Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

NON-FEDERAL COSTS: There are no requirements of local cooperation on this project. However, under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended the State of Ohio requested inclusion in the project of 35,100 acre-feet of storage for future municipal and industrial water supply uses. Based on an allocation of 35,500 acre-feet for future water supply storage, the State of Ohio is required to assume 10.80 percent of the estimated joint-use project construction costs allocated to water supply facilities, which cost is presently estimated at about $2,993,800 plus the estimated amount of $8,200 annually for the cost of operation, maintenance and major capital replacements required for the water supply facilities. The State has indicated that payment will be made in equal annual installments with interest over a period not to exceed 50 years, beginning with use.

STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The State of Ohio will be the responsible cooperating agency for all assurances.

Ohio Revised Code 1964, Section 1521.04, authorizes the State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, to cooperate with and negotiate for the State with any agency of the United States Government pertaining to the water resources of the State. By letter, dated 4 May 1965, the Department of Natural Resources furnished assurances for future water supply storage under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Contract with the State of Ohio, covering payment for future water supply storage in East Fork Lake, was approved by the Secretary of the Army 20 May 1970.

In connection with modification of the project for inclusion of water quality control storage under the provisions of Public Law 87-88, the State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, by letter, dated 1 August 1967, furnished assurances that the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board would, under existing authority and policy, require the maximum practicable degree of treatment of waste waters discharged into the waters of the basin below the East Fork Lake, and that the State would assume the leadership in taking such action as is necessary to prevent diversion to other uses of any water quality storage provided in the project.

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATE: The current Federal cost estimate of $37,100,000 is an increase of $1,200,000 over the latest estimate ($35,900,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $782,000 for higher price levels; $25,000 for addition of a cemetery relocation; $46,000 for boundary line marking based on negotiated contract; $50,000 for additional operation and maintenance during construction based on reanalysis of requirements; $30,000 for permanent operating equipment to cover sedimentation range layout and monumentation; and $267,000 for Supervision & Administration to include rental charge for GSA Controlled Building Space consistent with Public Building Amendments Act of 1972 and salary increases.

BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: The benefit to cost ratio last presented to Congress (FY 1974) was 2.3 to 1. The current benefit
to cost ratio is 2.2 to 1. The ratio is based on East Fork Lake being allocated a proportionate share of system benefits
on the Lower Little Miami River with one other Lake; and, as the next added project to the Ohio River System following
projects complete, under construction and in advanced planning stage as of 1963.

East Fork Lake, Ohio

A

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS: The Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed with CEQ 9 May 1971. supplement to the EIS was filed with CEQ 11 August 1972. Draft Updated EIS was filed with CEQ 28 December 1973. The Final Updated EIS is scheduled for submission in the third quarter FY 1974.

OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction planning were appropriated in FY 1946. This activity was curtailed
in FY 1951 due to marginal economic feasibility of the project. Funds for restudy were appropriated in FY 1962, to resume
preconstruction planning in FY 1964, and for construction in FY 1967.

The Attorney General for the State of Ohio filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction
against continuation of construction work at Caesar Creek and East Fork Lakes in United States District Court, Southern
District of Ohio, on 18 July 1973, alleging that such construction was proceeding contrary to the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in that the Final Environmental Impact Statements filed with CEQ were inadequate. The
motion also alleged non-compliance with a number of other laws and regulations. On 24 July 1973, the Court issued a
temporary restraining order halting all construction at both projects and fixing 13 August 1973 as the date to hear arguments
on the motion for the temporary injunction. The hearing was held on 14 August 1973, after postponement by the Court and
voluntary disqualification of the judge who issued the temporary restraining order. On 24 August 1973, the Court issued its
findings and order on the motion, which order included the issuance of a preliminary injunction, enjoining the United States
from executing additional contracts on either of the projects and from "- clear cutting trees, from removal of brush and
ground cover, from stripping away and destruction of topsoil, from relocating or closing roads, and from other contruction
activity which would alter the natural environment of the project area. Completion, however, of these items specifically
listed in the construction contracts referred to in the Findings of Fact may proceed at this time". The Court concluded
its order by stating "This matter is hereby continued pending the filing by defendents of a complete and adequate Environ-
mental Impact Statement in accordance with Sec. 102 of NEPA." On 31 August 1973, the State of Ohio filed a Notice of Appeal
with the U. S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting a Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal to enjoin construction of
the projects. On 11 September 1973, a U. S. Circuit Court judge issued an order which in effect denied the appeal of the
State of Ohio and the requested injunction and allowed the resumption of construction under substantially the same condi-
tions as stated in the U. S. District Court Order. On 25 September 1973, the State of Ohio filed with the U. S. Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals a Motion for Reconsideration of the judge's order. A hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration was
originally set for December 1973 but has been postponed by the Court. As a result of this court action all construction
work on Caesar Creek and East Fork Lakes was suspended during the period 24 July to 24 August 1973. Construction work on
existing contracts was resumed under Court restrictions after 24 August 1973 and is continuing; however, no new contracts
have been awarded since 18 July 1973.

East Fork Lake, Ohio

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

29-844 (Pt. 1) O 74 52

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

PROJECT: Paint Creek Lake, Ohio (Continuing)

LOCATION: The project is located in Ross and Highland Counties, on Paint Creek, a tributary of the Scioto River, 37 miles above the mouth of Paint Creek and 100 miles above the mouth of the Scioto River.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]

Estimated cost to include ultimate recreation development is $28,085,000.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Lands and Damages: Acres 10,400; Type Primarily cultivated and pasture; Improvements Typical residential

units.

Relocations: Roads 6.7 miles ($3,030,000); Railroads ($1,450,000).

[ocr errors]

1.0 mile ($285,000); Cemeteries and Utilities

JUSTIFICATION: Paint Creek reservoir is one of seven authorized reservoirs, including the completed Delaware
and Deer Creek reservoirs, in the Scioto River Basin and is a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood
control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin. The Paint Creek reservoir will provide flood protection
along the Scioto River below Chillicothe, and on the main stem of the Ohio River. Total Scioto Basin damages in
the severe flood of January 1959 were $11,948,000 which under present conditions would amount to about $37,700,000.
Had the system of six additional reservoirs been in operation at the time of the flood, $5,000,000 of the damages
would have been prevented. The flood of March 1963 caused damages totaling $3,650,000 in the Scioto Basin.
Average annual benefits for the Paint Creek project are estimated to be $2,627,100.

[blocks in formation]

FISCAL YEAR 1975: The requested $762,000 will be applied to:

[blocks in formation]

The requested funds will permit completion of the project by the scheduled date of June 1975.

NON-FEDERAL COSTS: Post authorization change approved by the Subcommittee on Public Works of the Senate
Appropriations Committee added water supply and water quality control as project purposes. This action required
non-Federal financing of all project costs allocated to the water supply features of the project. Local interests

Paint Creek Lake, Ohio

« AnteriorContinuar »