Q.1 Why is USACE reallocating water from Allatoona Lake for the State of Georgia?
Q.2 Why have the easements at the Weiss and Logan Martin projects not been obtained?
Q.3 Is this proposed change by APC going to affect my property?
Q.4 What is the role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)?
Q.5 What type of environmental impacts are anticipated with this effort?
Q.6 What kind of endangered species are in the area?
Q.7 How were the impacts from the proposed changes determined?
Q.8 Was climate considered in light of the current administration’s policies?
Q.9 Will Allatoona Lake experience lower levels while meeting the water supply request from the State of Georgia?
Q.10 Who is paying for this study?
Q.11 Are the lake residents more important than people downstream of the projects?
Q.12 Is this study going to affect my flood insurance rates?
Q.13 What is the purpose of a Water Control Manual?
Q.14 What are the authorizations for Water Control Operations?
Q.15 What are the authorized purposes of the projects in the ACT Basin?
Q.16 What do the Water Control Manuals consist of?
Q.17 What type of public involvement was there?
Q.18 Why is USACE involved with Alabama Power Company projects?
Q.19 Will I be negatively impacted by the proposed changes at Alabama Power Company projects?
Q.20 Will the Storage Accounting Methodology for Water Supply Change at Allatoona Lake?
Q.21 Are any of the alternatives evaluated in the Final FR/SEIS beyond USACE’s authority to implement?
Q.22 Why did the ASA (CW) recommend a different alternative than what was recommended in the Final FR/SEIS?
Q.23 When will the operations in the approved and updated Water Control Manuals (reflected in the signed Record of Decision) go into effect?
Q.24 Are any of the alternatives evaluated in the Final FR/SEIS beyond USACE’s authority to implement?
Q.1 Why is USACE looking to reallocate water from Allatoona Lake for the State Georgia?
A.1 USACE did not address Georgia’s request for additional water supply storage when the ACT Master WCM was last updated in 2015. In a lawsuit following that WCM update, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order directing USACE to take final action on Georgia’s request by March 2, 2021.
Return to Top
Q.2. Why have the easements at the Weiss and Logan Martin projects not been obtained?
A.2. APC owns and operates the Weiss and Logan Martin projects and is responsible for obtaining any necessary property interests incident to project operation. APC has proposed that the Corps approve revised flood control operations, eliminating the need for additional easements upstream of both projects. As noted in the Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FR/SEIS), APC may need to obtain additional easements downstream now that the operational changes have been approved. It is APC’s responsibility to ensure that it holds all appropriate real estate requirements for the operation of its projects.
Return to Top
Q.3 Is this proposed change by APC going to affect my property?
A.3. APC has proposed operational changes that would reduce the maximum flood pool during flood operations at the Weiss and Logan Martin projects, but increase the expected downstream flow during certain flood events. The Final FR/SEIS has evaluated potential impacts of this change in operation and found only marginal increases in water surface elevations downstream during extreme flood events.
Return to Top
Q.4. What is the role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)?
A.4. FERC is the licensing/regulatory authority for non-Federal hydropower projects. The outcome of this study process will recommend flood operations at APC’s Weiss and Logan Martin projects. Based on that recommendation, FERC may require APC to purchase flowage easements as a condition of its FERC license.
Return to Top
Q.5. What type of environmental impacts are anticipated with this effort?
A.5. The analysis described in the Final FR/SEIS has not identified significant environmental impacts at Allatoona Lake or at the Weiss and Logan Martin projects, resulting from the Selected Plan.
Return to Top
Q.6. What kind of endangered species are in the area?
A.6. Table 3-5 of the Final FR/SEIS lists the federally protected species of plants and animals in the ACT Basin that could potentially be affected by operational changes. The Corps determined that the Recommended Plan may affect but is not likely to adversely affect these federally listed species or their designated critical habitat. The biological effects of the Recommended Plan are nearly the same as the Selected Plan and are identical regarding the operation of Weiss and Logan Martin Dams. The minimal differences between the Recommended Plan and the Selected Plan are unlikely to result in changes that would require a re-initiation of consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
Return to Top
Q.7. How were the impacts from the proposed changes determined?
A.7. USACE evaluated the proposed changes through a variety of engineering, environmental, and economic analyses to identify potential impacts to ACT basin resources. Proposed changes were compared to a baseline condition to show any differences across the various resources.
Return to Top
Q.8. Was climate considered in light of the current administration’s policies?
A.8. Yes. The analysis in the Final FR/SEIS indicates that the Selected Plan would have no significant effects with respect to climate change.
Return to Top
Q.9. Will Allatoona Lake experience lower levels while meeting the water supply request from the State of Georgia?
A.9. The analysis in the Final FR/SEIS (Sec. 5) indicates that the average pool level at Allatoona Lake would be slightly lower under the Selected Plan than under the no action alternative (current operations).
Return to Top
Q.10. Who is paying for this study?
A.10. The study has been fully federally funded to date.
Return to Top
Q.11. Are the lake residents more important than people downstream of the projects?
A.11. No. USACE values the perspectives of all persons with an interest in the ACT Basin and gives equal consideration to all public comments.
Return to Top
Q.12. Is this study going to affect my flood insurance rates?
A.12. Flood insurance rates are determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or your insurance carrier.
Return to Top
Q.13. What is the purpose of a Water Control Manual?
A.13. The operations at USACE reservoirs and other reservoirs subject to USACE regulations for flood control and navigation are described in water control plans or manuals. These manuals typically outline the regulation schedules for each project, including operating criteria, guidelines and rule curves for varying conditions; and specifications for storage and releases from the reservoirs. The water control manuals also outline the coordination protocol and data collection, management and dissemination of information associated with routine and specific water management activities such as flood control operations or drought contingency operations.
Return to Top
Q.14. What are the authorizations for Water Control Operations?
A.14.
The authority for Water Control Operations is provided by congressional authorization for federal reservoir projects. Below is a list of congressional authorizations that apply to the operation of all federal reservoir projects.
• Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534)
• Water Supply Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-500)
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624)
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500)
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205)
• Water Resource Development Acts
Return to Top
Q.15. What are the authorized purposes of the projects in the ACT Basin?
A.15.
The authorized project purposes and commonly used methods to achieve them:
Flood Risk Management (Formerly Referred to as Flood Control)
• Winter drawdown at specific lakes
• Store water in lake during flood events
• Monitor downstream points for river levels
• Provide notification to Emergency Management Offices
• Evacuate water as quickly as practicable when downstream conditions allow
Navigation
• Make releases to maintain an authorized stage for commercial navigation, navigation periods, and special releases for commercial navigation during other periods.
Hydropower
• Determine volume of water available for generation on a weekly basis. Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) makes actual schedule within range specified by the water control manuals.
Recreation
• Allowing recreation at reservoirs according to the Water Control Plan while maintaining other authorized project purposes
Environmental and Water Quality
• Support for fish spawning and other fish and wildlife conservation measures.
• Provide gradual step-down of river levels where necessary
• Provide minimum releases from reservoirs according to authorization language
Water Supply Storage
• Provide water supply storage for municipalities and industries
Return to Top
Q.16. What do the Water Control Manuals consist of?
A.16.
Updated water control manuals capture:
• Project/system operations refined over the years due to changes in basin hydrology and withdrawals/consumption that resulted from years of growth/development
• Drought contingency requirements to account for new data and operational changes
• Updated data reflecting current basin conditions
• New/rehabilitated project structural features
• Environmental requirements for water quality, endangered species and fish spawns
• Procedures for capturing/using real-time data provided by additional gages and monitoring devices installed since last manual updates
• Latest computer models and techniques to evaluate and establish guidelines for project operations.
• Improved and streamlined methods for data exchange between USACE and other agencies
Return to Top
Q.17. What type of public involvement was there?
A.17. Public participation in the study and the NEPA process promotes open communication between the public and USACE. The USACE sought and considered public input from the scoping process through the Draft FR/SEIS and Final FR/SEIS stages.
Return to Top
Q.18. Why is USACE involved with Alabama Power Company projects?
A.18. Pursuant to the Coosa Power Act, Public Law 83-436 (June 28, 1954), USACE is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations for the operation of four APC projects in the ACT Basin for the authorized purposes of Navigation and Flood Risk Management. These projects are: H. Neely Henry Dam and Lake, R.L. Harris Dam and Lake, Logan Martin Dam and Lake and Weiss Dam and Lake.
Return to Top
Q.19. Will I be negatively impacted by the proposed changes at Alabama Power Company projects?
A.19. According to the analysis in the FR/SEIS, the Recommended Plan would not appreciably increase flooding or flood risk in the ACT Basin.
Return to Top
Q.20. Will the Storage Accounting Methodology for Water Supply Change at Allatoona Lake?
A.20. Yes, the current South Atlantic Division/USACE storage accounting methodology will be modified specifically for Allatoona Lake to provide full credit for made inflows (Hickory Log Creek Reservoir releases to supplement water supply storage in Allatoona Lake, and treated return flows to Allatoona Lake).
Several alternatives were fully evaluated in the Final FR/SEIS and available to the decision maker, including alternatives that use the State of Georgia’s proposed storage accounting methodology or the current South Atlantic Division/USACE storage accounting methodology.
Return to Top
Q.21. Are any of the alternatives evaluated in the Final FR/SEIS beyond USACE’s authority to implement?
A.21. During the initial screening process, described in section 4.5 of the Final FR/SEIS, USACE eliminated from further consideration certain alternatives that were clearly impractical or in conflict with applicable law. Based on its analysis, USACE considers each of the alternatives evaluated in the Final FR/SEIS to be a potentially viable alternative that could be implemented, consistent with applicable law.
Return to Top
Q.22. Why did the ASA (CW) recommend a different alternative than what was recommended in the Final FR/SEIS?
A.22. It is within the decisionmaker’s authority to select a different alternative from the Recommended Plan. As the decisionmaker for this study, the Acting ASA(CW) concluded that the Selected Plan (Alternative 12) was preferable overall because it would avoid any impact to flood risk management downstream of Allatoona Lake by retaining the current flood pool level, while fully satisfying Georgia’s water supply request. The overall difference in impacts between the Recommended Plan (Alternative 11) and the Selected Plan (Alternative 12) were slight. The Selected Plan would have nearly the same effects on biological resources as the plan recommended in the FR/SEIS (Alternative 11) and would not significantly impact any other authorized project purpose. Both alternatives would adopt APC’s proposed operational changes at the APC Logan Martin and Weiss Projects.
Return to Top
Q.23. When will the operations in the approved and updated Water Control Manuals (reflected in the signed Record of Decision) go into effect?
A.23. The operations for Allatoona Lake and APC’s Logan Martin and Weiss Projects will go into effect after all required actions for implementation have been completed. The Logan Martin and Weiss Projects are also subject to a separate FERC licensing process.
Return to Top
Q.24. Are any of the alternatives evaluated in the Final FR/SEIS beyond USACE’s authority to implement?
A.24. No. The final array of alternatives is described in detail in Table 4-5 of the FR/SEIS and a summary of environmental consequences for the alternatives is provided in Table 5-1 of the FR/SEIS.
Return to Top