Long Branch Lake, East Fork, Little Chariton River, Missouri

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

LONG BRANCH LAKE EAST FORK. LITTLE CHARITON RIVER MISSOURI

Prepared by

U.S. Army Engineer District Kansas City, Missouri

October 1971 Long Branch Lake, East Fork, Little Chariton Lver, Missouri

( ) 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 for a dam and lake in Macon County.

3. a. Environmental Impacts: Provide flood protection, water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation, water supply storage and recreation; inundate 20 miles of stream while encouraging intensified agricultural practices downstream and residential and commercial development in the area.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: The lake will inundate 2,430 acres of land, eliminate 20 miles of East Fork of Little Chariton River and associated habitat, and adversely affect forest cover and fish and wildlife habitat downstream.

4. Alternatives;

a. Alternative lake sites. b. Doing nothing. c. Small Impoundments in upstream area. d. Nonstructural measures. e. Channelization.

5. Comments Requested;

U.S. Department of the Interior Missouri Water Resources Board National Park Service Missouri Department of Bureau of Mines Conservation Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Missouri Inter-Agency Council Bureau of Sport Fisheries and for Outdoor Recreation Wildlife Missouri State Park Board U.S. Department of Agriculture Missouri Department of Health Soil Conservation Service Conservation Federation of Missouri Forest Service Missouri Chapter, American Fisheries Environmental Protection Agency Society Missouri Chapter, Wildlife Society

6. Draft statement to CEQ 29 July 19LL Final statement to CEQ £ 7 JAN 197 2 FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

LONG BRANCH LAKE EAST FORK. LITTLE CHARITON RIVER. MISSOURI

1. Project description. The Long Branch Lake project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298) and is now in precon struction planning. The project, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 at 1971 price levels, was authorized to include flood control, water supply, recre ation, fish and wildlife conservation, and water quality control in the Little Chariton River basin. The Long Branch damsite is located on the East Fork of the Little Chariton River in south-central Macon County about 3 miles northwest of the city of Macon, Missouri. The damsite is located about 2 miles downstream from the junction of East Fork and Long Branch, a principal tributary of East Fork. The dam would consist of an earthfill embankment 74 feet high and 3,550 feet long. The outlet works would be located near the toe of the right abutment and would consist of a concrete arch conduit and an uncontrolled hooded drop inlet structure with provision for controlled low flow and downstream water supply releases. On the basis of present planning, the lower intake would be located at eleva tion 767.0 feet, mean sea level, (m.s.l.), and the upper intake at eleva tion 779.0 feet, m.s.l., to permit mixing of any thermally stratified water to maintain downstream water quality.

The project would control the runoff from a drainage area of 109 square miles, creating a lake of 2,430 acres at the top of the multipurpose pool and 3,670 acres at full pool.

The capacity of the top of the multipurpose pool, elevation 791 feet, m.s.l., would be 35,000 acre-feet. The capacity of the flood control, at the top elevation of 801 feet, m.s.l., would be 30,000 acre-feet.

The project would involve the purchase of 7,975 acres of land in fee simple. ^*^®H®ltiary studies indicate four public use areas need to be developed com prising approximately 1,500 acres above multipurpose pool level, including some 300 acres above the normal acquisition line.

Environmental setting wlthout the project. Significant channelization has been carried out in the lower basin to reduce flooding. Impoundments in the basin are limited to small water supply reservoirs with the exception of Thomas Hill Reservoir, which was developed privately on the Middle Fork of the Little Chariton River about 20 miles southwest of the Long Branch l*®ke site. The reservoir is used for cooling water supply for a power generating plant of the fossil fuel type. Because groundwater supplies are either of insufficient volume or too highly mineralized for municipal and industrial use, surface water resources are used as the primary water source in the area.

High grade bituminous coal is the most important mineral resource in. the basin. Coal, with an average sulphur content of about 4 percent, is strip-mined in the basin south of the Long Branch Lake site to supply markets in Iowa and Missouri. The value of the mineral and related employment is important to the economy of the basin. Historically, acid drainage from the mines destroyed much of the aquatic life in the lower portion of Middle and East Forks of the Little Chariton River. Some acid drainage is continuing in the East Fork. Since construction of Thomas Hill Reservoir on the Middle Fork, acid drainage has ceased to be a problem on that stream.

Based on the 1970 census, the population of the general project area has remained relatively stable over the past several years. Agriculture continues to be the main land use in the rural areas, while some small industries are located in nearby towns. Not much change in land use could be expected in the future without the project.

The East Fork and Long Branch are naturally meandering streams and have low gradients resulting in extensive flooding of farmlands during periods of high runoff. In recent years, timber clearing has resulted in logjams which have increased flooding and contributed to extensive bank cutting. The wooded bottom lands along the stream, with the heavy oak stands in the steeper tributary draws, provide good habitat for small game and other '"Midlife, The cultivated lands between the stream and wooded uplands pro vide a good food source for wildlife. Muskrat, raccoon, beaver, and mink are the principal economically important fur animals. The basin furnishes habitat for expanding white-tailed deer and wild turkey populations and high quality nesting habitat for an indigenous wood duck population as well as a wide variety of migratory birds which include waterfowl, marsh birds, and shore birds. Snipe and woodcock are common along the valleys during the fall migration period.

The Missouri Department of Conservation owns and operates the Atlanta Wildlife Area at the upper end of the Long Branch Lake site. This 1,845-acre area contains excellent habitat for bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbits, and other upland game. The area is important in providing public hunting opportunities in this section of Missouri.

An archeological reconnaissance of the Long Branch Lake site has been com pleted by the University of Missouri. No archeological sites were found on the flood plain, but seven small camping sites revealing the presence of prehistoric man were located on lands above the flood plain. A detailed study will be m..de prior to impoundment. 3. The environmental Impacts of the proposed action,

a. Impacts.

(1) The project would provide downstream flood protection in the Little Chariton Pdver basin, resulting in intensified agricultural practices, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of forest cover.

(2) The lake of 2,430 acres (at top of multipurpose pool) would provide opportunity for public recreational use.

(3 The project would destroy through inundation 20 miles of free- flowing stream and associated fish habitat and 2,430 acres of wildlife habitat. There would also be losses of forest land, pasture, and cropland through inundation.

(4) The project would adversely affect, through periodic inunda tion, about 40 acres of the Atlanta Wildlife Area, owned and operated by the Missouri Department of Conservation.

(5) Harvesting of timber crops above the multipurpose pool elevation on project lands would be eliminated.

(0) Water supply storage would be provided.

(7) Low-flow augmentation would be provided.

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

(9) There would be a change in ownership of land from private to public.

b . Discussion of impacts.

(1) The downstream flood protection would allow a higher economic production for the affected agricultural units through reduction of crop losses caused by flooding. However, the reduction in flooding would also encourage landowners to clear streambanks and lowland areas and put them into production. Although difficult to predict accurately, a loss of wild life habitat would result in the downstream areas in the future. Even though water quality would be improved, loss of streambank vegetation would contribute to deterioration of the downstream fisheries through increased erosion and siltation. Clearing by agricultural interests would cause the loss of forested areas eliminating much of the future timber harvest in the downstream area.

(2) The impoundment would create a 2,430-acre lake (at multipurpose pool elevation) which would furnish potential for water-based general recre ation, lake fishing, and certain types of hunting. Preliminary plans call for the development of four public use areas. Currently, only one sponsor for recreational development has indicated an intent to share in the costs and to administer one area. Although turbid water conditions probably would be the rule, initial use at Long Branch Lake with four public use areas developed is estimated at 250,000 recreation days while ultimate use is projected at 650,000 recreation days annually. In addition, this type of lake has typically induced residential development in the area, providing weekend recreational opportunities for city-based residents.

The lake would provide needed fishing opportunities in north-central Missouri. Game fishes which could be expected in the lake include large- mouth bass, white crappie, white bass, bluegill, and channel catfish. During initial years of impoundment, the game fishes would predominate; however, during later years nongame fishes, such as carp, buffalo fishes, and gizzard shad could cause problems of overabundance.

Based on use at existing manmade lakes, Long Branch Lake would provide a moderate amount of waterfowl hunting. On project lands surrounding the lake, there would be significant opportunities to hunt upland game and other wildlife.

Drawdowns of the multipurpose pool could be expected as a result of lake releases for water supply and water quality control. The drawdowns, how ever, would not be severely restrictive to recreation as indicated by reser voir operation studies. On the average, a drawdown of 6 feet could be expected once in 5 years and a drawdown of 10 feet once in 10 years.

(3) The impoundment would destroy some 20 miles of free-flowing stream and associated wildlife and fisheries habitat. Permanent inundation of 2,430 acres would cause the loss of high quality upland game habitat in the area together with existing wildlife populations.

(4) About 125 acres of the Missouri Department of Conservation's Atlanta Wildlife Area would be inundated periodically when the flood control pool is in operation. A relatively small portion of the 125 acres would be adversely affected. It is estimated that about 40 acres of wild life habitat would experience flooding at greater frequencies than normal with minor adverse effects on the habitat.

(5) On project lands surrounding the lake, the existing timber would no longer be available for commercial harvest under current operating practices. It is problematical whether timber harvesting could be permitted on a sustained basis and still obtain optimum recreational and otner uses from project land. Retention of the timber would enhance opportunities to develop the full potential of project lands for recreation and esthetics.

(6) The Little Chariton Basin area is not considered favorable for development of water wells due to high mineral content of ground water supplies. The lake would help furnish needed water supply in the basin. Both the city of Macon and the State of Missouri have expressed intent to purchase water supply storage in the lake. To preclude conflict between water supply storage and recreation use, swimming and boating would be prohibited in the area of the intake structure. In addition, sanitation facilities at the public use areas would be provided. Develop ments encouraged by the lake would require control and monitoring by local and State agencies to assure proper planning of sewage facilities.

(7) The average annual streamflow in the East Fork is estimated at 64 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.); the average minimum is 4.4 c.f.s. The project would include storage lor low-flow augmentation of 7 c.f.s. as determined by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency). The low flows could be released through two outlets, one in the upper 10 feet of storage and one below the photosynthetic zone allowing mixing of flows to control the tempera ture and oxygen concentration of the releases.

(8) Some development of mud flats could be expected in the upper reaches of the lake. Siltation and pool fluctuation in the normal opera tions of the lake would create approximately 132 acres of mud flats. As streams enter the slack water impoundment, their velocities and carrying capacities are reduced, causing the build-up of deltas. These could be expected to be exposed based upon 2-year frequency drawdown of pool level.

(9) The project would require acquisition of approximately 7,975 acres of land in fee simple. Since most of the land is in private ownership, the project would result in a significant change fron private to public ownership. The change would insure dedication of the land to open space uses and would permit public use of the land to a greater extent than would have occurred without the project. Acquisition would involve the relocation of only about 10 family units.

c. Discussion of efforts to lessen adverse impacts.

(1) The Missouri Department of Conservation has expressed an inter est in managing project lands for fish and wildlife purposes if the project is constructed. A sizable portion of the area between the top of the multipurpose pool and the land acquisition boundary would be available for fish and wildlife management purposes. Through intensive management of the land, including soil and water manipulation, food and cover plantings, and land use control, upland game populations could be increased and addi tional public hunting accommodated. Thus, a part of the loss of hunting associated with the project would be mitigated.

(2) The mud flats which would develop in the lake would be caused by silt laden waters entering the impoundment from upstream watershed areas. Unless special efforts are made, project lands surrounding the lake could contribute to the silt problem. To reduce erosion on project lands, approved soil conservation practices would be carried out, land use would be carefully controlled, and vegetative cover established. 4. Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Implementation of the lake plan would inundate 2,430 acres, some of which is highly productive agricultural lands and land important as wildlife habitat. The area which would be inundated contains productive woodlots and high quality wildlife habitat including a small portion of the Atlanta Wildlife Area. The loss of the habitat would reduce populations including, but not limited to, deer, turkeys, and wood ducks. Some 20 miles of free-flowing stream would be destroyed which, because of extensive channelization in northern Missouri, has added signif icance. Animal life associated with flowing water, including fishes, mammals, birds, reptiles, and numerous invertebrates, would be eliminated from the immediate lake area. However, there are no rare or endangered species dependent on habitat in the basin. Development of residential and commercial units drawn by the recreational potential would further reduce wildlife habitat while intensified agricultural activities down stream made possible by flood protection would eliminate additional downstream habitat. All of man's activities in north-central Missouri, including more intensive agricultural use, road construction, and resi dential development, contribute to a cumulative loss of fish and wildlife habitat which could be significant in the future. The Long Branch project would add to these undesirable cumulative effects.

5. Alternatives to the proposed action. In a study of alternatives, three potential lake sites including the authorized project site were considered. It was found that the authorized project was the most effi cient way to combat severe flood problems, improve water quality, and provide a water supply. A lake at the Huntsville site would produce more recreation benefits but would not act effectively for flood control, water supply or water quality control. A lake at the Cairo site would not pro vide water quality control or a water supply. Both of the alternative lakes would cause loss of wildlife habitat in approximately the same degree as the authorized lake.

An alternative of doing nothing would result in continued flood problems and continued general deterioration of the agricultural base of the economy. With a do-nothing approach, the benefits of public recreation opportunities, municipal and industrial water supply, and water quality control would be foregone.

Flood plain management, together with conservation farming techniques, could be used in the area to reduce flood damage. This approach would allow retention of fish and wildlife habitat and its associated recre ational use but would not provide benefits connected with lake-type recre ation, public use areas, water supply, and water quality control. Unless flood plain management included provision for public enjoyment and use of the flood plain, there would be no recreational benefits.

Channelization with or without levees would provide some flood control benefits, but stream habitat would be destroyed as would valuable wildlife habitat. No public recreation benefits would accrue nor would there be benefits from water quality control or water supply.

Development of a number of small impoundments instead of one large lake might meet the need for water supply, but sufficient flood control could not be provided by structures on tributaries off the main stream. The small impoundments also would destroy valuable wildlife habitat and cause the loss of agricultural land. If the small impoundments were not open to public use, the recreation potential of a large public lake would not be provided.

6. The relationship between local short-term uses of mar.'s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The economy of the Little Chariton River basin is based primarily upon agri culture, but general recreation and fishing and hunting are important, also. For the long-term, agriculture, recreation, and fishing and hunting will continue to dominate. Long Branch Lake would provide flood control benefits to the downstream agricultural areas on the Little Chariton. Water quality control would enhance conditions downstream of the lake by providing low-flow augmentation and releases of good quality water. Tne development of a permanent water area together with the surrounding land in public ownership would enhance general recreation and dedicate a signif icant amount of land to open space. Water supply storage would help satisfy current and future in-basin demands. Thus, the short-term uses engendered by Long Branch Lake would enhance the long-term productivity of the basin.

7. Irreversible and Irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action. Some 20 miles of free-flowing stream and associated fish and wildlife habitat would be destroyed. Some 2,430 acres of rich agricultural bottom lands and habitat would be perma nently inundated eliminating native wildlife. An additional 1,240 acres would be inundated at varying intervals limiting its use to both man and animals. The labor and materials as well as the investment of public funds would be irretrievably committed to the project.

8. Coordination with others. The draft environmental statement was sent to the following Governmental agencies and private organizations request ing review and comments. The pertinent comments received are summarized below and copies of the replies are attached to the environmental statement.

a. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Comment; The statement makes no mention whether acid mine drainage would affect water quality and recreational use of the lake.

Response: All of the acid mine drainage area is located dov;nstream from the lake. There would be no effect on recreational use of the lake. Comment:: In the alternative of flood plain management and conser vation farming, recreational benefits are not necessarily foregone.

Response: The statement has been revised regarding this point. Lake-type recreational benefits would not accrue nor would other benefits unless provisions were made for public access areas.

Comment: Small impoundments can provide a variety of water-oriented activities similar in scope to large reservoirs.

* Response: Agreed, but realistically most small impoundments to date have not been opened generally to the public. The statement has been revised to clarify the thought.

b . Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Comment; The statement omits discussion of the project's impact on the existing Atlanta Wildlife Area. The Bureau recommends added wording regarding the area including the statement that additional land be acquired in fee and transferred to the Missouri Department of Conservation for replacement of 200 acres of the area which would be lost.

Response: The statement has been revised to indicate the impact of the project on the Atlanta Wildlife Area. However, it has been found tiiat only about 125 acres( of the area would be in the flood control pool and of the 125 acres, only about 40 acres would be inundated at a frequency so as to impair its use as wildlife habitat. In view of the possibility that up to 4,000 acres of project land could be made available to the Missouri Department of Conservation for wildlife management purposes, sufficient mitigation of losses associated with the 40 acres of the Atlanta Wildlife Area can be accommodated without the need for additional land.

Comment: The loss of wildlife habitat due to downstream clearing could be offset in part by acquisition of additional land adjacent to lands needed for the lake.

Response: The need for additional land to offset downstream loss of wildlife habitat has been considered. In view of the large acreage of project land surrounding the lake which would be available for intensive management, the need for additional land could not bo justified. With intensive management, project land could provide habitat and public use offsetting in part the losses experienced in the downstream section.

Comment: Acid mine drainage presently affects only that portion of East Fork above Thomas Hill Reservoir.

Response; The statement has been revised to recognize the extent that acid mine drainage presently affects the Last Fork. However, it should be pointed out that Thomas Hill Reservoir is on the Middle Fork rather than on East Fork.

9 Comment: The statement concerning stratification of small lakes is misleading.

Response: Agreed. The statement has been revised to delete reference to stratification problems in small lakes.

c. Bureau of Mines.

Comment: The Bureau's report on the Long Branch Lake site was a mineral examination of the lake site only and was not intended to imply any direct mineral involvement with the project.

Response: This is realized and the statement does not allude to any direct involvement of the Bureau's report.

Comment: There is a question of pertinence of information on strip mine operations of Peabody Coal Company in regard to the impacts of Long Branch Lake.

Response: Acid mine drainage from the strip mine operations has affected water quality of the East Fork. Water quality releases from Long Branch Lake would help in maintenance of aquatic resources in East Fork.

Comment: The total of 140 miles of the Middle Fork and East Fork of the Little Chariton River affected by acid mine drainage is questioned.

Response: The 140-mile figure was obtained from a report by the Missouri Department of Conservation, based on a 1951 survey. The statement has been revised to delete the 140-mile figure.

d. National Park Service.

No comments received.

e. Soil Conservation Service.

No comments received.

f. Forest Service.

Comment: Add wording regarding loss of forest land in lake area and downstream area.

Response: Recommended wording was added.

Comment: Flooding is not the only cause of deterioration of the basin economy.

1 0 Response; Agreed. The statement has been revised to indicate that flooding is one of the factors affecting the basin's economy.

Comment: Recreation benefits associated with a free-flowing stream would not be foregone with flood plain management and conservation farming techniques or with smaller impoundments.

Response: Agreed. The draft failed to specify that recreation benefits of a large public lake would be foregone with the alternatives listed. The benefits would not be foregone if provisions were made for public use areas and access points in conjunction with the alternatives listed. The statement has been revised to so qualify.

Comment: Seriously doubt that stratification would be a problem in small impoundments.

Response: Agreed. Hie statement has been revised accordingly,

g. Environmental Protection Agency.

Comment: The addition of storage volume, elevations, and descrip tion of outlet facilities would improve the project description section.

Response: Agreed. Those items were added.

Comment: Acid mine drainage has ceased to be a problem on Middle Fork since Thomas Hill Reservoir was constructed.

Response: Agreed. The statement has been revised to acknowledge this information.

Comment: It is uncertain that releases from Long Branch Lake could be adequate to prevent ecological damage by strip mine acid since acid problems occur during high rather than normal streamflow periods.

Response: The releases would be made primarily to help control pollution from sources in other areas as well as in areas affected by strip mines. The better water quality during low-flow periods would allow timely rejuvenation of aquatic life after periods of high runoff.

Comment: There will be a net loss of wildlife resources rather than displacement of populations.

Response; The statement has been revised regarding loss of wild life. Rather than a net loss in the area subject to inundation, there would be a total loss.

Comment: The statement should include the effect on other purposes of drawdowns for water supply and low-flow releases. Response: The statement has been revised to include the information.

Comment: The statement would be enhanced with a more detailed environmental assessment of alternatives.

Response: The section of the statement concerning alternatives has been revised to include more detail.

Comment: Intensive public visitation to highly developed areas adversely affects certain kinds of wildlife. Dedication of project lands to general recreation and public use usually excludes hunting as an incom patible activity.

Response: It is agreed that development of recreational areas would induce intensive recreational use thereby adversely affecting wild life in those areas. However, the reservoir operation plan would be designed to strike a reasonable balance between areas to be used inten sively for general recreation and those reserved for public hunting and other justified uses of project lands.

h. Missouri Department of Conservation.

Comment; The water area affected by acid mine drainage is less than 140 miles.

Response: Agreed. The statement has been revised to delete the mileage figure.

Comment: Several changes in language are suggested for the section of the statement dealing with impacts.

Response: Changes were made in the revised statement to satisfy essentially all of the suggestions.

Comment: We are not aware that the basin's economy is deteriorating due to flooding. The project could result in a big economic gain to certain farmers at the expense of wildlife habitat and esthetic values.

Response: Flooding is only one of the factors affecting the basin's economy. The statement has been revised to reflect this point. Flood con trol is only one of the purposes of the project. The statement recognizes losses to wildlife and other values as a result of the project.

Comment: Stratification is less likely to be a problem in a small lake than in a large lake.

Response: Agreed. The statement has been revised to delete the wording regarding stratification problems in small lakes. Comment: Recreation on smaller impoundments v/ould not be greatly - reduced from that on a large reservoir with high winds and turbidity problems.

Response; Agreed, but only if the smaller impoundments are avail able to the general public. The statement recognizes this point.

i • Missouri Department of Public Health and Welfare.

Comment: The statement should cover impact of the proiect on collection and disposal of wastes at public use areas as well as the general area surrounding project lands.

Response: The statement has been expanded to include information relative to the problem of sanitation.

Comment: The project would cause increased mosquito production in shallow water areas as well as possible disease transmission through vectors associated with rats, wild animals, etc.

Response: The magnitude of the disease vector problem is not apparent at this time. When the project would be in operation, monitoring, of vectors could be undertaken to institute control measures including treatment of stagnant water areas and control of animal numbers if human health were endangered.

j. Missouri State Park Board.

Comment: Archeological studies should be completed and made a part of the statement.

Response: An archeological reconnaissance has been completed and that fact is referenced in the revised statement. The findings are covered in the report, "An Archeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Long Branch Reservoir, Missouri: 1969," by the University of Missouri, Archeological Research Division. It is not practical to include a copy of this report in the statement. The statement summarizes the findings of the report.

Comment: The alternatives should be given more study.

Fvgsponse: The alternative section of the statement has been revised to reflect additional alternatives studied.

Comment: Fluctuation of the lake level due to flood control and water supply will greatly reduce the value of the lake for recreational use. Use of the lake may have to be limited to insure water quality.

Response: Fluctuations would not be severe and the statement has been revised to so indicate. The high-use public access areas would be equipped with sanitation control systens to preclude contamination of water. Zoning of the lake may have to be put into effect to protect certain critical areas. The ultimate estimated public use of developed recreation areas is not unreasonable. Experience at existing lake projects indicates this use should have no adverse effects on water quality.

k. Missouri Chapter. American Fisheries Society.

Comment: Disagree with the method of listing impacts. Each impact favorable to project is listed separately, but most unfavorable ones lumped together in one.

Response: The discussion of separately listed impacts includes assessment of losses as well as gains when such are pertinent. As an example, the first impact listed provides discussion of the benefits of downstream flood protection but also acknowledges the loss of wildlife habitat and other values associated with the protection.

Comment: The recreational use of the reservoir has been greatly overestimated at slightly less than 3,000 trips per day.

Response: The estimate of recreational use breaks down to an average of 685 trips per day initially and 1,780 trips per day ultimately. It is considered that these estimates are realistic and possibly on the conservative side.

Comment: The mileage figure of streams to be inundated is an under estimation of at least 100 percent.

Response: The mileage of both the East Fork and of Long Branch within the Long Branch Lake site has been remeasured on an updated map. Within the elevation of the top of the multipurpose pool, the mileage of the two streams is 20 miles measured as actual stream miles.

Comment: Suggest revising of the report to include wording on value of wooded areas, loss of habitat, loss of wildlife populations, and agriculture.

Response: The revised statement contains additional wording in several places regarding the quality of the items listed.

Comment: The section of the statement on alternatives does not permit evaluation of alternatives, contains several half-truths, and some actual misinformation.

Response: The alternative section of the statement has been rewritten. It is unfortunate that an impression has been gained as to half-truths and misinformation which may have been in the draft of the statement. The statement treats the matter of alternatives in an objective manner. l. Missouri Chapter, The Wildlife Society.

Consent; The chapter is opposed to the project because the benefit-cost ratio is out of line with recent other benefit-cost ratios for reservoir projects in the State.

Response: The benefit-cost ratio for Long Branch Lake project is 2.1. This is a favorable ratio, above the average for lake projects of this type. The 3-1/4 percent discount rate for Long Branch is in accordance with section (d) of the vater Resource Council Regulation on Discout Rates. This section, IS CFR 704.39(d) states:

"Where construction of a project has been authorized prior to the close of the second session of the 90th Congress, and the appropriate State of local governmental agency or agencies have given prior to December 31, 1969, satisfactory assurances to pay the required non-Federal share of project costs, the discount rate to be used in the computation of benefits and costs for such project shall be the rate in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section, and that rqte shall continue to be used for such project until construction has been completed, unless the Congress otherwise decides."

Comment: The inundation of 2,430 acres of highly productive- farmland plus loss of wildlife habitat would be a permanent loss and not be replaced by the values offered by a reservoir.

Response: Although there would be a permanent loss of agricul- ’ tural lard and wildlife habitat in the immediate lake area, the values associated with municipal and industrial Water supply, lake-type recrea tion, water quality improvement, and downstream flood protection to agricultural lands would more than offset the losses. It. is agreed that the lost wildlife habitat cannot be replaced exactly in kind. However, the public use of fish and wildlife would be much greater with the 'project than that which would occur without the project. This is so because of the large acreage of project land that would be open to the public while, without the project most of the private land involved would not be open to public access.

Comment: The section on alternatives needs clarification.

Response: The alternative section has been revised to clarify the thoughts presented.

m. Missouri lnter-Agor.cv Council for Outdoor Recreation.

No comments.

n. Conservation Federation of Missouri.

No comments received. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION LAKE CENTRAL REGION 3853 R E S E A R C H P A R K D R IV E A N N A R B O R , M IC H IG A N 48104

August 13, 1971

District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for Long Branch Lake, Missouri, as requested in your letter of June 30, 1971 (MRKED-B). Our comments are based upon the information contained in the environmental statement and House Document 89-238.

1. Project Description

Acid mine drainage is mentioned as a water quality problem affecting aquatic life in the river. However, the environmental statement makes no mention of whether or not this mine drainage will be a water quality problem influencing recreational use of the reservoir.

2. Environmental Setting Without the Project

We assume this section was combined with number 1.

3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

This section is adequate. 4. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Proposal Be Implemented

House Document 89-238 (Report of Survey, Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers and Tributaries, July 1965 ) indicates that Long Branch Reservoir will be located in a relatively unpolluted reach of the river lending further emphasis to the draft environmental statement that "Some 14 miles of free-flowing stream would be destroyed which, because of extensive channelization in northern Missouri, is becoming a unique resource."

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action

It is stated that: "Floodplain management and conservation farming techniques could be utilized in the area to reduce flooding. At the same time, wildlife habitat could be improved, but would not be guaranteed, while the benefits of recreation, water supply and low- flow augmentation would be foregone."

We would like to point out that recreation benefits are not necessarily foregone. Proper floodplain management can provide open space for various types of water and non-water related activities while allowing for future options in recreation alternatives.

This section further states: "However, water quality problems, primarily stratification, could be expected in these small impound ments while much of the recreation potential would be lost."

Small impoundments can provide a variety of water-oriented activities similar in scope to large reservoirs. The types of activities will depend upon many factors such as the size and the number of small impoundments substituted for the large reservoir.

6. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Manrs Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

This section states that "water quality control could enhance conditions downstream of the lake by providing low-flow augmentation if releases are of good quality." This again raises the question of whether or not recreational use of the reservoir will be adversely influenced by the water quality. 7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action

This section is adequate.

Sincerely yours,

ROMAN II. KOENINGS Regional Director

By:

Frederick J. Bender Acting United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 July 28, 1971

AIRMAIL

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

Dear Colonel Anderson:

Reference is made to your letter to Mr. Teeter, Area Supervisor at Grand Island, Kebraska, dated June 30» 1971, concerning your draft Environmental Statement for Long Branch Lake, Missouri. We are pleased to offer the following comments:

The statement is well written and we believe it contains adequate measures to safeguard the environment except for one major area of concern. As you know, the Missouri Department of Conservation owns and operates the Atlanta Wildlife Area at the upper end of Long Branch reservoir site. This 1,8M*.68 acre wildlife area provides excellent hunting for bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, and other upland-game species. It is our understanding that approximately 200 acres of the Atlanta Wildlife Area will be flooded by Long Branch Reservoir.

Therefore, we recommend that you add the following statement under 3 a. The environmental impact of the proposed action:

"Destroy through periodic flooding approximately 200 acres of the Missouri Department of Conservation's Atlanta Wildlife Management Area."

Under 3 b. add:

"Destruction through periodic flooding of approximately 200 acres of the State's Atlanta Wildlife Area (l,8M».68 acres total State owned) will make the area less attractive for public hunting. An additional area should be acquired in fee and transferred to the Missouri Department of Conservation for replacement of the 200 acres that will be lost. In selecting a replacement, an area between East Fork Chariton Rivers and Long Branch Creek should be given first consideration. It contains much good habitat and in addition the Commission has released wild turkey into it with the intent of establishing a resident flock." Also under 3 b. Discussion of Impacts, we recommend the following statement ' he included at the end of the first paragraph:

"This loss to wildlife resulting from downstream clearing along stress hanks can he offset in part at least by acquiring the lands for State development and management between the East Fork Chariton Hirer and Long Branch Creek. This acquisition would serve to enlarge the Atlanta Wildlife Area and together with project lands make a more effective and manageable wildlife and public hunting area."

There are some minor items we believe should be corrected. They are:

1. Page 2, second full paragraph, last sentence states: "However, acid drainage from the mines has destroyed much of the aquatic life in 1^0 miles of the Middle and East Forks of the Little Chariton liver." This was true before Thomas Hill Heservoir was constructed. Since most of the acid mine wastes enter the Middle Fork above Thomas Hill Dam, that reservoir has neutralized much of the pollutants. Therefore, only that portion of East Fork above Thomas Hill is presently degraded to the extent of destroying the aquatic life.

2. Page 2, fourth sentence, last paragraph, raccoon is misspelled.

3. Page 6, last sentence under Alternatives to the proposed action. The statement concerning "primarily stratification^ is misleading. The chances of stratification occurring in sami 1 impoundments, presuming they are shallower than Long Branch Lake, is much less likely than on the larger Long Branch Lake.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the environmental aspects of the project.

S i n cerely)

S. E. Jorgor.san Assistant Regional Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF MINES Intermountain Field Operation Center BUILDING 20 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER Office of DENVER, COLORADO 80225 Chief

August 19, 1971

Your reference: MRKED-B

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

Dear Colonel Anderson:

We offer the following comments in response to your June 30 letter enclosing a draft environmental statement for the authorized Long Branch Lake project on the East Fork-Little Chariton River in Macon County, Missouri.

Except for paragraph 3 on page 2, we have no objection to the proposed environmental statement.

Our mineral examination report on the proposed reservoir site, entitled "Mineral Resources at Long Branch Reservoir Site, East Fork of Chariton River, Macon County, Mo.," (May 1970), was not intended to imply any direct mineral involvement with the project. We wish to make clear that the only possible mineral resource relationships are limited to geologically inferred extensions under the Long Branch Lake and damsite of limestone, clay, smd and gravel, glacial conglom erates, and thin beds of high-sulfur, high-ash bituminous coal. None apparently offers any commercial potential for the foreseeable future, but all lack the systematic exploration data required for any conclu sive appraisal. Crushed aggregate, roadstone, and agricultural limestone production in Macon County for years prior to 1963, as published in our Minerals Yearbooks, all came from outside the proposed project area. The cumulative Macon County coal production of 66 million tons (table 6, page 19, BuMines Prelim. Report 174) virtually all came from mines downstream from the Long Branch damsite, and we estimated 742 million tons of established coal reserves remain in that area. Thus, no mineral production of the past, or foreseeable commercial mineral potential, poses any adverse or beneficial involvement with the Long Branch Lake project. Except for the questionable semantics of such terns as "high grade," it is generally true, as summarized in paragraph 3, page 2, that the Peabody Coal Co.'s continuing large-scale, low-cost, strip mining of high-sulfur bituminous coal downstream from the damsite is important valuewise and as a source of employment to the economy of Macon County. Peabody has developed a production technology and coal reserves adequate for many years of operation in southern Macon County, which supplies a large share of the estimated one million tons of coal burned annually by the Thomas Hill powerplant. This plant, in adjacent Randolph County, recently was expanded to a capacity of 400,000 kw. Our major question, thus far, is the pertinence of the information to the environmental impacts of the Long Branch Lake project.

The final sentence in the paragraph states that "acid mine drainage from the mines has destroyed much of the aquatic life in 140 miles of the Middle and East Forks of the Little Chariton River." If such a categorical indictment is retained in the statement, it should be documented and attributed to source. We have reservations about its validity in several respects. Least important among them is the fact that the downstream distance from the mining district to con fluence with the Missouri River is about 40 miles, not 140 as stated in the draft.

Sincerely yours,

L. Fv"25eisingVActing Chief Irftermountaiiy Field Operation Center United S t a t e s D epa r t m en t o f A g r ic u l t u r e FOREST SERVICE

Northeast:©^^ Area, State & Private Forestry OoiQ Market St.. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania lQOfl?

REPLY TO: 3500 (1920) August 16, 1971

SUBJECT: Environmental Statement, Long Branch Lake, Mo.

TO: Colonel Reuben L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District - Kansas City Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

The draft environmental statement for Long Branch Lake, Little Chariton River, Missouri has been reviewed as requested. Following are our consents and recommendations:

1. Page 3 (3a, - Impacts)

A. Add the following impact - "Destroy through inundation 3,670 acres of valuable forest land, pasture and crop land resulting in a total loss of future timber crops, livestock forage, agricultural crops, wildlife habitat, and recreation use associated with free-flowing streams."

B. If the project is constructed, the annual rata of con version from forest land to agricultural cropland in the downstream area will increase quite significantly. Some forest land which, under existing conditions, would not have been cleared because of frequent flooding would then become feasible for conversion. While this would benefit total crop production, it would eliminate future timber harvest, forest wildlife habitat and populations, and associated forest recreational uses. It could also result in an Increase in soil erosion, sedimentation, and subse quent deterioration of downstream water quality because of the removal of forest cover.

Therefore, the following impact should be included — "Destroy forest land in the downstream flood protection area." Under the corresponding 3b. Discussion if impart-^ the preceding paragraph should be inserted.

Within the 4,305 acres above flood pool planned for acqui sition, the existing forest land will no longer be avail able for harvesting timber crops. Add the following impact — "Eliminate the harvesting of timber crops above the flood pool within the project area." II. Page 6, (3. Alternatives)

A. Fourth sentence states that the "do nothing" alterna tive effects would be a continued deterioration of the basin economy and hardship due to frequent flood ing. Certainly flooding has some effect on the above, but we do not believe it to be the only cause. If the statement cannot be substantiated, it should be revised to include other causes.

B. Fifth and sixth sentences. If "flood plain management and conservation farming techniques" were utilized, most likely wildlife habitat would be preserved end enhanced. Recreation benefits associated with free-flowing streams certainly would not be a foregone benefit.

C. Last sentence. We doubt that "much of the recreation potential would be lost" through the alternative develop ment of smaller impoundments replacing the one reservoir* Rether, it is quite possible that these smaller impound ments, combined, could provide more of a variety of rec reational activities and at least equal recreation use when compared to one impoundment. In addition, we seriously doubt that stratification would be more of a problem in the smeller impoundments than in the one large Impoundment.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this environmental statement. If any questions arise from our comments and recocmendatlons, please feel free to call us for further clarification.

Sincerely,

FOR: PHILIP L. THORNTON Director UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 911 Walnut Street, Room 702 Kansas City, Missouri 64106

August 10, 1971

Colonel Reuben L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Long Branth Lake, Missouri in response to your letter of June 30, 1971 (MRKED-B).

The draft statement is a good objective assessment of the environ mental impact of Long Branch Lake. It further recognizes the serious losses of free-flowing natural streams and associated ecosystems in northern Missouri because of extensive channelization. Such recognition is very encouraging and indicates a truly objective attitude toward environmental concerns in water resource planning.

We have a few suggestions which we feel would improve the draft statement.

1. Project Description

The addition of storage volumes, elevations, and a descrip tion of the outlet facilities would improve this section.

We understand that no acid mine drainage problems have occurred on the Middle Fork of the Chariton River since Thomas Hill Reservoir was constructed by the Associated Electric Cooperative. The principal tributary containing acid mine drainage is Claybank Creek which now flows directly into Thomas Hill Reservoir. On the East Fork of the Chariton River pH is generally 7.0 or above during normal or low flows. However, during periods of higher rainfall and runoff, acid load in the stream system increases and pH drops below 7.0 to as low as 5.2. Fish kills have occurred at such times. Colonel R. L. Anderson, Jr. August 10, 1971 Page 2

Acid mine runoff enters the East Fork downstream from the site of the authorized Long Branch Lake. Since the acid problems generally occur during higher than normal stream flow periods, it is uncertain that Long Branch Lake can supply releases adequate to prevent ecological damage by the strip mine acid.

In describing the existing project area it would be advisable to mention the 1845 acre Atlanta Wildlife Management Area owned and operated by the Missouri Department of Conservation. While the project may not involve any of this area directly, it will affect public use. Moreover, the Atlanta Wildlife Management Area may be related to the Conservation Depart ment's interest in administering selected project lands and waters for fish and wildlife.

2. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. (Numbered 3 in the draft)

In the discussion of the impact on fish and wildlife and in other sections the draft states that wildlife will simply be displaced. Because the terrestrial habitat will be eliminated, the annual wildlife production of that habitat will also be eliminated. Individuals may move as rising waters displace them. However, they must compete with incumbent individuals in other areas. When carrying capacities are exceeded, stresses result, natural decimating factors intensify, and populations subside to original levels. The result is a net loss of wildlife resources.

Because both water supply and low flow augmentation are project purposes, some drawdown of the multiple purpose pool must be anticipated. We believe the draft should include a discussion of any proposed drawdown and its effects on other project purposes.

The discussion on low flow augmentation alludes to two outlets, one in the upper 10 feet of storage and one below the photosynthetic zone. The draft should include more data on these outlets, such as; invert elevation, discharge capacity, and operational objectives. We assume that the general operational objective is compliance with State approved water quality standards.

3. Alternatives to the Proposed Action (5 in the draft)

While the draft refers to alternative combinations of lakes and other flood control measures, the most important Colonel R. L. Anderson, Jr. August 10, 1971 Page 3

criteria used in selecting the proposed project was apparently the benefit/cost ratio. Benefit/cost ratios measure economic merits and ignore environmental costs. At the time when the alternatives were studied environmental impact statements were not required. Perhaps some of the alternatives may have had a lower environmental cost in spite of a less favorable benefit/cost ratio. The draft would be enhanced by a more detailed environmental assessment of alternatives discussed in Section V, paragraph 25, or the report of Survey, Chariton and Little Chariton Fivers, July 1965, House Document 89-238.

4. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action. (Number 7 in the draft)

Dedication of project lands to general recreation develop ment and public use usually excludes hunting as being an incompatible activity. Also, intensive public visitation to highly developed areas adversely affects certain classes of wild animals. Therefore, such development and use may be a commitment of part of the wildlife resource to favor general recreation.

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

Very truly yours,

A f JEROME H. SVORE Regional Administrator MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OE CONSERVATION

2901 North Ten Mile Drive - Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 P. O. Box 180 - Telephone 314 893-2626 CARL R. N'OREN, Director

July 22, 1971

Colonel Reuben L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District - Kansas City Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Re: MRKED-B

Dear Colonel Anderson:

We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Long Branch Lake, Little Chariton River, Missouri. The statement identifies many of the impacts the project will have on various resources in the project area. Based on our present knowledge, we recommend the following items be changed or clarified:

1. Page 2 - lines 9-11 - Water area affected by acid mine drainage in the basin is considerably less than 140 miles. There have been no problems on the Middle Fork of the Little Chariton since the construction of Thomas Hill Reservoir.

2. Page 3 - add under impacts - "Encourage further rapid clearing and encroachment of farming activities along stream banks." And add to the impacts, "Destroy 2,430 acres of wildlife habitat".

Page 4 - add on line 2 - "Turbid water conditions at nearby Thomas Hill Reservoir have precluded much of the anticipated recreational development."

Page 4 - line 9 - Flooding eliminates upland game and other wildlife from the reservoir basin. Wildlife are eliminated when their habitat is flooded.

Page 4 - line 9 - add - "If the project is constructed" the Missouri Department of Conservation... . Colonel Reuben L. Anderson July 22, 1971 Page 2

4. Page 5 - line 11 - Suggest this sentence be rewritten: "Implementation of the lake plan would inundate 2,430 acres including a portion of the Missouri Department of Conservation Atlanta Wildlife Area. The area flooded by the reservoir includes highly productive agricultural lands, and productive woodlots, all important wildlife habitat."

Page 5 - line 19 - Change "displaced" to "eliminated".

5. Page 6 - line 7 - We are not aware that the economy of the basin is deteriorating due to flooding. Young people will continue to leave the rural areas in spite of flood control programs. We believe that farmers owning flood prone bottomlands have a difficult time farming such areas. This project could result in a big economic gain for such individuals at the expense of wildlife habitat and aesthetic values.

Page 6 - lines 18-20 - Thermal stratification is less likely to be a problem in a small lake than in a large lake. Stratification is not a water quality problem, the problem comes from the lack of planning for a warm water high level discharge. Recreation on smaller im poundments would not be greatly reduced from that on a reservoir such as Thomas Hill with high winds and turbidity problems.

6. Page 7 - line 6 - If lands surrounding the project are to be protected for the enjoyment of future generations, it will be necessary to adopt zoning regulations for the reservoir lands. Therefore, you might add to "preservation of these lands for future generations", the phrase "by zoning the reservoir land and water areas to prevent random development".

Page 7 - line 12 - change "displacing" to "eliminating".

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the draft environmental impact statement and hope that if you have questions concerning our comments, you will call.

Sincerely,

LARRY ^ P gALE ACTING DIRECTOR cc: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Grand Island, Neb. Clifford L. Summers, Water Resources Board Water Resources Board P.O. Box 271 CLIFFORD L. SUMMERS Area Code 314 Ac t ing Executive Director Department of Business and Administration JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101 Telephone 635-9251 August 19, 1971

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

Dear Colonel Needham:

Attached are comments received from Missouri state agencies in response to several requests for assistance for preparation of environmental impact statements and comments on draft copies of these statements. These have been assembled as the result of the initial schedule for assistance presented by the Kansas City District in February, 1971.

A rescheduling was received under the date of August 10.

Every effort will be made to provide input and comment by the dates designated in your schedule of environmental statements revised June 30, 1971.

Sincerely,

Cliftlord L. Summers Acting Executive Director MISSOURI DFFARTMFNT OF CONSFRYAT!()\

-M"! N‘>rth Ten Mik Drive • Jefferson f T tv . Missouri < : P. (). Box iso - Telephone k l N'M-.YOn

CARL R. NOREN, Dirnctor

July 22, 1971

Colonel Reuben L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District - Kansas City Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

2. Page 3 - add under impacts - "Encourage further rapid clearing and encroachment of farming activities along stream banks." And add to the impacts, "Destroy 2,430 acres of wildlife habitat".

3. Page 4 - add on line 2 - "Turbid water conditions at nearby Thomas Hill Reservoir have precluded much of the anticipated recreational development."

Page 4 - line 9 - Flooding eliminates upland game and other wildlife from the reservoir basin. Wildlife are eliminated when their habitat is flooded.

Page 4 - line 9 - add - "If the project is constructed" the Missouri Department of Conservation... Colonel Reuben L. Anderson July 22, 1971 Page 2

A, Page 5 - line 11 - Suggest this sentence be rewritten: "Implementation of the lake plan would inundate 2,430 acres including a portion of the Missouri Department of Conservation Atlanta Wildlife Area. The area flooded by the reservoir includes highly productive agricultural lands, and productive woodlots, all important wildlife habitat."

Page 5 - line 19 - Change "displaced" to "eliminated".

5. Page 6 - line 7 - We are not aware that the economy of the basin is deteriorating due to flooding. Young people will continue to leave t^e rural areas in spite of flood control programs. We believe that farmers owning flood prone bottomlands have a difficult time farming such areas. This project could result in a big economic gain for such individuals at the expense of wildlife habitat and aesthetic values.

Pagi 6 - lines 18-20 - Thermal stratification is less likely to be a problem in a small lake than in a large lake. Stratification is not a water quality problem, the problem comes from the lack of planning for a warm water high level discharge. Recreation on smaller im poundments would not be greatly reduced from that on a reservoir such as Thomas Hill with high winds and turbidity problems.

Page 7 - line 12 - change "displacing" to "eliminating".

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the draft environmental impact statement and hope that if you have questions concerning our comments, you will call.

Sincerely,

LARRY R. GALE ACTING DIRECTOR cc: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Grand Island, Neb. Clifford L. Summers, Water Resources Board TH E DIVISION OF HEALTH OF MISSOURI OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101

July 27, 1971

HERBERT R. DO MICE, M.D., Dr. P.H. ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE DIVISION OF HEALTH ACTINC DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF HEALTH

Clifford L. Summers Executive Director Water Resources Board P. 0. Box 271 Jefferson City, Missouri 6 5 1 0 1

Dear Mr. Summers:

This is in response to your memorandum requesting review of the Draft Environmental Statement Long Branch Lake, East Fork, Little Chariton River, Missouri. Previous Comments relative to the project were forwarded in letters dated July 10, 1970; March 7» and June *f, 1971* The Environmental Statement, how ever, does not cover points raised in prior correspondence except to indicate that developments will require control ". . . b y local and state agencies to assure proper planning of sewage facilities". The sanitation problems that will be created by the recreationists and others attracted to the reservoir area are more complex than indicated and also in clude the following:

1. Collection and disposal of solid waste generated at public use areas as well as that generated by housing developments, e t c .

2. Development of water supply systems serving establishments in the area to assure a safe supply.

3- Increased mosquito production in shallow water areas as well as possible disease transmission through vectors associated with rats, wild mammals, etc.

k. General sanitation problems including drainage from septic tanks, etc. THE DIViTin)DivisionbMHiMrrt)F MISSOURI OF THF l)FPARTN!ENl%F^Wc HEALTH AND WELFARE JEFFERSON CUV, MISSOURI 65101 - 2-

The impact upon people in the areas noted above should be discussed as a part of the Environmental Statement. Local controls and regional planning must serve as the vehicle for development of sanitary facilities. These control mechan isms should be available before the project is completed.

By the direction of L. F. Garber, Director, Section of Environ mental Health Services.

Very truly yours,

Robert S. Miller, P.E. ' ' T.‘ .Director.. . . . Bureau of.Environmental‘Engineering Warren E. Hearnes Governor Joseph Jaeger, Jr., Director Board Members MISSOURI H. D. "Matt" Matheney,,4ssoc. Director Conn C. Winfrey, Chairman Lebanon STATE PARK BOARD Robert G. Haake,y4iJf. Director Hubert E. Lay, Vice-Chairman P O. BOX 176 • 1204 JEFFERSON BLDG. Operations Oivision Houston JEFFERSON CITY, MO. 65101 • 314/635 9156 Robert M. Wolpers, Member Orval L. Henderson./Isj/. Poplar Bluff Director Historic Division Carter V. Blanton,Member Shelbina Hadley K. Irwin,Asst. Director Gerald B. Rowan,,'Member Field Division Kansas City Robert H. Frost,Member Plattsburg Kenneth P. Otke,.4wf. Director Development Division July 22, 1971

Mr. Clifford L. Summers P-10-001-71 Executive Director Missouri Water Resources Board 308 East High Street 301 Dawson Building, Box 271 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Cliff:

Re: Comnents on Draft Environmental Statement Long Branch Lake, Missouri

I have the following comments regarding the subject statement:

1. Archeological studies should be coupleted and made a part of the Statement.

2. The project description appears to be clearly stated.

3. The environmental impact and adverse environmental effects are discussed.

4. Alternatives are given and perhaps these alternatives should be given more study and each one weighed against the original proposal.

5. Fluctuation of the lake level due to flood control and water supply use will greatly reduce the value of the lake for recreational use. Use of the lake may have to be limited to insure water quality. Mr. Clifford Summers July 22, 1971 Page 2

Ultimate use is projected to be 350,000 recreation days on 1,600 acres of land or approximately 220 recreation days per acre of land. Can this level of usage insure water quality?

Sincerely yours,

MISSOURI STATE PARK BOARD

JosepJy/Jaeger, Jr. Direixor of Parks / / Jji/K0:dl cc: Mr. Matt Matheney Missouri Chapter o f the Am erican Fisheries Society

CHARTERED MARCH 10, 1964

August 12, 1971

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

Dear Colonel Anderson:

We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement for Long Branch Reservoir, and have made some comments and criticisms. They are as follows:

Pg. 3. 3. The environmental impacts

A. Impacts

We disagree with the method of listing impacts. Each impact favorable to the impoundment is listed separately but most of the unfavorable ones are lumped together in No. 3. We would prefer to see the following wording:

"(3). Destroy through inundation 14 (?, see below) miles of free-flowing stream and associated fisheries values".

"(4). Destroy through inundation 14 (?, see below) miles of stream bank cover and associated wildlife, forestry and recreational values.

"(5). Destroy through inundation 2,430 acres of highly productive mixed farmland and woodland wildlife habitat.

"(6). Eliminate the wildlife on this 2,430 acres.

"(7). Reduce wildlife habitat through clearing and drain ing of an unstated acreage of downstream lands protected from flooding.

"(8). Provide water supply storage. Etc." Colonel Anderson August 12, 1971

B. Discussion of Impacts

(1). The last two sentences of this discussion should be applied to (7), above.

Pg. 4. Lines 3 and 4. The recreational use of the reservoir has been greatly overestimated. The estimated initial use of 150,000 days breaks down to slightly less than 3,000 trips per day, 365 days per year, or 60 trips per acre, annually. The final figure of 350,000 works out to nearly 10,000 trips per day each day of the year or over 140 trips per acre. On nearby 4,400-acre Thomas Hill Reservoir, a quantitative census showed a total of 7,600 fishing trips and 530 pleasure boating trips in the fifth year of impoundment (22 trips per day, 2 trips per acre, annually). We believe the recreational use of Long Branch Reservoir has been overestimated 30- to 70-fold.

Pg. 3. (3). This paragraph would need to be rewritten to coincide with our comments above. We would suggest the following:

"(3). The impoundment would destroy some miles of free-flowing stream and the associated fish and fisheries. Due to extensive channelization in North Missouri, free- flowing streams such as these are rare. The sport fishery value of these streams is not great but they are irreplace able fluvial habitats inhabited by many species, vertebrate and invertebrate, which cannot adapt to a lenthic environ ment and will be eliminated with impoundment". The mileage figure has been left blank because we believe the 14 miles mentioned is an underestimation of at least 100 per cent. The straight line length of the two arms of the proposed impoundment is about 14 miles but, as is stated, these streams are meandering and the actual channel length is probably twice the straight line length. Surely, you have technicians who can acurately measure this length of the stream channel.

"(4). In this heavily farmed portion of north Missouri, often the most extensive wooded areas remaining are found along streams. These are valuable wildlife habitat, pro ducing record size deer, and large numbers of squirrels, racoons and other furbearers. They are valuable nesting and feeding grounds for song birds, especially those species associated with water. Mature trees provide a certain amount of saw timber, some, such as walnut, of high value.

"(5). Bottomland farm and woodland such as will be destroyed when Long Branch Reservoir is impounded, is among the most Colonel Anderson August 12, 1971

productive wildlife habitat in Missouri. It provides feed ing ground for deer and production of quail, rabbits, other game and non-game species is high. The 2,430 acres would provide a great deal of hunting and other forms of recreation.

"(6). The wildlife on the 2,430 acres of land cannot simply move out and be displaced when the land is inundated. There is no place for it to go; all of the neighboring land is occupied to the extent of its carrying capacity. Therefore, when land is inundated, the terrestial wildlife is eliminated.

"(7). Owners of downstream lands protected from flooding would be encouraged to clear stream banks, drain lands for merly too wet for crops and otherwise intensify cultivation, in the process substantially reducing existing wildlife habitat. Erosion and siltation would be increased to the detriment of the stream and fishery".

Pg. 6. 5. Alternatives to the proposed action

The form in which this section is written does not permit evaluation of alternatives. We believe alternatives should be enumerated, should be clearly stated and the comments pro and con clearly stated. As written, this section contains several half truths and some actual misinformation. The last sentence, for example, is not true, therefore meaningless, and the impli cation it makes is false. The overall impression here is of a confusing mixture of statements designed to sell the proposed reservoir.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft of the en vironmental impact statement. If you have questions about any of our comments, please feel free to call on us.

Sincerely,

Arthur Witt, Jr., President Missouri Chapter American Fisheries Society MISSOURI CHAPTER of

1110 College Avenue - Columbia, Missouri 65201

August I7# 1971

Colonel R. L. Anderson, Jr. District Engineer U .S . Army Engineers District - Kansas City Corps of Engineers 200 Federal Building Kansas C ity, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Anderson:

The Missouri Chapter of The Wildlife Society representing 260 professional resource managers and biologists appreciate the opportunity to comment on the environmental statement concerning the proposed Long Branch Lake project.

The ^ecutive Board, acting for the membership, is opposed to the construction of the reservoir because in our judgement the benefit cost ratio is completely out of line with recent benefit cost ratios on other reservoir projects in the state.

It is also our belief that the inundation of 2,430 acres of highly productive farmland plus the loss of wildlife habitat and associated wildlife would be a permanent loss and couldn't be replaced by the values offered by a reservoir.

Section 5 page 6, alternatives to the proposed action certainly needs clarification. Each of the alternative solutions should be substantiated in detail, if possible.

The Missouri Chapter of The Wildlife Society supports the positions stated in a AugusH2^°I97i°m ^ MlSSOUn Chapfer of the American Fisheries Society dated

Sincerely,

Wayne R. Porath, President Missouri Chapter WRPrrms The Wildlife Society cc: Governor Hearnes Dr. Evenden Dr. Baskett Mr. Stegner Mr. Besadny Boar'd Members

LONG BRANCH LAKE EAST FORK, LITTLE CHARITON RIVER, MISSOURI

Economic Data

The attached economic data is the latest available cost information taken from the General Design Memorandum No. 2, dated November 1969.

Inclosure 2 BEICTITS

80. Benefits.— The average annual benefits attributable to the Long Branch Reservoir are described in the following paragraphs:

a. Flood control.--The flood control benefits creditable to Long Branch Reservoir were originally based on studies made in connection with the Chariton and Little Chariton River Review Report dated March 1963, published as House Document No. 238, 89th Congress, 1st Session. In that report, the flood control benefits creditable to the program were evaluated by the damage-frequency Eethod by computing the annual damage in each reach with and without the program operating. The annuals benefits creditable to each project were analyzed on a program fair-share, basis, crediting each project with its equitable share of total program benefits. Long Branch Reservoir was credited with annual flood control benefits of $75,200, based on 1962 price levels and use of a 2-7/8 percent interest rate in discounting future benefits over a 100-year evaluation period. The change in annual flood control benefits, from basic 1962 to current 1969, is discussed in the. following subparagraphs.

(1) Land use.--The general land use distribution between crop and noncrop was determined in the basic studies from field reconnaissance, aerial photographs and damage survey data. The current normal crop distribution is based on Economic Research Service (EES) data for Land Resource /'rea (LR/) 113, Soil Resource Groups (SRG's) 320 and 330. The 2020 projected land use trends are based on LRA 113 and modified to reflect expected bottomland conditions. Yield projections to 2020 are based on ERS projections for SRG's 320 and 330 for the eight major crops (in terms of amount of land used). The 2070 yield projections are based on straight-line increases at the 2000 to 2020 rates. The Long Branch flood plain land use and yield projections are presented in Table 8.

(2) Future growth.--Future growth previously was based on an estimated increase in gross crop value of 145 percent in 100 years. Currently the projection of future development to 2020 is based on gross farm income, as extracted from Subarea 8A data, developed by the Work Group on Economic Base Study for the Standing Committee on Comprehensive Basin Planning, Missouri Basin Interagency Committee (MBI/.C). The 2020 to 2070 projection was made by applying the compound annual growth rate of 1970 to 2020 (1.65%) to the 2020 gross farm income for 50 years to 2070. This results in a 100-year growth of 414 percent. Gross farm income, by accounting for increases in quality as well as in quantity, provides a more complete measure of future development than crop yield projections, and was used in determining project-life benefits. The present worth of 100-year future benefits, based on the compound annual growth rates presented in table 9, and the project interest rate of 3-1/4 percent amounts to an increase of 72 percent over current values. Table 8 — Long Branch flood plain land use and yields projections

1 adjusted . Acres Current Yields per acre • Current^ 2020- Normal Current normal 2070 Prices(1962) normal 1970 1980 2000 2020 2070

Wheat 1,200 2,000 .95 37 42 48 54 60 75 Corn 19,200 22,400 1.11 74 86 100 120 133 183 Alfalfa 2,100 1,200 21.12 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.8 5.4 6.9 Other hay 1,300 1,400 21.12 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.0 4.7 Soybeans 4,400 5,500 2.43 33 37 41 47 54 72 Oats 3,600 1,600 .63 38 46 50 60 68 88 Sorghums 700 1,200 1.01 67 78 91 111 133 188 Cropland Pasture 800 700 0.0198 1,633 2,017 2,492 2,818 3,009 3,486

Total crop 33,300 36,000 Total noncrop 6,200 3,500

Total 39,500 39,500

1 Current normal acres are based on LRA 113, SRG's 320 and 330. The 2020 and 2 0 7 0 land use estimates are based on ERS projected land use for LRA 113. 2 Wheat, corn, soybeans, oats, sorghums in bushels, hay in tons, pasture in feed units. 3 Current normal equals 1962. Table 9.— Derivation of 100-year growth and present worth Subarea 3A (1958 dollars^- in millions)______

.1964 1970 1980 2000 2020 2070

Gross farm income 255.1 300.9 365 498 682 1,546

Percent increase 18.0 2 U 36.4 36.9 126.9

Compound annual grcvth (%) 2.80 l.K -1.56 1.59 1.65

Inflated from 1954 dollars using value of fara products sold deflator (93.08%)

(3) Benefit update.— Field surveys o f actual floods in 1966 and 1969 indicated that a much higher percentage of land along the lower reaches of East Fork was being flooded at aoderate flood discharge than had been assumed in the authorizing documext report. The Huntsville gage was established in water year 1963. Prior to that time no real record of flood flows existed. Based on data compiled since completion of the report, the discharge-area flooded and discharge-damage relationships have been revised to reflect this new information. Recent hydrological studies, developed as described in paragraph 7, resulted in revised discharge-frequency relationships. Computation of annual benefits, using the revised discharge-damage and discharge-frequency relationships, resulted in an increase in basic flood control benefits along East Fork from $45,490 to $47,710. /nnual benefits along the Little Chariton reduced from $7,180 to $5,060 due to the revised discharge-frequency curves. These benefits, based on 1962 prices and condition of flood plain development, were updated to 1969 values by application of appro priate price and development factors. The 1962 to 1969 development factor, based on the 2.87. compound annual rate of increase shown on table 9, amounts to 1.213. The 1962 to 1969 price change factor, computed as shown in table 10, is 1.037. The total 1962 to 1969 adjustment factor amounts to 1.213 times 1.037, or 1.258.

Table 10.— Price adiustment, 1962 to 1969

Estimated index Change Weighted Item 1969 1962 factor Weight ad iustment

Feed grains 175 153 1.144 .4065 0.465 Food grains 177 216 0.319 .4065 0.333 Prices paid by farmers 372 303 1.228 .1040 0.123 ENR construction costs 1250 870 1.437 .0415 0.060 Consumer prices 128 105 1.219 .0415 0.051

Factor 1.037 (4) Stmaary of flood control" benefits.-- Table 11 presents the adjusted 1962 basic benefits, the current 1969 benefits, the present- vcrth of future benefits, and the total project-life benefits.

Table 11.--Sumaarv of annual flood control benefits

Adjusted Current Reach 1962 1969 Future Total

East Fork $47,710 $60,000 $43,200 $103,200 Litcle Chariton 5,060 6,400 4,600 11,000

Total 52,770 66,400 47,800 114,200

b. Water supply.— As noted in paragraph 4, the city of Macon, Missouri, requested that water supply storage, ■ pursuant to the Water Supply r'ct of 1953, be included in Long Branch Reservoir to meat the city's present need of 1.77 ra.g.d. and their expected future needs of 3.53 m.g.d. The additional storage would be utilized in part immedi ately upon project completion. This will require the city to purchase 13,200 acre-feet of storage, which will yield 3.2 c.f.s. based on a 2 percent chance of drought. The State of Missouri has requested 5,600 acre- feet of storage in Long Branch Reservoir for future water supply storage in addition to that required by the city of Macon. Since the State's request was predicated on the residual pool available based on information it had at the time of the request, it is anticipated that Missouri would also be willing to purchase the 600 acre-feet presently unaccounted for due to a small reduction in sediment reserve requirements and rounding pool elevations to the nearest foot. The total water supply storage allocation would be 24,400 acre-feet with a yield potential of 11.0 c.f.s. oc a 2 percent chance basis. The benefit is computed as the cost of a single-purpose reservoir at the project site which would provide the same yield. As the pool would be somewhat smaller than the multipurpose pool, evaporation would be less of a consideration and the total active storage requirement would be reduced from 24,400 acre-feet to 19,500 acre-feet. The sediment requirement would remain 4,000 acre-feet for a total of 23,500 acre-feet. The spillway would be a limited service perched type similar to that of the multiple-purpose project, as studies have indicated this would be less expensive than a full service spillway. The computation of the annual cost of the alternative single-purpose reservoir for benefit purposes at the non-Federal interest rate of 6 percent follows:

Estimated construction cost $7,700,000 • Interest during construction 607,000

Investment 8,307,000

Annual cost:

Interest and amortization, 100 years 500,000 Operation and maintenance 45,000 Replacements 3.000

Total annual cost and benefit 548,000 c. Water quality control.— The FWPCA, by letter dated 11 August 1969, confirmed its previous estimate of the need for an average sustained flow of 7 c.f.s. downstream of the reservoir for water quality control. In this letter, FWPCA stated that "The benefits have been recalculated on the basis of this new (interest) rate of 4-7/8 percent,' and "the average annual benefits based'on'‘this new rate and including operation and main tenance is evaluated at $93,500 per year." This appears to be a recomputa- tion of the benefit based on the alternative single purpose reservoir cost of $1,800,000 shown in^tbe-Public Health Service report of April 1962 contained in House Document 89-238. Using that cost without updating, amortized oVe^'ICO years at 4-7/8 percent, and allowing $5,000 annually for operation and maintenance, yields the benefit provided by FWPCA. A study was made of an alternative site in the Long Branch (creek) arm of the multiple-purpose reservoir, called the Fairview Damsite. This site would impound water from 36.8 square miles and would be used to supplement natural flows from the East Fork main stem which comprises the balance of the basin. The reservoir would contain 3,500 acre-feet of active storage plus 1,300 acre-feet of sediment for a total of 4,800 acre-feet. The spillway would be perched for limited service operation as would the multiple-purpose project. The-iproject would cost .$4,.270,000 to construct and would be needed immediately. " Based on the current project interest rate of 3-1/4 percent, computation of the benefit based on the alternative project is as follows:

Construction cost $4,270,000 Interest during construction 130,000 :

...'Investment '4,400,000-

Annual-cost:

Interest and amortization, 100 years 14$', 00 0 Operation and maintenance 30,000 .Replacements ; 5; 000

; * . ; 9 Afinual cost and benefit :‘ 184;000 • * ... d. Recreation and fish and wildlife.-- At the top of the multi purpose pool, elevation 791 feet, m.s.l., a lake of 2,430 surface acres would be available for recreation purposes and a lake of 2,100 acres would be available at normal pool level. No specific storage for recreation has been included in the reservoir. The estimated attendance at the reser voir will amount to 150,000 recreation days initially and 350,000 recrea tion days ultimately, 35 years after construction is completed, which equals an average annual equivalent 269,000 recreation days. This is based on a straight-line evaluation between water surface areas of Long Branch’and Thomas Hill Reservoirs. The evaluation’1 at Thomas Hill Reservoir was determined by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the Bureau"of-Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and those agencies have been requested to review the current evaluation for Long Branch Reservoir. Annual economic benefits from recreational use are based on a value of $1.25 per recreation day. This results in an average annual benefit of $336,000. These values are ir; accordance with the guidelines set forth in Supplement No. 1 to Senate Document No. 97, 37th Congress, 2d Session.

e. Summary.— The average annual benefits attributable to the Long Branch Reservoir over a 100-year period are summarized in the following table:

Table 12.--Average annual benefits, 1969 price levels

Item Benefits

Flood control $114,200 Water supply 548 000 Water quality 184,000 Recreation and fish and wildlife 336,000

Total $1,182,200

81. Annual costs and benefit-cost ratio.--The annual economic costs and the benefit-cost ratio for the Long Branch Reservoir project are summarized as follows:

Table 13.--Annual costs and benefit-cost ratio

Item Amount

Initial construction cost $10,200,000 Interest during construction 420,000 Deferred construction cost, present value 640,000

Investment $11,260,000

Annual economic costs: Interest, 3-1/4 percent 366,000 Amortization, 100 years 16,000 Operation and maintenance 80,000 Replacements 18,000 Economic losses 18,000

Total $498,000

Benefit-cost ratio 2.4 to 1