![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.778472222222222in"
height="3.579861111111111in"}![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.0229166666666667in"
height="0.7625in"}

**Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 1**

**And**

**Environmental Assessment**

**For the**

**Plum Creek Watershed,**

**Rehabilitation of Flood Retarding Structure No. 18**

**Lead Agency:** U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Lexington, KY

**Sponsored by**: Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy District and the
Spencer County Conservation District

**Proposed Action:** This project was initiated due to the Kentucky
Division of Water (KDOW) Office of Dam Safety issuance of a notice of
violation (NOV) to the Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy District for
Plum Creek floodwater retarding structure (FRS) #18. Construction of
FRS#18 was completed in 1957 under the Pilot Watershed Program and
authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL
83-566). Due to changes in KDOW dam safety regulations and a
pre-existing home below the dam, the KDOW is now requiring FRS #18 to be
upgraded to meet class C criteria (high hazard) or remove the threat of
flooding to the downstream home. The sponsors requested technical
assistance from the NRCS to evaluate various structural and
non-structural alternatives to correct the situation. The preferred
alternative for this project is Alternative #2 - demolish the existing
home and build a new elevated home on the same site. The proposed
alternative would upgrade the dam to meet NRCS and KDOW current
standards and criteria for a "Significant" or "Moderate" hazard (class
B) dam and would replace the concrete riser and add a supplemental toe
drain system to the dam.

**Responsible Official:** David Sawyer, State Conservationist,
NRCS-USDA, Lexington, KY

**Review Process**: NRCS has completed this Plan/EA in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. Reviewers should provide the NRCS
their comments during the review period. This will enable the NRCS to
analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information
acquired. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation
in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is
meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and
contentions. Comments should be specific and should address the adequacy
of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR
1503.3).

**Send Comments to**: NRCS, Attn: Plum Creek, Suite 210, 771 Corporate
Drive, Lexington, KY 40503

**Date Comments Must Be Received**: November 9, 2006 or within 45 days
after notice of availability is published in the Federal Register.

**Contact Information**: Jacob Kuhn, Assistant State Conservationist
(859-224-7371) or Anita Arends, Resource Conservationist (859-224-7354)

[Non-Discrimination Statement]{.underline}

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in
all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status,
familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic
information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities
who require alternative means for communication of program information
(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of
discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800)
795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.

# 

# 

# 

# table of contents

Summary 1

Introduction 5

Purpose and Need 6

Overview of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 6

Project Setting 7

Breach Analysis and Hazard Classification 13

Potential Modes and Consequences of Dam Failure 15

Watershed Problems and Opportunities 18

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 20

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 22

Effects of Alternative Plans 24

Consultation and Public Participation 33

Recommended Plan 34

Page ii

**Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 1 and Environmental Assessment**

**For the Plum Creek Watershed-**

**Rehabilitation of Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) #18**

**Spencer County, KY**

**Summary of Watershed Plan**

**Project name**: Plum Creek FRS #18

**County/State**: Spencer County, KY

**Sponsors:** Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy District and the Spencer
County Conservation District

**Description of recommended plan**: The preferred alternative for this
project is Alternative #2 which consists of demolishing the existing
home located in the breach zone of the FRS and building the property
owner a new, elevated, flood-proofed home. The project would also
replace the riser and add a supplemental toe drain system to the FRS.
These actions would make the structure compliant with NRCS and State
regulations and extend the life of the FRS for a minimum of 50 years but
not more than 100 years.

**Resource Information**:

Size of drainage area FRS#18 (acres):- 673

Size of Plum Creek Watershed (acres)-23,688

Spencer County information (2002 census)

Number of farms - 623

Land in Farms -77,525 acres

Average Size of Farms- 123 acres

Total Cropland - 46,714 acres

Harvested Cropland-27,501 acres

Cropland used for grazing or pasture-15,072 acres

Number of minority farm operators-6

Prime farmland (Bullitt-Spencer Counties)-2468 acres

Hydric or partially Hydric soils (Bullitt-Spencer Counties)-252 acres

**Project beneficiary profile:** The estimated population in Spencer
County in 2000 was 11,766. The estimated County population in 2004 was
14,822. The median household income in Spencer County is \$47,042 while
the U.S. median is \$41,994. County home values average \$122,400.
Average Kentucky home value is \$86,700 while the US average is
\$119,600. (US Census, 1999) The percent of population living below
poverty in 1999 was 8.8%, almost half as less as the State figure of
15.8%. (Census, 2006).

**Endangered species:** According to the USFWS, there may be summer
roost habitat for the endangered Indiana bat in the local area. Forested
areas near the project site may provide potential suitable summer
roosting and foraging habitat and any rockshelters in the area may
provide potentially suitable winter hibernacula habitat. Recommendations
by the USFWS will be followed to insure protection of this species.

**Cultural resources:** There are five cultural resource sites
documented in the Plum Creek watershed. Four are located near the
juncture of Plum Creek and the Salt River. The remaining two are located
in the upper part of watershed. No documented cultural resources are
located closer than a mile and a half from the project area. A qualified
archeologist conducted an evaluation of the home to be removed and the
pond area behind the dam.

**Problem identification:** This project was initiated due to the
Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) Office of Dam Safety issuance of a
notice of violation (NOV) to the Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy
District for Plum Creek floodwater retarding structure (FRS) #18.
Construction of FRS#18 was completed in 1957, under the Pilot Watershed
Program. Due to a change in KDOW regulations and a pre-existing home
below the dam, the KDOW is now requiring FRS #18 to be upgraded to meet
class C criteria (high hazard), or remove the threat of flooding to the
downstream home. The sponsors requested technical assistance from the
NRCS to evaluate various structural and non-structural alternatives to
correct the situation.

**Alternative plans considered**: Numerous structural and non-structural
alternatives were considered including: decommissioning, building a
parapet wall, enlarging the existing berm, installing an additional
spillway, demolition and replacement of the home, and eminent domain.

The alternatives analyzed in detail in this environmental assessment
are:

[Alternative #1. No Action.]{.underline} Under this alternative, no
federal funds would be expended and the sponsors would continue to be in
violation of KDOW dam safety regulations. The outcome would likely be
that the sponsors are fined for non-compliance and/or FRS #18 would be
breached. A breach of the structure would cause the loss of current
flood control benefits.

[Alternative #2. Demolition and Replace -The Preferred
Alternative.]{.underline} This alternative proposes to demolish and
replace the downstream home currently within the breach zone of FRS#18.
The home would be removed and a new, elevated home placed on the same
lot. As part of this alternative, the concrete riser would be replaced
and a supplemental toe drain system installed.

[Alternative 3. Parapet Wall Construction.]{.underline} This alternative
calls for the construction of a concrete parapet wall on top of FRS#18,
modification of the auxiliary spillway; and repair/replacement of the
toe drain and riser.

[Alternative 4. Eminent Domain.]{.underline} Under this alternative the
sponsors would initiate eminent domain proceedings against the
homeowner, pay the homeowner fair market value for the property, and
then remove the home located in the breach zone. The concrete riser
would be replaced and a supplemental toe drain system added.

**Project purpose(s):** watershed protection and watershed
rehabilitation.

**Show which of the identified problems the project will address**: The
primary objective for this project is to bring the FRS into compliance
with all current State and NRCS regulations for dam safety. The project
will also maintain current levels of flood protection for residents
downstream of the dam.

**Principal project measures**:

Project measures of the recommended alternative consist of the following
items:

a)  D&R of a home in the breach zone of the FRS

b)  Replacement of the FRS riser

c)  Addition of a supplemental toe-drain system

**Project costs: PL 83-566 funds**: \$123,700

**Other funds**: \$66,700

**Cost-share Total**: \$190,400

+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| #                              |            |            |          |
| # Figure 1. Eligible Project C |            |            |          |
| ost for Cost-share Computation |            |            |          |
|                                |            |            |          |
| (Dollars)[^1]                  |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Works of Improvement        | ## NRCS    | #          | ## Total |
|                                |            | # Sponsors |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Cost Sharable Items         |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Rehabilitatio               | #          | ## \$0     | ##       |
| n of Dam (Construction Costs)  | # \$81,000 |            | \$81,000 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## R                           | #          | #          | ##       |
| elocation, Replacement in kind | # \$42,700 | # \$52,700 | \$95,400 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Relocation,                 | ## \$0     | ## \$3,000 | ##       |
|  required Decent Safe Sanitary |            |            |  \$3,000 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Sponsors Planning Cost      | ## NA      | ## \$3,000 | ##       |
|                                |            |            |  \$3,000 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Sponsors Engineering Costs  | NA         | ## \$0     | ## \$0   |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## S                           | NA         | ## \$8,000 | ##       |
| ponsors Project Administration |            |            |  \$8,000 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| Land Rights Acquisition Costs  | NA         | ## \$0     | ## \$0   |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Subtotal: Cost-Share Costs  | ##         | #          | ## \$    |
|                                |  \$123,700 | # \$66,700 | 190,400  |
| Cost-Share Percentages [^2]    |            |            |          |
|                                | 65.0%      | 35.0%      | 100.0%   |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| #                              |            |            |          |
| # Non-Cost-Sharable Items [^3] |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## NRCS Engine                 | #          | ## NA      | ##       |
| ering & Project Administration | # \$24,000 |            | \$24,000 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Natural Resource Rights     | NA         | \$0        | \$0      |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Fe                          | NA         | ## \$500   | ## \$500 |
| deral, State and Local Permits |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Relocation, beyond R        | NA         | \$0        | \$0      |
| equired Decent Safe & Sanitary |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ##                             | #          | ## \$500   | ##       |
|  Subtotal Non-Cost-Share Costs | # \$24,000 |            | \$24,500 |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+

##  Costs as of 8/06

**Environmental values changed or lost**- No environmental values will
be permanently lost as a result of this project.

**Also briefly describe any compensatory mitigation included in the
plan-** To insure protection of the Indiana bat, recommendations of the
USFWS will be followed. Tree removal, if needed, will occur between
October 15 and March 31 to avoid impacting summer roosting Indiana bats.
If any Indiana bat hibernacula are identified in or near the project
area, tree removal will occur between November 15 and March 31 in order
to avoid impacting bat swarming behavior. If trees need to be removed
outside these time periods, the USFWS will be consulted.

**Major conclusions**: The purpose of this project is to meet all
applicable NRCS and KDOW dam safety standards. The lifespan of Plum
Creek FRS #18 will be extended for a minimum of 50 more years. The
recommended plan will accomplish these objectives at the lowest costs to
NRCS and the sponsors.

**Areas of controversy**: None

**Issues to be resolved**: Signing of agreements -- sponsors and
homeowner.

**Introduction**

Plum Creek Site 18 is one of eleven floodwater-retarding structures
built within the Plum Creek Watershed and is located near the Town of
Waterford, Spencer County, Kentucky. The Plum Creek Watershed was a
Pilot Watershed project with its Work Plan finalized in 1954 under
authority of Public Law 46, 74^th^ Congress, and as provided for under
the watershed protection item in the Agricultural Appropriation Bill No.
1954, 83^rd^ Congress, 1^st^ Session. The design of Site 18 was
completed in May of 1956, and construction was completed in 1957. Based
on old aerial photos, USGS topographic maps, and observations by
community members, it appears that a house existed downstream of the
structure prior to design and construction of the dam. The original Work
Plan for Plum Creek Watershed, dated September 1954, makes no reference
to hazard class for any of the dams. Apparently, hazard classification
criteria and policy had not been developed and implemented prior to the
planning, design, and start of construction of this dam. Since the start
of construction in 1956, dam hazard classification criteria and design
criteria have been issued by both the NRCS and by the Kentucky Dam
Safety Office. This dam currently meets the designation of a "HIGH"
hazard (class C) dam according to the current criteria by NRCS and the
KDOW, Dam Safety Office.

The need to upgrade this structure was prompted by enforcement actions
taken by the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW), Dam Safety Section. The
KDOW issued a notice of violation (NOV) to the sponsors of Plum Creek
FRS #18 in a letter dated August 21, 2002, and then again in a letter
dated October 21, 2003. The NOV informed the Plum Creek Watershed
Conservancy District that FRS#18 had been reclassified by KDOW as a
"high hazard" structure due to one or more homes located within the
breach zone of the dam.

Plum Creek FRS #18 currently does not meet NRCS and State of Kentucky
Dam Safety requirements for a high hazard dam. This high-hazard dam is
required to pass a rainfall event of 28.1 inches (also known as a
probable maximum precipitation or PMP) within a six-hour period without
overtopping the dam. Currently, FRS #18 has a spillway capable of
passing 14.3 inches (50% of PMP) of rainfall within a six-hour period
without overtopping the dam.

The Plum Creek Conservancy District is currently involved in the
enforcement process whereby they must periodically report their efforts
toward resolving this safety concern to an attorney with the Kentucky
Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet. KDOW has informed the
Conservancy District that this matter must be resolved or the District
could be fined daily and/or the dam could be breached by the State.

In a letter dated November 4, 2002, the Plum Creek Conservancy District
formally requested the assistance of the NRCS under the Small Watershed
Rehabilitation Amendment, PL-106-472. Over the past three years, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has worked with local
sponsors to identify and evaluate both structural and non-structural
options for corrective action. Upon request from the sponsors, a team of
NRCS specialists conducted the initial field assessment of the site on
August 26, 2003.

**Purpose and Need**

The primary objective for this project is to bring Plum Creek FRS#18
into compliance with current NRCS and the KDOW Dam Safety standards and
to maintain or improve the current levels of flood protection for
residents downstream of the dam. By implementing the preferred
alternative (Alternative #2 as described in this document) the following
results will be achieved:

1.  The "high hazard" safety concern for the inhabitants of the home
    currently within the breach zone of this dam will be removed by
    replacing the home at an elevation above the breach inundation area
    below the dam.

2.  FRS #18 will be modified to meet current NRCS and KDOW dam safety
    standards and requirements for a "Significant" or "Moderate" hazard
    dam (class B);

3.  The service life of the structure will be extended for a minimum of
    50 years; and

4.  Current levels of downstream flood protection will be maintained.

**Overview of the Alternatives Analyzed in Detail**

####### 

####### The following alternatives were considered feasible for the Plum Creek FRS #18 project and were studied in detail.

**Alternative #1. No Action**. Under this alternative, no federal funds
would be expended and the Sponsors would continue to be in violation of
Kentucky Division of Water dam safety regulations. The outcome would
likely be that the sponsors are fined for non-compliance and/or FRS #18
would be breached. A breach of the structure would cause the loss of
current flood control benefits provided by the dam. Cost of breaching
the structure could vary greatly depending on how the breach was done
and how much of the earthen material was removed. NRCS estimates the
cost to breach the dam at \$38,000 (\$3.00/cu yard cost). Stabilization
of the breach area would cost an additional \$20,000.

**Alternative #2. Demolition and Replace (The Preferred Alternative).**
This alternative proposes to demolish and replace the downstream home
currently within the breach zone of FRS#18 and a new, elevated home
would be placed on the same lot. There would be no long-term negative
impacts to natural resources or to property owners adjacent to the dam.
The downstream homeowner would live in temporary housing until the new
home was built.

As part of this alternative, NRCS would up-grade the dam to meet current
criteria for a "significant" or "moderate" hazard (class B) dam. This
would require replacing the riser and installing a supplemental toe
drain system for the dam. These actions would require the draining of
the permanent pool area and result in short-term negative impacts to
fish/aquatic habitat. Neighboring property owners would be impacted by
the resulting odor of drained the pond and dead fish. Once the
construction activities were completed, the sediment pool would become
filled and aquatic habitat would be re-established. No federal
threatened or endangered species would be negatively impacted under this
alternative. Sponsors would be required to insure no further development
occurs within the breach zone of the structure.

The estimated installation cost of this project is \$208,800 with an
eligible project cost share computation total of \$190,400.

####### **Alternative 3. Parapet Wall Construction**. This structural alternative involves up-grading the dam to meet "High" hazard (class C) criteria that includes the construction of a parapet wall on top of FRS#18. This alternative would consist of installing a concrete parapet wall; modify the auxiliary spillway; replacing the riser, and adding an additional toe drain. This alternative would also require modification of the access road to parcels \# 26-01 and 26-08. In order to raise the dam crest of Plum Creek FRS #18 to meet current dam safety criteria, a 5' high concrete wall would be placed on top of the earthen embankment of FRS #18. This would raise the current top of dam elevation from 579.9 MSL to 584.9 MSL. 

####### 

####### The parapet wall would result in an increase of the maximum flood pool elevation of the dam. The sponsors would need to secure additional easements to prevent construction below this new "top of dam" elevation. In addition, the auxiliary spillway would be lowered 3.8 feet from its current elevation of 574.4 MSL. 

####### 

####### The estimated installation cost of this alternative is \$393,000 with an anticipated eligible project cost share computation total of \$372,000.

**Alternative 4. Eminent Domain**. Under this alternative the sponsors
would initiate eminent domain proceedings against the homeowner, pay the
homeowner fair market value for the property, and then remove the home
and buildings. The sponsors have worked with the Spencer County Planning
downstream development easements to prevent future construction within
the breach zone. The riser would be replaced and an additional toe drain
system added to the dam in order to meet current class B criteria and
standards, and to extend the life of the dam. Sponsors would be required
to insure no further development occurs within the breach zone. The
estimated installation cost of this alternative is \$226,500 with an
anticipated eligible project cost share computation total of \$208,800.

## Project Setting and Location

Plum Creek FRS #18 is located in the Plum Creek Watershed in Spencer
County, approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Waterford, KY. The site
shown on the Waterford, Kentucky USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map, at
coordinates N 38^o^ 03.2', W 85^o^ 25.1". The structure is located on
the Featherbed Hollow Creek about ½ mile east of its confluence with
Plum Creek. There are 657 acres of drainage area above the FRS #18
structure.

Plum Creek is a tributary of Salt River, which flows into the Ohio
River. Plum Creek is approximately 17 miles long with a total watershed
area of 23,688 acres. It begins in Shelby County, Kentucky and flows
generally in a southerly direction through the southwest portion of
Shelby County and then through the northwest part of Spencer County to
the Salt River. (SCS, 1954)

Surrounding the FRS#18 and the permanent pond created by the dam, are
multiple parcels that were sold as building lots and some have existing
homes. Owners of tracts surrounding the permanent pool area have an
easement associated with their deed which allows for the permanent pool
area, maintenance access to the FRS, and occasional flooding of an
additional portion of their property during high-water events.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="3.876388888888889in"
height="2.888888888888889in"}

*Photo 1. View downstream from Plum Creek FRS #18*

############################### [Topography]{.underline}

The topography of the upper portion of the watershed is generally
moderately gentle to rolling, while the lower portion of the watershed
is composed of rolling to steep side slopes with fairly wide ridge tops
(SCS, 1954).

############################### [Climate]{.underline}

The average monthly precipitation in the Louisville, Kentucky vicinity
shows good precipitation distribution throughout the year. The average
annual precipitation is 45.91 inches, with an average annual snowfall of
15.7 inches. During the period from 1971 to 2000, the driest month was
October, with an average of 2.8 inches of precipitation, while the
wettest month was May, with an average precipitation of 4.9 inches.

[Soils]{.underline}

The soils present at this site are generally residual and colluvial
beneath the higher areas and are alluvial beneath Featherbed Creek
floodplain (USACE, 1979). All of the soils in the area are derived from
limestone with the exception of a small area of marl soils in the
central west portion of the watershed (SCS, 1954). The floodplain of
Featherbed Hollow consists of Boonesboro Silt Loam, frequently flooded.
The Boonesboro series consist of moderately deep, well-drained soils
that have rapid permeability. The soils have a dark surface layer and
formed in alluvial material that washed from soils on uplands of
limestone, siltstone, and shale origin. Boonesboro soils are on flood
plains in narrow valleys. Slopes range from 0-2% for this soil type. The
upper side portions of Featherbed Hollow consist of Faywood-Fairmount
--Woolper complex, 30-60% slope. The Faywood series consists of
moderately deep, well-drained soils that have moderately slow and slow
permeability. The formed in clayey residuum derived from limestone
interbedded with calcareous shale and siltstone. Faywood soils are on
ridgetops, shoulder slopes, and hillsides. The Fairmount series consists
of shallow, well-drained soils that also have moderately slow and slow
permeability. They formed in clayey residuum derived from limestone.
These soils are on hillsides and bluffs principally along the larger
streams.

The Woolper series consists of deep, well-drained soils that have
moderately slow permeability. The have a mollic epipedon and formed in
clayey, colluvial material derived from limestone. Woolper soils are on
foot slopes and hillside benches.

############################### 

############################### [Geology]{.underline} 

The dam is located in the Kentucky physiographic division known as the
Outer Bluegrass. This area is typified by a rolling topography developed
primarily on limestone and shales. (USACE, 1979) Spencer County is
variously underlain by Ordovician age (about 500 mya) marine sedimentary
bedrock layers consisting mostly of interbedded shales and limestones.
Bedrock dips to the west about 40 feet per mile being on the western
flank of the Cincinnati arch, which is a broad, gentle north-south
uplift to the east of Lexington, KY. This bedrock dip and continual
surface erosion exposes the older rock layers at the surface in the
eastern part of the county and progressively younger layers to the west.
The topography of Spencer County is the result of differential erosion,
and is characterized by rolling hills and relatively narrow valleys.
Local reliefs of 100 to 150 feet are common, but the Salt River and its
major tributaries have cut the valley 200 to 250 feet below the
surrounding uplands. Hilltop elevations range from 700 feet in the
western part of the county and increase to more than 800 feet in the
eastern part of the county. The highest elevation, 880 feet, is on a
ridge near the Spencer-Shelby County line, and the lowest, 420 feet, is
the point where the Salt River leaves the western tip of Spencer County.

############################### [Threatened and Endangered Species]{.underline} 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Kentucky State Nature
Preserves Commission (KSNPC) were consulted as part of this project. A
KSNPC letter dated January 3, 2006 stated that the majority of monitored
aquatic organisms previously known to occur in the general area of this
project were in the Salt River and/or Brashears Creek. However, these
species have not been recorded in these areas in many years. An analysis
of the project area by KSNPC showed that within a 1 mile radius of the
FRS #18 the following freshwater mussel species had a historic recorded
occurrence: Pink Mucket (*Lampsilis abrupta*), Clubshell *(Pleurobema
clava)*, Pyramid Pigtoe (*Pleurobema rubrum*), and the Salamander Mussel
(Simpsonaias ambigue). To protect downstream water quality, the KSNPC
recommended an erosion control plan. All contractors will be required to
follow an erosion control plan approved by NRCS.

The Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) is a federally listed species, and
according to a letter dated December 20, 2005 from the USFWS Frankfort
office, summer roost habitat for the endangered Indiana bat may exist
within the project area. Consultation with the USFWS is ongoing and
USFWS recommendations will be followed during this project.

############################### [Fish and Wildlife Species]{.underline}

The littoral and limnetic portions of Plum Creek FRS \# 18 supports
several common aquatic species which would be impacted when the pool is
drained during project implementation. Primary amphibian and reptile
species impacted include bullfrogs (*Rana catesbeiana*), green frogs
(*Rana clamitans*), spring peepers (*Hyla crucifer*), snapping turtles
(*Chelydra serpentine*), and midland painted turtles (*Chrysemys
picta*). Primary fish species impacted include channel catfish
(*Ictalurus punctatus*), largemouth bass (*Micropterus salmoides*), and
bluegill (*Lepomis macroshirus*) which were likely stocked after
impoundment.

Terrestrial species of wildlife on or near the site include deer,
turkey, squirrel, raccoon, possum, and migrant and/or nesting songbirds.
Terrestrial species would likely move out of the area during the
construction period, but would return after work is completed.

############################### [Streams, Lakes and Wetlands]{.underline}

Plum Creek is a tributary of the Salt River and is approximately 17
miles long. It rises in Shelby County just south of Simpsonville, KY and
flows generally in a southerly direction through the southwest portion
of Shelby County and continues through the northwest part of Spencer
County to the Salt River. There is only one large tributary to Plum
Creek -- Little Plum. The other side branches are short and the longest
side branch is less than two miles in length. The sediment pond of Plum
Creek FRS#18 is approximately 13.2 acre-feet. This pond creates a
wetland-like fringe with a perimeter of approximately 2,260'.

FRS#18 is located in Featherbed Hollow near Waterford, KY. This drainage
flows generally east to west and enters Plum Creek just south of State
Hwy 1251. The Featherbed drainage is approximately 3,275' in length from
Plum Creek FRS#18 to the junction of Plum Creek. Species in the drainage
are typical of the region and include creek chub, stoneroller, common
shiner, and rainbow darter. The creek does not support a sport fishery.
Also present in this small creek are Caenidae (Mayflies), Hydropsychidae
(Caddisflies), Hirudinea (Leeches), Gammaridae (Scuds) and Astacidea
(Crayfish).

[Vegetation]{.underline}

Vegetation in the project vicinity is typical of the area -- an eastern
deciduous forest mix containing, oaks, hickories, pines, cedars, and
common understory shrubs. Open areas within the project site consist of
a variety of grasses and non-native vegetation. Much of the project area
has been disturbed by grazing, cutting of timber, mowing, and/or brush
removal. Species in the project area include golden rod, Joe-pyeweed,
boneset, mint, blackberry bushes, multiflora rose, and scattered
bottomland trees such as poplar and sycamore. The FRS has been mowed
consistently as part of the operation and maintenance requirements.

############################### [Cultural and Visual Resources.]{.underline} The one house in the breach zone just downstream of the Plum Creek FRS #18 has been in existence since 1930 on this site. This house was evaluated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office has concluded that this resource is not eligible for inclusion. 

On 11/11/05 and again on 1/4/06, an NRCS archeologist conducted a field
inspection of the area that could inundate if the top of dam elevation
was raised by constructing a parapet wall. The purpose of the
investigation was to insure that construction and/or flooding behind the
existing FRS would not impact any significant cultural resources. Except
for the two hollows at the east end of the lake, most of the acreage
that would be in the new flood pool had slope greater than 20 percent
and was visually inspected but not shovel tested. Level areas along the
drains at the east end of the lake were investigated with either
screened or trowel sorted shovel probes depending on the moisture
content of the soil matrix. No prehistoric or historic artifacts were
recovered and no sites were documented. A cultural resources literature
records search revealed that no sites have been recorded in or near the
project area. As a result of these field investigations, NRCS feels that
the Plum Creek FRS#18 dam rehabilitation will have no effect on any
National Register listed or potentially eligible archaeological or
historic sites. No additional archaeological investigations were
recommended prior to implementation of the proposed NRCS dam
rehabilitation.

############################### 

############################### [Economic and Social Setting]{.underline} When Plum Creek FRS #18 was planned and constructed, the population of Spencer County was close to 1,000. In 2000 the county population was 11,766 and the estimated 2004 county population is 14,822. The median household income for Spencer County in 1999 was \$47,042 compared with the State median of \$33,672. The percent of population living below poverty in 1999 was 8.8%, almost half as less as the State figure of 15.8%. (Census, 2006). Due to its proximity to Louisville, Spencer County has experienced an increase in urbanization in terms of small development and "ranchettes".

## [Description of Existing Dam]{.underline} Plum Creek FRS #18 is currently a 41.5-ft. tall x 400-ft. long earthen embankment. A typical embankment section has a crest width of 15-ft. with approximate side slopes of 2.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical on the downstream side and 3.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical on the upstream side. The permanent pool, or normal pool during non-flood periods, is 3.1 acres, with a length of 1,000 feet. During major flood events, the pool could enlarge to cover an area of 15.8 acres. 

The site has the capability to store 13.6 acre-feet of sediment at the
permanent pool elevation. At flood stage, the site can store up to 198
acre-feet of potential floodwater that is then slowly released after the
storm event. The principal spillway system consists of a concrete intake
structure in the pool (riser) with a concrete outlet pipe through the
dam. This system controls the release of floodwater. The riser is a
single stage, covered drop inlet (concrete slab on top of the riser),
with inside dimensions of 3.0 ft. x 3.0 ft. x 14.0 ft. high. The outlet
pipe is 240-ft. of 24-in. inside diameter reinforced concrete pipe set
on grade on excavated limestone rock. The outlet pipe discharges onto a
limestone rock bottom creek. Potential seepage alongside the pipe system
is controlled with four 12.5-ft. x 5.75-ft. concrete anti-seep collars
surrounding the concrete principal spillway pipe. The embankment
foundation has an internal drainage system (toe drain) consisting of an
8-in. diameter perforated Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)set in the center
of a 4-ft square sand/gravel porous filter located at the
embankment/foundation interface and 35-ft. downstream of the centerline
of the dam. The CMP extend to the downstream toe of the embankment and
outlets on each side of the principal spillway pipe outlet.

Figure 2. Existing Structural Data for Plum Creek Watershed FRS #18

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Structure Name                   | Plum Creek Flood Retarding        |
|                                  | Structure No.18                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Stream                           | Featherbed Hollow Creek           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Year Completed                   | 1957                              |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Installation Cost                | \$28,136                          |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Purpose                          | Flood Control                     |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Drainage Area                    | 657 acres                         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dam Height                       | 41.5 feet                         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dam Type                         | Earthen                           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dam Volume                       | 47,973 yds.^3^                    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dam Crest Length                 | 400 feet                          |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Storage Capacity                 |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > Sediment                       | 13.6 acre-feet at the principal   |
|                                  | spillway                          |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > Flood                          | 198 acre-feet at the auxiliary    |
|                                  | spillway                          |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Surcharge                        | 132 acre-feet                     |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Total                            | 343 acre-feet                     |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Principal Spillway               |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Type                             | concrete                          |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Riser Height                     | 14 feet                           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Conduit Size                     | 24 inches                         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Stages                           | 1                                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Capacity                         | 65 cfs                            |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Energy Dissipater                | None                              |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Auxiliary Spillway               |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Type                             | Earthen, vegetated                |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Width                            | 35 feet                           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Capacity                         | 1504cfs                           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Normal Pool Elevation            | 556.0 ft-mean sea level           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Flood Pool Elevation             | 574.0 ft-mean sea level           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Top of Dam Elevation             | 580.0 ft-mean sea level           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Source: (FMSM, 2006; KDOW, 1990; NRCS, 2004; PCCD, No date)

## [Status of Operation and Maintenance]{.underline}

Plum Creek was a Pilot Watershed with Site #18 being constructed in
1957. This dam itself is 49 years old, just 1 year shy of its 50-year
designed lifespan. The earthen dam is still in excellent condition, with
no discernable cracks or weaknesses. During a 1979 inspection, there was
no indication of excessive settlement, cracking, or slope instability.
Having been constructed out of compacted clay, the structural integrity
of the dam has not diminished.

The principal spillway riser has some small debris on top of the riser
cap as would be expected of this wooded watershed. The drawdown gate is
regularly operated and the dam faces are mowed twice per year to
eliminate woody growth. Overall, based on a review of past inspection
reports, and the current condition of the dam, operation and maintenance
is current and has been adequately carried out by the sponsors.

The 24-in. principal spillway pipe through the dam was inspected with a
remote camera in July 2005. No cracks or apparent deformations were
noted. Due to the intrinsic properties of concrete, the principal
spillway system is not expected to be a limiting factor in extension of
the design life.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="3.7493055555555554in"
height="2.817361111111111in"}

*Photo 2. Plum Creek FRS #18 permanent pool with top of riser showing in
the pool area.*

*This riser would be replaced under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.*

## [Sedimentation]{.underline}

The structure was designed with a 50-year sediment storage life and a
sediment storage capacity of 13.6 acre-feet. According to a sediment
survey completed in 2004 by KDOW and NRCS there is approximately 13.2
acre feet of storage available in the existing pool area. According to
NRCS sediment delivery calculations, the pool has enough sediment
storage for approximately 165 more years. The sediment delivery
calculations were computed by utilizing the RUSLE2 software program.
Therefore the design life of the sediment pool can be assumed 50 to 100
years with no modifications.

## Breach Analyses and Hazard Classification

Both NRCS and the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) have performed dam
breach analyses to determine what homes in Featherbed Hollow would flood
if Plum Creek FRS #18 breached. Although an early NRCS assessment of the
breach zone predicted several houses to impacted by a dam breach, both
analyses later confirmed that only one home in Featherbed Hollow would
be flooded in this situation. Also located within the breach inundation
zone is Featherbed Hollow road, which runs parallel to the creek. This
roadway is the only access to the residents who live in the breach area
and will experience varying amounts of flooding based on the distance
from the dam. Due to the residence downstream in the breach zone, both
NRCS and KDOW concur that the Plum Creek FRS #18 structure is high
hazard.

In January 2006, a dam breach analysis on Plum Creek FRS #18 was
conducted by the Kentucky Division of Water. The analysis was conducted
utilizing the National Weather Service (NWS) "DAMBRK" program and used
survey information provided by NRCS. KDOW provided their results to NRCS
via a letter dated January 24, 2006. DAMBRK is a FORTRAN program which,
when given the final breach bottom width and side slopes, computes the
physical dimensions of a dam breach as it forms. Breach formation may be
initiated by flow overtopping the dam or piping through it. The program
can subsequently or simultaneously compute reservoir outflow through the
breach and route that flow through the downstream channel/valley.
Effects of reservoir inflow, outflow, and storage are considered in the
computations, as are downstream channel roughness, tail water elevation,
valley storage, and the physical characteristics of downstream bridges
and dams. Based on this breach analysis, at the auxiliary spillway
elevation of the existing dam, the breach would cause a flow velocity of
14.8 feet per second and a depth of 1.9 feet above the first floor
elevation of the house approximately 2294 feet downstream of the dam.

The NRCS breach inundation map indicates the location and extent of the
potential affected area for the structure if a sunny day breach were to
occur. The potential breach inundation areas are carried downstream to
the confluence of Featherbed Hollow Creek with Plum Creek. Featherbed
Hollow Creek is a narrow channel with fairly step terrain, whereas the
Plum Creek channel is characterized by a wide, flat flood plain. When
the breach wave from the Plum Creek FRS #18 structure reaches the Plum
Creek floodplain it dissipates quickly, causing an insignificant
increase in the water elevation of the main channel.

This NRCS breach analysis was performed utilizing 11 cross sections to
represent the floodplain. All sections and culvert information were
surveyed in the field. The HEC-RAS computer program was used to develop
cross-section ratings. The maximum breach discharge and storage volume
were developed and routed downstream with the use of the "Simplified
Dam-Breach Routing Procedure" (TR-66) computer program. TR-66 is a
simplified dam-breach routing procedure that estimates key
characteristics of a flood wave generated by an instantaneous breach of
a dam. This method uses a peak flow derived from the depth of water,
volume of storage available behind the dam and the cross-sectional area
of the dam. This breach routing program simulates the failure of a dam
and helps determine the path and extent of the water flow. This program
is used by NRCS for preparing emergency action plans and determining the
hazard class of dams.

As recommended by NRCS and the KDOW for breach routing procedures, the
reservoir was at the level of the uncontrolled, non-clogging spillway.
For Plum Creek FRS #18 the reservoir was assumed to be at the crest of
the auxiliary spillway and the dam breach analysis was performed with
minimal inflows at the time failure was assumed. (i.e. a non-flood
inflow condition).

############################### 

The NRCS analysis using TR-66 shows the downstream home flooding by 2.8
feet while the DOW analysis shows the downstream home flooding by 1.9
feet. Although results from KDOW and NRCS vary, both are considered
within the margin of error for the associated breach programs utilized.
Because NRCS's flood depth is greater for the purposes of this project
and future floodproofing measures, NRCS will use its own engineering
data.

  -------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------
  **Figure 3.**        **NRCS breach analysis   
                       results**                

  Distance From Dam    Peak Flow at Cross       Maximum Elevation of
  (ft)                 Section (cfs)            Water Surface (ft)

  0                    23400                    574.1

  122                  22000                    554.4

  367                  20300                    547.5

  699                  19300                    538.6

  892                  18900                    536.0

  1315                 17900                    529.4

  1587                 17400                    520.6

  2294                 16300                    507.9

  2485                 15900                    502.5

  3398                 13200                    492.6

  5035                 11200                    485.7

  6278                 10000                    481.2
  -------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------

**Potential Modes and Consequences of Dam Failure**

Several theoretical modes of dam failure have been considered regarding
the current condition of the structure and to insure safety of local
residents. These include sedimentation, hydrologic capacity, dam
seepage, seismic activity, and material deterioration.

[Sedimentation]{.underline}

All floodwater retarding structures are designed to store sediment. When
the sediment pool has filled the dam to the elevation of the principal
spillway, the pool no longer has permanent water storage, but still
provides some level of flood control. As the detention pool loses
storage due to sediment deposition, the auxiliary spillway operates, or
has flowage more often, and is therefore subject to erosion. A potential
mode of failure exists as the auxiliary spillway continues to degrade
and depth of flow is increased. In such cases, the dam will ultimately
breach. There are photos showing flow damage to the auxiliary spillway
on Featherbed Hollow; however, the exact date of the flow is unknown.
Structural failure due to sedimentation is a **very low risk.**

[Hydrologic Capacity]{.underline}

Hydrologic failure of a dam can occur by breaching the auxiliary
spillway or overtopping the dam. The integrity and stability of the
auxiliary spillway and embankment is dependent upon the depth, velocity,
and duration of flow, the vegetative cover, and the spillway's
resistance to erosion. Plum Creek FRS #18 is currently designed to
handle 14.3 inches of rainfall in six hours without overtopping the
embankment. The principal spillway is comprised of a single-stage,
covered drop inlet riser with a height of 14 feet. The outlet pipe is
240 feet of 24-inch inside diameter reinforced concrete pipe set on
grade on excavated limestone rock that discharges onto a limestone rock
bottom creek. The auxiliary spillway is 35 feet wide. Minor debris was
noted within the auxiliary spillway along with the apparent sloughing of
weathered rock and soil from the north side slope (FMSM, 2006). Plum
Creek FRS #18 is functioning correctly as designed. However, due to the
current "High" hazard classification, a dam failure by breaching the
auxiliary spillway or overtopping the dam this dam should be considered
**a high risk**.

[Seepage]{.underline}

Embankment and foundation seepage can contribute to the failure of a
structure by removing soil material through the embankment or foundation
of the dam. As the soil is removed, the voids created allow even a
greater flow of water through the embankment until the dam collapses
from internal erosion. Indications of potential structural problems
include increased seepage amounts and/or stained or muddy water or sand
boils. Foundation and embankment drainage systems can alleviate seepage
problems by removing water without allowing soil particles to be
transported with the water away from the dam. A simplified seepage
analysis was conducted on Plum Creek FRS #18 in 2005. Two situations
were considered during this analysis. In the first case, normal pool
conditions and a fully functional toe drain system were used to model
seepage flow through the toe drain system and its effect of lowering the
theoretical phreatic surface (assumed seepage path) within the
embankment. The second case assumed normal pool conditions and a
completely non-functional toe drain system to estimate seepage flow at
the toe of the embankment and the effect of increasing the phreatic
surface level within the embankment.

Overall, the condition of the toe drain system appears to be adequate
and the site does not exhibit obvious signs of excessive seepage. The
north toe drain outlet exhibits periodic flow while the south toe drain
outlet remains dry. The most practical evidence that suggests the toe
drain system is functional is the dry surface conditions present along
the downstream toe of the embankment. Two possible explanations for the
lack of drainage from the toe drain outlets are:

1.  Seepage may be escaping along the soil/bedrock interface. During the
    construction of the embankment, the natural stream channel was
    filled with soil and relocated to the north side of the valley
    bottom. The rock line information provided on the "as-built" plans
    indicates the low point and primary drainage of the valley is
    located in the original creek channel. It is possible that the
    majority of seepage drains beneath the embankment to the top surface
    of the original creek channel. (FMSM, 2005)

2.  Permeability values assumed for the clay core and shell embankment
    material are over estimated. A lower permeability clay core would
    significantly lower the phreatic surface within the embankment and
    reduce the seepage being captured into the toe drain system, (FMSM,
    2005)

The risk of internal erosion and piping of the embankment material is of
concern for the current "High" hazard classification and the proposed
"Significant" or "Moderate" classification of this dam. Therefore, the
dam is considered **a moderate risk** for seepage and piping due to
questionable foundation drainage. To insure that the structure has a
functional lifespan of another 50-plus years, a new toe drain and riser
will be installed as part of the proposed alternative.

[Seismic]{.underline}

The integrity and stability of an earthen embankment are dependent upon
the presence of a stable foundation. Foundation movement through
consolidation, compression, or lateral movement can cause the creation
of a void within the embankment which could lead to, in the extreme
case, collapse of the embankment. The Plum Creek Watershed is located in
an area of moderate seismic risk; however, no historical events that
would compromise structural integrity have been identified. Therefore,
seismic activity reflects a **low risk** for dam failure.

[Material deterioration]{.underline}

Material used in the principal spillway system, the foundation and
embankment drains, and the pool drainage systems are subject to
weathering and chemical reaction due to natural elements within the
soil, water, and atmosphere. The dam, although nearing the end of its
50-year service life, is still functioning as designed. However, the
risk for internal erosion and deterioration of the embankment material
is of concern for the current "High" hazard classification and the
proposed "Significant" or "Moderate" classification of this dam.
Therefore, the dam is considered **a high risk** for seepage and
foundation material deterioration due to questionable foundation
drainage.

To extend the life expectancy of the structure and insure that material
deterioration is not a risk factor for Plum Creek FRS#18, the preferred
alternative would include the installation of a new toe drain system.
This will extend the service life of the dam and insure **a low risk**
of material deterioration on FRS#18.

## [Consequences of Dam Failure]{.underline}

The exact mode and timing of a dam failure are extremely difficult to
predict. Currently, overtopping due to excessive hydrologic loading is
the most probable mode of failure identified for Plum Creek FRS #18. If
Plum Creek FRS #18 were to suddenly fail at a high reservoir stage
(auxiliary spillway crest to top of dam), regardless of failure mode,
the downstream stages and impacts would be similar to those that would
occur during a breach. As with most class C dams in the State, the
impacts of a catastrophic failure of Plum Creek FRS #18 include
potential loss of life to residents of the downstream home and to
motorists traveling on downstream road which provides access to several
residential properties near the dam. A sudden dam failure may also cause
other likely catastrophic impacts such as destruction of infrastructure,
roads and bridges, environmental damage, short-term and long-term
sediment and stream stability issues, possible sediment quality issues,
and any other issues as appropriate. Reducing the risk to loss of life,
prevention of catastrophic consequences and extending the life of the
structure are basic reasons for rehabilitation. Even though the risk of
dam failure may be low, the consequences of such a failure could be
catastrophic.

## 

## 

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="4.3694444444444445in"
height="3.2694444444444444in"}

*Photo 3. The toe drain located at the base of the berm, Plum Creek FRS
#18*

*The drain is shown operating as it was designed to.*

## 

## Current Watershed Problems

-   FRS #18 is not in compliance with current NRCS and KDOW dam safety
    and design standards.

-   The KDOW has issued notice of violations against the sponsors and
    have informed the sponsors that they may be fined up to \$25,000 per
    day or KDOW may breach the dam.

-   Plum Creek FRS #18 was built in 1957 and designed with a 50-year
    lifespan.

-   Project sponsors, local residents and NRCS want to maintain the
    current levels of flood protection and public safety benefits
    provided by the dam.

-   The project sponsors do not want to negatively impact properties
    owners downstream or adjacent to FRS #18.

-   Project Sponsors and NRCS want to provide maximum safety and
    protection to residents living downstream within the dam's breach
    zone

## Watershed Opportunities

The following would be realized through the implementation of this
watershed plan:

-   FRS #18 would be in compliance with current Kentucky Division of
    Water dam design and safety

-   Extension of the service life of Plum Creek FRS #18 for a minimum of
    50 years, thereby providing extended downstream flood protection and
    public safety benefits.

-   Protection of real estate values for properties adjacent to FRS #18

-   Reduce the risk of flooding for residents currently living within
    the dam's breach zone

**Scope of the Environmental Assessment**

The scoping process was used to identify issues of economic,
environmental, cultural, and social concerns in the watershed. Public
concerns were expressed at meetings held on March 10, 2005; August 16,
2005; and March 21, 2006. NRCS also met with Plum Creek Conservancy
District Board Members on January 19, 2006 to discuss this project.

Factors that would affect soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources
were identified by multidisciplinary teams composed of engineers,
biologists, economists, resource conservationists, water quality
specialists, and others. Concerns and their degree of significance to
the decision making process were identified.

+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Figure 4. Magnitude  |       |            |                          |
| of Identified        |       |            |                          |
| Concerns             |       |            |                          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| **Economic,          | **D   | **Degree   | **Comment**              |
| Environmental,       | egree | of         |                          |
| Cultural and Social  | of    | Si         |                          |
| Concerns**           | Conc  | gnificance |                          |
|                      | ern** | to the     |                          |
|                      |       | decision   |                          |
|                      |       | making**   |                          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Public Safety        | High  | High       | Safety of residents a    |
|                      |       |            | project priority         |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Flooding in          | High  | High       | Sponsors wanted to       |
| Floodplain           |       |            | maintain current level   |
|                      |       |            | of flood protection      |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Property Values      | Mod   | Moderate   | Protection of property   |
|                      | erate |            | values for neighboring   |
|                      |       |            | land owners a concern    |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Fish and Wildlife    | Mod   | Moderate   | Protection of aquatic    |
| Habitats             | erate |            | habitat a concern        |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Transportation       | Mod   | Moderate   | Some alternatives        |
|                      | erate |            | impacted/changed access  |
|                      |       |            | routes to adjacent       |
|                      |       |            | properties               |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Threatened &         | High  | Low        | Consultation with USFWS  |
| Endangered (T&E)     |       |            | initiated. No T&E        |
| Species              |       |            | species will be impacted |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Recreational         | Low   | Low        | Not a critical concern   |
|                      |       |            | for sponsors or          |
| Opportunities        |       |            | residents                |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Water Quality        | Mod   | Moderate   | Project planned to       |
|                      | erate |            | protect water quality in |
|                      |       |            | Plum Creek               |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Sedimentation        | Low   | Moderate   | Project planned with     |
|                      |       |            | protection measures to   |
|                      |       |            | control erosion          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Wetlands             | Low   | Low        | No long-term impacts     |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Forest Land          | Low   | Low        | No impacts               |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Water Supply         | Low   | Low        | No impacts               |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Cultural             | Mod   | Low        | No impacts               |
|                      | erate |            |                          |
| Resources            |       |            |                          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Air Quality          | Low   | Low        | No long-term impacts     |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Prime Farmland       | Mod   | Low        | No impacts               |
|                      | erate |            |                          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Highly Erodible      | Mod   | Low        | No impacts               |
| Cropland             | erate |            |                          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+
| Important Farmland   | Mod   | Low        | No impacts               |
|                      | erate |            |                          |
+----------------------+-------+------------+--------------------------+

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.0in" height="2.25in"}

*Photo 5. Attendees at a Plum Creek FRS #18 public meeting held on
August 16, 2005*

## 

## The Formulation Process

Formulation of alternative plans for the rehabilitation of Plum Creek
FRS #18 followed procedures outlined in the NRCS National Watershed
Manual Part 508 and other NRCS watershed planning policy. Numerous
alternatives were developed based on their ability to address the key
project objective: to bring Plum Creek FRS #18 in compliance with
current KDOW dam safety criteria while maintaining current levels of
flood protection.

Numerous alternatives were analyzed by NRCS in an attempt to find a
feasible and affordable solution for the Sponsors that would not
negatively impact adjacent and downstream private property owners.
Unfortunately, every structural alterative, when developed, had high
costs, impacts to property owners, and/or feasibility issues.

############################### 

############################### Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study

The costs provided below are estimated costs. These alternatives were
dismissed due to engineering feasibility, property owner impacts,
environmental issues, flood control reduction and/or excessive costs to
the sponsors.

[Decommission dam]{.underline}

Decommissioning is the removal of the entire dam. The footprint of the
dam and the sediment pond would be restored to stream contours and
original character. The flood retarding capacity of the dam would be
lost as well as the investment made by the government and Sponsors in
building and maintaining the structure. The sponsors and nearby
landowners have clearly stated they want to retain the flood control
benefits associated with the dam, so this alternative was not analyzed
in detail. Estimated cost: \$450,000.

####### [Upgrade dam to High Hazard Class "C"; lower and widen the existing auxiliary spillway]{.underline}

This alternative consists of modifying the existing auxiliary spillway
by lowering it 5.62 feet and widening it to 70\'; and 24-inch principal
spillway pipe. Access to two adjacent properties would be negatively
impacted. This alternative was rejected due to these impacts. Estimated
cost: \$553,000.

####### 

####### [Upgrade dam to High Hazard Class "C"; widen existing auxiliary spillway and install a secondary auxiliary spillway]{.underline}

This alternative consists of deepening the existing auxiliary spillway
by 3.8 feet; installing a second auxiliary spillway on the south side of
the dam; and replacing the 24-inch principal spillway pipe. This
alternative was excluded from further consideration due to impacts on
adjacent property owners. The estimated cost of this alternative is
\$450,000.

[Upgrade dam to High Hazard- Class "C", enlarge berm- shifting
downstream]{.underline}

This alternative would enlarge the earthen berm of the dam by an
additional 6.5' in height and 45' in width. This alternative would
consist of enlargement of the existing berm of the dam by adding fill to
raise and widen the structure. In addition, the riser would be replaced
and an additional toe drain system added to the structure. This
alternative was rejected due to the fact that the enlargement of the
berm would block the access to two parcels on the north side of the dam.
No other existing access routes to these parcels were identified. Due to
limited space, a large retaining wall would have to be built around the
berm, negating any savings of raising the dam using earth versus the
parapet wall alternative. Estimated cost: \$335,000.

[Upgrade dam to High Hazard --Class C, enlarge berm -- shifting
upstream]{.underline}

Similar to the above, this alternative would enlarge the earthen berm of
the dam by an additional 6.5' in height and 45' in width by adding fill
to raise and widen the structure. In addition, the riser would be
replaced and an additional toe drain system added to the structure. This
alternative would not impact the adjacent property access. Estimated
cost: \$335,000.

[Upgrade dam, Class B (Moderate Hazard) classification]{.underline}

This alternative consists of draining the permanent pool by opening the
principal spillway pipe and lowering the auxiliary spillway by
approximately 8 feet. Under this alternative, the downstream home would
still require 1 ft. of flood proofing. This alternative was excluded
from further consideration due the reduction of flood control benefits
and the impact to the downstream homeowner. This alternative would also
impact the driveway of the adjacent homeowners. Estimated cost:
\$350,000.

[Install a floodwall around downstream hazard]{.underline}

This alternative consists of installing a flood wall around the
downstream hazard. An NRCS engineering analysis found that this
alternative would require a wall varying in height from ten feet at the
back of the home and to above six feet downstream of the home. The
resulting overall average wall height required would be 10.5 feet. In
addition, the riser would be replaced and an additional toe drain system
added to the structure. Since the concept of surrounding a home with a
10.5 foot concrete wall surrounding it would not be an acceptable
situation for the residents of the home, this alternative was dismissed
from further consideration.

[Elevate the downstream home by four feet.]{.underline} An engineering
analysis conducted by Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott and May was completed in
April 2006 with the results coming to NRCS on May 22, 2006. Due to the
age of the home, the numerous structural additions making up the house,
the condition of the foundations, and the difficulties/ risks associated
with elevating an older structure, this alternative was deemed
unreasonable. The homeowner had also specified by letter that he would
not allow his home to be elevated. The estimated cost of this
alternative including the riser and toe drain work was \$219,000.

####### 

####### **Alternatives Analyzed in Detail**

####### The following alternatives were considered feasible for the Plum Creek FRS #18 and were analyzed in detail for this Plan/EA.

[Alternative 1. No Action.]{.underline} Consideration of this
alternative is required. Under this alternative, no federal funds would
be expended and the sponsors would continue to be in violation of
Kentucky Division of Water dam safety regulations. The sponsors would be
fined by the State and the FRS#18 would eventually be breached.

####### [Alternative 2. The Preferred Alternative. Demolition and Replacement.]{.underline} Under this alternative, the existing house in the breach zone would be removed and a new, elevated home would be constructed. The new floodproof foundation would be 4.0' in height to insure the occupants' safety. The sponsors have already worked with the Spencer County Planning Commission to pass an ordinance that controls development within the breach zone of the dam.

####### 

####### This alternative would allow Plum Creek FRS#18 to meet all current State dam safety regulations; allow the homeowner to remain on his property; provide the homeowner with a new home; upgrade the dam's riser; expand the toe drain system; extend the dam's lifespan; and retain the current level of flood protection to residents downstream of the structure.

As part of this alternative, NRCS would replace the FRS riser and
install a supplemental FRS toe drain system. These actions would require
the draining of the permanent pool area and result in short-term
negative impacts to fish/aquatic habitat. Neighboring property owners
would be impacted by the resulting odor of drained the pond. Once the
construction activities were completed, the sediment pond would be
filled and aquatic habitat would be re-established. No federal
threatened or endangered species would be negatively impacted under this
alternative.

**Estimated Installation cost: \$208,800**

**Estimated Project Cost Share Computation: \$190,400**

**Estimated Sponsor cost-share (35%):\$66,700**

**Estimated Federal cost-share (65%): \$123,700**

[Alternative 3. Parapet Wall Construction]{.underline}. A feasible
structural alternative for FRS#18 is the construction of a parapet wall
on top of the existing FRS#18. This alternative would consist of
up-grading to class C by installing a concrete parapet wall; deepening
the auxiliary spillway; replacing the riser; and installing a
supplemental toe drain system. This alternative would also require
modification of the access road to parcels# 26-01 and 26-08.

In order to raise the dam crest of Plum Creek FRS #18 to meet current
dam safety criteria, a 5' high concrete wall would be placed on top of
the earthen berm. This would take the current top of dam elevation from
579.9 MSL to 584.9 MSL. During high water episodes, the level of
flooding behind the structure would increase by 5' and expand beyond the
current high water mark. This would result in 25.1 acres of additional
flooding behind the structure during high water episodes.

####### Since the parapet wall would result in an increase of the lake elevation, the sponsors would need to secure upstream development easements to prevent future construction within the additional high water areas. In addition, the auxiliary spillway would be lowered 3.8 feet from its current elevation of 574.4 MSL. The riser would be replaced and an additional toe drain system added to extend the life of the dam.

This alternative would have impacts to the adjacent property owners
since the access to their properties would need to be rerouted. Similar
to alternative #2, this alternative would require the replacement of the
FRS riser and installation of a supplemental FRS toe drain system. These
actions would require the draining of the permanent pool area and result
in short-term negative impacts to fish/aquatic habitat. Neighboring
property owners would be impacted by the resulting odor of drained the
pond. Once the construction activities were completed, the sediment pond
would be filled and aquatic habitat would be re-established. No federal
threatened or endangered species would be negatively impacted under this
alternative. There would be no restrictions on development below the
FRS.

**Estimated Installation cost: \$ 393,000**

**Estimated Project Cost Share Computation: \$372,000**

**Estimated Sponsor cost-share (35%): \$130,200**

**Estimated Federal cost-share (65%): \$241,800**

These structural measures would allow development of the downstream
breach zone properties in Featherbed Hollow. An assumed increase in
property values could be counted as a financial benefit in the NED
analysis under this alternative.

####### 

####### [Alternative 4. Eminent Domain]{.underline}. This alternative would require that the downstream hazard be purchased at fair market value, based on a certified appraisal. The homeowner would be eligible for a relocation payment of up to \$22,500. The existing house, garage and its foundations would be demolished and removed. In addition, the riser would be replaced and an additional toe drain system added. The Spencer County Planning Commission has already passed an ordinance to control development within the breach zone of the dam. This action would require FRS#18 be up-graded to meet all current NRCS and current State dam safety regulations; however, the current homeowner would be displaced from his residence. Similar to alternative #2 and #3, the pool area behind the dam would be drained during construction activities thereby creating short-term impacts to neighboring homeowners and fish/wildlife habitat.

**Estimated Installation Cost: \$226,500**

**Estimated Project Cost-share Computation: \$208,800**

**Estimated Sponsor Cost-share: \$ 72,975**

**Estimated Federal Cost-share: \$135,525**

## 

## Effects of Alternative Plans

Alternative plans of action can result in a multitude of effects on
resources, upstream, downstream, and adjacent to Plum Creek FRS #18.
This section describes the anticipated effects on resource concerns
identified by NRCS, project sponsors, and/or the public.

############################### Public Safety and Flood Control

[Existing Conditions]{.underline} -- Plum Creek FRS #18 was completed in
1957, prior to implementation of the current hazard classification
system. The structure was designed and built for agricultural land
protection and currently meets the requirements for a KDOW moderate
hazard or class B dam. Because there is one residential structure
downstream of the dam located within the breach zone, the State now
considers the FRS non-compliance with state regulations.

[Alternative #1.]{.underline}-- Under the No Action alternative, no
Federal dollars would be expended on this project. The Sponsor's would
be fined and the KDOW could breach the dam. Without the dam in place,
there would be an increased risk to public safety and property damage
due to an increase in flooding.

[Alternative #2. --]{.underline} This alternative would allow the
homeowner to remain safely on his property by provide a new, elevated
home. Although the house would still be in the breach zone, it would be
elevated 4' to meet safety standards. The dam would then meet all
current state dam safety regulations and downstream property owners
would retain the same level of floodwater protection.

[Alternative #3 --]{.underline} This alternative would increase the
rating of the dam to a class C and provide a higher level of floodwater
protection to all homes downstream of the FRS. This action would
increase the flood water retarding capacity of the dam thereby allowing
for unrestricted development of the downstream breach zone.

[Alternative #4-]{.underline} The home currently within the designated
breach zone of the FRS would be removed thereby removing any homeowner
safety hazard. Other downstream property owners would maintain the
current level floodwater protection.

############################### Sedimentation, Erosion and Water Quality

[Existing Conditions]{.underline}

In 2004, the storage of the normal pool area of Plum Creek FRS #18 was
surveyed. According to this survey, the sediment storage available at
that time was 13.2 acre-feet. Estimated 50-year sediment delivery
(acre-feet) is calculated to be 3.92. NRCS estimates that the existing
Plum Creek FRS #18 sediment pool has enough sediment storage for
approximately 165 more years at current sedimentation rates.

The land use upstream of the structure has not changed substantially
since the structure was designed; however, the current land-use patterns
indicate a trend toward urbanization. Since the structure is located
less than an hour from Louisville, KY a major metropolitan area,
subdividing and growth is occurring. Because the levels of future urban
growth and the resulting sediment impacts are impossible to quantify for
100-plus years, the design life of the structure is for a minimum of 50
years but less than 100 years.

[Alternative #1-]{.underline} Under this alternative, the existing FRS
would probably be breached either by the sponsors or the State. If the
FRS was breached the action would have negative short-term and long-term
impacts. Impacts would include increased rates of sedimentation and a
lowering of water quality. Short-term effects of this action would
include a substantially higher rate of sedimentation downstream of the
site during the construction activities or during rainfall events and a
corresponding decrease in water downstream water quality.

Substantial erosion of the embankment where the dam would be breached
would occur until the cut slopes were stabilized and/or re-vegetated. In
addition, sediments currently deposited in the reservoir would become
exposed and available for transport downstream in the long-term. The
release of the .4 acre-feet of sediment storage volume behind the
current structure would decrease water quality downstream of the
structure. Any additional sediment from the upper reaches of the
watershed would be able to freely move through Featherbed Hollow and
into the Salt River. The total effects to soil and water resources would
be dependent upon land management actions in the upper reaches of the
watershed, rainfall amounts, and erosion prevention activities taken
during the breaching of the dam.

[Alternative #2-]{.underline} This alternative would have minimal
short-term and no long-term effects on sedimentation and/or erosion.
During the removal of the existing home and construction of a new,
elevated home, the contractor would be required to implement an
erosion-control plan. Once the site was re-vegetated, there would be no
long-term effects on soil or water resources.

As part of this project, the FRS riser would be replaced and an
additional toe drain system would be installed. These actions would
require that the area behind the dam be dry. The current pool would be
drained down; however the lowering of the water would be done slowly to
minimize sediment passing downstream. Contractors would be required to
follow an erosion control plan during this construction to minimize
erosion within the work areas.

Depending on storm events during the construction period, there would be
a slight to moderate increase in erosion rates in the short-term, but no
long-term sedimentation or erosion impacts would occur under this
alternative. FRS#18 will continue provide the current level of
floodwater and sediment control capabilities.

[Alternative #3-]{.underline} This action would have short-term
sedimentation effects only. Short-term effects of this action would
include a higher rate of sedimentation downstream of the site during the
construction activities. Erosion rates would depend on weather
(rainfall) and construction activities. An erosion plan would be
followed during all construction activities to minimize soil loss. Once
the area was stabilize and re-vegetated, there would be no negative
long-term impacts. Downstream residents would have increased floodwater
and sediment control since the floodwater capacity of the structure
would be increased.

[Alternative #4 -]{.underline}Under this alternative there would be no
long-term negative effects to sedimentation and erosion rates. The
current home and associated building would be removed and the homesite
restored to grass. There would be a slight increase in erosion during
these removal activities and until the vegetation cover is matured. This
alternative would have no long-term sedimentation or water quality
impacts. As part of this project, the FRS riser would be replaced and an
additional toe drain system would be installed. These actions would
require that the area behind the dam be dry. The current pool would be
drained down; however the lowering of the water would be done slowly to
minimize sediment passing downstream. Contractors would be required to
follow an erosion control plan during this construction to minimize
erosion within the work areas. Depending on storm events during the
construction period, there would be a slight to moderate increase in
erosion rates in the short-term, but no long-term sedimentation or
erosion impacts would occur under this alternative. FRS#18 will continue
provide the current level of floodwater and sediment control
capabilities.

**Transportation-**

[Existing Condition]{.underline} -- If the auxiliary spillway of Plum
Creek FRS#18 was flowing, property owners of lots #1 and #8 (north side
of structure) would not have access to their parcels as their driveway
would be flooded and/or damaged. If the PMP rainfall (28.4 inches in 6
hours) was to occur, Featherbed Hollow road would be flooded and
impassable.

[Alternative #1-]{.underline} This alternative would not impact
transportation and/or access to properties located near Plum Creek
FRS#18.

[Alternative #2-]{.underline} This alternative will have short-term
impacts to nearby properties and roads due to construction vehicles in
the vicinity. Once construction is completed, there will be no long-term
access or transportation issues for nearby property owner.

[Alternative #3-]{.underline} This alternative would permanently change
the access route to property on the north side of the FRS. Engineering
plans call for the new driveway to parcel #1 and #8 to be rerouted
through a paved auxiliary spillway. This would provide the property
owner with property access, but during storm events, the spillway flows
would block access/egress to these parcels. This alternative will also
have short-term impacts to nearby properties and roads due to
construction vehicles.

[Alternative #4, Eminent domain-]{.underline} This alternative will have
short-term impacts to nearby and adjacent property access due to
construction activities. Once construction is completed, there will be
no long-term access or transportation issues for neighboring and/or
nearby property owner.

###############################  Streams, Lakes and Wetlands

############################### [Existing Condition]{.underline}: Approximately 13 acres of pool area are currently in permanent water behind the FRS. No wetlands, other than the pool area and fringe are known to occur within the project area.

############################### 

############################### [Alternative #1]{.underline} The 13 acres of permanent pond would be lost during a breach of the dam. A breach would result in pre-dam flows and flooding levels downstream with surface water levels dependent upon rainfall. The wetland along the fringe of the pool would be lost. No other wetlands, other than the pool area, would be affected.

############################### 

############################### [Alternative #2-4]{.underline} During construction, the pond area would be drained to allow access of equipment. After construction, the pond would refill naturally. No long-term impacts to the pond or wetland fringe would occur.

############################### 

############################### Historic and Cultural Resources

[Existing Conditions]{.underline} -- No significant cultural resources
or historic properties have been identified in the Plum Creek FRS #18
watershed or directly downstream of the structure.

############################### [Alternatives #1-4]{.underline}

############################### None of the Alternatives under this Plan/EA would have effects on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the national Register of Historic Places or would cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historic resources. NRCS has consulted with the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer regarding this project and the range of considered alternatives. 

############################### 

############################### Threatened and Endangered Species

[Existing Conditions]{.underline} --

Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been initiated
and is continuing. According to USFWS records, summer roost habitat for
the endangered Indiana bat (*myotis sodalis*), a federally-endangered
species, could occur within the proposed project vicinity. Forested
areas may provide potentially suitable summer roosting and foraging
habitat. Indiana bats typically roost under exfoliating bark, in
cavities of dead and live trees, and in snags. Trees in excess of 16
inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are considered optimal for
maternity colony roosts, but trees in excess of 9 inches DBH appear to
provide suitable maternity roosting habitat. Male Indiana bats have been
observed roosting in trees as small as 3 inches DBH. The species
utilizes caves, rockshelters, and abandoned underground mines as
suitable winter hibernacula habitat.

Since the USFWS had a lack of species occurrence information available
relative to the project area, they made the following recommendations:

1.  The project area should be surveyed for caves, rockshelters, and
    underground mines and these areas (if existing) should not be
    impacted.

2.  Trees within the project area should be removed between October 15
    and March 31 to avoid impacting summer roosting bats.

3.  If Indiana bat hibernacula are identified on the project area or are
    known to occur within 10 miles of the project area, tree removal
    should occur between November 15 and March 31.

4.  If these recommendations can not be incorporated, then the project
    area should be surveyed prior to project initiation to determine the
    presence or absence of the species.

[Alternative #1]{.underline} This alternative would have higher impacts
on soil/ water resources (due to erosion) and therefore aquatic species
in general, but it is not anticipated to have a negative impacts on any
threatened and endangered species. Aquatic impacts would depend upon how
the dam was breached, weather conditions during construction, contractor
erosion control efforts, seasonal timing of the work, and
immediate/long-term restoration efforts.

[Alternatives #2-4]{.underline}

None of these alternatives considered under this project would
negatively impact threatened and endangered species. Recommendations by
USFWS and KSNPC would be followed to protect both Indiana bat and
downstream aquatic resources. Strict erosion control measures would be
implemented as part of any construction activities to protect downstream
water quality and minimize soil erosion.

############################### Fish and Wildlife Species 

*[Existing Conditions]{.underline}* -- Although the original purpose for
Plum Creek FRS #18 was agricultural flood control, the dam pool also
provides about 5.0 acres of fish and aquatic species habitat.

The littoral and limnetic portions of Plum Creek FRS \# 18 supports
several common species which would be impacted when the pool is drained
during project implementation. Primary amphibian and reptile species
impacted include bullfrogs (*Rana catesbeiana*), green frogs (*Rana
clamitans*), spring peepers (*Hyla crucifer*), snapping turtles
(*Chelydra serpentine*), and midland painted turtles (*Chrysemys
picta*). Primary fish species impacted include channel catfish
(Ictalurus *punctatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and
bluegill (Lepomis* macroshirus) which were likely stocked after
impoundment.

Should the permanent pool area be drained, the mature amphibians and
reptile species will migrate to other suitable habitats; however, the
fish species will be trapped in the channels and other deeper sections
of the pool and will likely die as the water evaporates.

[Alternative #1]{.underline} -If the dam was breached, this alternative
would result in the elimination the pool behind the dam and negatively
impact aquatic wildlife species long-term. Construction activities
including noise, increased traffic, and heavy machinery use could impact
neighboring wildlife species for a short period of time during the
removal of the dam. Aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife associated
with the presence of the permanent pool would be permanently eliminated
-- a loss of approximately 13 acres of aquatic habitat. The impacts to
downstream aquatic habitat would depend on factors that influence
erosion rates, such as how the dam is breached, weather conditions
(rainfall), erosion control efforts, and restoration efforts.

[Alternatives #2 -4 -]{.underline}Under these alternatives, the riser on
FRS#18 would be replaced and an additional toe drain system would be
constructed. Construction activities including noise, increased traffic,
and heavy machinery use could impact neighboring wildlife species for a
short period of time during construction. Negative long-term impacts to
wildlife are not anticipated under these alternatives. NRCS has
consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the Kentucky
State Nature Preserves Commission to ensure no listed wildlife species
will be impacted.

To extend the life of the dam, the riser/toe drain work would
necessitate the draining of the sediment or "permanent" pool behind the
dam. This activity would result in a fish kill within the current
permanent pool area and a negative, short-term, impact to aquatic
species.

While mature amphibians and reptile species will migrate to other
suitable habitats, fish species will be trapped in the channels and
other deeper sections of the pool and will likely die as the water
evaporates. Once the construction process was completed, the permanent
pool area would fill with water from rainfall and aquatic habitat would
naturally reestablish. Aquatic wildlife upstream would relocate to the
area and re-populate the pool. There would be no long-term or permanent
impacts to fish and wildlife species or their habitats.

**Vegetation**

[Existing Conditions]{.underline}- Vegetation in the project vicinity is
typical of the area -- an eastern deciduous forest mix containing, oaks,
hickories, pines, cedars, and common understory shrubs. Open areas
within the project site consist of a variety of grasses and non-native
vegetation. Much of the project area has been disturbed by grazing,
cutting of timber, mowing, and/or brush removal. Species in the project
area include golden rod, Joe-pyeweed, boneset, mint, blackberry bushes,
multi-flora rose, and scattered bottomland trees such as poplar and
sycamore. The FRS has been mowed consistently as part of the operation
and maintenance requirements. Surrounding the 13 acre permanent pool
area is a ring of wetland vegetation such as cattails, rushes, and other
common wetland plants.

[Alternative #1]{.underline}- Under this alternative, the dam would be
breached and the pool area permanently drained. The fringe wetland area
would be permanently impacted due to draining of the pool area and the
vegetation would convert to upland grasses, shrubs, and eventually
trees.

[Alternative #2-4]{.underline} -Under these alternatives, the riser
would be replaced and the additional toe drain added. The pond area
would be temporarily drained, but allowed to refill naturally after
construction was finished. Less than 20 smaller (less than 10" DBH)
trees would be removed at the base and side of the structure to allow
for access of machinery during construction. Areas disturbed during
construction would be re-vegetated. No long term impacts to vegetation
would occur under these alternatives.

## Mitigation -- Soil and Water Resources

Mitigation will include actions to protect water and soil resources on
and downstream of the project area. NRCS will require contractors to
comply with a soil erosion plan and pollution control plan to minimize
air quality impacts. For example, requirements of the mandatory
pollution control plan for this project include:

-   The burning of brush or slash and/or the disposal of other materials
    in the project area shall adhere to all local and state regulations.

-   Fire prevention measures shall be taken to prevent the start or
    spreading of wild fires which could result from project work. Fire
    breaks or guards shall be constructed at locations as needed.

-   All public access or haul roads used by the contractor during
    construction of the project shall be sprinkled or otherwise treated
    to fully suppress dust. All dust control methods shall insure safe
    operations at all times.

-   All pollution control measures and works shall be adequately
    maintained in a functional condition as long as needed during the
    construction operation. All temporary measures shall be removed and
    the site restored to as nearly original conditions as practical.

The erosion control plan will include element such as:

-   Any excavation and moving of soils shall be scheduled so that the
    smallest possible areas will be unprotected from erosion for the
    shortest time feasible.

-   When appropriate, seeding will be done to protect disturbed areas.

-   Mulching will be done to provide temporary protection of soil
    surfaces from erosion.

-   Diversions will be installed to keep water away from work areas and
    to collect runoff from work areas.

-   The sediment pond will be drained slowly to insure the minimum
    amount of sediment is passed downstream.

-   The use of sediment filters will be used as appropriate. Straw bale
    filters or geotextile sediment fences will be used to trap sediment
    from areas of limited runoff.

-   Work access routes will be selected to minimize disturbance.

**Mitigation -- Threatened and Endangered Species**

The USFWS has recommended that tree removal in the project area takes
place between October 15 and March 31. This limitation is to avoid
impacting summer roosting Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*). Should trees
need to be removed outside this timeframe, the USFWS will be consulted
and their recommendations will be adhered to.

##  

## 

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 17%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h2
id="figure-5.-summary-and-comparison-of-project-alternatives--plum-creek-frs-18">Figure
5. Summary and Comparison of Project Alternatives--Plum Creek FRS
#18</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="effects">Effects</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="without-project-no-action">Without Project (No
Action)</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="alternative-1">Alternative #1</h2>
<h2 id="demolition-and-replace">Demolition and Replace</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="alternative-2">Alternative #2</h2>
<h2 id="parapet-wall">Parapet Wall</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="alternative-3">Alternative #3</h2>
<h2 id="eminent-domain">Eminent Domain</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="fish-and-wildlife-specieshabitat">Fish and
Wildlife Species/Habitat</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="permanent-lost-of-approx.-13-acres-aquatic-habitat.">Permanent lost
of approx. 13 acres aquatic habitat.</h2>
<p>Permanent gain of approx. 13 acres of terrestrial habitat.</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-negative-impacts-sediment-pond-drained-during-construction-period.">Short-term
negative impacts: Sediment pond drained during construction period.
</h2>
<h2
id="fish-kill-would-occur.-temporary-loss-of-approx.-13-acres-aquatic-habitat.-no-long-term-impacts.">Fish
kill would occur. Temporary loss of approx. 13 acres aquatic habitat. No
long-term impacts.</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-negative-impacts-sediment-pond-drained-during-construction-period.-1">Short-term
negative impacts: Sediment pond drained during construction period.</h2>
<h2
id="fish-kill-would-occur.-temporary-loss-of-approx.-13-acres-aquatic-habitat.-no-long-term-impacts.-1">Fish
kill would occur. Temporary loss of approx. 13 acres aquatic habitat. No
long-term impacts.</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-negative-impacts-sediment-pond-drained-during-construction-period.-fish-kill-would-occur.">Short-term
negative impacts: Sediment pond drained during construction period. Fish
kill would occur. </h2>
<h2
id="temporary-loss-of-approx.-13-acres-aquatic-habitat.-no-long-term-impacts.">Temporary
loss of approx. 13 acres aquatic habitat. No long-term
impacts.</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="erosion-and-sedimentation">Erosion and
Sedimentation</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-and-long-term-impacts-increased-downstream-erosion-and-sedimentation">Short-term
and long-term impacts: Increased downstream erosion and
sedimentation</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-impacts-during-construction.-long-term-no-change-from-present">Short-term
impacts during construction. Long-term, no change from present</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">Short-term impacts during construction. Long-term, no
change from present</td>
<td colspan="2">Short-term impacts during construction. Long-term, no
change from present</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="water">Water </h2>
<h2 id="quality">Quality</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="short-term-increased-sedimentation.">Short-term:
Increased sedimentation.</h2>
<p>Long-term: increased turbidity and sedimentation as sediments move
downstream.</p></td>
<td colspan="2">Short-term: Some impacts during the construction period.
Long-term: No change from present.</td>
<td colspan="2">Short-term: Some impacts during the construction period.
Long-term: No change from present.</td>
<td colspan="2">Short-term: Some impacts during the construction period.
Long-term: No change from present.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="wetlands">Wetlands</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="no-effects">No effects</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="threatened-and-endangered-species-2">Threatened
and Endangered Species</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="cultural-resources">Cultural Resources</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="prime-farmland">Prime farmland</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
<td colspan="2">No effects</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="air-quality">Air Quality</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-temporary-impacts-due-to-vehicle-exhaust-dust-etc.-during-construction-period.-long-term-no-impacts.">Short-term:
temporary impacts due to vehicle exhaust, dust, etc. during construction
period. Long-term: no impacts.</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="short-term-temporary-impacts-due-to-vehicle-exhaust-dust-etc.-during-construction-period.-odor-issues-during-construction-due-to-drained-sediment-pond.">Short-term:
temporary impacts due to vehicle exhaust, dust, etc. during construction
period. Odor issues during construction due to drained sediment pond.
</h2>
<h2 id="long-term-no-impacts">Long-term: no impacts</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Short-term: temporary impacts due to vehicle exhaust,
dust, etc. during construction. Odor issues due to drained sediment
pond.</p>
<p>Long-term: no impacts</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Short-term: temporary impacts due to vehicle exhaust,
dust, etc. during construction period.</p>
<p>Odor issues during construction due to drained sediment pond.
Long-term: no impacts</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="public">Public </h2>
<h2 id="safety">Safety </h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="decreased-level-of-safety-for-residents-below-the-frs-due-to-reduction-in-flood-control-capability.">Decreased
level of safety for residents below the FRS due to reduction in flood
control capability.</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="increased-level-of-safety-for-downstream-homeowner-in-breach-zone.-no-effects-to-overall-public-safety.">Increased
level of safety for downstream homeowner in breach zone. No effects to
overall public safety.</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="increased-level-of-safety-for-all-residents-below-the-frs-due-to-increased-flood-control-capability.">Increased
level of safety for all residents below the FRS due to increased flood
control capability.</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="no-effects-to-overall-public-safety.-home-in-breach-zone-removed.">No
effects to overall public safety. Home in breach zone removed.</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="flood-control">Flood Control</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2
id="reduction-of-flood-control-on-land-below-structure">Reduction of
flood control on land below structure</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="no-effects-1">No effects</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="improved-flood-control-capability">Improved
flood control capability</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="no-effects-2">No effects</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="project-installation">Project Installation </h2>
<h2 id="costs">Costs</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-52">$0</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-53">$208,800</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-54">$393,000</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-55">$226,500</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><h2 id="section-56"></h2>
<h2 id="figure-6.-national-economic-development-account">Figure 6.
National Economic Development Account</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="no-action">No Action</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="dr">D&amp;R</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="elevate-house">Elevate House</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="parapet-wall-1">Parapet Wall</h2></td>
<td><h2 id="eminent-domain-1">Eminent Domain</h2>
<h2 id="section-57"></h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Beneficial Annual</td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-58">$0</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-59">$64,300</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">$64,300</td>
<td colspan="2">$64,300</td>
<td><h2 id="section-60">$64,300</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h2 id="amortized-construction">Amortized Construction</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-61">$0</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">$11,500</td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-62">$12,100</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-63">$21,900</h2></td>
<td><h2 id="section-64">$12,600</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h2 id="estimated-om">Estimated O&amp;M</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-65">$0</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">$1400/a</td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="b">$1500/b</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="c">$1500/c</h2></td>
<td><h2 id="d">$1200/d</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h2 id="total-adverse-annual">Total Adverse Annual</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-66">$0</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">$12,900</td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-67">$13,400</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-68">$23,400</h2></td>
<td><h2 id="section-69">$13,800</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h2 id="net-beneficial">Net beneficial</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-70">$0</h2></td>
<td colspan="2">$51,400</td>
<td colspan="2">$50,900</td>
<td colspan="2">$40,900</td>
<td><h2 id="section-71">$50,500</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h2 id="benefit-cost-ratio">Benefit Cost Ratio</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-72"></h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-73">5:1</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-74">4.8:1</h2></td>
<td colspan="2"><h2 id="section-75">2.7:1</h2></td>
<td><h2 id="section-76">4.7:1</h2></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## Costs as of 8/06

## a/ annual costs \$1200 for dam; \$200 for floodproofed property

## b/ annual costs \$1200 for dam; \$300 for floodproofed property

## c/ annual costs \$1200 for Class C dam

d/ annual costs \$1200 for dam; property is removed

##  {#section-77}

## Risk and Uncertainty

Assessments, considerations, and calculations in this plan are based on
a 50-year evaluation period, the minimum required under PL 83-566 for
rehabilitation work. (NRCS, 2001). However, assessments and evaluations
of sediment storage capacity and material components suggest that the
service life of Plum Creek FRS #18 will continue beyond 2057.

Risk is associated with events that have relatively well known
probabilities of occurrence. An example of a risk associated with the
Plum Creek FRS #18 is that Featherbed Hollow road would be impassable if
the dam embankment were to fail. Another risk associated with the
watershed planning process is the assumption of land use. Since a
rainfall runoff value is given for each type of land use located in a
watershed, changes in land uses will change the rainfall runoff values.
Although future land development is taken into consideration, this is
only an approximation. If a watershed is development more extensively
than anticipated it could result in more rainfall at higher intensities
at the dam site. The fact that risk inherently involves chance leads
directly to a need to deal with uncertainty. Uncertainty differs from
risk in that the probability of occurrence is not quantified. In
planning, decisions are made with information that is uncertain. In
aging dam (watershed) rehabilitation planning, uncertainty is associated
with:

-   Errors in measurements, i.e. building elevations and stream cross
    sections.

-   Estimating cost of measures due to changing economic conditions that
    could alter price and availability of materials, and the cost of
    labor.

-   Climatic changes that could alter rainfall storm events

-   Land use changes

-   New modeling technology or rainfall runoff data

-   Affected homeowner may later decide not to accept a demolition and
    replacement

The methods used to estimate cost of measures for each alternative in
this project have been successfully used in similar projects in Kentucky
and other parts of the United States, and are proven to provide
reliable, comparative estimates. Estimated benefits and costs would
differ from those planned if the design is changed, property values and
local economy changes, or if significant delays are encountered.

Currently, the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) continues to propose
modifications to the State of Kentucky dam safety regulations. The
current draft of these new regulations provided to the NRCS in early
June 2006 shows considerable changes in dam classification criteria and
breach zone delineations. It is possible that even if the home
downstream of Plum Creek FRS#18 is floodproofed in 2006, changes in
State dam safety regulations in the next few years could result in Plum
Creek FRS#18 once again becoming non-compliant with KDOW regulations.
Associated with these potential changes, all 198 NRCS-assisted flood
control dams built since 1956 could be also non-compliant.

Sponsors of Plum Creek FRS #18 have recorded easements to impound water
on properties adjacent to the pool area and it is assumed they have the
right to flood to top of dam. However, conversations with property
owners reflect that there is confusion about what these easements
actually mean and exactly how much private property would be flooded.

############################### Consultation and Public Participation

Sponsoring organizations include the Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy
District and the Spencer County Conservation District. At the start of
the planning process, meetings were held with representatives of the
sponsoring organizations to ascertain their interest and concerns
regarding the Plum Creek Watershed. Meetings with the project sponsors
were held throughout the planning process, and project sponsors provided
representation at public meetings.

Both the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Kentucky State Nature
Preserves Commission have been consulted regarding threatened and
endangered species. Summer roost habitat for the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) may exist in or near the project site and consultation with
the USFWS is ongoing.

A cultural historic survey was conducted by a certified independent
archaeologist and reviewed by the Kentucky State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The survey concluded that the downstream hazard is not
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The
State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this evaluation.

A public meeting was held on August 16, 2005 to explain the project and
the Notice of Violation and to scope resources problems, issues, and
concerns of local residents. Potential alternative solutions to bring
Plum Creek FRS #18 into compliance with current dam safety criteria were
also presented. Through verbal and written comments, meeting
participants provided input on issues and concerns to be considered in
the planning process, and identified the most socially acceptable
alternative solution. Presentations on the project were given to the
Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy District board members at meetings on
March 10, 2005; January 19, 2006; and March 21, 2006.

**Recommended Plan**

The recommenced plan proposes to demolish and replace the downstream
home currently within the breach zone of Plum Creek FRS#18. The
downstream homeowner would voluntarily allow his current dwelling to be
removed and the sponsors would build a new, elevated home on the same
lot. The foundation of the home would be designed to withstand a breach
wave. As part of this alternative, NRCS would replace the FRS riser and
install a supplemental FRS toe drain system to extend the service life
of the dam. The purpose of this project is to meet applicable NRCS and
KDOW standards for public health and safety at Plum Creek FRS #18 and to
provide continued flood protection. The recommended plan will accomplish
these objectives.

##  {#section-78}

**Benefits of the Preferred Alternative**

The preferred alternative of this project, Alternative #2, is designed
to extend the service life of Plum Creek FRS#18 as well as bring the dam
into compliance with current Kentucky Division of Water safety
regulations. To ensure the service life for a minimum of 50 years, the
riser will be replaced and an additional toe drain system added to the
FRS. An engineering analysis of the existing toe drain system was
conducted by FMSM Engineers. FMSM recommended keeping the existing
system in place but adding a supplemental drain at the toe of the
downstream abutment. NRCS agrees with this recommendation. The current
riser configuration on the dam is not a standard D x 3D design. KY NRCS
contacted the National Design Engineer who indicated his office would
not provide a waiver. Therefore the existing riser will be replaced with
a typical D x 3D design per NRCS regulations. Based on the as-built data
for Plum Creek FRS #18, the riser is assumed to be on bedrock, but this
will be field verified during the construction phase of the project.

Alternative #2 will also retain the current level of flood protection
provided by FRS#18 thereby providing a high level of flood protection
for the residents of Featherbed Hollow. The current home that is within
the breach zone will be removed and the homeowner will have a new
elevated modular home built to remain safely within the breach zone.

## Installation and financing

## Funding of this project will be under a cost-share agreement. 65% of cost will be assumed by NRCS using funds from the Federal PL 83-566 Program, Watershed Protection And Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008). 35% of the cost of the project will be assumed by the sponsors. The sponsors will be responsible for contracting, oversight, and coordination of the installation of non-structural improvements, specifically the demolition and replacement of the downstream home. NRCS will be responsible for contracting, oversight and coordination of the structural improvements including the replacement of the riser and the addition to the toe drain.

During installation, equipment will not be allowed to operate when
conditions are such that soil erosion, water, and air pollution cannot
be satisfactorily controlled. Vegetation will be established immediately
following construction on all disturbed land. Plantings for erosion
control will be selected based upon the installation season, soils, and
surrounding vegetation.

NRCS will be responsible for the following:

1\. Providing contract administration technical assistance,

2\. Providing construction management technical assistance on the
structural works of improvement,

3\. Providing financial assistance equal to 65 percent of eligible
project costs, not to exceed 100 percent of the actual construction
costs

4\. Certifying, in conjunction with the KDOW-Dam Safety and Compliance
Division, completion of installed measures, and

5\. Executing a project agreement with project sponsors to obligate
funds.

Sponsors will be responsible for the following:

1\. Installation of the non-structural measures

2\. Providing financial assistance at a rate equal to, or greater than,
35% of eligible project costs,

3\. Securing all needed permits, easement, and rights for installation,
operation, and maintenance,

4\. Providing local administrative services necessary for installation
of the project,

5\. Executing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NRCS to provide a
frame-work for cost-sharing,

6\. Executing an updated Operation and Maintenance Agreement for Plum
Creek FRS#18 with NRCS,

7\. Executing a Project Agreement with NRCS to obligate funds for
cost-share payments,

8\. Administering and enforcing any necessary maintenance on
non-structural measures

##  {#section-79}

## Operation, maintenance, and replacement: Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the FRS structure will continue to be the responsibility of the Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy District. A new O&M agreement will be executed for an additional 50 years prior to any federal funding.

##  {#section-80}

## Downstream Zoning: The sponsors have already worked with the Spencer County Planning Commission to pass an ordinance controlling development within the breach zone of Plum Creek FRS#18.

## Permits and compliance: 

All necessary federal, state, and local permits will be acquired prior
to commencement of work activities. Permits may include: a 404 permit
(or notification, if activity is authorized under an existing nationwide
permit) from the US COE, in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA); a Water quality certification from the KDOW, in
accordance with Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA; a storm water discharge
permit from the KDOW (Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
KPDES Branch; and Dam Safety and Floodplain Compliance permit from the
KDOW - Water Resources Branch as defined in KRS 151.100 and 401 KAR
4:030. 

+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Figure 7. El                |            |            |          |
| igible Project Cost for Cost-s |            |            |          |
| hare Computation (Dollars)[^4] |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Works of Improvement        | ## NRCS    | #          | ## Total |
|                                |            | # Sponsors |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Cost Sharable Items         |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Rehabilitatio               | ## \$      | ## \$0 {#s | #        |
| n of Dam (Construction Costs)  | 81,000 {#s | ection-82} | # \$81,0 |
|                                | ection-81} |            | 00 {#sec |
|                                |            |            | tion-83} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## R                           | ## \$      | ## \$      | #        |
| elocation, Replacement in kind | 42,700 {#s | 52,700 {#s | # \$95,4 |
|                                | ection-84} | ection-85} | 00 {#sec |
|                                |            |            | tion-86} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Relocation,                 | ## \$0 {#s | ## \       | ## \$3,0 |
|  required Decent Safe Sanitary | ection-87} | $3,000 {#s | 00 {#sec |
|                                |            | ection-88} | tion-89} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Sponsors Planning Cost      | ## NA      | ## \       | ## \$3,0 |
|                                |            | $3,000 {#s | 00 {#sec |
|                                |            | ection-90} | tion-91} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Sponsors Engineering Costs  | NA         | ## \$0 {#s | ## \     |
|                                |            | ection-92} | $0 {#sec |
|                                |            |            | tion-93} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## S                           | NA         | ## \       | ## \$8,0 |
| ponsors Project Administration |            | $8,000 {#s | 00 {#sec |
|                                |            | ection-94} | tion-95} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| Land Rights Acquisition Costs  | NA         | ## \$0 {#s | ## \     |
|                                |            | ection-96} | $0 {#sec |
|                                |            |            | tion-97} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Subtotal: Cost-Share Costs  | ## \$1     | ## \$      | ## \     |
|                                | 23,700 {#s | 66,700 {#s | $190,400 |
| Cost-Share Percentages [^5]    | ection-98} | ection-99} |   {#sect |
|                                |            |            | ion-100} |
|                                | 65.0%      | 35.0%      |          |
|                                |            |            | 100.0%   |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| #                              |            |            |          |
| # Non-Cost-Sharable Items [^6] |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## NRCS Engine                 | ## \$2     | ## NA      | ##       |
| ering & Project Administration | 4,000 {#se |            |  \$24,00 |
|                                | ction-101} |            | 0 {#sect |
|                                |            |            | ion-102} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Natural Resource Rights     | NA         | \$0        | \$0      |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Fe                          | NA         | ##         | ## \$50  |
| deral, State and Local Permits |            | \$500 {#se | 0 {#sect |
|                                |            | ction-103} | ion-104} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ## Relocation, beyond R        | NA         | \$0        | \$0      |
| equired Decent Safe & Sanitary |            |            |          |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+
| ##                             | ## \$2     | ##         | ##       |
|  Subtotal Non-Cost-Share Costs | 4,000 {#se | \$500 {#se |  \$24,50 |
|                                | ction-105} | ction-106} | 0 {#sect |
|                                |            |            | ion-107} |
+--------------------------------+------------+------------+----------+

##  {#section-108}

## Costs: Estimated costs of this project are listed as follows:

  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  NRCS Engineering Design                                 \$9,000

  NRCS Engineering Construction                           \$9,000

  NRCS Project Administration                             \$6,000

  Sponsor Project Administration                          \$8,000

  Replacement of Home and Moving Expenses                 \$95,300

  Federal, State, and local permits                       \$500

  Construction (toe drain and riser on FRS)               \$81,000

  **Total Installation Costs**                            **\$208,800**
  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

##  {#section-109}

##  {#section-110}

+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
| **Table 1.**          |              |           |                 |
|                       |              |           |                 |
| **Estimated           |              |           |                 |
| Installation Costs    |              |           |                 |
| --**                  |              |           |                 |
|                       |              |           |                 |
| **Plum Creek          |              |           |                 |
| Watershed Flood       |              |           |                 |
| Retarding Structure   |              |           |                 |
| No. 18**              |              |           |                 |
|                       |              |           |                 |
| **(Dollars)**[^7]     |              |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
|                       |              |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
| **INSTALLATION COST   | **PL 83-566  | **OTHER** | **TOTAL**       |
| ITEM**                | NRCS**[^8]   |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
| **Non-Structural**    | \$42,700     | \$61,100  | \$103,800       |
|                       |              |           |                 |
| Replacement in kind   |              |           |                 |
| of Residential        |              |           |                 |
| Structure             |              |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
| **Structural**        | \$105,000    | \$0       | \$105,000       |
|                       |              |           |                 |
| Rehabilitation of Dam |              |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
|                       |              |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
| TOTAL PROJECT COST    | \$147,700    | \$61,100  | \$208,800       |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+
|                       |              |           |                 |
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------+

Costs as of 8/06

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>Table 2. Estimated Cost Distribution in
Dollars –</strong></p>
<p><strong>Plum Creek Watershed Flood Retarding Structure No.
18</strong></p>
<p><strong>Installation Costs Public Law 83-566</strong> 1/</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ITEM</td>
<td><p>Construction</p>
<p>3/</p></td>
<td>Engineering</td>
<td>Real Property</td>
<td><p>Relocation</p>
<p>Payments</p></td>
<td>Project Admin.</td>
<td><strong>Total Federal Cost</strong></td>
<td colspan="3" rowspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Rehab Dam &amp; In-kind Replace-ment</td>
<td>$81,000</td>
<td>$18,000</td>
<td>$0</td>
<td>$42,700</td>
<td>$6,000</td>
<td><strong>$147,700</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"><strong>Installation Costs – Other Funds</strong>
1/</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><p>Construction</p>
<p>3/</p></td>
<td>Engineering</td>
<td><p>Real Property</p>
<p>4/ 5/</p></td>
<td>Natural Resource Rights</td>
<td><p>Relocation</p>
<p>Payments</p></td>
<td>Required Permits</td>
<td>Project Admin. 2/</td>
<td><strong>Total Non- Federal Cost</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total Installation Cost</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>$0</td>
<td>$0</td>
<td>$0</td>
<td>$0</td>
<td>$52,600</td>
<td>$500</td>
<td>$8,000</td>
<td><strong>$61,100</strong></td>
<td><strong>$208,800</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## 1/ Price base 2006

> 2/ Includes \$0 for relocation assistance advisory services
>
> 3/ Includes \$0 for cultural resource protection and mitigation
> measures
>
> 4/ Includes \$0 for real propery costs for mitigation

5/ Includes \$0 for surveys, legal fess, and other costs

8/2006

**Table 3, Structural Data, Plum Creek FRS #18,** Spencer County,
Kentucky

  ---------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- ---------- -----------
  **Item**               **Unit**   **Total**                     **Unit**   **Total**

  Class of structure                Moderate    **Principal                  
  (after project)                               spillway design**            

  Seismic zone                      1           Rainfall volume   Inches     6.9
                                                (1-day)                      

  Uncontrolled drainage  Sq miles   1.03        Rainfall volume   Inches     11.6
  area                                          (10-day)                     

  Controlled drainage    Sq miles   1.03        Runoff volume     Inches     8.4
  area                                          (10-day)                     

  Total drainage area    Sq miles   1.03        Capacity of low   Cu ft /    N/A
                                                stage (max.)      sec        
                                                ft3/s                        

  Runoff curve No.                  75          Capacity of high  Cu ft /    65
  (1-day) (AMC II)                              stage (max.)      sec        
                                                ft3/s                        

  Time of concentration  Hrs        0.57        Dimensions of     Ft/in      240/24
  (Tc)                                          conduit                      

  Elevation top dam      Ft         580.0       Type of conduit              R/C

  Elevation crest        Ft         574.4       Frequency         \% chance  0.2
  emergency spillway                            operation-emer.              
                                                spillway                     

  Elevation crest high   Ft         556.0       **Emergency                  
  stage inlet                                   spillway                     
                                                hydrograph**                 

  Elevation crest low    Ft         N/A         Rainfall volume   Inches     7.5
  stage inlet                                                                

  Emergency spillway                Earth       Runoff volume     Inches     4.6
  type                                                                       

  Emergency spillway     Ft         35          Storm duration    Inches     6
  bottom width                                                               

  Emergency spillway     \%         5           Velocity of flow  Ft/s       10.5
  exit slope %                                  (Ve)                         

  Maximum height of dam  Ft         41.5        Max. reservoir    Ft         573.9
                                                water surface                
                                                elev.                        

  Volume of fill         Cubic      47,973      **Freeboard                  
                         yards                  hydrograph**                 

  **Total capacity**                            Rainfall volume   Inches     14.1
  [^9]                                                                       

  Sediment submerged     Acre ft    13.2        Runoff volume     Inches     10.8

  Sediment aerated       Acre ft    2           Storm duration    Hours      6

  Beneficial use                    N/A         Max. reservoir    Feet       579.0
  (identify use)                                water surface                
                                                elevation                    

  Floodwater retarding   Acre ft    198         Discharge per ft  Acre ft    8.9
                                                of width (Oe/b)              

  Between high and low   Acre ft    N/A         Bulk length       Ft         193
  stage                                                                      

  **Surface area**                              **Capacity                   
                                                equivalents**                

  Sediment pool size     Acre       3.1         Sediment volume   Inches     0.24
  [^10]                                                                      

  Beneficial use pool    Acres      N/A         Floodwater        Inches     3.6
  (identify use) size                           retarding volume             

                                                Beneficial volume Inches     N/A
                                                (identify use)               
  ---------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- ---------- -----------

##  {#section-111}

+-----------+---+-------------------+---+---+------------------+---+----------+
| **Table   |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| 4.        |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Estimated |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Average   |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Annual    |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| NED Costs |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| --**      |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
|           |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| **Plum    |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Creek     |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Watershed |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Flood     |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Retarding |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| Structure |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| No. 18**  |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
|           |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| **(D      |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
| ollars)** |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
+-----------+---+-------------------+---+---+------------------+---+----------+
| **E       |   | **Amortization\*  |   |   | **O&M Costs**    |   | **Total  |
| valuation |   | of Installation   |   |   |                  |   | Project  |
| Unit**    |   | Cost**            |   |   |                  |   | Average  |
|           |   |                   |   |   |                  |   | Annual   |
|           |   |                   |   |   |                  |   | Cost**   |
+-----------+---+-------------------+---+---+------------------+---+----------+
|           |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
+-----------+---+-------------------+---+---+------------------+---+----------+
| **TOTAL** |   | \$11,500          |   |   | \$1,400.00       |   | \$12,900 |
+-----------+---+-------------------+---+---+------------------+---+----------+
|           |   |                   |   |   |                  |   |          |
+-----------+---+-------------------+---+---+------------------+---+----------+

\*The FY2006 Water Resource Project Discount Rate is 5.125%.

\*\* NED costs do not include \$3,000 in DSS costs that are considered
transfer payments.

8/2006

+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+
| **Table 5.     |               |                |                   |
| Estimated      |               |                |                   |
| Average Annual |               |                |                   |
| Agric          |               |                |                   |
| ulture-Related |               |                |                   |
| Damage         |               |                |                   |
| Reduction      |               |                |                   |
| Benefits --**  |               |                |                   |
|                |               |                |                   |
| **Plum Creek   |               |                |                   |
| Watershed      |               |                |                   |
| Flood          |               |                |                   |
| Retarding      |               |                |                   |
| Structure No.  |               |                |                   |
| 18**           |               |                |                   |
|                |               |                |                   |
| **(Dollars)**  |               |                |                   |
+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+
| **Item**       | Without       | With Project   | **Average Annual  |
|                | Project b/    |                | Damage Reduction  |
|                |               |                | Benefits**        |
+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+
| **Floodwater** | \$0           | \$64,300       | \$64,300          |
|                |               |                |                   |
| Crop & Pasture |               |                |                   |
| a/             |               |                |                   |
+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+
|                |               |                |                   |
+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+
|                |               |                |                   |
+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+
| **GRAND        |               |                | \$64,300          |
| TOTAL**        |               |                |                   |
+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+

a/ annual losses to downstream properties

b/ damages and benefits were not evaluated completely

## 8/2006 {#section-112}

##  {#section-113}

+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Table 6.** |                     |                 |              |
|              |                     |                 |              |
| **Comparison |                     |                 |              |
| of NED       |                     |                 |              |
| Benefits and |                     |                 |              |
| Costs --**   |                     |                 |              |
|              |                     |                 |              |
| *            |                     |                 |              |
| *Recommended |                     |                 |              |
| Plan**       |                     |                 |              |
|              |                     |                 |              |
| **Plum Creek |                     |                 |              |
| Watershed    |                     |                 |              |
| Flood        |                     |                 |              |
| Retarding    |                     |                 |              |
| Structure    |                     |                 |              |
| No. 18**     |                     |                 |              |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| **A          | **Average Annual    | **Average       | **Benefit    |
| lternative** | Benefit\***         | Annual Cost\*** | Cost Ratio** |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Dam Upgrades | \$64,300            | \$12,900        | 5:1          |
| & Home       |                     |                 |              |
| Replacement  |                     |                 |              |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+--------------+

\*FY2006 Water Resource Project Discount Rate is 5.125%.

## 8/2006  {#section-114}

## References

(Census, 2006). United States Census Bureau. Last Revised 12 January
2006. Web page. State and County Quickfacts. Spencer County. Accessed
on: 13 February 2006. Accessed at:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21/21215.html

(FMSM, 2006). Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott & May Engineers. 6 January 2006.
Draft Report of Feasibility Study. Hydraulic Improvements -- Parapet
Wall Option Plum Creek FRS No. 18 Feather Bed Hollow, Spencer County,
Kentucky.

(FMSM, 2005). Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott & May Engineers. 5 December
2005. Draft Report of Toe Drain Repair/Replacement Study, Plum Creek FRS
No. 18 Feather Bed Hollow, Spencer County, Kentucky.

(KDOW, 2003). Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for Environmental
Protection, Division of Water. 21 October 2003. Violation of KRS Chapter
151. Letter from Gary L. Wells, P.E., Water Resources Branch.

(KDOW, 1990). Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for Environmental
Protection, Division of Water. 19 July 1990. Certificate of Inspection
for Dam and Appurtenant Works.

(NRCS, 2004). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Lexington, Kentucky. October 2004. Assessment
Report, Plum Creek Watershed Site 18, Spencer County, Kentucky.

(NRCS, 2001). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, October 2001. National Watershed Manual,
390-V-NWSM, Part 508 -- Post Installation Assistance.

(PCCD, No date). Plum Creek Conservancy District. No date. Emergency
Action Plan, Flood Retention Structure #18. Spencer County,
Taylorsville, Kentucky.

(SCS, 1954). United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. September 1954. Work Plan -- Plum Creek Watershed, Spencer,
Shelby, Bullitt, and Jefferson Counties Kentucky.

(USACE, 1979). United States Army, Corps of Engineers, Louisville
District. 1979. Plum Creek FRS #18 Spencer County, Kentucky, KY 00336 --
Phase I Inspection Report.

(USEPA, 2005). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Last
updated 14 Octoberl 2005. Web page. The Green Book, Nonattainment Areas
for Criteria Pollutants. Accessed at:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenb

**List of Preparers**

+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| **Na  |            |              |                |               |
| tural |            |              |                |               |
| Reso  |            |              |                |               |
| urces |            |              |                |               |
| Co    |            |              |                |               |
| nserv |            |              |                |               |
| ation |            |              |                |               |
| Ser   |            |              |                |               |
| vice, |            |              |                |               |
| Ken   |            |              |                |               |
| tucky |            |              |                |               |
| State |            |              |                |               |
| Off   |            |              |                |               |
| ice** |            |              |                |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| **N   | **E        | **Title      | **Experience   | **Other       |
| ame** | ducation** | (time in     | Titles and     | (licenses**   |
|       |            | Job, yrs.)** | Time in        |               |
|       |            |              | Job-yrs**      |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Jacob | BS         | NRCS         | Resource       |               |
| Kuhn  | A          | Assistant    | C              |               |
|       | griculture | State        | onservationist |               |
|       |            | Conse        | -21            |               |
|       |            | rvationist-4 |                |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Billy | BS         | NRCS State   | Assistant      | PE            |
| Har   |            | Engineer-14  | SCE-12         | registration  |
| tsell |            |              |                |               |
|       |            |              | Area           |               |
|       |            |              | Engineer-11    |               |
|       |            |              |                |               |
|       |            |              | Engineering    |               |
|       |            |              | Trainee-2      |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Sonya | BS         | NRCS         | NRCS           |               |
| Keith | A          | Watershed    | Agricultural   |               |
|       | griculural | Engineer-3   | Engineer-3     |               |
|       | E          |              |                |               |
|       | ngineering |              |                |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Paul  | BS Geology | NRCS State   | Geologist,     | Registered    |
| H     |            | Geologist    | private        | Prof.         |
| owell |            | -20          | industry or    | Geologist -   |
|       |            |              | state          | KY            |
|       |            |              | government.    |               |
|       |            |              | -28            |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Mason | BS Biology | NRCS State   | Water Quality  |               |
| H     | & MS Soil  | Biologist-9  | Agent ,        |               |
| owell | Science    |              | University of  |               |
|       |            |              | Kentucky - 2   |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Bill  | BA         | NRCS         | Archeologist,  |               |
| Sharp | An         | Ar           | US Forest      |               |
|       | thropology | cheologist-3 | Service - 12   |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Anita | BS         | NRCS         | Natural        |               |
| A     | A          | Resource     | Resource       |               |
| rends | griculture | Cons.-1      | Specialist -9  |               |
+-------+------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+

+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Mangi        |                      |                             |
| Environmental  |                      |                             |
| Group, Inc.**  |                      |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Name**       | **Education**        | **Title**                   |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Phil           | Ph.D., Wildlife      | Project Director            |
| Sczerzenie     | Biology              |                             |
|                |                      |                             |
|                | M.S., Wildlife       |                             |
|                | Biology              |                             |
|                |                      |                             |
|                | B.S., Forestry and   |                             |
|                | Wildlife Management  |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Julia Yuan     | M.S., Natural        | Economic analyses           |
|                | Resources Mgmt.      | Benefit/Cost analysis       |
|                |                      |                             |
|                | B.S., Environmental  |                             |
|                | Biology              |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Mark Blevins   | M.S., Geography      | GIS Analyst                 |
|                |                      |                             |
|                | B.S.,                |                             |
|                | An                   |                             |
|                | thropology/Geography |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+

**Appendix A. Map of Project Site**

**Appendix B -- Response to Comments**

**Response to Comments**

**Plum Creek Watershed, Supplemental Plan #1,**

**Rehabilitation of the Plum Creek Flood Retarding Structure (FRS)#18
Watershed Plan/ Environmental Assessment (Plan/EA)**

A. The following comments were provided to NRCS in either written or
verbal form during the public comment period of September 27, 2006 to
November 13, 2006. The notice of availability of the Plan/EA was
published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2006 (Volume 71,
Number 187, page 56472). NRCS has made no changes to the original
Plan/EA and the public and agency comments are summarized below.

Comments received through the Kentucky State Clearinghouse, which is the
officially designated Commonwealth's Single Point of Contact (SPOC)
pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372 are listed below.

Health and Family Services wrote:

This project does not impact CHFS.

The Heritage Council wrote:

The project will have no effect on any property listed in or eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Further, an
archaeological survey will not be necessary. Therefore, we have no
objection to the project.

The Kentucky Labor Cabinet wrote :

Prevailing Wage rates do not apply.

Kentucky Natural Resources wrote:

This review was based upon the information that was provided by the
applicant through the Clearinghouse for this project. An endorsement of
this project does not satisfy, or imply, the acceptance or issuance of
any permits, certifications or approvals that may be required from this
agency under Kentucky Revised Statutes or Kentucky Administrative
Regulations. Such endorsement means this agency has found no major
concerns from the review of the proposed project as presented other than
those stated as conditions or comments.

All solid waste generated by this project must be disposed at a
permitted facility. If underground storage tanks are encountered they
must be property addressed. If asbestos, lead paint, and/or other
contaminants are encountered during this project, they must be properly
addressed.

Kentucky Division for Air Quality Regulations 401 KAR 58:025, Asbestos
Standards, apply to this project, and the project must be inspected by a
Kentucky Accredited Asbestos Inspector. Asbestos that will be affected
by this activity must be removed by a Kentucky accredited contractor
before renovation or demolition begins. Written notification must be
given on form DEP 7036 to the Division for Air Quality, Frankfort
Regional Office at least 10 weekdays prior to the start of the
demolitions, whether or not asbestos has been identified to be present.
Please not form DEP 7036 and the asbestos fact sheet located at:
<http://www.air.ky.gov/homepage_respository/e-Clearinghouse.htm>

Kentucky Division for Air Quality Regulation 401 KAR 63:010 Fugitive
Emissions states that no person shall cause, suffer, or allow any
material to be handled, processed, transported, or stored without taking
reasonable precaution to prevent particulate matter from becoming
airborne, an that no one shall allow earth or other material being
transported by truck or earth moving equipment to be deposited onto a
paved street or roadway. Please note the fugitive emissions fact sheet
located at
<http://www.air.ky.gov/homepage_repository/e-Clearinghouse.htm>

Kentucky Division for Air Quality Regulation 401 KAR 63:005 states that
open burning is prohibited. Open burning is defined as the burning of
any matter in such a manner that the products of combustion resulting
from the burning are emitted directly into the outdoor atmosphere
without passing though a stack or chimney. However, open burning may be
utilized for the expressed purposes listed on the open burning fact
sheet located at
<http://www.air.ky.gov/homepage_repository/e-Clearinghouse.htm>

The Division also suggests an investigation into compliance with
applicable local government regulations.

The proposed project is subject to Division of Water (DOW) jurisdiction
because the following are or appear to be involved: storm water
discharge and appurtenances. Prior approval must be obtained from the
DOW before construction can begin. The applicant must cite the State
Application Identifier when submitting plans and specifications to the
DOW.

From the application data, the DOW ascertains that the site of the
proposed project is located in a floodplain area; therefore a floodplain
construction permit will be required.

If the construction area disturbed is equal to or greater than 1 acre,
the applicant will need to apply for a Kentucky Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System storm water discharge permit.

Utility line projects that cross a stream will require a Section 404
permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a 401 Water Quality
Certification from DOW.

Response: All appropriate local, state and national permits will be
acquired by the sponsors with the assistance of NRCS.

B. The following comments were expressed during a public meeting of the
Plum Creek Watershed Conservancy District and the Spencer County
Conservation District. This meeting was held on September 26, 2006 at
7:00 P.M. at the Spencer County

Extension Office, 66 Spears Drive, Taylorsville, KY. Comments are
paraphrased and summarized below:

**Issue: The draining of the pond, required for the repair of the
existing floodwater retarding structure (FRS), will cause a fish kill**.

Response: NRCS has contacted both the USFWS and the Kentucky Department
of Fish and Game regarding electro-shocking and relocating fish prior to
construction. Since there are no threatened or endangered species in the
pond area, the USFWS would not be involved. Numerous options are being
evaluated including electro-shocking, relocating and/or digging a
temporary pond for storage. Another option considered is to drain the
pond, kill the fish, but then restock higher quality species in the pond
after it has refilled. NRCS and Kentucky Fish and Game are meeting with
NRCS to discuss and evaluate possible methods for saving the fish. At
this point in time however, no feasible and cost-effective action to
save the fish has been identified.

**Issue: Concern was expressed regarding long-term changes in the pond
level and downstream flood from the FRS after during and after
construction**.

Response: The design and installation of a new riser and an additional
toe-drain system to the existing FRS will require the draining of the
sediment pond behind the dam. The area around the riser must be dry
enough to allow replacement of the riser. To facilitate draining the
pond prior to construction, water will be released slowly causing a
slight increase in flows downstream, but the flow will be controlled to
insure a minimum of sediment is released downstream and that no flooding
occurs. After construction is completed, the riser will be set so that
the pond level and downstream flow from the dam will be the same as the
pre-construction levels.

**Issue: Construction traffic and public road/ private lane/private
property impacts.**

Response: During construction, there will be heavy machinery and truck
traffic using Featherbed Hollow Road. Access to the dam will be on
property that has an easement allowing for such use. Any vegetative
disturbance will be protected from erosion and re-vegetated. If road
damage should occur, it will be fully repaired after construction is
completed. NRCS does not anticipate that the private lane on the north
side of the dam will be negatively impacted; however, if there is damage
to the lane, it will be repaired to pre-construction conditions.

**Issue: Culvert replacement on a private lane near the construction
area.**

NRCS does not plan to remove or replace any culverts during this
project. However, should any private property be damaged by construction
activities, the damage will be fully repaired.

**Issue: The removal of trees and what would be cut.**

Response: For this project, heavy machinery must have access to the
entire FRS structure and the riser, which is located in the lower region
of the sediment pond. NRCS estimates that the trees that will have to be
removed are located at the base of the FRS. Trees may need to be removed
at the north gutter or groin area of the dam and around the plunge pool
(front of dam). NRCS will insure contractors make every effort to
minimize both tree removal and disturbance of vegetation around the
construction site.

**Issue: Concern was expressed over the odor of rotting fish once the
pond was drained and any possible health impacts from the smell.**

Response: When the pond is drained there will be dead fish and rotting
vegetative matter -- and there will be an odor issue for the residents
surrounding the dam. Construction can only take place during the drier
months which will allow for both equipment access and minimization of
odor impacts to neighbors. Although the smell will be annoying, NRCS
knows of no scientific evidence that the odor will cause health impacts
to humans.

**Issue: Concern was expressed over the artificial wetlands that have
been constructed at the east end of the sediment pond as it impedes
secondary access to lots on the north side of the sediment pond.**

Response: This project will not directly modify the wetlands at the east
end of the sediment pond. As the main sediment pond is drained, water in
the wetlands will decrease. After construction is finished, the water
levels in the wetlands and the main sediment pond will return to
pre-construction levels.

**Issue: One speaker asked if NRCS was going to have contractors dredge
the sediment pond to increase storage capacity of the dam.**

Response: The sediment pond is not going to be dredged as part of this
project. The sediment disturbance, wetland issues, and additional costs
were all taken into consideration for this decision.

**Issue: Construction of temporary coffer dams.**

NRCS plans that work on this project will take place during late
spring/summer so that the sediment pond can dry. If unusually heavy
rainfall occurs in the watershed, temporary small dams or "coffer dams"
may be constructed to hold back water from the construction site. These
temporary structures would be built to hold back flow from the feeder
streams and would be removed after construction activities were
completed.

[^1]: ^1^ Price base 2006.

[^2]:
    ## ^2^ Maximum NRCS cost=-share is 65% of Cost-sharable items not to exceed 100% of construction costs (including Replacement-in-kind; Required Decent, Safe, Sanitary; and flood proofing of downstream properties).

[^3]: ^3^ If actual Non- Cost Sharable item expenditures vary from these
    figures, the responsible party will bear the change.

[^4]: ^1^ Price base 2006 amortized over 100 years. The FY2006 Water
    Resource Project Discount Rate is 5.125%.

[^5]:
    ## ^2^ Maximum NRCS cost=-share is 65% of Cost-sharable items not to exceed 100% of construction costs (including Replacement-in-kind; Required Decent, Safe, Sanitary; and flood proofing of downstream properties).

[^6]: ^3^ If actual Non- Cost Sharable item expenditures vary from these
    figures, the responsible party will bear the change.

    8/2006

[^7]: Price base

[^8]: Federal agency responsible for assisting in installation of works
    of improvement

[^9]: ^1^ Crest of emergency spillway

[^10]: ^2^ If reservoir contains beneficial storage of if sediment
    capacity will not store water, show area in parenthesis and footnote
    accordingly