FINAL NVIRONM NTAL STAT M NT
CART RS DAM AND LAK
COOSAWATT RIV R, G ORGIA
Prepared by U. S. Army ngineer District, Mobile Mobile, Alabama April 1974 s t a t e m e t o f f i d i g s Carters Dan and Lake Coosawattee River, Georgia
As District ngineer, Mobile District, Corps of ngineers, it is my duty as the responsible Federal Official to prepare plans and specifications and an nvironmental Statement for the completion of the construction and operation of Carters Dam and Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia. In this respect, I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the proposed action; the pertinent data contained and referenced in the nvironmental Statement describing the effects of the proposed activity; and the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public.
In evaluation, I have studied and analyzed the plan for the Carters Dam and Lake project. I have considered the engineering problems, the social and economic factors involved and the environmental consequences of the action. The adopted plan for Carters Dam and Lake project is believed to be the best alternative from an engineering point of view. Completion of the construction and future operation of the project will provide both social and economic benefits to the people of the area.
The nvironmental Impact Statement has been prepared and coordinated with appropriate Federal and State agencies in compliance with the spirit and intent of the National nvironmental Policy Act of 1969. As indicated in the statement, completion of construction of the dam and lake will result i In the loss of 4,250 acres of agricultural and forest land and associated wildlife habitat, plus the loss of a section of free-flowing stream and its inhabitants. These adverse effects are more than offset by the beneficial aspects of flood control, a peaking hydroelectric power plant, and improved recreational opportunities that will result from the operation of the project.
Based on the above criteria and evaluation, I find that the adverse effects of the project are outweighed by other considerations of social and eco nomic benefits; that the recommended action is consonant with National policy, statutes, and administrative directives; and that the total public interest should best be served by construction of the project.
Date DRAK WILSON Colonel, C District ngineer I have reviewed the Statement of Findings and concur with the recom mendations of the District ngineer.
/Date f CARHDLL ij. LeT LLI R . Brig^die/ General, USA Division ngineer
I concur with the preceding Statement of Findings.
Da ik J. W> M O R R I S ' /lajor General, USA 'Director of Civil Works Carters Dam and Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia
( V Draft (X) Final nvironmental Statement
Responsible Office; U. S. Army ngineer District, Mobile, Alabama
1. Name* of Action; (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative
2. Description of Action: Complete construction and place in opera tion an authorized multipurpose reservoir project on the Coosawattee River in Murray, Gilmer, and Gordon Counties, Georgia. Hie project is being constructed for the purposes of flood control, hydroelectric power and recreation.
3a. nvironmental Impacts: Conversion of 4,250 acres of agricultural and forest lands to a lake environment; loss of free-flowing stream habitat; provide flood protection; produce peaking'hydroelectric power; and provide high quality recreation.
b. Adverse nvironmental ffects: Loss of 4,250 acres of agricultural and forest land and its associated wildlife habitat, plus loss of a section of free-flowing stream and disruption of its inhabitants.
4. Alternatives; Terminate construction.
5. Comments Received;
State Coordinator, State of Georgia Department of the Interior Department of Agriculture Department of Transportation Department of Housing and Urban Development nvironmental Protection Agency Office of conomic Opportunity University of Georgia, Department of Anthropology
6. Draft statement to C Q 30 November 1972 . *DEC 19 4 7. Final Statement to C Q ______. FINAL NVIRONM NTAL STAT M NT CART RS DAM AND LAK COOSAWATT RIV R, G ORGIA
Table of Contents
Section Subject Page No.
1 Project Description ------\
2 . nvironmental Setting Without the Project ----- 5
3 The nvironmental Impact of the Proposed Action — 13
4 Any Adverse nvironmental ffects Which Cannot be Avoided ------20
5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ------21
6 The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's nvironment and the Maintenance and nhancement of Long-term Productivity ------23
7 Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action ------— 24
8 Coordination with Others ------25
List of Tables
Table No. Subject Page No.
1 Pertinent Data on Carters Dam Project ------4
List of Plates
Plate No. Title Follows
1 Location Map of Carters Dam, Georgia ------Page 35
2 Project Location Map -——— ------— Plate 1 List of Appendices
APP NDIX A Review Comments on Draft Statement
APP NDIX B Water Quality and Biological Changes Following Impound ment
APP NDIX C Temperature Simulation Study Lake Carters, Georgia
APP NDIX D Bibliography FINAL NVIRONM NTAL STAT M NT
CART RS DAM AND LAK COOSAWATT RIV R, G ORGIA
1.01 Project Description. The development of the Coosawattee River was authorized as a part of the ultimate plan for the Alabsma-Coosa River System by the River.and Harbor Act adopted 2 March 1945. This portion of the overall development consists of the construction and operation of a multiple purpose dam on the Coosawattee River, 26.8 miles above its juncture with the Conasauga River, near Carters, Georgia. The site is approximately 60 miles north of Atlanta, Georgia, and 50 miles southeast of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Portions cf Murray, Gilmer, and Gordon Counties are included in project implementation. A map showing the location of the project is attached (Plate 1).
1.02 Construction at Carters began in April of 1S62 and as of 28 Febru ary 1974 the overall project was about 82 percent complete. The main rockfill dam, the penstocks, the intake structure, the emergency spillway, and the reregulation dam are essentially complete. Construction of the emergency low level sluice and the powerhouse are 78 and 61 percent complete, respectively, as of 28 February 1974. The project is presently scheduled to be fully operational by October 1975.
1.03 The primary project purposes are flood control, hydroelectric power and recreation. The project has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.5 to 1 as of 1 January 1974.
1.04 The structures at Carters Dam will consist of the following princi pal features: (a) Main rock-fill dam, (b) gated emergency spillway, (c) powerhouse, (d) intake structures, (e) four penstocks, (f) emergency low level sluice, (g) reregulating dam, and (h) three saddle dikes.
1.05 The main dam is a rolled-rock and earth fill structure. It has a length of 1,955 feet along the arch of the axis with a radius of 2,100 feet. The height of the dam is 455.3 feet. The 40-foot-wide crest was constructed to elevation 1,112.31/ which is to provide a 5-foot freeboard above the spillway design flood. The upstream slope is 1 vertical to 1.9 horizontal and the downstream slope is 1 vertical to 1.8 horizontal. Seepage control is provided by curtain grouting. Impervious fill was placed on a clean firm rock foundation. A roadway will be provided across the dam for access to the power intake structure and the public overlook areas. 1.06 The gated emergency spillway is a concrete gravity-type structure 262 feet long, consisting of five gate bays 42 feet wide, four intermedi ate piers 8 feet wide, and two end piers 8 feet wide. The spillway crest is at elevation 1,070. Flow will be controlled by five tainter gates.
1.07 The powerhouse will be located on the right bank about 200 feet below the downstream toe of the main dam and 700 feet northward from the river channel. It will be a reinforced concrete structure 117 feet wide and 331 feet long. The powerhouse will be equipped with four 125 MW (two 172 Khp and two 173 Khp) turbine-generators; two of these will have pump capability (4,435 c.f.s. each). The switchyard will be located adjacent to the power house.
1.08 Four reinforced concrete Intake structures are located about 400 feet northwest of the main dam with the top at elevation 1,112.3, the same as the crest of the dam. These structures include four headgates which will be operated by fixed hoists, trash racks and stop logs. Four 18-foot- diameter, steel lined penstocks will connect the intakes to the powerhouse.
1.09 The emergency low level sluice will be located in the left abutment and will consist of an intake structure, an upstream tunnel, a gate struc ture and shaft, a downstream tunnel, and an exit channel.
1.10 The reregulating dam consists of earth dikes on each side of a con crete structure. The concrete structure includes four gated-spillway bays, non-overflow sections for dike wrap-around and a control house. A spillway bridge over the vpillway bays provides for placement of stop- logs. Flow will be controlled by four 42-foot-wide end 36.5-foot high tainter gates. The sill is at elevation 662.5.
1.11 Three earthfill dikes with a total length of about 900 feet were required on the left bank rim of the main reservoir about 6,000 feet upstream from the main dam. The dikes, with a maximum height of about 40 feet will have a top width of 25 feet at elevation 1,112.3 and side slopes of 1 on 2.5.
1.12 The lake created by the main dam will have an area of 3,220 acres and a storage volume of 377,100 acre-feet at maximum power pool, eleva tion 1,072 msl. At this elevation the lake will extend 11 miles upstream from the dam and will have a shoreline of 61.8 miles. At the primary flood pool elevation, 1,099 feet msl, the lake will have a surface area of 3,880 acres and a length of 11.7 miles.
1.13 There will be no programmed seasonal drawdown of Carters Lake although drawdown may occur under extreme drought conditions. This drawdown from the maximum power pool, elevation 1,072, to the minimum power pool is 50 feet. Under normal operations and average climatic conditions the water surface will be maintained as near elevation 1,072 as possible. The flexibility afforded by the reverse pumping capability permits greater control over maintaining the lake surface near that elevation. 1.14 Seven public use areas will be developed around the lake. These vary in s iz from 110 to 675 acres. Included in the facilities for general recreation and fish and wildlife activities are 3 overlooks, 4 boat launch ing facilities, a marina (leased to a concessionaire), picnic and camping areas, a swimming beach with change houses, 14.5 miles of hiking trails and 3 trail shelters. The boat launching facilities have been designed to accommodate any fluctuations in the lake surface elevation. During the prime recreation season (Kay through September), the average dally pool fluctuation during low flow periods is estimated to be approximately 1% to 2 feet.
1.15 Interpretative facilities to be constructed at the Carters Dam project include a visitor center at the Resource Manager's office and nature trails around the perimeter of the reservoir. Interpretative signs and devices, including audio-visual aids, will be provided at the visitor center to describe significant project data, or historical, archaeological, geological, and other scientific points of interest on project lands. Species of trees and shrubs will be identified and marked along the nature trails. Other features of special interest will also be identified above the impoundment zones of the main reservoir and the reregulation pool.
1.16 The lake formed by the reregulation dam will have an area of 1,030 acres and a storage volume of 19,200 acre-feet at the main mum storage elevation 698 feet msl. The purposes of the reregulation dam are to smooth out peaking power releases from the main dam and to provide stor age for pump storage operations. Accomplishment of these purposes requires rather rapid fluctuations in the water surface elevations during some phases of operation. Therefore, the reregulation lake is not suited for recreational usage and could be dangerous. A map showing Carters Lake and the reregulation lake is attached (Plate 2).
1.17 The main dam controls a drainage area of 376 square miles. An additional 154 square miles or a total of 530 square miles is above the reregulation dam. Most of the 154 square miles of additional drainage area is from the Talking Rock Creek watershed. Other pertinent data related to the Carters Dam and Lake project are presented in Table 1. Table 1 ■
Pertinent Data on Carters Dam Project
MAIN DAM
G N RAL
Dam site, miles above mouth of Coosawattee River — ■— 26.8 Drainage area above dam site, square miles ------376
R S RVOIR
Primary flood control pool elevation, feet above msl- 1,099 Maximum power pool elevation, feet above m s l ------1,072 Minimum power pool elevation, feet above msl ———- 1,022 Area of primary flood control pool, acres ————— 3,880 Area of maximum power pool, acres ————— 3,220 Area of minimum power pool, acres ——————— 2,196 Flood storage volume, acre-feet ------95,700 Power storage volume, acre-feet —————— 134,900 Dead storage volume, acre-feet — — — -— — — — ---- 242,200 Maximum elevation of clearing, feet above msl — --- - 1,075
NATURAL STR AM FLOW AT DAM SIT
Period of continuous record ——————— 1937-1963^ Average flow for period of record, cfs ------77 Minimum mean monthly flow in period of record, cfs — 210 Minimum mean daily flow in period of record, cfs —- 178 Maximum mean monthly flow in period of record, cfs — 2,210 Maximum mean daily flow in period of record, c f s --- 12,400
R R GULATION DAM
G N RAL
Dam site, miles above mouth of Coosawattee River —- 25 Drainage area above dam site, square miles — ------— 530
R S RVOIR
Maximum storage pool elevation, feet above msl ----— 698 Minimum pool elevation, feet above msl — ------665.5 Area at maximum storage pool, acres ------1,030 Area at minimum pool, acres —————— 36 Usable storage, acre-feet — ------— ------—— 19,000 Dead storage, acre f e e t --- —————— ----——- 200 Maximum elevation of clearing, feet above msl ——- 700
1/ Based on records of U.S.G.S. gage at llijay on Cartecay River. A 2.01 E viro me tal Setti g Without the Project. The Coosawattee River is a part of the Oosta aula River system which lies i orthwest Georgia. The Oosta aula basi , which drai s a area of 2,160 square miles, has a le gth of 65 miles a d a maximum width of 48 miles. It lies betwee the Te essee River basi to the orth a d the Etowah River basi to the south. The pri cipal headwater tributaries, the Coosawattee a d Co asauga Rivers, rise i the Blue Ridge Mou tai s of Georgia a d flow southwesterly to form the Oosta aula River ear Resaca. The Oosta aula River the flows south erly joi i g the Etowah River at Rome to form the Coosa River.
2.02 The Coosawattee River drai s a area of 865 square miles which has a maximum width of 25 miles a d le gth of 48 miles. Except for the lower 25 miles, the river flows through a mou tai ous regio with peaks ra gi g from 2 to 3 thousa d feet above sea level. It flows from the source at the co flue ce of the Ellijay a d Cartecay Rivers at Ellijay through a elevated semi-plateau sectio of the highla ds for 10 miles, the through a 13-mile gorge sectio that emerges from the foothills ear Carters, Georgia, a d. fi ally through a broad plateau for the remai i g 25 miles to the mouth. The valley portio of the river has stable ba ks 15 to 20 feet high a d a cha el that is 100 to 300 feet wide. The valley flood plai is 1,300 to 11,000 feet wide with the greater width bei g ear the mouth. This 48-mile lo g river has a fall of early 650 feet or a average of 13 feet per mile. The ba kfull capacity of the stream below the dam is 6,600 cfs a d the differe ce betwee high a d low water level is 20 feet. The pri cipal tributaries of the Coosawattee are the Cartecay a d Ellijay Rivers a d Talki g Rock, Sallacoa, a d Mou tai tow Creeks. The Cartecay a d Ellijay Rivers drai mou tai ous areas of 137 a d 92 square miles, respectively. They have wooded flood plai s 200 to 2,500 feet i width. The slopes of these streams are very steep with the Cartecay River havi g a fall of 69 feet per mile, a d the Ellijay 23 feet per mile.
2.03 The Carters Dam is located i a tra sitio zo e from both a topo graphic a d geologic sta dpoi t. The damsite is i the Piedmo t Physio graphic Provi ce, just upstream from the escarpme t which separates the harder crystalli e rocks of that provi ce from the softer sedime tary rocks of the Valley Physiographic Provi ce to the south. The Oco ee Series of the metasedime ts of later Precambria Age u derlie the damsite a d exte d eastward throughout the project area. The Cartersville Fault, o e of the major thrust faults of the southeaster U ited States is located alo g the bou dary escarpme t. A i depe de t appraisal of the mi eral resources i the project area was co ducted by a co sulti g geologist a d his report i dicated that there are o mi eral deposits which are eco omi cally retrievable.
2.04 The la d use o either side of the tra sitio zo e is markedly differe t. For i sta ce, 90 perce t of the la d withi the flood plai alo g the lever reach of the Coosawattee River below the damsite has bee cleared a d Is utilized for agrlcultuzal pursuits. This represe ts about 7,300 acres of cropla d with excelle t soils that produce good yields of cotto , cor , hay, a d silage crops each year. I compari so , the project area above the damsite is very rugged a d almost e tirely forest la d. The o ly access to the river is by a few loggi g trails which are almost impassable eve with a four-wheel-drive vehicle. The remote ess 6f the area is emphasized by the fact that there are o homesites, stores, or a y other type of ma -made structure withi the project area. Also, there are o roads or utilities which would require relocatio . The area has bee utilized almost e tirely for timber productio a d this has bee restricted to some degree by the steep slopes.
2.05 The fact'that this is a tra sitio zo e is further emphasized by the cha ge i the tree species which occurs i the vici ity of the damsite. The damsite is located at the approximate souther limit of ra ge of the easter white pi e, Pl us strohus L., a d the easter hemlock, Tsuga ca ade sis. (L.~) Carr, amo g the co ifers, a d the yellow buckeye, Aesculus octa dra marsh; sweet birch, Betula le ta L.; butter ut, Jugla s ci erea L.; cucumbertree, Mag olia acumi ata; black locust, Robl a pseudoacacia L.. amo g the hardwoods. Also this is the orther limit of ra ge for the water oak, Quercus igra L.
2.06 .-The f orests~i ~ the project area vary betwee oak-pi e a d oak-hickory a d are de se. The predomi a t species are oak, ash, hickory, pi e, poplar, birch, beech, sycamore, elm, maple, gum, persimmo , wal ut, a d dogwood. A heavy ti derstory of ative shrubs a d vi es which i cludes mou tai laurel, rhodode dro , alder, sumac, vibur um, a d grape is also prese t. The fall, with the brigjitly colored leaves a d the spri g with the floweri g shrubs a d flowers are particularly sig ifica t from a aesthetic sta dpoi t.
2.07 Evide tly the cha ge i ~terrai from steep slopes a d rugged arrow valleys to moderate slopes a d broad smooth valleys made the damsite area attractive to the I dia s. The co ti uous occupatio of several mou d sites studied by archaeologists is evide ce of this fact. There are umerous archaeological sites of varyi g degrees of sig ifica ce withi the project area. Archaeological studies a d salvage operatio s have bee u derway si ce 1962. The U iversity of Georgia is co ducti g these studies u der co tract to the Natio al Park Service. Their reports i dicate ma y i ter esti g items have bee discovered a d some of the gaps i history have bee filled from the k owledge gai ed from these i vestigatio s. The time frame i volved ra ges from Archaic, sixth ce tury through Historic Cherokee, late eightee th ce tury.
2.08 Co sultatio with the Natio al Register of Historic Places a d the State liaiso officer i dicated that o Natio al Register properties are located i the project area. Also there are o cemeteries withi the project boundaries. One item of historic significance in the vicinity of the * project is the Old Federal Road which was northwest Georgia's earliest vehicular route. Permission to open the trace was granted informally by the Indians in 1803 and formally by the 1805 Treaty of Tellico, Tennessee. ,
2.09 Although the project area is remote and access is very limited., there is a relatively gocd road net around the area. ,
2.10 U. S. Highway No. 411 crosses the river one-tenth mile downstream from the reregulation dam and one and one-half miles below the main dam. Georgia State Highway No. 5 crosses the river one mile south of llijay, Georgia, which is 4 miles upstream from the upper limits of the reservoir. On the right bank, or north side, State Highway No. 282 parallels the project approximately 3 miles from the reservoir, and on the left bank or south side, State Highway No. 156 connects U. S. Highway No. 411 and State Highways Nos. 136 and 5. Within the perimeter road system there are 5 county-maintained roads that lead into the reservoir area, but all terminate before reaching the river or the proposed lake. The one closest to the lake terminates about 1/4 mile from the shore.
2.11 The climate of the project area is temperate with long, warm summers, and relatively short, mild winters. Severe cold weather seldom occurs and periods with sub-freezing temperatures are of short duration. The mean annual temperature is about 60 F. and the frost-free season averages about 200 days. The prevailing winds are generally from a north to north west direction and average about 8 miles per hour. The annual precipita tion of 60.3 inches is generally well distributed with 30 percent falling in the winter, 27 percent in the spring, 25 percent in the summer, and 18 percent in the fall.
2.12 The Coosawattee at Carters is a typical mountain stream in that it is subject to very fast rises and recessions. Rises of as much as 10 feet in a matter of hours have occurred frequently. The characteristics of the Coosawattee are more moderate in the relatively broad flat valleys below Carters Dam than in the steep slopes of the upper reaches.
2.13 The average annual runoff in the watershed is about 28 inches. The average annual flow for the 26-year period from 1937 through 1963 was 770 c.f.s. at the Carters main damsite whereas the average monthly flows varied from a minimum of 210 c.f.s. in October 1954 to a maximum of 2,210 c.f.s in February 1946. The minimum and maximum daily flows for the period of record are 178 and 12,400 c.f.s., respectively. Talking Rock Creek, which enters the reregulation lake downstream of the main damsite, has an average flow of 188 c.f.s. based on synthetic development of stream records. The minimum and maximum discharges from Talking Rock Creek are 40 and 6,220 c.f.s., respectively, on this same basis. 2.14 The nvironmental Protection Agency conducted a preimpoundment water quality study over a three-year period from 1968 through 1970. The studies were conducted during the months of April, July, and September and covered a fairly wide range of flow conditions. Water quality parameters including bacteria were measured and biological inventories were made. The following water quality information was abstracted from the report of that study.
2.15 Water temperatures in the study area ranged from 12.5°C to 26°C. The pH remained within 0.5 units of neutrality. Hardness, dissolved solids and alkalinity were all low. Turbidity exceeded 25 Jackson Turbidity Units only during storm runoff and sediment loads were low in the watershed. Color was low; average values ranged from 10 to 30 platinum cobalt units. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 8.0 mg/1 to 11.8 mg/1 during spring and 6.6 to 9.9 mg/1 during summer. Dissolved oxygen saturations ranged from 76 to greater than 100 percent for both seasons. Average iron and manganese concentrations were less than 1.6 and 0.12 mg/1 total Fe and Mn, respec tively.
2.16 At the time of the study the City of llijay, Georgia, discharged approximately 1 mgd of untreated domestic and industrial wastes (chicken processing and carpet mills) to the Coosawattee River and its tributaries. Since the study, the City has placed into operation a secondary waste treatment plant (activated sludge) with post-chlorination that is treating all municipal and industrial wastes in the area. During the study the five- day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) averaged less than 2 mg/1 except immediately downstream from llijay where it ranged from 2.1 to 8.8 during summer. Significant nitrogen (2.23 mg/1 summer average - Total N) and phosphorus (0.19 mg/1 summer average - Total P) concentrations were found downstream from llijay, but no excessive algal growth was observed. Less significant but still noticeable concentrations (1.07 mg/1 total N and 0.02 mg/1 Total P) in Talking Rock Creek were caused by farm runoff. The nitrogen and phosphorus levels at mainstream stations near the dam were low. High mean fecal coliform concentrations (76,000/100 ml) were present immediately downstream from llijay but the remaining drainage area was relatively free from major bacterial pollution. n2.17 I general the water in the Coosawattee River is of excellent quality and the implementation of adequate treatment at llijay will alleviate the undesirable conditions in the stream below llijay which was the only portion of the stream exhibiting degraded water quality.
2.18 Biological sampling was conducted only during April 1968. One hundred and twenty-five species of invertebrates were collected from study area streams. With the exception of one sample station below the chicken proces sing plant which indicated excessive organic enrichment, all areas examined were "biologically" healthy. 2.19 Reach Use Classification From the confluence of the llijay River Fishing and the Cartecay River to the confluence of Mountaintown Creek From the confluence of Mountaintown Creek Recreation to Carters Dam From Carters Dam to the confluence of Fishing the Conasauga River 2.20 Within 50 miles of the project there are six large lakes which already provide fishing and other recreational facilities to the public. Lake Allatoona on the tcwah River, with an area of 11,860 acres, is located about 38 miles south of the project. Lake Lanier, with an area of 38,000 acres is located about 46 miles southeast on the Chattahoochee River. Both of these are Corps of ngineers projects. The other four are Tennessee Valley Authority projects. Lake Blue Ridge is a 3,290-acre lake on the Toccoa River, located about 30 miles northeast. Lake Nottely, on the Nottely River, with an area of 4,180 acres is located about 40 miles northeast. Chatuge Lake, which is located about 46 miles northeast of the project, is a 7,050-acre lake on the Hiwassee River. Hiwassee Lake is a 6,280-acre lake on the Hiwassee River about 43 miles northeast. 2721 The U. S. Soil Conservation Service has four active sub-watershed projects of the Coosa Watershed Project which are located above the pro posed dam and reregulation dam. Those sub-watershed projects above the main dam are the Cartecay, llijay and Mountaintown Creek. Nineteen flood prevention structures-have been completed in these sub-watersheds. In addi tion six flood prevention structures have been completed in the Talking Rock Creek sub-watershed which flows into the reregulation dam. These dams account, in part, for the lew sediment loads in the Coosawattee River. 2.22 Fishing in the Coosawattee River and its tributaries ranges from moderate to poor. In addition to the native species (spotted bass, Micropterus punctulatus; largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides; redeye Coosa, Micropterus coosae; rock bass, Ambloplites rupestris; redbreast bream, Lepomis auritus; bluegill. Lepomis macrochirus; flathead catfish, Pylodictis olivaris; and channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus) the Georgia Game and Fish Commission has tried to improve fishing by stocking the river and some tributaries with walleye, Stlzostedlon vitreum, rainbow trout, Salmo galrdnerii, and smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieui. The state record for rainbow trout, 12 pounds 4 ounces, was taken from the Coosawattee near llijay. However, this area received heavy pollutional loading and this fish should not be considered as a good indication of the fish productivity. The areas upstream of the proposed project are the most heavily fished; this is primarily due to lack of ready access within the project area. Good fishing for rainbow trout has been reported in the project area. The 25 miles of the Coosawattee below Carters supports a high value fishery. Float fishing is popular from July to November. 2.23 Game species which are present in the area include squirrel, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, deer, turkey, dove, and quail. Fur species inhabiting the area are mink, raccoon, beaver, muskrat, otter, and fox. 2.24 The Coosawattee Game Management Area, which surrounds Carters Lake, contains a 6,000-acre tract of Georgia Power Company lands which were leased.to the State as mitigation for wildlife loss associated with the Lauren Shoals project on the Oconee River. This lease enabled the Georgia Game and Fish agency to establish the 24,000-acre Coosawattee management unit and later the 20,000-acre Talking Rock unit which adjoins the Coosa wattee on the south. Both units contain inholdings of unleased lands. However, since hunting seasons are similar on the leased and unleased por tions, no management problems have resulted. Present hunting on the management areas is restricted to small ' game. Deer and turkey populations are being established through releases, and management techniques by the Game and Fish" Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2.25 The Coosawattee Wildlife Management Area is presently in its third year of existence. Its attraction for sportsmen should increase rapidly after big game species are well established and small game hunting is improved by management techniques such as the establishment of food plots. The area could eventually provide public deer hunting opportunities for many sportsmen unable to obtain a permit for the "buck only" hunt on the Allatoona Wildlife Management Area. 2.26 At the request of the Georgia Game and Fish Division the Corps has initiated a study to determine the feasibility of acquiring an additional 3,000 acres of land to insure the mitigation of wildlife habitat loss associated with project development. If the study indicates that the purchase of land for this purpose is justified, then actions will be taken to seek Congressional approval for purchase of the wildlife mitiga tion land. 2.27' The area considered to contribute to the Coosawattee basin economy comprises 13 counties in Georgia and Tennessee, covering 4,959 square miles. The entire Oostanaula River basin is included. The region's 1970 population of 394,648 was about two thirds rural; however, only 5.5 percent was rural farm. The population in 1960 was 339,329 for an increase of 16 percent to 1970. The largest city in the region is Rome, Georgia (30,711), followed by Dalton (18,872), Cartersville (9,929), and Lafayette (6,092). The area had an average density of 80 persons per square idle in 1970 which was consistent with the Georgia average, but lower than Tennessee (95 per square mile). 2.28 Manufacturing employed the greatest number of workers in 1970, with 50 percent of the labor force compared to 44 percent in 1960. Of partic ular importance are textiles, this being one of the leading carpet manu facturing regions in the United States. In fact, 46 percent of the employed persons in Bartow, Floyd, Walker, and Whitfield Counties (Georgia) are in this single industry. Other major industries include apparel, printing and publishing, machinery, and rubber and leather goods produc tion. - 2.29 Principal agricultural commodities include co m , soybeans, wheat, and hay. Tobacco is a leading crop in the Tennessee portion of the region. One-fourth of the broilers produced in Georgia, one of the leading broiler states, are raised in the region. Consistent with national trends, the number of farms has been decreasing while the average size per farm has been increasing. 2.30 ;In.1967, land use in the region was as follows: Urban or built up 2.4 % Small water areas 0.5 7. Large water areas 0.2 % Cropland 10.3 % Pasture/range 10.3 % Forest 73.8 7. Other (roads, utilities, etc.) 2.5 % Total 100.0 7. 2.31- Seventeen percent'of the forest land is in the Chattahoochee and Cherokee National Forests. During the past decade there has been a. shift from croplands to pasture/range and forest land. 2.32 In 1970 the median family income for the region was $7,865, ranging from $5,704 in Fannin County to $8,289 in Whitfield County. By compari son, Georgia's median was $8,167 and Tennessee's was $7,447. Unemployment in the region stood at 4.9 percent in 1971, slightly higher than the two-state norm of 4.3 percent. Fannin County had by far the highest rate (13.6 percent) and Polk the lowest (3.0 percent). The rate for the nation was 5.7 percent in 1971. 2.33 Gilmer and Murray, the two counties most directly involved in project implementation, have a population density of 20 and 39 persons per square mile, respectively. Both of these counties experienced a decrease in population from 1950 to 1960. The outward migration showed signs of stabilizing during the period from 1960 to 1970 when Murray County experienced a 24 percent increase in population to a total of 12,986. Chatsworth, the largest city in that county, reached urban status during that period with a population of 2,706, an increase of 129 percent over 1960. Gilmer County experienced a net increase in population of 34 persons from 1960 to 1970 to a total of 8,956. llijay, with a 1970 population of 1,326 is the largest town and population increased by 6 persons during this period. 2.34 Giloteir and Murray Counties are both included in Appalachia and are to some degree economically depressed. The average per capita income in these counties in 1969 was $2,155 and $2,547, respectively. This compares to an average per capita income of $3,132 for the State cf Georgia and $3,687 for the entire United States. Both counties have shewn a sharper rate of increase than either the State or United States average in the past few years. 2.35 Gilmer and Murray Counties are 92 and 80 percent forest land, respec tively. Both counties contain portions of the Chattahoochee National Forest, but these are outside of the project boundaries. 2.36. The natural environment has already been altered in the vicinity of the construction operations. If the project were terminated in its present stage,portions of the disturbed area would eventually revert to woodland. The forest land above the dam would probably remain undeveloped due to its remoteness and rugged terrain. The stream would remain very nearly in its natural condition with only slight alterations occurring where the flow is diverted out of its natural channel at the dam. Reversal of emigration and improvement of economic conditions would be retarded. Development of areas to support water related and water enhanced recreational activities would be very restricted. 3.01 The~¥nviroirachtaT~idpact of the Proposed Action. Development of this project has already created some, and will necessitate other, environmental alterations. The conversion of land to water surface is an obvious altera tion. The total land which has been acquired by fee simple purchase for project implementation is 8,900 acres including 2,050 acres specifically for recreation purposes. The major portion of this land is in Gilmer County (6,006 acres) and Murray County (2,836 acres) with only a small portion (58.6 acres) in Gordon County. An additional 190 acres of easements are required with most of this (145 acres) obtained for access to public use areas. 3.02 Practically all of the area above the main dam is forest land and the normal pool will inundate 3,220 acres of these lands. The intermediate area above the reregulation dam is for the most part cleared agricultural lands. An area of 1,030 acres will be inundated at the maximum storage pool in this area. 3.03 Associated with the commitment of these lands is a loss of wildlife habitat, hunting opportunities, timber production, and a reduction in the agricultural land base. The transfer of the lands from private ownership to the public domain also represents a loss of tax base to local governments, 3.04 Timber harvesting activities have been accomplished in the reservoir areas. Complete clearing in the reregulation pool and clearing between elevations 1015 and 1075 in the main pool is essentially complete. The land cleared includes a 1,235-acre strip around the reservoir extending from 3 feet above the maximum power pool elevation down to 7 feet below the minimum power pool elevation. Modified clearing has been performed below elevation 1015 in order to remove tree tops which extend above the 1015 elevation. Disposal of all cleared material has been coordinated with the appropriate Federal and State agencies to insure environmental protection. 3.05 The area of the lake can increase to 3,880 acres at the primary flood control elevation. That portion of project land which is not permanently inundated or utilized for project structures and utilities will be avail able for public use and game and forest management. The Game and Fish Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has considered these public use lands and the other shoreline property around the project, and has found them unacceptable for wildlife management purposes. Although there are sites on the public use lands which would lend themselves to wildlife management, the intense public use of these areas, plus the exclu sion of hunting, would tend to cancel any benefits which might be derived from these sites. Furthermore, the narrow strip of land connecting the public use areas is too small did the topography is too steep to be of value for wildlife management. At the Commission's request the Corps contacted the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife concerning the acquisition of 3,000 acres of land adjacent to the Coosawattee Wildlife Management Area in order to mitigate wildlife losses resulting from the project. The Bureau's preliminary indications are that the acquisition of the additional land would help to Insure the continued existence of the Coosawattee Wildlife Management Area, even if some of the area lands are withdrawn by landowners following project completion. Further study on this matter is presently underway by both the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and by the Corps of ngineers. 3.06 The;stream fishery below the dam will be affected by the Carters project. A "Temperature Simulation Study, Lake Carters, Georgia” (Appendix C) was conducted utilizing a mathematical model to predict the temperatures that would be expected to occur in the release water. The predicted temperatures obtained from this study indicate that the reach of river downstream of Lake Carters will not be able to support the propagation of a warm water fishery, but should be suitable for a "put and take" trout fishery. The Corps has recently received authoriza tion to perform an additional study in order to further investigate possible restoration measures and/or the provision of a downstream fishery to replace the natural stream warm-water fishery. The results obtained from this study will be utilized to evaluate the feasibility of potential mitigation measures. 3.07 Although "white water" activities which might be practiced are no longer available, the open water provided by a lake offers recreational opportunities not available in small streams. Such activities as water skiing, motorboating, and sailboating can be pursued on the lake where these are severely restricted if not completely excluded on the streams. 3.08 Access will'be provided and recreational facilities will be developed to promote the utilization and enjoyment of the recreational resources. Seven public use areas will be developed around the lake. Lack of suitable access has restricted recreational use of this area in the past. The ruggedness and remoteness of this area make it particularly pleasing for hiking and camping. The overlook areas will provide an excellent view of the lake, the impressive structures, and the open valley below, thus provid ing a wide contrast of topography and points of interest. The annual project visitation in pursuit of recreational activities is projected to be about 193,000 in 1975 with an increase to 1,413,000 by the year 2025. The possible loss of life through drowning or other accidents associated with recreational activities always accompanies this type development. Use of designated swimming areas, surveillance^ and enforcement of safety regulations helps to minimize this threat. 3. 0 9 x The lake and its surrounding lands will assure a permanent open space and a green'belt which is protected from exploitation. The green belt will be subjected to forest and game management to allow it to maintain its full potential. 3.10 ilie change from free-flowing streams to a lake environment will alter the aquatic flora and fauna of the affected streambeds and associa ted flood plains. The resultant ecosystem will be less diverse and there fore less stable. This results from elimination of lotic species and development of thermal stratification in the lake which produces low dissolved oxygen concentrations and increases in iron and manganese con centrations in the hypolimnetic waters. Although this situation is less desirable from some standpoints, the lake has several advantageous qualities including the ability to support a well rounded sport fishery. Also the lake will function as a nutrient and sediment trap, and reductions in bacterial levels will occur. Although storage for the accumulated sediment is included in the plan, the topography, land surface characteristics and terrain will prevent sediment accumulation from being a problem. The absence of concentrated waste sources which do not have adequate treatment, the expected improvements in erosion control, and the general characteristics of the watershed alleviate any threat of accelerated eutrophication in the proposed lake due to excessive organics or nutrients. In addition, the implementation of regulatory measures by appropriate state and local agencies and governmental bodies to protect the recreational waters, including a waste management plan by state agencies for the entire drainage area, will insure that the lake will have a long and useful life. The lake level will be held as constant as possible during fish spawning periods. Surveillance activities will be conducted to monitor production of health vectors and nuisance aquatic plants. If control measures prove necessary, the methods that would afford maximum environmental protection will be selected. 3.11 The possibility exists that upstream trout fisheries would suffer from an invasion by warm water fishes from the reservoir. There is, however, little documented evidence of these detrimental episodes available due to the lack of studies conducted on this particular subject. Nevertheless, the general consensus among the fishery biologists contacted during a recent telephone survey by the Corps is that suckers (catostomids) present the most serious threat to resident trout populations. The suckers spring spawning runs on streams in the form of large schools offer competition to the trout for food and space. Other fish which offer similar problems are carp, walleye, sauger, white bass, and largemouth bass. The Corps of ngineers has received authorization to initiate a study to determine the need for fish barriers on tributary streams and, if needed, the feasibility of their construction. Preliminary indications are that the slopes of the Cartecay and llijay Rivers are steep and mountainous, possibly providing natural fish barriers. If this is true, it would be unnecessary to construct fish barriers now. But, if following impoundment, there is evidence of dis turbance of the trout fishery further consideration would be given at that time. 3.12 The impact of the project on rare or endangered species will be minimal. The bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus. and the peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anaturn. may inhabit the project area at some time in their life history. However, they are transients and do not occupy the project area for extended periods or nest in the vicinity. Both species are recognized by the Department of the Interior as being endangered. 3.13 Several fish"species not officially recognized by the Department of tne Interior are locally important and declining in number. These are the goldline darter, Percina aurolineath. freckled darter, Percina lentlcula. and blue shiner, Notropis caeruleus. The goldline darter is known only from two localities: The Cahaba River in Alabama and the Coosawattee River above the Coosawattee Falls, Gilmer County, Georgia. This fish is dependent upon riffles, and Carters Lake will inundate much of its range. The freckled darter is relatively rare but enjoys a fairly wide distribution in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. The blue shiner is also known from the Coosa and Cahaba river systems in Alabama. A small portion of the stream habitat for all three of these fishes will be inundated by Carters Lake. 3.14 The operation of Carters^Dam for flood control will produce benefits principally to rural farm areas but will offer some protection to the urban centers at Calhoun and Borne. After the project is in operation, little or no flooding is expected just below the dam on the Coosawattee River. In frequent overflows will occur along the lower reach of the stream. There are 8,200 acres in farms of which 90 percent are cleared along the lower reach of the Coosawattee River. Flood stages for floods having a recurrence interval of from 1 to 3 years will be reduced approximately 4 to 6 feet on these productive farm lands. There is a much lesser degree of protection provided along the Oostanaula and Coosa Rivers with only a negligible effect below the Alabama-Georgia State line. Between Carters Dam and the State line there are 41,500 acres of rural farm land that will be affected in varying degrees. Flood damages will be reduced and net income will be increased due to the more intense use that can be made of the agricultural lands. Since the majority of suitable agricultural lands are already cleared there will be no significant amount of conversion of forest, lands to agri cultural use due to the added flood protection. 3.15 Production of hydroelectric power is a "clean" method of obtaining energy. The current and projected requirements for this form of energy are related to the "quality of life" for man. The energy generated by this peaking power plant will aid in meeting peak demands within the systems in Georgia and Alabama which are tied into other regional systems. 3.16 The pump storage capability of the project will be utilized to conserve water by pumping water back into the main reservoir from the reregulation pool during off peak periods when excess electrical energy is available in the system. As a result of these power production operations, the surface of Carters Lake will undergo some fluctuations during the prime recreational season and this will have a slight negative Impact on the recreational resource. This fluctuation will not normally exceed six feet during a week and all recreational facilities will be developed to accommodate this rising and falling of the lake surface. Due to steepness of the valley walls, a minimum of land surface is exposed during these fluctuations. 3.17 Provisions are included in the plan to insure the maintenance of flow downstream of the project. There will be a minimum continuous flow of not less than 240 cfs at the reregulation dam. This minimum will be main tained during the initial filling period as well as during normal project operation. The 240 cfs represents the once-in-10-year, 7-day low flow for the Coosawattee River at the reregulation dam. The flow will usually exceed this amount with the probability that 350 cfs will be exceeded 95 percent of the time and 500 cfs will be exceeded 90 percent of the time. This compares with 260 cfs and 300 cfs which are exceeded 95 and 90 percent of the time under natural conditions. This represents improved conditions during low flow periods which will be helpful for downstream water supply and waste assimilation, particularly at the urban areas of Calhoun and Rome. fforts will be made by the Corps to manipulate discharges from Carters Dam in such a way that the low flows at Rome, attributed to mini mum weekend discharges from Allatoona Dam, will be ameliorated. 3.18 Water quality studies indicate that water released through the gates from the reregulation dam will be well aerated and of good quality. How ever, if after placing the structure in operation the dissolved oxygen content of the waters downstream of the reregulation spillway violates the water quality criteria for the Georgia use classification for warm water fishing, action will be taken to provide whatever supplementary measures are necessary to meet this requirement. The reregulation pool will act as a buffer zone for improving both water quality and flow conditions downstream. This alleviates many of the problems normally associated with releases from a peaking power hydroelectric project which undergoes thermal stratification. An automatic water quality monitor will be installed down stream to monitor the release water. 3.19 The reregulation pool, in order to accomplish its stated purposes and provide for pump storage, must undergo fairly large and rapid fluctu ations in water surface elevations. For this reason it is not well suited for recreational activities. 3.20 Since the subsurface materials in the area are mostly non-porous and consolidated, the groundwater recharge will not be of great consequence, but will probably be sufficient to supply small wells. It will also pro vide additional base flow to the streams during periods of drought. Because of the steepness of the terrain waterlogging will not be a significant problem. 3.21 Temporary increases in turbidity and siltation are generally associ ated with water resource development. Proper planning and construction practices will minimize the adverse effects on the water quality and aquatic environment that might result. For the most part the aquatic community is adaptable to large variations in turbidity which occur naturally; however, this is true only within certain limits for limited periods. The duration of turbid conditions probably has more effect than the amount of turbidity. Methods to reduce both duration and the magnitude of these increases are being practiced during project construction. 3.22 For about 2 years after the project becomes operational the down stream channel and banks will undergo a transition period until they become stabilized to the new flow characteristics. Careful implementation of operational measures will help minimize this problem. asements have been obtained to protect property owners. 3.23 Solid wastes, including those generated by construction and opera tional activities, will be disposed of in accordance with the State's solid waste management plan to insure that these wastes will not cause environ mental degradation. Open burning activities will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Georgia nvironmental Protection Division and will be coordinated with the State Forestry Commission to prevent forest fires. When conducted under favorable meteorological conditions in remote areas, open burning can be accomplished with only a minimal and temporary adverse effect on the air resource. 3.24 Area redevelopment benefits are also attributed to project implemen tation including wages and salaries to construction workers and operating personnel. There is more employment in the area and the overall local economy has been bolstered. This has and will continue to be of particular significance in Improving the depressed conditions that are evidenced by the counties in the project vicinity which are part of Appalachia. The stimulus of the project on the economy will also aid in further retarding and reversing the emigration which has been occurring. 3.25 Intangible benefits; i.e , other than those assigned a monetary value, will also accrue to the project. The possibility of loss of life from floods will be lessened downstream of the project, particularly in the bridge crossing areas which are subject to inundation and washout. The project will improve sanitary conditions, which sometimes become hazardous during prolonged periods of high water because of infiltration of flood waters into wells and creation of additional mosquito breeding grounds. The transportation systems serving the area will be relieved of schedule interruptions, thereby eliminating considerable inconvenience in addition to the monetary losses. The scenic attraction in the reservoir area and the availability of freshwater recreational opportunities will enhance the lands adjacent to and immediately downstream from the project, thereby causing an increase in real estate values. The availability of recrea tional resources to the general public will lessen demands on private property owners to permit public utilization of their lands thus protec ting the agricultural land base. 3.26 Multiple-purpose reservoirs are capable of satisfying different requirements at the same time, either by multiple-use of the same storage or by inclusion of storage increments to serve additional purposes. Flexibility to meet future or unexpected demands will be available in the Carters project and the joint use results in substantial monetary savings as well as the opportunity to wisely manage the existing resources. Additional project facilities to promote recreational opportunities may be developed incrementally as needs dictate. 3.27 ventthough archaeological survey and salvage activities have been and are still being performed, there is always the possibility that some important sites, not now discovered, will be inundated or destroyed by the project, thus making them unavailable for future study. The studies which have been conducted to date were accomplished by the National Park Service prior to impoundment under the requirements set forth by the National Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Data Act of 1960. 4.01 Any Adverse nvironmental ffects Which Cannot be Avoided. The land which is either inundated or utilized for project structures loses its value for wildlife habitat, timber production, human habitation, archaeological research, and/or is removed from the agricultural land base. When compared with the agricultural and forest resources of the basin, the portion utilized for the project implementation is a minor amount. It is recognized that the summation of many small increments could soon become a significant amount. Therefore, the reduction of these resources, however slight, cannot be completely discounted. 4.02 Similar circumstances are involved in the loss of the natural stream fishery in the reservoir and downstream areas. ven though it will be replaced with a lake fishery and possibly a downstream "put and take" fishery, the incremental reduction of this type of fishery cannot be dis regarded. 4.03 Temporary degradation of the stream below the project due to in creased turbidity and sediments cannot be completely avoided. Also, the detrimental effects associated with releases from a thermally stratified reservoir are not avoidable. ven though the reregulation pool will act as a buffer zone for improving both water quality and flow conditions downstream, this section of stream will still undergo an alteration in its temperature regimen. The temperature of the release water, according to the "Temperature Simulation Study, Lake Carters, Georgia" (Appendix C), will not be suitable for a "put and take" trout fishery. Additional studies will be conducted concerning the downstream fishery to document actual conditions and determine if any mitigation measures are justified. 5.01 Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Many alternatives were considered, analyzed and evaluated during the planning phase of this project. Alternate sites with several one- and two-dam concepts were studied before the present project was selected. In fact when the construction began the project was to be a single dam with conventional turbines only. During construction the project was modified to its present configuration with the reregulation dam downstream and both conventional and reverse pumping turbines are now included. nvironmental considerations, as well as economics and optimum resource utilization, influenced this modification. The capability to reregulate the flow and improve the water quality downstream of a peaking power hydroelectric project is very important and alleviates many adverse conditions normally associated with such operations. Since this project has already progressed to the stage where alternatives such as site location, size, and principal operating characteristics which formed the basis of design are no longer feasible, no further discussion of these is given. 5.02 The most obvious alternative available at this time is to terminate construction and allow the river to remain in its present state. This alternative would allow approximately 4,000 acres of land which will be inundated to remain dry land and therefore able to provide wildlife habitat, timber production and other dry land characteristics. Also, archaeological sites not yet discovered would still be accessible. The affected portion of the stream would continue to provide riverine habitat for aquatic organisms which require a free flowing stream. The area upstream of the dam would be subject to more severe flooding than under natural conditions due to the restriction imposed by the diversion tunnel. While this alternative does eliminate some of the adverse environmental impacts of the project, it also eliminates the beneficial impacts which will be realized from project implementation. These include flood control, recreation, low flow improvement and power generation. In addition, the stimulus for economic development would be removed. 5.03 With completion of construction, alternatives for environmental enhance ment are still available for consideration. One such set of alternatives which has been evaluated concerns the minimum amount of water to be released at all times downstream of the project. Several considerations are involved in selecting the best alternative. Satisfaction of downstream requirements for water supply and maintenance of stream assimilative capacity together with the provision of sufficient flow to maintain a healthy aquatic environ ment and a good stream fishery resource were the principal reasons for re quiring these releases. Water released for these purposes is no longer available for power generation recycling. Just as the natural stream only experienced low-flow-related problems during periods of drought, the availa bility of water for release downstream from the project does not become critical until "dry" water years occur. During most periods excess water is available and must be released downstream so all needs are met. During dry years water which is released is lost for power production and drawdowns in the lake can adversely affect recreation as well as reduce the efficiency of the turbines in producing energy. However, it is critical for down stream users to know how much water they can expect at all times so waste management plans can be formulated and future water supply capabilities can be determined. This problem is of particular interest to the Georgia nvironmental Protection Division (formerly Water Quality Board) and was coordinated with that agency in evaluating the alternatives. 5.04 One alternative considered was to maintain a certain minimum flow in the Oostanaula River at Rome by utilizing the combined flow from the Conasauga and Coosawattee Rivers to make up this minimum flow. Theoretic cally there would be times in which no releases would be required from Carters to meet this requirement. However, flow would still be required to maintain aquatic life in the Coosawattee River. This alternative was rejected on environmental grounds and other uncertainties which made it undesirable from an operational standpoint. 5.05 The alternative selected calls for the release at all times of a minimum flow of 240 cfs at the reregulation dam. This continuous minimum flow improves low flow conditions which have existed under natural condi tions. Also in relation to the problem of downstream releases, the filling plan for the reservoir was modified to insure this minimum flow so that adequate water would be available downstream during the period required for filling. 5.06 Another situation which involved environmental considerations con cerned the methods of clearing and disposal of the cleared vegetative material. conomics, aesthetics, water quality and air quality are in volved in this matter. In order to reach a solution that would minimize the adverse impact on these considerations and offer maximum practical environmental protection the problem was coordinated with numerous Federal and State agencies to obtain their advice and recommendations. Included were agencies dealing with forest resources, air and water quality, fish and wildlife, and environmental protection. Through these efforts a mutually acceptable solution was reached. 5.07 Once the project is in operation, additional decisions concerning recreational development, beautification, project operation and management will have to be made on a continuing basis. When the occasion arises, these decisions will be made based on evaluations of the available alter natives and their environmental impacts. 6.01 The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Ma n *3 nvironment and the Maintenance and nhancement of Long-term Productivity, Develop ment of the water resources of the Alabama-Coosa River System is based on satisfying the present and future needs of the people in that area. The energy "crisis" which includes "brown-outs" and'black-outs" has far reaching implications on man and his "quality of life." nergy requirements are met through various inputs to a system. Peaking power hydroelectric projects produce needed energy during peak demand periods. This has two significant beneficial effects. The number and size of base plants can be reduced and the energy sources that would be required to produce the energy can be conserved. The energy produced will have short- and long-term effects. 6.02 Income,realized fronTagriculturaT"activities in the" project area would be lost as a short-term use and the removal of the land from the agricultural land base and the reduction in forest resources may be considered as long term losses. Area redevelopment would provide both short- and long-term benefits and should produce income in excess of that lost due to project implementation. 6.03 The project includes measures to satisfy immediate needs and plans for insuring long-term productivity. This project provides for the satis faction of both short- and long-term requirements in fulfilling the project purposes. 6.04 Improved management of the lands, forest and water resources which will accompany the development of the project will increase and protect the long-term productivity of these resources. 7.01 Any Irreversible lind Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action. Commitment is required of land within the lakes and of the land necessary for construction of project facilities. This land will no longer be available to be utilized for timber production, agriculture, archaeological exploration, human habitation or wildlife habitat. Any mineral resources which might be contained within the con fines of the lakes will be permanently committed unless extraction could _ be.accoaplishcdwithout interference with expressed project purposes. The stream fishery within the newly created lakes will also be forfeited. 7.02 Indirectly, the anticipated-economic growth induced by implementation of this project may further commit other resources which may now or in the future become irreversible and irretrievable. The labor and material required for the construction and operation of the project will also be *, irretrievable. » 8 . Coordination with Others. a. Public Participation, Meetings with local officials and interested persons were held in 1954, in regard to possible reservoirs for the basin. No public meetings were held in connection with this project. However, a meeting was held in April 1964, in Chatsworth, Georgia, where all the landowners were invited to attend. The purpose of this meeting was to acquaint the landowners with the scope of the project and to explain the land acquisition policies that would be utilized. A news release was issued onTi20ctober 1972 announcing the availability of the draft IS to” thepublic = and inviting their comments. b. Government Agencies. Planning for this project has involved coordination with various Federal, State, and local agencies throughout the history of the project. Agencies which provided input into the development of the project included the following: Geological Survey, USDI Southeastern Power Administration, USDI National Park Service, USDI Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI Federal Power Commission nvironmental Protection Agency Forest Service, US DA. Soil Conservation Service, USDA Georgia Game and Fish Commission Georgia Department of Public Health Georgia Water Quality Board Georgia Forestry Commission Georgia Department of Natural Resources _In October 1972 a Draft nvironmental Statement was furnished to Federal and State' agencies to obtain their views on the environmental impact of this project. The pertinent comments received from each agency are summarized below with responses as applicable. Copies of the letters furnishing comments are attached as Appendix A. (1) NVIRONM NTAL PROT CTION AG NCY Comment: While a fairly good assessment of the overall environmental effects of the project is given, we feel that there should be a more com prehensive report of the effects of the project on water quality. Response: Appendix B entitled "Water Quality and Biological Changes Following Impoundment" taken from PA's preimpoundment study of Carters Lake which was performed for the Corps during 1968 to 1971 has been added to the statement. Also, a temperature simulation study has been added as Appendix c. Comment: The statement is made that "the lake will function as a sediment trap and reductions in bacterial levels will occur." It is also true that the reservoir will act as a nutrient trap, particularly for the nutrients released by the llijay sewage treatment system which releases an effluent heavy in nitrates and phosphates from chicken proces sing wastes. Farm runoff adds additional nutrients, and others will be supplied by the proposed seven n e w public use areas. Response; The statement has been revised to reflect that the lake will function as a nutrient trap for the nutrients coming from sewage dis charges and from farm runoff. It is noted, however, that all sewage from the City of llijay and from the public use areas receives, at the least, secondary treatment before discharge. Because of the absence of concentra ted waste sources, the water flowing into the lake will be of excellent quality and will offer no real threat of accelerated eutrophication. Comment: It was agreed at a meeting attended by representatives of FA, the Corps of ngineers, and the State of Georgia in February 1972 that the Corps would provide whatever supplementary treatment was necessary to meet the required D.O. levels and other parameters to meet the water quality standards. We recommend that details of this agreement and other items mutually agreed upon be included in the Final Statement. Response; As agreed at the meeting, the reregulation reservoir will function as a buffer zone and the spillway should provide the aera tion necessary to meet water quality standards downstream from the project. However, if after placing the structure in operation the dissolved oxygen content of the waters below the reregulation spillway violates the water quality criteria for the Georgia use classification for warm-water fishing, measures will be taken to provide whatever supple mental treatment is necessary to meet this requirement. The statement has been revised to reflect this agreement. Comment; We recommend discussion of the impact of Carters Dam operation on the flow pattern at Rome. Will the operation aggravate or ameliorate the existing problem of low flows on weekends contributed by the Allatoona Dam? Response: fforts will be made by the Corps to manipulate dis charges from Carter's Dam in such a way that the low flows at Rome, attribu ted to minimum weekend discharges from the Allatoona Dam, will be ameliorated. This point has been incorporated into the statement. Comment; The effects of the pumped storage operation on thermal stratification should be mentioned. Response; Since the effects of pumped storage on thermal strati fication vary from one dam to the next, it would be improper to give specific data here without first performing a study. It is reasonable, however, to assume that since the volume of water in the main reservoir far exceeds the volume of water pumped, the effects on thermal stratifica tion will be minimal and limited to the immediate dam area. In the preim poundment study of Carters Lake, PA states in their conclusions that the "effects of pumped storage on quality of release waters and reservoir stratification are not known in this specific case, but are expected to be beneficial." The "Temperature Simulation Study, Lake Carters, Georgia," (Appendix C) further states that "studies on another existing pump storage project show the reservoir remained stratified during pumping operation and the mj.xing that did take place, although minor, served to improve water quality." Comment; Insufficient consideration has been given to disposal of solid waste that would be generated by the project. Land clearing waste, construction debris, unsuitable excavation materials, operational refuse, and residues from open burning could present short-term adverse environmen tal impacts unless disposed of in accordance with State solid waste manage ment rules and regulations. We recommend that disposal procedures be submitted to, and receive the approval of, the State solid waste management program before work on the project is started. Response: The statement has been modified to show that all con tractors are required to dispose of all solid wastes in accordance with the State solid waste control laws. Waste generated during project opera tion will also be disposed of in accordance with these laws. (2) U. S. D PARTM NT OF TH INT RIOR (a) Office of the Secretary Comment: The Bureau of Hines has not made a mineral survey of the area and therefore cannot fully appraise the impact of the project on mineral resources. Response: As pointed out on page 6 of the draft environmental statement, an independent appraisal of the mineral resources in the project area was conducted for the Corps by a consulting geologist and his report indicated that there are no mineral deposits which are economically retrievable. Comment: As archaeological values are present in the project area, the project's effects upon these cultural environmental resources should be identified and discussed in terms of impact, unavoidable adverse effects, alternatives, short-term versus long-term productivity and irretrievable and irreversible commitments. Response: The effects of inundation on archaeological research at the Carters Dam project have been incorporated into the specified sections of the statement. Archaeological investigations, basically salvage, are presently underway at Carters Dam by the Department of the Interior's National Park Service. Comment: The reference to "mountain trout" should be clarified to what species of trout are found in the area. Response: All references to "mountain trout" have been revised to read "rainbow trout." Comment: It should be mentioned in the statement that there are six other large lakes within 50 miles of the project that already provide lake fishing and other recreational opportunities. Response: This suggestion has been incorporated into the statement. Comment: It is unlikely that ground water recharge from the lake, as discussed in the statement, will occur in significant amounts because of the nature of the geology and the topography of the area. Response: Since the subsurface materials in the area are mostly nonporous and consolidated, the groundwater recharge will not be of great consequence, but will probably be sufficient to supply small wells. This point has been incorporated into the statement. Comment: Aquatic organisms can tolerate naturally occurring variations in turbidity; however, this is true only within certain limits for limited periods. Response: The statement has been modified to reflect this comment. Comment: The statement points out that during the "transition period" the erosion problem on the downstream channel and banks will be minimized, but there is no Indication of the magnitude of the effect nor of the probable length of time during which it will persist. Response: The controlled flows from the reregulation dam should eliminate a considerable portion of the potential damage to the downstream channel and banks normally associated with a power dam. The majority of the aggradation and degradation problems that occur will be during a "transition period" lasting approximately 2 years. Then, these actions will taper off to a relatively stable state. This estimate of the dura tion of the "transition period" has been incorporated into the statement. Comment: The statement did not discuss the effect of reservoir thermal stratification and the cold-water summer releases on the warm-water fishery below the reregulation dam. Response: Refer to Appendix C entitled "Temperature Simulation Study, Lake Carters, Georgia," which concluded that the reach of river downstream of Lake Carters will not be able to support the propagation of a warm water fishery, but should be suitable for a "put and take" trout fishery. The IS has been modified to include this effect. Comment: The loss of stream habitat for the goldline darter, Percina aurollneath. a species discovered in 1967, should be mentioned. Response: The goldline darter, Percina aurolineath. has been collected from the Coosawattee and Cartecay Rivers in Georgia, but the extent of its habitat has not been documented. However, since the fish is dependent upon riffles, the Carters Dam Project will obviously inundate much of its range in the Coosawattee River. Comment: The last statement under the section entitled "Any Adverse nvironmental ffects Which Cannot be Avoided" should be revised to indicate that thermal stratification will occur because the project design will not permit selective releases during stratification. Response: Thermal stratification is a phenomenon indigenous to deep reservoirs in temperate climates which have a low inflow to storage volume ratio. Carters Lake will display thermal stratification regardless of the project design. The level of the intake structure that withdraws from a thermally stratified reservoir will have an effect on the tempera ture, dissolved oxygen level, and general water quality of the release water. But at Carters, the reregulation pool will act as a buffer zone for Improving both water quality and flow conditions downstream, and will alleviate many of the problems normally associated with releases from a peaking power hydroelectric project which undergoes thermal stratifica tion. The effects of the alteration of the temperature regimen on the downstream fishery have been added to the section discussing adverse effects. Comment: The minimum flow of 240 cfs that is to be maintained at the reregulation dam is equal to a 7-day minimum flow with a 10-year recurrence interval under natural conditions. The statement seems to imply that this low rate of flow will occur one or more times in most years after operational patterns are established. If this is so, then 9 out of 10 years, on the average, the minimum flow will be less than the natural flow. Response: The Corps analysis of stream flow records for the area indicates that the 7-day average 10-year recurrence interval low flow in the Coosawattee River at Carters below Talking Rock Creek is 240 cfs. The storage available in Carters Reservoir for power generation will be used to guarantee this flow as the minimum continuous release that can be expected at all times. Generally, however, based on presently envisioned operating concepts and available data, flows greater than the 240 cfs will be released with the probability of a minimum of 350 cfs being provided about 95 percent of the time during average water yield years and a minimum of 500 cfs about 90 percent of the time. It will be possible with the reregulation reservoir to vary somewhat the release rates during a weekly period to meet some specific downstream water quality problem. However, the extent of this variation will have to be determined on the basis of the best overall use of the water for power generation, recreation, and downstream water quality needs. ' (b) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Comment; We believe that the project site would offer an ideal location for an -educational area and interpretative facilities which would provide the public with insight into how ecological diversity occurs and what it means to biological and human communities. Response: The statement has been expanded to point out that . interpretative facilities to be constructed at the Carters Dam project include a visitor center at the Resource Manager's office and nature trails around the perimeter of the reservoir. Interpretative signs and devices, including audio-visual aids, will be provided at the visitor center to describe significant project data, or historical, archaeological, geological and other scientific points of interest on project lands. Species of trees and shrubs will be identified and marked along the nature trails. Other features of special interest will also be identified above the impoundment zones of the main reservoir and the reregulation pool. (3) V. S. D PARTM NT OF AGRICULTUR . Soil Conservation Service Comment: In the Soil Conservation Services comments, various suggestions pertaining to erosion and sediment control at the project site were submitted for consideration. Response; The Corps of ngineers most recent contract specifica tions for work at the Carters Dam project contain provisions in the section entitled " nvironmental Protection" basically covering the overall content of these suggestions. Comment: No mention is made in the impact statement of reducing flood frequency. Response; The flood control provided by Carters Dam will mean a reduction in flood frequency. Along the lower reaches of the Coosawattee River flood stages for 1 to 3 year floods will be reduced approximately 4 to 6 feet. The statement has been revised to reflect this point. Comment; Have studies been conducted on the stream to determine damages that may be caused by flooding during functioning of the emergency spillway? Response: No studies of this nature have been conducted for the Carters Dam Project. It is, however, common knowledge that use of the emergency spillway will cause extensive erosion and scour damage to the area immediately below the main dam, especially to the right-of-way acquired for flooding purposes. The emergency spillway, according to reregulation plans, will only be used during floods in excess of the 100-year flood. Since Carters Dam will decrease downstream flood stages and durations during these floods, the damages caused should be less than those occurring under natural flow conditions. Comment; Is the "mountain trout" a particular trout species that is unique to the area? Response: All references to "mountain trout" have been changed to "rainbow trout." Comment: The "use classification of fishing" needs to be stated in more uetail. Response: The specific criteria used by Georgia for classifying a stream in the "Fishing Use Classification" are as follows: (a) Dissolved Oxygen: A minimum of 5.0 mg/1 at all times for streams designated as trout waters by the Georgia State and Fish Commission; a m-tn-tTTnim of 4.0 mg/1 at all times for waters supporting warm water species of fish. (b) pH: Within the range of 6.0 - 8.5. (c) Bacteria: Fecal coliform not to exceed a mean of 5,000 per 100 ml (MPN) based on at least four samples taken over a 30-day period and not to exceed 20,000 per 100 ml in more than five percent of the samples in any 90-day period." ' (d) Temperature: Not to exceed 93.2°F (34.0°C) at any time and not to be increased more than 10 F above intake temperature. In streams designated as trout waters by the State Game and Fish Commission, there shall be no elevation or depression of natural stream temperatures. (e) Toxic Wastes, Other Deleterious Materials: None in concentra tions that would harm man, fish, and game, or other beneficial aquatic life. Comment: Is the dam being constructed on a stream classified as a cold water or a warm water stream? Response: The Georgia Game and Fish Commission has classified the upper portion of the Coosawattee River as a cold water stream. The Carters Dam reservoir and immediately below it has been classified as an intermediate stream. Comment: The expression ’’moderate to poor fishing” may have a different meaning to each person reviewing the environmental statement. It would be better if the fishing could be expressed in. catch per man day. Response: Since data on the catch per man day are unavailable,it is felt that the expression 'Moderate to poor” amply describes the some what obscure fishing conditions on the Coosawattee River and its tribu taries . Comment: What amount or percent of the habitat of the goldline darter will be inundated by Carters Lake? Response: See response to similar comment by U . S. Department of the Interior on page 29. Comment: There are four active sub-watersheds of the Coosa Watershed Project above the proposed dam and reregulation dam. Those sub-watershed projects above the main dam are the Cartecay, llijay, and Mountain Town Creek. Nineteen flood prevention structures are completed in the watershed. Six flood prevention structures are completed in the Talking Rock Creek Sub-Watershed which flows into the reregulation dam. These dams account for the low sediment loads in the Coosawattee which are probably lower now than when the tests were conducted in 1963. The environ mental impact statement could reflect the effects of these projects on the Carters Project. Response: These facts have been incorporated into the statement. (4) OFFIC OF CONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Comment: We have no reason to believe that the proposed action will have an adverse environmental impact on the low income neighborhoods involved. (5) D PARTM NT OF HOUSING AND URBAN D V LOPM NT Comment: Construction of Carters Dam and Lake does not appear to have any adverse impact on programs of this Department. Construction of the dam should offer more flood control for future housing projects of this Department in the Calhoun and Rome, Georgia, area. Therefore, this Department has no objection to the construction of Carters Dam and Lake. (6) D PARTM NT OF TRANSPORTATION (a) Federal Highway Administration Comment: We have reviewed the Draft IS, specifically as to the relationship of the Carters Dam and Lake project with affected existing and proposed highways, and find that no conflicts exist in this regard. (b) Federal Aviation Adminis tration Comment: Our review indicates there will be no significant adverse effects to the existing or planned air transportation system resulting from the construction of this project. (c) U. S. Coast Guard Comment; The material has been reviewed by the Department of Transportation and it is our determination that the impact of this project upon transportation is minimal. (7) STAT OF G ORGIA Office of Planning and Budget - Georgia State Clearinghouse Comment; There has been much contact between the Corps and the State relative to the resolution of concerns raised by State agencies. xcept for these concerns the State of Georgia has no objections to the Draft nvironmental Statement. Response: In their initial correspondence to the Georgia State Clearinghouse, the Game and Fish Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources offered a number of comments on the preservation and mitigation of fish and wildlife resources at the Carters Dam project. Their three main areas of concern were as follows; (1) The restoration or provision of a downstream fishery to replace the natural stream warm water fishery; (2) the need for a fish barrier constructed at the upper pool limits of the lake; and (3) the acquisition of additional project lands to mitigate wildlife losses from the inundation of reservoir bottom lands. Since that time, there has been a conference and considerable correspondence between the Corps and the State on these matters in an effort to resolve the areas of concern. At present, the Corps is initiating action for a formal investigation of the attendant problems, proposals, and available alternatives. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the need and justification for possible fish and wildlife mitigation measures associa ted with the Carters Dam and Lake project. If the mitigation measures are determined to be justified, a recommendation will be made to Congress that implementation of the measures be authorized. No comments on the Draft nvironmental Statement were received from the following agencies: Federal: Department of Commerce Deputy Asst. Secretary for nvironmental Affairs National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Department of Health, ducation & Welfare Food and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch Appalachian Regional Commission c. Citizens Groups. The following conservation groups and individuals were furnished copies of the Draft nvironmental Statement for review: cology Center of Louisiana Arkansas cology Center nvironmental Information Center National Wildlife Federation National Audubon Society Save America's Vital nvironment The Georgia Conservancy, Inc. Sierra Club Georgia Power Company Dr. Joseph R . Caldwell, University of Georgia Dr. George Folkerts, Auburn University Clifford M. Danby Only Dr. Joseph R. Caldwell with the University of Georgia offered comments on the draft statement. His comments were as follows: TH UNIV RSITY OF G ORGIA, D PARTM NT OF ANTHROPOLOGY Comment: I think your statement that there is always the possibility that some important sites will be lost is a very fair one. We estimate a recovery rate of five percent of archaeological data at most Corps of ngineers dams, and Carters is no exception. It is only right that your impact statement point out that funding by Congress for.archaeological research is hopelessly inadequate, and the overall result of Carters and every other dam is a disastrous loss of archaeological data. Comment; On your page 24 (draft statement) you state that the studies which have been conducted were accomplished because the project was being constructed, and your work has thereby provided an impetus to archaeology. A loss of 95 percent of our data is not the kind of impetus we need, and I will protest this statement everytime I see it in an impact study. Response; The statement has been revised and now states that a archaeological surveys and salvage activities are presently being con ducted by the National Park Service prior to impoundment as required by the National Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Data Act of 1960. APP NDIX A R VI W COMM NTS ON DRAFT STAT M NT E N V r INMENTAL PROTECTION AO' MCY REGION IV 1421 Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 November 14, 1972 Mr. Powell Williams, Jr. Assistant Chief, ngineering Division Mobile District, Cor p s of ngineers Department of the A r m y P. O. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams: W e have reviewed the Draft nvironmental Impact Statement on Carters D a m and L a k e on the Coosawattee River in Georgia and offer the following c o m m e n t s : While a fairly good as s e s s m e n t of the overall environmental effects of the project is given, w e feel that there should be a m o r e comprehensive report of the effects of the project on water quality. O n Pa g e 18, line 18, the statement is m a d e that "the lake will function as a sediment trap and reductions in bacterial levels will occur. " It is also true that the reservoir will act as a nutrient trap, particularly for the nutrients released by the llijay sewage treatment system which releases an effluent heavy in nitrates and phosphates from chicken processing wastes. F a r m runoff adds additional nutrients, and others will be supplied by the proposed seven new public use areas. While nutrients were flushed downstream and readily assimilated in the free-flowing stream environment, they will now be largely retained and recycled within the reservoir environment where they will promote algae and weed growth. Some reduction in water quality from these sources can be expected. Although this condition is not expected to be a critical factor by itself because of the excellent water quality of the remainder of the water shed, there m a y be s ome difficulty in maintaining the required D. O. to meet water quality standards downstream from the d ams during critical periods, especially during the first few years of project operation because of the overall reservoir environment created by the project. It w a s agreed at a meeting attended by representatives of P A , the Corps of ngineers, and the State on February, 1972 that the C o r p s would provide whatever supplementary treatment w a s necessary to m e e t the required D. O. levels and other p a r ameters to m e e t the water quality standards. W e r e c o m m e n d that details of this a g r e e m e n t and other items mutually agreed upon be included in the Final Statement. W e further r e c o m m e n d discussion o i the impact of Carter's D a m operation on the flow pattern at R o m e . Will the operation aggravate or ameloriate the existing p r o b l e m of low-flows on w e e k e n d s contributed by the Allatoona D a m ? Also, the effects of the p u m p storage operation on thermal stratifi cation should be mentioned. Finally, insufficient consideration has been given to disposal of solid waste that would be generated by the project. L a n d clearing waste, construction debris, unsuitable excavation materials, operational refuse, and residues f r o m open burning could present short-term adverse environmental impacts unless disposed of in accordance with State solid waste m a n a g e m e n t rules and regulations. W e r e c o m m e n d that disposal procedures be submitted to, and receive the approval of, the State solid waste m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m before w o r k on the project is started. W e would appreciate a copy of the Final nvironmental Impact Statement w h e n it is available, and if w e can be of further assistance to you in any way, please let us know. Sincerely, Jack . R a v a n Regional Administrator Unite States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF HE SECRE ARY South ast R gion / 148 Cain St., NJE. / Atlanta, Ga. 30303 December 12, 1972 District Engineer U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Sir: This is in response to your letter of October 6, to Assistant Secretary for Program Policy. We have reviewe the raft environmental impact statement on Carters Dam an Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia, for effects on historic sites, parks, geology, hy rology, mineral, an fish an wil life resources. The propose project will not a versely affect any existing propose , or known potential units of the National Park System, or any known historic, natural, or environmental e ucation site eligible or consi ere potentially eligible for the National Lan mark Programs. In a ition, no significant a verse environmental impact of the propose project as relate to the geology of the area is anticipate . The following comments refer to specific sections of the statement. Environmental Setting Without the Project Page 6, paragraph 1. The Bureau of Mines has not ma e a mineral survey of the area an , therefore, cannot fully appraise the impact of the project on mineral resources. Locally the only known mineral resources an relate in ustries—talc an marble—are outsi e the propose project area. Page 7, paragraph 3. As archaeological values are present in the project area, the project's effects upon these cultural environmental resources shoul be i entifie an iscusse in terms of impact, unavoi able a verse effects, alternatives, short-term versus long-term pro uctivity, an irretrievable an irreversible commitments. The statement shoul contain evi ence of contact with the Historic Preservation Offiper for the State involve , an a copy of his comments concerning the effect of the un ertaking upon any historical an archae ological resources which may be in process of nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Page 12, paragraph 2. The reference to "mountain trout" shoul be clarifie to what species of trout are foun in the area. The Environmental Impact of the Propose Action Page 17, paragraph 1 an 2. The statement infers that the lake fishery will provi e fishing opportunities for many more people than will a stream fishery, an in a ition the lake fishery will provi e numerous other recreational opportunities not available in small streams. It shoul be mentione in the statement that there are six other large lakes within 50 miles of the project that alrea y provi e lake fishing an other recreational opportunities. Page 22, paragraph 1. It is unlikely that groun -water recharge from the lakes will occur in significant amounts because of the nature of the geology an the topography of the area. Page 22, paragraph 2. Aquatic organisms can tolerate naturally occurring variations in turbi ity; however, this is true only within certain limits for limite perio s. This thir sentence shoul be elete or mo ifie . Page 22 , paragraph 3. The "transition perio " which the ownstream channel an banks will un ergo will presumably be a perio of consi er able scour an erosion. The statement says that this problem will be minimize , but gives no in ication of the magnitu e of the effect nor of the probable length of time uring which it will persist. The statement i not iscuss the effect of reservoir thermal stratifi cation an the col -water summer releases on the warm-water fishery below the reregulation am. This is a high-value fishery an the year aroun col -water releases represent a real threat. In a letter from the Corps of Engineers ate August 2, 1965, the Corps provi e ata to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries an Wil life on the mean water temperatures occurring in the project area inclu ing the mean stream temperatures expecte below the reregulation am for each of the 12 months. Without the project, temperatures range from a low of 40°F in December to a high of 74°F in September. With the project, temperatures will range from a low of 45°F in December to a high of 54°F in July. The April-September temperatures range from 60°F to 74°F without the project, an 51°F to 54°F with the project. Most of the native species require temperatures in excess of 60°F in or er to spawn. Thus, this temperature change woul have a very eleterious effect on the existing fishery. A full isclosure of this aspect shoul be inclu e in the environmental statement. Any A verse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoi e This section shoul inclu e a iscussion of the effect of col -water releases on the warm-water fishery below the reregulation am. In a ition, the loss of stream habitat for the gol line arter, Percina aurolineath, a species iscovere in 1967, shoul be mentione in this section. The last statement in the section shoul be revise to in icate that thermal stratification will occur because the project esign will not permit selective releases uring stratification. Discussions of water quality throughout the statement have glosse over or mainly ignore the effects water temperature re uctions will have on the present fishery. Alternatives to the Propose Action Page 27, paragraph 2. The minimum flow of 240 cfs that is to be main taine at the reregulation am is equal to a 7- ay minimum flow with a 10-year recurrence interval un er natural con itions. The statement seems to imply that this low rate of flow will occur one or more times in most years after operational patterns are establishe . If this is so, then in 9 out of 10 years, on the average, the minimum flow will be less than the natural flow. Thank you for the opportunity to review an comment on the raft statement. Sincerely yours, (Miss) June Whelan Fiel Representative to the Secretary Southeast Region Unite States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF OU DOOR RECREA ION SOU HEAS REGIONAL OFFICE 810 New Walton Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 District ngineer WOV 2 2 1972 U.S. Army ngineer District, Mobile Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Sir: We have recently reviewed the draft environmental statement for Carters Dam and Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia. The description of the environmental setting without the project emphasizes that the dam is located in an area of great interest and diversity because it is "a transition zone from both a topographic and a geologic standpoint." In view of the unusual characteristics of this project site, we believe that it would offer an ideal location for an educational area and interpretative facilities which would provide the public with insight into how ecological diversity occurs and what it means to biological and human communities. The statement describes in detail the interesting contrasts of the project area. The damsite is "just upstream from the escarpment which separates the harder crystalline rocks of that province from the softer sedimentary rocks of the Valley Physiographic Province of the South." Biological diversity is also manifest. "The damsite is located at the approximate southern limit of range of the eastern white pine, Pinus strobus L. and the eastern hemlock, Tsuga canadensis (L.) carr, among the conifers, and the yellow buckeye, Aesculus octandra marsh; Sweet birch, Betula lenta L . ;• butternut, Juglans cinerea L.; cucumbertree, Magnolia acuminata; black locust, Robina pseudoacacia L.. among the hardwoods. Also this is the northern limit of range for the water oak, Quercus nigra L." Finally, the area is of cultural and historic interest. "The land use on either side of the transition zone is markedly different. For instance, 90 percent of the land within the flood plain along the lower reach of the Coosawattee River below the damsite has been cleared and is utilized for agricultural pursuits. In comparison, the project area above the damsite is very rugged and almost entirely forest land . there are no homesites, stores, or any other type of manmade structure within the project area." " vidently the change in terrain from steep slopes and rugged narrow valleys to moderate slopes and broad smooth valleys made the damsite area attractive to the Indians. The continuous occupation of several mound sites studied by archeologists is evidence of this fact. There are numerous archeological sites of varying degrees of significance within the project area." If there are plans for interpretative facilities as part of the project, we would appreciate further information. If not, we suggest that they . be considered, as there is much need for such educational and recreational opportunities near Atlanta and other urban areas. The location of an interpretative center at Carters Dam 60 miles from Atlanta and 50 miles from Chattanooga would help meet these needs. Sincerely yours, '''Forrest *7 Durand ^ Acting Regiqhal Director UNITE STATES EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL ONSERVATION SERVI E P.0. Box #832, Athens, Georgia 30601 November 30, 1972 Mr. Powell Williams, Jr. Assistant Chief, ngineering Division Mobile District, Corps of ngineers Department of the Army P.0. Box #2288 .Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams: The draft environmental impact statement for Carters Dam and Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia, located in Murray, Gilmer, and Gordon Counties, that was addressed to Mr. C. W. Chapman cn October 6, 1972, was referred to the Soil Conservation Service for review and comment. Our comments are listed under the following headings: (l) rosion and Sediment Control, (2) Flood Control Benefits, (3) Fisheries, and (1;) Other Projects. 1. rosion and Sediment Control Implementation of the following suggestions will result in more'effective erosion and sediment control: a. Utilize soils information in selecting and planning the recreation sites and access roads. b. Locate access roads so as to keep to a minimum cuts and fills. Vegetate cut and fill slopes immediately to control erosion. c. Retain and protect natural vegetation wherever possible. d. Install sediment traps or debris basins prior to land clearing. e. Hold to a minimum the size of the area and the time soils are exposed and subject to erosion during construction. f. Apply temporary vegetation or mulch to protect critical areas during construction. g. stablish permanent vegetation cn all areas as soon as possible after construction. h. Remove and stockpile topsoil and spread back on areas to be vegetated. The 1030 acres reregulation pool will cover valuable topsoil. This topsoil could be removed and spread on the critical areas to be vegetated. i. Give careful study to downstream areas where erosion or degrading may occur as a result of change in flow and install protective measures prior to completion of the dam. j . Protect existing conservation measures, especially drainage systems so that they will continue to function properly. 2. Flood Control Benefits As stated in the impact statement, the flood control benefits are not clear. No mention is made of reducing flood frequency. Have studies been conducted on the stream to determine damages that may be caused by flooding during functioning of the emergency spillway? If so, the statement might be strengthened if this could be included. 3. Fisheries a. Is the "mountain trout" a particular trout species that is unique to the area? If so, we suggest it be stated as such. b. The "use classification of fishing" needs to be stated in more detail. Is the dam being constructed on a stream classified as cold water (trout or small mouth bass) or a warm water stream? c. The expression "moderate to poor fishing" may have a different meaning to each person reviewing the environ mental statement. It would be better if the fishing could be expressed in catch per man day. d. What amount or percent of the habitat of the Goldline Darter will be inundated by Carters Lake? If this could be quantified, it might be helpful in evaluating the impact. li. Other Projects There are four active sub-watersheds of the Coosa Watershed Project above the proposed dam and reregulation dam. Those sub-watershed projects above the main dam are the Carte cay, U i j a y and Hountaintown Creek. Nineteen flood prevention structures are completed in the watershed. Six flood pre vention structures are completed in the Talking Rock Creek Sub-watershed which flows into the reregulation dam. These dams account for the low sediment loads in the Coosawattee which are probably lower now than when the tests were con ducted in 1963. The environmental impact statement could reflect the effects of these projects on the Carters Project. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. » Sincerely yours, 'Cha^l^WTBartlett State Conservationist EXECUT VE. /F CE OF THE PRES DENT OFFICE OF ECO OMIC WASH NGTON, D.C. 20506 November 21, 1972 Powell Williams, Jr. Re: Draft nvironment Statement Asst. Chief, ngineering Division Carter Dam and Lake Mobile District, Corps of ngineers Coosawattee River, Georgia Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams, Phillip Sanchez, the Director of the Office of conomic Opportunity, has asked me to respond to your letter of October 6, 1972 regarding the draft environmental statement on the above mentioned project. This office in coordination with our Regional Office and the ' affected community action agencies have carefully reviewed this statement. On the basis of information from this review, we have no reason to believe that the proposed action will have an adverse environmental impact on the low income neighborhoods involved. Should we receive any further information we will advise. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft statement. Sincerely; Arthur J. Reid, Jr. ^ Director - Intergovernmental Relations DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OFF CES AREA O F F C E Birmingham. Alabama Columbia, South Carolina 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N. W„ ATLANTA, GEORG A 30303 Qraanaboro, North Carolina Jackaon, Mlsaiaalppi Jackaor.vllla, Florida Xnoavilla, Tannaaaaa REG ON V Loulavllla, K.nturky REG ONAL OFF CE ATLANTA, GEORG A in r e r l R e a m t o i t* ll'M-3 Mr. Powell Williams, Jr. Assistant Chief, ngineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District, Corps of ngineers Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams: Subject: Draft nvironmental Impact Statement, Carters Dam and Lake Murray and Gilmer Counties, Georgia In response to your request for comments on the Draft nvironmental Impact Statement, we have completed our review and have findings as Tinted helnu* We have no objection to any of the items on the Statement and our review is attached. We take exception to one or more items in the Statement and our comments are noted on the attached forms. ^ L a m a t Seals *' Area Director u h UD C u rw c -N ' ra u d r a m NVIRONM NTAL IMPACT STAT M NT Project Identification: Draft nvironmental Impact Statement Carters Dam and Lake Project Location: Murray and Gilmer Counties, 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 nvironmental Statement under the nvironmental Policy Act of 1969 and the C Q Guidelines. We have checked those comments which seem to be particularly applicable to the draft statement identified above. COMM NTS 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 R MARKS. The subject project effects an urban park or recreational area and appropriate comment is included undar R MARKS. 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. See Remark This review covers the HUD responsibilities under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966. The Draft nvironmental Statement fails to reflect clearance or consultation with the appropriate local planning agency which is: The Draft nvironmental Statement fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate areawide planning agency which is: The Draft nvironmental 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 draft statement does not discuss apparently feasible alternatives which may have a more beneficial effect on the urban environment. See R MARKS for possibly overlooked alternatives. In general, HUD defers to other agencies with respect to establishing and enforcing air and water quality standards, thermal pollution standards, radiation and general safety standards. We have no formal jurisdiction over such matters and no comments contained herein should be construed as assuming such responsibility or jurisdiction. Since this project raises issues involving radiation safety, we recommend consultation with: Dr. Joseph Lieberman, Radiation Office, .P.A., 5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Date Prepared by :] CPM Representative I Date Concurred in: nvironmental Clearance Officer Date AjSp'roved bv^Director of Operations R MARKS Construction of Carters Dam and Lake does not appear to have any adverse impact on programs of this Department. Construction of the Dam should offer more flood control for future housing projects of this Department in the Calhoun and Rome, Georgia, area. Therefore, this Department has no objection to the construction of Carters Dam and Lake. U.S. DEPAR MEN OF RANSPOR A ION FEDERAL H G H W A Y ADM N STRAT ON 900 P achtr Str t, N. E. Atlanta, G orgia 30309 Nov mb r 17, 1972 Mr. Pow ll W illiam s, J r . A ssista n t C h i f, Engin ring D iv is io n D partm nt o f th Army Mobil D is t r ic t , Corps o f Engin rs P. 0. Box 2288 M obil , Alabama 36628 D ar Mr. W illiam s: S ub j ct: D ra ft E1S fo r C a rt rs Dam and Lak Coosawat R iv r, G orgia W ith your l t t r of Octob r 6, 1972 w w r furnish d a copy o f th D ra ft Environm ntal Impact Stat m nt fo r C a rt rs Dam and Lak , Coo- sawatt R iv r, C orgla pr par d by th Mobil D is t r ic t o f th Corps of Engin rs. W hav r vi w d th D ra ft E1S, sp cifically as to th r lationship o f th Cart rs Dam and Lak p ro j c t w ith aff ct d x is tin g and pro pos d highways, and fin d that no c o n flic ts x is t in th is r gard. I t is our und rstanding that only on highway adjustm nt is n c ssary as a r s u lt of th p ro j c t, th is b ing th x is tin g SR-1S6 bridg ov r Ta lk in g Rock Cr k. A n w bridg and approach s w r l t to co ntract as a S ta t -a id p ro j c t (SAP-1936 (3 ) Murray County), to r plac th is x is tin g SR-136 bridg and aff ct d approach s. W und r stand that th is p ro j c t is n aring compl tion. W hav no oth r comm nts to o ff r on th subj ct D ra ft EIS. W appr ciat th opportunity to r vi w and comm nt on th D ra ft EIS pr par d fo r th C art rs Dam and Lak p ro j c t. S in c r ly yo u rs, ''li rsch l Bryant D iv is io n Engin r 10 copi s - Council on Environm ntal Q u a lity Washington, D. C. * DEPARTMENT OF ANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SOUTHERN REG ON P. O. BOX 20636 ATLANTA, GEORG A 30320 \ 1 NOV 12/2 Mr. Powell Williams, Jr. Asst. Chief, ngineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District, Corps of ngineers P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Carters Dam and Lake Coosawattee River, Georgia, with respect to potential environmental impact for which this agency has expertise. Our review indicates there will be no significant adverse effects to the existing or planned air transportation system resulting from the construction of this project. Sincerely, JAM S S. B ASL Y J Chief, Planning Staff ’ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT ON MA L NG ADDRESS: U S. COAST GUARD (GWS) UN TED STATES COAST GUARD 400 S E V E N T H S T R E E T S W WASH NGTON. D C Pho e:202-426-2262 2 0 OCT 372 • Mr. Powell Williams, Jr. Asst., Chief ngineering Division Corps of ngineers Department of the Army P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams: This is in response to your letter of 6 October 1972 to Captain W. R. Riedel, regarding your draft environmental impact statement for Carters Dam and Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia. The material has been reviewed by the Department of Transportation and it is our determination that the impact of this project upon transportation . is minimal. The opportunity for the Department of Transportation to review and comment on the Carters Dam and Lake project is appreciated. Sincerely, i p ..... l ? . -•V. --V. r\ ./...... L i--- . •.* * ...... ^ ©fftce of ^lanxtirig unb Jixecultoe department James T . Mc ntyre, Jr. Director Deoeniber 11, 1973 Colonel Drake Wilson District ngineer hfobile District, Corps of ngineers Department of the Army Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Re: Final State of Georgia Comments Carters Dam and Lake, Draft nvironmental Impact Statement; Georgia State Clearinghouse Control Number1: 72-10-16-11 Dear Colonel Wilson: I am acknowledging receipt of your letter dated November 20, 1973, concerning completion of the draft environmental impact statement, Carters Dam and Lake project. This office did not receive your letter until December 10th, twenty days after the letter was dated, and hence your deadline of December 7th had already been missed before we received the letter. Review of the draft environmental impact -statement was initiated by appropriate state agencies of the State of Georgia in October 1972. As you indicated, There has since been much contact between the Corps and the State relative to the resolution of concerns raised by state agencies. Those concerns appear to have been resolved with the exception discussed below. Therefore, this letter should be acoepted as being indicative of the absence of objections by the Stave of Georgia to the draft except as discussed belcw. On December 10, 1973, at iry request, Mr. Jack Crockford, Director, Game and Fish Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, prepared comments addressing the remaining concern 'which has not been resolved. Mr. Crockford1 s oomments are quoted verbatim in this letter which, it is hoped, will be included in the final IS: Reference is made to the environmental inpact of the Carters Lake and Dam located on the Coosawattee River in North Georgia. The department originally made recommendations to the Corps of ngineers in regard to this project during the planning stage. Basically these recommendations were to install a multiple level intake structure so that tempera tures could be held in the necessary range to maintain the high quality warnwater fishery downstream of the impoundment. Despite our earlier recommendation, the current project design rails for a re-regulation pool and pumpback storage with a single level outlet. Based on the Corps projection of temperatures, it is our opinion that such a design will destroy the high quality warmwater fishery and the temperature range and variability • will be such as to prevent establishment of a coldwater fishery in the tailwater. Fluctuation of the re-regulations pool will ' probably prevent establishment of a fish population in the pool. In addition, there will be large numbers of warmwater species produced in the impoundment that will enter tributary trout streams and reduce their quality. Not having had experience with the effects of pumpback storage on the reservoir itself, it is difficult to predict whether or not it will adversely effect the reservoir fishery. If you should have questions or desire additional information, please get in touch with me. It is our suggestion that the Corps of ngineers and the Game and Fish Division of the Department of Natural Resoruces continue efforts to resolve this remaining concern. Finally, it must be noted that all of these concerns should have been resolved during the design phase of this project. Possibly the impetus for effecting full Federal-State-local government coordination on Federal projects did not exist years ago when the Carters arn and Lake project was designed. Such impetus exists now and has resulted in one Corps of ngineers District pledging to fully coordinate the planning of future projects with the State of Georgia. The same assurance from the Mobile District, Corps of ngineers, is greatly desired. Sincerely, John Robins Administrator Georgia State Clearinghouse THU UMV'EESITY OF GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY BALDWIN HALL ATHENS, GEORGIA 30601 October 11, 1972 Mr. Powell Williams, Jr. Asst. Chief, ngineering Division Mobile District, Corps of ngineers P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 Dear Mr. Williams: This will acknowledge receipt of your Draft nvironmental Statement for Carters. Dam and Lake, Coosawattee River, Georgia. I restrict my comments entirely to my limited area of competence, the impact on the archaeology of the area. I think your statement that there is always the possibility that some important sites will be lost is a very fair one. You should also add that we estimate a recovery rate of five percent of archaeological data at most Corps of ngineers dams, and Carters is no exception. Although we have worked there for almost ten years, the funds available through the National Park Service have been extremely limited. Relatively little is accomplished each year, but what is accomplished is far better than nothing. The low level of archaeological funding behind Corps of ngineers dams ($125,000 throughout the entire Southeast during fiscal 1972) is the fault of Congress, not the Corps of ngineers. Nevertheless, it is only right that your impact statements point out that funding for archaeological research is hopelessly inadequate. .Although we have every reason to be grateful for the numerous courtesies shown to us by the Corps of ngineers at Carters and other dams, your impact statement should point out that the overall result of Carters, and every other dam, is a disastrous loss of archaeological data. This is not the first time I have seen the argument, on your page 24, that the studies which have been conducted yere accomplished because the project was being constructed, and your work has thereby provided an impetus to archaeology. A loss of 95% of our data is not the kind of impetus we need, and I will protest this statement every time I see it in an impact study. With/klndest regards, Sincerely yours, jdafepn R / Caldwell ^/Professor APP NDIX B WAT R QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL CHANG S FOLLOWING IMPOUNDM NT a p p e d i x b WAT R QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL CHANG S FOLLOWING IMPOUNDM NT xtracted from "Preimpoundment Study Carters Lake," nvironmental Protection Agency, March 1972 WAT R QUALITY Impoundment of the Coosawattee River and its tributaries will cause water quality changes. Increased detention time and sunlight exposure will cause increased rates of bacterial dieoff. This should produce acceptable bacterial levels within the lake for primary contact recrea tion — provided that industrial and sanitary wastes upstream receive secondary treatment and chlorination, which is scheduled for November 1971. Decreased inorganic nutrient concentrations-^ between reservoir influent points and waters released at the dam are a reflection of the various mechanisms by which reservoir eutrophication processes occur. If tributary nutrient levels are too high, nuisance biological problems associated with accelerated eutrophication can occur. At the time of the preimpoundment survey, there was no indication that accelerated eutrophication would be a problem. The levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the study area streams were similar to those found in many impounded waters in the southeastern U. S. where no nuisance growth problems exist. Completion of llijay's waste treatment facilities will further reduce the potential for reservoir eutrophication.* 1/ Principally carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. * Since the time this report was first drafted the City of llijay has completed and is now operating a secondary (activated sludge) waste treatment plant with post-chlorination that is treating all municipal and industrial wastes in the area. Cost justification for the Carters Dam Reservoir includes recrea tional uses. The Corps of ngineers has limited authority toward con trolling watershed development - - this control being necessary to protect recreational uses. Local and state planning authorities should insure that development will protect these uses. This means adequate treatment of any municipal or industrial wastes which may be introduced directly into the reservoir. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon from municipal and industrial wastes and agricultural runoff should be held to a minimum. Within the reservoir proper, it is advisable to promulgate regulations prohibiting waste discharges from watercraft. Thermal stratification will exist to an extent in the main reservoir. As a result, DO deficits will occur in the hypolimnion and low level releases containing low DO concentrations could result in low concentra tions downstream. The effect of pumped storage on prevention of strati fication is not known at this time. xperience at other pumped storage projects has not been sufficiently documented to predict what might occur at the Carters project. Any mixing from backpumping should have some beneficial effect, however. BIOLOGY Many uropean and American scientists have studied biological suc cession in new reservoirs, and sufficient data are available to predict changes in aquatic biota to be expected in Carters Dam Reservoir. A typical history of the biological development of Carters Dam Reservoir could be as follows: As the reservoir fills, terrestrial-plants will.be flooded and will die. The accumulating detritus will provide basic nutrients to help stimulate plankton development in the upper strata of the lake. Within a two-year period, plankton growth usually stabilizes to an acceptable level, i.e. unless external nutrient sources create accelerated eutrophication of the lake. Mud and fine loam deposits from runoff will begin to cover the lake floor as impoundment continues. The developing reservoir will at first be uncharacteristic of a lake. Drift organisms from tributary streams will inhabit the reservoir. Some of these organisms will survive only a short time in the silt bottom deposits of the lake. Other drift organisms more tolerant of these lenthic conditions will begin to establish new colonization along the shallow lake shoreline. Submerged vegetation will supply ample niches for various worms, crustaceans, mites, insects, and their larvae. In the deeper open water, accumulating organic bottom materials will provide food and habitat for increasing numbers of midge larvae. According to Schneider, these insects are potential nuisance organisms and will eventually dominate the lake bottom. The developing lake will undergo natural changes in fish population also. Stream species will be replaced by typical lake fish. Newly flooded areas, abundant with invertebrates, will supply vast feeding and spawning grounds for the fish. An initial increase in fish population will be reduced as fish food and space become more limited and finally a reservoir ecosystem is established. With proper management, the fishery potential of the new reservoir is excellent. Changes in the diverse biota of the tributary streams should be minor if it is assumed that development of the watershed will be limited in the future. In the lower flooded reaches of these streams, however, flow will be reduced and one can expect lentic species to gradually replace lotic forms. Other changes included an increased fish population as discussed above. Biological changes downstream from the dam are the most difficult to predict. Previous work on reservoir tailwaters has dealt with water from either epilimnion or hypolimnion releases. On the benefit side, controlled releases from the reservoir will reduce the scouring of invertebrates (fish-food) which probably occurs now during high flow periods. However, there may be detrimental effects to the existing diverse, "clean stream" benthic biota and to existing fish life if low DO concentrations occur in release waters. The success of the Carters Dam Lake project in improving down stream biological conditions is dependent on the release of water from the reservoir of a quality capable of supporting a healthy biological community (similar to that which now exists). APP NDIX C T MP RATUR SIMULATION STUDY LAK CART RS, G ORGIA APP NDIX C T MP RATUR SIMULATION STUDY LAK CART RS, G ORGIA 1. Introduction. The purpose of the temperature simulation study was to investigate the effect of Carters Dam and reregulation dam on the downstream temperature regimen. The study was conducted utilizing a mathematical model to predict the temperatures that would be expected to occur in the release water. These predicted temperatures were then compared with natural stream temperatures to determine the impact on the warm-water fishery resource. 2. Discussion of Study. The study was conducted with a model which was developed by Water Resources ngineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, California (WR ), for the North Pacific Division (NPD) of the Corps of ngineers. The model has been utilized extensively by NPD both as a predictive tool and a verification method on several of their reservoirs. The model was adapted to Include the pump back as an inflow to the reservoir and the model includes the assumption that daily inflows are spatially dispersed throughout the entire reservoir in appropriate density layers each day. No effect of the bouyant jet created by the pump back is included. Studies on another existing pump storage project show that the reservoir remained stratified during pumping operation and the mixing that did take place, although minor, served to improve water quality. The WR model requires daily Inflow quantities and temperatures for each inflow entering the reservoir. Daily outflow quantities are also re quired. Average daily meteorologic data used in the program are sky cover, wind speed, dry bulb temperature, and dew point temperature. Physical data used in the program are latitude, longitude, elevation of the reservoir bottom, elevation and area of several levels in the reservoir (elevation-area curve), maximum pool elevation, number of reservoir outlets, elevation of each outlet, dam width at elevation of outlet, and average length of reservoir. xcept for stream inflow temperatures, all of the required input data were readily available from USGS, NOAA, and Corps of ngineer sources. Since continuous observed natural stream, temperatures were not available, it was necessary to produce synthetic "natural" stream temperatures. The basic formula selected for computation of these stream temperatures was a regression equation which has been shown to be responsive to computed equilibrium temperature and flow. This may be expressed as follows: 0t " & &Teqt AiTeqt_i Where 0 » Average daily stream temperature for day t /3 ■ Regression coefficients Teq^ ■ Average daily equilibrium temperature for day t “ Average daily stream flow for day t The coefficients used in the equation were determined utilizing observed flows and temperatures at the Resaca gaging station on the Oostanaula River and computed equilibrium temperatures based on meteorological data from the Chattanooga station. The computed coefficients and equilibrium temperatures, along with the flow at the Carters site, were used to compute the stream temperature at the Carters site. The WR model requires that values be assigned to coefficients which control the internal mixing processes that 'cause thermal stratification. Selection of coefficients for use in the model were based on temperature profiles from lakes (Allatoona, Buford, and Fontana) similar to Lake Carters and on coefficients that were developed by WR for other lakes similar to Lake Carters, Trial and error runs were made in an effort to produce a stratification pattern which would be representative of the lake. This, of course, was based on judgment. The amount of heat transferred to the water in the reregulation reservoir was computed using a somewhat different approach to the heat transfer pro blem since the WR model is only applicable to stratified impoundments. This part of the study was based on the work of Jerome M. Raphael, Prediction of Temperature in Rivers and Reservoirs. The years selected for study were 1954, 1964, 1967 and 1969. These represent minimum, maximum, and approximate average flow conditions during the period of record. Also, a peak inflow (flood) during the spring and fall are represented. These conditions encompass most of the conditions which might be expected to occur in nature. 3. Conclusions. The attached graphs show the computed "natural" stream temperatures, the release temperatures for the main dam and the reregu lation dam for the four years of study. These graphs indicate that the reach of river downstream of Lake Carters will not be able to support the propagation of a warm water fishery, but should be suitable for a "put and take" trout fishery. APP NDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY APP NDIX D Bibliography Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1972. Rare and ndangered Vertebrates of Alabama, Division of Game and Fish, Montgomery, Ala. 92 pp. Anonymous. 1970. Georgia Conservation Needs Inventory. Compiled under the supervision of the Georgia State Soil and Water Con servation Needs Inventory Committee. 209 pp. Bishop, G. Norman. 1940. Native Trees of Georgia. Division of Forestry, Georgia Dept, of Natural Resources, School of Forestry, University of Georgia, Georgia Ag. xt. Serv. 96 pp. Brockman, C. Frank. 1968. Trees of North America. Golden Press, New York, N.Y. 280 pp. Conant, Roger. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of astern North America. Houghton-Mifflln Co., Boston, Mass. 366 pp. Dahlberg, Michael D., and Donald C. Scott. 1971. "The Freshwater Fishes of Georgia." Bull. Ga. Acad. Sci. 29:1-64. Duncan, Wilbur H. 1941. Guide to Georgia Trees. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga. 63 pp. iker, arl . An valuation of Reservoir Temperature Prediction Methods. 17 November 1972. Inclosure 1, ngineer Technical Letter 1110-2-160, Office of the Chief of ngineers, Washington, DC. nvironmental Protection Agency. March 1972. Preimpoundment Study Carters Lake. Technical Study Report TS03-71-208-001.4.* Georgia Crop Reporting Service. Georgia Agriculture. Compiled as a cooperative function of the Georgia Dept, of Agriculture and the U. S. Dept of Agriculture. 29 pp. Georgia Department of Mines, Mining, and Geology. 1969. Mineral Resources Map of Georgia. Georgia Department of Public Health, Report of the nvironmental Health Task Force to the Georgia Comprehensive Health Planning Council. 1971. Maintaining a Quality nvironment in Georgia. Compiled by the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, Atlanta, Ga. Georgia Game and Fish. August 1967. "Sweet Song of the Rivers," Vol. 2, No. 8. Georgia Game and Fish. February 1972. "Walleye - Winter Bonus," Vol. 7, No. 2. Hally, David J. "Archaeological Investigation of the Potts’ Tract, Site (9 - Mu - 103), Carter's Dam, Murray County, Georgia." * Hill, Carole . and Margaret V. Clayton. "The thnohistory of the Carter's Site." * Holder, Daniel R. 1973. Rare and ndangered Fish Species Survey of Georgia Report. Georgia Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, Ga. Johnson, A. Stephen. 1971. Scenic Rivers of Georgia. A report prepared for the Georgia Natural Areas Council. 20 pp. Kelly, A. R. " xplorations at Bell Field Mound 1965 - 1966."* Kelly, A. R. " xplorations at Bell Field,,Seasons 1966 - 1967. * Kelly, A. R. "Final Report on the 1962 Season of xploration at Carter's Dam, Murray County, Georgia." * Kelly, A. R. "Preliminary Report with Reconmendations for Carter's Dam Archeological Sites, Murray County, Georgia."* Prescott, G. W. 1969. The Aquatic Plants. William C. Brown Co. Dubuque, Iowa. 171 pp. Radford, Albert ., Harry . Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp. Raphael, Jerome M. July 1962. "Prediction of Temperature in Rivers and Reservoirs," Power Division, ASC , Vol. 88, No. P02. Reynolds, John Z. 1966. "Some Water Quality Considerations of Pumped Storage Reservoir," University of Michigan. Robins, C. Richard, and dward C. Raney. 1956. "Studies of the Catostomid Genus Moxostoma. with Descriptions of two New Species." Cornell University Agr. xp. Sta. Memoir. 343:1-56. Small, John K. 1933. Manual of the Southeastern Flora. The Univer sity of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Smith, Archie C. Jr. and Joseph R. Caldwell, ed. "Archaeological Inves tigations Behind Carter's Dam, Gilmer County."* Smith-Vaniz, William F. 1968. Freshwater Fishes of Alabama. Auburn University Agr. xp. Sta., Auburn, Ala. 211 pp. Schnell, Frank T., Jr. "Report on xcavations at the Sixtoe Mound, Spring 1963."* Stansbery, David H. 1971. "Rare and ndangered Mollusks in astern United States." Proceedings of a Symposium on Rare and ndangered Mollusks (Naiads) of the U, S ., U. S. Dept.- of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 79 pp. The 1969 World Almanac and Book of Facts. 1969. Newspaper nterprise Association, Inc., Luman H. Long. 932 pp. The 1970 World Almanac and Book of Facts. 1970. Newspaper nterprise Association, Inc., Luman H. Long. 952 pp. The University of Georgia. August and September 1972. Georgia Business. Vol. 31, Nos. 2 and 3. U. S. Army Corps of ngineers. September 1970. Application of WR Reservoir Temperature Simulation Model. North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Georgia Conservation Needs Inventory. 209 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1961. United States Census of Population 1960, Georgia, Number of Inhabitants. Bureau of Census. 27 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1961. United States Census of Population 1960, Tennessee, Number of Inhabitants. Bureau of Census. 23 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1967. 1967 Census of Manufacturers Georgia. Bureau of Census. 42 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1967. County and City Data Book. Bureau of Census. 673 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. September 1972. OB RS Projections, Regional conomic Activity in the U. S . U. S. Department of Commerce. 1964. United States Census of Agriculture 1964, Georgia. Bureau of the Census. 615 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1964. United States Census of Agriculture 1964, Tennessee. Bureau of the Census. 615 pp. U. S. Department of the Interior, Preliminary Report. 1972. 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1969. National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register,28 February 1974 and updating issues, 1974. U. S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 389. pp. Wharton, Charles H., Thomas French and Carol Ruckdeschel. 1973. •'Recent Range xtensions for Georgia Amphibians and Reptiles" HISS News-Journal 1(1): ‘22 Wharton, Charles H., and J. Donald Howard. 1971. "Range xtensions for Georgia Amphibians and Reptiles." Herpetol. Rev. 3(4): 73-74. * These documents can be reviewed in the Corps of ngineers Mobile District Office.