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.