FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE , ( CONTROL, NAVIGATION AND POWER)

Prepared by

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT MOBILE, ALABAMA DECEMBER 1974 SUMMARY

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA (, NAVIGATION AND POWER)

( ) Draft Environmental Statement (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, Mobile P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 (205) 690-2511

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Action: Continuation of operation and main­ tenance of an existing multipurpose dam and located on the Chattahoochee in Gwinnett, Hall, Forsyth, and Dawson Counties, Georgia. The project provides flood control, regulation of flow for navigation, hydroelectric power generation and the additional benefits of recreation and water supply.

3 . a. Environmental Impact: The project provides an average annual benefit of $63^,700 in flood control and land enhance­ ment. The hydroelectric facilities have a capacity of 86,000 kw and are operated to meet peak demands for electricity in the service area. Low-flow augmentation provides water for navi­ gation, industrial and municipal uses downstream. The reser­ voir provides a source of water supply for public water utili­ ties. Over 13.8 million visitors utilized the recreational facilities of the lake in 1973. The current benefit-to-cost ratio is 3*6 to 1.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: During late summer and fall water released by power generation has a dissolved oxygen content below state standards due to thermal stratifi­ cation and turbine intakes being located in the hypolimnion. The release of large flows by peaking power generation causes erosion of the river banks and of some archaeological sites downstream. Enrichment of portions of the lake by the dis­ charge of wastes causes localized deterioration of water quality and algal blooms.

4. Alternatives: Discontinue operation and maintenance of the project with a loss of benefits from flood control, power generation, low-flow augmentation, water supply, and recrea­ tion. Various combinations of the project features could be operated with a loss of some of the present benefits and an increase in other benefits. 5. Comments Received:

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Environmental Protection Agency Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Department of Commerce U. S. Coast Guard Georgia State Clearinghouse Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission Forest Supervisor, U. S. Forest Service District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service RC&D Project Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Section Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division

6. Draft statement to CEQ 20 November 1973- Final statement to CEQ_____1 R JUL 1975___ • PINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA (FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION AND POWER)

Table of Contents

Section Page No. Subject No.

1 Project Description------1

2 Environmental Setting of the Project------6

3 Relationship of Continued Operation and 16 Maintenance of the Project to Land Use Plans------

4 The Environmental Impact of the Proposed 16 Action ------

5 Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which 19 Cannot be Avoided Should the Proposal Be Implemented ------

6 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ---- 19

7 The Relationship Between Local Short-term 21 Uses of Man's Environment and the Main­ tenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity------

8 Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commit- 22 ments of Resources Which Would Be Involved In the Proposed Action Should It Be Imple­ mented—

9 Coordination With Others ------22

Appendix A - Letters With Comments

Appendix B - References

Prepared by MOBILE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS With Data Prepared Under Contract By

HERBERT H. ROGERS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA (FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION AND POWER) 1. Project Description. Buford Dam is located on the in Gwinnett and Forsyth Counties, Georgia, about 35 miles northeast of and *+.5 miles northeast of Buford, Georgia. The project con­ sists of an earth dam supplemented by three saddle dikes and an unpaved chute spillway, an 86,000 KW power plant, and appurtenances. The main dam, 1,630 feet long and 192 feet high at maximum section, is an earth-fill structure with a rock section on the upstream side. The saddle dikes are earth fill with a rock section on the crest and upstream face and the spillway is an unpaved uncon­ trolled chute with crest at elevation 1,085 msl. The concrete intake structure located in an excavated channel contains gates and operating equipment for regulating the flow through two power penstocks and the flood-control sluice. The sluice, 13.25 feet in diameter, is provided for those occasions when it is necessary to release water in flood-control storage or for low-water flow regulation. The concrete powerhouse, with 3 generating bays and an erection bay, is located in a deep rock cut at the right end of the earth dam just downstream from the intake structure. The transformer yard is connected to the powerhouse by a short power cable tunnel. The switch­ yard located to the west of the powerhouse on a hill overlooking the site is connected to the transformers by overhead lines spanning the tailrace. The 1,0^0 square-mile drainage area above the dam lies on the southern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains and is charac­ terized by the steep slopes of mountain . The location is shown on the map following this page.

Buford Dam is a multiple-purpose project with prin­ cipal purposes of flood-control, navigation and power. The lake is in Forsyth, Hall, Gwinnett, Dawson and Lump­ kin Counties. The main dam was completed in late 1955 and the entire project was essentially complete by the end of June, 1957. It reduces flood stages in the Chatta­ hoochee River as far downstream as the West Point Re­ servoir, Georgia, 150 miles below the dam; provides an increased flow for navigation in the below Jim Woodruff Dam during low-flow seasons; and pro­ duces hydroelectric energy, operating as a peaking power plant. The increased flow in dry seasons also provides for an increased water supply for municipal and industrial uses in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, and permits in­ creased production of hydroelectric energy at down-stream plants. The current benefit-to-cost ratio is 3-6.

Lake Sidney Lanier, the lake formed by Buford Dam, has a total storage capacity of 2,55^*000 acre-feet at full flood-control pool, elevation 1,085 msl. At this elevation the lake covers an area of 47,180 acres and ex­ tends 48 miles up the Chattahoochee River and 21.5 miles up the . At full power pool, elevation 1,070 msl, the lake covers 38,020 acres, has a storage capacity of 1 ,917*000 acre-feet and a shoreline of 540 m i l e s 1 at minimum power pool, elevation 1,035 msl, the area covered is 22,440 acres and the capacity is 867,600 acre-feet. Pertinent data for the project follows. PERTINENT DATA STREAM FLOW * Drainage area at dam site - square miles 1 , 0 4 0 Estimated minimum discharge (25 Aug 1925) - cfs 11 9 Minimum mean monthly flow (Sep 1925) - cfs 263 Average annual flow (1903-1958) - cfs 2 0 2 4 Discharge at bankfull stage - cfs 10,000 Maximum mean monthly flow (Dec 1932) - cfs 8 , 5 9 0 Maximum recorded discharge (8 Jan 1946) - cfs 5 5 . 0 0 0 SPILLWAY-DESIGN FLOOD

Total rainfall - inches 23.90 Initial loss - inches 0.00 Average infiltration rate - inches per hour 0.08 Total storm run-off - inches 20.14 Total volume of storm run-off - acre-feet 1,117,100 Peak rates of flow Natural flow at dam site - cfs 405,400 Inflow to full reservoir - cfs 595,000 Total reservoir outflow - cfs 30,400 Spillway discharge - cfs 18,200 Duration of flood - days 4

RESERVOIR

Pool elevations - feet msl Maximum pool, spillway design flood 1101.3 (initial pool, elevation 1081) Top of flood-control pool 1085 Top of power pool 1070 Minimum power pool 1035 *Before Buford Dam went into full operation. Storage volumes - acre feet Total Storage - elev. 1085 2 , 5 5 4 , 0 0 0 Flood-control storage, elev. 1085 to 1070 637,000 (11.48 inches runoff) Power storage, elev. 1070 to 1035 1 , 0 4 9 , 4 0 0 (18.91 inches runoff) Dead storage, below elev. 1035 867,600 Reservoir areas - acres Top of flood-control pool, elev. 1085 4 7 , 1 8 2 Top of power pool, elev. 1070 3 8 , 0 2 4 At maximum drawdown, elev. 1035 2 2 , 4 4 2 Area within taking line - acres Purchased in fee simple 5 6 , 1 5 5 Right to inundate acquired by easement 7 19 R i v e r Bed 1 , 1 3 3 TOTAL 5 8 , 0 0 7 Length of shore line - miles Top of flood-control pool, elev. 1085 760 Top of power pool, elev. 1070 5 4 0 Length of reservoir at elevation 1070 - river m i l e s Chattahoochee River 4 4 Chestatee River 19 DAM Type Rolled-fill earth Length along crest of main dam - feet 1 . 6 3 0 Top width - feet 4 0 Base width (approx.) - feet 1 , 0 0 0 Height of main dam above river bed - feet 1 92 Total length of saddle dikes - feet 6,600 Elevation, top of dam and saddle dikes - feet m s l 1,106 SPILLWAY T y p e Uncontrolled chute Width of chute - feet 1 0 0 Crest elevation - feet, msl 1 , 0 8 5 FLOOD-CONTROL SLUICE Number of sluices 1 Diameter - feet 1 3 . 2 5 Discharge capacity with pool at elev. 1085 - cfs 1 1 , 5 9 0 Discharge capacity with pool at elev. 1070 - cfs 1 1 , 0 3 0 POWERHOUSE Size of building length - feet 205 Width - feet 9 4 . 5 Type - Indoor, reinforced concrete and structural steel construction Elevations - feet, rasl Bottom of structure (approximate) 8 85 Low point of draft tube 8 88 Centerline of distributer, 40,000 kw units 927 Centerline of distributer, 6,000 kw units 9 2 2 . 5 0 0 0 £ Generating units 6,000 kw 40 • Number (initial and ultimate) 1 2 Speed, r p m 2 7 7 10 0 Spacing, center to center, fee t 62 T u r b i n e s Type Francis Francis R o t a t i o n counter-clockwise clockwise Guaranteed capacity at best gate. 136-foot net head - hp eac:h 8,400 55.000 G e n e r a t o r s Rated gapacity, continuous, 60° C rise - kw each 6 , 0 0 0 4 0 , 0 0 0 Rated gapacity, continuous 70 C r i s e - kw e a c h 6,667 4 4 , 4 4 4 Guaranteed capacity, continuouis 80 C rise - kw each 7,667 5 1 , 1 1 1 Power factor 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 0 V o l t ag e 1 3 , 8 0 0 1 3 . 8 0 0 POWER DATA

Drawdown for storage - feet 35 Volume in power storage (elev. 1035-1070) acre-feet 1,049,400 Rated net head, feet 136 Tailwater elevations, feet msl Maximum, all units operating at full-gate- outflow 12,000 cfs 925-4 Normal, 1 large unit operating - outflow 4,000 cfs 915.7 Normal, 2 large units operating - outflow 8,000 cfs 920.0 Normal, all units operating - outflow 8,600 cfs 920.7 Minimum - no flow 911 Plant output Dependable capacity - kw 73,000 Average annual energy - kwh 170,000,000 Average annual primary energy - kwh 127,000,000 Through FY 1973, fifty-four (5^0 public access areas have been developed by the Corps of Engineers which pro­ vide facilities for picnicking, camping, sight-seeing and access to the reservoir for boating and fishing. Six of these are operated under leases Issued to commercial concessionaires. Fifteen (15) other access areas for pub­ lic use have been developed as State, County and Municipal parks and provide for all the recreational activities just mentioned as well as swimming and hiking. The State parks include facilities for organized camping and vacation accommodations. Islands Development Authority has a planned 1,200 acre recreational facility on three main islands on the east side of the lake. Pastes treat­ ment facilities, roads, an administrative building and many facilities have been completed for this development. The Authority predicts the majority of the project will be operational by 1975* A map showing public access areas follows this page.

2. Environmental Setting of the Project. Since comple­ tion "^T-Tne_^r3yecT—Xn—l557~TS~U2is been operated for the primary purposes (flood control, navigation and power) for whicn it was authorized. The project has also pro­ vided many recreational opportunities, increased the low flows in the Atlanta metropolitan area for water supply and water quality improvement, greatly improved the econ­ omy of the area, and made possible a downstream trout fishery. A number of municipal and industrial wastes, partially treated, are discharged in upstream or streams emptying directly into Lake Sidney Lanier. The project areas are administered and controlled to maintain intrinsic values of a recreational, historical, scientific and scenic nature, and to improve public use.

Project features include public use areas along with necessary roads, parking facilities, utilities, land­ scaping and buildings to accomplish the purpose of the area; service areas necessary for constructing support facilities and maintaining and operating the project; water areas for storing the water for project operation; dam and appurtenances for project water control; and power generating and transmission facilities for hand­ ling power generated by the project. Management tools include written guidelines and working agreements with Federal and state agencies. These management tools are used for protection of the area’s resources while at thp. same time providing maximum opportunity for public use and enjoyment of the project lands and waters.

The 1,0^0 square-mile drainage area controlled by the dam heads up in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and is char­ acterized by rugged, densely wooded terrain of conspicuous relief and well defined narrow valleys. The project is located in the upper Piedmont Province which consists of red hills of up to 1,200 feet elevation, with an average river slope of 2.6 feet/mile. Surface rock of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces are predominately ancient, highly deformed metamorphic granite gneisses, schists, amphibolites and quartzites. Younger igneous, intrusive rock include granite, diorite, syenite, diabase, and coarse-grained pegmatites. In many of the areas, sound unaltered rock lie below the soil mantle. No mining is practiced in the lake area but there is granite, marble and clay mining in the region. Gwinnett County has produced minor amounts of stone, but Forsyth County has had no recorded production since 1964-. Sand is taken from the stream bed at several locations below Buford Dam.

Project lands include 38,024 acres to full power pool elevation 1,070 msl* 4-, 620 acres in public parks and recreational areas* 9,180 acres of shoreline fringe lands between elevation 1,070 rasl and flood control pool elevation of 1,085 msl* 320 acres for operations* and 4-, 030 acres for saddle dikes and fringe areas above ele­ vation 1,085 msl. Of the 18,150 acres above full power pool 2,360 acres (13$) is open and the remainder is for­ ested by pines, oaks, hickories, elm, sweet bay, ash, sycamore, persimmon, dogwood and others. There is a mu­ tual agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the Georgia Forestry Commission regarding the control of fires in the forested areas. Within the lake the land was completely cleared of trees between elevation 1,030 and 1,070 msl, and trees topped between elevation 980 and 1,030 msl with tree cut­ off at or below elevation 1,030 msl, which is 5 feet be­ low the minimum power pool. Very few herbaceous or woody species of obnoxious plants exist in the lake area. Aquatic plants are not a serious problem because the shoreline as a whole is steep and eroded by wave w a s h . The project lies in the Gulf Slope Section of the Oak-Pine Region where no virgin forests remain. Follow­ ing early settlement the land was cleared for agricul­ ture and when it became unproductive it was abandoned in favor of newly cleared land. This practice continued to the time the project was built and resulted in much modification of plant cover. Present forest types and open lands are classified into four groups and discussed b e l o w : SWAMP, BOTTOM LAND, MOIST WOODS (1,780 acres, 9.Q% of land area) - Very little of this type area occurs because of the steep slopes and rolling terrain. Species of trees present in the swamps are red maple (Acer rubrum). black willow (Salix nigra), green ash (Fraxinus lancePlata), water oak (Quercus nigra). Am­ erican elm (Ulmus araericana). and blackgum (fyssa sylvatica). The bottom lands include stream bank thickets, floodplain forests and marshes. Most of the species occurring in the swamp area also occur in the bottom lands with the exception of the red maple and blackgum. Additional species occurring in the bottom lands are boxelder, silver maple, eastern cottonwood, swamp cottonwood, sugarberry, sycamore, winged elm, overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, Carolina hickory, sweetgum, sassafras, sweetbay, willow oak, American holly, and tuliptree.

MIXED HARDWOOD-PINE (8,385 a c r e s , 4 6 . of land area)- This forest type is the putative climax forest for the region, and if the area were left free from disturb­ ance by man the woodlands of the area would progress by natural succession toward this forest type. The dominant trees are beech (Fagus grandifolia). and white oak (Quercus alba).. However, a highly toler­ ant maple, the southern sugar maple (Acer floridanum). is evidently also moving toward dominance. Other species occurring in this group are those found in the Blue Ridge aspect. Understory growth found along fence rows and access roads include the hog plum (Prunus umbellata). southern crabapple (Malus angus- tifolla). shadblow serviceberry (Amelanchler canaden­ sis). and two magnolias, cucumber tree (Magnolia acum­ inata) and Fraser magnolia (Magnolia fraseri). PINELANDS (5,625 acres, 31,0% of land area)- This vegetational unit is the result of much disturbance of the natural succession through constant cutting of pine timber and frequent fires. As a result the soils are extremely droughty and practically devoid of humus. The species constituents vary from the almost original condition of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) to a preponderence of broadleaf vegeta­ t i o n (50 percent or more) with a scattering of pine trees passed over during repeated cuttings. The ty­ pical broadleaf species that have invaded this former pine forest are dominated by oaks, hickory, persimmon, sparkleberry, shining sumac, with a scattering of dog­ wood and sourwood. The most conspicuous understory broadleaf species is the whitebark maple (Acer leuco- derme). Sizeable areas of mixed pine are found in the area, and these species are Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). and short- leaf pine (Pinus echinata). CLEAN, OPEN LAND (2360 acres, 13% of land area)- These lands with no tree growth were originally in pasture, prairie, pavement, almost bare ground, and fields heavily infested with weeds. Some of the area has been used for parks, nursery areas and food plots. Plants of botanical interest and scenic value are found in six areas. Located in Chestnut Ridge Park is a plant, the chickasaw plum (Prunus angustifolla). which has a superior value as a fruit tree. It also is of value as a spring-flowering shrub or small tree. Several good species of chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) are found in Beaver Run Park. Two notable tree species, northern red oak and white pine (Pinus strobus). occur in Little Hall Park, Plants present in Two Mile Creek Public Access Area are Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima). white pine, scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) and white oak (Quercus alba). Five outstanding trees are found in Nix Bridge Public Access Areai water oak (Quercus nigra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata). mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa). white pine, and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). Young Doer Creek Public Access Area has an outstanding hard­ wood copse of mockernut hickory, white oak, southern red cak, 'lack oak (Quercus velutina) and black cherry (Pru­ nus serotlna). The drainage area controlled by Buford Dam is 29% of the 3»550 square miles contributing to at West Point, Georgia. In the k5 mile reach from the dam to Atlanta (Vinings gage) there are about 9,4-00 acres which have been subject to flooding. Between Atlanta and West Point 23,300 acres lie in the flood plain. The allocated flood storage between elevation 1,070 and 1,085 msl (637,000 acre-feet or 11.4-8 inches of runoff) will com­ pletely control a standard project flood (flood discharges t h a t may be expected from the most severe combination of raeteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are con­ sidered reasonably characteristic of the geographical area) of 121,600 cfs at the dam site. The record flood at the dam site was 55*000 cfs on 8 January, 1946. At the dam the minimum daily natural flow estimated 25 A u g ­ ust 1925 was 119 cfs with a minimum mean monthly (Sept. 1925) flow of 263 cfs. At Atlanta the monthly low flow was 493 cfs in October, 1941 with a daily low of 422 cfs. Lake releases are made so that the minimum flow from Buford, when combined with the local inflows from the 410 square-mile area between the dam and Atlanta (Vinings age), assuming no withdrawals, will total not less than f50 cfs. The intervening privately owned power dam at Morgan Falls provides reregulation of a portion of the power flows released by Buford Dam. There is no com­ pulsory drawdown for this project. Channel capacity below Buford Dam is 10,000 cfs except for some low lying fields or pastures adjoining sloughs or areas located at the mouths of streams. Short time releases of up to 12,000 cfs for peaking power operations are sometimes necessary. Flow- age easements have been acquired on areas affected by these releases below the dam since channel widening or dredging would be costly and objectionable.

Buford Dam is part of a plan for development of the Chattahoochee River Basin. Other Corps of Engineers' projects include the almost completed West Point Dam and Lake, Walter F. George Dam and Lake, George W. Andrews Lock and Dam, Jim Woodruff Dam and Lake, and a navigation channel from Columbus, Georgia to . Other storage were proposed by the Southeast River Basin Commission in the Atlanta metropolitan area for pur­ poses of flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife, power and water quality control. A number of non-Federal dams are also located on the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. During the low-flow periods releases of water from Buford are made to help maintain navigable depths in the Apalachicola River below Jim Woodruff Dam. Time of travel from Buford Dam to Jim Woodruff during low flows must be anticipated as far in advance as possible in the Basin.

In general, Buford power plant is operated as scheduled by the Georgia Power Company under terms of a contract negotiated and administered by the Southeastern Power Administration. The entire output, except that needed for station service, is delivered to the company. The Buford power plant is operated in conjunction with the power plants at the Allatoona, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, Walter F. George, West Point and Clark Hill pro­ jects. The commitment to make dependable capacity avail­ able is subject to certain restrictions depending on the need to control floods and provide releases for low-flow augmentation. The Power Guide Curve provides guidance to operators of the dam as to what lake levels are de­ sirable for certain periods of the year. Between early May and early September the level is held as near the full power pool elevation of 1,070 feet msl as possible. There is no compulsory drawdown at this project. How­ ever, some drawdown usually occurs during the late fall and winter months to meet power and downstream naviga­ tion commitments. This drawdown occurs at an optimum time of the year when it has a minimum impact on the aquatic environment and facilitates flood control opera­ tions. The increased flow from the project in dry sea­ sons permits increased production of hydroelectric energy at downstream plants as well as providing cooling water needed at steam electric generating plants.

Although recreation was not a primary purpose for which the project was authorized, authority for the de­ velopment of public recreational use of the lake is con­ tained in a number of Flood Control Acts dating back to 19^4. Lake Sidney Lanier has become the most highly utilized Corps of Engineers' lake in the country, exceed­ ing 13.8 million user-days in 1973- In 1963 the Southeast River Basins Report for the Apalachicola River Basin pro­ posed to provide additional recreational facilities in order to be able to accommodate the 10 million user-days projected for the year 2000. This projection was exceeded in 1969. The Corps, in 1965 estimated the needs to level off at 15.5 million user-days by 2000 and the peak week­ end day attendance to be 155,000. The peak week-end day attendance reached almost 203,000 in 1971. On peak days, over 20,000 watercraft use the project waters. Seven marinas provide approximately 2,250 boat spaces, and per­ mits for 3,361 private docks have been issued by the Corps of Engineers. Through 197^ existing facilities provided: 69 public access areas, 111 miles of road, over 5,^00 park­ ing spaces, 6l public launching boat lanes, 22 picnic areas with approximately 520 tables, 5 bathing beaches with 5 bath-change houses, 4l public camp grounds, and 1 orga­ nized camping area with a total capacity of 1,3^1 spaces.

Lake Lanier Islands Development Authority, an auto­ nomous arm of Georgia's State government has leased an area of approximately 1,200 acres for development as a recreational facility. Composed of three main islands the area is planned for camping, a golf course, swimming, cabins, a lodge and meeting center, and a small village. Nearby marinas will provide services for boat owners visiting and using Lake Lanier Island facilities. An ex­ penditure of 12 million dollars is planned for construc­ tion which is expected to be completed in 1975. Water is purchased from Buford, Georgia and the Authority provides its own wastes treatment facilities. A two story fishery has been established in the lake by stocking rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). The trout occupy the lower cool waters while the upper warm waters are occupied by bass, crappie, sunfish, perch, carp, cat­ fish, shad and minnows. A 1967 creel census indicated that eighty-four percent of the total catch per hour were bass, crappie and sunfish. Observations by the Georgia Fish and Game Commission personnel indicate that the trout fishery is important and provides many fishing opportun­ ities, particularly in late summer in an area of 3,000 t o k,000 acres of deep water near the dam. There is no significant propagation of the trout because the feeder streams where trout lay their eggs in January are silted up by sediment from construction activities and late win­ ter rains. If trout do hatch they have a difficult time because of the presence of bass in lake waters. An estimated 2.5 million fishing visitations in 1973 resulted in a catch of 810,000 pounds of fish. Commercial fishing accounted for 6,000 pounds in 1972. About 25,000 ducks and 700 geese were present during the 1972 season. Hunters bagged 200 ducks. A put-and-take trout fishery below the dam Is possible because of the cooler waters released from the lower portion of Lake Sidney Lanier. Over 100,000 rainbow trout and 60,000 striped bass were stocked in the lake and over 110,000 rainbow, brown, and brook trout were placed in the downstream section in 1973* Flow releases of cool water are controlled on opening day of trout season to provide maximum public enjoyment. There are no game management or refuge areas around the project, but forest management and the provision of food plots for wildlife have Improved game habitat.

One species of mammal and two species of birds on the Department of the Interior's list of rare and endan­ gered species of wildlife range into North Georgia. The endangered species are the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalls), Southern bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus leucoceph- alus), and red-cockaded woodpecker (Dendrocopus borealis). The rare Indiana bat generally lives in limestone caves and winters in large colonies in Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri. The bald eagle, which is our national emblem, stays near water and nests in very large trees. The red- cockaded woodpecker prefers for nesting a loblolly pine with red heart disease, but the pine does not usually get thi3 disease until it is 70 years old. With an in­ crease in managed forests such nesting places will be very rare. The extent of the presence in the project area of the three endangered species discussed is not known.

The Chattahoochee River is highly regulated through­ out most of its length. It is a source of for about 20 cities that utilized 15^ mgd in i 960 and are estimated to have utilized well over 200 mgd in 1 9 7 1 . The Atlanta metropolitan area increased its water use from the river 1 1 % (from 117 mgd to 160 mgd) between i 960 and 19 6 8 . Gwinnett County, Gainesville and Buford, obtain water directly from the reservoir. The Atlanta Urban Area Study just getting underway will further eval­ uate water supply needs for the area. The Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources of Georgia has classified the upper Chattahoochee River for the following usesi

Stream Reach Classification Headwaters to Buford Dam Recreation Buford Dam to Water Supply* Peachtree Creek to Cedar Creek Industrial Cedar Creek to Franklin Fishing ♦Considered trout waters by Georgia Game and Fish Division

Ground water is difficult to find in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces and therefore large users must depend on surface water sources for municipal, industrial, and cooling waters.

Water quality above Lake Sidney Lanier is generally excellent, but several tributaries to the lake are de­ graded by wastes treatment plant effluents. In general the lake provides a high quality water for recreation and fishing. The exceptions to this general rule are Flat and Balus Creek embayments which have become highly eutro- phic because of the organic loads from surface run-off and treated wastes discharged to the streams. In mid to late June of 1968-1971# a succession of algae and pro­ tozoan blooms occurred in the Flat Creek embayment. Bacterial water quality near two highly used marinas was extensively studied by the Georgia Water Quality Control Board in 1967-1968 and was found to be slightly degraded so as to make it undesirable for water contact sports. The cold nutrient-deficient water released down­ stream in power waves from the depths of the lake creates a hostile environment for native aquatic life. Diversity of species and density of individuals of the bottom fauna are low. Low dissolved oxygen occurs in the lake releases in the late summer and early fall for short periods of time but the stream recovers oxygen rapidly. Stocked trout are able to live below the dam but reproduction is negligible. Water quality of the river at Atlanta Water Works (Peachtree Creek) meet current criteria for drink­ ing water but below Peachtree Creek the river has poor quality for 70 miles due to wastes discharges in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The economy of the area has greatly improved since construction of the project in the mid-fifties. Land near the project is valued at approximately $3,800 per acre whereas farm and forested land removed from the reservoir is about $750 per acre. During peak-day use of the lake the estimated retail value of boats on the lake exceeded 66 million dollars. Since the project be­ gan approximately 14 million dollars have been invested in recreational facilities by Federal and non-Federal interests. An estimated 13 million dollars have been ex­ pended for the operation of these facilities. In FY 72 yearly income from out-grants and leases at the project was $96,324. Seventy-five percent (75$) of this rental income was returned to the counties in lieu of taxes. Development by private interest around the lake has been quite rapid with two counties having to place limitations on building until facilities and land use planning can be completed. Through 1969 approximately 3,200 dwelling units had been built along the shoreline ( w i t h i n 300 feet of project boundary) and another 12,000 lots were available in shoreline subdivisions. The number of residences within 2i miles of the lake (an area of slightly over i million acres) doubled from the time of completion of the project in 1956 through 19 6 9 . Benefits from this land use change and residential devel­ opment are* it provided a market for marginal farm land, provided opportunities for more productive occupations of local residents, strengthened local tax bases, provided a stimulus for the local economy, and provided leisure opportunities that were lacking in other locations.

A river basin survey in 1950 and 1951 located about 60 prehistoric sites. A number of small test excavations showed that the reservoir area had been visited by pre­ historic man over a period of several thousand years. During certain periods the area had been rather exten­ sively occupied. An investigation of one artificial structure considered to be the oldest in Georgia and located on the left bank of the Chattahoochee River in Hall County resulted in the conclusion that it was a natural deposit.

Archaeological sites not located prior to construc­ tion of the project have been exposed as a consequence of complete removal of vegetative cover and/or wave action. It is to be expected that some of these sites have con­ siderable significance to information needs In the area of southeastern prehistory. Lake level fluctuations and power boat induced wave action is resulting in the continued destruction of these archaeological sites.

A house built by James Vann sometime between 1805 and 1813 and reported to have served as an Indian country tavern was removed from the project site to a State Museum at Calhoun, Georgia. Other historical sites within the North Georgia region are the Kennesaw National Battle­ field Parks, near Marietta; the new Echota Museum at Calhoun; the Chief Vann House near Chatsworth; the Gold Museum at Dahlonega; the Nacoochee Mounds near Cleveland; and certain famous Indian sites. The National Register of Historical Places does not list any properties which are affected by the project.

3• Relationship of Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Project to Land Use Plans. Consultation with the Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning Commission, Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission, and Hall County Planning Commission reveals that continued operation and maintenance of the project is in accordance with existing land use plans. Restudy and continued coordination with land use planning commissions will insure that the project meets any changes in the needs of the area it serves.

4• The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. Thirty-seven floods have occurred in the area since the project was completed in 1957. Storage in the project reduced flood heights in Norcross in February, 196l by more than 16 feet and in February-April 1966 by 15.9 feet. Reduced flood damages for these two occasions were $769,600 and $846,100. Yearly average damages prevented to real and personal property have been $546,200. Total flood control benefits in 18% years of operation were $11.9 million. The project provides varying degrees of protection to 32,700 acres of flood plain between the dam and West Point, Georgia. Land enhancement due to flood protection has resulted in an average annual benefit of $88,500. In FY 197^, 233,864,000 kilowatt hours of power gen­ erated were sold for $1,368,600. From July 1958 through FY 1974 over 3-3 billion kilowatt hours of power were sold for 29.6 million dollars. Most of this is peaking power to meet the high demands of the surrounding area. During peaking power generation water releases of up to 12,000 cfs may be made. These power waves have caused some bank erosion downstream with the resultant loss of a few trees at the water's edge.

Continued present operation and maintenance will not involve additional commitments of nearby mineral resources.

Low-flow augmentation in the Apalachicola River has helped make possible navigation to Bainbridge and Columbus, Georgia and Phenix City, Alabama. The increased low flow has also allowed for increased power production at down-stream generating plants while at the same time providing suffi­ cient cooling water flow at three large steam generating plants at and below Atlanta. Wastes treatment plants in the Atlanta metropolitan area have failed to keep pace with the expanding population, and the increased low flows with a 650 cfs minimum flow at Atlanta have provided some relief in improving stream water quality below Atlanta. With a high degree of wastes treatment and the present low-flow augmen­ tation the water quality should improve to meet the State's industrial use classification. Increased low flows have created a more dependable water supply for the Atlanta metro­ politan area, thus helping to insure an adequate source of water for the expanding population. Storage in Lake Lanier has increased the dependability of a source of water for Gainesville, Gwinnett County, and Buford, Georgia.

The City of Gainesville is authorized to withdraw 8 mgd of water, a portion of which is returned as treated wastes to the lake. Buford is authorized to withdraw 2 mgd and Gwinnett County 40 mgd. The Atlanta urban area study will determine future needs for water supply from the project.

The accessibility of Lake Sidney Lanier to the Atlanta area and the availability of land for development close to the lake has resulted in this lake being the most highly utilized Corps of Engineers' lake in the United States. Over 13.8 million visitors used the facility in 197^. An analysis of the recreational activities shows that the largest participants are in the water contact sports, fishing and boating. Camping accounts for only 5 % of the total use (it is 16% for the nation) which would indicate that the users of the lake are people com­ muting from their homes or living in cottages around the lake. Over $27 million have been expended for the con­ struction, operation and maintenance of recreational facil- Ities in the project area since 1957- On a peak-use day over $66 million worth of boats are using the lake's wa­ ters. No direct hunting benefits are generated on pro­ ject lands but protected game and fowl habitat have pro­ vided cover and food for small game, ducks and geese. Pish population studies from 1963 through 1967 indicated an average fish population of 95 pounds per acre. A 1967 creel census indicated eighty-four percent (8H%) of fish being caught were bass, crappie and sunfish. In the past few years fro m 2.5 to 2.9 million fishermen per year have fished the lake and caught from 1/3 to 3/^ million pounds of fish per year. In the late summer trout fishing is re­ ported to be excellent in 3>000 to ^,000 acres of the deeper cool water near the dam. Approximately 6,000 pounds of commercial fish are caught yearly.

Lake Sidney Lanier acts as a nutrient trap for the nutrients not removed by wastes treatment and those from untreated wastes and surface runoff to the lake. Nutrient enrichment in Plat and Balus Creek embayments has resulted in algae and protozoan blooms, especially in the Flat Creek area. Water quality degradation is limited to these areas, a few tributaries, and in the immediate vicinity of the marinas. The lake becomes chemically and thermally strat­ ified during the summer and fall months. Water released through the low-level outlet is cold, low in dissolved oxygen during the latter part of the stratification peri­ od, and low in nutrients. Dissolved oxygen is recovered rather rapidly and is sufficient to support the trout stocked downstream.

Forested areas within the project are being protected through a cooperative program with the State of Georgia. Prior to Corps of Engineer acquisition, forest fires occurred frequently and the majority of the land was burned oyer every few years. Plants of botanical interest in six areas are protected and planting and landscaping at facility sites are closely controlled to enhance the botanical elements. Permits have been issued for 3>36l private docks, two gas and one sewer pipeline crossings, and three water intakes. Inspections plus rigid rules for construction are aiding considerably in reducing accident and health hazards as well as preventing unsightly structures on the lake's peri­ meter.

No historical sites are affected by the project. How­ ever, a number of archeological sites have been exposed by removal of vegetative cover and wave action and are being destroyed by erosion. The significance of these sites needs to be determined through investigation and survey in order to pursue a course of preservation or excavation as directed by Public Law 93-291. 5. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Proposal Be Implemented. Water levels of the lake are subject to some fluctuation during the recreational season in order to meet the primary pur­ poses (navigation, flood control, power) for which the project was authorized. The Power Guide Curve provides that water levels be held as near full power pool levels as possible during the period early May to early Septem­ ber. An extremely dry season of several years could re­ sult in the lake being drawn down to such an extent that boat docks would be out of the water and large areas of shoreline would be exposed. Summer power shortages in other areas of the country could also result in lake lowering if the generating demands are shifted to this project.

Thermal stratification in the reservoir combined with low-level intakes results in the discharge of water having dissolved oxygen concentrations less than the criterion of a minimum of 5 milligrams per liter established by the State of Georgia. This condition occurs for short periods of time during the late summer and continues un­ til the lake destratifies, usually in December or Jan­ uary. The adverse effects are not of sufficient magni­ tude to justify the expense of modifying the outlet struc­ ture or artificially destratifving the lake.

The releases for peak power generation have caused some flooding of mouths of tributaries downstream and some slight undermining of vegetation along the stream's banks. Flowage easements have been acquired on areas affected by these releases below the dam.

The lake, acting as a nutrient trap, has caused en­ richment of those arms of the reservoir where inadequately treated or untreated wastes are discharged. Water quality is impaired, algae blooms occur and water contact sports are not possible. This nutrient removal does, however, prevent its distribution to the downstream, thus pro­ tecting downstream uses. The lake can be protected by more nutrient removal at the source where wastes are generated. The Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources is taking steps to obtain better wastes treatment by those communities discharging effluents to the project waters.

Archeological sites are being destroyed by wave in­ duced erosion. Some of these sites were noted in the survey conducted prior to impoundment, others were discovered only after the lake was filled and covering vegetation was killed. Coordination will be maintained with the State of Georgia and the National Park Service in the investigation, survey, salvage, and/or preservation of significant archeological sites affected by fluctuating water levels, in accordance with Public Law 93-291- Continued erosion will be unavoidable while preliminary investigations and surveys are being made.

6. Alternatives to the Proposed Action. In addition to the operation and maintenance practices described pre­ viously, other alternatives are available. Should the operation and maintenance of the project be discontinued and the dam allowed to remain in place an extreme hazard would exist from the possibility that the lack of con­ trol of flood waters could cause project failure and re­ sult in a downstream disaster from flooding. Structures have been built near the flood plain in anticipation that the project would prevent damages from flooding. Any failure to operate the flood control feature of the pro­ ject would damage these as well as lands in’ the flood plain. Lack of maintenance on recreation facilities would result in deterioration and loss of recreational benefits. Hazards to users would increase.

Another alternative for the project would be to op­ erate without the power feature. Bank erosion and other problems associated with daily power fluctuations would be eliminated. This would result in the necessity to obtain foregone power from other sources. Other hydro­ electric generating sites are in short supply and environ­ mental problems would be transferred to other sites. If fossil fuel or nuclear fuel plants are substituted the environment could be more adversely affected by the re­ lease of pollutants to the air, or undesirable heat to the surface waters. If the power were to be generated by other existing facilities they could possibly be over­ loaded and production costs would increase. Elimina­ tion of power from the project would result in a project which may not be economical to operate.

Elimination of any existing use and operation of the project for the remaining uses would result in tax­ ing other projects to pick up the eliminated use. For example, if recreation were prohibited very few environ­ mental effects would change. Water quality would im- . prove slightly by eliminating boating and shoreline use. The project could be operated to obtain maximum flood benefits but the investment made in recreational facili­ ties and summer homes would be lost. The economy of the area would be adversely affected because it is dependent on use of the lake for recreational purposes. The continued increase in recreational use of Lake Sidney Lanier will eventually lead to an overcrowded con­ dition which will reduce the value of the recreational experience. In order to maintain the maximum recreational benefit a development plan limiting recreational use will have to be formulated and executed. The land taking policy in effect at the time this project was built placed some severe restrictions on the acquiring of land for the project and its associated uses. The existing Master Plan for project development concerns itself with these Federally owned lands. Therefore, control for re­ creational purposes will also be dependent on a good land use policy for adjoining private lands. Local and State agencies would need to provide their support for this type program. Persons denied use of this project would need to be provided with recreational facilities elsewhere.

Alternatives for improving the water quality of the lake and immediately below the dam would include higher degrees of wastes treatment with nutrient removal for those wastes entering the lake, and destratification of the lake and/or aeration of the low oxygen released waters. Some degradation of water quality in the lake has occurred in Balus and Flat Creeks, in the immediate vicinity of highly used marinas, and in released waters in the late summer and early fall. At present the areas affected are rather small but continuous surveillance and an immediate upgrading of wastes treatment is necessary. Lake destrati­ fication has been effective in improving the dissolved oxygen at , a lake about one-third the size of Lake Sidney Lanier. Its effectiveness in a lake this size would need to be determined and other alternatives of aeration considered. A Federal agency committee is investigating several techniques for improving water quality from low level releases such as the one at Lake Sidney Lanier.

Another alternative would be to eliminate the dam and return the stream to a free-flowing stream. Eventually, forests and wildlife habitat would be restored. The lake fish population would be lost and the stream would again support a warm water fishery. Unsightly mud banks would be exposed to erosion until forest and other cover were reestablished. Present uses of the lake would be lost and the downstream area would be subject to increased flood damage. Investments in private and public facilities around the lake would be lost or reduced in value. Service and support facilities dependent upon the project would become useless and investments would be lost. 7. The Relationship Between Local and Short-terra Uses of Man*s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhance^ ment of Long-term Productivity. By continuing the project in an operation and maintenance status it will enhance the standard of living for a large segment of Georgia-and near­ by states. The population of the area will be provided with a facility to help meet the recreational demand, protect the environment by preventing flood damages and loss of life, and provide a source of electrical energy. Long-term pro­ ductivity of the area will be increased through more indus­ trialization and urbanization with the project providing a source of water supply, low-flow augmentation, power, and a means of transporting goods over navigable streams. A source of food can be realized from the project through the harvest of 3/^ million pounds of fish annually.

8. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Re­ sources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented. Materials and labor used in the continued maintenance, construction of additional facili­ ties and operation of the project would be irretrievable. No other irreversible or irretrievable commitment of re­ sources is involved in the proposed action.

9. Coordination With Others.

a. Coordination during EIS preparation. Authoriza­ tion documents, operating manuals, design memos, water quality publications, planning documents, research docu­ ments, and related environmental reports on the project were reviewed, abstracted and pertinent information re­ corded. Lack of information was noted and attempts were made to fill the gaps during field and office visits to the project and agency offices. A news release regarding the availability of the Draft EIS was made by Mobile Dis­ trict on July 16, 1973- No public meetings were held re­ garding the EIS.

Local planning agencies, marina operators and in­ dividuals were contacted regarding land development around the lake and utilization of project facilities. State and Federal agencies and universities were visited and the project operation discussed. Other contacts were made by telephone and correspondence to obtain information on en­ vironmental effects of the project. These were generally persons identified during field visits as having personal knowledge about environmental issues. Contacts made during preparation of the EIS were: Federal Federal Power Commission Environmental Protection Agency - Regional Adminis­ trator, Air and Water Division, Federal Activi­ ties Office Department of the Interior - Bureau of Sport Fisher­ ies and Wildlife, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Fish and Game Com­ mission (Headquarters, Field Office in Gaines­ ville, Cooperative Fisheries Unit at University of Georgia), Environmental Protection Division Department of Industry and Trade - Intergovernmental Relations, Planning Division. Tourism Division Georgia Highway Department Georgia Historical Commission Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Com­ mission

Local City-County Planning Unit (Gainesville-Hall County) County Tax Assessor (Hall County)

Other Gainesville Marina University of Georgia University of North Carolina Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia State University

Problems raised during these visits were:

(1) Overcrowding and safety problems on the lake. (2) Lowering of lake levels during early fall. (3) Lack of fisheries information. (4) Lack of adequate wastes treatment by the cities and others discharging to the lake. (5) Concern that alternatives for hydropower produc­ tion may create air pollution problems. (6) Lack of information re the presence of rare and endangered species in project area. (7) Lack of land use control for private lands in adjoining counties. (8) Lack of information on historical and archeo­ logical sites.

b. Government Agencies - The Draft EIS was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on 20 November 1973* and the news release concerning its availability to the public was made 16 July 1973. The Draft EIS was made available to government agencies and interested persons for comment on 10 July 1973- These comments were taken into consideration and the EIS was modified accordingly in the appropriate cases. Comments were as follows: (1) FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, U. S. DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Page A-l)

Comment: There will be no significant adverse effects to the existing or planned air transportation system.

(2) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U. S. DEPART­ MENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Page A-2)

Comment: Continuation of operation and main­ tenance of the project will not adversely affect existing or planned highways in the vicinity of the project. We support the project as described.

(3) FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, U. S. DEPART­ MENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Telephone response - no comment. (4) ATLANTA AREA OFFICE, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (Page A-3)

Comment 1: Project affects only rural parks and recreational areas and HUD defers to other agencies for comment.

Comment 2 : The Georgia Area Planning and Develop­ ment Commission should be consulted.

Response: The Commission was consulted and fur­ nished a copy of the Draft statement and their comments have been incorporated into final EIS.

Comment 3 : While all displacements (if any) appear to have occurred prior to the Uniform Relocation Act, the Draft EIS does not address this aspect.

Response: Displacements occurred prior to con­ struction of the project. None are occurring due to the operation and maintenance of the project to which EIS pertains. The Act referred to was passed in 1970, sub­ sequent to project completion in 1957*

(5) SOUTHEAST REGION, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE IN­ TERIOR (Page A-6)

Comment 1: The continued operation and mainten­ ance of the project would not involve any additional commit­ ment of mineral resources in Gwinnett and Forsyth Counties.

Response: This is added to EIS on page 17. Comment 2 s The importance of this reservoir as a recreation area is adequately emphasized in the state­ ment. Every effort should be made to maintain a high quality of recreation by improving and regulating facili­ ties to levels compatible with the available resources. 'The Power Guide Curve needs reevaluation for purposes of holding lake levels up for boating in the early fall.

Response: This is discussed as an alternative and is being considered in greater detail in the Metropo­ litan Atlanta Area Study. Comment 3 s The lack of an adequate land acqui­ sition plan for the project should be discussed. There is insufficient buffer land to protect the public in­ terest . Responsei This has been included in the Final EIS on Page 20. Comment 4 s Treatment of wildlife resources is limited to rare and endangered species and water fowl use. No mention is made of upland game and nongame species utilizing project lands. Responses This type information is included on pages 13 and 17. Little use is made of project lands by upland game because of the high development of adjacent lands. Comment 5 s The causes of the poor water qual­ ity below Peachtree Creek should be given. Response t This has been added on page 15. Comment 6 s Alternatives to alleviate water quality problems in the lake and downstream should be considered. Any alternative should include downstream bank erosion control. Responses These have been added to the EIS on pages 20 and 2l. Comment 7s If population of the general area and associated use of the project continues to increase, it is doubtful that the project can continue to provide satisfactory recreation opportunities for the fisherman. Zoning of project waters could help relieve fishing and other recreational conflicts. Response! An alternative discussing these prob­ lems has been added to the EIS on page 20. Comment 8t Source of fish harvest figures should be identified. Response! Publications are included in References. (6) REGION IV . U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Page A-8) Comment li The lake has become increasingly im­ portant for water supply and recreation. More information is desired on the effects of rapid development on water quality, and the details of the Master Plan for control­ ling development. Responsei Additional information has been in­ cluded. Details can be found in publications listed in References. This information is too voluminous to in­ clude in an EIS (over 1200 pages of printed material on water quality). The Master Plan limits itself to develop­ ment on Federal lands only. The need for control of land use adjoining project has been noted in the EIS on page 20. Comment 2i Detailed data on water quality should be tabulated showing trends before and after impoundment. All principal parameters indicating water quality condi­ tions should be monitored on a regular basis to determine if water quality standards are met. Response! Tailrace discharges are monitored on a continuous basis. As indicated in the foregoing re­ sponse, detailed water quality data are available for this project but are too voluminous to include in EIS. Water quality problems are presented in EIS. Comment 3i It is stated that discharged waters have dissolved oxygen concentrations less than the cri­ terion of a minimum of 5 milligrams per liter established by the State of Georgia. It is believed that this is es­ sentially saying that nothing can be done to increase DO when in fact, there are abundant data on alternative ways of doing this. Response! A paragraph on alternatives to improve water quality has been added to the Final EIS on page 21. C o m m e n t kt The statement assumes downstream bank erosion is unavoidable and that easements are the solution. Preventive measures and their environmental impact should be explored. Responsei Downstream bank erosion would occur under natural conditions. Alternatives to minimize the problem would be a continuous uniform release which the project is incapable of doing, especially during flood stages. An alternative of no power in the project notes this as a benefit. Comment Pollution control to restrict algae problems should be explored more fully. Response t More adequate treatment of point sources and nutrient removal has been added to the EIS on p a g e 2 1 .

Comment__6« Drawdown schedule for Lake Sidney Lanier should be given. Response There is no compulsory drawdown for this project. Information to this effect is included o n p a g e 12 , Comment 7» No mention is made of the current Atlanta Water Resources Study.

R e s p o n s e 1 This is a recent study just getting underway. This has been added to the EIS on pages l*f a n d 17 , (7) SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ^Paee A-10i Comment 1« The operation and maintenance of the existing multipurpose facility does not affect any Soil Conservation Service works of improvement. C o m m e n t 2i Some erosion of stream banks along the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam is occurring. The short time releases of water up to 12,000 cfs for peaking power operations could conceivably aggravate the current rate of erosion.

R e s p o n s e 1 This point is covered on pages 11 a nd 1 7 . An alternative is discussed on page 20. (8) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Telephone response - no comment

(9) U. S. COAST GUARD (Page A-ll)

Comment: We have received the draft statement and have no comment.

(10) STATE OF GEORGIA

(a) Georgia State Clearinghouse (Page A-12)

Comment 1: The State's endorsement Is based on the following contingencies: 1. Provided funds are available, an arch­ aeological survey should be conducted as recommended by Dr. Larson 2. A new draft EIS should be prepared to reflect results of the Atlanta Urban Study when it is completed.

Response: Responses to these comments are given in response to each State agency comment.

Comment 2: The State Clearinghouse letter forwards the State agency comments.

(b Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Develop­ ment Commission (Page A-13)

Comment : It has been determined that the pro­ posed project is in accord with regional and local plans, programs and objectives as of this date. The Commission transmitted comments of U. S. Forest Service and the Dis­ trict Conservationist, SCS and the R C & D Project Co­ ordinator of the SCS. Their comments were as follows: 1. U. S. Forest Service - same as (c) below 2. District Conservationist - same as (d) below 3. R C & D Project Coordinator - same as (e) below

(c Forest Supervisor, U. S. Forest Service (Page A-14)

Comment: The agency does not have an interest In the project. (d) District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service (Page A-15) ~

Comment 1: SCS has an interest in the project by memorandum of understanding with the Upper Chatta­ hoochee River Soil and Water Conservation District.

Comment 2: The operation and maintenance of project with its recreational opportunities should be continued with improvements as necessary.

Comment 3: The environmental impact provi­ sions are necessary and should be continued. The advantages of the project far exceed the adverse effects. Recommended continuance of project along present lines with improvements as necessary.

(e) RC&D Project Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service (Page A-l6)

Comment: Strongly endorse the Draft Environ­ mental Impact Statement for continuation of operation and maintenance of project.

(f) Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Depart­ ment of Natural Resources (Page A-17)

Comment: It is known that during lowering of lake level in fall and winter months archaeological sites are exposed. Some of these were previously lo­ cated and others have come to light as a consequence of complete removal of vegetative cover and/or wave action. Degradation of shoreline is resulting in destruction of these archaeological sites. A pro­ gram needs to be funded for survey and salvage ex­ cavation.

Response: This information has been included in the Final EIS on page 16. Coordination will be main­ tained with the State of Georgia and the National Park Service in the investigation, survey, salvage and/or preservation of significant archaeological sites affected by operation of project, as directed by Public Law 93-291. (g) Environmental Protection Division. Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Page A-19) Comment 1 i The Corps of Engineers, State of Georgia and Atlanta Regional Commission are coopera­ ting in the Atlanta Urban Study. Management plans for water quality and water supply are primary ob­ jectives of the urban study. Operation of Buford Dam has considerable impact upon water quality and water supply for Atlanta metropolitan area. A new environmental statement should be written upon completion of the urban study. Response: This impact is recognized in the statement and reference is made to the Atlanta Urban Study. Should significant changes in operation and/or impacts occur as a result of the Atlanta Urban Study, the EIS will be revised or supplemented as appropriate. Cament_2j During the interim period (two years), the Corps should evaluate the economic and other impacts resulting from major alternatives for operating Buford that will be considered during the Atlanta Urban Study. Therefore, any alternate op­ erating procedures which will be acceptable in the future will be ready for selection and implementa­ tion along with the water quality and water supply management programs. Response; Alternative operating procedures will be considered during the restudy by the Corps of Engineers of the Lake Sidney Lanier project o p e r at i o n . c. Citizens Groups - Twelve citizens groups ex­ pected to have any interest in this project were furnished Draft Environmental Statements. None re­ sponded. A P P E N D I X A L E T T E R S tfITH C O M M E N T S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SOUTHERN REGION P. O. 'BOX 20636 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30320

July 18, 1973

Mr. Richard E. Mueller Acting Assistant Chief Engineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Mr. Mueller:

We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statements for the projects listed below with respect to potential environmental impact for which this agency has expertise.

Project Date of Your Transmittal

Allatoona Dam and Lake, Georgia July 10, 1973 (Flood Control and Power)

Buford Dam and Lake Sidney July 10, 1973 Lanier, Georgia (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power)

Our review of these statements indicates that there will be no significant adverse effects to the existing or planned air transportation system resulting from the implementation of the above listed projects.

Sincerely,

'JESSE R. BROWN Acting Chief, Planning Staff U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

900 , N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309

August 17, 1973

Mr. Richard E. Mueller Acting Assistant Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Mr. Mueller:

With your two letters of July 10, 1973 we were furnished two draft environmental impact statements, one for Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ceorgia (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power) and one for Allatoona Dam and Lake, Georgia (Flood Control and Power). These statements cover the continuation of operation and maintenance of the two existing multipurpose dams and reservoirs located on the Chattahoochee and Etowah , respectively.

We find that the continuation of operation and maintenance of these two existing multipurpose dams and reservoirs will not adversely effect existing or planned highways in the vicinity of the projects. We support the projects as described in the draft environmental im­ pact statements.

Sincerely you^a,-

Herschei B^yant f Division Engineer i Ten copies: Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ATLANTA AREA OFFICE PEACHTREE CENTER BUILDING, 230 PEACHTREE STREET. N.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 REG ION IV Peachtree—Seventh Building 50 Seventh Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30323 July 27, 1973

Mr. Richard E. Mueller Acting Assistant Chief Engineering Division Mobile District Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Flood Control, Navigation and Power Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia

In response to your request for comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we have completed our review and have findings as noted below:

We have no objection to any of the items on the Statement and our review is enclosed.

We take exception to one or more items in the Statement and our comments are noted on the enclosed forms.

Sincerely, DHUD COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Project Identification: Flood Control, Navigation and Power Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia

Project Location: Buford, Georgia

The following includes the general caveats and remarks which we feel should be brought to the attention of any State, local or Federal agency which has requested DHUD review of and comment on a draft Environmental Statement under the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the CEQ Guidelines. We have checked those comments which seem to be particularly applicable to the draft statement identified above.

COMMENTS

Inasmuch as HUD has no direct program involvement in Historic sites or structures effected by the subject project, we defer to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with respect to Historic Preservation matters.

HUD has direct program involvement in the Historic Preservation aspects of the proposed project and appropriate comment is included under REMARKS.

The subject project effects an urban park or recreational area and appropriate comment is included under REMARKS.

The subject project effects only rural parks and recreational areas and HUD therefore defers to the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife with respect to comments on the Parks, Forests and Recreational effects thereof.

This review covers the HUD responsibilities under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966.

The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect clearance or consultation with the appropriate local planning agency which is:

The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate areawide planning agency which is:

.Georeia-Mountains Area Planning and D p v p I npmpnt- Pnmm-? scion______-Post office Box 1294. Gainesville, Georgia, insm___(S pp remark 1 )) The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate State Clearinghouse as required by Circular A-95, Office of Management and Budget. The A-95 Clearinghouse of jurisdiction is:

The project apparently requires the displacement of businesses or residences. The Draft Environmental Statement does not reveal full consideration of the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). If relocation assistance is desired, please contact Mr. Frederick A. Russell, Assistant Director, Planning and Relocation Branch, Atlanta Area Office, 230 Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, at Area Code 404 526-6627. In the local community the person or office most familiar with relocation resources is: See remark 2

Date Prepared by/ CPM Representative

Date Concurred Environmental Clearance Officer

Date AppmRred by)i Director of Operations

REMARKS

1. The Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission should be consulted in order that in its areawide planning, consideration can be given to operations of Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier.

2. While all displacements (if any) appear to have occurred prior to the Uniform Relocation Act, the Draft Statement does not address this aspect. If displacement of persons, farms, or businesses occurred, the final statement should indicate the time periods, nature and impact of such; also the applicability of the Uniform Act should be stated. United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Southeast Region / 148 Cain St., N.E. / Atlanta, Ga. 30303

i n?3

Mr. Richard E. Mueller Acting Assistant Chief, Engineering Division U.S. A m y Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Mr. Mueller:

As requested in your July 10, 1973, letter to the Assistant Secretary, Program Policy, we have reviewed the draft environmental impact state­ ment for the Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, (Flood Control, Navigation and Power) project for its effects on outdoor recreation, national parks, landmarks and historic areas, and fish and wildlife resources.

We offer the following comments for your consideration:

Gwinnett County has produced minor amounts of stone, but Forsyth County has had no recorded production since 196^. The continued operation and maintenance of the dam and reservoir would not involve any additional commitment of mineral resources in Gwinnett and Forsyth Counties.

The importance of this reservoir as a recreation area is adequately emphasized in the statement. Every effort should be made to maintain a high quality of recreation by improving and regulating facilities to levels compatible with the available resources.

Due to an increase in boating activities during the fall and spring months, we feel that consideration should be given to a reevaluation of the Power Guide Curve. Maintaining a higher water level during these times would provide greater access to the reservoir and might also help prevent power shortages during periods of high energy demand in the fall and winter.

The lack of an adequate land acquisition plan for the project should be discussed. The project is a good example of having insufficient buffer lands to protect the public interest. Treatment of wildlife resources is limited to rare and endangered species - and waterfowl use. No mention is made of upland game and nongame species utilizing project lands.

The causes of the poor water quality below Peachtree Creek should be given.

Alternatives to alleviate water quality problems both in the lake and downstream in addition to primary project purposes should be considered. Any alternative should include downstream bank erosion control.

If the population of the general area and associated use of the area continues to increase, it is doubtful that the project can continue to provide satisfying recreational opportunities for fishermen. Zoning of project waters for specified uses could help relieve fishing and other recreation conflicts. The annual fish harvest figures should be identi­ fied as to source of data.

Sincerely youjps^

(Miss) June Whelan Special Assistant to the Secretary Southeast Region UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV 1421 PEACHTREE ST.. N. E. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309

September 6, 1973 Mr. Richard E. Mueller Acting Assistant Chief, Engineering Division Mobile District, Corps of Engineers U. S. Department of the Army P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Mr. Mueller:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier (flood control, maintenance, and power) in Georgia and feel that it should contain additional information concern­ ing the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action.

Although Buford Dam and the resulting Lake Sidney Lanier were originally approved for flood control, navigation, and power, the lake has become increasingly important for water supply and recreation. We, therefore, feel that under Chapter 3 (The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action) and under Chapter 4 (Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided) the effects of the rapid development of the area on water quality values should be discussed more fully. We also recommend more details of the master plan and clarification of whether the plan covers only the shoreline development or the entire drainage area.

Detailed data on water quality values should be tabulated, showing their trends both before and after impoundment and whether they are improving or deteriorating. In any event, all principal parameters indicating water quality conditions should be monitored on a regular basis so that these data may be used to determine what corrective action is necessary to main­ tain water quality standards.

On page 25 (under "Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided Should the Proposal be Implemented") it is stated that the pro­ ject discharges "water having dissolved oxygen concentrations less than the criteria (sic) of a minimum of 5 milligrams per liter established by the State of Georgia". It is felt that this is essentially saying that nothing can be done to imcrease DO when, in fact, there are abundant data on alternative ways of doing this. For example, nearby Allatoona Reservoir was the site of a successful pilot plant study of artificial aeration of the hypolimnion. At the Corps' New Hope Reservoir in North Carolina, multi-level intakes are being installed. The Alabama Power Company is demonstrating air injection at the Turbine at Martin Dam, and TVA is pressing toward pure oxygen injection into the hypolimnion near the intakes of Fort Patrick Henry Dam. The Final Statement should address the environmental impacts of various schemes for improving the quality of discharge water.

In another area of concern the Statement assumes that downstream bank erosion is unavoidable, and it is implied that obtaining easements is an adequate solution. Preventive measures and their environmental impact should be explored. We also recommend that pollution control to restrict algae problems be explored more fully, and that a drawdown schedule for Lake Sidney Lanier be given.

Finally, it is noted that no mention is made of the current Atlanta Water Resources Study which assesses the problems of water supply, wastewater management, and flooding in the Atlanta area. As the water quality problems below Atlanta are affected by low flows in the Chattahoochee River on weekends due to the operation of Buford Dam, the Atlanta Study will assess the need for improved flow regulation for water supply and water quality control.

We would appreciate your sending us five copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement when it is available. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Jack E. Ravan /Regional Administrator UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE P. 0. B o x 832, Athens, Georgia 30601 Telephone: I4.024.—51j.6-2275> August 2l+, 1973

Mr. Richard E. Mueller, Acting Asst. Chief, Engineering Division U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 2286 Mobile, Alabama 38628 Attention: SAMEN-EE

Dear Mr. Mueller: The draft environmental impact statement for Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power), transmitted by your letter dated July 10, 1973 addressed to the Soil Conservation Service has been reviewed by my staff. We offer the following comments: a. The operation and maintenance of the existing multi­ purpose facility does not effect any Soil Conservation Service works of improvement. b. Some erosion of stream banks along the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam is occurring. This bank erosion along the river may need to be considered in the Adverse Environmental Effects section of the statement. The short time releases of water up to 12,00 0 cfs for peaking power operations could conceivably aggravate the current rate of erosion. We appreciate having the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. S i n c e r e l y ,

CHARLES W. BARTLETT State Conservationist ■ AUG 2 7 1973 : Richard-E. Muell££ . Acting As^t. Chiefs Engineering Division Mqbila‘Diatrict • 'Department of the Array . D. S*! Corps of Engineers 5 PJ 0 »;b q x 2288 Mobile# Alabama .36628

RE: DUford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier Flood Control, Nav. and Power

• Dear Hr. Mueller:

Wehave reviewed the referenced draft environmental statement and have Y.no*comments to make.

Sincerely yours.

J. F. MDNDY, Jr. Captain, 0. S. Coast.Guard Chief, Marine Safety Division . By direction of the Commander Eighth Coast Guard District ©fftcc of |Ilammtg aitit ^sxccultlie department

James T. McIntyre, Jr. Director

TO: -RicharcLE. Mueiier- Actg. Asst. Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

FROM: John Robins • State Clearinghouse Administrator Office of Planning and Budget

DME: . September 18, 1973 SUBJECT: FESULT OF STATE-LEVEL REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Submitting Agency: Mobile District Corps of Engineers

Title: Draft EIS, Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ga. (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power)

State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73-07-17-09

The Georgia State Clearinghouse has coordinated the state-level review of the above-referenced statement and the results of that review are as follows:

The State's endorsement is based on the'following contingencies: a) Provided funds axe available the Corps of Engineers should conduct an archaeological survey as recommended by Dr. Larson. b) Upon completion of the Atlanta Urban Study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, and the Atlanta Regional Commission, a new draft environmental statement should be prepared to reflect the results of that study.

Enclosures: Historic Preservation Section, Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division, Department of Natural Resources Date August 20, 1973

Mr. Richard E. Mueller Actg. Asst. Chief, Eng. Div. Dept, of the Army Mobile District Corps of Eng. P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

FROM: Nana: Dr. Sam F. Daytcn Title: Executive Director

Regional Clearinghouse: Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Contois s ion

SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW

Applicant: Mobile District Corps of Engineers Project: Draft EIS, Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ga. (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power) State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73-07-17-09

Regional Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Larry Glasco

The Regional Clearinghouse has reviewed the Surrtary Notification for the sbav_ preject.

As a result of the review it has beer, deternintc that the proocscd project is in accord with regional and local plans, progrs:r.c ar.d objectives as o.^thi- data. You should now coupleta and file your formal application. with the au.ro- priate federal agency(s). A copy of this forr. r.ust be arcacaad to vour aul'i- caticr..

ir you eevc any questions, please contact the clearinghouse staff a caber aer. • aoeve, wno wall be pleased to assist you.

Ccaaenr:‘ Date: July 31, 1973

Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission P. 0. Box 1720 Gainesville, Georgia 30501

FROM: Name: Vaughn Hofeldt

Title: Forest Supervisor

Agency: U. S. Forest Service

SUBJECT: PROJECT SUMMARY NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: Mobile District Corps of Engineers

Project: Draft EIS, Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ga. (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power) State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73-07"17“09

This agency does not have an interest in the above project.

This agency has further interest in and/or questions concerning the above project and wishes to confer with the applicant -

This agency is interested in the above application and wishes to make the following comments: Date: July 31, 1973

Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission P. 0. Box 1720 Gainesville, Georgia 30501

FROM: Name: J. T. Coots

Title: District Conservationist

Agency: Soil Conservation Service

SUBJECT: PROJECT SUMMARY NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: Mobile District Corps of Engineers

Project: ’ Draft EIS, Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ga. (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power) State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73"07"17“09

This agency does not have an interest in the above project.

This agency has further interest in and/or questions concerning the above project and wishes to confer with the applicant._

This agency is interested in the above application and wishes to make the following comments: The Soil Conservation Serviee does have an interest in the nroject by memorandum of understanding with the Ilpner Chattahoochee River Soil and Water Conservation District. The operation ar.d maintenance of the existing multipurpose dam and reservio? with its recreational ooportunities should be continued. The environmental impacts provisions are necessary and should be continued. The adverse environmental effects are like anything else they all have ad­ verse effects however the advantages far exceed the disadvantages in this project. Looking into the future, the alternatives have no future at present. I see no reason why the project should not continue along its oresent lines with improvements as necessary. Date: July 31, 1973

Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission P. 0. Box 1720 Gainesville, Georgia 30501

FROM: Name: Joe Booth

Title: RC&D Project Coordinator

Agency: Soil Conservation Service, P. 0. Box 659, Gainesville, Georgia 30501

SUBJECT: PROJECT SUMMARY NOTIFICATION REVIEW

Applicant: Mobile District Co'ps of Engineers

Project: Draft EIS, Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ga. (Flood Control, Navigation, and Power) State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73"07~l7"09

This agency does not have an interest in the above project.

This agency has further interest in and/or questions concerning the above project and wishes to confer with the applicant-.

This agency is interested in the above application and wishes to make the following comments:

The RC&D Project leaders strongly endorse the U. S. Army Corps of Ehgineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement for continuation of operation ana maintenance of Lake Sidney Lanier.

August 1, 1973

Jo* Booth R M D Project Coordinator TO: St.ato ClearLnqhouse Office of Planning and budget 1*70 Washington Street, S. W. At lanta,Ceorgla 30334

KitoM: Name: Lewis H. Larson, Jr.

Title: State Archaeologist Agency: Department of Natural Resources Division: Historic Preservation Section

SUBJKCT: RESULTS OF REVIEW OF NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Applicant: Mobile District Corps of Engineers Project: Draft EIS, Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier, Ga. (Flood Control, Navigation and Power) State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73-07-17-09

DATE: July 30, 1973

This proposal does not fall within the scope of interest of this organization.

Thi:. proposal is considered to be consistent with those State goals, policies, objectives, plans, programs and fiscal resources with which this organization is concerned.

The following comments are respectfully offered concerning this proposal: (Please type)

The pool level at Lake Sidney Lanier is apparently lowered a maximum of 15 feet during fall and winter months (EIS-, pp. 11 & 13). It is known that during this lowering of the lake level, archaeological sites are exposed. Some of these archaeological sites were located and record­ ed during an archaeological survey that preceded the construction of Buford Dam. They were not excavated at thatt imeb ecause of restrictions on funding and/or the time available prior tot hef looding of the reservoir. Other archaeological sites that are exposed by a lowered lake level were not located and have only come to light as a consequence of complete removal of vegetative cover and/or wave action. It is to be expected that some of these sites have considerable significance with respect to our information needs in the area of southeastern prehistory. Also, it is to be noted, that the continued fluctuations in the lake level, as well as the ongoing degradation of the shoreline consequent to power boat induced wave action, is resulting in the continued destruction of these archaeological sites. I, therefore, request that the Corps of Engineers assume its responsibility vis-a-vis the archaeological resources of this area and properly fund an ongoing program of archaeological survey and salvage excavation to be carried out during those months when the level of the lake is low and permits such activity. Such a program should be funded initially to be carried out over a 5-year period and at the end of this period, the results of the survey and salvage excavation could be evaluated in order to determine whether or not the program should be continued. Such a program is necessitated by the fact that many of the dams were constructed and reservoirs created at a time prior to an increased public awareness, not only of the importance of the nation's prehistoric and historic patrimony; but, also, an awareness of the rapidity and completeness of this destruction. The above request is an effort to recover that which is still recoverable. cc: Dr. Joseph Caldwell, Univ, of Georgia 73-07-17-09

DRAFT ENVEONHENIM. IMPACT STATEMENT EUEORD DAM AMD LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA

The Georgia Envirormantal Protection Division has the following comments:

The U. S. Arty Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the State of Georgia (Department of Natural Resources) ard. the Atlanta Regional Corrmission, has undertaken a project known as the Atlanta Urban Study. Management plans for water quality and water supply within the Atlanta metropolitan area are primary objectives of the urban study. Since the operation of Buford Dam has considerable impact upon both water quality and water supply in the Atlanta metropolitan area, the operation of the Dan in the future should consider recommendations that will result from the urban study. ■

It is the recommendation of this agency that the draft environmental impact statement should rot be approved unless a new statement will be prepared in two years. It should be rewritten upon completion of the urban study at which time the purposes for which the Euford project is needed may have been substantially modified.

During the interim period, the Corps should evaluate the economic and other impacts resulting from major alternatives that will be considered during the Atlanta Urban Study. In this way, the alternate operating procedures which will be acceptable in the future will have been developed in consonance with the Atlanta Urban Study and will be ready for selection and implementation at the same time at which the selected water quality and water supply management programs are being ixrplerented.

The above approach also enables the reevaluation of the Buford project and the Atlanta Urban Study to be closely coordinated with Georgia's Continuing Water Quality Management planning process which is required under Section 303(e) of P. L. 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. A P P E N D I X B REFERENCES REFERENCES Donald G. Ahearn, Ph. D.# Georgia State University, IN­ VESTIGATION AND REPORT OF BROWN DINOFLAGELLATS OCCURRING IN LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA, (Technical Report to Corps of Engineers, Mobile and Georgia Water Quality Control Board, Atlanta), Atlanta, Georgia, October 31, 1971. Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, ATLANTA REGION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN* WATER AND SEWERAGE, ENGINEER­ ING RECOMMENDATIONS, (Consulting Engineers, Horner and Shifrin, Inc.), Atlanta, Georgia, February, 19 6 9 . Roger Barnhart and David Holder, School of Forest Re­ sources, University of Georgia. SEASONAL OBSERVATIONS OF LIMNIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS IN A LARGE SOUTHEASTERN RESERVOIR, Athens, Georgia, 1966-67. Raymond J. Burby III, University of North Carolina, HOUSEHOLD DECISION PROCESSES IN THE PURCHASE AND USE OF RESERVOIR RECREATION LAND, Chapel Hill, North Caro­ lina, March, 1971. Raymond J. Burby III, Thomas C. Donnelly, and Shirley F, Weiss, University of North Carolina, A MODEL FOR SIMULATING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RESERVOIR RE­ CREATION AREAS, Chapel Hill, N, C., May, 1971. Henry Gill Collins Jr., COMPLETE FIELD GUIDE TO AMERICAN WILDLIFE, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, N. Y. Third annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (Washington, D. C.j United States Government Printing Office, August, 1972). Cumming-Forsyth County Planning Commission, THE COMPRE­ HENSIVE PLAN OF GUMMING, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, (Prepared under contract with the State Planning Bureau by Associates in Planning and De­ velopment Consulting, Inc.), State Planning Bureau, 270 Washington Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 3033*+» Janu­ ary, 1971. Cumming-Forysth County Planning Commission, THE COMPRE­ HENSIVE PLAN OF FORSYTH COUNTY, GEORGIA-EXISTING LAND USE, MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, (Prepared under contract with the State Planning Bureau by Associates in Planning and De­ velopment Consulting, Inc.), State Planning Bureau, 270 Washington Street, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Octo­ ber, 1970. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, PROPOSED INTRA-STATE STREAM CLASSIFI­ CATIONS, Atlanta, Georgia, May 1 5 , 1972. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, RULES OF THE GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL, Chapter 730, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. Georgia Institute of Technology, Engineering Experiment Station, INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES AND POTENTIALS OF THE SOUTHEAST RIVER BASINS, LAND MINERALS, Atlanta, Georgia, June, i 960. Georgia Water Quality Control Board, CLASSIFICATION FOR INTERSTATE WATERS IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Atlanta, Georgia, June, 1967. Georgia Water Quality Control Board, GAINESVILLE AREA WATER QUALITY STUDY, Atlanta, Georgia, 1971. Georgia Water Control Board, INTERIM WATER QUALITY MAN­ AGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ATLANTA METROPOLITAN AREA, Atlanta, Georgia, April, 1972. Georgia Water Quality Control Board, INTERIM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN, Atlanta, Georgia, April, 1972. Georgia Water Quality Control Board, WATER QUALITY DATA- ATLANTA AREA, CHATTAHOOCHEE, FLINT, AND SOUTH RIVERS, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972. Georgia Water Quality Control Board, WATER QUALITY DATA- CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, BUFORD DAM TO ATLANTA, Atlanta, Georgia, 1971. Georgia Water Quality Control Board, WATER QUALITY IN­ VESTIGATION AT TWO MARINAS ON LAKE LANIER, Atlanta, G e o r g i a , 19 6 9 . Don Johnson and Joe Strzemienski, Georgia Game & Fish Commission, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, LAKH SIDNEY LANIER-PHYSICAL FEATURES, FISH POPULATION DATA, CREEL CENSUS DATA, STOCKING RECORDS, MISCELLANE­ OUS, (mimeo), Gainesville, Georgia. Matthew J. Kerbec, YOUR GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT, An Environmental Digest, Volume II, 1972, Output Systems Corporation, 2300 Ninth Street, South, Arlington, Vir­ ginia 22204. Mark A. McClanahan and Alfred W. Hoadley, School of Civil Engineering, Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF ISLAND DEVELOPMENT ON LAKE WATER QUALITY, Atlanta, Georgia, September, 1972. Dr. James M. Symons, WATER QUALITY BEHAVIOR IN RESERVOIRS, A Compilation of Published Research Papers, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, Environmental Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio 45213 (Washington, D. C.j United States Printing Office, 19 6 9 ). United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, APALACHI­ COLA BASIN RESERVOIR REGULATION MANUAL, APPENDIX B, BUFORD RESERVOIR, CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, GEORGIA, Mobile, Alabama, December, 1959. United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, APALACHI- COLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT BASIN (A-C-F Basin), GEORGIA- ALABAMA- WATER QUALITY DATA, VOLUME 1, Mobile, Alabama, September, 1969. United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUPPLEMENT No. 1, PART OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DM No. 4B, CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, GEORGIA, Mobile, Alabama, 4 March, 1969# United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL, BUFORD DAM AND POWER PLANT, VOL­ UMES 1 & 2, Mobile, Alabama, 1961.

United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, OPERATION ^I^NANCr.' MANUAL, PART V, RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT, LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, GEORGIA, Mobile. Alabama, August, 19 6 8 . United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, THE MAS­ TER PLAN FOR LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, GEORGIA, DM No, 4B, Mobile, Alabama, 22 January 19 6 5 . United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, RECREA­ TION FACILITIES AND RELATED DATA, CIVIL WORKS PROJECT- LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, 1972 DATA, (unpublished statistical report by Reservoir manager), Mobile, Alabama, United States Army Engineer District, Mobile, UTILIZATION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ON LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA, (Unpublished reports), Mobile, Alabama. United States Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT IN GEORGIA, Atlanta, Georgia, 1 January 1973. United States Congress (80th Congress, 1st Session), APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND , GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, House Document No. 300, Washington, D. C., June 6 , 19^7. United States Department of The Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Southeast Region, CHATTAHOOCHEE RECREATION AREA STUDY (Draft), Atlanta, Georgia. United States Department of The Interior., Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, LISTING OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, (mimeo), Washington, D. C. United States Department of The Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, PROCEEDINGS OF SECOND SESSION, CONFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION IN THE IN­ TERSTATE WATERS OF THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AND ITS TRIB- UTARIES-GEORGIA-ALABAMA, Atlanta, Georgia, February 17, 1970. United States Department of The Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Southeast Water Labor­ atory. Technical Services and Georgia Water Quality Con­ trol Board, A STUDY OF FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS IN GEORGIA RECREATIONAL WATERS, Athens, Georgia, September, 19 6 9 . United States Department of The Interior, National Park Service, NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (Federal Register of March 15» 1972, Volume 37» No. 5 1 , Part II). United States Study Commission, Southeast River Basins, PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND WATER RESOURCES OF THE SOUTHEAST RIVER BASINS-APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE, FLINT BASINS, Appendix 7, Atlanta, Georgia, 19 6 3 . University of Georgia, Division of Research, College of Business Administration, THE GEORGIA TRAVEL INDUSTRY, 1960-1970, Travel Research Study #13, Athens, Georgia. Wiedeman and Singleton, Engineers, REPORT ON WATER POLLU­ TION CONTROL FOR THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BY THE METRO­ POLITAN SEWER SYSTEM, Atlanta, Georgia, December, 1965.