and 45 c.f.s. from April through September.

(3) To soften the impact of displacing people from the lake area, the Corps of Engineers would assist to the fullest extent possible in the relocation process. Assistance would include help in locating a suitable business, home, or farm within 50 miles of the acquired property. Additionally, costs involved in moving would be defrayed at project expense.

4. Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the project be implemented. The loss by permanent inundation of 5,000 acres of land and 25 miles of free-flowing stream channel would cause a loss of agricultural production capability, stream fishing, and wildlife habitat. Uncontrolled development typical of manmade lake areas in the midwest could be expected to replace additional agricultural lands and wildlife habitat outside the immediate project area. Downstream flood protection would encourage intensified farming and would accelerate the loss of habitat along the river.

5. Alternatives to the proposed action. The original studies for the Osage River included three alternatives for flood control in the city of Fort Scott. The first alternative studied was generally the same as the authorized project. The second alternative included a combination of levees, channel modifications, track and bridge raising, and revet­ ment to protect industrial, residential, and railroad property in the flood plain of the Marmaton River. A third alternative was limited to a combination of levees, track raising, and revetment to protect the areas of highest valuation along Buck Run Creek. A minimum of streambank vegetation and fisheries habitat would have been affected with either the second or third alternative since the flood control works would have been located entirely in an urban area where there is little or no natural vegetation or significant stream habitat. Subsequent to the formulation of the alternative plans, there has been further development of indus­ trial and business property in the flood plain. Consequently, the two latter alternatives became infeasible because of costs. The two latter

6 alternatives also would not provide benefits of water supply, water quality control, recreation, or downstream flcod control.

An alternative of no action would prevent the elimination of wildlife habitat and stream fisheries by the development of a lake. The area would be left to the normal changes associated with agricultural practices of the area. However, the benefits of flood control, water supply, low flow augmentation, recreation, and associated potential economic growth for the Fort Scott area would be foregone.

Another alternative would be flood plain management to eliminate need for impoundment of floodwaters. In such a management scheme, zoning regula­ tions would have to be developed to limit further development in the flood plain, and flood-proofing of existing structures would need to be carried out. This alternative would not provide the benefits associated with water supply, downstream flood control, water quality control, or lake-type recreation although fish and wildlife habitat would be preserved.

Yet another alternative would be development of a number of upstream impoundments in the watershed to control flooding. While upstream water­ shed development would assist in alleviating flood problems, prevention of flooding to the degree needed could not be obtained economically. Benefits of water quality control, water supply storage, and recreation provided by a large public lake would not accrue with development of relatively small upstream impoundments. Additionally, construction of the impoundments would cause loss of wildlife habitat which would be difficult if not impossible to replace.

6. The relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The flood control and water supply aspects of the project would allow orderly development of the Fort Scott area benefiting the health and safety of area residents and contributing to long-term productivity and enjoy­ ment of life's amenities. Tlood control furnished by the project would allow more intensive cultivation of agricultural land providing a base for food production for future generations. The lake and lands surround­ ing the lake would provide open space and recreational opportunities for the public for the long term. Balanced against the above would be the loss of biological communities associated with flood plain lands and with a free-flowing stream. Although the maintenance of these communities is not essential to the well-being of people in the area, future gener­ ations would not be able to use and enjoy as great a variety of fauna and flora as without the project.

7. Any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The proposed impoundment would irretrievably alter the free-flowing stream both within the lake site and in the downstream area. The lake would permanently inundate agricultural lands and wildlife habitat in the lake site. Addi­ tional areas would be affected by the fluctuation of the flood pool thus limiting use and potential. The availability of the lake would change

7 adjacent land use from rural to a suburban recreation environment and bring about the changes normally associated with urbanization. In addi­ tion, the manpower and materials involved in the construction of the lake would be irretrievably committed to the project.

8. Coordination with others.

a. Public participation. A number of public meetings were held on flood control aspects of the Osage River basin prior to authorization of Fort Scott Lake. Two meetings having to do specifically with tributary basins were held on A and 5 September 19AA. Discussion of Fort Scott Lake also was included in a public meeting held on 7 December 1966 regarding the Osage River basin. No public meetings were held specifically regard­ ing the environmental aspects of the project. A news release was issued on informing the public that a draft of the environmental statement was available for review.

b. Government agencies and conservation organizations. During project formulation and detailed project planning, interested Federal, State and local agencies cooperated in planning efforts.

The draft of the environmental statement was furnished to the following Governmental agencies and conservation organizations requesting their views and comments. The comments received are summarized below and copies of the letters of reply are attached to the environmental statement.

(1) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Comment: The word "enhancement" is not appropriate in connection with fish and wildlife purposes of the project.

Response: Agreed. The wording has been changed.

Comment: Suggest revised wording to indicate that recrea­ tion sites would be available for a range of general recreation opportunities.

Response: Agreed. The wording has been added.

Comment: Suggest addition of loss of stream fishing as item under adverse environmental effects.

Response: Agreed. The suggested wording has been added.

(2) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Comment: There is a question of how fish and wildlife would be enhanced by the project.

Response: The word "enhancement" has been deleted from the reference to authorized project purposes. However, there are benefits as a result of reservoir fishing opportunities provided by the project. The reservoir fishing would result in supplemental benefits of the project.

8 Comment: A more detailed explanation of the formation of mud flats should be made in relation to recreational development.

Response: Some additional wording has been added to the state­ ment on mud flats in relation to recreation development.

Comment: Some discussion should be made of the possibility of introducing a watershed management program above the reservoir as a partial solution to the siltation problem.

Response: Agreed. The revised statement includes additional discussion along this line.

Comment: An additional alternative to be considered would be flood plain management.

Response: Agreed. The additional alternative has been added.

Comment: Losses of recreation associated with wildlife habitat destruction should be recognized.

Response: Agreed. The losses have been recognized in the revised statement.

(3) Bureau of Mines.

Comment: Preconstruction planning should remain subject to recommendations in the third paragraph of page 1 of the Bureau of Mines report "Mineral Resources at Fort Scott Reservoir Site, Bourbon County, Kansas," January 1963.

Response: The recommendations of the Bureau of Mines relative to oil, coal, sand, gravel, and limestone production have been taken into account in preconstruction planning and have been followed.

Comment: The 12-inch gas pipeline which would cross the Pawnee Creek arm of the lake would pose an environmental impact.

Response: It is agreed that without adequate protection measures the pipeline could pose a threat to the lake. The statement has been supplemented with a discussion of plans to preclude adverse effects posed by the pipeline.

(4) National Park Service.

No comments received.

(5) Forest Service.

The letter received from the Forest Service indicates the Service has no comments to make on the statement.

9 (6) Soil Conservation Service.

The Soil Conservation Service is in general agreement with the assessment of the environmental impact of the project.

(7) Environmental Protection Ay.ency.

Comment: Approved State water quality standards should be discussed as they would apply to the impounded water and downstream releases.

Response: The revised statement contains discussion of the water quality standards as they apply to the project. See section 3b(3).

Comment; It would be advisable to include a statement on quality of reservoir inflow.

Response: This has been done.

(8) Kansas Water Resources Board.

Comment: It would seem appropriate to review the requirement for the large amount of land surrounding the full pool since taking of the land would be an Impact.

Response: It is agreed that changing of ownership of land from private to public would have an impact, and the statement has been revised to take into account the impact. It should be noted that suf­ ficient land is desirable in areas bordering the full pool elevation to provide for the expected recreational use of the lake and to act as a buffer between project lands and private land, where land use may not be controlled.

Comment: It would be helpful to indicate the extent of use of the existing fish and wildlife resources and to relate the use of the basin by waterfowl to the existing refuge located In Linn County immedi­ ately north of the Fort Scott Lake site.

Response: Agreed. The revised statement includes discussion of these items.

Comment: No reference is made to the expected use of the lake by waterfowl nor the extent the lake would supplement the refuge in Linn County.

Response: Agreed. The revised statement recognizes the use by waterfowl and the relationship to the refuge.

Comment: The use of the term "free-flowing" is not in the same context as normally applied.

10 Response: As normally applied, "free-flowing" means the absence of structures which would impound or divert a streamflow. In this sense, it is believed the term is appropriate.

Comment: It would seem appropriate to indicate the change in type of fishery and the kind and extent of use of the fishery.

Response: Agreed. The statement has been revised to so indicate.

Comment: The statement gives the impression of suburban expansion in the area downstream from the dam. Such is not the usual case. Development usually takes place on the periphery of the project.

Response: It was not intended to give the impression that residential development would take place in the hazardous section of the flood plain below the dam. Rather, in the case of Fort Scott, it is expected that residential development would take place in areas both adja­ cent to the reservoir and between the dam and the city of Fort Scott just out of the flood plain.

Comment: Delete the word "however" in the last sentence of paragraph 3.b.(7).

Response: The word "however" has been reLaxned to show the opposition of (1) that control of sanitary wastes would be required to prevent water quality problem in the general project area, and (2) that Kansas statutes provide for control of sewage from facilities within a 3-mile reservoir sanitary zone.

Comment: Delete the sentence in paragraph 3.b.(8) which qualifies the formation of deltas or mud flats.

Response: The sentence has been deleted.

Comment: No mention is made on the effects to the road net­ work and the community of Redfield.

Response : The revised statement addresses this problem.

Comment: No mention is made of water quality function of the project.

Response: The revised statement contains a discussion of this item.

Comment: General comments are provided relating to the need for a water supply for Fort Scott and the general area as pertains to short- and long-term effects.

Response: The revised section on short- and long-term effects uses some of the thoughts provided.

1 1 (9) Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission.

Comment: The word "enhancement" should be removed from the fourth sentence.

Response: Agreed. The word has been deleted and the sentence changed to indicate that there would be supplemental benefits accruing from reservoir fishing.

Comment: The word "displace" should be changed to "destroy" in two places.

Response: The word has been changed.

Comment: Suggest change in wording in discussion of impact, item 5, to indicate that all upland game habitat within the multipurpose pool would be destroyed.

Response: The change has been made with the added thought that deer habitat also would be destroyed.

Comment: The alternatives do not appear to have been ser­ iously considered, i.e., the first alternative being essentially a repeat of the authorized project.

Response: The alternatives have been considered in the light of needs of the area and in the public interest generally. Each alternative was ruled out as being either unrealistic, too costly, or both. It is true that the first alternative listed is essentially a repeat of the proposed project. However, it was listed to show that early planning efforts considered the proposed project along with the two alternatives discussed. The alternative section has been revised to expand description of alternative approaches. In addition, flood plain zoning and development of multiple upstream impoundments have been added as alternative courses.

Comment: A question is raised concerning the need for addi­ tional water supply for Fort Scott in view of the construction of a muni­ cipal water supply reservoir. Review of the justification documents for the water supply reservoir might be enlightening since there was Federal fund participation in the reservoir.

Response: Water supply storage would be allocated in Fort Scott Lake under provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958 and in accordance with a resolution by the city of Fort Scott dated 27 September 1968 wherein the city requests the allocation for a future water supply. The city had originally requested 22,212 acre-feet by resolution adopted 12 November 1963. However, after the Kansas City District pointed out the yield potential of the amount of storage, the city reduced its request to 3,100 acre-feet to yield an average of one million gallons per day.

12 There is an almost complete lack of quality ground water in quantities even approaching a small fraction of this small requirement in the Fort Scott vicinity. Since normal waterworks practice would be to plan water supply facilities looking no more than 20 to 30 years into the future, the city’s request for this future supply must be considered prudent.

Comment: Land clearing and speculation has progressed at a rapid pace within the reservoir take-line in anticipation of construction of the lake. This land clearing has hastened wildlife habitat destruction. Appropriately reduced land value adjustments should be made.

Response: If land clearing is progressing at a rapid rate in anticipation of construction of the lake it is unfortunate. The Corps of Engineers can exercise no control over land use until the land is actually purchased. At that time, the value of the land would be based on current values and in consideration of the highest and best use of the land at the time of acquisition.

(10) Kansas Wildlife Federation, Inc.

No comments received.

(11) Kansas Ornithological Society.

No comments received.

(12) Kansas State Park and Resources Authority. No comments received.

(13) Kansas State Extension Forester.

No comments received.

(14) State Biological Survey.

No comments received. Deoartment of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 September 2, 1971

Col. R. L. Anderson, Jr., District Engineer U. S. Array Engineer District, Kansas City Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 6U106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

These are our comments concerning your draft environmental statement for Fort Scott Lake, Kansas. Your letter of June 30, 1971, requested our comments within U5 days; however, we were unable to meet this deadline. Consequently, we contacted Mr. Lew Helms of your staff and were granted an extension of time.

Your draft environmental statement for Fort Scott Lake, Kansas, appears to adequately consider the impact this project will have on the environ­ ment. However, we do have several comments which are listed below. They concern for the most part word or sentence changes.

Page 1, line 8. The word "enhancement" is not appropriate in this sentence. We suggest this sentence be changed as follows: "Its authorized ... water supply, general recreation and fish and wildlife in the basin." In reading P.L. 780 of the 83d Congress as well as House Document No. 5^9 8lst Con­ gress we fail to find fish and wildlife mentioned as a specific purpose.

Page 3, item (U) under a. Impact We suggest this sentence be changed to read as follows: "Recreation sites for general recreation including hunting, fishing, bird watching, and similar activities, both water and land would be made available for the population in the area."

Page U, item (6). We suggest this sentence be changed to read as follows: "Clearing of timber and brush and intensified agricultural practices down­ stream would destroy additional wildlife habitat."

Page 5, item (5), second sentence. This sentence should be changed to read as follows: "Stream habitat would be destroyed and associated warm- water fisheries would be replaced by a reservoir fishery."

Page 5, item (6), second sentence. The word "displace" should be changed to "destroy”. Page 6 under U Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the project be implemented. First sentence, third line, should read: "...agriculture production capability, wildlife habitat, and stream fishine."

Sincjsreiyy--

S. E. Jor^ortran United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION M10- CONTINKNT HKGION BUILDING 41, DEN'VKH FEDERAL CENTER DENVER. COLORADO 80225

AUG 1 2 1971

Colonel R. L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer Corps of Engineers Kansas City District 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement on the Fort Scott Reservoir Project, Kansas, as requested in your letter of June 30, 1971.

Our comments are based entirely on the environmental impact data that you provided without the benefit of an on-site inspection.

On page 1, line 8, fish and wildlife enhancement is listed as an authorized project purpose. The statement, however, is vague as to how this enhancement would be accomplished. For example, 25 miles of free-flowing and intermittent stream would be inundated by the project. Most existing upland game and fur animal habitat in the area would be destroyed. Increased clearing and cultivation along the Marmaton River would displace additional wildlife habitat and reduce the quality of the downstream fishery. Residential and commercial development along the reservoir and in the flood plain would further reduce the fish and wildlife populations. As now written, the environmental impact of the project seems definitely harmful. If in fact the project is intended to serve the purpose of fish and wildlife enhancement, some mention of specific plans in this regard should be included in the impact statement.

On page 6, line 10, reference is made to the probable formation of mud flats in the upper reaches of Fort Scott Reservoir. A more detailed explanation concerning this item seems advisable. Recre­ ation development in this area could be seriously hampered if not precluded by such an occurrence, thus reducing this aspect of the project. In addition, we would suggest some discussion of the possibility of introducing a watershed management program above the reservoir as a partial solution to the siltation problem. In the section entitled Alternatives to the proposed action an additional alternative that might be considered is flood plain management. Zoning regulations could be initiated to prevent further growth along the flood plain. Too often, the construction of a dam creates a false sense of security and hastens the development of an area better left undeveloped.

As a final suggestion, we recommend some mention of the loss of recreation associated with the destruction of wildlife habitat and 25 miles of stream. The loss of wildlife habitat reduces the opportunities available for such activities as bird watching, nature walks, and nature photography. The recreation value of free- flowing streams has increased markedly as they have become less common. It is possible, when considered on a long-term basis, that the recreation losses of the project might override any gains.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this environmental impact statement.

Sincerely yours,

Maurice D. Arnold Regional Director cc: BOR, WASO, Water Resources Division w/copy of Incoming UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOF BUREAU OF MINES B U IL D IN G 20 Intennountain Field Operation Center DENVER FEDERAL CENTER

DENVER, COLORADO 80225

August 18, 1971

Col. R. L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer, Kansas City District Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

In response to your June 30 letter, enclosing the draft environmental statement for Fort Scott Lake, Kansas, we offer the following comments.

The draft statement does not mention any adverse or beneficial involve­ ments of mineral resources and industries with the project, but preconstruction planning should remain subject to recommendations in the third paragraph on page 1 of the Bureau of Mines report "Mineral Resources at Fort Scott Reservoir Site, Bourbon County, Kans.," January 1963.

Besides the possibility that changing conditions and technology have affected the mineral resources, including sand and gravel, limestone, sandstone, coal, oil, and gas involved with the project, an Atlas in the 10/13/69 issue of Oil and Gas Journal shows that a 12-inch gas pipeline of Cities Service Gas Co. crosses the Pawnee Creek arm of the proposed Fort Scott Lake, which poses an environmental impact.

Also, we since have estimated (table 5, page 16, BuMines Prelim. Rept. 174) that 2.7 million tons of coal had been produced prior to 1967 in Bourbon County, and 27 million tons of reserves remain in areas not pinpointed with respect to the Fort Scott Lake project.

Sincerely yours,

F. Heisins(, Acting Chief Intennountain Field Operation Center U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r ic u l t u r e FOREST SERVICE

R o c k y M o u n t a i n R e g io n BUILDING 85 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER DENVER. COLORADO 80225

August 9, 1971

Mr. R. L. Anderson, Jr. Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineers Department of the Army Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Statement for the proposed Fort Scott Lake, Marmaton River, Kansas. I have no comments.

Sincerely,

IV. J. LUCAS Regional Forester UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE P. 0. Box 600, Salina, Kansas 67401

July 21, 1971

Colonel R. L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer Kansas City District Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Office Building Kansas City, Missouri 64IO6

Dear Colonel Anderson:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for Fort Scott Lake, Kansas, and find we are in general agreement with your assessment of the environmental impact of the project.

This project does not conflict with any current P.L. 566 projects and will answer a long standing need for flood protection in the city of Fort Scott, Kansas.

Very truly yours,

Lee T. Morgan State Conservationist cc: Kenneth Grant, SCS, Washington, D.C. w/copy of statement Kenneth Kent, SCS, Lincoln, Nebraska Keith Myers, SCS, Lincoln, Nebraska UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 911 Walnut Street, Room 702 Kansas City, Missouri 64106

July 29, 1971

Colonel R. L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer Kansas City District Corps of Engineers 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

In response to your letter dated June 3, 1971 (MRKED-B), we have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Scott, Kansas.

The draft seems adequate except in the area of water quality. Approved State water quality standards should be discussed as they would apply to the impounded water and downstream releases. It would also be advisable to include a statement on quality of reservoir inflow. The drainage area may contain several beef cattle feedlots which could impair inflow quality.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on Lhis draft statement. Please provide us with a copy of the final statement with attachments as submitted to the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

Very truly yours,

^JEROME JJT SVORE Regional Administrator THE STATE OF KANSAS

WATER RESOURCES BOARD 1134 S STATE OFFICE BUILDING Phone 296-3185 TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612

August 5, 1971

Mr. Paul D. Barber Chief, Engineering Division U.S. Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building 601 E. 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Mr. Barber:

In response to your letter of June 30, 1971, we are transmitting our comments and those comments received from other interested state agencies relative to the draft environmental statement for the authorized Fort Scott Reservoir. Comments and suggestions were received from the State Highway Commission, State Geological Survey, and the State Soil Conservation Committee and have been incorporated herein where appropriate. We note in your transmittal that separate comments were requested from the Forestry, Fish and Game Commission and the Park and Resources Authority, and we assume these agencies have responded direct to your office.

Paragraph 1 - Project: Description Page 1. Pertinent data shown in the first paragraph indicates an area of 11,700 acres at full pool and acquisition in fee of 19,500 acres. This amount of land transferred to public ownership has an environmental impact and it would seem appropriate to review these requirements with a view of lessening the impact where the operation of the project will not be adversely affected.

Paragraph 2 - Environmental Setting without the Project Page 2. In the second paragraph under this subject, there is reference to existing fisheries and wildlife. If available, it would be helpful to indicate the extent these resources are used. Reference is also made to the use of the basin by waterfowl migrations. It would seem appropriate to note that this migration route may be influenced some­ what by the existing refuge located in Linn County, immediately north of the authorized project. Paragraph 3 - Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project Page 5. b(4) Reference is made to the 5,000 acres for recreation use plus the development of 2,700 acres for public area. No reference is made to the use of the area for waterfowl and it would seem that a surface area of this extent would supplement the refuge in Linn County.

b(5) It is noted that the proposed lake would inundate 25 miles of the free-flowing stream. The use of the term "free-flowing" is not in the same context as normally applied. The second sentence indicates a change to a flat water fishery. This terminology is not descriptive of the fish life to be supported. It would seem appropriate to indicate the change in fishery resource to be expected with a reservoir develop­ ment as well as the kind and extent of the use of such resource. The third sentence is a repetition of a previous statement.

b(6) The last sentence could give an impression of suburban expansion below the reservoir which has not been the usual practice on other reservoir projects. Development usually takes place on the periphery of the project. Further, such downstream development should be controlled and zoned to some extent particularly in respect to occupancy of the designated flood hazard area.

Page 6. b (7) Last sentence delete "However." and make it a positive statement of fact.

b(8) Delete the second sentence. Qualifying the formation of deltas or mud-flats does not add anything.

Paragraph 4 - Adverse Environmental Effects In addition to the 5,000 permanently lost, there will be some shift in the remaining 6,000 plus acres subject to flood operations. No reference is made on the effects to the road network and the community of Redfield.

With the reservoir development and the increased public use the present road network and the existing surface will create adverse environmental problems. Special attention should be given toward minimizing this problem early in the planning and development stage.

Paragraph 5 - Alternatives to Proposed Action Page 7. We concur with your treatment of the alternates. Consideration of channelization as an alternate in an area which has experienced severe water shortages would be incompatible with sound water resources development. Single purpose projects of this type create adverse environmental effects and by themselves do not provide for development of a resource. Paragraph 6 - Relation Between Short and Long-Term Effects No reference is made to the water quality function of the project and the effects of this function on maintenance of a sustained low flow and an interstate operation. Also, the reference to a change from stream to lake seems to be in the area of an apology. The present environmental use is certainly of a very restricted nature if for no other reason that private access is the vogue. With a lake surface, public use will be available to a considerable segment of the public which in turn can create other adverse environmental effects. Will the entire stream system be disrupted as implied or will there still be a segment of the so-called free-flowing variety? Current studies would indicate that with time the general area and Fort Scott will of necessity have to seek additional water supply. In this section of the state, surface supply is the only reliable source for urban and suburban areas. Eventually, Fort Scott and the surrounding area will be forced to seek an additional supply which can and will create the same environmental effects as would be expected from the Fort Scott Reservoir. The only difference would be the time element and the size.

Sincerely,

Keith S. Krause Executive Director

cc: Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission Kansas Park and Resources Authority STATE OF KANSAS 0?&ie4tny, 0?Uk and (fame (fannUteton

September 21, 1971

Colonel W. R. Needham District Engineer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Needham:

As requested by your letter of June 30, 1971, these are our comments relative to the draft environmental impact statement for Fort Scott Reser­ voir, Kansas.

The quality of the draft statement is much improved over the earlier draft; however, we still have several comments to make.

The word "enhancement" should be removed from the fourth sentence of the first page.

The word "displace" should be changed to "destroy" in the first sentence of the fourth page (Item 6).

Item 5 on page 5 should read as follows:

"The lake would inundate 25 miles of free-flowing and intermittent streams. Stream habitat would be destroyed and associated warm water fisheries would be displaced by a lake fishery. The lake would inundate 5,000 acres at top of multipurpose pool affecting land, timber, and brush. All of the existing upland game habitat and most fur animal habitat would be destroyed. Also, significant acreage will be inundated during flood storage periods."

The word "displace" should be changed to "destroy" in the second sentence of Item 6 on page 6.

Under Alternatives to the proposed action, page 7, alternatives do not appear to have been seriously considered, i.e., the first alternative being essentially a repeat of the authorized project. This can not be considered as a true alternative without further elaboration. The second alternative makes the assumption that the Marmaton River flood plain will, with or without the project, undergo further development - and yet at the end of this paragraph the assertion is made that economic progress of Fort Scott and the flood plain area will not develop unless the proje’ct is consummated as proposed - a direct contradiction.

The third stated alternative needs further elucidation.

As alternatives, no mention is made of 1) multiple upstream impound­ ments, such as watershed district developments, to alleviate the flooding proglem at Fort Scott, or 2) flood plain zoning.

Additional water supply, as an essential to further Fort Scott's economic growth, was proclaimed to be adequately provided by the 1958-59 construction of a municipal water supply reservoir. This impoundment received a large percentage of federal-fund participation. Review of justi­ fication documents for this structure might be enlightening, pertinent to the presently proposed project and definitely in order.

Also, during last spring's field review of the proposed project's site and watershed it was readily apparent that land management practices were already being influenced by the project. Land clearing to enhance property values has progressed at a rapid pace within the reservoir's tentative "take line". This kind of "land speculation" has hastened wildlife habitat destruction. Appropriately reduced land value adjustments should be in order if the project is further pursued.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental statement of this project.

Sincerely,

GEORGE C. MOORE Director