FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

CAMP GROUND LAKE SALT RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20314

SEPTEMBER 1972 SUMMARY

CAMP GROUND LAKE SALT RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, Louisville, Kentucky

Name of Action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative

2* Description of Action: The reconmended plan of Improvement consists of construction of a multipurpose reservoir project consisting of a dam and appurtenances 49.1 miles upstream from the mouth of Beech Fork with resulting impoundment, lands and facilities located in Washington, Nelson, and Anderson Counties, Kentucky; project purposes include flood control, water supply, water quality control, general and fish and wildlife recreation, and redevelop­ ment.

3* a * Environmental Impacts: Provide flood damage reduction to downstream lands and improvements; provide water quality control, provide water supply; provide recreation area; accelerate downstream development; and Improve fishery.

b. Adverse Environmental Impacts: Remove approximately 18,550 acres from private ownership; at seasonal pool elevation, approximately 5,070 acres of land and 50 miles of free-flowing stream will be inundated, with associated loss of natural terrestrial and stream habitat; two covered bridges will require removal.

4. Alternatives: Flood plain zoning, evacuation, improved flood forecasting, flood insurance, acquisition of flood prone lands, levees, channel improvement, other impoundments, and "no development."

5. Comments Received:

Department of the Interior Department of Agriculture Department of Transportation Department of Health, Education and Welfare Environmental Protection Agency The Comnonwealth of Kentucky

6. Draft statement to CEQ 8 June 1972 Final statement to CEQ 6 UU1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR CAMP GROUND LAKE SALT RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY

1. Project Description. The Canp Ground Lake project would consist of the construction and operation of a dan, lake and other facilities for recreation, flood control, water quality control, water supply, fish and wildlife conser­ vation, and redevelopment. The dam for the considered Camp Ground Lake would be located on Beech Fork 49.1 miles upstream from its confluence with Rolling Fork and immediately downstream from confluence of Chaplin River. This loca­ tion is in Washington and Nelson Counties, Kentucky, about one and one-half miles upstream from the community of Maud; however, the impoundment would also extend into Anderson County (see attached maps). The drainage area above the damsite is approximately 438 square miles. Pool elevations and associated surface areas would be as follows: minimum pool, elevation 611 feet msl, 2,975 acres; water supply and water quality pool,621 feet msl, 3,990 acres; seasonal pool 630 feet msl, 5,070 acres; and flood control pool 660 feet msl, 10,050 acres. The length of free-flowing stream inundated by this project would vary from approximately 36 miles at minimum pool to about 50 miles at seasonal pool and 75 miles at flood control pool elevation. Approximately 18,350 acres of land will be required for the dam and lake, including 3,000 acres specifically for recreation, and with t\n additional 200 acres required in fee for possible downstream overflow areas and public use between Beech Fork river miles 30 and 41. Multiple level outlets would be provided with outlet sizes adequate to release good quality water as based on hydraulic studies. Total benefits would accrue to the project in the following approximate percentages: recreation, including fishing, 58 percent; flood oontrol, 24 percent; water quality control, 7 percent; water supply, 6 percent; redevelopment, 5 percent. Without redevelopment benefits, the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.5 to 1.0. Including redevelopment benefits, this ratio is 1.6 to 1.0. The recommended project is currently in the preauthoriz­ ation planning stage and the final report on the project has been submitted for review.

Six additional reservoir sites were considered during preliminary screening studies for development of the basin's water resources. These screening studies resolved into further consideration of the Howardstown Lake project on Rolling Fork, a tributary of Salt River (see Plate 2). The economic feasibility of this project was marginal and originally there was considerable local opposition, resulting in the termination of the Howards town Lake investigation. This project is retained as a long range element in the basin plan of development, however, since considerable public support has recently become evident, and since it may be possible that further refinement of the studies would result in development of an economically feasible plan for Howardstown Lake. Sadies indicated that the only local protection project which miqht be justified would be a levee to protect the City of Shepherdsville (see l i t 1 ll' iAithough this project was feasible, it was not recomnended for authorization due to lack of assurances of local cooperation. How­ ever, it has also been retained as a unit in the long range plan of development for the basin.

* g>yigonmental Setting Without the Project. The Salt River Basin is located in north central Kentucky and lies wholly within the Commonwealth. “in a” a contai"8 2 >920 square miles and includes all or part of 15 ec™ onic *tructure of the area is widely diversified with traditional dependence on agriculture. This dependence has decreased in recent years with services, trades, and manufacturing rapidly gaining in employment. The rural character of the basin is illustrated^ the fact °ni V evBn *"?®rP°rated cities had a population of over 2,500 in 1 T * 7 *killa and occupations are those associated with farming, inclidTffii9^JInd-Per 0nal “ d business 8ervices. Panning occupations nclude farm owners, farm managers and farm laborers. Manufacturing skills are those primary skills associated with the distilling, clothing manufacturing thf Ial^8Rr ^ r nCti,r ?q ^n<5f trieS- APPn»inately 85 percent of the land in i£ 1960 iL fa™ ' Agriculture employed about 12,800 persons in I960, accounting for about 26 percent of the total employment. This was ^d^elsoH f5 ^%xc^nt *n l940- Th® unemployment rate in Marion, Casey averaged 7.6, 8.9 and 9.3 percent, respectively, over h!!wlh!^Nta ? ye!” *, Bacauae of this hi9h unemployment rate, these counties wilt Art of#*965? counties under the Public Works and Economic Develop-

S r t 8ofnthiCJ * £ ! US V ? « n Pe? ? e in the baSin av*rages a little less than *baJ °f th * 5 \ 5n J960' the average family incone in the basin was $4,928, compared with v5,334 for the state. The respective per capita incomes were $1,183 and $1,322. p

I w 95n P°pulati°n of *ha Salt " v e r Basin was approximately 200,000, with !! ,P!fC“n- rUral 21*5 P®rcant urban. This compares with a rural population for Kentucky of 55 percent and for the United states of 30 percent. During the two decades of 1940-1950 and 1950-1960, the popu- ♦.^i^niJfBJ*ntUfkyiinfrea*ed 3,2 Percent ««ch decade. The population of River Basin increased approximately 5 percent and 5.5 percent, • respectively, for the two decades. .

?Je ~ dlan yaaf* °f achool completed by residents 25 years of age and over waa f°r the salt River Basin cospared with 8.7 for K e n t u c k y ™ J"d 101? for ***• nation. Approximately 25 percent of the residents of the basin 25 years of age and over had completed 12 or more years of schooling. The mainstream of the Salt River originates in Boyle County southwest of Danville and flows northward for about 50 miles to the vicinity of Lawrenceburq. It then flows west about 100 miles to its confluence with the Ohio River at West Point 26 miles downstream from Louisville and 351 miles upstream from the mouth of the Ohio River. Surface waters in the basin are presently used as sources of public and industrial water supply, for final disposal of treated sewage and waste, for supplemental irrigation, for recreation, for fish and wildlife habitat, and for live­ stock watering and other agricultural and domestic uses. Generally, water supplies in the basin are less than adequate, due in part to the scarcity of ground water and the lack of development of adequate storage facilities for surface waters.

Economic development of the area has been assisted by the construction of water-related projects, several by the Corps of Engineers. A levee for the protection of Taylorsville was constructed in 1949. In 1950, a clearing and snaqging project was performed on Plum Creek to alleviate headwater flooding along the stream. A pilot watershed project on Plum Creek was constructed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under authority of Public Law 46 (see Plate 2). Snagging and clearing a seven mile reach of Salt Fiver from the mouth of Rolling Fork upstream was completed in 1964. Construction of a levee and appurtenances for the protection of Lebanon Junction was completed in 1966. During the same year, channel improvement of a portion of Town Creek at Harrodsburg was completed.

A multipurpose reservoir project, Taylorsville Lake, was authorized by the 1966 Flood Control Act for the purposes of flood control, water quality control, and general and fish and wildlife recreation. The dam will be located on Salt River 59.5 miles above Taylorsville in Spencer County, Kentucky. The project would convert approximately 15,600 acres of land* from private to public use and inundate approximately 3,050 acres at seasonal pool elevation. The project is presently in the advanced engineering and design stage.

In summary, the overall water-related problems and needs of the Salt River Basin remaining after existing or planned developments consist of frequent and increasing flood damages; some areas with poor agricultural drainage; local shortages of municipal and industrial water supply; inadequate flows for water quality control, need for future supplemental irrigation; and \ high residual needs for general and fish and wildlife recreation.

It is estimated that present average annual flood damages in the basin amount to about $1,701,700 annually and future average annual damages amount to approximately $5,385,300. The Division of Water, Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Kentucky, reports in its piblication "Kentucky Water Resources Program", June 15, 1971, that "In terms of damages per capita and damages per square mile, Salt and Big Sandy Basins, respectively, are hardest hit." Preliminary information made available by the Soil Conservation Service indicates that 40,341 acres in the basin require aqricultural management relating to drainage.

Estimated future municipal and industrial water supply storage needs in 1980 and 2020 are 1.3 and 5.0 million gallons per day, respectively.

To maintain the desired quality of water in critical reaches in the basin, the maximum required flows in the year 2020 were estimated by the Environ­ mental Protection Agency (formerly FWPCA) to be 240 cubic feet per second in Salt River at Shepherdsville, 108 cubic feet per second in Beech Fork below Bardstown, and 17 cubic feet per second in Rolling Fork below New Haven.

The Soil Conservation Service estimated there were about 2,200 acres being irrigated in the basin in 1965. It is estimated that about 27,000 acres would have irrigation potential in 2020. The gross irrigation water require­ ment for this acreage is estimated at 13,700 acre-feet in an average year, or 23,300 acre-feet in a dry year.

Projected recreation needs in the basin, over and above existing and projected supply, are estimated at 3,370,000, 7,935,000, and 12,893,000 recreation days in 1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively.

Estimated net fishing needs in the basin range from a projected surplus of 28,200 man-days in 1980 to a need for 328;300 man-days in 2020. Estimated hunting needs for the same years vary from 165,100 to 401,100 man-days.

The entire flood plain of the Salt River mainstem from mile 59.5 (planned Taylorsville damsite) downstream to the Fort Knox Military Reservation boundary contains approximately 26,250 acres. Agriculture dominates the land use with about 80 percent of the area between Taylorsville and the Military Reservation being used for cultivated crops, hay or pasture. Four urban areas are subject to partial inundation. Shepherdsville, Salt River, and Bardstown Junction lie in the flood plain in the downstream reach of the river. Taylorsville, located at the mouth of Brashears Creek, is protected by a Federally constructed levee.

The flood plain area of Rolling Fork from mile 57.2 (considered Howardstown damsite) downstream to the Fort Knox Military Reservation contains about 18,560 acres. Agriculture also dominates this area, with about 93 percent of the flood plain between Iiowardstown and the Military Reservation being used for cultivated crops, hay and pasture. The urban areas of Howardstown, Athertonville, New Haven, Boston and Lebanon Junction, lie in the flood plain and are subject to partial inundation from headwater flooding. The Beech Fork flood plain from mile 49.1 (recommended Camp Ground damsite) downstream to its confluence with Rolling Fork contains about 10,280 acres. Agricultural land use predominates in this area, with about 78 percent being used for crops, hay or pasture. The village of Frederickstown is the largest urban area entirely in the flood plain.

The Floyds Fork flood plain contains approximately 1,340 acres with about 90 percent of the land being used for crops, hay or pasture. The total flood plain of Rrashears Creek contains about 1,230 acres, with about 93 percent being used for cultivated crops, hay or pasture.

There are two historic state shrines, two state narks and some historic points of interest in the Salt River Basin. In addition, Bemheim Forest, a unique, privately owned 10,000 acre woodland and wildlife sanctuary, is located in Bullitt County southeast of Shcpherdsville.

A “Statewide Survey of Historic Sites, Coimnonwealth of Kentucky” dated March 1971, indicates a total df 309 historic sites in the ten counties covering most of the Salt River Basin. The sites are primarily made up of historic homes, commercial buildings, churches, etc.

The proposed Camp Ground Lake project area is located in the Outer Bluegrass physiographic region of Kentucky. The topographv is characterized by broad flat ridges between narrow winding valleys and a dendritic drainage pattern. Soils are generally nearly neutral grayish brown silty clay loam or silty clay underlain by heavy silty clay or tough plastic clay.

Hear its mouth Beech Fork is narrow, obstructed by drift, and supports a heavy growth of trees within the channel and along the banks. This condition results in sluggish stream flow in the lower reaches. In the upstream reaches, the channel is wider and in fair condition resulting in' fairly rapid flow at bankfull stages. Stream gradient in the upper reaches averages about ei^it feet per mile, decreasing to about four feet per mile in the lower reaches. The stream averages about 200 feet in width. At the damsite. Beech Fork is shallowly entrenched in a 1,000 foot wide flood plain with sandy clay, silt and angular gravel exposed in the channel.

The early results of an ecological study being conducted by the university of Louisville in the Taylorsville Lake-Salt River Basin area indicate that the upper reaches of the Salt River generally contain good quality water. This- impression of a c l e w stream is based on physical and chemical data in addition to the diversity of stream bottom organisms. During periods of low flow, however, the quality of the water deteriorates. As a part of the ecological study, flora and fauna are being catalogued. To date, 74 species of algae, 225 species of sap carrying plants, 98 species of insects and 52 species of fish have been identified. The area where the study is being conducted is similar to the area of the proposed lake and little difference in species of flora and fauna can be expected. The most important game fishes harvested in the basin are white crappie, spotted bass, rock bass, large mouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish and small mouth bass. Rough fish harvested from the stream include catfish, carp, freshwater drum, and buffalo. Wildlife habitat is of moderate value. Small game? snecios, primarily raccoon, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbits, ground hogs, gray squirrels, doves and ducks are hunted throughout the area, with heaviest pressures on the rabbits, duck and squirrels. The only big game in the basin is the white tailed deer, which is heavily hunted. The largest concentration of deer in the basin is found within and adjacent to the Fort Knox Military Reservation and nemheim Forest, toibitat for migratory waterfowl is limited, but streanbank habitat favorable to wood duck reproduction is present. Although fur bearing animals are found in moderate numbers, trapper parti­ cipation is low.

Forests in the basin are primarily hard woods consisting of oak, hickory, beech, maple, tulip poplar, and red cedar. The present standing tiirbcr is of generally poor quality and a large percentage is in small trees. Almost the entire forest (99 percent) is classified as conmercial forest land, land either producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood and which is not withdrawn from tinber utilization.

There are two covered bridges of some historical value located in the project area. One of these bridges is over 105 years old and the other nearly 120 years of age. While there may be specific locations within the area which are considered naturally scenic, the primary beauty and attraction consists of woodlands and rolling hillside farms.

3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed Camp Ground Lake would have beneficial effects from flood control, water quality control, water supply, recreation and fish and wildlife en­ hancement.

The amount of water released from the dam during periods of flooding will be regulated to decrease peak flow. This will alleviate the recurring destructive flooding of about 20,000 acres along Beech Fork and Rolling Fork and will contribute to the reduction of floods on the Ohio River. Monetary savings to development expected to exist at the time of project completion, attributable to flood reductions are expected to average $675,000 annually. Future benefits are estimated to amount to an addi­ tional $389,800 annually. Although no loss of life or no epidemic diseases have been recorded due to floods in the Salt River Basin in recent years, the danger is ever present. Intangible effects of flood control storage • will include the reduced possibility of death, injury or illness resulting from floods, the reduction in the frequency of the interruption of com­ munications; inoperability of utilities and impassibility of transportation routes. In addition, breakdowns in corrcnunications and services resulting in delays in evacuation, the provision of needed assistance, and difficulty attending rehabilitation should be lessened.

The environmental setting for people in the lower reaches of Beech Fork and Salt River would be enhanced, since there would be a significant reduction in annual flood damage. Because of downstream flood damage reduction, land uses may change. An improved atmosphere for residential, commercial, and industrial development will result. More intensive use of the good flood plain farm land will reduce streanbank vegetation, wild­ life habitat, river access and aesthetics. Open space may be reduced because of the development. The approximately 200acres required in fee within the eleven miles (miles 30 to 41) of Beech Fork River downstream from the dam would, however, remain ooen and capable of multiple stream- bank uses.

The aquatic habitat would be altered from free-flowing to slack water. The length of free-flouring streams inundated varies from about 36 miles at minimum pool to approximately 50 miles at seasonal (summer) pool. In addition, another 25 miles would be periodically inundated during flood control operations. Inundation from the seasonal pool will substantially eliminate the agricultural bottom lands. Approximately 5,070 acres of land to be inundated is now used for grazing, cropping and woodlands. Consequently, inundation and/or clearing of timber, brush, stream edge and openings adjaoent to the stream in the project reach will remove the cover, travel lands, nest trees, den trees, and food plants now used for wildlife habitat. Changes in use or. non-project land in the area will fxirther reduce existing habitat.

The impoundment will cause deposition of much of the sediment load of the stream in the reservoir, which will result in a progressive change in the characteristics of the aquatic habitat and aggradation of the impounded area. It is estimated that the annual sedimentation rate will average about 0.79 acre feet of sediment per snuare mile per year. The minimum pool proposed for the project has adequate storage capacity to contain the anticipated sedimentation without affecting storage required for other project purposes proposed within the economic life of the reservoir. Dep­ osition of the sediment in the reservoir will lower the quality of the reservoir fish habitat but occasion the discharge of relatively sediment- free water downstream. The reduction of sediment in the tailwaters is expected to improve habitat conditions for fish downstream for a considerable distance; however, high discharges from the reservoir could result in some channel scouring to the detriment of the riverine habitat.

It is estimated that the impoundment, jointly-used lands and 3,000 acres of recreation lands and facilities ultimately will serve 3,603,000 visi­ tors per year plus about 111,000 fishermen and hunters. To acoomeodate and control these users, facilities such as roads, boat launching ramps, restrooms, campsites and picnic areas will be constructed. Preliminary investigation was made of a Bubimpoundment structure on Beech Pork in the upstream reach of the reservoir. The structure, which would be located near Lincoln Homestead State Shrine, appeared to have merit, particularly from a recreation aspect. Consideration will be given to a more detailed study of such a structure during advanced engineering and design stages of Camp Ground Lake, if the project is authorized for con­ struction. The environmental impact of such a feature would be determined during the detailed studies.

The concentration of people at the project will result in production of a substantial amount of sanitary waste which will be collected and adequately treated to prevent potential water pollution problems in the lake and down­ stream areas.

Acquisition of land for the project and consequent removal of the residents will alter some coamunal and family patterns of the individuals involved. Acquisition of land for the project will involve purchase of about 18,550 acres. Relocation of families and homes will be conducted as prescribed in Public Law 91-646, the uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Road relocations will be based on providing access to county, state and Federal road system for those residents and areas where access will be disrupted by the reservoir and to provide for reasonable continuation of traffic through and around the reservoir after completion. Elements considered will be location of schools and the system of school bus routes, location of post offices and the system of mail routes, the location of churches and their congre­ gations, the existing industrial and economic activity of the area, and the location of cemeteries.

The total land area required for Can?) Ground Lake is approximately 18,550 acres in Anderson, Nelson and Washington Counties. These required lands amount to about 0.5, 0.8 and 5.8 percent of the total land areas of these comties, respectively. Hie effect of removing the relatively small land area in Anderson and Nelson Counties from the private sector on local governmental operations should not be significant. Removal of land from the tax base in Washington County could cause an initial loss of revenue to this county, but increased value of property near the project and other increased economic activities induced by the project should more than com­ pensate for any tax losses experienced. The project induced development in the vicinity of the project may create a series of environmental problems unless guidance and regulation of this development are provided by State • and local governments.

The primary regional economic effects of this water resource developotent should be an income redistribution toward lower income areas and the improved stability of a broader economic base. While certain areas within the region would not benefit from income redistribution because of higher than average incomes, other locations with relatively low incomes would substantially. The income redistribution effect of project spending is determined by the income distribution of those receiving the redevelopment benefit, which is determined by evaluating the wages paid to those who would be otherwise unemployed or the increase in wages paid to those who would be otherwise underemployed.

Current studies have identified no properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places which would be affected.

4* Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Proposal Be Implemented. Construction of this project would result in 18,550 acres of land being removed from private ownership, where it would have diverse possibilities for development, agricultural use and wildlife habitat. Of this amount, approximately 5,070 acres will be inundated at seasonal pool elevation and this wildlife habitat will be permanently lost. Habitat quality will be reduced on an additional 5,000 acres from periodic storage of floodwaters. The existing moderate value stream fishery (approxi­ mately 50 miles) will be destroyed within the limits of the seasonal pool. For certain periods of time throughout the year, the flood control pool may inundate 75 miles of stream and cover an area of about 10,050 acres. The existing biotic cohmunities which cannot adapt to these changes will be eliminated.

The nature-oriented recreation activities which currently exist will necessarily give way to more active water-oriented activities. Hie influx of visitors and resulting development would affect the tranquility which prevails in this area. In addition, developments around the lake for con­ struction of recreation sites will probably cause a decrease in wildlife habitat.

The impoundment would necessitate the removal of two covered bridges (one of which is condemned). Various groups have indicated an interest in relocating these structures, however, no definite plans for such a relocation are known at this time.

Pool drawdown from flood control pool elevation to seasonal pool elevation can result in the exposure of an aesthetically displeasing expanse of lake banks, although the lake will be operated in such a manner as to minimize this exposure. Although the water quality below the project site could be subjected to some degradation during construction, this will be minimized by writing construction specifications to require careful control of downstream water quality. Release of water from other than optimum depths within the lake could have an adverse effect on water quality downstream, how- over, the outlet works will be designed to release adequate quantities of good quality water. Disruption of the private and communal environ­ ments of individuals, families and kin groups now residing on the lands to be acquired will be unavoidable.

No significant increase in air pollution is expected as a result of the project.

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Possible alternatives to the development of Camp Ground Lake on Beech Fork for alleviation of Droblems and needs previously discussed include both structural and non-structural methods. In the area of flood damage reduction, possible alternatives lie in each of these categories or in combinations of both.

Flood plain zoning could have minimal impact on the environment, and is encouraged, but the responsibility for such action generally lies with State and local governments and has no effect on reducing damages to development in flood prone areas. Flood plain zoning is an administrative preventive measure, and is subject to sudden change by those in charge of such actions. Additionally, flood plain zoning would involve zoning regu­ lations for approximately 20,000 acres along both sides of 58 miles of bene- fitted rivers, and thousands of acres similarly benefitted along the Ohio River and would involve many county and state governments to inclement.

Evacuation would enhance the natural environment, but would have a socio­ logical and psychological impact on those persons evacuated. Additionally, evacuation on the massive scale required here would be expensive and is' not considered publicly acceptable. Experience has shown that many people refuse evacuation, although desiring flood protection. Evacuation would involve relocating nearly $9 million of investments and loss in productivity of 20,000 acres presently used primarily for agriculture. Included would be nearly 100 urban units involving all or portions of Bardstown, Boston and Frederickstown.

Improvement in existing flood forecasting procedures for the area benefitted by Camp Ground Lake could reduce flood damaqes for existing and future personal properties, and provide an opportunity for emergency measures to protect areas or buildings. However, the variability of effectiveness of such emergency measures makes it difficult to incorporate them into a planned flood control program, and to quantify the cost and effect on flood damages. Additionally, the emergency measures which might be under taken would be difficult to implement for an area of nearly 20,000 acres, and, if such measures involved construction of emergency levees, the overall effect would be environmentally unattractive, and have an adverse impact. Non-compulsory flood insurance does not nrevent damage (although its cost would tend to discourage new development); it only distributes losses, and therefore, is not an alternative to protection.

Acquisition of flood prone lands in fee or by flowage easement may have merit, since any impact on the environment could be controlled. Acquisition of flood prone lands as an alternative to Camp Ground Lake would be expensive due to the amount of improvements and land (nearly $9,000,000 of investments and 20,000 nrime agricultural acres) in the basin plus extensive Ohio River development. Purchase of the flowage easement would require evacuation from the lands to prevent damage to property, and would have the same impact as evacuation. Purchase of such easement would generally not permit public use of the land, since utilization for this purpose would severely restrict other uses.

An additional concern related to the above non-structural alternatives is that they would have little effect on the solution of other water-related needs in the basin area affected by the proposed Camp Ground Lake.

Structural alternatives investigated included levees, channel improvements, single purpose reservoirs, and other multipurpose reservoirs. Because of the topography of the basin, levees would be practical only in protecting the urban areas, and few such areas exist. In addition, levees would be required on both sides for approximately 58 miles of basin streams affected by the proposed Camp Ground Lake. Such measures are not only economically infeasible, but confine development, obstruct the view of the river from the shore, restrict the floodway, and are of little value except for flood control. Development of levees to provide the same protection as a reservoir would be practically impossible.

No specific reaches where channel improvement would be justified were deter­ mined. Channel improvements would be necessary along nearly 58 miles of basin streams, would remove much of the land for which protection is sought, and would have drastic environmental results. Primary adverse impacts are massive disruption of the river and river banks and destruction of the innediate environment, particularly fish and wildlife habitat. As with levees, obtaining the same protection as provided by a reservoir would be practically impossible.

A single structure on Beech Fork was found to be more feasible from an economic standpoint than two structures on Chaplin River and Beech Fork, with no significant change in total environmental impact. A system of smaller impoundments could be developed, but would have to control similar drainage areas to provide comparable flood damage reductions, water quality and water supply yields, and recreation pool areas. Such a system would be more costly, produce less net benefits, and have similar adverse environmental impacts. Alternatives to the water supply and water quality control purposes were determined to be more efficiently limited to single purpose reservoirs. Although advanced waste treatment might be possible, it would not be as efficient and might deter future development if applied only in this area. Ground water in the basin is not sufficient for water supply needs. Low flow augmentation would require a storage reservoir. No single purpose reservoir site was found for either purpose which was more feasible than a multipurpose project. From an environmental standpoint, these single purpose reservoirs would have impacts similar to the larger multi­ purpose reservoir, but on a smaller scale. Of course, these smaller projects would have little effect on the other water related needs in the basin.

Alternatives to Camp Ground Lake for meeting or alleviating the general and fish and wildlife recreation needs in the basin would be expansion of facilities at other Federal and non-Federal projects and recreation areas and development of new facilities to meet the substantial present and increasing needs. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study has indicated that there will continue to be an unmet need for outdoor recreation opportunity in this region even with all planned development at Federal lakes, State parks, forests, and fish and game areas.

Hie alternatives of no water resource development in the area would allow the vicinity to remain much as it is today, subject, of course, to normal development. Additionally, such action would forego substantial tangible benefits from flood control, water supply, water quality control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement (with the previously stated impacts). However, with increasing populations, exploitations, urban ex­ pansion, etc., present values would not long remain.

6. The Relationship Between Local Short Term Usage of Maui's Environment and.the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity. On the project lands many of the present uses will be abruptly ended or changed. While these changes will have a disruptive impact and will affect economic productivity, the longer term and wider range effect of the project will more than offset these problems by reducing flood damages and the recurring disruption of activities downstream by increasing the usability and pro­ ductivity of lands downstream by providing water supply, by improving water quality downstream, and creating a major recreational resource.

In the absence of the project, the primary short term use of the area is expected to remain agricultural.

7. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented. Total lands required for the Camp Ground Lake project will be about 18,550 acres. These lands are presently being used primarily for agricultural uses, are idle, or are in woodlands, although a few housing projects would be affected. A total of 50 miles of natural stream environment of moderate fishery value would be replaced by a lake at seasonal pool elevation. Wildlife habitat in the project area is of moderate value and primarily sustains populations of small game. Implementation of the project will inundate approximately 5,070 acres of river valley land (at seasonal pool elevation), thus destroying that amount of wildlife habitat. The existing running water habitat will be converted to standing water habitat. Also lost will be the commitment of labor, capital and material resources associated with construction and operation of the project.

8. Coordination with Others

a * Public Participation. At public meetings in Bloomfield in 1964 and 1965, local interests, including city, county and state officials, expressed a desire for a reservoir on Beech Fork below its confluence with Chaplin River. On 25 April 1967, 800 persons, including state and local officials, attended a public hearing at Springfield, Kentucky. The purpose of the meeting was to inform all concerned of the consideration being given to the Camp Ground Lake project. Nearly all communications received in response to the notice of public hearing favored the project. News releases were issued concerning the public meetings. Subsequent news releases stated that a draft statement had been prepared and was available to the public.

A final public meeting concerning the Feasibility Report for Water Resources Development of Salt River Basin was held in Bardstown, Kentucky on 4 November 1971. Approximately 500 persons, including state and local officials attended this meeting, and nearly all statements received in response to the announce­ ment of the meeting favored the Camp Ground Lake project. An additional news release stated that the preliminary draft statement of 12 November 1971 had been prepared and was available to the public.

b * Government Agencies. A draft environmental statement was furnished the agencies listed below on 14 October 1970 for their views and comments. Those comments received were incorporated into the statement, as appropriate. The Kentucky Program Development Office, the State Clearinghouse listed in Circular A-95, was furnished a copy on 14 October 1970, and comments requested. A second request was made 19 April 1971. No comments on that draft statement were received.

In view of the time which had elapsed since the original coordination was made, a preliminary draft of this environmental statement was furnished on 18 November 1971 to the Soil Conservation Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Environmental Protection Agency, the Kentucky Program Development Office, and the Lincoln Trail Area Development District, Inc., the latter two agencies listed in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. In response to comments from ttie National Park Service, a copy of the draft environmental statement was furnished on 22 December 1971 to the Kentucky Coordinator of State and Federal Activities and the University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology.

The more important comments received, other than editorial, are summarized D6XOW • 1. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

Comment; Lake will have no serious environmental effects, and will greatly enhance the development of the affected area.

2. LINCOLN TRAIL AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, INC.

Comment; We have reviewed the statement and believe it to be factual, and further, that any adverse impact the project may entail will be of relative insignificance in comparison to the benefits the lake will bring to the area.

3. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USPI.

Comment It Project will not affect existing units of National Park System, known potential units of National Park System, Natural Landmarks or National Historic Landmarks.

Comment 2 ; Statement should show evidence of consultation with State Liaison Officer regarding properties listed in National Register.

Response; Copy of draft statement furnished Kentucky Coordinator of State and Federal Activities. See Comment 8.

Comment 3: Statement should show evidence of consultation with State Archeologist.

Response; Copy of draft statement furnished University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology. See Comment 9.

4. BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION, USDI.

Comment 1: Redevelopment is listed as a project purpose in summary but not in main text.

Response; Information included in statement.

comment 2; Further discussion of the overflow areas downstream from the dam is needed. We understand that the additional acreage for overflow would be in temporary flood easements which would not insure any recrea­ tional access and no lands are to be acquired along the eight miles of stream between the dam and the overflow easements beginning at Mile 41.

It should be made clear how much of the required land will be acquired in fee. The initial reference to land required is 18,350 acres, but Section 3, page 7, refers to the "purchase of about 18,550 acres." Since the additional 200 acres (between river miles 30-41) is to be acquired in temporary easement, this raises the question of how much of the 18,350 is to be in easement and, therefore, without public access. Response: Additional clarifying information included in this statement. The additional 200 acres will be acquired in fee and considered for multiple uses in advanced engineering and design.

Comaent 3: A description of subimpoundment near Lincoln Homestead State Shrine should be included if it becomes part of project.

Response: Discussion of the subimpoundment has been included.

Comment 4: The section discusses the basin in general more than the project area in particular. Additional information is needed. The description of the basin, however, should include other water resource projects, authorized and contemplated. In particular, reference should be made to Taylorsville Lake, the Southwest Jefferson County project, and Howardstcwn Lake. The overall cumulative impact of an individual project on the basin as described.

The term "drift" on page 4, paragraph 3, line 1, should be better de­ fined.

The last sentence of this section, on page 5, could be rephrased for objectivity and clarity. The woodlands and rolling hills are naturally scenic.

Response: Additional descriptive information has been added to the statement. Discussion of the Southwest Jefferson County project has not been included, since this project is primarily outside the Salt River Basin. It should be noted that environmental statements have been prepared for that project and the Taylorsville Lake project. The Feasibility Report for Water Resources Development, Salt River Basin, discussed the environ­ mental considerations associated with the considered Howardstcwn Lake project. An environmental statement for that project will be acconplished at the time future project studies might conclude that it should be recommended for construction.

Comment 5 : The third sentence on page 6 requires rephrasing for clarity. The fourth sentence is not totally correct. "More intensive use of good floodplain farm land" will reduce stream bank vegetation, wildlife habitat, river access, and aesthetics. The biotic community associated with a flood- plain is not the same as that of an upland and supports different types of recreational activity. Also, there are no constraints on the continued agricultural use of the marginal lands. In addition, since "redevelopment" is a stated project purpose and residential, commercial, and industrial development is expected to occur, the probability of land being left as open and recreational space is doubtful.

Response: Information generally incorporated into the statement. Comment 6 : Again, the approximately 200 acres of temporary flood easements between river miles 30—41 of the Beech Fork needs explanation. There is no assurance that this land would “remain open and capable of multiple streambank uses" from a recreational or environmental point of view.

Response: See response to comment 2, above.

Conpnent It A discussion of the ability of tiie resource base to with­ stand the estimated recreational use would be helpful. Environmental degradation can result both from overuse of the resource base and a lack of adequate facilities. We note that drawdown for water quality and water supply purposes will occur during the summer season. The resultant smaller pool area would decrease both the recreational carrying capacity of the reservoir and the quality of the total recreational experience.

Response: The ability of the resource base to withstand the estimated recreational use has been evaluated in the report. Facilities will be developed to prevent overuse of the resource base. Project studies indi­ cate that an average drawdown of 2.0 feet would have occurred during the 2&-year study period.

Comment18: The impact of a possible subimpoundment should be given further discussion.

Response: Included in statement.

Comment 9 : The number of acres inundated at flood pool should be included.

Response: Concur,} information added.

Comment 10: The loss of open and recreational space and wildlife habi­ tat downstream due to increased utilization of protected floodplain would be adverse. Such development may also result in greater economic and human loss in times of major flood. The sursner drawdown will have an adverse effect on the recreational resource as mentioned in comments bo Section 3. t Response: The loss of open and recreational space and wildlife hdaitat downstream due to increased utilization of protected flood plain has been recognized. However, increased utilization would not necessarily change existing recreation and wildlife areas. Increased productivity on existing agricultured land may del ay needs for use of marginal land. Such develop­ ment could result in greater economic and human loss in times of major flood, but one of the requirements by local interests prior to construction is that they prevent encroachments on flow-carrying capacities of stream channels below the project. Comment 11: Acquisition of flood-prone lands in fee is partially discounted because "the amount of land (nearly 20,000 acres) is extensive," yet the project proposal calls for acquisition of about 18,350 acres.

Responsei Concur. However, it should be noted that 3,000 acres of these lands are retained for recreational uses.

Comnent 12: Purchase of the flood-prone lands in fee would permit access to n river-oriented type of recreation and provide a oentral control for floodplain zoning which is discounted in the statement because of the existing complexities of control under several govern­ mental entities.

Response: Concur.

Comment 13: We suggest that the statement "Although advanced waste treatment might be possible, it would probably not be efficient and might deter future development," (page 10, fourth paragraph) be deleted. Dilution is an interim measure, not an encouragement for "future develop­ ment" to pollute.

Response: Concur. Statement has been revised.

Comment 14: As an alternative for recreation purposes, the stream and floodplain in public ownership would provide considerable streaim* oriented opportunities, though this probably could not accommodate the same number of recreation days as the proposed reservoir. However, it would offer recreational variety, considering its proximity to Taylorsville Lake.

Response: Concur. However, such a development would not meet any of the other water resource needs in the basin.

5. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, USDA.

Comment 1: Suggested listing project acreage by county.

Response: Percentages of land affected by county are included.

Comment 2: Suggested expansion of information on regional economic • effects of project.

Response: Additional information added to statement.

Comment 3: Suggested expanding discussion of soils.

Response: Statement describes present soil materials, as suggested.

Cowment 4 : Suggested modification to use of flood plain land discussion.

Response: Statement modified. tomnentJSf Referenced degradation of downstream water quality during construction.

Response: Contract specifications will include such measures as tem­ porary sediment retention structures, minimizing disturbance of vegetation and shaping and seeding applicable areas.

Comment 6 ; Suggested additional discussion of the compatibility of the project as it relates to projected land and related resource use.

Response« Such discussion is included.

6. KENTUCKY PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COORDINATING COMMISSION.

Commenti Endorses the draft environmental statement.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Comment 1: The Corps of Engineers should analyze the project with and without water quality storage from an environmental standpoint, as well as from an economic standpoint, in order to proceed with as flexible a project as possible. The results of this analysis should be contained in the Final Environmental Inpact Statement.

Response; Deletion of the water quality control storage space from the project would result in reduction of total pool elevation of about 2.5 feet and amount to a reduction in seasonal pool acreage of about 600 acres. Such acreage reduction would appear to mean that approximately 600 acres less land used for grazing, cropping and woodlands would be inundated at seasonal pool elevation without water quality storage than with water quality storage. However, if the project were to be formulated without water quality, national efficiency considerations would probably dictate that this storage would be better utilized for other purposes, such as recreation and/or flood control, rather than be deleted. Thus, total affected acreage would not change.

Comnent 2; Documentation of the present and anticipated future water quality within the reservoir should be included in order to substantiate that the quality will be sufficient to support the intended project pur- poses. No discussion of water quality within the proposed reservoir is included. Also, the probable magnitude of recreational waste loads to be treated at the reservoir site, the nature of the facilities to be used, including alternative locations, and the probable inpact of these wastes on the receiving water should be discussed in more detail. The present description of a "substantial amount" is somewhat brief.

Response: The report furnished by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, in April 1966, indicates that "the water in the Salt River and Rolling Fork is moderately hard of the calcium bicaxbonate type. Hard­ ness of the water in both streams ranges from 100 to 250 mg/1 ...... " Records indicate that pH varies from 7.0 to 8.1. Water quality investi­ gations indicate that thermal stratification and associated problem can

2to insure the withdrawal-‘fln of, water-t of acceptableiw quality for reservoir releases. Three years prior to design of the project, data collection t i ^ r J T * ™ Pl!Tned to be 8electad by a flald reconnaissance, and con­ tinuous temperature, monthly chemical and some biological data will be £ ® l l ! f i * / 0i1r in9 iBp?undment' ls Planned that base line data will at 5r!^Uent >ntarval8 for 2-4 y«ars at selected stations beiow, within and above the reservoir. This would include monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity and the collection Sndc e ™ 8 °f biological samples. Information requested concerning recreational waste treatment facilities will be given proper f ^ T u i T r,?9K adr nfed engineering and design stages. w L t e t o e S e n t facilities will be designed to meet all Federal, State and local standards.

Comment 3 > Disposal of land clearing waste, construction and demolition debris, and residue from permitted and controlled open burning of solid waste should be conducted in accordance with State solid waste regulations.

Response: Concur, and construction contracts will so specify.

Comment 4: Solid waste disposal sites probably exist in both the area to be water-inundated and the adjacent public use lands. These disposal sites, if not correctly operated and properly located, could be sources of degradation of water quality, air quality, ptiilic health, and aesthetic values. Those sites within the project area which will continue to be used after the project's completion should be nermitted and/or approved by the State solid waste management agency; these sites within the project area which will be water-inundated should be closed or relocated in a manner approved by the State solid waste raangement agency.

Response: Concur.

Comment 5: The influx of population and increased conmercial/industrial activities due to and associated with construction will most likely increase the amount of solid waste generated and thus, increase the load on existing solid waste collection and disposal facilities. Project personnel should discuss such expected increases with appropriate State and local solid waste management officials so that they may be incorporated into State and local solid waste management planning.

Response: Concur.

Comment 6 : unless provisions are made for solid waste collection and disposal prior to completion of the waterway and associated recreational areas, the solid waste management servicing such areas will most likely reflect an "afterthought" solution to a problem rather than an engineered and planned operation. Provisions for waterway traffic solid waste disposal are called for to prevent water pollution and health and aesthetic problems.

Response: Concur. Advanced engineering and design will consider such provisions. Commant 7 t If some consideration is not given to solid! waste management for the recreational area prior to project initiation, the result will aost likely have an adverse environmental impact for some time in the future.

Response: Concur. Such consideration will be given during advanced engineering and design of recreational facilities.

Comment 8: There will probably be no significant adverse effect on the long-range ambient air quality. However, there may be a short-term adverse effect if vegetation from land clearing and construction materials are disposed of by open burning. If these materials are disposed of in this manner, it should he done in accordance with applicable State air pollution control regulations.

Response: Concur.

8. STATE LIAISON OFFICER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

Comment: Supports principles of statement in general, but requests future opportunity to evaluate effect on historic sites as planning progresses.

9. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY.

Comment: Recommends an archeological survey of affected area prior to commencement of construction.

10. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, USPI.

Comment 1: Suggested adding a brief description of other water development projects considered in basin study.

Response: Discussion added, as suggested.

Comment 2 : Add freshwater drum to the list of rough fish.

Response: Information added to statement.

Oomment 3: Indicate extent of timber clearing above seasonal pool.

Response: The exact limits and extent of clearing above the seasonal pool would not be determined until more detailed information concerning land acquisition and recreational development associated with the project is accomplished. This information will probably be determined in the advanced engineering and design phases for the project and can be included in future impact statements.

Comment 4 : Suggested additional wording concerning sediment deposition.

Response: Statement modified, as suggested. Conroent 5: Suggested revision of subimpoundment discussion.

Response: Concur. Revision included.

Comment 6: We note fee acquisition for the project is increased from 15,350 acres to 18,550 acres of land. This apparently is the result of advanced studies since data was supplied for the fish and wildlife basin study.

Response: The difference is 3,000 acres of specific recreation lands.

Conroent 7: Suggested additional wording concerning adverse environmental effects should be the proposal be implemented.

Response: Additional wording added to current statement.

Comment 8 : Assume "channel improvement" refers to stream channelization.

Response: Assumption correct.

Comment 9 : Suggested additional wording within Paragraph 7.

Response: Statement modified, as suggested.

c. Citizen Groups. No comments from citizen groups have been received. No organized opposition to the project from citizen groups has been evidenced.

d . Comments received during Departmental Review.

(1) Commonwealth of Kentucky

Comment: The Kentucky Department of Natural Resources stated that the Draft Environmental Statement accurately sets forth the conditions and environmental effects of the project on the environment of the area.

(2) Department of Agriculture

Comment: The Department noted that information on the acreage and value of forest resources affected by the project should be provided. The Department also noted that the statement could be improved by a discussion of the effects of exposed land between the seasonal and minimum pool.

Response: A discussion of the forest resources affected by the project is included in the main report and evaluated in determining project feasibility. The effect of the drawdown between the seasonal and minimum pool occurs during the "off" recreational use season and does not interfere with the recreational use of the pool area during thia period. No extensive exposed areas would result from this operational drawdown because of the relatively steep topography within the project area. (3) Department of Health. Education, and Welfare

Comment: The Department stated that they have reviewed the draft statement and have no comments.

(4) Department of Transportation

Comment: The Department provided comments of the Federal Highway Administration concerning road relocations discussed In the main report and offered no further comments on the draft statement.

(5) Environmental Protection Agency

Comment: The Agency stated that the Draft Environmental Statement Is adequate at this stage of development and that additional studies, as noted In the statement, will be necessary to Insure that project goals can be achieved without danger of water quality Impairment.

Response: If the project Is authorized, further detailed studies during advance engineering and design will be undertaken to re-afflrm the need and value of water quality storage at the reservoir site. Additional advanced studies will investigate the effect of the reservoir environment In and below the reservoir on water quality standards with particular regard to dissolved oxygen content. Also, detailed studies regarding solid waste disposal at reservoir recreational developments will be undertaken to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

(6) Department of the Interior

Comment: The statement should discuss the mineral resources of the area.

Response: Although the area In general contains a good mineral resource base, there are no known active sand, gravel or other mineral extraction operations within the reservoir Impoundment area. As noted, the reservoir Impoundment would only have a minor effect on the limestone resources of the area.

Comment: The effect of the project on karst areas, If any, should be discussed as well as the effect of construction of a dam and reservoir In an area of unstable slope stability.

Response: An examination of the pro posed•impoundment area indicated the absence of karst development. Also, no foundation problems were uncovered by field reconnaissance and four sub-surface soil borings at the proposed dam site due to unstable slope stability. However, If the project Is authorized, detailed foundation investigations will be accomplished during advance engineering and design to insure proper site placement and construction methods to preclude potential dam failure. Comment: The discussion on archeological resources should be given stronger emphasis and recommend that the results of an archeological survey, and proposed mitigation measures, be included in the final statement.

Response; The need to conduct an archeological investigation of the project area is recognized. If the project is authorized, an archeological, historical and palentological investigation will be undertaken during advance engineering and design prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Consultation with appropriate State officials will be also be undertaken at this time. The District Engineer provided notification to the Southeastern Archeological Center, NPS, concerning this project on 5 October 1971 and 31 May 1972.

e. Unsolicited Comments Received.

Louisville and National Audubon Societies.

Comment 1: Flood plains belong to the river. Flooding problems are self-inflicted when man builds in flood plains. In the urbanized areas levees should be constructed to protect commercial property and residences. In the agricultural countryside the flood plains should be purchased and either allowed to be used by the public or permitted without fee to be utilized by the former farm owner for crops or grazing, if he so wishes.

Response: Present water resources planning policies and procedures do not provide for the philosophic view that flooding is a natural occurrence, that the flood plain belongs to the river, that man is the intruder, and that flood plain lands should be acquired by the Federal Government for public or private use. Further, these comments do not address themselves to specific information set out in the Draft Environmental Statement.

Comment 2 : Normal flooding is natural function of stream ecology. The water flow aquatic species and plant and wildlife of a stream bioto create a successful harmonious adjustment to seasonal flooding that occurs naturally. We, too, must adjust to the beneficial functions of our waterways and refrain from altering them to man's immediate suggested needs, for in the long run we will fail, and succeed only in compounding these self-inflicted problems.

Response: Same as for Comment 1. Comment 3 : We question the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to participate in projecting economic growth based on mutilation of free flowing streams and rivers.

Response: The responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to participate in the development of the nation's water resources for purposes of flood control, recreation, navigation, power, irrigation, etc., are set forth in a long list of legislative actions. In the case of Camp Ground Lake where flood control is a prime mover, responsibility of the Corps in the area of flood control is set forth in the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1938.

Camaent 4 ; The Louisville Audubon Society suggests that the flood plain which the Corps of Engineers is equipped to delineate, be purchased and set aside for stream recreation and/or continued use by previous farm owners, that flood walls and levee embankments shield towns, that public water supply reservoirs be constructed where needed, and that Camp Ground Lake be abandoned as infeasible based on short and long term ecological, economic and sociological considerations.

Response: The investigation of water and related resource problems and needs in the Salt River Basin constitutes a comprehensive look at such problems and formulates the optimum plan for development of these resources in light of existing policies, procedures, and practices set out by national water resources planning guidelines. The Camp Ground Lake takes advantages of certain scale economies to be gained through multipurpose development. LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT

ENGINEER ON THE PRELIMINARY

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

APPENDIX A Commonwealth of K entucky Department of Natural Resources

Fran kfo rt. Ky « o e o i

Tr.tt»MONt T»?l«C

November 24, 1971

District Engineer U. S. Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky

Dear Sir: Attached please find comments of the Department of Natural Resources, Divison of Soil and Water Conservation, regarding Camp Ground Lake, Salt River Basin, Kentucky.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.

Sincerely,

KENES C. BOWLING Deputy Commissioner

KCB:jw

Attachment 'cn.MMi--.snNF:»s COMMONWEALTH OT KENTUCKY •

*. t H O X N , VICt enu'l 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ; A M C I L . 0 «*6 C ',W' •out* • ' w. c. c.ayu MAVT( •• C3ANKFORT, • • 405'. • • '•

„ vCl*N IURCH •i-t T I I . F I - M O N C * *« J ‘ ■* 5*4 .«(••• M .or*lV

M, ). M C A O O n November 23, 1971 n »• 4* S. **VI. v* ■».

memorandum

TO: James S. Shropshire, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources

FROM: W. C. Gayle, Director

SUBJECT: Camp Ground Lake Salt River Basin, Kentucky

1 have studied the draft of Environmental Statement on Camp Ground Lake, Salt River Basin, Kentucky, and have consulted with our field representative, James B. Claypool, who recently attended a hearing by the Corps of Engineers regarding this lake.

It is our opinion that this lake will have no serious environmental effects, and will greatly enhance the development of the affected area. L in co ln T rail A rea Dev elo p m en t D is tr ic t. In c .

Serving Breckinridge, Grayson, Hardin, Larue, Marlon, Meade, Nelson, and Washington Counties

50 PUBLIC SQUARE ELIZABETHTOWN. KENTUCKY 42701 Phone (502) 769-2393

November 30, 1971

Colonel John T. Rhett Corps of Engineers District Engineer Department of the ARM? P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Dear Colonel Rhett:

We have received your letter of November 18, 1971 trans­ mitting the preliminary draft of the environmental impact statement on the Camp Ground Lake.

We have reviewed the statement and believe it to be factual, and further, that any adverse impact the project may entail will be of relative insignificance in comparison to the benefits the lake will bring to the area.

Sincerely yours,

James L. Peel Executive Director JlP/lm UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SOUTHEAST REGIO^----- RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240

In reply refer to: December 8, 1971 A98 SER(CP)

Col. John T. Rhett District Engineer Louisville District Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201 Dear Sir:

Re: Draft environmental statement Camp Ground Lake Salt River Basin, Kentucky

We hav>-. reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project des­ cribed above attached to your letter of November 18, 1971.

While we have not made an on-site evaluation of the proposal, this statement ha3 been given an office review to determine what effect this project might have on the following: Will affect Will not affect

Existing units of the National Park System ______X

Known potential units of the National Park System _____ X

Natural Landmarks registered or eligible for registration ______X

National Historic Landmarks registered or eligible for registration ______X

National Register of Historic Places: The environmental statement: should show evidence of consultation with the State Liaison Officer appointed by the Governor (see Enclosure, Note 1) for possible National Register properties that may exist in the area. These include all Register properties of state and local significance, as well as Registered National Historic Landmarks.

Archeological Resources: The environmental statement should recognize the possible effect of the project on archeological resources, indicating a survey has been made and giving the results thereof. (See Enclosure, Note 2, for appropriate official to contact for information regarding this matter.)

If we may be of further assistance please let us know, cc: Director, NPS, Attn: Division of Federal Agency Coordination, Sincerely yours, w/c inc. Field Representative, North Central Region, w/c inc. Council on Environmental Equality (10) w/c inc. L.Boyd Finch Assistant Director Southeast Region ENCLOSURE

Note I; The environmental statement should show evidence of consultation with the State Liaison Officer for information regarding properties listed in the National Register and properties being considered for National Register nomination.

Listed below is the name of the State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation:

KENTUCKY Mr. Joseph M. Gray Coordinator of State and Federal Activities Office of the Governor Room 157, Capitol Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

The impact statement on page 3, last two paragraphs, recognizes historical sites in Kentucky. The "Statewide Survey of Historic Sites, Commonwealth of Kentucky,” dated March 1971, was developedfor this State by contract. The above Historic Preservation Officer should be contacted regarding his acceptance of this survey. The final impact statement should include his comments on historical resources in this project.

Note 2; The environmental statement should show evidence of consultation with the State Archeologist regarding archeological resources within the project area.

Listed below is the name of the appropriate official to contact:

KENTUCKY Dr. Lathel Duffield Museum of Anthropology University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40506 The impact statement does not show evidence of consultation with the above agency on possible archeological resources in the project area. The final impact statement should reflect the findings of this agency concerning the effect of the undertaking upon archeological resources. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION LAKE CENTRAL REGION D64270H MBS RESEARCH PARK DRIVE Camp Ground ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN MUM (Your ORLPD-F) December 15, 1971

District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Camp Ground Lake, Kentucky, as requested in your letter of November 18, 1971. The following comments are based on limited information and field reconnaissance of the general area to the adjacent Taylors­ ville site and incorporate comments from our review of the prelimi­ nary draft statement of October 14, 1970.

1. Project Description - Redevelopment is listed as a project purpose in the summary but not in the main text. Further discussion of the overflow areas downstream from the dam is needed. We understand that the additional acreage for overflow would be in temporary flood easements which would not insure any recreational access and no lands are to be acquired along the eight miles of stream between the dam and the overflow easements beginning at Mile 41.

It should be made clear how much of the required land will be acquired in fee. The initial reference to land required is 18,350 acres, but Section 3, page 7, refers to the "purchase of about 18,550 acres." Since the additional 200 acres (between river miles 30-41) is to be acquired in temporary easement, this raises the question of how much of the 18,350 is to be in easement and, therefore, without public access.

A description of the sub-impoundment near Lincoln Homestead State Shrine should be included if it becomes a part of this project.

2. Environmental Setting Without the Project - The section discusses the basin in general more than the project area in particular. Additional information is needed. The description of the basin, however, should include other water resource projects, authorized and contemplated. In particular, reference should be made to Taylorsville Lake, the Southwest Jefferson County project, and Howardstown Lake. The overall cumulative impact of the action proposed and of further actions contemplated should be known in order to fully assess the environmental impact of an individual project on the basin as described. The term "drift" on page 4, paragraph 3, line 1, should be better defined.

The last sentence of this section, on page 5, could be rephrased for objectivity and clarity. The woodlands and rolling hills are naturally scenic.

3. Environmental Impact - The third sentence on page 6 requires rephrasing for clarity. The fourth sentence is not totally correct. "More intensive use of good floodplain farm land" will reduce stream bank vegetation, wildlife habitat, river access, and aesthetics. The biotic community associated with a floodplain is not the same as that of an upland and supports different types of recreational activity. Also, there are no constraints on the continued agricultural use of the marginal lands. In addition, since "redevelopment" is a stated project purpose and residential, commercial, and industrial development is expected to occur, the probability of land being left as open and recreational space is doubtful. Again, the approximately 200 acres of temporary flood easements between river miles 30-41 of the Beech Fork needs explanation. There is no assurance that this land would "remain open and capable of multiple streambank uses" from a recreational or environmental point of view.

A discussion of the ability of the resource base to withstand the estimated recreational use would be helpful. Environmental degradation can result both from overuse of the resource base and a lack of adequate facilities. We note that drawdown for water quality and water supply purposes will occur during the summer season. The resultant smaller pool area would decrease both the recreational carrying capacity of the reservoir and the quality of the total recreational experience.

The impact of a possible sub-impoundment should be given further dis­ cussion

4. Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided - The number of acres to be inundated at flood pool should be included.

The loss of open and recreational space and wildlife habitat downstream due to increased utilization of protected floodplain would be adverse. Such development may also result in greater economic and human loss in times of major flood. The summer drawdown will have an adverse effect on the recreational resource as mentioned in comments to Section 3.

5. Alternatives - Acquisition of flood-prone lands in fee is partially discounted because "the amount of land (nearly 20,000 acres) is extensive," yet the project proposal calls for acquisition of about 18,350 acres. Purchase of the flood-prone lands in fee would permit access to a river-oriented type of recreation and provide a central control for floodplain zoning which is discounted in the statement because of the existing complexities of control under several governmental entities.

We suggest that the statement "Although advanced waste treatment might be possible, it would probably not be efficient and might deter future development," (page 10, fourth paragraph) be deleted. Dilution is an interim measure, not an encouragement for "future development" to pollute.

As an alternative for recreation purposes, the stream and floodplain in public ownership would provide considerable stream-oriented opportunities, though this probably could not accommodate the same number of recreation days as the proposed reservoir. However, it would offer recreational variety, considering its proximity to Taylorsville Lake.

We have no comments in regard to Sections 6, 7, and 8.

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.

Sincerely yours,

Carl F. Nelson Acting Regional Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 333 Waller Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky 40504

December 17, 1971

Colonel John T. Rhett District Engineer, Louisville Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Dear Colonel Rhett:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the proposed Camp Ground Lake project transmitted with your November 18, 1971 letter. The draft statement complies with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines as contained in the Federal Register, Volume 36, published April 23, 1971.

Although minor, the following comments are provided for your consideration:

(1) Item 1, Page 1 — It may be helpful to specify the amount of acres by county that will be required for Installation of project works of improvement.

(2) Item 2, Pages 2 and 3 -- It is noted that secondary data have been used to describe the general status of the economy for without project conditions. To strengthen the report, it is believed that an expanded discussion of the probable impacts of the proposed action on the economy over and above the effects on redistribution of income should follow the last paragraph on Page 7 of Item 3.

(3) Item 2, Page 4, Second Paragraph — It is believed that the reference to soils may be strengthened by such as expanding the description, separating bottom from upland, indicating the Inherent fertility, or mentioning the present materials.

(4) Item 3, Page 6, First Paragraph — The reference to more intensive use of flood plain land may be Improved by expanding or modifying the .statement to say such as: "Flood control would permit landowners to utilize the flood plains more intensively, shift crops from sloping uplands to the bottoms, and realize greater returns from inputs." (5) Item 5, Page 8, Fifth Paragraph— Although reference is made to the forthcoming specifications to require careful control of downstream water quality, it is believed that provisions should be made to control and reduce the amount of erosion and runoff in construction and disturbed areas. This may be accomplished by such as installing temporary sediment retention structures, minimizing disturbance of vegetation, and shaping and seeding applicable areas.

(6) Item 6, Page 11 ~ This section of the statement may be improved by including a discussion on the compatibility of the proposed project as it relates to present trends and projected uses of land and related resources.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the subject environmental statement.

Sincerely,

rvClen E. Murray State Conservationist Wendell H. Ford bxxkxxkxxx . jAMes S. S hropshire G o v c n m o * CoMMisftio*

Commonwealth o f K entucky Department of Natural Resources

Fr a n k f o r t , Ky. 4 o eo i

Te l e p h o n e 1502) 5 6 4 - 3 3 5 0

January 4, 1972

Colonel John Rhett, District Engineer Louisville District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Dear Colonel Rhett:

It has been called to my attention that a statement from me as chairman of the Physical Environmental Resources Coordinating Commission is desirable relative to the Camp Ground Flood Control environmental statement, dated November 19, 1971. I am, therefore, complying with this request and am sorry that it has been delayed; however, it was unavoidable as I have been out of the office for the last two w eeks.

As indicated by the Kentucky Program Development Office statement, a copy of which you have received, the Physical Environ­ mental Resources Coordinating Commission wholeheartedly endorses the environmental statement that was submitted for the Camp Ground Flood Control project.

I trust this is the information that you are seeking.

/tf&ry truly yours ,„

Ir m Eo ^J. SHROPSHyiEfCoalman Physical Environmental Resources Coordinating Commission

JSSrbt

cc: Joe Gray, KPDO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV 1421 Peachtree St.. N .E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309

January 13, 1972

Colonel John T. Rhett District Engineer, Corps of Engineers Louisville District P.0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Dear Colonel Rhett:

The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, has reviewed your Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Camp Ground Lake, Salt River Basin, Kentucky. We submit the following comments:

The Corps of Engineers should analyze the project with and without water quality storage from an environmental standpoint, as well as from an economic standpoint, in order to proceed with as flexible a project as possible. The results of this analysis should be contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Furthermore, documentation of the present and anticipated future water quality within the reservoir should be included in order to substantiate that the quality will be sufficient to support the intended project pur­ poses. No discussion of water quality within the proposed reservoir is included. Also, the probable magnitude of recreational waste loads to be treated at the reservoir site* the nature of the facilities to be used, including alternative locations, and the probable impact of these wastes on the receiving waters should be discussed in more detail. The present description of a "substantial amount" is somewhat brief.

No consideration has been given to disposal of solid waste that would be generated by this project.

Disposal of land clearing waste, construction and demolition debris, and residue from permitted and controlled open burning of solid waste (if allowed) could present short-term adverse environmental impacts unless disposed of in accordance with State solid waste regulations. Plans of disposal procedures and/or anticipated re-use of materials should be sub­ mitted to the State solid waste management program (Division of Solid Waste, Kentucky State Department of Public Health, 275 East Main Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601) for approval. Approval should be obtained before work is started. Solid waste disposal sites probably exist in both the area to be water- inundated and the adjacent public use lands. These disposal sites, if not correctly operated and properly located, could be sources of degradation of water quality, air quality, public health, and aesthetic values. Those sites within the project area which will continue to be used after the project's completion should be permitted and/or approved by the State solid waste management agency; these sites within the project area which will be water-inundated should be closed or relocated in a manner approved by the State solid waste management agency.

The influx of population and increased commercial/industrial activities due to and associated with construction will most likely increase the amount of solid waste generated and thus, increase the load on existing solid waste collection and disposal facilities. Project personnel should discuss such expected increases with appropriate State and local solid waste management officials so that they may be incorporated into State and local solid waste management planning.

Unless provisions are made for solid waste collection and disposal prior to completion of the waterway and associated recreational areas, the solid waste management servicing such areas will most likely reflect an "after­ thought" solution to a problem rather than an engineered and planned opera­ tion. Provisions for waterway traffic solid waste disposal are called for to prevent water pollution and health and aesthetic problems..

If some consideration is not given to solid waste management for the recrea­ tional area prior to project initiation, the result will most likely have an adverse environmental impact for some time in the future.

There will probably be no significant adverse effect on the long-range ambient air quality. However, there may be a short-term adverse effect if vegetation from land clearing and construction materials are disposed of by open burning. If these materials are disposed of in this manner, it should be done in accordance with applicable State air pollution control regulations.

We would appreciate a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement when it is available. If we can be of help to you in any way, please call on us.

Sincerely,

rjacK E . Kavan Regional Administrator Kentucky Program Development Office The Capitol Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Louie B. Nunn Governor January 17, 1972

Colonel John T. Rhett District Engineer Louisville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Re: Historic Sites Draft Environmental Statement Camp Ground Lake Salt River Basin, Kentucky

Dear Colonel Rhett:

The Statewide Survey of Historic Sites in Kentucky was certified by the Kentucky Historic Preservation Review Board March 2, 1971, as the Official Survey for Historic Preservation in Kentucky. As the State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation, I do accept the survey in its entirety.

The subject environmental statement identifies 309 historic sites in the 10 counties covering most of the Salt River Basin. However, our concern is primarily with those sites below or near the 660 flood control pool elevation which may be affected.

Neither the maps submitted with the environmental statement nor the Survey of Historic Sites are of sufficient detail to locate historic properties near or below the 660 flood control elevation. Furthermore, the statement indicates that no historical properties will be affected except for removal of the two covered bridges. This was confirmed by telephone with a member of your staff.

As State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation, I support the ' principles of the statement in general. However, after your planning has progressed to the point of identifying properties to be acquired, if any historic properties are identified for acquisition or otherwise affected in addition to the two covered bridges, this should be brought to the attention of either myself, the Kentucky Heritage Commission, or the local historical associations. I have been unable to get a reading on the interest in the covered bridges at this time. I trust that the opportunity for discussing their relocation will remain open. Should it become necessary to identify historic properties on more detailed maps and comment thereon, a meeting with staff from my office, the Kentucky Heritage Commission, and local historical associations can be arranged.

Siifcerely yours,

o s e p h M. Gray Administrator

cc: Kentucky Heritage Commission UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506 Lathel F. Duffield COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

January 19, 1972

•Colonel John T. Rhett District Engineer Corps of Engineers, Dept, of the Armv Louisville District P.O. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201 Re: Camp Ground Lake Project Dear Col. Rhett:

As usual in projects of this type our records are not wholly adequate to giye a definitive statement concerning the impact of the project on the state's archeolorical resources. No known archeological sites will be affected. This is not to say that archeological sites will not be destroyed but that our information for that particualr area is not complete enougn to refer to SDecific sites. It is highly likely, considering the number of sites present in the surrounding area that there will be some site^witnin the reservoir nroper. It is recommended that before construction commences that an archeological survey of the affected area be made.

Sincerely,

Lathel F. IDliffield Director, Museum of Anthropology United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND W ILDLIFE PCACMTRCE-KVCNTH WJIUMNO ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

January 28, 1972

District Engineer U .S. Army, Corps o f Engineers P.0, Box 59 L o u is v ille , Kentucky 1+0201

Dear S ir :

This is in response to your November 18, 1971, letter requesting com­ ments on the preliminary draft environmental statement for Camp Ground Lake, Salt River Basin, Kentucky. Our comments are submitted in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act o f 1969 (P u b lic Law 9 1- 19 0 ).

Consideration of fish and w ildlife aspects appear to be generally in accordance with this Bureau's fish and w ildlife letter reports dated November 2 , 1 9 6 5 , and J u ly 26, 19 6 8 . Our November 2 , 1 9 6 5 , rep o rt was of a reconnaissance nature for your use in determining the economic feasibility of the reservoir. The July 26, 19 6 8 , letter was a detailed report for projects under consideration in the basin for use in prepara­ tion of the survey report for.the Salt River Basin, Kentucky.

Since our last report, certain modifications of the project, including land acquisition and a subimpoundment, have been made. These added features could possibly affect locally important fish and wildlife values not considered in previous basin studies. Any environmental statement prepared at this time should be worded to indicate these possibilities.

The following comments, based on previous studies, sire presented for your consideration.

1 . Project Description

Page 1. We suggest adding a brief paragraph relating this project to a ll other water-development projects considered in your basin study, including their present status. 2 . Environmental Setting Without the Project

Page U, last paragraph, last sentence. Add freshwater drum to the list of rough fish.

3 . The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

Page 6, second paragraph, sixth sentence. We suggest rewording this sentence, or adding a sentence, to indicate the extent of timber clearing above the seasonal pool.

Page 6, third paragraph, fourth and fifth sentences. We suggest changing this to read: "Deposition of sediment in the reservoir w ill lower the quality of the reservoir fish habitat, but occasion the discharge of relatively sediment-free water downstream." The reduction of sediment in the ta il waters is expected to improve habitat conditions for fish downstream for a considerable distance; however, high discharges from the reservoir could result in some channel scouring to the detriment of the riverine habitat.

Page 7 , f i r s t p aragraph .' The subimpoundraent fe a tu re was app aren tly not a part of the basin plan during the Bureau's investigation. We believe the last sentence in this paragraph is too positive. A state­ ment indicating that the environmental impact of such a feature would be determined during detailed study should suffice.

Page 7> third paragraph. We note fee acquisition for the project is increased from 15,350 acres to 18,550 acres of land. This apparently is the result of advanced studies since data was supplied for the fish and w ildlife basin study.

U. Any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Proposal Be Implemented

Page 8, first paragraph, following second sentence. We suggest adding: "Habitat quality w ill be reduced on an additional 5,000 acres from periodic storage of floodwater." Also any effects from timber clearing above seasonal pool should be covered.

Page 8, first paragraph, third sentence. Insert ’'moderate value" in front of stream fishery.

5 . Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Page 10, second paragraph. We assume "channel improvement" refers to stream channelization. If this is the case, the paragraph is very good. However, alternatives such as snagging and minor clearing and/or floodways should be investigated. 7 . Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented

Page 11, third sentence in section. Change to read: "A total of 50 miles of natural stream environment of moderate fishery value would be replaced by a lake at seasonal pool elevation.”

Page 11, fourth sentence in section. We suggest rewording this sen­ tence to read: "W ildlife habitat in the project area is of moderate value and primarily sustains populations of small game."

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your draft environmental statement and w ill be available to assist with detailed planning.

Sincerely yours,

Regional Director LETTERS RECEIVED BY

THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AS A

RESULT OF COORDINATION OF THE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 ER-72/748

September 21, 1972

Dear General Clarke:

This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1972, requesting our views and comments on a proposed report and environmental statement for the Salt River Basin, Kentucky.

The proposed improvement will not impact on any existing or proposed units of the National Park System. Further, it will not impact on any sites eligible or proposed for inclusion in the National Landmark Program.

The mineral^ resources of this basin are primarily lime­ stone, dolmite, sand, gravel, miscellaneous clay and cement. No mineral production was reported from Wash­ ington County (1969) and the limestone production from Anderson and Nelson Counties is located outside of the reservoir area and would not be impacted upon by this project.

The proposed report indicates that fish and wildlife is a project purpose and that fish and wildlife features will require cost sharing. However, we cannot ascertain which features are subject to cost sharing and which features are deemed to be mitigation measures not subject to cost sharing. We have assumed that the multilevel intake, flow releases and lands acquired for fish and wildlife are mitigation features not subject to cost sharing. Identification of those fish and wildlife features subject to cost sharing would be desirable.

Our Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has not made a study of the project although it has general familiarity from its participation in the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study. Based upon our review we find there is a need for the recreation opportunities which this project would provide and the recreation use, benefits and costs ascribed to the project are consistent with the level of development proposed. The recreation and fish and wildlife plan is in accord with the outdoor recreation plan of the State of Kentucky, which also shows a need for all types of recreation in the development district in which this project is located.

The project, as now formulated, has recreation and fish and wildlife benefits in excess of 50 percent of the total project benefits. Page H-7 of the feasibility report indicates that the sum of the allocated cost to recrea­ tion and fish and wildlife exceeds the sum allocated to water supply and flood control; the project does not include^allocations of cost to irrigation, power or navigation as they are not project purposes. In view of the qualifications set forth in Section 9 of the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act (P.L. 89-72) we assume that Congress will be advised of the dominant role that the recreation and fish and wildlife functions have on the economic justification and cost sharing for this proposal.

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for this proposal and submit the following comments for your consideration and use in preparing a final statement. Environmental Setting

The draft statement makes no mention of the mineral resources or their development in the study area. We : believe the final statement should discuss the mineral resources in order to demonstrate that this resource base was considered in the environmental impact appraisal. This discussion can also point out the abundant supply of limestone in the surrounding area and indicate the reservoir impoundment would only have a minor effect on the resources.

In the third paragraph on page 28, Appendix 3, it states that the topography of the area is of moderate relief with some steep slopes and resistent ledges formed by shale outcrops. The same paragraph also states that the shale content of the limestone has restricted the develop­ ment of typical karst features. It is not clear if there is any karst development. It also appears that a con- dition of unstable slopes due to differential weathering of the interbedded^limestone and shale exists. The natural slope stability and the effect of construction the existence of a dam and reservoir on the slope stability should be discussed in the environmental statement. The effect of the project on karst areas, if any, should also be discussed. We have nothing to add to the discussion on the hydrologic aspects of the project.

We believe the discussion on archeological resources could be given stronger emphasis in the final statement. The need for an archeological survey of the reservoir site is recognized and one is recommended in the section entitled "Coordination with Others" by the University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology. We recommend that the final statement contain the results of such a survey and whatever mitigation measures would be necessary to avoid or minimize damage to this resource base.

Alternatives

This section of the final statement could be expanded. Alternatives such as snagging and minor stream bank clearing and/or the development of floodways could be described and discussed as to their environmental effectiveness.

We wish to thank you for the opportunity to review the report and environmental statement for this proposal.

Sincerely yours,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the i/terior Lt. General F. J. Clarke Chief of Engineers Attn: DAEN-CWP-D Department of the Army Washington, D. C. 20 3m DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON. D. C. 20250

22 August 1972 Honorable Robert F. Froehlke . Secretary of the Army

Dear Mr. Secretary:

This is in reply to the Chief of Engineers * letter of June 8, 1972, transmitting for our’review and comment his proposed report and pertinent papers, including the draft environmental statement, on the Salt River Basin, Kentucky. The report provides for the authorization of the Camp Ground Dam and Lake on Beech Fork in Washington, Nelson, and Anderson Counties, Kentucky, for the purposes of flood control, water supply, water quality improvement, recreation, fish and wildlife, and redevelopment.

The project would result in the acquisition of 2,750 acres of woodland. However, it is difficult to determine from the report how much woodland will be,cleared and how much will be maintained and managed. It is possible that part of the area may contain species of trees which are compatible with the expected seasonal flooding and other planned uses of the area. We recommend the development of a management plan for the acquired woodland to identify the opportunity to | maximize the scenic and productive value of the resource.

We note that the Forest Service was not afforded the opportunity of reviewing the preliminary draft environmental statement. In view of the Forest Service expertise, we suggest that preliminary statements on projects affecting the forest resource be sent to them for review.

Comments on the draft environmental statement are enclosed.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this material. I Sincerely,

I. K. CoWsn Assistant Sooretary

Enclosure Additional Comments on Draft Environmental Statement

Camp Ground Lake Salt River Basin, Kentucky

The draft environmental statement could be improved by providing information on the acreage and value of forest resources affected by the project.

The discussion on page 9 of the adverse environmental effects of pool drawdown between the flood control pool and the seasonal pool could be improved by a similar discussion of the effects of exposed land between the seasonal and minimum pool. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING ADDRESS: U S. COASTGUARD (GWS) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 400 SEVENTH STREET SW. ' WASHINGTON. D C. 20S90 p h o n e : 202/426/2262

20 July 1972 Lt. General F. J. Clarke Chief of Engineers Department of the Army Washington, D. C. 20314

Dear General Clarke:

This is in response to your letter of 8 June 1972 addressed to Secretary Volpe, concerning the draft environmental impact state­ ment, feasibility report and other pertinent papers on the Camp Ground Lake, Salt River Basin, Kentucky.

The concerned operating administrations and sta ff of the Department of Transportation have reviewed the material submitted and the Office of Highway Operations, Federal Highway Administration made the following comments:

"We note that the project w ill require the relocation of several routes on the Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid systems and that the cost of this work is considered a project cost.

"We also note that the proposed relocations are being coordinated with the Kentucky Department of Highway and the local highway authorities."

The Department o f T ran sp ortatio n has no fu rth e r comments to o ffe r on the draft statement and we have no objection to this project.

The opportunity to review and comment on the draft statement and feasibility report for the Camp Ground Lake project is appreciated.

S in c e re ly ,

W. M. BENKERT Chief, Office of Marine Environment and Systems DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20201

July 25, 1972

F. J. Clarke Lieutenant General, USA Chief of Engineers Department of the Army Washington, D. C. 20314

Dear Lieutenant General Clarke:

Secretary Richardson has asked me to respond to your letter of June 8, 1972, wherein you requested comments on the proposed report and draft environmental Impact statement for the Salt River Basin, Kentucky.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has reviewed the health aspects of the above project as presented In the documents submitted. We offer no comments.

The opportunity to review the proposed report and draft environ­ mental Impact statement Is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Merlin K. DuVal, M.D. Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV 1421 Peachtree St., M.tAtl.mt.i, Georgid 3030J

July 18, 1972

Lieutenant F. J. Clarke Chief of Engineers Department of the Army Office of the Chief of Engineers Washington, D, C. 20314

Dear General Clarke:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Camp.Ground Lake, Salt River Kentucky and find it adequate at this stage of plan development. However, additional studies,' as noted in the Statement, will be necessary to insure that project goals can be achieved without danger of water quality impairment.

As noted in our earlier correspondence, the need for and value of water quality storage at the reservoir site should be re-evaluated prior to final design. However, we concur with the statement that in the event water quality storage needs are reduced, any storage capacity currently designated for this purpose be re-allocated to other project purposes if justified.

Although the effect of the impoundment on sedimentation is covered in Chapter 3 (Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action), the effects of the reservoir environment on other water quality para­ meters are not given. Compared 'with the free-flowing stream, overall water temperatures can be expected to increase, particularly at the surface, which will reduce the water's assimilative capacity for oxygen. Also, the reservoir environment will act as a nutrient and sedimentation trap and algae growths will increase.

The degree to which soil conservation measures are applied on the watershed and the degree of treatment given to domestic and industrial wastes entering the reservoir watershed will largely determine water quality values within the reservoir. Furthermore, the removal of trees and shrubs from inundated portions of the reservoir would remove one important source of organic material. Therefore, we feel it is important that a clearing program be included in the final plans to insure that water quality values in and below the reservoir will meet water quality standards, particularly with regard to oxygen content. In Chapter 2, Page 4, the quantity of water to maintain water quality standards of Beech Fork below Bardstown in the year 2020 is given as 108 cubic feet per second. This is the summer flow estimated by the Evansville Field Station of the U. S. Department of Health for maintaining water quality standards and based on water quality standards in effect at the time of the report which is dated April 1966. Although the degree of treatment (85% BOD removal) is presently the same as used in the report, the minimum oxygen requirements have been upgraded from 3mg/l to 4mg/l, with an average of 5mg/l per calendar day instead of the 5mg/l during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour period. Since the augmentation quantities were supposedly figured to meet BOD and minimum oxygen requirements, the value given should be checked to see whether they are still applicable.

If clearing and construction wastes are disposed of by open burning it should be in accordance with State air pollution standards. Also the source of power for operating the facility after completion should be discussed, including its expected impact upon the ambient air quality. In addition, all sources that affect the ambient air quality should be identified, the pollutant listed by name, the expected emission from its use, and the expected impact upon the ambient air quality.

Finally, we note the applicant's concurrence with our comments on the Preliminary Draft Statement on January 3, 1972 relating to solid waste disposal. We suggest that these provisions be included in the Final Statement.

If we can be of further assistance to you please let us know, and when the Final Environmental Impact Statement is available, please send us a copy.

S in ce re ly ,

Jack E. Ravan Regional Administrator W e n d e l l H . Fo r d T h o m a s O. Ha r r is GOVERNOR C ommissioner

Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Natural Resources

Frankfort, Ky. aoooi

TtLCPHONC (902) 994-3350

September 11, 1972

Lieutenant General F.J. Clarke Chief of Engineers Department of the Army Washington, D. C. 20202

Dear General Clarke:

The Commonwealth of Kentucky is currently undergoing a reorgan­ ization of the environmental facets of our State Government, and responsibility redesignations are responsible for our lengthy delay in response to your letter of June 8, 1972, with attached "Salt River Survey Report" and " Draft Envir­ onmental Statement." This by no means denotes any lack of interest in the development of the water resources of Salt River Basin, nor a lack of con­ currence in findings as set forth in the reports.

We are in agreement with the findings of the "Salt River Survey Report," and particularly in the recommendation of authorization of the pro­ posed Camp Ground Lake project. We find the Draft Environmental Statement for the Camp Ground Lake to accurately set forth the conditions in the project area and the effects of the proposed project on the environment of the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the report.

Sin cerely ,

THOMAS O . HARRIS Commissioner

TOHrbt NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

1020 L 20TH STREET, OWENSBORO, KENTUCKY 42301 (502) 683-1849

August 27, 1972

District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Re: Draft Environmental Statement for Camp Ground Lake, Salt River Basin, Kentucky

Dear Sir:

This in reply to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Camp Ground Lake project in the Salt River Basin., Kentucky.

As is our usual procedure, vre have referred the Camp Ground Lake project to our Louisville Audubon Society, which is the closest chapter to the project. Attached are their comments and recommendations which are highly endorsed by the National Audubon Society.

Sinaeral

'^nnL jfriarisen entral Midwest Representative

Enclosure cc: Russell Train, Charles Callison-National Audubon LOUISVILLE AUDUBON SOCIETY

A c h a p t e r w

MRS. MICHAEL BARRY Executive Secretary 2140 LAKESIDE DRIVE LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40205 August 21, 1972

Colonel John Rhett, District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District Louisville P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 1+0201

Dear Colonel Rhett,

The Louisville Audubon Society wishes to generally re-inforce its position on the Salt River Basin dams as stated in a letter to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Washington, D. C. on February 28, 1972.

The flood p i* belongs to the river. Flooding problems are self inflicted when man builds in the flood plain. In the urbanized areas levees should be constructed to protect commercial property and residences. In the agricultural countryside the flood plain should be purchased and either allowed to be used by the public or permitted, without fee, to be utilized by the former farm owner for crops or grazing if he so wishes. Silt is a major contributor to unnatural flooding and farmers who continue to utilize the flood plain should be encouraged to engage in good soil conservation practices.

Normal flooding is a natural function in the ecology of a stream. The water flow, aquatic species and plant and wildlife of a stream biotope create a successful, harmonious adjustment to the seasonal flooding that occurs naturally. We too must adjust to the beneficial functions of our waterways and refrain from altering them to man's immediate supposed needs, for in the long run we w ill fa il, and succeed only in compounding these s e l f in flic te d problems.

We again question the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to participate in projecting economic growth based on mutilation of free flowing streams and rivers.

A single purpose municipal reservoir for water supply is reasonable, if constructed adjacent to the free flowing stream. The Kentucky Pollution Abatement Authority has the power to help communities bu ild sewage tmatment f a c i l i t i e s , and the Federal government w ill provide additional funds to this "seed money". (H.B.338, 1972 General Assembly). We are pleased to note that channelization is not recommended and "would have drastic environmental results." The Louisville Audubon Society suggests that the flood plain, which the Corps of Engineers is equipped to delineate, be purchased and set aside for stream re-creation and/or continued use by previous farm owners, and that floodwalls or levee embankments shield towns and that public water supply reservoirs be constructed where needed and the Camp Ground Dam and Lake be abandoned as u n feasib le, based on short and long term ecological, economic and sociological considerations. Sincerely, Ms. Winifred Hepler, ^//fW itC hannelization Committee