25 February 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
East Fork Lake East Fork Little Miami River, Ohio
Prepared by U. S. Army Engineer District, Louisville Louisville, Kentucky DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOUISVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P O BOX 5 9 LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY 40201
25 February 1971 Revised 26 March 1971
SUMMARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT EAST FORK LAKE EAST FORK MIAMI RIVER, OHIO
1. Coordination With Other Agencies.
Date of Date of AGENCY Request Comment s
Soil Conservation Service USDA 9 Oct 1970 27 Oct 1970
Federal Water Quality Administration, EPA 9 Oct 1970 4 Jan 1971
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wild life, USD I 9 Oct 1970 28 Oct 1970
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI 9 Oct 1970 No comments received
National Park Service, USDI 10 Sept 1970 22 Sept 1970 9 Oct 1970
Ohio Department of Natural Resources 9 Oct 1970 23 Nov 1970
Ohio Planning and Development Clearinghouse 14 Oct 1970 23 Nov 1970
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority (Comments furnished by Clermont County Planning Commission at request of O-K-I) 14 Oct 1970 16 Nov 1970 ORLPD-F East Fork Miami River, Ohio
2 * Environmental Impacts. Approximately 10,600 acres of land will be required for the project, with 2,160 acres of water surface at seasonal pool elevation. The ecology of the area would be modified to adjust to the slack water impoundment. Environment downstream would be enhanced by flood control, water quality control, and water supply. Agricultural lands will be inundated. Urbanization of the area can be expected to increase rapidly.
3 * Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided. At seasonal pool elevation, approximately 2,160 acres of primarily agricultural land would be inundated, and 12 miles of scenic free-flowing stream would be converted to a slack-water lake. The area's ecosystem would be modified and a decrease in wildlife population would result. An adverse psycho logical and sociological impact will occur to many of the people displaced by the project.
ternatives. Ncn-structural alternatives were unable to meet water quality, water supply, or recreational needs, and, in this area, have only limited value for flood control. A site 1.5 miles downstream from the selected site was investigated, but was more costly and would inun date more land. Five alternative scales of development were tested to ascertain the plan which would maximize the net benefits accruing to the project.
5. This is an administrative action; the project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 (Public Law No. 761, 75th Congress, First Session). The project was initially funded for construction in 1967, and is estimated to be 147. complete. East Fork Lake East Fork Little Miami River, Ohio
1 - Project Description. The East Fork damsite is located on the East Fork of the Little Miami River about 21 miles above its confluence with the main stem and about twenty-five air miles east of Cincinnati Ohio Water will be impounded in Batavia, Tate and Williamsburg townships, Clermont County, Ohio. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 28 June 1938 (Public Law No. 761 75th Congress, First Session) for flood control purposes only. Post authorization changes have resulted in addition of water supply, water quality control and recreation purposes. The project will provide flood control in the East Fork of Little Miami River Vaney and will operate as a unit of tte general lake plan for the Ohio River basin. In addition, it will provide storage space for municipal and industrial water supply and for water quality control, and will provide for recreation and fish and wildlife activities. A dam at this location will control a drainage area of approximately 340 square miles and provide a .;J-°?d cont?01 P001 surface area of 4,600 acres. A multiple level outlet will be provided. The benefit to cost ratio is 2.0 to 1.0. The East Project was initially funded for construction in Fiscal Year 1967 and is estimated to be about 14# complete.
2 : Ssyironmental Setting Without the Project. Topography in the damsite vicim-ty-ds -characterized by broad relatively flat drainage divides with numerous small streams and little relief. The watershed lies wholly within the glaciated region of Ohio. Bedrock in the area is composed of the Eden and Maysville groups. The type of rock in both formations is interbedded soft to moderately hard calcareous shale and hard crystalline f°sff1:i£!ro?s liraestone. Structurally, the area is located on the crest of the Cincinnati arch, and, for all practical purposes, the beds are flat lying. East Fork is considered to be one of the finest examples of a natural limestone stream in Ohio. The presence of the freshwater mussels indicate the water quality is good, since that type of aquatic life tolerates little pollution. Despite summer low flow ceasing altogether.during drought periods, the fishery resource is good and includes small mouth bass, spotted bass, rock bass, channel catfish, suckers, and carps. This resource is only moderately utilized due to limited access to the stream and its tributaries. Along the streambanks, characteristic riparian vegetation consists of sycamore, willow, cottonwood, elm, and box elder with members of the mixed mesophytic forest occupying the slopes above * the river. The woods above the flood plain contain beech, sugar maple and basswood with a fairly uniform ground cover. In the upland areas/ttere are extensive woods of white and red oak and several different hickories. Many old-field communities occur with ragweed, ironweed, grasses end annual predominating. Present land use consists of medium sized farms with corn and soybean the main crops.' However, in the lake area many * of these farm lands are idle, and support the previously mentioned old-field communities. The old-field communities and associated croplands support medium to abundant populations of quail, rabbit, raccoon and pheasants as the major game species in this area. The lake area is generally free of the usual pollution problems except for some occasional litter area. There is one small archaeological site known as the Elk Lick Mound located within the' East‘"Fork pool area. 3 ‘ Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. Construction of the East Fork Lake project would convert approximately 10,600 acres of land from private to public use, and would change the character of the area from a rural agricultural environment to a water related outdoor recrea tion park-like environment. This plan would dedicate about 4,600 acres o surface at flood control poox elevation, and approximately 2,160 acres of water surface at seasonal pool elevation, for project purposes. The environmental setting for communities and residents along the East Fork of the Little Miami River, and the Little Miami River would be benefited, by virtue of the contribution of this lake project to flood control. Although the present quality of the water in most of the stream is.considered good during normal flow, storage of water for low flow augmentation in the lake insures that such quality downstream from the dam will remain. This is of particular importance because of the projected expansion of the nearby Cincinnati Metropolitan area. Additionally, storage of water for low flow augmentation will insure a continued flow of water during periods of drought or low inflow. Residents of the surrounding area, and particularly residents of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, would gain a valuable recreation facility.
Inundation of the 17 mile reach of East Fork (flood pool elevation) would result in a change of the ecology upon which present flora and fauna in that area are based. Additionally, the agricultural bottomland for that reach would be eliminated. A modification of the ecosystem would result s^nce the aquatic habitat would be altered from lotic (free flowing) to lentic (slack water).
Because of flood control provided downstream from the project, the availa bility of a firm yield water supply, the availability of relatively high water quality and existence of a nearby recreation area, urbanization can be expected to increase rapidly. If this occurs, audio, air, water, and visual pollution will probably result.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects on the Environment. The maintenance of a seasonal pool in this plan would inundate approximately 2,160 acres of land primarily utilized for agricultural purposes. Approximately 12 miles of free flowing stream would be converted to a slack water lake. At flood pool elevation, 4,600 acres of land would be inundated and approximately 17 miles of free flowing East Fork would be converted to slack water. As a result of such action, the ecosystem characteristic of a free flowing stream will be replaced by one characteristic of slack water lakes. Develop ments which occur as a result of this project will probably cause a decrease in wildlife population. The existing stream fishery will be destroyed within the limits of the seasonal pool and probably will be somewhat changed in character for some distance above the seasonal pool due to slow down of flow. A scenic stretch of the East Fork,which has remained virtually unchanged for some time, will be inundated. The lake development, influx of visitors and the pursuit of recreation activities resulting from this project would ’ destroy the tranquility which presently prevails. An adverse psychological and sociological impact will occur to many of the people displaced by the project. J 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action. The early detailed project studies were conducted on a site about 6 miles upstream from Batavia, and this was the site selected for project authorization. As detailed studies progressed, the project storage was increased to fulfill other project purposes. With this in mind, a site about 1.5 miles downstream from the authorized site was examined and studied. At the authorized site, the S-shaped stream valley is narrow and cut down more than 200 feet below the flat or surrounding toplands. This site for the dam was selected in the downstream portion of the S-shaped reach in the narrow section, and the valley broadens both upstream and downstream from this point. A low saddle in the divide ridge will require closing with the dam; however, this is offset by the high and narrow divided ridge nearby which provides an opportunity for construction of an economical spillway. The foundation explorations for the dam location, spillway and saddle dam indicates favorable conditions for construction.
The alternate downstream site is near the location where the Little Miami River makes a sharp bend with tne concave side to the northeast. Because of the sharpness of the bend, either a straight alignment with tunneling or a curved alignment with an open cut was indicated for the conduit. A narrow dike about 2,000 feet long would be required, extending eastward from the right end of the dam. An open cut spillway would be located about one mile northeast of the right end of the dam and would accept overflow from the lake through Slabcamp Run.
Comparison of the two sites indicated the length of dam required is much greater for the downstream site. Since the height of dam is roughly the same in each case, the downstream site would require a much greater amount of fill. The volume of excavation in this spillway is considerably larger and the average haul distance "between the downstream site spillway and dam site is much greater. The cost of the downstream site is therefore greater than for the authorized site, and the latter was recommended.
At the adopted site, two different types of dam were considered, an earth dam and a concrete dam. The concrete gravity dam, with overflow spillway, was considered on the same alignment as that for the earth dam except that the alignment was shifted slightly to provide the shortest length of dam. Comparison of cost for the two dams indicated the concrete dam would be approximately twice tlie cost of the earth dam.
The scale of project development was tested for range between a single flood control structure with spillway at 765 feet msl to a multi-purpose structure with spillway crest at 785 feet msl. Plan 1, the smallest scale of development considered, was a single purpose flood control lake with spillway at 765 feet msl, and included only a silt pool and a flood control pool. For Plan 2, additional flood control capacity is added to ' ^ Plan 1 with resulting increase in net benefits. For Plan 3, the operating ''schedule for Plan 2. was modified to provide seasonal pool for recreation use and yielded an increase in net benefits. For Plan 4 , the addition of 31,400 acre feet for water quality and water supply uses to Plan 3 increased net benefits. Plan 5 included allocation of additional storage to water quality and water supply uses,and .resulted in the maximum excess of benefits over cost, and therefore is the recommended plan. The selected site is favorable to development of storage for essentially complete control of runoff in the drainage area, making it possible to provide storage capacity for water supply, water quality, flood control and recreation. Due to the type of protection required, levee protection is not practical nor feasible. Zoning of the flood plain would stop further encroachment but could only reduce future flood damage but would not alleviate present flood damages. Relieving flood damages by evacuation would be costly and would meet only one major need of the area. Non-structural measures cannot meet projected water quality, water supply, recreational needs, and, m this area, have only limited value for flood control purposes.
Ite fej-ationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment 5 Sd the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. Implementa- tion of the East Fork project would result in several major changes t0 ?se of man’s environment and productivity. Under pre-project onditions, the Lower East Fork Valley is a scenic area of open and/or green space near the rapidly expanding metropolitan area of Cincinnati Several smaller urban communities are in the immediate downstream flood plain. The higher level flood protection in this area would accelerate conversion of agricultural lands to an urbanized area. Average annual ll0<£ ? L Prer ^ n benefits occurring to the project are estimated t $1,033,000. Positive action by local interest could retain open and green spaces in the lower valley. Additionally, development of a lake project with storage for water oriented recreation and fishing would result i n a change in land use from moderate agricultural productivity and the natural habitat for wildlife, to a highly attractive water body which could be utilized for outdoor recreation activities. Ultimately the project is estimated to provide for about 2,700,000 visitors annually Z 1UeS assoclated these opportunities are estimated ' at $2,073,000. The available firm yield water supply, and good water quality, would further accelerate man’s desire to develop nearby community. Water quality and water supply benefits are estimated to total $443 000 annually Construction and operation of the lake will provide redevelopment t0 thS surroundin£ area, and these benefits are estimated at $144,000 on an average annual basis. In summary, construction of the project would inundate some present agricultural lands,but would improve the production potential downstream due to flood control and water supply m low flow augmentation. The project would assist in area redevelopment and provide a fish and wildlife in general recreation area near the rapidlv expanding Cincinnati area. v
^ • & W Irreversible and Irretreivable Commitments of Resources Which Wbulri Eg..Involved In tte Proposed Action Should it be Implemented. At seasonal pool elevation, the project would destroy approximately 2 ,16 0 acres of habitat which provides food and cover for wildlife, as well as 12 miles of free flowing stream with its associated ecological system. At flood pool elevation, comparable losses would be 4 , 6 0 0 acres and 17 miles of free flowing East Fork. This modification of a free flowing aquatic habitat to a flat water habitat would cause some disruption, and necessitate a modification in the ecosystem. The resulting assurance of a flood free land below the dam may well result in a significant loss of open green space since its proximity to the Cincinnati metropolitan area will undoubtly foster a large amount of development. There will also be a utilization of labor capital, management and materials used for project construction. ination With Other Agencies. During the planning process, coordi- nation was maintained v/ith various Federal and non-Federal agencies. These agencies and their comments or 'contributions on various aspects of the project are as follows:
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, USPHS, USDHEW (now FV/QA, EAP) water quality and water supply appraisal.
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI - fish and wildlife resources
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI - evaluated recreation use benefits and cost.
Bureau of Public Roads, USDC-road relocations.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources - desired storage for water supply
Ohio Department of Highways - road relocation
During pre-construction planning, and after extensive study of the East Fork project, the Cincinnati Chapter of the Isaac Walton League recommended that the plans as proposed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for a multi-pumose dam and recreation area be adopted.
In early September 1970, the Soil Conservation Service, Federal Water Quality Administration, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service, and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources were asked to comment on the East Fork project in light of interest expressed by the National Environmental Quality Policy Act of 1969. By letter, dated 9 October 1970, these agencies were furnished preliminary draft copies of this five-point environmental statement required by Public Law 91-190, and were asked to express their views and opinions on this statement/ By letter, dated 14 October 1970, drafts of this statement were sent to the Planning and Developing Clearing House, Office of the Governor of Ohio, and to the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority, both agencies are listed in Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-95.
Many of the comments received were editorial in nature and have been incorporated into the statement. The more important comments are summarized below:
a. NATIONAL, PARK SERVICE. ITSDT.
Comment: Contracts for salvage of one archaeological site will be let with the Ohio State Historical Society if funds permit.
ftesponse: Within work limits and schedules, construction schedules and activities will be made available to assure that every opportunity for salvage and/or protection of the site by NPS is provided. b. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. USDA.
Comment: Concur in statement presentation, recommend expanding on enhancement aspect of permanent pool for forest wildlife.
Response! General theme of suggestion included in report.
c. BUREAU OF SPORTS FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE. USDI.
Comment l':Recommended a specific fish and wildlife management program be implemented.
Response: This is a valid requirement, and such a program will be supported in developing the joint recreation and management plan with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
Comment 2:Furnished additional information on present environmental setting.
Response: A summary of information contained in this comment has been incorporated into the report.
Comment 3 ;Applies to portions of the draft environmental statement which were changed during revision.
Comment A iFurnished additional adverse effects; i.e., lake will inundate one of the most scenic stretches of East Fork and increase audio and air pollution, erosion and siltation can be expected.
Response: Statements were generally incorporated into the revised report.
Comment ^ -They proposed an alternative of setting aside much of East Fork Valley as a semi-primitive area, build small lakes and cabins in the uplands, and establish flood plains as greenbelts.
Response: This is not a viable alternative to the proposed project since water supply, water quality, and water based recreation needs would not be served. The amounts of land in the flood plain area which would require purchase for the greenbelt would be extensive, and damages would still result to urban areas downstream. There would be an adverse psy chological impact on those displaced as a result of the purchase of the recreation and greenbelt plans.
Comment" 6 :The Bureau states that one of the natural finest limestone streams and associated valley ecosystems in the Ohio would be lost, and to mitigate such loss, the unique biotic communities within the project area should be identified through joint effort of project associated agencies and scientific communities. They also state that a fish and wildlife management plan must be initiated, and there will be an increase in erosion and siltation resulting from project construction.
Response: Concur in these comments in general. Only a portion of East Fork will be inundated and the total stream will not be lost. Positive steps will be taken to insure the development and implementation of a ' fish and wildlife management plan. Strict controls of construction activities will be instituted to insure that environmental pollution associated with project construction will be held with an absolute minimum.
d. CLERMONT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. CLERMONT COUNTY. OHTD.
These comments were received as a result of a request by the Ohio-Kentucky- Indiana Regional Planning Authority, since the proposed project lies partially within Clermont County.
Comment: Stated comments contained in the statement were quite accurate.
e. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL* RESOURCES.
Comment* furnished subsequent to review by the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Department of Natural Resources, including the Division of Wildlife, Division of Parks and Recreation, and Program and Planning.
Comment: It was the joint opinion of these departments that an objective evaluation of the environmental impact had been presented.
f. FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION. EPA.
Comment 1: Pointed out the need for careful design of multi-level outlet works to prevent downstream water degradation.
Response: Multi-level outlet works are to be provided. The problems associated with the present outlets have been recognized and solutions are under study.
Comment 2: Maintenance of water quality in the area below.the project is particularly important due to the large number of people now and in the future.
Response: Points out need for water quality storage in tte project.
Cgmment 3: Specifications should require careful control of construction practices to prevent unnecessary downstream water quality degradation.
Response: Requirement will be made a part of the contract specifications.
Comment 4: Two partial alternatives to low flow augmentation for water quality control purposes are advanced waste treatment, and collection and transport of waste to a larger stream after secondary treatment.
Rgsponse: As stated, these are only partial alternatives and would not eliminate pollution from difficult to collect wastes. Ftirthermore, such methods are usually costly. EAST FORK LAKE PROJECT AGENCIES CONTACTED
U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 311 Old Federal Building Columbus, Ohio 43215
U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Lake Central Region . 3853 Research Park Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Northeast Region 143 S. Third Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Qualtiy Administration 4 6 7 6 Columbus Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio Departments Building Columbus, Ohio 43215
Office of the Governor Planning and Development Clearinghouse Box 1 0 0 1 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio - Kentucky - Indiana Regional Planning Authority 222 East Central Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION 143 SOUTH THIRO STREET PHILADELPHIA. PA. 19106
September 22, 1970 t
John T. Rhett Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer Department of the Army, Louisville District, c/E P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky t0201
Dear Colonel Rhett:
In reply to your latter addressed to the Regional Director, September 10, 1970, inquiring about environmental impact state ents on East Fork Lake and Caesar Creek lake, both Ohio Corps of Engineers projects, we have the following comments:
History and natural History evaluations can be requested of Daniel R. Porter, Director, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.
Archeological values according to the surveys performed in these two reservoir areas in 1961*- by Raymond S. Baby and Thomas E. Frye consist as follows:
East Fork: One small site, known as the Elk Lick Mound, (33-Ct-lU) to salvage.
Caesar Creek: Three small mounds: R. D. Bunnell Mound (33"Cn-7), Smith Mound (33~"a-h7), and R. L. Anderle Mound (33~Wa“^8)*
If these small sites still exist, and if funds for their salvage are made available in our budget, which is presently inadequate, we shall attempt to contract further with Ohio Historical Society to complete the salvage indicated.
Sincerely yours,
------v - W 1 » 1 Harold I. Less era Federal Liaison, Division of Federal, State & Private Agency Assistance ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOFL CONSEHVATION St:RVICE 311 01c Federal Building Columbus, Ohio
October 27, 1970 John T. Rhett Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer • Department of the Army Louisville District P. 0. Box 59 j Louisville, Kentucky 40201
Dear Colonel Rhett:
We have reviewed the environmental statements for the East Fork Reservoir, East Fork of Little Miami River Ohio and Caesar Creek Reservoir, Casear Creek Tributary of Little Miami River Ohio.
We have no comment to make on the content of these state ments. They describe the environmental effects very well and we find them to be accurate.
As a suggestion, a statement could be included to the effect that the water-land edge effect created by the permanent pool should greatly enhance the forest game habitat in the surrounding area.
Thank you for the opportunity to review these statements. Sincerely,
Robert E. Quilliam /State Conservationist United States Department of the Interior FISH AN D WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 551II October 28, 1970
Colonel John R. Rhett, Jr. District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District Louisville P. 0. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky U0201
Dear Colonel Rhett:
We have reviewed your draft Environmental Statement for the East Fork Reservoir project in Clermont County, Ohio, which was transmitted to us by your letter of October 9, 1 9 7 0 . Our attached comments have been prepared in accordance with provisions of the National Environ mental Policy Act of 19o9. Where applicable, they supplement our Fish and Wildlife Repox'ts of March 9> 19^5 > and February la, 19 0 6 .
Our comments have been developed in cooperation with the Ohio Division of Wildlife. To facilitate cohesiveness, each of your Environmental. Statement headings and subheadings are set forth in quotation marks with our Bureau's comment following each section.
Sincerely
S. E. Jorrco'-rV- • J \. _ / Assistant Regional Director
cc: Ohio Department of Natural Resources "EAST FORK RESERVOIR EAST FORK 0? LITTLE MIAMI PI VSR OHIO"
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
"1* Project Description. The East Fork Reservoir, located in Batavia, Tate and Williamsburg Townsnips, Clermont County, Ohio, vould reduce flood stages downstream from the dan. The East Fork Reservoir controls a drainage area of 31*0 square miles and provides for a flood control pool surface area of 4,600 acres. The project would he operated principally for flood protec- ' tion in tne lower East Fork and Little I'll ami River valleys and as a junit .for flood protection in the Ohio and Mississippi River basins. Other needs which vould be net include water quality, water supply and water-oriented recreational activities."
(l) Bureau of Snort Fisheries and Wildlife Crr-nents: To
assure adequate consideration of fish und wildlife in
land acquisition, construction, developnent, and operation
of the East Fork Reservoir project, a specific fish and
wildlife management program must be implemented.
"2. Environmental Setting Without the Project. The East. Fork Reservoir proj ect area is located approximately 1 5 miles east of Cincinnati, Ohio in a rural area. Terrain of the area ranges from a relatively steep river valley to gently rolling uplands. Along the streambanks characteristic riparian vegetation consisting of sycamore, willow, cottonwood, elm, and box elder with members of the mixed nesophytic forest occupying the slopes above the river. The woods above the flood plain contain beech, sugar maple, and . basswood with a good understory and a fairly uniform ground cover. In the upland areas, there are extensive woods of white, and red oak and several different hickories. Many old-field ccamunlties occur with ragweed, iron- ■ weed, grasses and annuals predominanting.
1 Present land use consists of medium sized farms with corn and soybean being the main crops. However, in the reservoir area many of these farm lands are idle and support the above mentioned old-field communities.
The old field communities and-associated croplands support medium to abundant populations of quail, rabbit, raccoon and pheasants ss the major game species in this area.
Despite summer low stream flow ceasing altogether during drouth periods, the fishery resource is moderately good and consists of smallmouth bass, spotted bass, rock bass, channel catfish, suckers, and carps. This resource is only moderately utilized'due to limited access to the stream and its tributaries. stream excenta?ore^ ° ir fferally free of the usual pollution problems except 2 or some occasional litter areas. Noise pollution and air pollution are almost non-existant in the project area."
Bureau of Snort Fisheries and Wildlife Consent. Despite
runoff extremes, tne Quality of the stream fishery is
considered gcodf not moderately good as you state. Sport
fish species harvested include largemouth bass, smallmouth
bass, spotted bass, rockbass, channel catfish, black bullhead,
suckers, carp, various sunfishes, and occasional yellow
walleye and Ohio muskellur.ge. Many of the 'JO primary species
of freshwater mussels in Ohio can be found in the East Fork.
Since freshwater.mussels tolerate little or no pollution
their presence attests to the good water quality of the stream.
%
A good mix of wildlife habitat in the project area supports
the following wildlife species, listed according to density
and/or range:
cottontail rabbit - medium density bobwhite quail - high density whitetail deer - low density ringneck pheasant - low density ruffed grouse - rare or absent waterfowl . moderate density gray squirrel - primary range fox squirrel - secondary range
The East Fork is one of the finest examples of a natural lime
stone stream in Ohio whose natural! and aesthetic equalities
have remained virtually uncnanged throughout the last century.
The project is located on one of the most unique and scenic
stretches of the East Fork. "3. Impact Statement. The following information is furnished in response to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969*
a. Project Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action.
The proposed plan would provide for approximately 2,l60 acres of water surface at seasonal pool and about 6,000 acres of land in public ownership for present and future generations. The plan would also significantly re duce flood damages to communities, homes and farms in the Lower East Fork and Little Xiami River would improve both the water quality and fishery habitat of these streams below the dam site.
The plan would also provide 2,l60 acres for water-oriented recreation not presently available in the immediate area of the reservoir. Adverse effects are discussed in the following sub-paragraphs'."
Bureau of Snort Fisheries ar.d Wildlife Comment. The last
sentence of the first paragraph under, a. Project Environmental
Impacts of the Proposed Action, lacks continuity. Further
more, to say that, "The plan . . . would improve both the water
quality and fishery habitat of the streams below the dam site.",
is too general a statement upon which to assign specific
fishery improvements. A potentially improved and productive
tailwater fishery is predicated on the nature of the stream
and sound fishery management in conjunction with angler use
facilities and access.
"b. Adverse Environment. The maintenance of a conservation pool in this plan would inundate 2,lo0 acres which both contribute to the environment al setting of the area and provide food and cover for' wildlife. The reser voir would convert 12.miles of free flowing stream to a slack water im poundment. It is expected that as a result of such action, the diverse eco systems characteristic of a free flowing stream will be replaced by one characteristic of slack-water impoundments. There would be no significant losses of archaelogical, historical, - or natural points of value within the reservoir area."
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and wildlife Comment. In addition
to serious fish and wildlife habitat losses, creation of a reservoir will inundate one of the most scenic stretches
of the East Fork vhich is one of the finest examples of an
Ohio limestone stream virtually unchanged throughout the
last century.
Increases in noise and air pollution and erosion and siltation can he expected a3 a result of project implementation#
Alternatives to the Proposed Action. With the exception of no vater resource development at East Fork, there is no other feasible alter native. The estimate of tangible benefits foregone as a result of no de velopment is approximately $U,1 9 3 ,0 0 0 per year and it consists of $ 1 ,8 3 3 ,0 0 0 in prevents ole flood damages, $^3,000 in vater supply and vater quality , benefits, $lU;,000 in redevelopment benefits and an initial loss of 8 6 7 ,0 0 0 nan days of general recreation and fishing opportunities having an estimated monetary loss of 02,073,COO. An ultimate annual visitation vould be about 2,659,000. if the area is extensively developed as a state park, the ul timate annual visitation could exceed four million."
<5) Bureau of Snort Fisheries ar.d Wildlife Comment. Much of the
East Fork Valley could be set aside as a semi-primitive park
retaining its aesthetic and vild values. Compatible cabins
and small lakes could be constructed in the uplands above the
flood plain. With sound land management vater could be held
on the vegetated lands to slovly return to the streams.
Floodplain zoning should be mandatory vhere seasonal high vater
can be expected. Such zoning vould circumvent flooding damages
and save potentially enormous expenditures of public funds
resulting from flood control projects. Floodplains vhich act
as natural overflov areas could be established as "green belts" .
for beautification, aesthetic, and recreational purposes instead
of unnatural development subject to seasonal flood damage.
"
* Tills Project would result In three major changes in the Interest of enhancing the local short-term use of man's environment In lieu of main taining and enhancing the long-term productivity of the lands in the study area. These changes are as follows:
(a) The lower East Fork Valley under pre-project conditions is a very scenic area of open and green space near the rapidly expanding metropolitan area of Cincinnati and of smaller urban communities in its immediate downstream flood plain. The higher level of flood protection in this area would definitely accelerate conversion of agricultural area into an urbanized area. However, the plan would provide for local interests to taxe positive action to retain open and green spaces in the lower valley.
(b) The second change relates to the reservoir area. Develo- opment of a reservoir project with storage for water-oriented recreation and fishing would, result in a change in land use frem moderate agricultural pro- uctivity and a natural habitat for wildlife to a highly attractive water body whicn would satisfy a number of mans' desires for outdoor recreation
(c) An abundant water supply would further accelerate man's de sire to develop nearoy communities which, otherwise, may have reached the practical limit based on a water supply-population demand relationship."
Bureau o f Sport Fisheries and W ild life Comment. In this
current age of environmental awareness it is critically
important to consider the need and advisability of in
creased development which is seriously straining many
' natural resources of this country. Population control,
recycling of natural resources, zoning, and solving of '
social problems are the prerequisites which must be met
to ensure the enhancement of a long-term productivity
of man and his environment. Once these problems are
logically realized and dealt with, such problems as flood
control, water supply, and recreation will for the most part
solve themselves, or require drastically reduced•expenditure
of effort and funds to accomplish.
e• Irreversible and/or Irretrievable Cc^mitment^of^pamirffp^. The ■ irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved if the proposed action should be implemented are: loss of 2 ,16 0 acres of habitats which provide food and cover for wildlife; loss of 12 miles of free flowing stream and its associated ecosystems; increasing development of protected areas downstream; and the commitment of labor and material resources associated with construction of the project."
Bureau of Snort Fisheries ar.d Wildlife Comment. The
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources will
be the loss of one of the finest natural limestone streams
and associated valley ecosystems in Ohio. Such natural
treasures valuable to our culture and aesthetic well-being
are disappearing at an every-increasing national rate,
particularly in industrialized and populous States 6uch as Ohio.
To mitigate such losses the unique biotic communities within
the project area should be identified through the Joint effort
of project-associated agencies and the scientific conznunitie3
and preserved as outdoor nature study area-wildlife sanctuaries.
The loss of wildlife and fishery habitat must be compensated
for and/or enhanced by the development of the reservoir and
tailvater for fishing and by acquisition of specific lands of
a quantity and quality favorable for wildlife management purposes.
Due to increases in erosion and siltation associated with project
construction, silt traps should be constructed to prevent
degradation of downstream fishery habitat and general environ
mental deterioration.
The Ohio Division of Wildlife should be consulted concerning
development of fish and wildlife management plans, particularly
regarding timber and brush clearing. 10 IT Y COUIITY P L A n IT 11? 6 C 0 M il IS 31017 CLERMONT COUNTY COURTHOUSE. BATAVIA, OHIO 45103
Pstar Hacktor, Chairman . Harold 6i%aaniz Jamas Liming Samuel Maham, V ie s -Chairm an Arthur e November 16, 1970 M t. V, Joseph Sorg, Jr. Administering Officer, Ohio Planning *.nd Development Clearinghouse and Director of Planning 65 South Front Street, Box 1001 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Dear Mr, Sorg: On November 10, 1970, Mr. Bruce Brock of the OKI Regional Planning Authority transmitted to me and requested my comments on your agency’s " Environmental Impact Statement ", regarding the East Pork Reservoir. Per Mr. Brock’s request I have reviewed the statement and found your agency’s comments to be quite accurate. Sincerely your6, Harry RI Reed, Jr. Executive Director Clermont County Planning Commission HRR/mm Mr. Bruce Brock STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OHIO DEPARTMENTS BUILDING CO L U M B U S 43215 November 23, 1970 Colonel John T. Rhett District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Louisville Post Office Box 59 L o u is v ille , Kentucky 40201 Dear Colonel Rhett: Reference is made to your draft copies of Environmental State ments for the East Fork and Caesar Creek Reservoir projects furnished for our review and comment with your letter of October 9, 1970. The Ohio Department o f Health and Ohio Department o f Natural Resources, including the Division of W ild life , Division of Parks and Recreation, and Program and Planning, have reviewed these Environmental Statements. It is the jo in t opinion o f these departments that an objective evaluation of the environmental impact has been presented; and these statements generally re fle c t our views. A joint State-Federal contract for recreational site develop ment planning services at East Fork Reservoir and Caesar Creek Reservoir is being finalized. It is hoped that this joint partnership arrangement w ill lead to the development of these projects in such a way'as to attain full utilization of the lands made available for general outdoor recreation and enhancement for fish and w ildlife purposes. It is also hoped that th is jo in t planning e ffo rt w ill preclude overdevelopment which would degrade the potential fo r top quality outdoor experiences. We appreciate the opportunity to review these statements on the East Fork and Caesar Creek projects. Sincerely, FRED E. MORR Di rector Federal Water Quality Admiru'itrc.tior. Ohio Basin Regional Office *1670 Columbia parlrray Cincinnati, Ohio U?226 • JAN 4 1371 Colonel John T'. Fhctt, District Engineer Department of the Army Louisville District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Bex 5 9 Louisville, Kentucky 1<0201 * Dear Colcr.el Bhett: Enclosed in partial response to your requests of October 9, 1 9 7 0 ^ end October 19, 1 9 7 0 are reviews of cnviroaaeiital statements* prepared by your office. • * * * Other reviews will be transmitted as cccoleted. Sincerely yours, E a r i N.' Kari * Regional Director Enclosures * * : ' Comments on Environmental Statements for Hein, Clifty Creek, East Fork, and Big Pine Reservoirs V -^ * COMMENTS ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR EAST FORK RESERVOIR EAST FORK OF LITTLE MIAMI RIVER OHIO Item 1. Project Description The project description does not indicate that multiple-level outlets are to be provided. It is recommended that they be provided and that a statement to this effect be included in the project description. In addition, the statement should indicate that the outlets vill be sized to insure adequate hydraulic capacity from each level. / Item 2. Environmental Setting Without the Project No comment Item 3. a. Project Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action It may be desirable to point out the reach of the East Fork and the ^Little Miami River main stem that would be benefited by improved water quality and improved fishery habitat is in an area that is developing very rapidly and will eventually be heavily urbanized. The maintenance of water quality in such areas is particularly important due to the large number of people affected, yet this is very difficult due to urban runoff and other uncollectable wastes that reach the stream. b. Adverse Environment If the outlet works of the proposed project are not carefully designed to permit release of water from optimum depths, adverse effects to the quality of the water from the reservoir may occur... Without an adequate multi-level outlet arrangement it may be necessary to release water from the bottom of the reservoir, which at times could contain high concentrations of iron and manganese, thus causing a deterioration of water quality downstream. . . The water quality of the East Fork of the Little Miami River and the Little Miami River below the project site will probably be subjected to some degradation during construction due to earthwork involved. This can be minimized by writing the specifications so that they require careful control of construction.practices. c. Alternatives to the Proposed Action There are partial alternatives to low flow augmentation for water quality control purposes. One alternative would be the advanced waste treatment of municipal, domestic and industrial wastes discharged to the streaa. Another alternative would he the collection and transport of all municipal and industrial wastes to a larger stream outside the Little Miami Basin following adequate secondary treatment and disinfection. Both alternatives would constitute only partial solutions to water quality control since neither would eliminate pollution of the streaa by urban runoff and other difficult'to collect wastes. d. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man*s Enviroament and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity No comment e. Irreversible and/or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources No comment PELLICCIOTTO/j r/363 7 7 ^ *»• v> 30 Ssftsrisr 1971 E - tell H. Trr Hn Ch3 :.r : -.a CCv’rc i 1 c,i, T’r.v 1^:ov.nl.1 ty Eac-ruf ivy Office of tluj i're^iacr.t 722 J-c'T^a rl-.c?, ;•*. w. W-thir^con, D. C. 20005 4r- i — • U U ^'■iC i tX.,71 C C ’'-.'.','J 4 ; - . ‘>11* 1 .-f- C ^ -'s t,‘ ^X'C:Ci tnCS 9.. U 1’ *.?1 C i i.; -V .*„ * v . --- - - 1 l.. - - ' - • - u .... V fc. J ^ C- 1 V- „ -- „f- - .+ \ l ^ 1 O j v v U .‘_.i » . v * X-j - * ■• X w x . '*»■ • *j» w.w-'-fc- — b O O X £ O — X»I» "j” "ju y ' / l‘* .."" Sincercsly yours, X Ir.= l (10 cyo) w i l l i /,u l . e / r ::e 3 As stated Colcual, Cor-a of Ensinscrs Executive Director of C ivil Wort;a OHIO RIVER DIVISIOK w/o incl LOUISVILLE DISTRICT w/o incl EKGPA wd rETiifi to cc::i;^cT!::i Brju:c:i - eiot-cs 4 r *--.7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR EUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION LAKE CENTRAL REGION SE53 RESEARCH PARK DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 43IM May 4, 1971 District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer D istrict, Louisville P. O. Box 59 Louisville, Kentucky 40201 Dear Sir: In response to your letter (ORLED-P) dated September 10, 1970, and in accordance with Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1909 (Public Law 91-190), we are transmitting our preliminary comments on your environmental impact statement for the East Fork Reservoir on the East Fork of the Little Miami River, Ohio. 1. Project Description This section is adequate. 2. Environmental Setting Without the Project This section is particularly well done. 3. Impact Statement a . Project Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Although water quality would be improved below the dam site, it would be impaired in the reservoir itself. b. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Proposal Beinrnlernented This section is adequate. - c. Alternatives to the Proposed Action This section appears adequate; however, we do not feel it necessary' to discuss in this section "estimates of tangible benefits foregone as a result of no development. ” d . Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man*s Er.vironma'it and the Maintenance ar.a Enhancement of Lone-Term Productivity This section is adequate. e . Irreversible and/or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources This section is adequate. We would appreciate being informed of any significant changes to the current project plan and possible revisions to the subject environmental statement. Thank you for the opportunity*.to review the information your office has developed thus far. * Sincerely yours, •ROMAN H. KOENINGS Regional Director Frederick J. Bender Acting 13 toy 1971 9 EAST FORK LAKE, OHIO BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RZCRSATICU. 15DI. Comment 1; Stated that although water quality would he improved he low the d smite, it would ho impaired in the reservoir itself. Response: Preliminary studies indicate some algae and other aquatic plant growth may occur in the shallow upper reaches of the lain during the summer months, due primarily to nutrients from agricultural runoff. Additionally, data from limited tests indicate the possibility of stratified iron concentrations in the reservoir. This possibility will he further investigated, and if this concentration does occur, releases will he regu lated to mitigate adverse effects. Ho other significant impairment of water quality is known. Comment 2: Considered the section on alternatives adequate, hut did not feel it necessary to discuss estimates of tangible benefits foregone as a result of no development. Response: Since this section contains a discussion of alternatives and their impacts, it was felt appropriate to indicate the impact - social or natural. - of no action. The dollar amounts indicate only the magnitude of the benefits, which are somewhat a measure of the project impact, and could have teen deleted and a more lengthy word description substituted. This, however, would net alter the fact that substantial benefits are afforded by the project, ana "no action" would forego these benefits.