SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
DRAFT - WHITE PAPER – CITIZENS AGAINST FLOODING CAUSED BY THE ODNR DAM
PROJECT FOR THE BUCKEYE LAKE AREA, JANUARY 2013
We recently read in the Buckeye Lake Beacon that the ODNR believes the work they are presently doing
to the Sellers Point outlet channel and the South Fork of the Licking River will return the Sellers Point
spillway area to “pre-spillway conditions.” We disagree with this statement, but the answer requires
some historical perspective.
THE DAM PROJECT: The dam control project came about as a result of the State determining the dam
needed to meet Class 1 dam requirements due to the possibility of downstream loss of life.
“Downstream” includes the Sellers Point area, North Bank, Hebron, Heath and Newark. If you agree
with the Class 1 requirement, which we don’t, then the design standard is that the dam has to handle 23.6”
of rain in 6 hours. (This is also called the PMF or Probable Maximum Flood.) To achieve this, they had to
increase the dam’s ability to dump water during a PMF flood event. The original gated spillway installed
in 1910 was only 67’ wide with (5) 5’ X 4’ submerged gates and had a limited ability to dump water
during storm events. To increase the ability to dump water, the state added an un-gated weir structure
spillway at Sellers Point 460’ long, increasing the ability of the Lake to dump water 7 fold. (Phase I of
the Dam Project) Still, with all this capacity to dump water, the State claims that the dam, at its present
height, would be in danger of over-topping during the PMF. Presently the water level is 891.75’ and the
top of the dam, 895’, therefore, there is 3’ of “freeboard” above lake level. In order to contain the PMF
they believed they needed to raise the height of the dam another 1 ½ - 2 feet, depending on the
engineering source referenced. (Phase III of the Dam Project) We believe, that in their zeal to meet the
Class 1 dam requirement, they have changed the way the dam/spillway system operates during normal
rainfall. In fact, they have created a system that actually increases the risk of flooding during rain events
that we are likely to experience in order to handle a rain event we are not likely to experience.
ORIGINAL DESIGN: The original lake was built in 1832 as a feeder lake for the Erie Canal to help keep
the level of the canal constant. It was provided with a small, single, gated wooden spillway at the center
of the lake near the Village of Buckeye Lake. (The original spillway was replaced in 1910 with a
concrete, gated, spillway that was 67 feet in length and was operational until 1993.) The discharge from
this spillway goes into the South Fork of the Licking River (SFLR). Because the spillway was small, it
could only discharge water from the lake into the river at a controlled amount. When more water was
coming into the lake than could be discharged through the spillway, the level of the lake rose. This is
important, because if the spillway could release water faster, then the level of the lake would not rise as
quickly, and more water would go into the SFLR increasing the risk of flooding to the community. As a
testament to the original designers, although the lake came close to over-topping on several occasions, it
never over-topped in 165 years. In fact, during flooding events, the lake/spillway system acted as a flood
retarding reservoir and the gated spillway was kept closed to prevent dumping too much water in the river
and back-flooding the local residents. Here is an example from a report by GAI Consultants for the Army
Corps of Engineer’s in July 1978, “In May 1968, the National Guard had to sandbag portions of the crest
to prevent overtopping. It is important to note that the park did not open the outlet works gates during the
flood since this would have caused additional flooding downstream along the South Fork Licking River.”
In fact, in an ODNR review of the Watershed Flood Control Project which included up to (7) flood
retarding reservoirs in the South and North Fork Licking River area in 1979, they noted that reducing
flow in the South Fork of the Licking river would allow, “increased water releases from Buckeye Lake,
1
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
thus improving the safety factor of that dam.” It is obvious that, prior to the installation of the Sellers
Point spillway, the State believed they should have an active role in flood control management regarding
the discharge of water from Buckeye Lake during normal rain events that can, but should not, lead to
flooding.
DAM PROJECT-PHASE 1: Phase 1 was adding a new spillway, in addition to the primary spillway at
Buckeye Lake. The State commissioned Dodson-Lindblom (DL) to analyze the condition of the dam and
make recommendations on what is required to meet the PMF. DL’s analysis determined the dam was
structurally sound and could handle the PMF with an increase in height to 896.5’ if we added a new,
much larger emergency spillway. There were 4 primary choices for a new spillway:




Jonathon Creek: This would add a new spillway at the far, east, end of the lake. This would have
been an excellent choice as it would not have dumped water into the South Fork of the Licking
River, the already over burdened river system that frequently floods I-70 during moderate rain
events compared to the PMF. However, the State did not want to take the water to a different
watershed, so this option was abandoned. (We would like to note that we have a letter from then
Senator Nancy Dix indicating that Perry County was interested in water from the Lake.)
Maple Bay: This was a spillway that would take water out of the east end of the lake and join
with the SFLR much farther downstream. Note, the SFLR runs from west to east. If you are
going to dump water into the river, the further downstream you go, the more the river elevation
drops, the less the impact on flooding in the Buckeye Lake area. This was not chosen,
apparently, because it would require installing a bridge on I-70. In fact, DL noted under
“advantages” that if this option was selected, “Discharge from the spillway will not significantly
affect flooding near the community of Buckeye Lake for lesser floods.” That is, the kind of
rainfall we are likely to see.
Gated weir spillway at Sellers Point: Placing a spillway at Sellers Point had the disadvantage of
dumping water at the upstream end of the SFLR which would increase flooding in the area. This
option was not chosen, apparently, because it would actually require the State to perform flood
management to operate the gates.
Un-gated weir at Sellers Point: This was a large weir spillway with the crest set at normal pool
level of 891.75’ that did not require any active management. When it rains, the water pours over
462’ of spillway into the Sellers Point outlet channel that connects to the SFLR, in addition to the
water that still pours out of the primary spillway into the SFLR. This is more water than we
believe the SFLR can handle. This was also the lowest cost option. Under “disadvantages” for
both Sellers Point spillway options, DL noted, “Discharge may add to flooding problems near
community of Buckeye Lake.”
(Note: In addition to the above the DL report clearly stated that if the Sellers Point option was chosen this
should be done under two conditions,
1. “Channel improvements should be made to the South Fork of the Licking River below the
new outlet channel.”
2. “These improvements should be coordinated with the basin flood control project proposed
by the SCS and the South Licking River Watershed Conservancy District.”
2
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
DAM PROJECT-PHASE 2: In 1993 the state installed a new 33.5’ long, weir-gated primary spillway.
This spillway included an option to automatically control the lake level to a preset height. Presently set at
891.75’ during summer operation.
DAM PROJECT-PHASE 3: Increasing wall height from 895’ to 896.5’ to meet the PMF. This would
require removing every dock on North Bank and removing all the trees. Save-Buckeye-Lake met with the
ODNR and convinced them that they needed to solve the flooding problems created by Phase 1 before
proceeding with Phase 3 and reconsider raising the wall to 896.5’ due to the legal issues it raises. On
5/28/1997 the ODNR, after pressure from residents, announced they will “seek permanent solutions to all
safety-related deficiencies and other unresolved issues at the dam…a work group will be formed with
local residents...we’ll be exploring innovative engineering approaches, designed to ensure the safety of
the entire dam while preserving the houses and trees, and providing for boat dock facilities that have been
an essential part of Buckeye Lake.” Donald Anderson, then the director of the ODNR, vowed to return
the area to “Pre-Sellers Point spillway conditions.” This resulted in The Fuller, Mossberger, Scott & May
(FMSM) study which demonstrated that the dam had, in fact, changed the flooding in the area. “As you
learned …at our last meeting, the hydraulic model indicates flood conditions…in the vicinity of Sellers
Point will be exacerbated when lake water passes over ODNR’s spillway during certain storm events. As
such, I am directing FMSM to focus their efforts on developing solutions for returning the drainage
characteristics at Sellers Point to pre-spillway conditions.” (Letter: Steve Manilla, Chief Engineer,
ODNR to John Sproat, Save-Buckeye-Lake, May 7, 2001”
After FMSM demonstrated that flooding in the area had been changed, they were to work with citizens
groups to help find a resolution to the problem. However, to our knowledge, this never occurred.
Instead, the State is proceeding to make changes to the outlet channel as identified in the DL report as
essential if they were to install the spillway at Sellers Point. (DL condition 1) This work is underway at
this time of writing. To our knowledge this is not being done in conjunction with a basin flood control
project. (DL condition 2). It appears that the State believes the work they are doing on the outlet channel
meets the requirement of returning the Sellers Point area to “pre-spillway” conditions, and so they are
also moving forward with Phase 3 of the dam project, however, this time they are not just raising the wall
1 1/2 feet, they are installing an entirely new 20’ wide dam in front of the existing dam and a new
concrete wall at 896.5!
What is wrong with this picture?
Phase 1 issues: The DL study warned the State that if they chose the Sellers Point spillway option they
would increase flooding in the area. In order to prevent this they had to do some stream widening and
also become part of the then proposed flood control project by the Watershed Conservancy District
(WCD) including up to (7) flood retarding reservoirs in the Licking River system and channeling of the
SFLR north of I-70. Today, the State is widening and clearing the Sellers Point outlet channel to help
carry water away from the area, and that is a good thing, but it does not return the area to “pre spillway
conditions” because the lake, as described above, is no longer a flood retarding reservoir and because
this work is not being done in conjunction with a flood control project. To return the lake to prespillway conditions the ODNR would have to convert the spillway at Sellers Point to a gated spillway and
only open the gates in an over-topping emergency. To utilize the Sellers Point option they would also
3
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
need to install flood retarding reservoirs in the SFLR. What they are planning will only making flooding
problems worse.
Let me explain. The spillway was designed to dump the PMF. But the problem with the design is it does
not handle normal rain events. When we get 4 – 6” of rain in 24 hours, the river fills up and back flows
all the way into the Sellers Point spillway. Clearing the channel will not prevent back flow if the river is
overburdened. Everyone that lives here has seen the Sellers Point spillway completely filled to the
underside of the bridge during a normal rain event. Because the lake is no longer a flood retarding
reservoir it is dumping water from both the primary spillway and the un-gated spillway in a completely
uncontrolled fashion. This overburdens a river system and leads to localized flooding. The problem we
have now is that the two spillways are dumping more water into the river than it can handle. (This was
clearly described in the DL report) When this happens, the water back-fills the spillway and water is
coming at us from the lake and from the river. What the State has done is to eliminate their ability to
control run off from the lake, and, since the river and outlet channel are already full under this condition,
it is their plan to store this water on our property. This is a violation of the “Ditch” laws of the State of
Ohio and would require the State to get an easement from every property affected at Sellers Point, North
Bank, Hebron, Heath and Newark. The only way to correct this problem is to convert the spillway at
Sellers Point into a gated spillway that would allow the lake to act a flood retarding reservoir and only
open the gates in an over-topping emergency. However, if they do this, we believe they still have to solve
the problem of what to do with the water when they do open the gate for the PMF. It would make more
sense to install another spillway outlet that would reduce the outflow from the Sellers Point spillway and
ease the burden on the SFLR during normal rain events; e.g., the Jonathon Creek, or Maple Bay spillway
options. We should also like to point out that even though it is called an “emergency” spillway, it
actually works when there is no over-topping emergency. It works when there is no need for it to work.
The real problem is the system can no longer handle normal rain events that we can expect to encounter.
Our problem is not 23.6’ of rain in 6 hours. Our problem is 4 – 6” of rain in 24 – 48 hours. E.g., the 1968
flooding event referenced by the ACOE, where they noted the state operated the Lake as a flood retarding
reservoir, was several days of 2 - 3” of rain. The entire rainfall for the month of May 1968 was 8.5”. The
flooding of March 5, 2012 was caused by 4” of rain. “Hebron, Ohio – A strong line of thunderstorms
dumped several inches of rain on parts of central Ohio early this morning….fire departments arrived with
water rescue boats to ferry people trapped by high water…Ryan, 73, said the flooding was the worst he
has seen in…31 years.” (Columbus, Dispatch 3/15/2012.) On May 9, 1996, after the spillway was
installed, a series of rain events filled the river, back-filled the spillway to the underside of the dam, while
waters were pouring over the spillway. This put the entire area under water for days. The total amount of
rain recorded at the Buckeye Lake Water plant was 1.91”. (Ohio River Forecast Center data) If we can’t
handle this much rain, without flooding, we should be working on this problem, not replacing the dam.
Controlling the water in the river and the water discharged from the lake should be the primary focus of
the ODNR, ODOT & the WCD.
Phase 2 issues: New gated spillway. No issues. Good job!
Phase 3 issues: When SBL met with the ODNR we advised them that we did not believe they could
proceed with raising the wall on the dam to 896.5 for several reasons and the project should be
abandoned:
4
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE

The State had issued Governor deeds to many residents on the South side of the lake that
guaranteed they would never change the level of the Lake. This was very important to these
residents because their houses are very close to water level. If the state raises the wall of the lake
another 1 – 2 ‘, then, during high rain events, they will raise the level of the lake higher than if the
dam is kept at 895’, violating the deeds given to residents, opens the State to legal action. In
addition, they are also planning to flood residents who were not given deeds and they would have
to obtain easements from all the residents affected by an additional 1 ½’ of water whether or not
they were given deeds.

Requiring all residents to remove docks that were originally permitted by the State is a financial
hardship that the State would need to compensate residents for and, we believe, they should have
to pay the entire expense of removing and replacing the existing docks that State had permitted
over the years. The State claims they would point to language on the permit that says the docks
might have to be removed. However, we would argue, it is one thing to have to remove the dock
in an emergency, but to simply remove the dock in a condition that does not constitute an
emergency because the State just wants to, is an insufficient cause for action. If, in effect, the
State knew all along they were eventually going to require residents to remove these docks while
they were issuing permits, they were acting in bad faith just to collect the dock revenues.

There is no reason to raise the elevation of the Lake to handle the PMF because if the PMF were
ever to occur, there would be as much water on the back side of the dam as the front face and the
dam would cease to function normally anyway. That this, the reason to meet the Class 1
requirement is due to the fact that failure of the dam could lead to lose of life from flooding.
However, this entire area is a flood plain, and during a PMF the entire area, not just the lake, is
flooded. (Reference FMSM flood diagrams showing that when the lake is at 897’, the water on
the backside of the dam is at 896’.) (FMSM Citizen’s Advisory Group meeting of 11/14/2000,
PMP +10 hours.) Therefore, the loss of life due to flooding from a dam failure becomes a moot
point as the area is already under water from the river and uncontrolled release from the Lake. For
this reason, we believe the State should, either, abandon the requirement to raise the wall, or, find
another location to dump more water, e.g., Jonathon Creek. In fact, we think this is an excellent
idea as it reduces the water going to the SFLR during normal operation and reduces the flooding
in the area. In fact, in 1972 a Ad Hoc Task force which included the ODNR considered
alternative measures which could contain the PMF but decided this was “expensive
and…impractical…The alternative structural measures were then studied to contain the 50%
PMF (ODNR Class II design flood). The excess runoff…was to be handled by a combination of
structural and non-structural means by which the loss of human life would not be envisioned.
The major alternatives…included…Diversion channel near Thornport to Jonathon Creek.” (DL)

Now the State comes forward and says not only are they going to raise the elevation, they are
going to make the residents remove all their docks so the State can install a new dam in front of
the existing dam. We would contest this would also open the State to legal action as their own
engineering studies demonstrate the existing dam is in excellent condition, can handle the PMF,
even at an elevation of 896.5 with structures built into the dam, tailwater on the backside of the
5
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
dam, and an earthquake at the same time. That is, there is no reason to replace the existing dam
with a new one. Therefore, requiring residents and businesses along the dam to endure business
interruption and financial hardship for a whimsical request is unnecessary and unlawful. “there is
no evidence to indicate that raising the crest a few feet or a higher Lake level associated with
temporary storage of the PMF will lead to a catastrophic piping failure….will not lead to a
stability failure…Phase III can proceed.” (Rizzo report) Basically, the Rizzo report gives the
green light to proceed to utilize the dam at 897’ using the existing dam/sheet pile construction.
No new dam is required. In fact, the dam safety factors are improved if the crest of the dam is not
raised and the State finds ways to keep the level of the lake well below the present crest of 895’.
That is, to raise the crest to 896.5 increases the risk of dam failure and floods 1000’s of homes!
We think this is a poor choice!
SBL RECOMMENDATIONS: In general, we believe it is capricious and wasteful for the State to spend
money on a new dam, when they have not addressed the real, dangerous, issue of flooding in the area
caused by Phase 1 of their dam project. Therefore, instead of proceeding with installing a new,
unnecessary, dam, we believe the State should consider the following:










Install a gated structure at Sellers Point and return the lake to its original function as a flood
retarding reservoir and perform responsible flood management.
If the State insists it is necessary to prevent the lake from over-topping during a PMF event, then
install an additional spillway at Jonathon Creek and send water directly to the Muskingam River
and reduce flooding from the SFLR or install an additional spillway at Maple Bay and dump the
water further down stream.
Route the SFLR north of I-70 and add additional flood retarding reservoirs, if necessary, to
prevent the flooding of I-70 and get ODOT to pay to prevent flooding of their highway which
was built at too low of an elevation. (Why should we pay for that?)
Clear out the Sellers Point outlet channel and use it only as a spillway channel, joining the SFLR
again downstream of the by-pass channel.
Develop an active river inspection/cleaning system to keep the system free of flood-creating log
jams.
Develop a plan to maintain healthy trees that actually strengthen the dam, but properly remove
unhealthy trees, including their entire root structures, to protect the dam from piping. “They
conducted an extensive study along a 6-mile reach of Sandy Channel levee…concluded that
woody vegetation did not adversely affect the structural integrity of the levee.” (Donald Gray)
Properly permit and inspect new construction to protect the dam when excavations occur into the
tail of the dam.
Monitor the sheet pile wall and only repair/replace as required.
Evaluate the condition of the west bank masonry wall and repair/replace as required with steel
sheet piling.
Improve flood warning and prevention capabilities per the USGS, “It is anticipated that the
increased amount and availability of publically accessible streamflow data, along with enhanced
flood-prediction capability, will improve the ability of public and emergency management
officials to assess flood conditions, take appropriate steps to protect life and property, and reduce
6
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
flood damage.” It is unfortunate, in light of this statement, that the State can no longer regulate
flow out of the Lake into the SFLR.
The dam is 180 years old, and this is often pointed out as something detrimental, something that needs
replaced. But the dam is made of dirt! I am unconvinced that old dirt is worse than new dirt. In fact, the
Rizzo report claims the dirt the dam is made of couldn’t be better. “Interestingly, we have observed the
behavior of the Embankment Fill, implying that it was well compacted when placed, a tribute to the
builders of the Dam more than 150 years ago.” We believe the State would be better off to keep a dam
that is in excellent condition and focus their energies and resources on reducing flooding in the area. We
also believe they need to focus on partnering with the residents of Buckeye Lake, which is one of the real
estate jewels of Ohio, in order to maintain it as an excellent source of tax revenues to the State.
POSTSCRIPT: The Rizzo study makes a point to say the Dam has been abused by the placement of
trees, docks and houses on the Dam. We would first like to point out this was all done with the approval
of the ODNR. In fact, the State sold all the lots on the Dam for profit, gave Deeds to people on the South
shore promising they would not change the pool elevation of the lake, approved most of the dock
structures on the Lake, charge yearly dock fees for all docks and, to my knowledge, have never
maintained vegetation on the slope of the dam. These conditions have all occurred under the State’s
watch. The Rizzo seepage & stability testing was all done on an abused dam with houses, trees and docks
installed. Further, they evaluated the safety of the dam with houses included, during an earthquake and
found the dam more than meets the required safety factor requirement of 1.5. The dam may not be ideal,
but, per Rizzo, the dam is safe!
Signed:
David Luttenberger; Resident and Co-Chairman of Save-the-Lake Committee
John Sproat, atty; Resident and Co-chairman of Save-Buckeye-Lake Committee
Bibliography (Primary Sources):
Dodson –Lindblom Associates, Inc. (1987) “Buckeye Lake Dam Spillway Adequacy and Embankment
Stability and Seepage Study”
Fuller, Mossberger, Scott & May Engineers, Inc. (1999-2000) “South Fork Licking river Watershed
Initiative, Citizens Advisory Group”
GAI Consultants, Inc. (1978) “Phase I Inspection Report National Dam Safety Program”
Gardner and Associates (1996) “Buckeye Lake Spillway Adequacy”
Gray, Donald H. (June 8-10, 1994) “Influence of Vegetation on the Stability of Slopes”
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1979) “Comments on Draft Watershed Plan & Environmental
Impact Statement”
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (May 28, 1997) “Press Release: ODNR and Senator Dix Will
Work with Local Residents in Seeking a Permanent Solution to Safety Concerns at Buckeye Lake Dam”
7
SAVE-BUCKEYE-LAKE
Paul C. Rizzo Associates (1997) “Buckeye Lake Dam Stability Study, Buckeye Lake State Park,
Fairfield, Licking, and Perry Counties, Ohio, DNR 736 730-96-034”
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1980) “Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement for South Fork Licking River Watershed Licking, Perry and Fairfield Counties, Ohio”
United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2012) “Development of a Flood-Warning System and FloodInundation Mapping in Licking County, Ohio”
8