ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COBB COUNTY SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Prepared by
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
July 1971
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COBB COUNTY SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Prepared by
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
July 1971
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECTS PAGE
I. Summary ..........<>... 1
II. Description of Applicant's Project A
III. Background 15
IV. Environmental Consequences
1. Water Quality 17
2. Air.... 23
3. Land.. , 25
4. Noise. . ,, „. 26
5. Impact of the Project on Historical and
Archaeological Values of the Area 26
6. Impact on Recreational Values of Natural
Areas ....<> 28
V. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot
be Avoided 33
VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Plan:
a. Continuation of Present System of Small
Treatment Plants for Each Subdivision
or Community 35
bo Least Cost Alternative as Selected by Cobb
County for the Sope Creek Interceptor 35
c. Lift Station at Powers Ferry Road, with
Force Main along Akers Mill Road to Rotten-
wood Creek, and a 48" Parallel Sewer to the
Existing Rottenwood Creek Sewer down Rotten-
wood Creek to the Chattahoochee River 36
d. A Single Tunnel Between Rottenwood Creek and
the Chattahoochee River at 1-285 with some
Open Cut 36
e. Tunneling to Prevent Destruction of the
Natural Rock Cliffs and Outcrops along
the Chattahoochee Scenic Easement and Open
Cut with Buffer Zone of Trees and Foliage
Between River's Edge and Construction
Right-of-Way. 36
VII. Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources Which Would be Involved in the
Proposed Action 39
VIII.
Conclusions and Recommendations 40
BIBLIOGRAPHY........... 42
APPENDIXES . o 44
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Construciton Contract Schedule, Cobb 5
County Sewerage Improvement Project
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Proposed Cobb County Sewerage Project 8
2. Location Map, Proposed Revised Unit A 9
Sewerage, Cobb County, Georgia
3. Bacteriological Quality, Chattahoochee 22
River, Atlanta Raw Water Intake
4. Existing Sewage Treatment Facilities in 24
Cobb County
5. Sope Creek-Rottenwood Creek Interceptor 37
Sewer, Cobb County
-------
I. SUMMARY
On May 15, 1967, Cobb County, Georgia applied to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) of the
Department of the Interior [now the Water Programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ] for a grant under
Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965
to fund a planned progrrm for expanding and improving waste
water conveyance and treatment in Cobb County. The program was
a commendable and forward looking effort designed to bring immediate
improvement to water quality in the Chattahoochee River.
The river lies between Fulton and Cobb Counties and is
landscaped by natural palisades. The river itself serves as a
sport and recreation resort for the citizens of the region and is
heavily contaminated by bacteria which limits its use.
The project was originally the subject of a grant offer in
1968 which was accepted by the County. The program is designed
to satisfy water pollution control requirements to meet flow
projections for a fifty-year period, utilizing cost effective
phasing. Treatment will be centralized, based on environmental
and economic considerations, permitting retirement of numerous
privately and publicly owned-and-operated package plants and
waste stabilization ponds. The net result will be the upgrading
of presently polluted streams, providing favorable conditions for
water contact sports and other water-related recreation in the
Chattahoochee River to which many of these streams are tributary;
insuring a continued high quality of water at the Atlanta water
-1-
-------
intake, and providing sewerage service for a large area of the
county.
The program is compatible with actions of the Georgia Water
Quality Control Board and Environmental Protection Agency Water
Programs to improve the quality of surface water and to satisfy
present and future uses of the Chattahoochee River.
To protect the uses of the River, a Federal-State Enforcement
Conference was called by the Secretary of the Interior. This
Conference was held July 14-15, 1966, and reconvened February 17,
1970.. Cobb County is required to provide waste treatment by
December of 1972.
In September 1970, a modification was proposed to combine the
treatment of Cobb and Fulton Counties into one facility in order to
preserve the Fulton palisades and leave as undisturbed as possible
the naturally scenic areas. Cobb County has cooperated to the
fullest extent possible in this effort.
In March 1971, a draft assessment of the project was prepared,
notwithstanding previous commitments, and circulated to other Federal
Agencies to obtain their reactions. Consistent with EPA policy
to implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was developed and distributed
to these agencies for their formal review and comment. This final
statement is prepared on the basis of those comments and those of
State and local interest groups and concerned individuals. The
primary issue identified was the proposal to run the interceptor
facilities through the Cobb County palisades. This area is naturally
-2-
-------
scenic and may have the possibility for reclamation as a natural
wilderness area. A solution is that the project as described
in the statement be constructed. It will substantially improve
water quality in the region, establish a principle of cooperative
county planning, and preserve to the greatest possible extent
the natural landscape. The short-range impact, resulting from
construction, will be minimized and should cause no long-term
defacement of the natural habitat.
-3-
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT
Table No. 1 shows the contracts that are a part of this project
and the present proposed construction schedule.for each contract.
Figures No. 1 & 2 are maps of the County showing the location of
each contract. The program consists of interceptor sewers,
treatment facilities and outfall sewers, pumping stations and force
mains serving six natural drainage areas described below. An
interceptor may be defined as a sewer whose primary purpose
is to transport rather than to collect wastes. An outfall sewer's
function is to transport effluent from treatment facilities to
receiving waters.
I. Nickajack Creek Drainage Area: An interceptor sewer
running generally north to south along Nickajack Creek
will transport sewage from two abandoned treatment
plants to the mouth of Nickajaek Creek, then it will
be pumped an additional 1.5 miles through an existing
trunk line to the South Cobb Sewage Treatment Plant.
The South Cobb Sewage Treatment Plant will be expanded
to handle the additional flow.
2, Rottenwood Greek Drainage Area: An interceptor sewer,
being constructed along Rottenwood Creek, will extend
3.5 miles south along the Chattahoochee River to a
new treatment facility, the Chattahoochee River Sewage
Treatment Plant. This interceptor will serve the City
of Marietta when the existing Soatheast Side Treatment
-------
TABLE I-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SCHEDULE
Contract
No.
Contract Name
Estimated Date For
Compl'n of Eng'ng
Bid Date
Compl'n Const.
Nickajack Sewerage
3
9A
9B
9C
10
11
S. Cobb Treatment Plant Exp.
Nickajack Creek Interceptor
Nickajack Creek Lft. Station
Bohannon Crk. O.F. Sewer
Laural Lake & Mill Crk. Int.
E. Mableton-N. Nickajack &
Milan Church Allen Rd. Sewers
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
8-3-72
Received
Received
Received
Received
10-27-72
2-1-72
Complete
7-21-71
8-1-71
Deferred
Rottenwood Sewerage
5
15A
15B
100
Chattahoochee Sewage T.P.
Rottenwood Crk. Int. to E.Smyrna
E. Smyrna & W. Paces Ferry
Road Collectors
Rottenwood Crk. Int. Exten.
to Marietta S. E. Side T. P.
Hwy. 41@ 1-75, 1-285 @ 1-75
Complete
Complete
Complete
9-1-71
Received
8-10-72
11 - 71
11-71
3-1-73
11-1-71
11-1-72
11 - 72
2-72
Fulton County Sewerage
Game Creek Pump Station &
Force Main
Marsh Creek Pump Station &
Force Main
8-71
11 - 71
1-72
12 - 72
-------
Sheet 2 of 3
TABLE I - Cont'd
Contract Estimated Date For
No. Compl'n of Eng'ng Bid Date Compl'n Const.
102B
103
104
105
106
107
110
111
102 AI
102AII
Sope Creek Sewerage
Sope Creek Interceptor (48") Complete
along Chatt. River from Sope
Crk. to Marsh Crk. T.P.
Sope Creek Int. (48") from
Chatt. River to Fox Hills S/D
Sope Creek Int. (42"& 36") -
Fox Hills S/D to Fork in Sope Crk.
Sope Crk. Int. Sewer (30" & 27")-
Fork in Creek to Holt Road
Sope Creek Int. Sewer (27" & 24")
Holt Rd. to Marietta E. Side T.P.
Sope Creek Outfall Sewer (30")
Sope Creek N. Fork to Roswell Rd.
Sope Crk. O.F. Sewer - N. W. Fork
above Roswell Rd. (30", 24" & 18")
Sope Crk. O.F. Sewer- Northeast Fork
above Roswell Rd. (24" & 18")
Sope Crk Int. from Rottenwood Crk.
to Powers Ferry Rd. Complete
Sope Creek Int. from Powers
Ferry Rd. to Sope Creek Complete
7-27-71
11 -
11 -
11 -
11 -
11 -
1 -
1 -
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
Received
7-27-71
5-1-72
1 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
6 -
6 -
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
3-1-72
5-1-72
Buttermilk Creek Sewerage
24
Buttermilk Creek Interceptor
-------
Sheet 3 of 3
TABLE I - Cont'd
Contract
No.
Contract Name
Estimated Date For
Compl'n of Eng'ng
Bid Date
Compl'n Const.
Olley Creek Sewerage
26
27A
28A
108
7
27A
34
25
26A
Olley Creek Interceptor to N.
Austell
Olley Creek Int. to S. Side P.
Noses Creek Int. to Powder
Springs
Coats & Clark Outfall
Noonday Creek Treatment Plant
Olley Creek Int. to S. Side
Plant
Noonday Creek Collectors
Bells Ferry-Canton Rd. Collector
N. & S. Buttermilk Creek Collectors
N. Austell Collectors
8-1-71
8-1-71
8-1-71
7-1-71
Complete
Complete
8-1-71
11-24-71
10-26-71
10-26-71
10-26-71
1-72
8-10-72
8-10-72
10-26-71
2-18-72
12-10-72
Deferred
12-1-72
12 - 72
11-1-72
Deferred
11-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
-------
. Acworth
' kennesow^\ MARIETTA
-
\
PROPOSED COBB COUNTY
SEWERAGE PROJECT
E.PA-I97I
8
INTERCEPTOR LINES
PUMPING STATIONS
TWEATMCNT PLANT
A NOONDAY CR INTERCEPTOR
B SOPE CR INTERCEPTOR
C ROTTENWOOD CR INTERCEPTOR
D NICKAJACK CR. INTERCEPTOR
E NOSES CR INTERCEPTOR
F OLLEY CR INTERCEPTOR
G BUTTERMILK CR INTERCEPTOR
H COATS ft CLAftK OUTFALL
DRAINAGE BASINS
1 SOPE CREEK
S NOONDAY CREEK
m ROTTENWOOD CREEK
TZ NICKAJACK CREEK
I OLi.1.1 » BUTTERMILK CREEKS
II MUD S NOSES CREEKS
3E POWDER SPRINSS CREEK
FIG.
-------
MMBH CWIK
mmtm
TEMPOMARV PACKAOE
P1.ANT
B) CMATTAMOOCMU («Vt*
TWATMEtfT PLANT
FULTON COUNTY
DOUGLAS COUNTY
NICKAJ4PK PUMP tTATIOM
SOUTH COMB (EWAW
TREATMENT PLANT
INTERIM SEWERAGE
TO SOUTH COBS
TREATMENT PLANT
Not*
caitfraeti »uwk»r»d 100
rt net
Unit A
LEGEND
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
CONTRACT NUMKft
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
PUMP STATION
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED REVISED UNIT A SEWERAGE
COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA
A-404B-B.4
-------
Plant is retired, and will also provide sewer service
to the Vinings, Georgia area. Sewage from the East
Smyrna area, now served by the Bohannon Creek Treat-
ment Plant which is being phased out, will join the
Rottenwood Creek interceptor and will be transported
to the Chattahoocb.ee Sewage Treatment Plant.
3. Sope Creek Drainage Area: A proposed interceptor
along Sope Creek will relieve treatment at the
existing Marietta East Side Plant. Sewage will be
transported along Sope Creek in an interceptor which
will tie into the Rottenwood Creek Interceptor to
convey the sewage to the Chattahoochee River
Sewage Treatment Plant.
4. Olley Creek and Buttermilk Creek Drainage Basin:
Construction of interceptors along Olley Creek and Butter-
milk Creek will provide sanitary sewerage services for
many residents in this area. Sewage will ultimately
be transported to a new treatment facility on
Sweetwater Creek. However, until development and
population growth justifies the construction of the
Sweetwater Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, wastes
from Olley and Buttermilk Creek Interceptors will be
transported from the City of Austell to the Chattahoochee
River, then to the South Cobb Treatment Plant. Pumping
Stations will be required to lift the sewage from
-10-
-------
Austell to the South Cobb Sewage Treatment Plant.
5- Mud and Noses Drainage Area: This area will ultimately be
served by sewers along Mud Creek and Noses Creek with
sewage intercepting at a common point with Olley Creek
just north of Austell and thence transported to the
proposed Sweetwater Creek Treatment Plant.
6. Powder Springs Drainage Area: A proposed interceptor sewer
along Powder Springs Creek will serve the Powder Springs
Drainage Area. Waste will be transported into the Mud
and Noses sewer for treatment at the South Cobb Sewage
Treatment Plant.
7. Noonday Creek Drainage Area: This area will be served by
an interceptor running northerly along Noonday Creek, with
flow terminating at a proposed Noonday Creek Sewage Treatment
Plant.
8. Chattahoochee River Sewage Treatment Plant: (Secondary
Treatment) This proposed plant will have a capacity
capable of treating waste emanating from the Sope Creek
and Rottenwood Creek Drainage Areas. It will also treat
sewage transported from Fulton County along the Sope
Creek-Rottenwood Creek Interceptor.
9. South Cobb Treatment Plant: This plant will be expanded to
meet future waste water treatment requirements of the
Nickajack Creek Drainage Area. As an interim measure,
it will also receive sewage from the Olley Creek and
Buttermilk Creek Drainage Areas, the Mud and Noses
-11-
-------
Drainage Area, and the Powder Springs Drainage Area
until population growth and development warrant construction
of the proposed Sweetwater Sewage Treatment Plant
(Not included in the project). The engineering design
of the temporary pump station linking these drainage
areas with the South Cobb Treatment Plant allows for its
conversion to a permanent facility in the event the area
adjacent to Sweetwater Creek is developed into a park
and location of a treatment facility on the creek would
be undesirable.
Subsequent modifications of the project originally proposed by
Cobb County have come about as a result of an agreement to work
jointly with Fulton County. In August 1970, the Fulton County
and Cobb County Commissioners tentatively agreed to work jointly
on a sewerage project between Sope Creek and the site of the
proposed Chattahoochee River Sewage Treatment Plant. Until then,
both counties planned to construct sewers which, for the most part,
would run parallel to the Chattahoochee River between 1-285 and
1-75. In the interest of efficiency and preservation of scenic
territory, the counties, on January 25, 1971, agreed that Cobb
County would proceed with construction of a Sope Creek Interceptor
•'"Contract, Cobb & Fulton Counties, October 7, 1970.
-12-
-------
along the Chattahoochee through the Palisades Area to 1-75, where it
joins the Rottenwood Creek Interceptor. The Sope Creek and
Rottenwood Creek Interceptors will be designed to accommodate flow
entering the Sope Creek Interceptor from Fulton County at the
Marsh Creek Treatment Plant (to be phased out), and also waste
water from the Fulton County Game Creek Basin entering the Sope
Creek Interceptor at 1-285. The Fulton County agreement eliminates
the redundancy of two large interceptor sewers along both sides
of the Chattahoochee River through the Palisades region.
All applications are accompanied by the comments and
recommendations of the State, Metropolitan, or Regional Planning
Agencies as to the project's conformance with the comprehensive
plan developed for the area and a statement from the applicant
relative to Planning Agency review. On August 4, 1967, the
Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning Commission certified that
the Cobb County project does conform with the Comprehensive Plan
developed or in process of development for the Atlanta Metropolitan
Area with these comments:
(1) The proposed project does conform to the objectives
of the current Regional Development Plan and with the
Regional Plan for water and sewer facilities as it has
progressed to date.
(2) The proposed project conforms with recommendations for
a county sewer plan and the county land use plan.
(3) Timing of the proposed project is in conformance with the
county sewer plan.
-13-
-------
Other letters from the Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning
Commission dated October 1, 1970, and June 28, 1971, commenting on
the Cobb County project are found in the Appendix.
The Cobb County project is in conformance with the "Atlanta
Region Comprehensive Plan: Water and Sewerage - February 1969"
prepared by Horner and Shifrin Consulting Engineers for the
Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning Commission.
Within the Federal Government the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (DHUD) has been given the general responsibility
of coordinating overall urban planning and development. DHUD
makes grants and loans to State, Regional and Local Planning Agencies
to assist in the development and implementation of comprehensive
long-range urban plans.
The Hensley-Schmidt Engineering Report dated February, 1967,
covering the seven drainage basins which make up the County's
present sewage program was financed in part by a Public Works
Planning Loan (P-GA-3078) from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and approved on December 8, 1965. This plan was
reviewed for conformance with DHUD Planning Critera and approved
by DHUD on June 30, 1967.
-14-
-------
III. BACKGROUND
A 1964 study by the Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning Com-
mission and the Comprehensive Sewer Study released in 1967 by
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., for Cobb County revealed that 68% of
Cobb County's population live in unincorporated areas. Rapidly
increasing county population is making heavy demands on public
utilities and other services. Cobb County has recognized the
need for a consolidated county effort to provide sewerage services
for the most at the least expense.
Interstate Highways 75 and 285 have provided quicker and
easier access to undeveloped areas of the county and present
zoning indicates that such areas adjacent to metropolitan
Atlanta will be developed for private homes, apartment complexes
and industrial business parks.
Other areas, rich in natural beauty and historical interest,
have the potential for parks and recreational and historical sites
Of particular interest is that section along the Chattahoochee
River from Peachtree Creek to Buford Dam, a distance of 48.1 miles.
In October 1970, a Task Force and Citizens Steering Committee,
under the auspices of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, studied
this area for possible development as a National Urban Park.
That section along the Chattahoochee between 1-285 and
Rottenwood Creek known as the "Palisades" has become the concern
of the Georgia Conservancy, other private groups and individuals.
This section, privately owned, is in a natural state, but the
-15-
-------
Georgia law of riparian right prevails, with riparian ownership
extending to the center of the stream bed. This area is zoned on
the Cobb County side of the Chattahoochee River for multiple family
units, single family residences and industrial office parks. The
owner has indicated his intent to develop this area to its fullest
potential as zoning allows.
Of particular interest is the proposed site of the Chattahoochee
River Sewage Treatment Plant. A 1970 survey of archaeologial
sites in Cobb County revealed that it is the location of the
historic Indian village of Standing Peachtree. In the interest
of preserving this site and other significant historical findings,
the county employed two archaeologist to coordinate studies
and excavations so that construction of the project would not
conflict with these interests.
The environmental and archaeological questions raised by the
construction of the interceptor sewers and sewerage treatment
facilities will be discussed in detail.
-16-
-------
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Water Quality
To improve the quality and satisfy present and future
uses of the Chattachoochee River, a Federal-State Enforcement
Conference was held July 14-15, 1966, and reconvened
February 17, 1970. Completion date for facilitating remedial
waste treatment was set for July 1, 1971 and later extended
to December 1972. Cobb County was one of the few areas that
recognized its responsibility for water pollution control and
was on schedule. Even adjacent Atlanta had to be given a
180-day clean-up order on December 10, 1970, to maintain
progress in cleaning up the Chattahoochee. Studies conducted
in the last decade by Federal, State and metropolitan
entities emphasized the necessity of obtaining and maintaining
a high quality of water in the Chattahoochee River and its
tributaries. These studies prior to the Enforcement Conference
indicated that a minimum of secondary treatment would be required
of municipalities in the Atlanta Area if the water quality criteria
in the Chattahoochee below Atlanta were to be met. The reports
of these studies are on file with the Georgia Water Quality
Control Board and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection
Agency. An independent study conducted in 1969 shows that
secondary treatment and sufficient flow regulation at Buford Dam
-17-
-------
will provide adequate water supply and wastewater
2
assimilation in the foreseeable future.
The proposed Chattahoochee River Sewage Treatment Plant
located across from and just south of the City of Atlanta's
freshwater intake will discharge its effluent through an
outfall sewer at a point below Peachtree Creek. The
Chattahoochee River Sewage Treatment Plant will be constructed
in phases to keep pace with the development of Cobb and Fulton
Counties. The first phase will provide capacity of an average
daily flow of 10 million gallons per day. Phases II and III will
increase the treatment plant capacity to an eventual 40 million
gallons per day capacity projected for the year 2020.
The State of Georgia's Water Pollution Control Legislation
gives the Georgia Water Quality Control Board the authority to
place a ban on new sewer connections for any municipality that
does not have adequate wastewater treatment. This authority
was recently used when the City of Atlanta began to fall behind
schedule with their pollution abatement program. Present Federal
legislation does not give a Federal Agency the authority to pro-
hibit new sewer connections if municipal treatment facilities are
inadequate.
2
Water and Sewerage, A Report Prepared by the Atlanta
Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, February 1969.
-18-
-------
River and creek flooding potential will be taken into
consideration in design of sewer lines and location of
treatment facilities, pumping stations and outfall lines.
Executive Order No. 11296 (See Appendix B-4) describes this
agency's policy regarding adequate flood protection for struc-
tures in the flood plain. Manhole covers will be sealed to
prevent infiltration during floods and the top elevation of
critical structures in the treatment plant will be above the
50 year flood elevation.
Contractors will take appropriate steps during construction
to minimize siltation and shoaling resulting from construction
activities. This is a condition which EPA requires in each
contract.
Completion of the Sope Creek and Rottenwood Creek Interceptor
Sewers and installation of the temporary treatment facility will
result in the immediate phasing out of the Marsh Creek Treat-
ment Plant and several small plants in Cobb County.. The effect
will be to restore this section of the River and adjacent
creeks for recreational use and benefit the fishery resource.
At the February 1970 Enforcement Conference, a member of
the Georgia Water Quality Control Board pointed out that the
Chattahoochee River above the Atlanta intake "is generally of
high quality with occasional high bacterial population". 3 The
Conference: In the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate
Waters of the Chattahoochee River and its Tributaries - Georgia
Alabama, Proceedings, Second Session, February 17, 1970,
Atlanta, Georgia p. 89.
-19-
-------
concentration of fecal coliform bacteria is commonly used as
a criteria for indicating the possible presence of pathogenic
organisms and evaluating a stream's suitability for water
contact recreation and water supply.
The Chattahoochee River is an interstate stream and from
Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek classified for "drinking water
supply". Test data obtained at numerous locations along the
Chattahoochee and its tributaries during 1969 and 1970 indicate
pollution sources at Marsh Creek, Sope Creek, Long Island Creek,
and Rottenwood Creek. Total fecal coliform counts approach in
many cases, and exceed in a few cases, the maximum allowable
under present classification.
The section of the Chattahoochee River north of the Atlanta
water intake is utilized for water contact sports in the form
of "tubing" or "floating". The Georgia Conservancy estimates
that on a yearly average upwards to 30,000 people enjoy this
section of the river in this fashion. Even with the limited
access people continue to utilize the river for water-based
recreation.
At Powers Ferry Road, Atlanta Waterworks data for 1969
and 1970 recorded median total coliform counts/100 ml of 4,100
and 3,400 while fecal counts were 640 and 140. Data from the
4
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 84-660
Sec. 10.
5The Georgia Conservancy, Inc. News Letter, August 1970
6chattahoochee Water Systems Laboratories, (Highlights 1969),
A Report Prepared by the Atlanta Water Works.
-20-
-------
State Water Quality Control Board from March 1969 to
September 1970 found fecal coliform counts ranging from 91
to 9,300/100 ml at the Atlanta Water intake, with a median of
750/100 ml. Figure No. 3 shows the fecal coliform data for
water samples taken at the City of Atlanta's raw water intake
Q
on the Chattahoochee River for January 1970 to March 1971.
The solid lines representing maximum permissible
concentrations recommended by various groups are indicated
q
for recreational waters. Georgia's criteria for "Recreational
Waters" is a median of 1000/100 ml for fecal coliform. Although
the formal water classification of this section of the river
is for "fresh water supply" another undeniable use is water-
based recreation. Because water contact sports may involve
ingestion of and contact with untreated water of lakes and
rivers, the maximum permissible concentration of bacteria in
recreational waters is lower than water used as a drinking
supply where modern treatment and disinfection techniques are
employed prior to distribution to consumers.
?Water Quality Analysis, A Report Prepared by the Georgia
Water Quality Control Board, 1969.
Atlanta Water Works Chattahoochee Laboratories Monthly
Reports, January 1970 - March 1971.
^Establishment of Water Quality Standards and Classifications
for Interstate Waters in the State of Georgia, Prepared by the
Georgia Water Quality Control Board, June 1967; Rules of the
State Water Quality Control Board, Chapter 730-3, Water Use
Classifications and Water Quality Standards (Proposed), Prepared
by the Georgia Water Quality Control Board, April 22, 1971;
Water Quality Criteria, Report of the National Technical Advisory
Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, April 1, 1968.
-21-
-------
BACTERIOLOGICAL HUALITY
CHATTAWOOCHCC RIV£R.
1500
1400
MPN Fecal Coliform dt Atldhta raw ujdter intake
DIVISION OP WATER MVGIENE
E
o
o
a>
Cl
£
k.
o
o
U
o
<^-
4,'
a
-------
The total fecal coliform level in the Chattahoochee River
grossly exceeds that allowable for "recreation waters" for water
contact sports and is unsuitable for water contact recreation
under present conditions. Recreational use of the river should
be discouraged until conditions improve. When this project is
completed, the river will be restored.
The Georgia Water Quality Control Board points out
that the "extensive pollution of the Chattahoochee River
by the metropolitan area renders it unsatisfactory for
most water uses for at least forty miles below Atlanta." This
program is one of the necessary measures to abate pollution
in the Chattahoochee River south of Atlanta. Actions of
the Federal and State agencies to restore adjacent sections
of the river are well documented.
AIR
There are approximately 75 package sewage treatment
plants and waste stabilization ponds in Cobb County (refer
to Figure 4), some of which are privately owned and operated.
At one time or another, most have been overloaded, improperly
operated and maintained, and in some cases neglected. In
recent years, there have been numerous complaints about
Conference: op. cit., February 17, 1970.
Sewage Treatment Operations, A Report Prepared on
the Cobb County Water and Sewer System by the Georgia Water
Quality Control Board.
-23-
-------
'ROSWELL
*•
MARIETTA
ATLANlf
UJSJING
TKITMtNT FACILITIES
IN COBE> COUNTY
-------
LEGEND - FIGURE 4
EXISTING SEWERAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES IN COBB COUNTY
1. Marietta-South East Plant
2. Fulton County-Marsh Creek Treatment
Plant
3. Marietta-East Side Plant
4. Lockheed Plant
5. Marietta-South Side Plant
6. Marietta-West Side Plant
7. Cobb County-Church Road Plant
8. Smyrna-Bohannon Creek Plant
9. South Cobb Treatment Plant
10. Austell Plant
COBB COUNTY PLANTS
In order of capacity
(400,000 gpd - 5000 gpd)
11. Kennesaw
12. Windy Hill
13. Cumberland
14. Bordeaux West
15. Riverbend
16. Cobb General Hospital
17. Treetop
18. Shiloh Hills
19. Terrell Mill
20. Interstate North
21. Kenwood
22. Atlanta County Club
23. Regency
24. Maggie Valley
25. Seven Springs
26. Cochise
27. Vinings
28. Huntington Woods
29. Eastern Air Lines
30. Farmington
31. Blue Springs
32. Clarkdale Imhoff
33. Allatoona Plaza
34. Wesley Heights
35. Waverly Woods
36. Atlanta Metro Industrial Park
37. Woodland Brook (Bakers)
38. Awtrey School
39. Canton Road Plaza
40. Lindley School
41. Franklin Road
42. Atlanta Metro Ind. Park Imhoff
43. Rollins
COBB COUNTY PONDS
44. Addison Heights
45. Brookhaven
46. Heritage Hills
47. Piedmont Hills
48. County Farm
49. Galloway Acres
50. Civitania Woods
51. Clarkdale School
52. Compton School
53. Frontier Trails
54. Elmwood (Whites)
55. Maple Valley
56. Rustic Village
57. McEachern School
58. Lincoln
59. Pebblebrook
60. Allyson
61. Marietta-Sope Creek
Farms
PRIVATE
62. Hill Haven Trailer
Park-Plant
63. Lamplighter Trailer
Park-Plant
64. Green Acres Trailer
Park-Pond
65. Kennesaw Mountain
Trailer Park-Pond
66. Austell Box Board-Pond
OTHER MUNICIPAL PLANTS
67. Austell-Wildwood-
Pond
68. Acworth-Treatment
Plant
69. Powder Springs-
Piedmont Valley Apt.-
Plant
-------
undesirable odors emanating from these facilities. Centralizing
them in four or five strategic areas in the county will
facilitate retirement of most of the facilities.
Operation of large treatment facilities by full-time staffs
means better overall treatment operation. The proposed treat-
ment plants will require permanent staffs for operation and
maintenance. In addition, the sites are away from residential
areas, and the county will be requested to provide a buffer
zone around treatment facilities.
If final disposition of sludge wastes is by incineration,
EPA will insure that proper measures are taken to prevent
pollution of the atmosphere.
LAND
The proposed Cobb County Sewerage Project, which will
provide sewerage facilities for most of the county now
unsewered, is a much preferred alternative to sewage disposal
by private, public and commercial entities now operating
inefficient plants and ponds. The total land committed to
sanitary facilities will be minimized as numerous small plants
and ponds are retired and buffer zones are limited to a few
large treatment facilities that replace them. Reclamation
of retired package plant sites and ponds may benefit the
public.
-25-
-------
By improving quality of water in presently polluted
streams, desirable land uses will be restored. Coordinated
development may proceed in the newly-sewered, undeveloped
areas of the county as urbanization progresses in Atlanta,
Marietta, Austell and Powder Springs.
If final disposition of solid wastes rests with the
disposal of sludge, disposal methods will be incorporated
in the design to prevent health hazards in accordance
with State Regulations. Benefits to the public by use in
landfill may be possible.
NOISE
Retirement of the many existing package plants,
some of which are near residential areas, will eliminate
noise pollution. The proposed sites of the new sewage
treatment facilities are in areas away from residences
and projected residential development.
Adequate acoustic design will be incorporated into
the facility plans, along with specifications, to insure
that noise levels are not harmful to plant employees or
others in the immediate vicinity.
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUES
OF THE AREA
A survey of some 133 archaeological sites in Cobb
County was conducted in the summer of 1970 by high school
and college students and others, under the supervision of
-26-
-------
local archaeologists. Those related to the Cobb County
Sewerage Improvement Plan are the Sope Creek Area and
the proposed site of the Chattahoochee River Sewage Treat-
ment Plant near the site of a former Indian village.
Cobb County has established a plan for preserving and,
if necessary, relocating significant archaeological and
historical discoveries. Since the Fall of 1970, excavations have
been undertaken at the Village of Standing Peachtree and
other areas to salvage relics and artifacts and collect
historic and pre-historic data. The contract with the
Consulting Engineer has been amended to make whatever soil
tests and investigations may be required to prevent destruction
of this historic site and preserve scientific data. Findings to
date have yielded valuable archaeological data; however, no sites
have been uncovered that would be worthy of preserving
12
as in-place exhibits. Archaeological exploration and
salvage operations will continue to precede future construction.
Also of historical interest are the old mill ruins
along Sope Creek in the vicinity of Paper Mill Road. Preserving
these ruins and the scenic areas along Sope Creek will be a
prime consideration in the design of the Sope Creek Interceptor
along Sope Creek. Neither these nor any other properties
involved are on the National Register of Historical Places.
12
Appraisals of the Archaeological Resources, Cobb and Fulton
Counties, Georgia, and Other Related Areas of the Chattahoochee
River Valley. (See Appendix B-3). A Report Prepared by Archaeologist
on Behalf of Hensley-Schmidt Engineers, Inc., for Cobb County,
June 1971.
-27-
-------
Within the County are the Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield Park and the proposed southern terminus of the
Blue Ridge Parkway, both under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service. The present sewerage program of the
County will have no effect on either of these areas.
Impact of the Project on Recreational Values of Natural Areas
An interceptor sewer along much of the Chattahoochee
River (Figure 1) is proposed to serve Fulton County's
Beard's Creek, Marsh Creek, River Ridge, and Game Creek
Basins and Cobb County's Rottenwood Creek and Sope Creek
Drainage Areas. This sewer, five feet or more in diameter
and extending from Sope Creek down the Cobb County side of
the Chattahoochee River to Rottenwood Creek at 1-75, will
join with an interceptor passing down Rottenwood Creek
(Rottenwood Creek Interceptor) at 1-75 and continue along
the Chattahoochee River to the location of the proposed
Chattahoochee River Sewage Treatment Plant at Bolton.
A preliminary report on "A Plan for the Chattahoochee"
by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation proposed that the section
between 1-285 and 1-75 known as the "Palisades", be preserved
as a natural area. The question is whether construction
I O
^Chattahoochee Recreation Area Study, A Preliminary Plan
for the (Jhattanoochee Frepared by the Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, March 19, 1971.
-28-
-------
of an interceptor along the river bed through a unique steeped,
cliffed and wooded area is compatible with the potential
reclamation and preservation of that area for recreational
uses and natural park development.
When construction on the Rottenwood Creek Interceptor
began in August 1970, concerned citizens raised objections
to the damage and disruption of the natural environment along
the creek bed. In the interest of preserving the privately-
owned scenic creek corridor, the Environmental Protection
Agency met with representatives of the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, members of the Georgia Conservancy, the Cobb
County Engineer, Superintendent of Construction of the contracted
construction company, a representative of Cobb County's
Consulting Engineers, and the Chairman of the Cobb County
Commission. Following approval by the property owner, it
was determined that the center line of the sewer line would
pass along the creek bed, thus eliminating the necessity of blasting
the adjacent rock bluffs. To help preserve the aesthetic
values, it was also determined that the sewer would be covered
throughout its entire length; that specific trees would be
avoided; that measures would be taken after installation
of the interceptor to return the area as far as practicable
to its original, natural state.
-29-
-------
Placement of sewers in creek beds as opposed to instal-
lation in deep cuts adjacent to creeks is a matter to be
determined on a project-by-project basis. The deeper a
sewer is buried, the wider must be the construction right-
of-way. The increased width is for temporary deposition
of spoils used for back fill and for access for vehicles
used to carry excess materials outside of the construction
area. Clearing of wider construction rights-of-way and
the effects of demolitions are considered to have adverse
effects on local eco-systems and the surrounding environ-
ment.
The property adjacent to this section of the river is
privately owned and riparian rights prevail, with ownership to
the center of the stream bed. The owner of 388 acres on the
Cobb County side adjacent to the Chattahoochee River and
Rottenwood Creek and 200 acres on the Fulton County side of
the river adjacent to the river has indicated he will develop
this land to the fullest extent possible within limits of the
zoning. He has delayed construction of a 210-apartment unit
complex pending the construction of sewer trunk lines to
service this area.
The Proposed Chattahoochee River Scenic Shorelands and
Flood Plain Protective Act, S. B. 228 was introduced February 1971
to the Georgia Senate Natural Resources Committee. The
-30-
-------
Proposed Act provides for a moratorium on development which
might alter the existing natural topography and flora until
approval is given by a Board. The Act was tabled in the
discussion stages and the Georgia Legislature has adjourned.
The preliminary report on "A Plan for the Chattahoochee",
released by BOR, recommends that "to assure that the river
surface will be available for public outdoor recreational use,
from Peachtree Creek to Buford Dam, scenic easements should
be obtained for lands along the entire length of the river
14
corridor. The purpose of such easements would be to
arrest further development on lands immediate to the river
which would intrude or create an adverse impact on the
quality of the natural values of the corridor."
Private organizations such as the Canoeing Association
and American Adventures are raising funds on behalf of all
organizations which advocate preserving the Chattahoochee River
for recreational and park use (Georgia Conservancy, Georgia
Appalachian Hiking Club, The Sierra Club, etc.) to establish a
"Land Fund" for the acquisition of land and/or options along
the Chattahoochee River corridor.
Since no positive steps have been taken by any Federal,
State, or local legislative body to insure preservation of this
area during the interim of BOR's study of the Chattahoochee,
EPA's participation is essential in assuring that construction
op. cit. ref. 13
-31-
-------
damage is minimized. This can be accomplished by requiring and
supervising such precautions as minimizing right-of-way clearance,
disposal of excavated material outside of the river corridor,
controlled demolitions in the interest of preservation of rock
areas, etc.
-32-
-------
V. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided will
be those related to the actual construction of facilities. These
include construction noise, clearing of right-of-way, which
includes stripping of trees and foliage and, in some cases, de-
struction of rock formation, and soil erosion. Many of these
effects will be minimized by implementation of construction
precautions. For projects along the Chattahoochee:
a. A minimum buffer zone of 20 feet will be left between
the construction right-of-way and the river's edge.
Where practical, at least a 75-foot undisturbed zone
will be observed. Representatives of EPA have and will
continue to make on-site evaluations to influence sewer
alignment. In doing so, routes will be developed which
will have the least adverse effect to the environment.
b. Care will be taken in trench excavation and disposal of
excavated material to prevent endangering the life of
trees. Experts of the Federal or State Forestry
Services will be consulted for their expertise and
advice to insure design and construction techniques
employed are compatible with the preservation of
natural vegetative cover immediately adjacent to con-
struction rights-of-way.
-33-
-------
c. All surplus excavated material from blasting
operations, trenching, or tunneling will be removed
at once by the contractor, and hauled away from the
river corridor for disposal.
d. All disturbed surface areas will be restored to as
near natural condition as possible as soon as
practicable. Temporary measures will be employed
by contractors to prevent the loss of topsoil and
direct or indirect pollution of the Chattahoochee
River through soil erosion or siltation.
e. A landscape architect will be employed to advise in
restoration of disturbed natural area.
-34-
-------
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN
A. Continuation of the Present System of Small Treatment
Plants for Each Subdivision or Community: Cobb County, almost
unincorporated, consists of numerous subdivisions and small
communities. This places the administrative authority for
wastewater disposition in the hands of many, both private and
public entities. A consolidated Cobb County effort is essential
to eliminate this problem.
Experience has shown that large treatment facilities operated
by trained permanent staffing results in better waste treatment.
Many of Cobb County's 75 package plants and stabilization ponds
have failed to yield an acceptable effluent because of poor
operation and maintenance and lack of trained personnel. These
points are clearly identified and delineated in the May 1968
"Report on Small Sewage Treatment Plant Operation; Cobb Water
Sewer System'' released by the Atlanta Water Works (See Encl. 3,
Appendix B).
Centralized sewerage facilities and administrative control
is more desirable than continuing with small, unregulated, isolated
treatment facilities.
B. Least Cost Alternative as Selected by Cobb County for
the Sope Creek Interceptor: Installation of approximately 5,200
linear feet of sewer pipe in excess of five feet in diameter
immediately adjacent to the river's edge, which will require
blasting rock formations and clearing trees up to the river's
-35-
-------
edge, and approximately 3,100 linear feet of pipe placed far
enough inland to provide a buffer zone of trees and foliage
between the river's edge and the cleared sewer right-of-way.
Bid cost for construction was $912,467.00 (Refer to Figure #5).
C. Lift Station at Powers Ferry Road, with Force Main
along Akers Mill Road to Rottenwood Creek and a 48" Parallel
Sewer to the Existing Rottenwood Creek Sewer down Rottenwood
Creek to the Chattahoochee River; This alternative is undesirable
from the standpoint of hydraulic design, since pumping would
be required. Initial construction costs of this alternative
are considerably higher than that for the proposed sewer along
the Chattahoochee. Estimated construction cost is $1,650,000.00
and operating costs are estimated at $150.00 per day (Refer
to Figure #5).
D. A Single Tunnel Between Rottenwood Creek and the
Chattahoochee River at 1-285 with some Open Cut; There would
be no possible danger of mechanical breakdown as the flow
would be gravity, and the construction of single tunnel spanning
the whole reach along the Palisades section of the Chattahoochee
eliminates conflict with natural area preservation interests.
Estimated construction cost is $2,070,000.00 (Refer to Figure #5).
E. Tunneling to Prevent Destruction of the Natural Rock
Cliffs and Outcrops along the Chattahoochee Scenic Easement
and Open Cut with Adequate Buffer Zone of Trees and Foliage
Between River's Edge and Construction Right-of-way: This
-36-
-------
PftOPOSIO MM* CAMK
PUMPIM* •TMTIOM
«OPC
- R.OTTCNUJOOO CRteK
SCWCR
COBB COUNTY
CPA- 1*71
37
FIG. 5
-------
is a desirable solution from the standpoint of hydraulic
design. Gravity flow requires no operation and minimal
maintenance. By tunneling approximately 3,700 feet and inter-
mittent open cuts with buffer zones between the river and
construction right-of-way, the scenic easement along the Palisades
can be preserved. Construction cost of this alternative will be
$1,475,892.00.
-38-
-------
VII. ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
Irreversible commitment of resources include land used
for construction rights-of-way, treatment facility sites, and
their buffer zones.
-39-
-------
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Cobb County Sewerage Improvement plan is
a thorough, comprehensive program for providing
sewerage services now and far into the future for
Cobb County residents. It is in accord with Federal,
State, and metropolitan programs for improving the quality
of water in the waterways of Cobb County and adjacent counties
into which these waters flow. Cobb County has set an example
for the metropolitan area in coordinating a cooperative effort
to implement a program to serve the most at the least expense in
an expeditious manner. The program as descreibed in this statement
is recommended for construction.
With Cobb County and Fulton County joining in a pre-
cedent-setting venture, Game Creek sewer, in the palisades
area, has been totally eliminated. Providing a buffer zone
between construction right-of-way and the riverbank,
tunneling rather than blasting of scenic rock cliffs,
hauling spoil away, taking special precautions to avoid damage
to unusual vegetation, and restoring of disturbed areas will
be accomplished. Incorporating these considerations will cost
$563,000.00 of the $1,476,000.00 construction cost of the
project through the palisades area. The cooperation of the
counties involved, who bear two-thirds of the cost, has been
outstanding.
-40-
-------
EPA and the counties are moving to restore the
river so that the water will be safe for recreational
use. Everyone will benefit by the initiative Cobb
County has taken towards preserving historical and pre-
historical discoveries, which were found during construction
of this project, and its willingness to apply additional
funds towards the conservation of natural areas which
have planned public scenic and recreational values. EPA recom-
mends other agencies move to acquire the 48 miles of
right-of-way needed to develop the park.
Specific details of sewer line location and
construction can be obtained from the construction
contract documents on file in the Cobb County Engineering
Department, the Georgia Water Quality Control Board or
the Construction Grants Office of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
-41-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chattahoochee Laboratories Monthly Reports, January 1970 -
March 1971.
Chattahoochee Recreation Area Study. A Preliminary Plan for
the Chattahoochee Prepared by the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, March 10, 1971.
Chattahoochee Water System Laboratories. (Highlights 1969),
A Report Prepared by the Atlanta Water Works.
Comprehensive Sewer Study for Cobb County, Georgia. A Report
Prepared by Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., Consulting Engineers,
Marietta, Georgia, February 1967.
Conference: In the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate
Waters of the Chattahoochee River and Its Tributaries -
Georgia - Proceedings, Second Session, February 17, 1970,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Contract, Cobb and Fulton Counties, October 7, 1970.
Establishment of Water Quality Standards and Classifications
for Interstate Waters in the State of Georgia, Prepared
by the Georgia Water Quality Control Board, June 1967.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 84-660, U. S.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration.
The Georgia Conservancy, Inc., News Letter, August 1970.
Open Land/Regional Problems and Opportunities, A Report Prepared
by the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission,
June 1964.
Rules of the State Water Quality Control Board, Chapter 7303,
Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
(Proposed), Prepared by the Georgia Water Quality Control
Board, April 22, 1971.
-42-
-------
Water Quality Analysis. A Report by the Georgia Water
Quality Control Board, 1969.
Water Quality Criteria. Report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior,
April 1, 1968.
Water and Sewerage, A Report Prepared by the Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission, February 1969.
-43-
-------
APPENDIXES
-------
APPENDIXES
A. Correspondence
1. Memorandum from the U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Roy K. Wood) to EPA
(John R. Thoman), July 14, 1970.
2. Letter from the Georgia Conservancy, Inc.(Allen C. Hart)
to EPA (John R. Thoman), August 17, 1970.
3. Letter from Alfred D. Kennedy to Cobb County Water System
(Robert L. Sutton,Jr.), August 28, 1970.
4. Letter from Cobb County Water System (Robert L. Sutton)
to EPA (Asa B. Foster,Jr.), September 3, 1970.
5. Letter from Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
(Glenn E. Bennett) to Cobb County Commission of Roads
and Revenues (Ernest W. Barrett), October 1, 1970.
6. Memo from U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation (Roy K. Wood) to EPA (John R. Thoman)
November 18, 1970.
7. Letter from Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. (Kenneth W. Rich) to
EPA (Douglas C. McCurry), November 18, 1970.
8. Memo from EPA (John R. Thoman) to U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Regional Director)
December 28, 1970.
9. Letter from Georgia Water Quality Control Board (W. C.
Mason, P.E.) to Cobb County Water System(Robert L. Sutton)
February 8, 1971.
10. Letter from Cobb County Commission of Roads and Revenues
(Ernest W. Barrett) to EPA (Asa B. Foster, Jr.), February 23,
1971.
11. Letter from Cobb County Water System (Robert L. Sutton) to
EPA (Asa B. Foster, Jr.), March 11, 1971.
12. Letter from Secretary of the Interior (Roger B. Morton) to
Administrator of EPA ( William D. Ruckelshaus), March 16, 1971.
13. Letter from Georgia Forestry Commission (Wilson H. Wright) to
EPA (Fred A. Eidsness, Jr.) , April 20, 1971.
14. Letter from Administrator of EPA (William D. Ruckelshaus)
to Secretary of the Interior (Roger B. Morton), April 30,
1971.
-44-
-------
15. Letter from A. R. Kelley, PhD., Cobb County Archaeology
Consultant, to Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., June 25, 1971.
16. Letter from Cobb County Water System (Robert L. Sutton)
to EPA (Asa B. Foster, Jr.), June 28, 1971.
17. Letter from Cobb County Water System (RobertL. Sutton)
to EPA (Asa B. Foster, Jr), June 28, 1971, with
Enclosure (1) Chattahoochee River Sewage Treatment
Plant, CRSTP, Selection of Site; Enclosure (2) Correspon-
dence with Army Corps of Engineers regarding site of
proposed CRSTP.
18. Letter from Cobb County Water System (Robert L. Sutton)
to EPA (Asa B. Foster, Jr.), June 28, 1971 with
Enclosure (See Appendix C-2) Appraisals of the
Archaeological Resources, Cobb County and Fulton County.
Georgia, and Other Related Areas of the Chattahoochee
River Valley.
19. Letter from Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
(Glenn E. Bennett) to EPA (Joseph R. Franzmathes, P.E}
June 28, 1971.
B. Reports
1. Archaeological Survey of Cobb County, A Report c/o
Pebblebrook High School Site.
2. Appraisals of the Archaeological Resources. Cobb and
Fulton Counties. Georgia, and Other Related Areas of
the Chattahoochee River Valley. June 1971.
3. Small Sewage Treatment Operations. A Report Prepared
on the Cobb County Water and Sewerage System by the
Georgia Water Quality Control Board.
4. Evaluation of Flood Hazard in Locating Federally Owned
or Financed Buildings. Roads, and Other Facilities, and
in Disposal of Federal Lands/Property. Executive
Order 11296, Federal Register, Vol. 31, No. 115J,
August 11, 1966.
5. Comments and Recommendations of Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission, August 4, 1967.
-45-
-------
C. Comments
1. Letter commentary of Department of Housing and Urban
Development (Thomas J. Armstrong) to EPA (John R. Thoman)
April 5, 1971.
2. Letter commentary of Department of the Interior,
National Park Service (L. Boyd Finch) to EPA
(John R. Thoman), April 6, 1971.
3. Letter commentary of the Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service (Ernest C. Martin) to EPA
(John R. Thoman), April 7, 1971.
4. Letter commentary of the Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service (W. R. Phelps) to EPA (John R. Thoman)
April 7, 1971.
5. Letter commentary of the Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, (John R. George) to EPA
(John R. Thoman), April 8, 1971.
6. Letter commentary of the Department of Army, Corps of
Engineers (J. J. Danaher) to EPA (Frank M. Redmond)
April 0, 1971.
7. Letter commentary of the Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation (Roy K. Wood) to EPA (John R.
Thoman), April 13, 1971
8. Letter of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(John D. McDermott) to EPA (John R. Thoman), April 12,
1971.
9. Letter commentary of Department of the Interior, National
Park Service (John W. Griffin) to EPA (John R. Thoman)
April 13, 1971.
10. Letter commentary of Office of Equal Opportunity (Roy E.
Batchelor) to EPA (John R. Thoman), April 15, 1971.
11. Letter from Georgia Historical Commission (Mrs. Mary G.
Jewett) to EPA (John R. Thoman), April 23, 1971.
12. Letter from Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Thomas J. Armstrong), to EPA (John R. Thoman), May 7,
1971.
-46-
-------
13. Letter from Department of the Interior, National Park
Service (Richard D. Faust) to EPA (Frank M. Redmond)
May 13, 1971.
14. Letter from Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
(G. L. Downing) to EPA (Frank M. Redmond), May 17, 1971.
15. Letter commentary of Department of the Interior, National
Park Service (Vincent Ellis) to EPA (Frank M. Redmond)
May 21, 1971.
16. Letter commentary of Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, (Harry A. Griffith) to EPA (John R. Thoman)
May 27, 1971.
17. Letter from Sierra Club (Kenneth W. Martin) to EPA
(John R. Thoman), June 21, 1971.
18. Letter from Friends of the River, Inc. (Mrs. Harold C.
McKenzie, Jr.) to EPA (John R. Thoman), June 23, 1971.
19. Letter from SAVE (Mrs. Charles Yarn) to EPA (John R.
Thoman), June 23, 1971.
20. Letter from Georgia Conservancy (Claude E. Terry) to
EPA (John R. Thoman), June 24, 1971.
-47-
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
IN KEPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Interior
HURF.AU OF OUTDOOR RCCRKATION
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
810 New AValton liuikling
Aihiiita, Georgia 30303
July 14, 1970
Memorandum
To:
From:
Regional Director, Southeast Region, Federal Water Quality
Administration, Atlanta, Georgia
Regional Director, Southeast Region, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Atlanta, Georgia
Subject: Chattahoochce River Area
Enclosed is a copy of the July 14 letter, with enclosure, from this
office to Mr. James H. Aldredge, Chairman, Board of Commissioners of
Fulton County. I believe the matter of immediate concern to the
Georgia Conservancy people is a prospective sewerline project proposed
for a scenic area adjacent to the Chattahoochee River between 1-285
and the Paces Ferry Road bridge.
I would like to take the liberty of suggesting that, in considering
the grant which will be requested of you for this project, the
long-range environmental^ scenic, and recreational potential of_ the
Cn"aTtai6ocBee"River and immediate" adjacent" lands" be considered^
As suggested in my letter to Mr. Aldredge, this area can be one of
the outstanding features of a great and growing urban center or it
can be just another stream running through a city. The projects and
developments initiated in this area will determine its future.
Roy K. Wood
Enclosures
-------
NITING GEORGIA'S CONSERVATIONIST
Tin-: (JKOW.IA ('ONSKRVANCY,
IO25 CANDLER BUILDING
ATLANTA. GKOROIA .to:to:i
4O4/525-I82S
August 17, 1970
Mr. John Thoman, Regional Director
Federal Water Quality Administration
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Mr. Thoman:
We request that you give due consideration, under the Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, to the environmental effects of two sewer line
grant applications you have for review at this time.
The Game Creek Interceptor proposed by Fulton County would run
approximately 1.5 miles through magnificent rock palisades in
the last wild stretch of the Chattahoochee near Atlanta. Consid-
erable environmental damage as well as encouragement to further
development is inevitable with the route proposed.
The Rottenwood Creek Interceptor proposed by Cobb County would for
part of its length lie in the creek gorge from Akers Mill Road to
the Chattahoochee. This is the best of the very few such gorges
near Atlanta. Its unique habitat harbors many plants recognized
as rather rare by the Georgia Botanical Society.
The Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission recognized in
their 1963 open spaces study that this area (the remainder of
which is shown unshaded on the enclosed map) had tremendous re-
creation and educational value. I quote from their report, "The
Long Island-Rottenwood Creek area, for example, is probably unique
in its rugged and almost unspoiled beauty considering its close-
in location." Indeed, Atlanta is unique among large American cities
to have such a river at its doorstep. The planners' judgment
seems borne out by the many thousands of people who float, hike,
fish, and observe the beauty and wildlife in this area each year,
even though such use is discouraged by private owners and lack of
access.
-------
Theman
August 17, 1970
Page 2
We feel that sewer lines down either bank of the river between
Interstate 285 and Interstate 75, or down the Rottenwood Creek
gorge, should be carefully weighed against their impact on the
environment. In addition, cooperation between Cobb and Fulton
Counties ought to be encouraged to avoid expensive duplication.
These sewer plans seem to have come before the A-95 review pro-
cedure, but we would suggest that expert advice now be sought
from appropriate sources on environmental and recreational matters.
We would specifically request your cooperation in an examination
of feasible routes or alternate methods, even if some possible
increase in cost may result, before irreversible actions are
taken that might destroy the irreplaceable natural, scenic, re-
creational, and educational values of this area. If possible,
we would ask your consideration of withholding funds for these
two projects until their possible effec±s are known.
Sincerely,
Allen C. Hart
Executive Director
AH/mt
-------
A i. r i%« i: i j 1). K i; N x K ii Y
•ILK n«»v<>n 01 4.1011 C..KO
ATLANTA, t IKO'WIHA
August 28, 1970
Mr. Kobt-rt L. Siii.uo.i.Jr .
County Luj.;irit';cir ,
Cobb Cci..v>ty jin^jnr.orir.;; D
?. 0. Fox 6/,'J
Marietta , . Gt-ory J a
Dear Mr. i>ultoi>:
1 iin: enclosing copies -of plntu shoviny development
plans fo)- cur 38!) aeros of property in Co";./o County. As you can
sec, th(i£.e ijlan.s are quite detailed and are based on research
ar.coir.plishf.cj t!irou;>.h years- of study by nationally known feasibility
and land str.dy organisations at a cost of several thousand dollars
to us ss ittdividu.-ilfl. Wo have no intftvt'.sc \;!i.-'tr> cover in seeing j^ny
of this land become public pa::ii &rea.
I have shaded in red the yroup of .210 apartment
units whjch v» WP ':"*&£, to bf!\in v;ir.h .in 'he.' next few weeks. We
have delayed bi;j;j lining constiruction en t'.iasn bcc.'nise of- the lack
of sewer and because wo felt the county v.'ould shortly provide a
sewer line. We cannot delay much longer. As I have pointed out
to Mr. Bcurkie. in a recent telephone conversation, if the county
has not provided ' scv.'crajro by the t.ir.c our apr.rtr.ents are ready,
we will have to run an eight inch line. down Rottcnwood Creek
ourselves.
• I fc^l that our overall plan is one which preserves
as much of the luit.ural beauty of this area as- possible v:hile
providing living and working space for people and an increased tax
base for the county.
Sincerely,
— '
ADR:h
Alfred D. Kennedy
-------
!OBB COUNTY
.;MM ••-ujNT'Hri OF ROADS AND Rl"ViNUt:
o -i x • J <
A.I,:,-"l TA GEORGIA
ERNEST W. BARRETT. CHAIRMAN • ROBERT J. AUSTIN, DEPUTY • THOMAS H. BROWN • T. L. DICKSON • ERNEST P. ELLISON • HARRY E. INORAM
September 3, 1970
Mr. Asa B. Foster, Jr.
Director of Facilities Program Office
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Mr. Foster:
RE: Cobb County WPC-GA-173
Rottenwood Creek
We have investigated the proposed and existing land use by the owners of the
property abutting the proposed recreational park along the Chattahoochee River,
in Cobb County, South of the 1-285 crossing and North of the Paces Ferry Road
Bridge. The owners have developed this land or proposed to develop this land
as apartments and office park. (See enclosed development plan and letter).
In addition to this, the feasibility of constructing a lift station in the
vicinity of 1-285 crossing and pumping to the Rottenwood Creek and then
pumping from Rottenwood Creek along the interstate Right-of-way, to the line
on the River at 1-75. Our estimates indicate that the cost of constructing
the line as proposed in our comprehensive report is $1,400,000. The cost of
constructing the Lift Stations and Force Mains as investigated indicate a cost
of $3,000,000. The Static heads of the Lift Station locations will exceed 100 ft.
In additional to construction cost, the cost of operation (lift stations) that
must be borne by the customer will be approximately $300 per day initially and
ultimately reaching $500 per day.
Therefore, it is our conclusion that the Federal Water Quality Adminstration
must allow us to proceed with the installation of the gravity sewers along
Rottenwood Creek and Chattahoochee River.
We have further investigated the proposed addition of flow from Fulton County
with the idea in mind that this will climate the Marsh Creek Treatment Plant
and the proposed Games Creek Outfall. Fulton County has furnished information
that their drainage daily flows for year 2020 will be 14 mgd. Attached you will
find data on this design from our consulting Engineer.
Attached is a comparison of estimated cost that will be incurred if Cobb County
and Fulton County merge facilities. At this time we have not reached an agree-
ment with Fulton County but anticipate doing so within the next week. Due to the
urgency of this program to Cobb County in its efforts td clean up our streams
and end our pollution of the Chattahoochee River we are requesting that you re-
ease the contracts for Rottenwood Creek.
-------
September 3, 1970
Page 2
If we can answer any further questions please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Robert L. Button, Jr.
County Engineer
RLS/hs
-------
A'
>•!»'
CITY OF ATLANTA • CLAYTON COUNTV . COBB COUNTY • OBKALB COUNTV • FULTON COUNTS • GWINNETT COUNT V
ATLANTA REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNIN6 COMMISSION
) 9OO Glenn Building • Atlanta, 3«orgl« 3O3O3 • Telephone (4O4; S 2 S • 7 E; 7 7.
Nelson Se veringhous, Chairman Harmon M. Born, Secretary-Treasurer
Cecil A. Alexander, Vice-Chairman Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director
October 1, 1970
Mr. Krnest Barrett, Chairman
Cobb County Consniccion
P. O. Box 649
Marietta, Georgia 30060
Dear Ernest t
Ke have received & copy of th« plan showing the Fulton/CoLb
joint propoaal for »«wormgtj facilities along a portion of
tha Chattahoochaa River. Aa you know, our regional water
and bew«rago Plan wa» an»ndad on September 28, 1970, to
account tor tfaio project
-------
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
810 New Walton Ituilding
Atlanta, Georgia S030S
IN MK.Y REFER TO:
NOV t 8 1970
V • f* •*."• .'.*
Memorandum
To: Regional Director, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia
From: Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia
Subject: Rottenwood Creek and Sope Creek Sewerlines
Thank you for your letter of September 24, 1970, concerning
contract stipulations for sewerline projects in Cobb County,
Georgia. We also appreciated the opportunity of meeting with
Messrs. Asa Foster and Doug McCurdy, of your staff, on November 5,
1970, to discuss the Rottenwood Creek and the Sopc Creek Sewerline
project."..
In your letter of September 24, 1970, you quoted a stipulation
from your approval of Cobb County's request to proceed with the
construction of the Rottenwood Creek interceptor sewerline.
We were pleased to see this stipulation added to this project
and would be interested in knowing what response you have had
from Cobb County concerning it. Specific information on what
steps will be taken by the county and/or the contractor to
change the project alignment to protect natural scenic areas,
cover the sewerline, and restore disturbed areas would also be
appreciated. We are most concerned with the portion between
Akers Mill Road and the Chattahoochee River and along the banks
of the Chattahoochee to the State Highway- 3 bridge.
As discussed at our November 5, 1970, meeting, we are particularly
interested in examining the preliminary plans for the Sope Creek
interceptor as soon as they are available. We have provided
Mr. Foster a copy of the enclosed map delineating areas of the
Cobb Palisades where scenic values need consideration and
protection. For your further identification, photographs of
these areas keyed to the map are enclosed.
-------
We would like to know if all feasible alternative routes for
this line have been evaluated, especially a route from Powers
Ferry Road following the curvature of 1-285 and Akcrs Mill Road
to combine with the Rottcnwood Creek line now being constructed.
This route appears to be about one-half the distance that would
be required to follow the bank of the river and connect onto the
Rottenwood line at the creek mouth.
Since pumping stations may already be required under the present
plan at Powers Ferry Koad for sewage from the upstream Fulton
County area, would additional pumping capacity be required for
the upstream Cobb area's effluent? Even if this plan is more
expensive on. a short-range basis, protecting this irreplaceable
natural resource may justify a larger initial expenditure as
well as some additional operating expense.
Another alternative which we discussed with Mr. Foster would be
one to three tunnels for the Sope Creek line through the major
portion of the Cobb Palisades to avoid defacing the rock out-
croppings . This alternative would require hauling the spoil
away from the scenic river gorge area, exercising care to avoid
damage to the natural landscape and vegetation during construc-
tion, and restoring disturbed areas to their natural condition
after construction is completed. We would appreciate your
evaluation of these alternatives.
We suggest an onsite inspection of these areas with you and your
staff to investigate these alternatives for the Sope Creek line
in an effort to insure that the scenic rock outcroppings and
other natural values will not be permanently scarfed during project
construction.
Our recreation study will investigate the feasibility of hiking
or riding trails along the routes of these and other riverside
sewerlincs along the Chattahoochee from Buford Dam to Peachtree
Creek. Do your regulations permit local -governments to acquire
public access rights at the same time that construction ease-
ments are acquired for the sewerline?
In addition to the lines under discussion, we need information
on any other projects that may have been approved or for which
applications are pending in the Chattahoochee River study area
from Bufofd Dam to Peachtree Creek.
}" Eoy K. Wood
Roy K'. Wood
Enclosures
-------
, TENNESSEE
,„,. HMW.tr
jaB*. JOMMSON, JR.
HENSLEY-SCHMIDT, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
November 18, 1970
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA, GEORGIA
4053.
PLEASE REPLY To
P.O. BOX NO. 835
MARIETTA. GEORGIA 3OO6O
MOM* I- DOWNS
OBU.W" MM, •>*•
W «.l«OLt«TM
ft. MITCHELL, JR
Mr. Douglas C. Me Curry
Federal Water Quality Administration
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Re: WPC-GA-173
Rottenwood Creek Interceptor Sewer
Cobb County Sewer Program
Dear Mr. Me Curry:
Pursuant to our meeting this morning with members of the Georgia
Conservancy to discuss possible realignments of the now contracted
sewer line that will parallel Rottenwood Creek from the Chattahoochee
River to Akers Mill Road, we wish to indicate that both the plan and
profile for this sewer as shown on our drawings numbered E-4053-13. 0,
E-4053-14. 0, and E-4053-15. 0 was studied by an engineer and architect
commissioned by the owner of the property in question.
The property owner was concerned that the sewer would not be exposed
in any location and that the alignment was such that damage to the natural
beauty of the property would be minimized allowing for construction
necessities.
He granted the easement only after a review of the alignment in the field;
after which his representatives were satisfied that the proposed sewer
location met with his stipulations.
Very truly yours,
HENSLEY-SCHMIDT, INC.
Kenneth W. Rich
KWR/jgt
cc: Mr. Robert L. Sutton, Jr.
AIRPORTS, BRIDGES, rOUNDA'
IT,ONS, HYDROELECTRIC. SEWERAGE,STREETS, STROCTURES.TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTAT.ON.TUNNELS,WATER WORKS
-------
Baglonal Dlroctor, B.O.I. Bacambor 28, 1970
Southaaat Bagion, Atlanta, Oaorgla
Bagioaal Director, F.W.Q.A.
Southeat Begion, Atlanta, Georgia
WC-CA-173
Cobb County
Thank you for your memorandum of November 18, 1970, and for tha
Intereet ehown and commenta made on the interceptor eewers now being
constructed in Cobb County.
Because of the Fulton-Cobb joint treatment agreement acme explanation
la needed concerning the tope Creek, Bottenwood Creek and Game Creek
aewere and the conditions referred to la my letter of 9/24/70 to you.
When the Game Creek Sower in Fulton Canary wee proposed bids were
already being reviewed for construction of the Bottenwood Creek
sewer in Cobb County. Formal approval of the Bottenwood Creek Sewer
contract waa withheld by this office until Informal agreement had been
reached concerning a Joint treatment project between Cobb and Fulton
fiountiee. Thia agreement between Cobb and Fulton Counties will
permit abandonment of the Game Creek Sewer and the Marsh Creek Treatment
Flant in Fulton County. Since part of tha Bottenwood Creek Sewer will
transport waatoweter from Fulton County it wee neceeeary that the
Bottenwood Creek Sewer be enlarged to provide additional capacity. If
construction of the Bottenwood Creek Sewer had proceeded before an
agreement had been reached tho Cobb-Fultoa pact might have never been
e reality. Becauee of the agreement between Cobb and Fulton Counties
to provide joint treatment the original time schedule for construction
of Cobb County's Sope Creek Sever ha* been moved up due to the
needs in Fulton County.
In rogard to your •pacific quaationa concarning tha Bottonwood Croak
contract tho changa ordar raforrod to In aw * lattar of 9/24/70 haa
not baon iaouod aa yat. Tha oawar will ba covorad throughout ita
langth axcapt for two croak crooaiagatnacaaaary to obtain bat tar
aligBaaat. On Moiioaiiar 18, 1970, a rapraaantatlva from thia Of flea
tourod tha plannod oawar Una along Bottonwood Gorga with rapraaantativaa
of tba following organicationa: Tho Otorgia Conaarvancy, Tha Gaorgia
Botanical Socioty, Cobb County. Hanalay - Sebaldt Conaulting Bnginaara
and Blytho Brothora Construction Company. Tha noatlog indlcatod aona
diaagraoaont aaong intaraotod groupa aa to how tho natural araaa might
ba baat praaarvad. Soaa fait that tha aowar ahottld ba laid abovo
ground or on plora to mlnimiaa tho damaga that blaatlng or traaching
might do. Othora fait that 1C waa important to hava tha aawar
-------
WPC-GA-173
Cobb County -2- December 28, 1970
completely covered, but the owner of the property had agreed to the
sewer easement only on the condition that the pipe be completely
covered and that the alignment would be subject to his approval so
as to minimise the damage to the natural beauty of the property. Tie
contractor has agreed to minimise blasting and clearing damage insofar
as is possible. The value of the tree in photo H. was realised and
will be saved. The other areas shown are in the Sope Creek Sewer area.
If your review of the plans and speclflcatlonczleft in your office on
November 5, 1970, does not indicate this to be true please let us
know at once.
In regard to the alternative to the Sope Creek Sewer which you
have mentioned, this alternative was considered in conjunction with
an alternative to abandon the Rottenwood Creek Sewer through
Rottenwood Gorge. The alternative would have involved two additional
pump stations, force mains and interceptor sewers around Alters Mill
toad and down 1-73 to the river. The additional present worth costs
of this alternative is estimated to be 3.1 million dollars more than
the alternate gravity sewers.
As discussed with your staff on November 5, 1970, our staff is working
with Cobb County officials on tunneling, alignment, and other means of
minimizing damage in the design layout for the Sope Creek Sewer along
the River. The preliminary plans for this sewer are now available and
a copy is enclosed for your review and comment. Any comments you
might have should be submitted as soon as possible eo that we may have
the benefit of your counsel in our detailed review.
Our regulations do not aJfaw us to participate in the cost of land
acquisition or easements. Our regulations only require that the applicant
acquire the necessary easement for construction. Whether or not Public
.eeess rights could be obtained along with sewer easements would be a.
question for discussion with the local government constructing the project.
Tour question concerning other projects in the Chattahoochee River
Study Area Is best answered by Mr. Al Herdon's recent report submitted
to Mr. Idward C. Chidlaw, B.O.R. As you know Mr. Berftdon is Chairman
of the Water Data Committee part of the present B.O.R. Study of the
Chattahoochee. His report summarises present and future projects now
planned within the "Study Area."
Pleaee contact us if we can be of further assistance to you in any way.
John R. Tnoman
-------
£tatc Water (Qualitg Control JBoard
47 Trinity Avarae, S. W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334
February 8, 1971
Mr. Robert L. Sutton,
Cobb County Engineer
P. 0. Box 649
Mtrietta, Georgia
Jr.
El: Sope Creek Intercept or Sewer
(lotteevood to Power* Ferry)
VPC-Oa-173, Coke Goaty
Deer Mr. Satt«
Pleas and epecifieatioaa for the firet phaae of the Sope Creek
Interceptor Sewer have hen reviewed and ere hereby approved for con-
etnetioa. Bo Ceaatruetioa Permit will be iaeaod in keeping with the
policy of thle off lev.
The Georgie Meter Quality Control Boerd e«Aoreei end
with the EegioMl tfeeteweter Collection 4 Treetmet Project for irfiicii
the eewers doeeribed ia theee plese ere aeeeeeery. The Sope Crook
Intercept or Sever, totteaoeed Interceptor Sever, ead the Chettehoechee
River Treetewnt Pleat vill do ••eh to iaprevo the fvelity of the Chatte-
hoocbee liver e»4 Ite tributary etve«M eariag the «o*i«t ooeaiee. He
that theee oewere vill provide the temporary fuaetioa (fro*
1971 uatil the Chattiheofhee liver Plant it coa»leto<) of conrey-
iaf vaeteveter fro* the Oeva Creek area of Paltoa County aad the lc
Sepe Crook area of Cooh Covnty. Ihia itvegi vill be treated at a
rary pleat aad diaeharfod to the river belov Atlanta'* vater intake.
Thie preeadvre cannot fail to have a beneficial effoet vpoa the ooality
of the Chattahooehoe liver and Atlanta '• drinking vater. We offer our
fail avnpoct Cor the project.
He are forwarding two oote of plane and epeeifieatione to the
Knvironwantal Protection Agency of the 0. 8. Departnent of the Interior
for their review. By copy of thie letter, we «rge that office to do
everything within ite power to •peed the inplenentation of thle vital
project.
-------
Mr. loaart L. tettoa, Jr.
February i, 1971
rat* z
On* aaarava* Mt Of plaM Mrf ••OelfUatiaaa ia aaalOM4 f«T
y«wr UMI OM Mt will to r«tvnHtf t» tte •o(iM«r| OM Mt will
IB 0«r MTHUMBt fil««.
Thaak you far yoar coaparatioa
IIo Co HB4MMRy W • m •
Chltf, Faeilitloa Dorolopaoat toetioa
HCMsjl
eet j*»tor Quality Offica. I. V. A.
laaalaySetaUt* IM.
Mr. I. W. Barratt
Mr. J. M. VoMak
Mr. T. A. Caatrall
-------
RECEIVED
FEB 3 1971
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY COHTROL BOARD
FOR GEORGIA WATER QUALITY COHTROL
47 Trinity AveniM, S.W.
i, Georgia 30334
APPLICATIOH FOR A "CONSTRUCTION PE«,
FOR A WASTff DISPOSAL SYSTEM
In accordance with provisions of the Georgia Water Quality
and the Rules of the State Water Quality Control Board, applicatic n
below for a Construction Permit to construct the described Waste
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA
Disposal System.
FFB S
I Minor APPLICANT (CITY. TOWN, INDUSTRY. CORPORATION, INDIVIDUAL K
Cobb county V at«r It Soworngo System
1 ADDRESS OF APPLICANT (STREET OR ROUTE NO )
1771 County Farm Road
C.)
WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION FOR GEORGIA WATER I
! CTTT, STATE AND ZIP CODE
iitrtotta, Georgia 10060
cou
TY
1 TlliillB V ' mrowm *« *••
.DISPOSAL SYSTEM Approximately 2. t ; miles of 4o Uch diam. unitary
>. cotnploto with manholoa, tnnnoU, and ota«r accessories to provide
itwtrage for tho >opo Crook Area of Cobb County.
tXAHEOP RECEIVING STREAM AND IT'S TRIBUTARY
Supplomoatal >h««t
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ESTABLISHMENT
1 TTPI OF ESTABLISHMENT (IF NOT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION)
IJTPEOr WASTE TO BE DISCHARGED (DOMESTIC, TEXTILE, CANNERY, ETC.)
DftaMtie (poioiblo commercial f. light Industrial)
». ESTIMATED BOD (LB8/DAY)
"•TREATED AFTER TREATMENT
9. VOLUME OF DISCHARGED WASTE
(50 yr.) ADF«3J. 25
11. MINIMUM RECEIVING STREAM FLOW
MOD
cf.
> EXPECTED EFrECT 0» Tftf RECEIVING STREAM .
r. daily year 2020 fat itottoawooa junction)
bnwstic 53. 20 MCD cum. poak yoar 2020 (at Eotteawood junction)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
NnciPLE FEATURES OF PRESENT AND/OR PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
uppl«mont«l
'UOCATION OF WASTE DISCHARGE
QtttMkooelMO Rlror
* APPLICANT'S PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
HmUy-Sckmia*. toe.
IS. OPERATOR IN .CHARGE OF FACILITY
17. OFFICIAL TO BE CONTACTED IF ADDITIONAL DATA IS NEEDED
Honolcy- Schmidt, Inc.
"onm PERTINENT DATA Contract 1 1 UZ Al (* WUA f * PC- UA- 173) (first pbaco) of Sop* Crook
l«»»reoptor from Povor* For*; Rood to Rottonwood Crook iacludo* junction elumbor to
Kctiv* toworog o boing pumpod from Fulton County by C*mo Crook pumping station.
PRPORATIPN.ORJ)THERJOFFICIALNAME)
I.OR.OTHER OFFICIAL NAME)
• sowomgo Syotom
20 DATE
February 2, 1971
22. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL'S TITLE
(USE SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED)
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET
4. Chattahoochee River via Rottenwood Creek Interceptor and after
treatment at proposed Chattahoochee Treatment Plant (Interim
treatment to be provided by temporary package treatment plant
until completion of permanent Chattahooehee Treatment Plant).
IS. This phase includes Initial portion of Sope Creek Interceptor being
constructed to receive sewerage from the "Game Creek" area
across the Chattahoochee River la Fulton County which will be
pumped under the river from the Came Creek pumping station now
presently being designed. Rottenwood Interceptor below Is presently
under construction and Sope Creek Contract f 102AI and the Came
Creek Pump Station are committed to an August 1971 completion
date under terms of an agreement between Cobb and Fulton Counties.
-------
RECEIVE
FEB
1971
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL.
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
DIVISIOH FOR CEORC/A WATER QUALITY CONTROL
47 Trinity Avtnwt, S.W,
Atfonfa, Georgia 30334
APPLICATION FOR A "CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
FOR A WASTE DISPOSAL
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA
PERMIT NO
DATE ISSUED
In accordance with provisions of the Georgia Water Qu ilit
and the Rules of the State Water Quality Control Board, app
below for a Construction Permit to construct the described \
APPROVED
cal
aste Disposalrfewl
by made
416),
dentified
1 RAM OF APPLICANT (CITY, TOWN, INDUSTRY. CORPORATION, INDIVID
Cobb County V ater it Sewerage Syatem
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SION TOR GCOHCIA WATER QUAUIX BBMTHQt.
I ADDRESS OF APPLICANT (STREET OR ROUTE NO.)
1771 County Farm R oad
By
J. OTY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
Marietta. Georgia 30060
Mason, P. K.
s DESCRIPTION or PROPOSED WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Approximately 2.0 miles of 60 inch diam. sanitary
itwer pipeline, complete with manhole*, tuaael*. and other acce.sorle. to provide
mrtrage for the bope Creek Area of Cobb County.
I KANE Or RECEIVING STREAM AND IT'S TRIBUTARY
SuppUm€ntal Sh«et
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ESTABLISHMENT
ESTABLISHMENT Or NOT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION)
I TfPEOr WASTE TO BE DISCHARGED (DOMESTIC. TEXTILE, CANNERY, ETC.)
D«ne»ttc (po»«ible commercial fc light induatrial)
9. VOLUME or DISCHARGED WASTE
<50 yr. ) ADF=33. ZS
MOD
II.MTIIIATED BOD (LBS/DAY)
UHTREATED
H MINIMUM RECEIVING STREAM rLOW
AFTER TREATMENT
cf.
^
Domestic 53.20 MOD cum. peak year 2020 (at Rottenwood junction)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
U MHHCIPLE FEATURES OF PRESENT AND'OR PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
See Supplemental Sheet
« LOCATION OF WASTE DISCHARGE
Chrttahoochee River
If. APPLICANT'S PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
- Schmidt, Inc.
15 OPERATOR IN CHARGE OF FACILITY
17 orFICIAL TO BE CONTACTED IF ADDITIONAL DATA IS NEEDED
«^ Heneley-Schmidt, Inc.
> ontract IIU2AI (FWc f WPC-GA-173Mfir.t +».} of Sop. Creek
bterceptor from Power. Feiy Road to Rotteawood Creek include. Junction chamber to
t*«i»e .ewerage beiag pumped from Fultoa County by Came Creek pumping .Ution.
8KWED (CITY. CORPORATION OR OTHER OFFICIAL NAME)
Cfibb Countv Water fc Sewerage System
20 DATE
February 2, 1971
\22. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL'S TITLE
County Engineer
[(USE SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED)
IQl.l;
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET
6. Chattahoochee River via Rottenwood Creek Interceptor and after
treatment at proposed Chattahoochee Treatment Plant (Interim
treatment to be provided by temporary package treatment plant
until completion of permanent Chattahoochee Treatment Plant).
13. This phase includes initial portion of Sope Creek Interceptor being
constructed to receive sewerage from the "Game Creek" area
across the Chattahoochee River in Fulton County which will be
pumped under the river from the Came Creek pumping station now
presently being designed. Rottenwood Interceptor below is presently
under construction and Sope Creek Contract #102AI and the Game
Creek Pump Station are committed to an August 1971 completion
date under terms of an agreement between Cobb and Fulton Counties.
"APPROVED
STATE OF GEORGIA
FEB 8 1971
WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
WVlSi W* KOWIA WATER QUUTY COHTIWL
By
-------
• [JNEST W. BARRETT, CHAIRMAN • ROBERT J. AUSTIN, DEPUTY • THOMAS H. BROWN • T. L. DICKSON • ERNEST P. ELLISON • OEOKSE W. LANKFORD
February 23, 1971
Mr. Asa G. Foster, Jr.
Water Quality Office
1421 Peachtree Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
RE: WPC-GA-173
Cobb County, Georgia
Dear Mr. Foster:
I am returning to you the signed Enviromental Assessment Statement
for the above referenced project.
I would like to call to your attention that the portion of this
project along the Chattahoochee River from Rottenwood Creek to
Powers Ferry Road is planned for advertisement on or before April
2, 1971. This is necessary to meet the requirements placed on us
by our agreement with Fulton County.
Since
ERNEST W. BARRETT, Chairman
Cobb County Board of Commissioners
EWBrjg
cc: Robert L. Sutton, Jr.
County Engineer
Enclosure
-------
JSV5-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PL 660 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
Applicant: Cobb County Water and Sewerage System project NO: WPC-GA-173
Address: P.O. Box 649 County: Cobb
Location of Project: Cobb County, Georgia
Brief Description: A System of Sewer lines and Treatment Plants that
will begin sewering the county. Primary service will
be to areas tributary'to the Chattahoochee River and
Lake Allatoona.
I. Probable impact of the project on environment:
See Attached Sheet
II. Any probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided:
See Attached bheet
III. Alternatives considered' with evaluation of each:
See Attached Sheet
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PL 660 WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROJECTS
I. The project at its completion will reverse the present pollution level
of the creeks and streams in Cobb County that are not only tributary to
the Chattahoochee River, but are also tributary to Lake Allatoona. At
present these streams are polluted to the point that it is unsafe for
anyone to be around or in them. This pollution is coming mainly from
septic tanks not functioning properly and existing treatment plants not
being able to handle demands placed on them.
II. The only adverse effect that can be determined is damage to the terrain
that will occur during construction.
III. Alternate methods and locations were investigated in an effort to
reduce the damage to the terrain. After careful consideration it was
determined by this office that the elimination of the polluted water
in the streams was the greatest environmental problem and must be met.
Cobb County and Fulton County combined in a joint effort to eliminate
the water pollution along the Chattahoochee River in order to reduce
the damage done to the terrain.
IV. The program is not a short term project in that all of the work being
accomplished has a life beyond the year 2020. If the work is not
accomplished the Chattahoochee River will not have any fish or marine
life in it and the life in and around the streams will be damaged or
destroyed as a result of the pollution.
¥. The two items that will be removed and cannot be restored exactly
as they exist are the trees and some of the rapids in the streams.
VI. General discussion arose in regards to the Water Pollution, Ecological
Systems, Natural Beauty and Archelogical aspects of the areas.
After numerous meetings with the general public and representatives
of various groups, it was determined by the majority of these groups
and individuals that Cobb County should precede on the following course
of action and in the order listed:
1 Install and complete the construction of the sewer lines to
combat and overcome the Water Pollution Problem existing
in our environment. .
2. Contract with .an Archelogical group to advise and aid in the
relocation of the archelogical finds on the line to protect these
3. Preserve the Ecoiogical Systems and Natural Beauty where possible
and to restore to its original state if possible.
-------
-2-
IV. Relationship between local short-term uses of environment and
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity:
bee Attacnea Sheet
V. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources:
See Attached Sheet
VI. Public objections to project, if any, and their resolution:
See Attached Sheet
(Use additional sheet(s) if needed.)
Applicant's Representative
fZL
Title
Date
(State Agency comments to be attached.)
-------
. BARRETT
COIIIIISSIONER
K08ERT J. AUSTIN
PEP. COMMISSIONER
LOUIS WATTS
KMUOER
tBW S. McNEELY
MANAGER
32 DISTRICT
HARRY INGRAM
T. L. OICKSON
S3 DISTRICT
THOMAS H. BROWN
A. L. AL BURRUS
COBB COUNTY WATER SYSTEM
115 SOUTH COBB DR.
P. 0 BOX 529
MARIETTA, GA. 30060
March 11, 1971
Mr. Asa B. Foster, Jr., P.E.
Regional Construction Grants
Program Director
Federal Water Quality Administration
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Re: WPC-GA-173
Sope Creek Interceptor Sewer
Cobb County, Georgia
Dear Mr. Foster:
Pursuant to the request of Mr. Fred Eidsness at a meeting in this office
Monday, March 8, 1971, we have arrived at the following cost estimates
for alternate solutions for this interceptor sewer between the mouth of
Rottenwood Creek and Powers Ferry Road.
1. Planned sewer as approved by Georgia Water Quality Control
Board $1,028,000
2. Tunnel between Rottenwood Creek and River Bend
Apartments, plus 2, 000 +_ L. F. of open cut 60"
sewer to Powers Ferry Road $2, 070, 000
3. Lift Station at Powers Ferry Road, with Force
Main along Akers Mill Road to Rottenwood Creek,
and a 48" Parallel Sewer to the Rottenwood
Interceptor down Rottenwood Creek to the
Chattahoochee River $1, 650, 000
The last alternate would also involve perpetual operation and maintenance
C08ts. This cost is estimated to be $150. 00 per day for the necessary
continuous 24 hour operation. Another factor would be additional damage
to the Rottenwood Gorge between the Chattahoochee River and Akers Mill
Road.
-------
Mr. Asa B. Foster, Jr. -2- March 11, 1971
The amortization of the difference in cost between Scheme 2 and Scheme 1
and the amortization of additional cost of Scheme 3, plus operation and
maintenance compared to Scheme 1, are about equal. Based on the initial
number of users to be served by this facility, the necessary increase in
sewer charges to these customers to finance this additional cost is estimated
to be $3.40 per month on an average billing.
Robert L. Sutton, Jr.
County Engineer
RLS, Jr. /jt
cc: Hensley-Schmidt, Inc.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
MAR1 6 1971
Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
On September 14, 1970, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was instructed
to study the Chattahoochee River in Metropolitan Atlanta as the site of
a possible major urban recreation area. The heart of this area is a
primitive, virtually untouched stretch of unique scenic river bordered
by granite outcroppings.
The natural beauty of a total of 20 of the 48 miles in the river study
area is threatened as a result of planned sewerline construction closely
paralleling the riverbanks.
Applications for Federal assistance have been made by the local governments
for all of these projects to the Water Quality Office. Current projects
include the Rottenwood Creek and Sope Creek interceptor sewer projects,
Cobb County, Georgia, and the Game Creek, River Ridge, and Roberts Drive
interceptor sewer projects of Fulton County, Georgia. Construction has
been underway for several months on portions of the Rottenwood Creek and
Roberts Drive lines. Both include several miles of high value scenic
riverbank. Such construction appears to require the preparation and
review of an environmental impact statement consistent with the requirements
of Section 102(2)
-------
While our main concern is the potentially adverse effects of sewerline
construction on the scenic and recreation values, potentially enhancing
features of this project—such as use of sewerline right-of-way easements
for public hiking or bicycling paths and access to the river—should be
considered in the preparation of the environmental statement. The Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation's Southeast Regional Office can furnish assistance
in the preparation and planning of appropriate features.
While we fully understand and support your efforts to protect the water
quality of the Chattahooch.ee River, sewerline construction must be subject
to the same requirements for environmental protection as any other federally
supported development. Therefore, we urge immediate completion of environ-
nental statements on all segments of the sewerlines along the Chattahoochee
River from Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek which are being constructed with
Federal funds or'assistance. Further, it would appear appropriate to place
a hold on present construction activity pending review and approval of
environmental impact statements. This action is necessary if we are to
avoid irreversible damage.
Sincerely yours,
^ Secretary of the Interior
Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
1626 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
A. R.-SHIRLEY
DIRECTOR
Georgia Forestry Commission
7 HUNTER ST., S. W. ROOM 645 - ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30334
April 20, 1971
HUGH M. DIXON
Chairman, Vldolla
W. GEORGE BEASLEY
Ltvonla
M.-£. GARR4SON
Honor
LUKE H. MORGAN
Eastmon
ALEXANDER SESSOMS
Coptell
Mr. Fred A. Eidsness, Jr.
Sanitary Engineer
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Eidsness:
This is in reference to your letter of April 16, 1971 concerning extent of damage
trees can endure in sewer line construction projects. (John Miaon is assigned to
a special study for the next few months.) Therefore, I am answering your letter.
Enclosed is a copy of your letter to which I will refer to in answering your
questions.
Question No. 1 and No. 2 - It is best to stay at least ten-fifteen feet from the
base of a tree when putting in a sewer trench. If a trench is any closer than
this the chances are that not only large roots will be torn away or severely
damaged but hair roots will suffer too. Hair roots are responsible for bringing
minerals and water into the tree 's system for its survival. Large roots go
out in radial directions to help support the tree. Therefore, a number of large
roots cut away could cause a tree to fall over in a windstorm.
Question No. 3 - Fill dirt applied around the base of a tree can be quite dQt&vsnen&sl,,,
A certain amount of oxygen must get to the root system in order for a tree to survive.
When an abnormal layer of earth is applied to the base of a tree then complications
will arise. Sometimes in a period of six months a tree will die due to fill earth
or it might take as long as three to four years. The signs of a tree dying from
fill earth are:
1. The foliage size will become dwarf in comparison to healthy
foliage.
2. The foliage will become sparse and will tend to have a yellowish
cast during the spring and summer months.
3. A general dying condition beginning at the top and going down
the trunk. Compaction can occur and cut off water and oxygen to the
root system. Of course, when a tree is weak, susceptibility to insect
or disease rises greatly.
Only a few inches of fill earth is needed to cause species such as bellow Poplar and
American Beech trees to die.
-------
Aft*. Fred A. Eidsness, Jr.
April 20, 1971
Question 4 - Six Flags Over Georgia Corp. have trees about six inches in diameter
relocated. However, this is a large task and takes special equipment. (Diameter
is measured at a point 4 1/2 feet from the ground) .
Fill dirt cannot remain at the base of a tree for several months and then be dug
awry. The reason is that the tree Dill have suffered from being in a state of
shock.
Cut roots exposed in sewer trenches are excellent port of entries for a decay
pathogen. In a period of years a tree could die due to the injury to the root
system.
Aft*. EidsnesSj if you need more information on the subject covered above, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Wilson E. Wright
Metro Forester
Metro Atlanta Area
WHW:sf
Fncl.
-------
~~\ n
APR 30 1971
Honorable Rogers C. B. Norton
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Dear Bog<
Thank yon for your letter of March 16, 1971, inquiring
into the status of the Chattabooehee River Sewage Project
in Cobb County, Oeorgia. and your request to sew a draft
l Xispaet Statement on that progri
In the course of developing • draft iopact «tatea*mt
on this project, our regional office na» been in close
contact with your Bureau of Outdoor Becreation, which has
been «o»t concerned about the project design. We share
your concern for preserving natural surroundings ac«5 th#
Envii-unaantal •xotection ftfemry is, wherever possible,
cosnUtted to protecting the country's wilderness ar*ac.
It is uy understanding that aytessjsnt bus been reached to
preserve the palisades along th* Cobb County side of the
river so that they nwy sovsday be ruelaiaed for a %rildern«ss
This is reflected in the draft which X am enclosing
for fonaal review by you and your office. I hope you wi
give the natter expedited attention.
urgency of proceeding with this project can hardly
be overemphasized in view of the poor water quality con-
ditions in the Chattahoochee River. A federal-state
enforoesMBt conference requires both Cobb and Fulton
Countie* to have cssMrtl •! facilities in operation by
December, 1972, and this important project is a key eleasnt
in swetiag this deadline. Further urgency arises by virtu*
-------
Honorable Rogers e* B, Morton
of th* fact that citizens of the am* oa* the ri
and sport, and recant stadia* show that the
taaination is too high for ht»an contact ajporta by • factor
of three to six. while this rirer is glMsjIftoi for fefljlU
vater suppli*», Vrhicb peraits a nlgHssr bnetaarial lave;!
this is exce-«d*d a stibstaixtial portion of tte tivs «t tbt
raw vater intakes of the city of Atlanta sad BeTalto Oovnt;
Hater-work* officials are on constant alext to fara%sjet tlui
safety of over a Billion people*
X trust you viil give tkia »att*r yew* ynapfc attaation,
and o«r regional office appreciates yowr offac ta aia«t again
vith the Bur«ftu of Outdoor K»cr«»cioa f f UMT* ara- any
further o&re«olv«d questions iirrolving tlM pcojact. It is
«y ui«5«r standing tlxat the Regional Director of tha ««r«au
of Outdoor recreation has s«nt our regional offioa a latter
concurring in the basic design of the peo}*et aa now proposed
la the attached *t&t«o«nt*
Your interest, is greatly appreciated*
Sincerely
Willi
•aaloearft
oci Mr. Carroll
Mr.
(2)
noo ,
Region IV /
CFabrikaat/ro
-------
June 25, 1971
Htnsley-Schmidt, Inc.
Interstate North
Marietta, Georgia
Gwtlemen:
Herein *e are submitting an interim report on the •rcheoiogieai
salvage at the Standing i-eachtree site, 9-Co-l. He realise that you
ar« interested in the appraisal of tne archeological and scientific
values that will be permanently destroyed in the construction of th*
Jtottenwood Creek *-lant on this particular acrage.
On the basis of eleven weeko of survey, operating under our
contractual agreement, we have accomplished the following results:
In one contiguous and related prehistoric village unit, cor.prisiiig
oter ten acres, we have exposed five recognizable house patterns
btlonging to the village. *e have recovered a good sampling of pottery
and other artifactual materials, adequate to diag»oae the fairly precise
archeological determination of the time and cultural affinities of
these particular villagers.
All of the structures uncovered thus far and all of the exposed
t«8t areas indicate extensive truncation of the site throughout the
latter part of the nineteenth century, extending forty years into the
present century. The t furcated zone of plowed and disturbed eoil is
between b1 to 18 inches deep. We find only the basal reanants of
»«rtical post supports of the cabins, and occasionally partially fused
Ud charcoal blackenea hearth areas.
No in-place exhibit requiring possible preservative treatment in
the ground seeits possible. The field collections and data will provide
»d«quate illustrative u.ateria] for any local museum exhibit which might
b» planned in the future.
We consicer that this portion of the project carried to conclusion
•ill suffice to clear the area of ten acres, where the disposal unit»
•ill be conetructed, for building operations without destroying any
pertinent data.
-------
To the North and taet is the larger industrial tract, covering
an additional 80 acres, which will need to be tested and appraised
by the same procedure we have employed in the present instance. In
as much as construction will come later in this section, presumably
arrangements can be tade for clearance there in line with the tine
latitudes of the completed archeological salvage.
We are enclosing a map of the relative location of the excavated
areas, the archeological structures and features, in relation to the
surveyed but unexcavated portions of the tract.
Beyond the present critical area of ten acres, to the immediate
South, contiguous with the right-of-way of the Seaboard Railway, the
survey has uncovered evidence of a fairly extensive village belonging
to an earlier period of prehistoric occupation. There is only a
slight horizontal fringing overlap where this earlier village impacts
OB the ten acre strip. The major archeological village unit is
traversed by the Seaboard right-of-way which has incorporated and
staled in a mound and deep midden, estimated in places to be four
feet thick.
The whole village unit of this earlier site is identified with
an early development of the same culture which later gave rise to the
nationally known site of the Etowah Mounds near Cartersville, Ga.
lot significant point so far as you are concerned, is that this
important archeological villg* lies outside the are* of the
Bottenwood Plant.
The projected Plant might intersect a portion of this early
Etonh village. Actual determination can be Bade only on the basis
of finalizing present plant construction plans to insure this
particular section of the site will not be involved In the Rottenwood
Plant operation.
l
Kelly/,
Project Direc
Dictated in the field.
9-Co-l Site
Junt 25, 1971
-------
ROADS AND REVENUES
I'.'.TW. PAntlETT, CHAIRMAN Q ROBERT J. AUSTIN. DEPUTY 0 THOMAS H. 8ROWN • T. L. DICKSON 9 ERNEST P. ELLISON © GEORGE W. UANKFOHD
June 28, 1971
Mr. Asa G. Foster, Jr., P.E.
Regional Construction Grants Program Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
RE: Cobb County Sewerage Program
Project No. WPC-Ga-173
Dear Sir:
In response to your question regarding the relation of the Cobb County
Sewerage Program to Kennesaw Mountain Park and the proposed Blue Ridge
Parkway, we are pleased to furnish the following information:
Kennesaw Mountain Park - The park has inside its boundries certain
areas of private land that is being developed and in one drainage basin the
City of Marietta has a sewage treatment plant. These are to be served under
the Cobb County Sewerage Program, but will not be served under the Unit A
of the program.
Blue Ridge Parkway- Since the location hearing on the Blue Ridge Parkway
has just been held, the final location is not exact but from our understanding
of its proposed location near Acworth, Georgia. This location will put such
a small portion in Cobb County that it will not be affected by Unit A of the
Cobb County Sewerage Program.
If there are any further questions, please contact me.
jrs,
ROBERT L. SuTMW, JR. s P.E.
County Engineer
RLS/hs
-------
sr
-••;. Oi~ ROADS AND REVENUES
ErWES'f W. BARRETT, CHAIRMAN • ROBERT J. AUSTIN, DEPUTY • THOMAS H. BROWN • T. L. DfCKSON • ERNEST P. ELLJSON • GEORGE W, LANKFORD
June 28, 1971
Mr. Asa B. Foster, Jr. , P.E.
Regional Construction Grants Program Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
RE: Cobb County Sewerage Program
Project No. WPC-GA-173
Dear Mr. Foster:
I am attaching two letters from our consulting Engineers, Hensley-
Schmidt, Inc., which indicate the study and review that went into our
decision to locate our Chattahoochee Treatment Plant, plus the report
from the Corps of Engineers regarding the flood plain of the Chattahoochee
River at our existing South Cobb Treatment Plant and our Chattahoochee
River Treatment Plant Site.
The site for the Chattahoochee River Treatment Plant as selected is
the most desirable site. In addition to the reasons furnished by our
Consulting Engineer, it was also selected and sized to be able to support
tertiary treatment in the future plus having a potential of relieving
part of the future needs of the City of Atlanta.
If you have any further questions, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT L. SUTON, JR., P.E.
County Engineer
RLS/hs
-------
HENSLEY-SCHMIDT, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4562
June 25, 1971
Mr. Robert I,. Sutton, Jr. , County Engineer
(!iil>li (!oimly I'll i)'i in • i • r i i ii1 I )e p.ir I n lent
IJ. (). I',ox (>•]'!
Marietta, Georgia '.iUOoO
Re: Chattahoochee Rivor Sewage
Trealment Plan!
Selection of Site
Dear Mr. Sutton:
As requested we art' summarising below factors involved in the selectim
of the ]) ropi >s ed Chat ( ahoor lice llivev Se\vai;c Trealment Plan', site. Our
allach'-d m,"i[) slin\vs (lie localion of various siles \\lri< li \\-ere studied. Sit
No. /. i:. I he i i K .ili'in lin.illy :;clc-< led.
The various sites are discussed below:
Site No. 1
This site was determined to be undesirable due to the following:
A. It is located upstream of the City of Atlanta Raw Water Intake
and would have resulted in \:ndue haxarcl.
T). Since the .site \v.is located hi i;h up river in the drainage area,
e •-; I e 11:; i v e p 11111 p i 11 < • r»I (lie t 11 \v< • r po:; i t i (>n i > I file d r. t in "i ; M i . i r i •. i
v. i >i 11 d lie i n v i > i v < 11 .
C. Cxiylinu. and proposc'd land use; indicated il would be very
close to residential development, which is undesirable.
Site No. 2
Site No. 2 was selected for the following reasons:
A. The- site is opposite the Atlanta Raw Water Intake with plant
cffHient piping discharging below the Raw Water Intake.
. TOUNDA ' .'^JS. '
-------
Mr. Robert I,. Siitlon. Jr.
R. The silo is located on properly /.oned for industrial develop-
ment. There is a major existing sewage treatment plant
nearby, and proposed adjacent development is anticipated
to be of an industrial nature. No problems from residential
development arc- anticipated at this site.
C. Being undeveloped, and at the fringe of existing industrial
development, the land costs are more favorable than at
most other sites.
I'. Tin- sile is .1 < •( e p| ,i I >1 e I rom Ihe standpoint of location within
ils d rail i.i re aie.i lo 11 11 n i i o i/. e (be pimuMii!1. up river of Ihe
lower portions o| | be drainage area. 1.1 is less ideal (ban
Sites 3, -I and .^, but better than Site- 1.
I7!. The site wa .s user] lor agriculture unli.l several deeados ai;o.-
Trees, topographic and other natural leatures are not of
outstanding or unusual significance. Archeological iTivesli-
g a: ions are being conducted to extract data prior to any con-
struction, and at. this time no ar choological discoveries have
been made winch would merit in-placo exhibits.
Sit.- N... '.
Til is \\.IS 1 In- Slli- ' i r I ]'.1 n.i ! I V seleeled lor lite Si-VvMJ'.e I re . I I I 1 11 • 111 pl.llll .Ii ill.-
time of the preliminary report in ll.>67. In tin- period between l')i,7 ami
1969 the property chan;2,<-d in ownership and the new owner constructed
buildings rind did extensive grading work as part of an overall development
plan. The reduced acreage available and t be increased cost for pa r! i ;i I Iv
developed land made this original site no longer feasible.
Site No. 4
This site \va s eon si de red undesirable for two reasons:
A. I ' i'r • I 11111 ii.i r •./ in-r • i| i .1 I i c HI .--. mdi< .iled lli.- prii e per ii re \vniild be
. i 111 > r ii'-. i ii i.i I < I -.- I r i | > I' • I I i.i I ' 11 :. 11 r r 0111 id i 11 :• . i i • r e.i j1e din- I o i I .•:
s I rat e ;; i e I oe.: I i . MI , i d |.i 11 y ' s
Plant Atkinson. An industrial use related to the Plant
Atkinson operation is proposed in the future.
R. The rugged terrain would have, resulted in very heavy earthwork
c ost s.
-------
Mr. 'Robert L. Sutton, Jr. 3 June"25, 197!
gtc No. 5
This and other sites below Plant Atkinson were eliminated due to the
following reasons:
A. The <-xl cnsivr development of Plant Atkinson a lorn1, the bank
ol lln- ( )hat 1 ali< M >e I ie e Kiver makes installation ol a r.ravily
sewer at I he cilice i>l llic river .ilmosl an i mpossibi lii y.
B. Existing and proposed residential development would have
been very close 1o any site below Plant Atkinson.
Site No. 2 was selected afler careful study of relation to environment,
functional and operational considerations and economy of construction.
We feel the proper site was selected.
Please contact us i!" additional data is needed.
Very I r ul v von r s ,
I IKNSLl-IY-SCllMlDT, INC.
,/Joe F.. Bork, Jr., P. E.
JFBmnw
Attachments
<^c: Ildnorable F.rnest Vv". T'.arrflt
-------
. : ...
. i
I . . ..v \ ....... • , •>
. •: • • \ ••• ,
•
j • - .•',.
-
*-*• :•,: >N
N
•
*£g*y& v7/—-
*t^_ > -((«lt V '^ • • ^ * '
*?vP^Xy%
•'^. li 1
•;. • • . ,| •
i.- • • . • CL^; I '"y.-^
:•{'„ , " .' . ' ; v • >'.'/' . ' • '.
• \n'inrr> X 'M\;-'-W- '•
i . --_ ^:N^,..4,;,/••> . "•••./- • grl •, . ><
-,t;.:--- "t -\ f';'> X_: -X-. • -'^ q
;fc, •-**•&?:• :'S,TE©-^
>V,-v;-v •/ t*. %.,:.-•- ','
• ;; vy. f^->^:. ' «J ./:
; :-' si." 3?,vt" ^''rV* " /'/'.• --
•: ••!• f.^.^-X ••/'.,. -*•},' ' -N ;i
• \ .V . fc . _ .•"<* V" ..
v
- .
. *•
f^
."..-. . i1/
.-.•'• .'/
*J»- ^ •*.
'•
••• . •
' -•-••' b"
. - •
' -.
- . , \:>l i -. •« *-^
>• *- « b»tf lh«KShi-». ' \ " *
•• r.-.v,-..^;.--. ' >'>*« -• i""' •
• •"'-/.';.'••';•.•':••' y «' ,
•:v%?^:'f?\,%
• •
,»: v '••"
• .
.
--
*
,' ...o,^
•v It
•'
«i « terv -I
I !'
-------
HENSLEY-SCHMIDT. INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Juno 2.5, 1971
f
HAMHV II W«* Ik*
l*tr»*« Rfw,* to
"5 so
2<»0 IWT«l#f AT*
4050 - 456Z
Mr. Robert L. Sutton, Jr., County Engineer
Cobb County Engineering Department
P. O. Box 649
Marietta, Georgia 30060
Rr: Cobb County Sewerage Program
duitlahoot:h«:e Sewage Treatment Plant
South Cobb Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Siitton:
As requested, we are attaching copies of correspondence with the Corps of.
Engineers regarding construction of the Chattahoochee and South Cobb Treat-
ment Plants within the flood plain of the Chattahoochee River.
Prior to this correspondence we contacted the Corps of Engineers to establish
their SO year flood elevation. All building ground floor elevations and tops
of aeration tanks, aerobic digestors, chlorine contact tanks, etc. are set
above I In- f>0 year flood.
At the Chattahoochee Treatment Plant site a severe flood would surround
certain of the tankage, requiring a boat for operation. The operating features
of the plant would not be affected by the flood. This is considered preferable
to extensive diking which would interfere with flood flows.
Oar attached letter of May 27, 1971 to Mr. Trafton-W. Fleetwood of the Corps
of Engineers, summari'/,es the points discussed with him in a. meeting of May 20,
1971. A reply of June 14, 1971 from Colonel R. P. Tabb of the Corps of
Engineers is also attached.
f- ''-; OKI- u iul«; i-<; | ;mf|i ii)' I haf. l.lu- (Jorps ol Knj;i n«'«> rs has m> nbjor.l.inns lo ln«*
I ri>al it ii-n | (ilanl. const rtid inn ;il lln- ('.\\:\\ lah«>o<:h«-i- Iviver or South Cobb Tnraf-
itient I'lanl. sites.
. FOUNDATIONS. >< Y OR OF L EC TRIC. INOUSTI1IA- WASTE. Brr RCA1ION. S EWERAGC. STREETS. STRUCTURES, TRAFFIC. TRANSPORTATION. 1
. TUMNC15, WATER WORKS
I HAriAllfin.iA II I
-------
,Mr. UobcH !,. Sul.l.ein, ,1 r. . -2- Juno 25, l')7t
Please contact tis if ahy additional data is needed.
Very trxily yours,
HENSLEY-SCHMIDT, INC.
I/ Joe F. Bork, Jr., P. E.
JFM. Jr. /.it
A 1 1 .")( li I ) !<• ill •:
Cf.: I lono r;vl >'»• l-ji-iu-sl W. Knrnrtt
-------
tr:»lio:>
•pft Ol" V':i;.i >!<•< r .
Till-. r.-iii.ii,-.-.
N ii ><.",.!
I i • • i , i ' i , •. i. f |i -i H I [' I.-?
'':•£&&•.
,v'ic\\-n;',(- Troalni^.Tt Pl'ml •:
>~;.obl> f'.ounly Si-wcT Sv 1> m
(".ol)1) v,'.oun1y, > ii.'ori! '•>
:.-. :•.-< ''orih yoxi r cuvrcnt volirir.-: r.-lalin-: Vo
lUnctinr.:. wiilv.n^h. .•--.. ' V."-1 <•'•' :-.-;'.n1.-\loil rivrrs, in mn- ,!! - u. jr.j.v, on
IT 201 b.
l,»n1^ 1.. !.«• !<»> :'1--'
. . c onnl v - vi flc- ::.-vv.-
• r r^ol -.. , - :.-:nl-. t'..orina. A:' you nrvi r-cMl, I
jiffy flosrri',0 ,).,. , .,,;,-••:.- i'.-'.'c'iri.ilin- 1.
-------
Mr.
,,.. , | ,',,,,,, •':,,., T r.
I ,.;,!< : ,
•tviUi. •'
re*!1':- r'
tn ih<- '~,. • . '••'. '''I' :'' 1 r>.-.''- '-:i
strxu 1u' -. ..•• :T i -ins ''•• i «••:
-*. J r«n»
. ',.'. i i-(>illi'ril1.> 1
Auil '»!' ItV. '
..,:'.in (;-iih- . Iho '10 yoar £l«>o«l vithout .-li'cfi
.:--,,!: i.-,-! fUlks ATf SOt .iIjOVi ,tl\ti'' i ! •:' t''• I- • ( i:f|>< ! .'.I nil"!'1 •..'.•!:;. ;
1 . •' -I1' j!l-' \ ••!!>• \- .
iii nji o\ <• j~
P! 'J1' ;- v.'lu-ri- ''il-itir; is omiitc-rl t'u- --ar-io-is
> ,- or.. u> h. : v io:-.-;-:tnt ion n t.,' io -ikt'n HM-,.
> • .v ;• .: • rca s i-:' i n ti-liatin.-1 - A ;i\ ! i' i 1 i. n; ; • , ; :i
. IM Li.-.-! l.-v.-l.:, ;HK! r-"'-'!- .-«I'!v :i°. !!('! ' '
or .i
ilood rhanru-1
s. :-<-s or froof .t»nl . :-o «lf->^ -s •' « .
:'.-o;-u '.li ,....;•,--'. >.. -a?i- ii. i'-.1:\}-i-s: '!i-.\ ai'.- MO I ct»-i'-. }'[(• n-cl ;i s arh'c rn'-l v a!'!->" .!!•
th.^ Ir-rli-.v •' ic ."t'l'ic i.-;i<-'. • •! tli.- Pf-"i-v.-a\ -. AfMilio:i;il!y, one location wil; 'u- in
-1.lv b;-. c.!'.-\-. ... ; . r a;-.--f «• f-a 1 . •'! bv •• • -x : s! i nf- Hrif! -.-,•• <-ni !J;IP!< in»-ni clisn---.; n^-^! :• — •
'It is r-th-o oar ••• n:!«- i-si -\p'h r-j llv-' h--c-.->u;:" "!" the rbuvf- factors iho jnsrt-al intions
arc not >;, i ,-• ! •.'•!•. '.'..• <•. 'b. f^ ••;•;: ,i»" |-".i:--iTif 1 'liry n ro oxrn'V%t ]!Vi--i
I'm- ronl :',.M>I'^.M '••••;! ''M"' '•' 1'" !.';("; ', i \ • • r •< ml ' ! ' i- f>.) rr. Act "inr.- 'hi , •:•
Timnic i ;vil ' ;i < M ; •' ; -• . " •• .•.•!• !< -.-iif atl'-nfion, i-.- .»v,'i-V'- r , Ili.it 1'i< •• i .T.' ;• I i a ' =>
'will coi;1 c . !>v.l <• T> . u,in! -on. «.• \vi\;;.-h
CXv-rript. • -] --it til ir: • > : <-.
\'i i v 1 m I y yon rs .
11 KN^Ti J^' -SCHMIDT, INC.
' » ./V
uTiuKii'uy»
_, U -
Hoy f-/i-.ir.ri-. I*. '•'-.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
South Atlantic Division, Corps of Enginairs
510 Title Buildini. 30 Pryor Strwt. S.l.^
Atlanta, Giorgn 30303
SADYF 1* June 1971
Mr. J. Roy Fraser
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc.
Suite 220
290 Interstate North Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Dear Mr. Fraaer:
Your letter of 27 May to Mr. Fleetwood of ay staff satisfactorily
sutoraarizes the discussions of the 20 May meeting concerning the
Chnttahoochee and South Cobb waste treatment plants.
It should be noted that the Corps of Engineers does not establish
the degree of flood protection for sewage treatment facilities; this
is a responsibility of EPA. As stated in your letter, there are two
major problems in developing flood plain areas: (1) direct flood
damage Co the proposed structures; and (2) the constriction of flood*
way channel by the proposed development which causes higher flood
stages upstream. The net effect of the flood plain development on
streamflow conditions can be evaluated; however, such an evaluation
requires an extensive bydrologic investigation including detailed
topographic surveys of the before and after-construction condition!
of the flood plain. Ultimately, the final decision on the location
of a sewage treatment plant must be baaed on an evaluation of both
the environmental factors and economic considerations.
From the review of the preliminary site plena for the two sewage
treatment plants, it was observed that there would be minimal adverse
effects of flood stages and that the facilities would be inundated
only under extreme flood conditions. Accordingly, it was concluded
that from the standpoint of flood plain management, the Corps would
not object to the proposed construction of two sewage treatment plants
for Cobb County as shown on the site plans. The Corps will be glad to
review Lhc final construction plans if Cobb County, or EPA, doaires
detailed comments concernlnH the construction ot subject facilities In
S'he I loud plain.
-------
SADYF
As indicated in your letter, discharges from municipal sewage treat-
ment plants are exempted at present from the permit authority of the
Corps under the 1899 River and Harbor Act, however the policies
concerning the protection of the environment are under review and
could br changed in the future. I am sure you ar« aware that the out-
fall s nnd associated structures related to the plants will require
pcrmitr, under Section 10 of the 1899 Act for those portions lying below
oi-iH.il/irv My.li wnter in navigable wntcrs and their tributaries.
I trust the above comments clarify the position of the Corps concerning
flood plain development. If we can be of further service, you can
conr.nct Mr. Fleetwood of ray staff.
Sincerely,
R. P. TABB
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Deputy Division Engineer
-------
t; OUMTY
«,N • ROBERT J AUSTIN. DEPUTY • THOMAS H. MOWN • T. L. DICKBON • ERNEST P. ELLISON • GEORGE W. LANKFORD
June 28, 1971
Mr. Asa B. Foster, Jr., P.E.
Regional Construction Grants Program Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
RE: Cobb County Sewerage Program
Project No. WPC-GA-173
Dear Sir:
I am transmitting to you a copy of our archeological study being
conducted by the County along our various line location and at wastewater
treatment plants.
Exploration and salvage are being conducted on the site of the
Chattahoochee Treatment Plant and the Rottenwood Creek Temporary Treatment
Plant Site, which are the same with the idea of having an in-place exhibit
at this site. At this time, we have not found anything worthy of constructing
this exhibit.
None of the digging to date have demonstrated or produced any finds worthy
of preserving as an in-place exhibit.
Cobb County even though we have not had any success to date, intends to
continue these investigations ahead of the proposed construction in hopes
of finding an in-place exhibit.
I would like to assure that Cobb County is concerned with its history
and preserving it for the future.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT L. SUTTON, JR., P.E.
County Engineer
RLS/hs
-------
>HILtP A.LUTIH
CHAB4.CC Mi Li. CM
HENS LEY-SCHMIDT, INC. ****».»*«»**,**
w. Htmmrrr MCCI
CONSULTING ENGINEERS HA««»O.«UU.
4firO2"*5 TKO SCHULCft
nut.** j. SUTTON
WILUAM T. SWAIN
muicm C.TWMS
24, 197 I HMMT H-WLKUMOM
PLEASt REPLY To
MO lwra*TAT> NORTH PARKWAY
ATLANTA, OBOiraiA SO33B
TMPHQNCi (4O4) 43S-7IS*
Mr. Robert L. Sutton, Jr., County Engineer
Cobb County Engineering Departnent
P. 0. Box 649
Marietta, Georgia 30060
Re: Arcbeological Study
Chattaboocbee River Sewage Treatment Site
Dear Mr. Sutton:
Transmitted herewith are two (21 copies of a report by Mr. Larry Meier and
others on "Appraisal Of The Archeologlcal Resources, Cobb and Fulton Counties,
Georgia, and Other Related Areas Of The Chattaboocbee River Valley."
Please note that with specific reference to the Chattahoochee River Sewage
Treatment Plant Site the report states that to date no archeologtcal features
have been discovered which are suitable for in-place exhibit, and once the
date has been extracted and analyzed, no further preservation Is feasible.
With the archeologlcal work nownore than two-thirds complete it appears unlikely
that there will be any conflict between archeological considerations and the
proposed treatment plant construction.
After completion of your review, will you please transmit a copy of this
archeological report to the Environmental Protection Agency, with any consents
you may have.
Very truly yours,
HENSLEY-SCHNUDT, INC.
F. Bork, Jr., P. E.
JFB/ps
cc: Honorable Ernest W. Barrett
Fulton County Pub) ic Works Department
Mayes, Sudderth and Etheredge, Inc.
Fulton County Planning Department
Cobb County Planning Department
Southeastern Archeological Research Center, national Park Service
Blythe Brothers Construction Company
?ORTs.Bs:BiE:s. FOUNDATIONS. HYDROELECTRIC. INDUSTRIAL WASTE,RECREATION,sn«iiASe,STi»ttTS. STRUCTURES,T«*rric,TRANSPORTATION,TUNNELS,WATER WORKS
-'-N~A. GEOWC.iA CHATTANOGC-VTENNrSSTE NEW GB'-EAN S, -OC . SI AN &
-------
ARCHEOIOGICAL SURVEY OP COBB COtWW
c/o PEULIBKXX HQH SCHOOL SIIB
ClrcU
6Mt|la. 30059
943 1310
June 221 1971
I-iens le y- wJclv -.idt, Inc.
Interstate liorth
marietta, Georgia
Gentlemen:
The enclosed report is herewith transmitted as per your
reqv.est by letter June 21st.
r~ae "Appraisal of the Archeclogical He sources of Cobb
and ^-Iton Counties, Georgia" is very preliminary due to the
fact that the amount of materials recovered dxzring the survey
r,7ill require nore tirae than anyone could anticipate. The 183
sites hav? produced a nass of data and artifacts in such b'*.!lc
that it is not possible to make a valid interpretive report
in a brief period of tine.
I believe that the reconmendations listed in the Appraisal
to be correct, within reason and xTitliin the resources of the
local governments, i?ederal agencies, local civic organizations
and general public of the greater Atlanta area.
Please duplicate and transmit copies to the following:
uhairman, Jobb County Board of Cortaissioners
\
Cobb Counter Engineer
llayes, Suddeth and .-thcridge
nviron nental ^Totection Agency
Fulton County Planning Dept.
Cobb County Planning Oept.
southeastern Archeological Research Center,
National Park Service, liacon, Georgia.
Rcsoectfull
-------
CITY OF ATLANTA • CLAYTON COUNTY . COSB COUNTY . DCKALB COUNTY . FULTON COUNTY . OWINNETT COUNTY
ATLANTA REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
900 Glenn Building • Atlanta, Georgia 3O3O3 • Telephone (4O4) 522-7577
Nelson Sev er mghaui. Chairman Harmon M. Bern, Secretary-Treasurer
Cecil A Alexander, Vice-Chairman Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director
June 28, 1971
Mr. Joe Franzmathes
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Franzmathes:
I refer to Ga. 173 Cobb County Sewer Construction Project. We
have reviewed this project over many months and have also
commented upon the environmental impact statement.
Our Commission approved the sewer project several months ago
and revised our sewer plan to conform at the same time. It
has been our view that the environmental statement did not
call for an official A-95 review in the same way we handle
construction grant requests. We cannot approve or disapprove
the statement; we can only discuss it. Who is to say if the
ecological analysis is adequate?
I consider A-95 requirements have been met and hope all
agencies concerned can get on with the job. The project
conforms to regional and local plans, it is indeed a good
one, and the environmental study sufficiently satisfies
requirements set forth in various regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Glenn E. Bennett
Executive Director
GEB r cp
cct State Clearinghouse
Mr. Robert L. Button, Cobb County Engineer
-------
Date: June 28, 1971
Mr. Joe Franzmathes I
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
FROM: Name: Glenn E. Bennett
Title: Executive Director
Regional Clearinghouse: Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW
Applicant: Cobb County
Project: Ga. 173 - Environmental Impact Statement
State Clearinghouse Control Number:
Regional Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Richard S. Courtney
The Regional Clearinghouse has reviewed the Summary Notification for the above
project.
As a result of the review it has been determined that the proposed project is
in accord with regional and local plans, programs and objectives as of this
date. You should now complete and file your formal application with the appro-
priate Federal agency(s). A copy of this form must be attached to your appli-
cation.
If you have any questions, please contact the clearinghouse staff member named
above, who will be pleased to assist you.
Comment: The Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission has
approved this project and has noted that an environmental study
has been completed. Fulton County and the City of Atlanta have
also taken note of the statement. We consider all clearances
to have been completed. Appropriate State agencies have been
involved from the beginning.
Copy to State Clearinghouse
_Copy to Mr. Robert L. Button, Cobb County Engineer
Fold
State of Georgia
BUREAU OF STATE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Form RC-A95-4
(May 70)
SPB-70-4-70
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
/
ARCIIEOLOGICM, SDRVEV Of COBB COUNT*
c/O'-PEIUlLBBMfflt TIBH flPHPffti SHX
P«bbl*fcrook CircU
Habloton, Georgia. 30059
PhOM 94ft 1310
REQUEST FOR A SALVAGE ARCHBOLOQICAL PRDORAM
9-Co-l, STAHDIKG PEACHTREE VILLAGE
The site of the proposed Cobb-Fulton Sewage Treatment Plant on the
Chattahoochee River across frora Bolton is also an archeological site of
great ethno-historical and pre-historical importance. The village of
Standing Peachtree, 9Co-l#, is well documented in Georgia and National
Archives.1 The very name "Peachtree11, so much an integral part of Atlanta
and the area's history, has its origin at this site. Originally the village
was located in both Cobb and Fulton Counties, however, progressive construc-
tion of public facilities has completely destroyed the. Fulton site, 9-Fu-10.
Standing Peachtree as an historic site has import beyond the local
level, since the role it played in history had national implications.
Indeed, the Chattahoochee River at this point was established in the Treaty.
of Paris as the western boundary of the newly formed United States. The
village, with its peculiar location onthe river, was chosen as the loca-
tion for an experiment in military transportation in 1813. A small boat-
yard, guarded by a stockaded fort, was constructed to build flatboats to
ship military stores one hundred and thirty miles south to. Fort Mitchell,
* 9- Georgia, Co - Cobb County, 1 - First Site Found in the County.
*Wilbur Kurta, 19$0 in Early Georgia, "The Village of Standing Peachtree."
•Eugene Mitchell in Atlanta Historical Quarterly, 1$28, "Standing Peachtree."
Map, Johnathan Coffee, "Sketch Hap of the Cherokee Country," 1828.
-------
REQUEST FOR A SALVAGE ARCHRJLOOKH,
9-Co-l, Standing Peaehtrm
just below modern-day Sblumbun, Ga. Theee supplies were oM* by (ten.
Andrew Jackson in his campaigns against tht Creek and JWnrit Indians.
»
The commander of the Standing Paachtree outpost nis It. Cteorge R. Oilmer,
who later became governor of Georgia and was Instrumental in the removal
of the Cherokee Nation from this State*
Beyond the purely historic value of the site^ there is ,the scientific
date to be considered in terms of ethnography and archeology. Sometime
af'-er 1755 and before 1782, the Cherokees invaded and occupied the Cobb
County portion of the village, creating a confrontation between members
of the latter Nation and the Creek Indians still living at 9-Pu-10,
across the river. This we know from documentation; however, preliminary
• • -
tests carried out this summer gave evidence that the site had been occupied
for at least five hundred years and perhaps even longer. The transition
period between prelvistoric "Standing Peachtree" and the later historic
era is one which ethnographers and archeologista know very little in the
Southeaster]! United Slates. The availability of a site which can be iden-
tified absolutely by documentation and then excavated stratigraphically
will allow researchers to establish concrete chronologies which are of
great importance in the interpretation of American prehistory.
The validity of investigation at °-Co-l must be understood in terms
of availability of such sites over the country-side. In recent years cite
after site has been destroyed without investigation or recordation. One
half Or the present site has been totally destroyed without the most
elementry investigation. The datA both for history and ethnography has
-------
REQUEST FOR A SALVAGt-', ARCIIBOLDGICAL PROGRAM
9_Co-l, Standing Poadiiroe Village -3-
been lost and is beyond recovery for study. 9-Co-i will yield not only
»
scientific material, thus preserving some element for study, but the
County government li.in expressed the desire to create a small museum, perhaps
over an in-place exli.ll.it such as a ceremonial structure or burial complex
and incorporate the whole into the design of the Treatment Plant. The
greater metropolitan arc a of Atlanta haa no such installation at present
and a museum of this type would fill a need In area education and cultural
preservation of heritage. The Cobb County Board of Commissioners has
allocated and spent $3fl£0.00 to identify and investigate the site. This
preliminary investigation has yielded the evidence that thejsite has a
deep, rich stratigraphy and that important data will be destroyed unless
a salvage program is Initiated. It, is within the power of the governing
. . ' • •
Federal agency to grmit matching funds in such a salvage archeology program
and it is hoped that iuieh aid will be granted in time to preserve this
important and meaningful example of American heritage.
-------
AISAL 0? TH'i AilCKlOLOGI-CLU, H.J7
?ULTCS CGUSTIJS, G^RGIA, AKD OKUJ.
AR..AZ OF TH^ ClilTT.'fflfiOGH.^ RIV^l
Prepared Jxma 1971
Prepared by:
LavTrehce W. lleicr
Cobb County Survey
Hdvrard I. Dittaar
University
Glenn C. Hill.ians
University of Georgia
-------
._.arfs
bri f f;la;icG c.c the -itcrialc collected droring the past
- —«s vrorl; show that by conservative estimate the area
by the 3hattahoochce iliver froni Ixtford Dan to the line
'-.xlton ^oi-.nty has been occupied by nian for at. least •
XTrinr- sono periods-of prehistory the valley
f or- i c: i* iuhabi tant s .
Ar-c-.-oj-o^y :.s general.-y not considered to t>e a vital part
of today's life. It will riot .ceed the Earth's hungry nor put an
end to \var and strife. But sorse of the lessons fron the Past
co1--"1- 1 ' vital to our culture's survival in the future. At the
; obb :-b- cl; liigh 'chool Cite (v-oo-100)* tnan occupied the land
;'cr .o-^e f-ooo yor.rs. 7or 3'COO years of that tine, he drew his
;rv;::'^_ ';--" ;clctr:ic^ fro~i th'i STV,rro-.mdins nalr.tral reGor-rces trf.thout
di.£^u- ^ b: ; t:Lc balance of Kature to the point he was forced off
t-h- .-.• :--. "-he -/hiti ?.rai haa resided in the area for less than
l':0 y,:.-.;:ro a',v; already the water and air-^N'polluted to the point
o:: b..-^a .I:o-j; v.hc ecological cliain upon "c^-ch ^v.depends to sustain
rJA-.:.3 v'J believe*/that - archeolbgical research does serve an
?t.i :'- "vrLCticn beyond fulfilling a ronantic interest in relics
i- .-t. I.;i*aor and ;;-artial surveys ..'ox sites in the two
.:xvj.; have been .aade since the 1920's and arc iftiij^uartiiif^t^o^ti^-'
r•;;„..'. in the following:
MHistory of ?ulton Ccunty", by Goopar, 1932
"Archaeological Purvey of Itorthern Georgia" by .vauchope, 1965
"Survey of Herman Falls Dam","by de 3aillbu,;"19G2"
The present lixxrvcy is an effort to record every site, to
" for a Maxinr.im ret?.im of interpretive data, to construct
picture
-nviroi-i:-ient and hnnan history.
1 .9 - Georgiars designated nuraber in the National Xuseun; Go - the
^-p.iv'ialc v-or Cobb -Jormty; 100 - the sits nmber in chronololgtcal
0^;-i-I" Of 'i^-n -'•? O^^.T70^-!T " "' "'
o^: its discovery.
-------
Vbe prc cut vcrl: began in July, -2U?^» tfe«n J*ciar'"t3ttiSertool:
•:-o r, -r--cy 50QO acres of the valltly for the Grs^t 3&$thCfe*tf Vfclanta
T--. ^- c ..rial "ark owners. This £r«5rv«y resulted in tno discovery
•;r..:v:: tbc area bctv~.-.n 1-20 and tJartpbellton'llond "rid^e had been
Vi-.T.••.'-!•/ settled .df.ring various p^ioiiii*^-- paJcM-stcas^v*-. Ctl*%-sittt was
c :-;;--: for r-:-:ca*-at5.~n ^jhich we fcit"tlbtxld j^ive a r-Ja2dmia rct".rn
C.T .' i :or-- :::r.ou on the .Jarly V/oodlaz^i ^^^c^f^n&lf^i^^iiff^s»r very
x!-a3 i.va.'er'rahen fro-. I960 to 1970 and yielded an entire village
witS arcliitectiTral and cultural data never before recovered in the
United States.
~w- ^i-l4 v;r.s ne^rin^ the end of woric, a •t/o?-untcer liiglt school
c:.-:^-'; rc-ortc-1 that his school groitnds contained atimilar materials
.-;:-:; L-l-ii-;: a si::-fo^t dia'ietcr pip 2 "would croos the property shortly.
_. c.i".--r.:"'- project \r-\ci institT.ted vithiii the Cob'1* Jryunty ^chpol
./ 3;:: airl r.sin^; the: school site -as- a^Living JLabor-afeory" , a -M-c^rcn
in i -- ry v:-.ive tcachf-ng ronulte-l. l^ie^ro ject also revealed that
a -r.;"cr -^rc^ran in pipeline contraction waa tmdcrwa-y in Jobb Jovjity.
Jir.~ • -1^ -oipci.incs x;ere to follow every riajor drainage in the
c~--.-vj~, It wan ria-liced that the daznage to other, xmreoorded sites
-..-c^.l '>- cnprr-ions. The Oo'^nissioncrs T/erc approached with a plan
tc ^r..ci'ie the lines, record -the sites and test those which ~ii':ht
'•••^ :.. v rtant to inters rotation .of- hmian. occupation in the. ot^a.
..v.o r- ?-—.l of Co:.r-.isr:ion.£r3 approved the plan r.r-cT ftmded the sv.rvey
:lr •:.: c n-^'-vnt of $2500. CO. The area school students volrntccrc .".
;:";,".: •'_-•".. -.c aTi". the cn-'incers ar.--l -:~>ntraetors co-opc^afccd in c'-'er^'
•;•-.•• c'\~-r c^r.ld. Tlia c'esijp. engineers* fxirn'i shed -raps and fic!\c Ivies.
::-.i : r..c • -on-.hs (Ji'ly, /-•".^iist and ^ept^.r-ibcr, 1970) H4 sites v.re
n.'.r// ":r.:; covered or chcclced for cxtrrent s-!:atn.TS. i>' *:hr ni'Vlc cf
~ic-> ib^r, ':ac :;ccciid ficl.c.1 season of the school project i/ao rrn/.en/a;^
.^i .-v- :otc •" by the Oobb County Ik>ard of .ilncation. In ^cto'^er the ^
.Jn.r/.p.iT of C-r.-'.t-'oor Recreation inititated the Cixattahoochcc Recreation-
al ."-ca ..itridy and the Jitr-rey teari was rcq»iestu';l to pr^llc: "t;lie - *in-
-'r.ta* on archeology in the.- valley f
Jr,cl;, a total of 9C sq-aarc rnilcs. Ho f^nds were :-.adi available so
;;hc t-;a-- donatr.cl the rjas, filr., r,latt rental, -.tc. r--3".ltiu3 in an
aV-'itional o7 sitcc bcins rccor^-dr-.5o:aa- 5,n Owin-iett and •••Jorsyta
by December it *:as apparent that sonc s5.tca iu Pulton
-
o
-".n"-;/ '.7Gi-e very i^ortarvt and ^rcre endan^erer". by various activities
f pv.blic and private organizations* Ti'.lton -Jovoity Gornriiasioners
i-^-s^cn-.Tcd ^Tith" $1200.00. to complete a survey of that portion. of >altcn
on -:VLO Jhattahoochoe ..river raost heavily occupied and o
/•-I though the tea-.-1, v^as coixiitted to pxiblishing the ^'-thcrc:'. data,
an ^•-£r--^ncy arose \?hen it v;as learned that the x;ell-cloci.v.icnted site
of otaalln^ P.achtrce C6-Co-l) X7ould scon be taken by tile, Chattahoo-
by the two cc-ntics and'tlie 7c*1craX'".rat-:r roXiutioa 3ont:rol
^--"i-^i-"-ration and contracted through "'the design engineers*,
-------
-v.'-cr^-o -:.:.-i Cr-orf.ir. ">:.• hic::cry for
!-:s ;;.: rtionc c-Vi t- ee~, ., - _
o- :-th;~c- bister^ of a lar^c portion .ox the ^na :tauooca -:_
-..,. a-,,: r~vor-:c on sv.cli diverse b-t related. sublets a.c
, o-hnobotany, dle-w^
.;•.:'.'- .--viz pattcj-os, and early tfaww -oicnssr IvLstory.
infor-ia-jiovi, the tecu has
" " »"
:ic;s of the local governments.-
Vhe fcl?.o-.7irxr; list of cites with their cultural identification
---rretit: states are those considered to be most X":porta;;t &>.-•- ~n
I - ilost I::.-oortaiit. To be prc.-jcrvc- if ~,os-Jiblo or, at:
the vcr3- least, to have salvage projects uo co ao ;-•,.>.
their \raiq-1 e or scientific ir-,p
ort
o _ i-portant as e::hibit arean for -th- . interpr static-
of the area's history. JhpvO.-s. s.:rva as -ae oaci.c
for couaational and/or to-irict co"!p.:.e;;.
3 - .Scientifically i -^orta-vt but not necessary to pr.:o.-.rvo
•;•' a'cr.^rtelv tecterl. .3ata conlcl be ^ath-r_.- ^y a
s..iall crew iri two or three days of funded rccearcn.
-'•- is ho-^d that v7V.an the current project at •;.Co-l is c -.. .^/.; tc..,
-eVhov-rio found -;here-r7 the trained and cx^erSence* sv.r--ey -ccr-
-•• bo a?-o;7-:-l to continue carry- out. an .or-aaa.sic...proSi%a:---of .
--•' .-rrir^il rccaarch, salv^^c -and d.evc?.opnent. ..-r.^ovi.icve^ chat.
"- -'refits "'-o t'u: education, eccnouics and recreation of tae ^-jenora..
icTb^th lo^il 2nd tra— it, .tr-v.Id aio'.y rc-!:-rn^ the re'-i^rc.:. xv.r.:.^.-.
•— -. ~.-^'; thai the ;;nowled;^e th-s "ain-d WO-.L- oa ln.eraj.ly
a e ;;no; . ..
ince .once i#*&a/ destroyed can never be replace:...
I • '
*>,
-------
Ji'irxs" z'ss lie ted georprnpliicaj-ly fro-1. South to liorth.
".:r;"...v's an • their approximate dates, arc:
w J. *— •• *,'. •-,* 1. »
: ./ocdlai-
;I Iliotori
... - Jarly
''i'xorit'^
j_
1
1
j.
3
3
i
_/
p
•f
2
3
2
•f 1
2
=-i J. — ™ i 'N— .J, W
- GOOD to
a - 2000 B
ip man - .-i
c - after
- L - late
Site Mo.
C'o-152
Co-101
Co- 120
Co-100
Co- 151
Go-122
Jo-124
Co-123
Fvi-49
Fxi-43 --
Co- 139
Co- 11 3
Co-145
i\i-55
j, ^- *-"^/v-'*-/ *-»« *^»- V«-*W - : tw Ui
•2000 U.C.
.Ci. .to A.D. SOO
.0. SOO to 1500
1492 ( sp;.ie areas have
considered frpn
^•u A. Vi._ <— 0. J. Si '.1 UW «-i^ i <-!..'-'— W . '•- - J.
| . *
! a Proto-historic period
'1450 to 1600)
Typ-3 Site Period . ' . iiidange red by:
canpsite A (P?)
village LW-^-'I
village Jv-7
vi 1 1 afi e A^.LW- 2,-i
vilj.a.^e ' iIJ-I .
roc:;3helt£r A-U
lithic ' £n. -%. . • .
station . '
gun Civil War
village EW
"roclcshdter "A-1-;
^ound-villa3e M CP?)
industrial Civil War
complex
v'.lla^e II
roclcshelter A
Private housing develo-T-.ont
Private trailer co: iple::
(ovTner has set acide 1 acre)
Apartnient corple;:
School expansion
pipeline
Private developivierit
Power lire
Private housing •-•.evelop'-ii- nt
Private liouGin^ develop :e nt
Apartment .cor.vp^.er"
Ap art', tent er :p anc i on
pipeline
pipeline
pipeline
Co-142 fishweir xinV.novm recreation-vandalis
Co-125 village I2-I pipeline ^ flooding
(fortified.)
-------
?u-2 village A to E Apartne nt complex
?u-3
?u-6 (considered to be components of same village)
Pu-21
Fu-60 taound & EW industrial complex constructioi
village
Fo-104 village W-M Fo-104 and ?u-60 arc divided
by county line.
iary:
The present excavations at 9-Go-l can serve as a model of total
co-operation between the National and local governments, engineers,
contractors and conservation organizations to provide an improved
environment while conserving vital cultural and ecological units.
f-.afres fro"-, the -itowah I and Ii periods ( :H) are being salvaged.
The ',x>rl; crews arc desperateljr trying to clear the area"to be ta"-en
by the 2.ottenwood Plant in the southern portion of the cite. "7c
have had no word from Maycs, Cuddeth and .Ithc-.-i-'ge, Inc., as to when
actual construction will begin. We hope that the worl; can be co-
ordinated andscheduled xn.th the engineers and contractors an" with
lilythe Bros. Co., who are bringing in the pipeline from upriver,
so that as little archeologica 1 data as possible will be lost.
The ^ crews are working 13 hours a day, seven days a week, to clear the
entire plant site as soon as possible so as not to 'elay plant
construction. T3ecauce our estimates for the archcological sa?.vaga
T7-:re base-! on figures given us in October, we will need an additional
$5000.00 to neet the requirements of the enlarged plant facilities.
it is felt that Cob7-, anrl Pulton cannot bear this a'7 litior.al cost and
we are loolcing for other local funds to complete the last of o".r
" stija tion.
If a -LoritoritT-". is enTorce;' within the riv:r corridor or. private
-lev;:"1 op-re Tit in the flood plain, it would be r>on.-.ibbe to --arr;- b\.-.t
the i-acjLiirev tc.^tin.1-; and c:-cavation of the above biste-1 sites .rur!
give: tv.e area the -ost ccnplcte prehistoric an.;i ecolo':ic ,-r_ r,t~i".y
of axiy no;-1parab'1.e ecological niche in the nation. TThen. the ^.ata
ran ">e cor^ lated an': placed in the proper exhibit content, it vcul'l
sc-r-c ?.s a unique acconrplich-tcnt for Georgia TV tb • .outheast. '.,o
cc -ipletc study of this type nov7 ocists and the chance to have such
available in the ftitv.re is ^possible.
Attached as Appendix A is a sample progran for a Priority 2 site.
3 is a report subriitted to Cobb Gou^.tr/ at the end of
, 1970, and explains the importance of 9-Jo-l.
-------
June 23, 1971
The investigations at 9-Co-l have been in process since March
29, 1971. To date no archeological features have been discovered
which would serve as an in-place exhibit. Provided the data now being
recovered im analyzed and published as general information to the field
of Science and the general public, no further preservation is feasible.
Other sites within the two counties are important and should be preserved
as aids to interpretation of the area's history and examples of man's works
in the past.
-------
Cf '•' '
AHCKEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF COBB COUNTY
c/o P23BLEB3QOK HIGH SCHOOL SITE
Pebblebrook Circle
Hableton, Georgia, 30059
Phone 948 1310
.ay 21 •
3ooe -rack Oc-viittce
O'o*°> ^01inty Chapter
Georgia Oonsorvancy
Gent. \e~sm:
7h& Hoi"! owing ita^is -night bs considered in th.o ?or~!.-i tiou of
n historic r,arlc enclosing the mils *ilong Sope .Crecl-v above an-7!
bc'ow "a:?cr ?:i"U P.oad bridge;
The --ill buildings and subsidiary structure s/t
-loiuts to exhibit: as nrine exanr-1.es of l?th c-jr.t-Try
industria'i. archit-Ctr.tre, as exarv^l.as of x-rat-^r-pot/cro 1
•i-cchnolc-cy, and as t ha only re^ainin-r ^o .--^Tax o-T cv.^Ii
structures in the greater Atlanta area fro;1 the ,'ivil
War era.
"'reservation of renainin^ structural feat-ires rather "than
"h',11 re-;tor-'ition should bo consi-1 rr-. d. '^his v/nvlcl ^.ntviil
so^ie clearing of nresent growth b;r careful selecticn,
sonTing the s-tmctural features fror.-. cnrth.r v.'onth--ri.ic'
and vandalism, and minima?, niaintainevxce.
li-chlblts a'-iii interpretation can ?>e Carrie -T '.^t by rccon-
ntri'.ction nsin^ -Irawin^ss and nodcls. 3c ic arclv-o^.o^ical
invcGti^^.ti??! wcnl-1 be -necessary to ••:aiii basic ,lr>tn for
this an ; —o'-?. 1 a"5 GO se-Tv.re whatever artifict.T have bcjn
0verlooV.'--i by Jivil /ar enthusiasts. It -:i'>;lvt be vjol.l to
add hero that a fourth r.tory _ potentially crrists ...if . ccLJi'i
or even on- of 'i:hc -»il1. -workers '* we l^.ir. ••'".*? "an be "i ocTte.-l,
Infomation gains' fro"> such an in^c.^ti^Atiorv conld Ic.a'
to an exhibit of 19th ccntTtry iiid-strial-sociolorri -cv:
stiv'y for this section of the South a"^. c-^rV-l be of ^rer^t
interest when compared to a Northern ccjintcr->ar.t^
4. The .Jn^rincnrs resoon.^ible for the '• -dcsijrn o* the Jor>e irc-:l;
.:,.w.r lino shovld be br-;n«ht into the- nrssible • p.az'k ;-.l n
at the earliest ^orient, 'certainly before , any dcsi"n is
be^'-n. If possible, one nor-ber of the engineering
•. be a 'ne-nber of the present co^ni^teG.
in ccnsi'1 e ration of a park, - it v/iV. b^' ncceosai-j- to olan
for parking, rest-roo^s, 'Irinhin.^. forcitain.-;,- etc. -. -I v/o-vLJ
sv.t^cr.t thnt s^.ch facilities also be the -vl'-e for tha
o-chi:;it an-i/or .-.v.se^va .building. To accomplish this will
rer^.ire that ".ore property than the crc':l; -banks be
-------
5. It will be oractical, therefore, to Incite the present
nrc-.crty ovmr-rs to participate in the -."! a :;iiri"'. I uV.vj
Gnol.cn i:c ::rs. J">hn Sibley in thr past in/! she stit
that she had at one ti;r>e consi-ere--1 prcs^rvinr; tho -li^.
sitnatc-1 on her husband's property.
7. Other or^^nizntions that conld cotYtribute va \
information and assistance woul.rl be:
Thi GGbr-'i.^ "'.^art'-ia-at of Archives and llccoris
National "ark i'crvice, N'en.n<2eaw "-itionnl .iattlcf i^"
Atlanta Historical Society
Af-.anta 'Ji*-'i?. '-Jar ?t. of Carles an-l I<.c creation or vv.rhaos b^-
xncln-;e-l in the Oobb -Jo. Y'vuth xI-Jsou-:. - The latter orsr.nii^atii
has financial, oroblc-ns an^ possibly x-^v.l.-' ba rmwil" inf, to
talce en a-Vitiona! nrojacts. I wo>il-*. s^rrrofst thnt -t:ha
History >ey>t. of ;:.3nnesav,- Junior Jollege an-1 the Architecture
3ent. oc Southern Tech "DG annroachecl for a co-operative
effort in the interpretive investigation pl
It shcnl/' be r>ointe-l out that the 3ooc Jreok -nills oonbd -e
co-bincd '?ith other historical a'.vr ..rhi'-it \->nits now avail-
able in Job':.- Jotinty to form a historic connTcx that c-nld
act as a rvxjor tovirist attraction (as c->no3e " to tourist
'trap') and nrovi^e an a-^decl source of rex»cnue for Jobb
•Jounty in -jrovidin^ a nevr industry. 1"he Jhar-fbcr of Jo -raurce.
be anproachcd fro'i tliat -view.
I svi.b nit thv.-se ite'-s for y
-------
Ar
To: Mr, Enwat B*r*H, Chain^n, Qa»fUlilfj Board of GoMdaetoners.
Subject: Preliminary Report of Archaologio*! Survey.
The survey of areheological sites, pr*hi*toric »nd historic, comrajenced July
6, 1970, and continued daily until August 29. Initially, the survey employed
ten students froa junior high school t» coll»g» sophnoresj however in the
second week of August, the crew was enlftrtred by fool1, unpaid volunteers on
a daily basis. Randan volunteers, sowetJjwa as many as six, joined the field
work for a weekend*
A total of 133 sites were checked, U2 of these were primary discoveries by
the survey and were previously unknown. A full report of all sites, their
location, and present condition is being prepared,
The present report will be confined to critical sites, their importance or
value to historic or scientific knowledge,
9-Co-l:
Of prime concern
-------
the -:-.ot:>3 tvr< county --cveriir.-rrr-.ts in salvaging 'the archeological sites along the
i'; r.al route could well iriion a reversal in the trend of steady destruction of
aluable c^ta. Federal funds would be available in ratio of 9:1 dollars.
9-Co~113:
The icovs -number has been given to a series of sites along Sope Creek j it
:,.:l.,ae5 ir.illiij office buildings, pylons to support a former sluice, and
rv/Y.airnnr; vails. These structures have thr°e important stories to offer:
cno, they are important representations of early industrial architecture in
Ceor.?is; tvo, water-powered industrial technology; three, they are the last
r.:, ••. or ~roup of structures in rrddcle Georgia of the era of the War Between
tho1 States. It is reccraendeci that they be stabilized and secured fron
vandalism and preserved in a unit as a park or historical monument. Material
was gathered by the survey which could be used in an interpretive exhibit..
Surni^ation:
The survey is still in operation. High school students and interested citizens
have organized to work in afternoons and on two full days on the weekends as
volunteers. One of the major automotive manufacturers has intimated that they
night contribute a rough-terrain vehicle to facilitate moving equipment and
workers to normally inaccessable site locations. It is hoped that the county-
government will give the survey an official status by appointing a. county
archeoiogist to direct the survey, co-ordinate work schedules with the various
a~cncies, departments and contractors to clear critical areas of valuable data,
assess sites if they can be preserved, and to search out assistance from other
frovernment agencies, foundations and co-crdinate and distribute pertinent
information as regards the history and heritage of Cobb County.
Respectfully,
, ]f\
Lawrence W. Meier .
-------
Report on Small Sewage Treatment Plant Operation*
Cobb County Water and Sewerage System
INTRODUCTION;
Following receipt of laboratory data furnished by Atlanta Water Works
covering bacteriological analyses of effluents from privately developed
sewage treatment system* operated by Cobb County Water and Sewerage
System during the month of March 1968, a field evaluation of effectiveness
of operational technique* at these plant* waa undertaken by personnel of
the Division for Georgia Water Quality Control. All plant* were visited
on May 3 and May 9, 1968. A listing of these plant* i* included a*
p
Apendix 1 to this report. Effluent col i form count* determined by Atlanta
$
Water Work* during March and April are shown in Appendix 2.
PURPOSE OF SCOPE;
This report was written to present the findings of an evaluation of operation
of privately built sewage treatment plants operated by Cobb County Water and
Sewerage System and located above the Atlanta Water Works intake. The report
describes conditions as observed at each plant, present* specific recom-
mendations of improvements for operation of each facility, and presents
general recommendations for overall improvements in Cobb County's operational
and maintenance program.
-------
OBSERVED OPERATIONAL CONDITIOHS;
A total of eleven treatment facilities were visited. Of the eleven, five
have not yet been accepted by the County for operation but are essentially
completed insofar as construction is concerned. These plants discharge
directly to the Chattahoochee River, to Sope Creek, to Rottenwood Creek,
and to various tributaries of these streams. A brief description of
observed conditions at each plant follows.
Seven Springs Estates - Sewage treatment facility serving this subdivision
consists of a 50,000 gallon per day extended aeration package sewage
treatment plant without provision for effluent disinfection. This plant
was approved for construction in December 1963 and discharges to Bishop
Creek, tributary to Sope Creek. The operational ins2ection_confir»gd
that there is no chlorinator or chlorine contact chamber, that_there_is_no_
access ro»d nor lighting. Weeds inside the fence needed cutting. A surface
water diversion ditch is needed on the upper side of the plant. Three or
four diffusers appeared to be plugged. Basic design_oj_a_pump__stflt^on
-------
Franklin Road Plant - This treatment plant serves commercial developments
on U.S. 41 opposite Dobbin* Air Force Base. Effluent la discharged to a
tributary of Rottenwood Creek. Design capacity .of the treatment unit is
not known aa this plant was installed without review of plena or issuance
of a construction permit by this office. The plant la a Chicago pump
extended aeration package unit with sludge holding tank. There are Major
operational problems with this unit including the following:
e
1. Sludge return system cannot be made to function properly.
2. There is no chlorination; a chlorine contact chamber was
provided but there is no chlorinator.
i
3. Because of the inability to return sludge, septic solids
float on the clarifier, are lost over the effluent weirs,
and have filled the chlorine contact tank to its overflow
elevation.
4. Although dual blowers were provided, one was found out of
service and the operator reports that only one blower has
ever been operable.
5. The access road ia inadequate and the operator cannot reach
this plant during wet weather.
6. The chlorinator house needs a drain.
7. Because of its location this plant should be followed by
tertiary treatment; in lieu of this, the possibility of
, pumping to the City of Marietta's system in this area should
be investigated.
-------
Recommendations for improved treatment are •• follows:
1. Provide an operable chlorinator.
2. Rehabilitate the second blower.
3. Drain the tank to determine why sludge return is impossible.
4. Cut trees near the plant and/or provide a screen over the
aeration and settling tanks to prevent future stoppage of
sewage by collection of leaves and debris in the plant.
5. Remove sewage solids from the chlorine contact chaster.
6. Provide tertiary treatment; apparently there is sufficient
land area for the tertiary pond.
7. Provide an adequate all-weather access road to the treatment
plant.
Terrell Mill Estates - This facility consists of an aerated pond, presumably
intended to operate on the extended aeration principal, followed by a
tertiary waste stabilisation pond. Design flow is some 71,000 gallons per
day, the waste is discharged to a small stream tributary to the Chattahooche*
River about one mile upriver from the 1-285 bridge.
The operational inspection indicates that the aerated pond does not work
as extended aeration. Solids are not returned to the aeration compartment
from the •ettUn^£omgart«ent^ resulting in septicity in this laf**-
Considerable septic solids and scum float on the surface in the settling
-------
cone causing odor* and providing ideal habitat for Mosquito breading.
There is no influent bar screen and large raw sewage solids can be
observed floating in both compartments. An overflow weir designed into
the clarifier cone was not installed because of a discrepancy in
elevation. This weir would have been beneficial in Maintaining the
floating solids in the plant, but its installation would have resulted
in excessive submergence on the aerator and resulting overloading of the
aerator motor.
The polishing pond has generally good color but appears to be quite
heavily loaded. Considerable flotage was noted consisting of apparently
septic solids, algae cluaps, and traces of duckweed. The outlet box waa
not provided with the interior baffle or with an overflow slot. Slide
gates on this structure need lubrication and painting. Haintenance of
grounds, weed cutting, etc., is poor at both facilities.
Recoomendat ions:
1. The aerated pond design should be modified to provide more
effective solids return from the settling cone to the
aeration zone.
2. A water service and light should be provided at the
aerated pond.
3. Access roads to both facilitiea are inadequate and should
be improved.
-------
4. Surface water diversion channel* are needed around both
facilities to exclude runoff.
5. The pond outlet box should be renovated to bring this
structure into compliance with State standard recommendations.
6. Chlorination of the aerated pond effluent prior to its
discharge to the polishing pond would likely result in better
overall colifom removal.
Regency Apartments - This facility consists of extended aeration package
plant, subsurface tertiary sand filters, hypochlorinator and chlorine
contact chamber. Design flow is 57,000 gallons per day; effluent is
discharged to a tributary of Poplar Creek, tributary to Rottenwood Creek.
The operational inspection on May 3, 1968, revealed the following:
^- 1. The chlorinator was found out of service and had .been
removed from the plant for maintenance.
2. The effluent from both the aeration plant and the sand
filter was excessively turbid.
3. Treatment plant grounds needed landscaping and correction
of previous erosion damage.
4. The grass was badly in need of cutting.
5. Arrangement of the comminutor is quite poor; the 10" inlet
sewer is reduced to a 6" connection immediately ahead of the
comminutor. The comminutor does not reverse and stoppages of
-------
this Machinery together with reduction in cross section
of the inlet sewer line result in frequent backups of
sewage in the collection system.
6. Filter dosing siphons were found out of operation and the
bell had been removed from one siphon. All flow bypassed
through one siphon chamber.
7. Distribution lines were not level in one distribution box
and appeared to be broken in the other box.
8. Equipment such as dosing siphons and distribution boxes
are not accessible for maintenance because of their basic
design.
Recommendat ions:
1. Cooninutor should be replaced with a larger unit which does
not require reduction in inlet sewer sice.
2. Improvements should be made to dosing siphon and distribution
boxes to allow the filter to operate as designed.
3. The chlorination practices should be improved. It is
recomnended that a standby hypochlorinator be provided, liquid
solution rather than HTH be used to reduce likelihood of clogging
solution lines, or that gas chlorinator be provided in lieu of
hypochlorination facilities.
-------
Cochise Subdivision - This facility concise* of raw sewage puaping station,
50,000 gallon per day extended aeration treatment plant with disinfection
and tertiary pond. This plant is located on Paces Ferry Road and
discharges directly to the Chattahoochee River. The oxidation pond,
presently used as tertiary treatment, has been in service for several
years; other facilities are new and have not yet been issued an operating
permit.
The operation inspection found only one blower working in the raw sewage
ejector pumping station. The operating cycle on this station is
excessively short and apparently influent flows exceed those anticipated
by the engineer during design. The pumping station needs forced draft
ventilation. The aeration plant clarifier weirs are not level and are
not adjustable. A walkway is needed around both aeration and settling
tank with protective handrailing. A water service is needed at the
operating level. The .chlorinator was found operating with the feeder 1001
open. Free chlorine residual was only 0.2 mg/1 indicating that a stronger
chlorine solution is needed. Polishing pond color appeared good but
considerable scum and light duckweed growths were noted. The operator
attributed the scum problem to a recent bypass of the plant with raw sewage
being fed to the pond.
-------
Reconmendationa - Operation of thia facility could be greatly improved
by implementation of the following recommendations:
1. The collection system should be checked and improved aa
necessary to prevent hydraulic overloadings of treatment
facilities by ground water infiltration. The raw aewage
pumping stations should be improved by installation of larger
blowera including aufficient standby ao that peak loada can
be handled with any one blower out of service. Ventilation
should be provided for the protection of operating personnel
when entering the pumping station.
2. Clarifier performance can be improved by leveling the effluent
weira. Improved access walkways, handrailings, and hoae bib
on the operating level would facilitate, proper operation and
maintenance of both the clarifier and aeration basin.
3. More effective chlorination and continuity of chlorination
could be assured by provision of standby hypochlorinator, use
of a stronger chlorine solution, uae of liquid chlorine solution
rather than HTH, or provision of a gaa chlorinator.
4. Attention should be paid to the pond consisting of weed cutting
and control of the duckweed problem before it reaches major
proportions.
-------
Johnson Woods Subdivision - (also called Vinings Subdivision) - This
facility, consisting of a Chicago pump extended aeration package plant,
dischargee to a small stream tributary to the Chattahoochee River approx-
imately two milea upstream of State Highway 3 bridge. The operator
estimates that some 30 to 35 connections are served. The operating
inspection reveals that a chlorine contact chamber and hypochlorinator
•«™^•n^^^—1—^^••^^••••^^^^^^^^"^^^^^^^^•"•M^^^^^^™^
were installed but that the chlorinator ia ant of m*mt*» The plant has
only one blower and needs a standby. An access drive and drive-in gate
in the plant fence would facilitate operation and maintenance activities.
The grounds within the plant fence are badly grown up in weeds. The
effluent was quite clear, mixed liquor color was good, comminutor waa
operating properly, but solids previously deposited in the chlorine contact
chamber should be removed. A flood light should be provided to bring this
plant up to present day standards.
Recommendations: Recommended improvements to optimise this plant's
operation are as discussed in the foregoing paragraph. These are namely
a standby blower, an operable chlorinator, improved access, cleaning of
the grounds, and a flood light.
Farming ton Subdivision - This plant consists of a master raw aewage lift
station, 26,000 gpd extended aeration package plant, and discharges to
the Chattahoochee River approximately two miles upstream from Highway 3
-------
bridge. Major operational problems were observed during our visit to the
site on May 3, 1968. These are essentially aa follows:
1. Biological and clarification processes necessary for proper
operation are quite ineffective due to surging of the plant
when the master lift station operates.
2. The comninutor was found inoperable.
3. Although a chlorinator was included in original plant
equipment, this device had been removed.
4. At the time of this visit the plant contents were found
septic indicating under-aeration.
5. The operator reports chronic electrical problems in the
standby generator.
6. Grease and scum were quite evident on the surface of the
contact chamber and are attributed to carryovers of solids
from the clarifier during excessive flow periods when the raw
sewage lift station operatea.
7. Grounds were found badly in need of cutting.
8. Several diffuaers in the aeration tank appeared to be clogged;
the operator reports that this is due to fibrous material
which has settled in the aeration tank.
Recoomendat ions:
1. Pumping rate in the raw sewage lift station should be reduced
considerably to prevent drastic temporary overload of the
-------
plant. This may b« accomplished perhaps by throttling
down the pumps in place, swapping out pump impellers,
or replacement of the existing pumps with smaller units.
2. The comminutor should be placed back in service which
*
might perhaps alleviate the problem with the diffusers
clogging by unground incoming raw sewage solids.
3. An operable chlorinator should be installed and chlorinatioo
should be practiced constantly.
4. Time clocks in the aerator controls should be reset to
permit sufficient aeration capacity to prevent development
of septic conditions in the plant.
5. Competent maintenance personnel should be authorised to
make repairs as necessary of the standby generator so that
this piece of equipment can be used when needed.
Woodland Brook Farms - This plant consists of a 16,000 gpd extended
aeration plant with tertiary polishing pond. Effluent is discharged
to Orchard Knob Creek, tributary to the Chattahoochee River approximately
1% miles upriver from Highway 3 bridge. This plant has been constructed
recently and has not yet been accepted for operation by Cobb County Water
and Sewerage System.
-------
An inspection on Hay 3, 1968, revealed several deficiencies which
should be corrected before this plant is accepted by the County.
These are as follows:
1. The sides of the invert channel in the inlet-bypass
manhole should be built-up to prevent unintended bypass
of the treatment plant during peak flow periods.
2. The clarifier weir should be levelled.
3. The polishing pond dike along the creek (exterior slope)
should be riprapped as protection against flood waters.
4. Grass should be provided on all disturbed areas. It is
reconmeuded that top soil be spread and benuda be seeded.
5. All dike slopes should be redressed and a swale for diversion
of surface waters should be provided outside the fence in
the vicinity of the ga'te to prevent further erosion damages.
6. A flood light should be provided.
7. It is our opinion that the treatment plant, located inside
a protective dike, nay be flooded during periods of high
water in the receiving stream. It is not necessary that
flood waters top the dike for the plant to be flooded. A
flap valve on the pond effluent will close in all cases when
the stream level is higher than the pond level and it is
possible that the treataant plant could be flooded by treated
-------
effluent with water level in the creek COM two to three
feet below the top of the dike.
Atlanta Country Club Estates - This facility consists of extended
aeration plant with tertiary pond. Effluent is discharged to the
Chattahoochee River at the smith of Sope Creek. This plant has not
yet been accepted for operation by Cobb County although some sewage
is now being discharged to the plant. Based on an inspection on May 9,
1968, it is strongly recommended that Cobb County require the following
items to be corrected prior to accepting this facility for operation.
The Division for Georgia Water Quality Control will write the designing
engineer of this facility and instruct hi* to do this reaedial work
promptly. Items requiring remedial attention are as follows:
1. In the preliminary treatment chamber upstream of the raw
sewage lift station, a slide gate to the conminutor has
been welded in place. All flow is now diverted to the bypass
bar screen. The gate to the conminutor should be removed
and the comminutor put into service.
2. A water service should be provided on the operating bridge
of the aeration tank.
3. A leak in the wall of the aeration tank at ground level in
the vicinity of the existing hose bib should be stopped.
-------
4. The electrical service to the aerator should be cleaped
in place along the tank wall and access bridge.
5. Clarifier weirs should be levelled to equalize flow
through all parts of this basin.
6. The scum return system fro» the clarifier should be made
operable.
7. Finish painting should be done.
8. Warning signs identifying the facility should be provided.
9. The access road to the plant should be improved to correct
erosion damage and provide for all-weather access.
•
10. The chlorinator should be put into service.
11. Pond dike slopes should be dressed to correct erosion
damage and should be grassed to prevent further damage.
12. A leak in the pond outlet box around the bottom drain pipe
should be sealed off.
13. The access walk to the outlet box is substandard and should
be repaired.
14. A flood light should be provided as shown on the approved
plans and specifications.
Waverly Woods Subdivision - This facility consists of a 20,000 gpd
extended aeration package plant and polishing pond. Effluent is
-------
discharged to an unnamed branch tributary to Sewell Mill Greek,
.tributary to Sope Creek. This facility at present i« not used and
has not yet been accepted for operation by Cobb County Water and
Sewerage System. Prior to the County's acceptance, the following
corrective work should be done:
1. A water service should be installed to the site.
2. An all-weather access road should be provided.
3. Willow trees should be removed from the tertiary pond.
4. Large hardwood trees next to the entrance gate should
be removed to facilitate vehicular access.
5. Brush piles outside the fence should be removed.
6. Pond effluent line should be extended to a suitable
headwall at the creek to eliminate stagnation of effluent
in the existing ditch below the point of discharge.
7. Warning signs should be provided.
Interstate North - This facility consists of a 70,000 gpd extended
aeration plant with disinfection and polishing pond. Effluent is
discharged to Rottenwood Creek, tributary to the Chattahoochee River.
This plant is presently under construction and apparently will not be
ready for acceptance by the County for another three months at least.
-------
An inspection was made of construction in progress on May 9, 1968.
Tankage for the aeration basin and clarifier was found installed.
Mechanical equipment was being installed in these basins. Rough grading
has been accomplished on the tertiary pond. No work has been done to date
on the comminutor-bar screen installation or chlorine contact facilities.
It appeared that construction was proceeding satisfactorily. It is
recommended that Cobb County and this Division maintain close control
over this construction to insure that the plant is properly built and
will be ready for service when the office park to be served opens for
operation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES IN COBB COUNTY WATER AND
SEWERAGE SYSTEM!
Operating personnel at the Cobb County Water and Sewerage System report
that they are responsible for operation of some 35 to 40 remotely located
package treatment plants, stabilisation ponds, and sewage pumping.
stations. Two full-time men are assigned to these maintenance activities.
Each man is responsible for 15 to 20 facilities and his route involves
perhaps 120 to 125 miles of driving.
Time consuming operational activities include removal of screenings,
lubrication of equipment and machinery, and make up of chlorine solutions
using HTH powder at those facilities where hypochlorinators are used.
-------
While it is believed Cobb County's operational problems are primarily
those of too few personnel with too ouch work per men, these problems
ere compounded by the wide diversity in type end manufacture of the
treatment facilities for which each man is responsible.
Another major problem area is that numerous older installations have
been accepted for operation by the County without adequate inspection
by County personnel or the State regulatory agency to assure that
each facility as designed and built could be operated satisfactorily.
In sumaary operational problems could be categorised as follows:
1. Lack of trained manpower.
2. The necessity that skilled personnel spend a good deal_
of their time on minor routine problems such as
screenings removal and make up of chlorine solution.
3. The wide diversity in equipment which each man must
operate.
4. Mediocre quality of engineering design and construction,
particularly related to older facilities which the
County operates,
To alleviate the operational shortcomings as summarised above, the
Division for Georgia Water Quality Control recommends that the County
-------
undertake a five point program of improved operational, maintenance
and preventive Maintenance activities. The five basic improvement*
consist of additional skilled operator personnel and establishment of
the most compact possible service routes; establishment of routine sampling
and testing to permit evaluation of treatment effectiveness; a County-wide
program to eliminate as much as possible the necessity of skilled
personnel's spending a great deal of time on routine activities such as
disposal of screenings and make up of hypochlorite solutions; standardisation
insofar as practical of all future treatment equipment installations;
upgrading engineering design and construction inspection to assure
installation of plants which can be operated to produce satisfactory
effluents. These five general recommendations are discussed in further
detail below.
I. At present two operators are charged with the responsibility
of maintenance attention at some 35 to 40 sewage pumping and
treatment facilities which the County operates. Each
individual's work load is excessive; furthermore, there is
some overlapping of service routes. It is recommended that
the County employ at least three additional operators for
this work so that each man would be responsible for no more
than eight to ten facilities. Furthermore, individual service
routes should be revamped to make them as compact as possible
-------
and to hold distances driven and tine spent in transit to a minimum.
II. To permit evaluation of effectiveness of treatment being rendered
by each plant, it is recommended that the County begin routine
monitoring of each effluent. The laboratory facilities at South
Cobb treatment plant and one full-time chemist could handle necessary
analytical work. Samples could be collected by maintenance personnel
as they drove their routes, iced, and driven to South Cobb plant
for testing. It is anticipated that one day weekly could be devoted
to sampling by each operator with the sampling days staggered to
equalise the chemist's work load.
It is recommended that the operator determine and record mixed
liquor settleable solids and effluent chlorine residual and
that samples be returned to the laboratory for determination of
mixed liquor suspended solids and dissolved oxygen and effluent suspended
solids and BOD.
Results of this program would permit evaluation of treatment effectiveness
and would provide a basis for operational control. A monthly operating
report for each plant should be submitted to this office.
III. At present each operator is responsible for certain time consuming
duties which could be eased to a large extent without impairment of
-------
treatment plant effectiveness. Two specific recommendations that
cone to mind.are as follows:
1. At present each operator is responsible for the disposal
of screenings at each plant. The recommended disposal
method is burial which, if done daily, is a time consuming
process. It is recommended that the County furnish galvanized
garbage cans with tight fitting covers at each treatment plant
for disposal of screenings and enter a contract with a garbage
collection service to pick up screenings from these containers
at least twice weekly and to dispose of this material at the
County land fill.
2. The present practice of using HTH powder to make up chlorine
solution for hypochlorination is time consuming. Further,
in many instances the powder does not completely dissolve and
solution tubing in the hypochlorinator is prone to clogging by
undissolved HTH. The operator is required to check the solution
level in the chlorine crock daily and to make up additional
solution frequently. This aspect of the operational program
could be made much earier and chlorination could be made much
more trustworthy and effective if the County would install gas
chlorinators at each plant in lieu of hypochlorinator. Alternative
improvement would be the use of a liquid hypochlorite solution
-------
in lieu of the HTH powder. This would not, however, save nearly
as much operational tima or chlorine cost as would the gas chlor-
inators.
XV. It is suggested that on future treatment plant installations to be
operated by the County, the County could assure proper design and
construction if they would have their consulting engineers design
and supervise construction of needed facilities and be reimbursed
by individual developers for the cost of these improvements.
Employment of a larger, more competent engineering firm such aa
the County's consulting engineers will alleviate many problems
now encountered by the Water and Sewerage System personnel in
obtaining properly designed and constructed sewage treatment
facilities.
V. Implementation of recommendation No. IV above would permit adoption
of relatively closed specifications by the County's engineers
governing equipment to be included in plants to be operated by the
County. This would result in a greater degree of standarization
of facilities which the County operates and will greatly simplify
operation of these facilities.
-------
APPENDIX X
PRIVATELY BUILT SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
WHICH COBB COUNTY WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM OPERATES
Plant Name
Atlanta Country Club Estates
Cochise Subdivision
Farmington Subdivision
Franklin Road
Interstate North
Johnson Woods (Vinings) Subdivision
Regency Apartments
Seven Springs Estates *
Terrell Mill Estates
Waverly Woods
Woodland Brook Farms
Treatment Processes
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination*
Extended Aeration
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination*
Extended Aeration, Sand Filtration*, Chlorination*
Extended Aeration
Aerated Lagoon, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Notes:
* Not in service at time of May, 1968 inspection
1 Construction essentially complete; not yet accepted by Cobb County Water and Sewerage System
2 Under construction
3 Not yet receiving sewage flow
Remarks
1
1
2,3
1.3
1
-------
TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
APPENDIX 2
SELECTED TEST RESULTS ON EFFLUENT SAMPLE ANALYZED BY
ATLANTA WATER WORKS, MARCH-APRIL, 1968
Total Colifora
MPN 106AOO ml
123
Atlanta Country Club Estates
Cochise
Farmington
Franklin Road
Johnson Woods (Vinings) S/D
Regency Apartment*
Seven Springs Subdivision
Terrell Mill Estates
Woodland Brook Farms (Baker's S/D)
B. 0.0.5
(mg/1)
1
N/A
11.2
28.5
60.0
13.5
14.0
9.0
2
16.0
15.2
61.0
49.0
16.2
12.0
51.6
3
13.4
45.4
53.9
15.0
12.9
32.7
>12.4 25.4 >19.6
N/A 0.13
0.282 0.507 0.41
9.5 13.0 11.4
1.355 0.80
6.3
>10.3
7.7 >8.9
l.f >
3.59
0.34
7.3
0.125 0.037 0.076
0.04 0.36 0.22
0.21
0.597 0.131
12.2 1.6
Fecal Collfont
MPN 105/100 «1
I 2 3
N/A 0.08
1.80 0.57 1.12
43.25 32.0 37.0
11.05 0.96 5.44
1.12 4.68 3.10
1.067 0.139 0.55
88.0 2.05 40.4
0.70 0.027 0.33
0.405 0.29 0.34
1 Arithmetic average of results of four samples collected in March, 1968.
2 Arithmetic average of results of five samples collected in April, 1968.
3 Arithmetic average of results of nine samples collected in March and Aoril. 1968.
N/A No data available
Note: No residual chlorine was found in any effluent sample.
-------
EXHIBIT 10
Presidential Documents
Title 3— THE PRESIDED
Executive Order 112?6
EVALUATION CF FLOOD HAZAHD IN LOCATING FZ-DEEALLY CYVK'SD
OF! FINA^CSO niHLCIh'GS, SCADS, AND OTilES FACILmSS, AK'D IN
LAUD3 AND PRCPi-RTJSS
WHEREAS uneconomic uses of the Nation's flood plains are oc-
curring and potential flood losses are increasing despite substantial
efforts to control floods ; :ind
WHEREAS national and regional studies of ureas nnd property
subject to Hooding indicate a further incrtr.so in flood damage po-
tential and flood losses, even with continuing investment in fiocd
protection structures; and
WHEREAS the Federal Government has extensive and continuing
programs for ihs construction of buildings, roads, and other facilities
and annually disposes oi thousands of acres of Federal lands in fiood
hazard areas, all of which activities significantly influence patterns
of commercial, residential, and industrial development; and
WKE11EAS the availability of Federal loans and mortgage insur-
ance and land use planning programs are determining factors in the
utilization of lands :
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as
President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows :
SECTION 1. The heads of the executive agencies shall provide leader-
ship in encouraging a broad nnd unified effort to prevent uneconomic
uses and development of the Nation's flood plains and, in particular,
to lessen the risk of flood losses in connection with Federal lands and
installations and federally financed or supported improvements.
Specifically :
(1) All executive agencies directly responsible for the construction
of Federal buildings, structures, roads, or other facilities shall evaluate
flood hazards when planning die location of new facilities and, as far
as practicable, shall preclude the uneconomic, hazardous, or unneces-
sary use of nopd plains in connection with such facilities. With
respect to existing Federally owned properties which have suffered
flood damage or which may be subject thereto, the responsible agency
head shall require conspicuous delineation of past and probable flood
heights so as to assist in creating public awaren--^ of and knowledge
about flood hazards. Whenever practical and economically feasible,
flood proofing measures shall be applied to existing facilities in order
to reduce flood damage potential.
.(2) All executive agencies responsible for the administration of
Federal grant, loan, or mortgage insurance programs involving the
. construction of buildings, structures, pads, or other facilities shall
evaluate flood hazards in connection with such facilities and, in order
to minimize the exposure of facilities to potential flood damage and
the need for future Federal expenditures for flood protection and
flood disaster relief, shall, as far as practicable, preclude the uneco-
nomic, hazardous, or unnecessary use of flood plains in such connection.
fIDIIAt MOISTH, VOL 31, NO. 155—THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1966
-------
10M4 THI FMSIDINT
(8) All executive agencies responsible for tho disposal of Federal
lands or properties shall evaluate flood huards in oonneotion with
lands or properties proposed for disposal to non-Federal public Instru-
mentalities or private interests and, as may be desirable in order to
minimise future Federal expenditures for flood protection and flood
disaster relief and as far as practicable, shall attach appropriate
restrictions with respect to uses of the lands or properties by tho
purchaser and his successors and may withhold such landi or proper-
ties from disposal. In carrying out this paragraph, each executive
agency may make appropriate allowance for any estimated loss in
Mies price resulting from the incorporation of use restrictions in the
disposal documents.
(4) All executive agencies responsible for programs whioh entail
land use planning shall take flood hazards into account when evaluat-
ing plans and shall encourage land use appropriate to the degree of
haiard involved.
Sao. fi. As may be permitted by law, the head of each executive
agency shall issue appropriate rules and regulations to govern the
carrying out of the provisions of Section 1 of this order by lus agency.
Sao. 8. Bequests for flood haiard information may bo addressed to
the Secretary of the Army or, in the cose of lands lying in the basin of
the Tennessee River, to the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Secre-
tary or the Tennessee Valley Authority shall provide such information
as may be available, including requested guidance on flood proofing,
The Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Depart-
ment 01 Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and Office of Emergency Planning, and any other executive agency
which may have information and data relating to floods shall cooper-
ate with the Secretary of the Army in providing such information and
in developing procedures to process information requests.
SEC. 4. Any requests for appropriations for Federal construction
of new buildings, structures, roads, or other facilities transmitted to
the Bureau of tEe Budget by an executive agency shall be accompanied
by a statement by the head of the agency on the findings of his
agency's evaluation and consideration of flood hazards in the develop-
ment of such requests.
SBO. 5. As used in this order, tho term "executive agency" includes
any department, establishment, corporation, or other organisational
entity of the executive branch of the Government.
SEC. 6. The executive agencies shall proceed immediately to develop
such procedures, regulations, and information as are provided for hi,
or may be necessary to carry out, the provisions of Sections 1,2, and 8
of this order. In other respects this ordor shall take effect on Janu-
ary 1,1967. „ T
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
TH* WHITE HOUSE,
August 10, 1966.
[F.R. Dor. CO-8838; Filed, Aug. 10, 1000; 12 : H p.m.]
HDERM RMISm, VOL 31, NO. 155—THUMOAY, AUGUST 11, 1*M
-------
STATE, ME'iv^PGLi/TAi; OR K^GIG^AL PLANKING AGENCIES
DATE: August 4, 19 G 7
/Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
ddress 900 Glor.n Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303
o or. roe of Authoritv for Establishment of -Agency Georgia
',.;•.-.::, lv-t-0 - Ga . Law 3-• 7
C:x/b .."our. tv Uat'jr
wera~~- System
C -r V; jJounty Co-u£th3U3O ,_ Marietta , Georgia
Project No.
: .~?: Ji" ovcr^-r: f .? to co^'.tv -wide sewerage
Cer L i : i f.'i t ii:r. :
The proiect descr-bed above does (>^) does not ( ) conform, with
the ccr.ioreher.nive plan developed or in process of development
for the" inotirorcl: t on ;:rca in which it is located.
Co-
T-I -v.- -•jiV^rcc- •-.-irn cTirena for roviev/ -no comment adopted by the
AKy.rC^^.i'rs'v'ijtoii'Auri.l 2-3, 1967, the following response is indicated
by tho planning agency:
1. The proposed
current negio
for water and
2 . Tho pro;-o.-•.-;'.; .
cov;r.ty ^•--wer
3.
jec"t "doos ccnfcrn to the objectives of the
if-l" Development Plan and v;ith the regional plan
tev:er facilities as it has progressed to date.
rro'crt cor.fcrrs with recommendations for a
-l;if. :\:\rl\ the ccur.ty land use plan.
i.. i-o:. ..-.-of] orc-cct .it--, i.n conforraanco v;ith t.lif>
'(S innat'.'iro)
5nzed Representative of Planning
Agency
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Appendix C Commentaries of Reviewing Agencies
In March 1971, a draft environmental assessment was
circulated to various Federal and state agencies (Listing I
below). The draft assessment was released to assist EPA in
identifying what issues should be explored and discussed
relating to the construction of sewer lines and sewage treat-
ment facilities. Contact points and meaningful laison were
established with Federal and state agencies and concerned
environment/ecology oriented citizens groups.
On April 30, 1971, copies of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the Cobb County Sewerage Project were
distributed to agencies on Listing II for their formal
review and comment, and to the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) as provided for in the CEQ guidelines of
April 23, 1971 which are effective for all draft environmental
statements circulated after June 30, 1971. Thirty days were
allowed for review by other Federal agencies and no agency
requested an extension of time. However, this final Environ-
mental Impact Statement is addressed to the issues identified
in the commentaries of agencies, groups, and individuals
received up to June 26, 1971.
-------
LISTING I
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Office of the Secretary
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
National Park Service
Southeast Archeological Center
U. S. Geological Survey
Office of Economic Opportunity
Other
Georgia Conservancy, Inc.
Georgia Historical Commission
Congressman Fletcher Thompson
LISTING II
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
-------
Federal Agencies - (Continued)
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Office of Economic Opportunity
Others
American Adventures
The Atlanta Bird Club (National Audubon Society)
Georgia Conservancy, Inc.
Georgia Historical Commission
Georgia Natural Areas Council
Save America's Vital Environment (SAVE)
The Sierra Club
Congressman Fletcher Thompson
-------
i I Mi ll'l i I
•T0,
Metropolitan Development Office
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Room 645
REGION IV April 5j 1971
IN REPLY REFER TO:
4M
Mr. John R. Thoman
Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, NE.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
Subject: Cobb County Sewerage Improvement Project
State of Georgia
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement
transmittal with your letter of March 31, 1971. You are to
be congratulated on the thorough treatment you have given the
environmental issues involved in the subject project.
We, of course, defer to your expertise in the area of water
quality and offer no comment on the water quality aspects of
the project.
Regarding outdoor recreation and historic preservation aspects
of the project, we find your analysis to be fully adequate and
offer no objection, assuming that Cobb County will accept your
recommendation of Alternate "E" routiu6. We also assume that
you will monitor the progress of construction to assure that
the archeological potentials of the Sope Creek and Chattahoochee
River Treatment Plant areas will be protected.
Approval of your plan by the ARMPC on October 1, 1970, provides
evidence of the consistency of this project with HUD's policy
of encouraging sound areawide planning of such facilities.
Finally, we must commend Cobb and Fulton Counties for their
demonstration of good government in the areas of this project
-------
in which they minimized the unavoidable environmental impact by
entering into a joint effort.
We heartily endorse this project and hope that it can be placed
under construction at an early date.
Sincerely yours,
*!_- - - T i^ -
Thomas J. Armstrong
Assistant/Regional
Administrator
-------
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SOUTHEAST REGION, P. 0. BOX. 10006
FEDERAL BUILDING, RICHMOND, VA. 23240
IN REPLY REFER TO:
IP* • *
A98 SER(CP) *
Mr. John R. Thoman, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office, Southeast Region
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
We have reviewed the environmental study of the Cobb County, Georgia
Sewerage Improvement Project, enclosed with your letter of March 31,
1971.
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, an existing unit of the
National Park System, is within the area to be affected by the project.
When this study was initiated several years ago, the National Park
Service indicated its willingness to cooperate with the County with the
understanding that safeguards for the historic features at Kennesaw Moun-
tain would be recognized. The statement should give appropriate recog-
nition to this Park and assure that the present plan does not endanger
the historic and natural values of the Park.
A potential unit of the National Park System, the Blue Ridge Parkway
Extension, is scheduled to terminate near Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield, north of Atlanta and Marietta, Georgia. It is possible
that the subject project could affect the Parkway.
The environmental statement should show evidence of consultation with
the State Liaison Officer for the National Register of Historic Places.
This officer, Mrs. Mary Gregory Jewett, Executive Secretary, Georgia
Historical Commission, 116 Mitchell Street, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia
30303, should be consulted for possible National Register properties
that may exist in the area. These include all registered Historic
Landmarks as well as other Register properties of State and local
significance.
The environmental statement on page 6 recognizes archeological resources
and the employment of two archeologists by the County to coordinate
studies and excavations at the Peachtree Site of the Treatment Plant.
-------
From our review of the data contained in the report on this matter,
we question whether this includes the entire project area or is limited
to the Treatment Plant site. We suggest that Mrs. Jewett also be con-
sulted concerning archeo logical resources within the entire project
area as delineated on Figure 1 of the attachments. Her findings should
be recognized in the final statement.
Sincerely yours,
L. Boyd Finch
Assistant Director
Southeast Region
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
PEACHTREE-SEVENTH BUILDING
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O323
April 7, 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
1U21 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
The draft environmental statement on the Cobb County, Georgia,
Sewerage Improvement project transmitted with your letter of March 31
has been reviewed. Improved water quality should be of general benefit
to the fishery resource and the sport fisherman. Construction will
disrupt some areas of value as wildlife habitat, but this should be of
minor consequence and of short duration if overall environmental values
are properly considered. We have no objection to your recommending
alternative "E" as proposed in the draft of your environmental impact
statement.
Sincerely yours,
Ernest C. Martin
Acting Regional Director
-------
UN _D STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULT
FOREST SERVICE
• Southeastern Area, Staff and Private Forestry
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
April 7, 1971
131'0
Mr. John R. Thoman, Reg. Dir.
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E. , Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
We have reviewed the environmental study of the Cobb County,
Georgia, Sewerage Improvement Project. It is our opinion that
proper consideration has been given to protecting the environ-
ment in all instances mentioned. The data and information
presented in this report, show that every effort has been made
to reduce the environmental impact on construction sites and to
return the affected areas back to an original state as soon as
possible after work has been completed. The positive effects on
all facits of the environment, i.e. , water quality, air, land,
noise, historical and recreation, far outweigh the few negative
effects that would occur during construction activity.
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to review this
environmental impact statement on this most important construc-
tion project.
Sincerely,
W. R.
Acting Assistant Area Director
Enclosure
-------
United States Department of the Interior
0
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
900 Peachtree Street, N. E., Room 301
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
April 8, 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman
Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office, Southeast Region
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E., Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
The environmental statement covering the expanded and improved waste
water conveyance and treatment facilities in Cobb County, has been
informally reviewed by this office. The statement does not contain
sufficient specific data for a detailed evaluation of the impact that
the facility may have on the hydrologic environment. Based upon the
information that was provided, some general comments follow.
The proposed location of the Cobb County, Chattahoochee River Sewage
Treatment Plant (Figure 1) cannot be identified precisely enough to
comment on flooding potential at the plant site. If you can provide a
more specific site location, we would be happy to prepare an estimate
of flooding potential.
Figure 1 appears to locate the plant directly across from the City of
Atlanta's water supply intake and upstream from Peachtree Creek. If
this is the correct location, then one concern for that site would be
occasional opportunities for sewage effluent to be carried upstream to
the City of Atlanta's water intakes when flooding of Peachtree Creek is
accompanied by low flow in the Chattahoochee River.
Land excavation for the interceptor lines could cause sedimentation
problems in the Chattahoochee River, depending on which plan is im-
plemented. Excavation under plans D and E would probably produce the
least sediment, if these plans require that erosion control measures
are to be observed during construction.
-------
The consolidation of numerous sewage discharge outfalls into a single
outlet at the proposed Chattahoochee Sewage Treatment Plant will
certainly improve the general stream quality upstream from the plant.
However, we cannot comment on the impact of the effluent on streamflow
quality downstream from the plant because the statement does not present
data on the following: (1) the amount of effluent discharge, (2) the
degree of treatment, (3) the design low-flow discharge of the river, and
(4) the relationship of the Cobb County system to an over-all sewage
treatment and disposal plan for the Chattahoochee River adjacent to the
greater Atlanta area.
Sincerely,
x*v>vr-
John R. Georgtf
District Chief
cc: Mr. C. S. Lorentzson, Field Representative USDI
Chief Hydro lo gist, WRD (Attn: Mr. G. H. Davis)
Regional Hydrologist, WRD., ACR
-2-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MOBILE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2288
HOIILE, ALABAMA 36601
IN REPLY REFER TO
SAMEN-EE 9 April 1971
Mr. Frank M. Redmond
Interim Regional Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Redmond:
Reference is made to your letter dated 31 March 1971, addressed to the
South Atlantic Division Engineer and requesting comments regarding the
environmental impact of Cobb County, Georgia, sewerage improvements.
As you were advised by Mr. Herbert Rogers of the South Atlantic Division,
this office has been requested to comment for the Corps on these projects.
The page numbers refer to those of the EPA inclosure.
a. Page 3, Item 7. Detail of the proposed Noonday Creek Plant
is insufficient for comment. However, it is presumed that the effluent
will reach the recreation waters of Lake Allatoona and that the design
will be based on requirements for tertiary treatment. We should like
to be kept advised as to plans as they develop.
b. Page 7. last paragraph. It is indicated that this reach of
the Chattahoochee River is considered to be an interstate stream. It
is suggested that more explanation be made as to the reason for this
classification since many readers may question this for the Buford to
Allatoona reach.
c. No mention is made regarding the relationship of the Marsh
Creek Plant to the system. Will it be phased out and waste pumped to
the Cobb County system via the Marsh Creek Pumping Station?
d. Where sewerage facilities are located below the 50-year flood
levels, necessary precautions are needed for protection of streams,
structures and public health. Sealed and watertight manholes and pro-
tected lines will be required.
e. Flood hazard evaluations should be made along all creeks where
sewers and structures are proposed. Determination should be made as to
effects of the proposed construction upon the hydraulic characteristics
of the streams and particularly if the proposed works will cause in-
creased flood levels.
-------
SAMEN-EE
Mr. Frank M. Redmond
9 April 1971
f. Precaution is needed to control sediment and prevent shoaling
of streams during construction. Particular attention should be made to
possible erosion where sewers are located within the stream bed.
g. The section on environmental consequences should discuss the
interference with and/or loss of fish habitat and other aquatic biota
of construction within the creek beds.
h- Page 1.7. The permanent commitment of lands for permanent or
maintenance rights-of-way will be irreversible.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on your request.
Sincerely yours,
J. J. DANAHER
Chief, Engineering Division
cc: South Atlantic Div.
ATTN: SADYN
-------
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
810 New Walton Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
IN KBPLY WE* TO:
1 3 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman
Regional Director
Water Quality Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1971, requesting our
comments on the environmental study conducted by your agency on the
Cobb County Sewerage Improvement Project.
We support the efforts to eliminate and prevent water pollution of
the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries. The Department of the
Interior's position on this project was set forth in Secretary Morton's
letter of March 16, 1971, to Mr. Ruckelshaus (copy attached). This is
essentially the same position I presented to you at our meeting of
September 18, 1970.
We are pleased to find that Cobb County has proposed a comprehensive
sewer system to prevent contamination of the Chattahoochee River and
its tributaries. We have been concerned about the water pollution
problem because of the impact it may have on the recreation potentials
of the Chattahoochee River and environs. We fully comprehend the
urgency of proceeding with the construction of the Rottenwood and
Sope Creek interceptor lines. Both Fulton and Cobb Counties have
financial and other obligations which must be fulfilled. We intend
to help expedite action to this effect.
That part of the Chattahoochee River and adjacent hillside known as
the Chattahoochee palisades which lies between the perimeter road
(Interstate 285) and Interstate 75 is essential to our recreation
plan for preservation, development, and enhancement of the Chattahoo-
chee River. We have identified this as the most outstanding natural
area in the 48-mile reach of river under study. We are proposing
that this palisades area be preserved for all time. Among its many
unique features are the rock outcrops, rapids, mature forests, and
-------
colorful flora. These natural features must be protected in
planning and construction of a sewer system. We commend Fulton
and Cobb Counties for their cooperative effort in eliminating the
need for sewerline construction on the Fulton County side of the
river in the palisades area.
Attached is a set of guidelines which, if applied, will remove
objections we now have to completing construction of the Rottenwood
interceptor and proceeding with that section of the Sope Creek
interceptor between Powers Ferry Road and Rottenwood Creek. We
believe similar guidelines should be developed for all future and on-
going construction and made a part of the grant agreement and con-
struction contracts.
The Chattahoochee River and adjacent lands constitute a unique scenic
and recreational resource in the Atlanta urban area. There is no
substitute or equivalent resource that can fulfill the special role
of this reach of the Chattahoochee.
In your environmental commentary, you acknowledge these unusual values
and suggest actions with a view toward protecting them. In the
palisades area, you identify six alternatives which you refer to as
alternatives A through E for the location of the interceptor. These
alternatives provide varying degrees of protection ranging from a
least-cost alternative proposed by Cobb County with no consideration
of other values to complete protection by tunneling along this entire
reach of the river. We appreciate the design difficulty and increased
cost of construction of an interceptor sewer that will preserve the
natural features. We concur with your statement that these values
are worth preserving and support your efforts to preserve them. We
agree with your recommendation that alternative E is a preferred
alternative to the proposed Cobb County design.
The Federal Government should demonstrate its good faith by providing
a maximum amount of additional financial assistance to cover the
increased cost of sewer improvement construction due to environmental
protection considerations. We would support any action or legislation
which would make additional Federal funds available now or in the
future to aid Cobb and Fulton Counties.
Waterways and their adjacent lands are valuable public resources. One
of the most appropriate and important public uses of these corridors,
particularly in urban areas, is for open space and parks. Three-
fourths of our population now live in urban areas where there is a
great shortage of recreation opportunity. Few, if any other, major
urban centers have an unspoiled river resource so beautiful and
secluded, fraught with natural and historical values and offering
such a delightful experience for anglers, boaters, and floaters as the
Chattahoochee between Buford Dam and Feachtree Creek.
-------
The diminishment of the scenic, recreational, historical, ecological,
and other values of this reach of the river and related lands cannot
be justified by a water pollution abatement program when practical
alternatives exist which can protect these values. Eliminating
water pollution at the expense of other important public resources,
needs, and values is not in keeping with the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The time has come when we must accept our
part in effective land use planning.
Already the Chattahoochee riverbanks show the scars from erosion and
construction developments. The appearance of mud and sandbars in the
river reflects the increase in siltation. These developments are a
secondary effect which is influenced by sewerline construction and
this must be recognized in the environmental impact assessment and
recommendations.
We cannot accept the material submitted with your letter of March 31
as an adequate evaluation of the entire Cobb County system. In this
context, we feel that all sewerage improvement projects along the
Chattahoochee River and its tributaries in Fulton and Cobb Counties
should be covered by an environmental impact statement as required by
the President's Council on Environmental Quality guidelines before any
additional applications for grant assistance are approved by your
agency.
Roy K. Wood
Regional Director
Attachments
cc: Honorable Sam Massell
Mr. Charlie Brown
Mr. Ernest Barrett
-------
Guidelines for Environmental Protection
Cobb County, Georgia Sewerage Improvement Project
Rottenwood Creek Interceptor;
1. To protect the riverbank in areas where clearing has not already
been completed, it is recommended that a minimum undisturbed
buffer zone of 20 feet be left between the river's edge and the
construction right-of-way. Where practical, at least a 75-foot
undisturbed zone should be observed.
2. A qualified landscape architect should be employed to prepare and
supervise execution of a plan for restoration of the surface area
disturbed by construction with suitable vegetation and to prevent
erosion and siltation. The plan should insure an early return to
an attractive natural vegetative cover in the disturbed areas.
3. The contractor should be required to execute a performance bond
to guarantee adequate restoration of the surface following
construction to the satisfaction of the landscape architect. An
appropriate monetary penalty adequate to cover the cost of surface
landscaping should be set in the contract.
4. The Cobb County Recreation Department should investigate acquiring
rights of public access for hiking, bicycling, and/or horseback
trails on the sewerline rights-of-way and other areas in the river
corridor. The value of donated or purchased lands and easements
provided to the county by landowners for public trail purposes
are eligible as the county's financial share under the matching
Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program of the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation.
Sope Creek Interceptor—Powers Ferry Road to Rottenwood Creek:
1. Guidelines 1 through 4 above concerning the Rottenwood Creek
interceptor also apply to this section of the Sope Creek inter-
ceptor.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency recommendations for alterna-
tive E requiring tunneling in lieu of open cut excavation on the
steep riverbank as originally proposed by Cobb County is appro-
priate to protect the scenic and natural values through the area
known as the palisades.
3. The tunneling proposal should be slightly amended by addition of
a third tunnel to protect the scenic values of a highly visible
-------
rock outcropping on a point at the location of proposed manhole
number 2.
Provisions should be included in the tunneling contract specifying
that all tunnel spoil will be hauled away.from the river corridor
area for disposal and that the tunnel entrance areas, access roads,
and any other disturbed surface areas be restored to as near natural
condition as possible under the supervision of the landscape
architect. Provisions of the performance bond covering restoration
of disturbed surface areas immediately after construction to restore
vegetative cover and eliminate erosion and siltation should apply
to the tunnel work.
-------
United pfritcs Department of the T ter-»™"
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 202-10
MAR 16 1971
Dear Mr. Kuckclshaus:
On September 14, 1970, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was instruct?d
to study the Chattahoochce River in Metropolitan Atlanta as tHe~site 6JT"
a possible major urban recreation area. The heart of this area is a
primitive, virtually untouched stretch of unique scenic river bordered
by granite outcroppings.
Tlie natural beauty of a total of 20 of the 48 miles in the river study
area is threatened as a result of planned sewerlino construction closely
paralleling the rivcrbanks.
Applications for Federal assistance have been made by the local governments
for all of these projects to the Ifctar Quality Office. Current projects
include the Rottenvood Creek*'and Sope Creek interceptor sever projects,
Cobb County, Georgia, and the Can.? Creek,* River Ridge,,and Roberts Drive \
interceptor sewer projects of Fulton County, Georgia. Construction has
been underway for several months on portions of the Rottcnvood Creek and
Roberts Drive lines. Doth include several miles of high value scenic
riverbank. Such construction appears to require the preparation and
review of an environmental impact statement consistent with the requirements
of Section 102(2)(C) of the National )'.nviron::icntal Policy Act of 1969.
The statement should include an analysis of alternative means of accomplishing
the project purpose. So:!k> time ago we were advised by the Federal Water
Quality Administration, the predecessor of the Water Quality Office that
an environmental statement was being prepared on the Rottenwood Creek
interceptor scwerline. To date we have not been afforded an opportunity
to review such a statement.
Retention of the natural and scenic characteristics of the Chattahoochee
River corridor, particularly the palisades, is central to its value for
public outdoor recreation.
Construction of sewerlincs in the Chattahoochee River study area from
Buford Dam to Pcachtree Creek should include all possible planning and
design modifications to protect the scenic and natural qualities of the
streanisidc area. Consideration should be given to adequate setback of
construction and clearing from the riverbank, tunneling through rock out-
croppings in lieu of open-cut excavation and blasting, hauling spoil away
from the scenic river area, exercising care to avoid damage to the natural
landscape and significant or unusual vegetation during construction, and
restoring disturbed areas to their natural condition after construction is
completed.
-------
While our main concern is the potentially adverse effects of sewcrline
construction on the scenic and recreation values, potentially enhancing
features of this project — such as use of sewerline right-of-way easements
for public 1) iking or bicycling paths and access to the river — should be
considered in the preparation of the environmental statement. The Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation's Southeast Regional Office can furnish assistance
in the preparation and planning of appropriate features.
While we fully understand and support your efforts to protect the water
quality of- the Chattahoochee River, sewerline construction must be subject
to the sawn requirements for environmental protection as any other federally
supported development. Therefore, we urge immediate completion of environ-
mental statements on all segments of the sewerlines along the Chattahoochee
River from Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek which are being constructed with
Federal funds or assistance. Further, it would appear appropriate to place
a hold on present construction activity pending review and approval of
environmental impact statements. This action is necessary if we are to
avoid irreversible damage.
Sincerely yours,
fegd) Rogers C. B. Mortoil
Secretary of the Interior
Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
1626 K Street, X. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
cc:
Regional Director, Southeast Region
-------
ADVISORY COUNCIL.
ON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20Z40
Oou-
April 12, 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office, Southeast Region
1421 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your preliminary environmental
impact statement concerning the Cobb County, Georgia, Sewerage
Improvement Project. Because there are no National Register
properties involved, the Council will not comment on the project
with regard to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915).
We suggest that, if you have not already done so, you ask for a
review of the project by the Georgia Historical Commission, 116 Mitchell
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. There may be some potential
National Register properties that we are not aware of.
Sincerely yours,
John D. McDermott
Assistant Executive Secretary
cc: Mrs. Mary G. Jewett, State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation,
Georgia Historical Commission, 116 Mitchell Street, SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303
THE COUNCIL it charged by the Act of October IS, lift. Kith advising tin President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation,
neon-mending meaturet to coordinate govem-mental with private activities advising on the dissemination of information, encouraging public
interest and participation, recommending the conduct of special studies, advising in the preparation of legislation, and encouraging specialized
training and education. The Council alto hat the retponsiMit* to comment on Federal or Federally-assisted undertakings that have an effect
on cultural property luted in the National Register.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Archeological Center
P. 0. Box 454-7
Macon, Georgia 31208
H2219 April 13, 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman
Water Quality Office
Southeast Region
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
Our office has reviewed the project data and other information on the
Cobb County, Georgia, Sewerage Improvement Project and our comments
will be confined to archeological and historical resources.
We were pleased to note that the impact of the project on archeologi-
cal and historical resources was recognized as one of the environmental
consequences of the development. Construction projects of many types
cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of such resources,
and we are pleased to see that steps are being taken in the Cobb County
Project to mitigate this loss by survey and salvage of the archeologi-
cal and historical data in advance of construction.
The opportunity to review thia project has been appreciated.
icerely,
W. Griffin
Lef, Southeast Archeological
Center
-------
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC Region IV
OPPORTUNITY
April 15, 1971
730 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta.Georgia 30308
Mr. John R. Thoman
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
This responds to your letter of March 31, 1971 requesting that
the Office of Economic Opportunity review and provide any adverse
objections to the Cobb County, Georgia Sewerage Improvement Project.
We have reviewed this proposal from the standpoint of possible
adverse affects in Urban Areas which may cause congestion or
have long range special impact on Low-Income Neighborhoods.
The only area of impact concern which in our opinion may effect
land use and subsequently the residents would be the "Palisades"
area between 1-285 and 1-75. It is gratifying to note that the
various levels of government responded to concerned citizens
objections and provided measures which assures the return of
the area as far as practicable to its original, natural site.
We commend Cobb County as well as the other local, state and
Federal agencies for proceeding in a continuous, yet cooperative
effort to implement this well planned proposal. We interpose
no objections to the approval of this project.
Sincerely,
Roy E. Batchelor
Regional Director
-------
CHAIRMAN
JOSEPH a. CUMMINO
AUOUBTA, BA.
GEORGIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION
A DIVISION OF THE OFFIBC Or SECRETARY OF STATE SEN W. FORTBON. JR.
11* MITCHELL BTMECT. B.W.
ATLANTA, GEORQIA 3O3O3
April 23, 1971
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
MARY BMCHOHY JIWETT
MEMBERS
OH. JAMES c. BONNER
MILLCDOEVILLE. OA.
Mmm. WILLIAM L. BRANNEN
METTBR, BA,
DM. J. T. BRYBON
WASHINGTON. OA,
BEVERLY M. DUBDSE, JR.
ATLANTA, OA,
THOMAS H. QIQNILLIAT
SAVANNAH, OEDROIA
JOHN H. BDDDARD
ORIFFIN, DA.
DR. HENRY T. MALONE
ATLANTA. OEOROIA
GORDON F. PRICE
ATLANTA • DAHLDNEBA
HISTORIC SITES
CONFEDERATE NAVAL MUBEUM
COLUMBUS, OA,
DAMLONCOA COURTHOUSE
GOLD MUSEUM
DAHLONEOA. BA.
EAOLE TAVERN
WATKINSVILLE. OA,
ETQWAH MOUND*
OAHTEMVILLE. OA.
FOUT ilAOCTflN
BAVANNAH. BA.
Four KINO BEOHOE
DAKIEN. OA.
FOITT MCALLIBTER
RICHMOND HILL. OA.
JAMKTT MANOR
TOCCDA. OA.
CRAWFORD LONO MUSEUM
JEFFERBON. DA.
MACKAY HOUBE
AUOUBTA. OA.
MIDWAY MUSEUM
MIDWAY, OA.
NEW ECHOTA
OALHOUN. OA.
VANN HOUSE
SmtlNO PLACE. OA.
WABHINOTON-WILKEB MUSEUM
WABHINOTON. OA,
WAYNEBBORD HISTORICAL MUSEUM
WAYNEBBORO, BA.
Mr. John R. Thoman, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree St., NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
I regret the delay in reviewing your preliminary
environmental impact statement concerning the Cobb County
Sewerage Improvement Project but wished to have more infor-
mation about potential National Register properties before
making a statement.
Nominations to the National Register in Georgia are
far from complete as the program is fairly new and our staff
is quite small. However, we do have a rather complete
knowledge of the important historical and archaeological
properties in the state.
There are two very important historical sites near and
endangered by the plans for the Sewerage Improvement Project.
According to my information, the ruins on Soap Creek will
probably not be endangered. I hope that is true. One of the
most important archaeological sites in Georgia is the site
of Standing Peachtree in the vicinity of which, I understand,
a sewerage treatment facility will be constructed. Much of
this area has been disturbed already without any knowledge
gained or study made. If your facility can be placed else-
where for the protection of this site, it would be an important
contribution to Georgia's history. If that is not feasible,
I should hope that any archaeological work would be handled
under strict controls and with qualified personnel so that
some knowledge can be gained from this important site.
I am interested, of course, in the total area as the con-
servation of historical and archaeological properties is a part
of a conservation of the total environment. I should like
MONUMENTS
CHEHAW
New Hart CHURCH
TROUP TOMB
HISTORICAL MARKERS
-------
-2-
to be advised as to future plans in the area.
Sincerely,
MGJ:noh
cc: Mr. John T. McDermott
-------
Metropolitan Development Office
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Room 645
REGION iv May 7} 1971
IN REPLY REFER TO:
4M
Mr. John R. Thoman
Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, NE.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
Subject: Cobb County Sewerage Improvement Project
State of Georgia
We have reviewed the final draft environmental impact statement
transmitted with your letter of April 28, 1971.
We find no reason to revise or extend the remarks contained in
our letter of April 5 on this subject. You have our wholehearted
support in carrying out this project as proposed.
We are returning one copy of the draft as it is in excess of our
needs.
Sincerely yours,
AssistatvfRegional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
f~*^ ~T
United States Department of the Interior O 0 «, <\
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Archeological Center
P. 0. Box 4547
L7423 May 13, 1971
Mr. Frank M. Redmond, Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Sir:
We acknowledge receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Cobb County, Georgia, sewerage project.
Upon completion of the review, our comments will be forwarded to the
National Park Service's Southeast Regional Office, Richmond, for
consolidation and submission to your office. The opportunity to
review this draft has been appreciated.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Faust
Acting Chief, Southeast
Archeological Center
-------
TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU RE
FOREST SERVICE
Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Atlanta, Georgia 3O9O0
1920
.May 17, 1971
Mr. Frank M. Redmond, Jr.
Special Assistant
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Redmond:
Here are our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Cobb County, Georgia, Sewerage Project.
As stated in our earlier letter of April 7, 1971 to
Mr. Thoman, proper consideration has been given to
protecting the environment in all facets of the project
The positive effects on water quality, recreational
values and consideration given to aesthetic values in
retention of "Palisades" area are to be commended.
We believe that proper consideration has been given to
protecting the environment during construction of this
project.
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and commenting
on this important project.
Sincerely,
fT
G. L. DOWNING «-—~A
Acting Assistant Atda Director
Enclosure
-------
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SOUTHEAST REGION, P. O. BOX 10008
FEDERAL. BUILDING. RICHMOND. VA. 23240
IN REPLY REFER TO:
W 21
A98 SER(CP)
AIR MAIL
Mr. Frank M. Redmond, Jr.
Special Assistant
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Redmond:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Cobb County, Georgia Sewerage Improvement Project (Chattahoochee
River Sewage Treatment Plant, Rottenwood Creek Interceptor Sewer,
Sope Creek Interceptor Sewer), enclosed with your letter of
April 28, 1971.
In a letter to Mr. John R. Thoman, Regional Director, Environmental
Protection Agency, dated April 6, 1971, Mr. L. Boyd Finch, Assistant
Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, furnished our
comments on this project. (Copy enclosed.)
The Draft Statement does not appear to recognize our comments
contained in the first two paragraphs of our April 6 letter. There
is no indication that the State Liaison Officer for the National
Register of Historic Places has been consulted, as suggested in
our previous comments.
The Draft from the standpoint of archeological and historical resources
notes the recognition given to the impact of the project upon those
resources as one of the environmental consequences of development.
Because construction projects of this type often cause an irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of prehistoric and historic resources,
we concur in principle with the steps taken locally to initiate a
survey and salvage program in advance of construction in order to
mitigate that loss.
-------
Your consideration of our comments in the final Statement will be
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
fe^-c
Vincent El
Vincent Ellis
Acting Director
Southeast Region
Enclosure
-------
6 tsn
A93J5£R
Ur. John R. Thoman, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office. Southeast Region
1421 Peachtree Street, N. K.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thonan:
We have reviewed the environmental study of the Cobb County, Georgia
Sewerage Improvement Project, enclosed with your letter of March 31,
1371.
Keanesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, an existing unit of the
National Park Systers, is within the area to be affected by the project.
»iien this study wns initiated several years ajo, the National PaA
Service indicated its willingness to cooperate with ths County with tae
understanding that safeguards for the historic features at Eeniiesaw Mour
t?in T.-oulc? be recognized. Tlje statement should give appropriate recog-
nition to this Parlt and assure that the present plan does not endanger
the historic and natural values of the Park.
A potential unit of the National Park System, the Blue Ridge Partly
Extension, is scheduled to terainate near Kennesa^ Mountain National
Battlefield, north of Atlanta and Marietta, Georgia. It is possible
that the subject project could affect the Parkway.
The environmental statement shonld show evidence of consultation ^ith
the State Liaison Officer for the National register of Historic Places.
Thia officer, r.Irs. ilary Gregory Jewett, Executive Secretary, Georgia
Historical Commission, 116 Hitchell Street, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia
303^3, should be consulted for possible National Register properties
that aay exist in the area. These Include all registered Historic
LanOaarka) as well aa other Register properties of State and local
significance.
The eavlrooaantal statevent on page 6 recognize* archeological resources
•ad the e»ployoent of two archeologiats by the County to coordinate
studies and excavations at the Peachtree Site of the Treatment Plant.
-------
Froa our review of the data contained in the report on this Batter,
we question whether this includes the entire project area or is limited
to the Treatment Plant site. We suggest that Mrs: Jewett also be con-
sulted concerning areheolc-jical resources within the entire project
area as delineated on Figure 1 of th« attachments. Her findings should
be recognized in the final statement.
Sincerely yours,
L. Boyd Finch
Assistant Director
Southeast Kejion
bcc: w/cpy inc transrnittal Itr
WASO, Special Planning Studies
Mr. Lorentzson, Atlanta
Mr. TVeeas, Atlanta
Chief, Southeast Archeological Center
Supt., Kennesnw Mountain
Supt., Blue Ridge Parhway
Mary Gregory Jewett
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MOBILE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 22BI
MOBILE. ALABAMA 36801
IN REPLY REFER TO
SAMEN-EE 27 May 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman
Interim Regional Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
Your draft environmental statement for the sewage project in Cobb
County, Georgia, was forwarded by Colonel J. B. Newman, OCE, to this
office for comment. We have reviewed the statement and our comments
are as follows:
1- Page 3. para. II. third line. Sentence should read: "An inter-
ceptor, for the purpose of this statement, is defined as a sewer ..."
2- Page 4. para. I1-7. Detail of the proposed Noonday Creek Plant
is insufficient for comment. However, it is presumed that the efflu-
ent will reach the recreation waters of Lake Allatoona and that the
design will be based on requirements for tertiary treatment. We
should like to be kept advised as to plans as they develop.
3. Page 8. para. IV.
a. Much of the project is located in low areas and no mention is
made of flood protection. Where sewers and structures are located
below the 50-year flood levels, precautions necessary to protect the
structures should be indicated. Sealed, watertight manholes and pro-
tected lines should be required.
b. Flood hazard evaluations should be made of project areas where
sewers and structures are proposed. The statement should indicate
effects of the proposed construction upon the hydraulic characteristics
of the streams, particularly if increased flood levels will result.
c. The statement should discuss the interferences with and/or
loss of fish habitat and other aquatic biota which will result from
construction within the creek and river beds.
-------
SAMEN-EE 27 May 1971
Mr. John R Thoman
d. Discussion should be made of erosion of trenches where sewers
are located within stream beds and precautions to be taken to control
sediment and to prevent shoaling should be outlined.
4. Pafte 9. second full para. It is indicated that this reach of the
Chattahoochee River is considered to be an interstate stream. It is
suggested that more explanation be made as to the reason for this
classification since many readers may question this for the Buford to
Atlanta reach.
5. Page 19. The statement should indicate that the commitment of lands
for permanent or maintenance rights-of-way and the materials and labor
involved in construction will be irreversible and irretrievable.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the statement.
Sincerely yours,
IY A. GRIFFITH
COL, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
cc: Council on Environmental
Quality (10 cys)
-------
SIERRA MB CLUB
Chattahoochee Chapter
3575 Summitridge Dr.
Doraville, Georgia
30340
June 21, 1971
Mr. John R. Thoman
Director, Southeast Region
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
The Chattahoochee Chapter of the Sierra dub is both pleased
by some of the statements made in, and disturbed by some of
the fsaterjdssiaf from, the draft environmental impact
statement made by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Southeast Region, April, 1971, on the Cobb County Sewerage
Improvement Project. We request that this letter, which
states our objections and commendations, .be included in
the final impact statement.
We specifically object to the following omissions:
1, Numerous scenic creekbeds and gorges will be destroyed
or significantly altered by construction of inter-
ceptor sewer lines. Seven interceptors are described
in the report, all of which follow creekbeds. The
present scene of destruction along Rottenwood Creek
between Ahers Mill Road and the Ghattahoochee River
demonstrates the virtual impossibility of constructing
an interceptor sewer along a creek without destroying
its beauty.
2. Alternative routes for the creek sewers are not
mentioned. Interceptors can usually be constructed
along existing roadways with far less environmental
alteration than if placed in creekbeds. For example,
the Rottenwood interceptor could have been located
along 1-75 between 1-285 and the Chattahoochee
River rather than along the parallel Rottenwood
gorge. Routing along roadbeds sometimes requires
l ore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources.
-------
greater construction and/or maintenance costs, because
pumping stations must lift the sewerage over ridge lines.
However, the American public in general and the Atlanta-
area residents in particular must be willing to pay
for the protection of their ever-dwindling natural
resources.
3. Unique botanical resources will be destroyed by the
construction of the Sope Creek Interceptor between
Powers Ferry Road and Rottenwood Creek. This area,
known as the "Palisades" and generally considered
to be the most scenic portion of the Chattahoochee,
contains flora such as flame azalea, mountain laurel,
rhododendron, and pink lady slipper, which is an
endangered species. Destruction of these resources,
and the rock bluffs, «. 11 limit its usefulne«s as a natural
area, use which has been recommended by the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation in its draft report.
In spite of these objections, we commend Cobb County for its
foresight in attacking the sewerage problem before it becomes
critical and for its co-operation with Pulton County in establishing
joint interceptors. Vfe also commend the Environmental Protection
Agency for recommending alternative E (3700 feet of tunneling)
along the Palisades, and for recommending the following construc-
tion guidelines for projects along the Chattahoochee:
1. A minimum buffer zone of twenty feet between the river's
edge and the construction right of way.
2. Consultation with the Forestry Service to determine
methods to limit the loss of trees.
3. Removal of surplus excavated material.
4. Restoration of disturbed surface areas and the employ-
ment of a landscape architect.
Unfortunately, it is questionable whether these recommendations
will be followed. The survey line along the Palisades, as
witnessed by members of our club during recent hikes, does not
honor the twenty foot buffer zone. Statements have been heard
that indicate that alternative B (excavation) will be selected
rather than alternative E, primarily because the Federal Gov-
ernment will be unable to pay a reasonable portion of the addi-
tional costs. The severe damage caused by construction in
Rottenwood Gorge indicates that similar damage will occur during
construction in creek beds. Wfe therefore strongly recommend
that:
1. Alternative routes (non-creekbed) be evaluated for
-------
interceptor routes*
2. A means, »uch a* performance bonds or penalty clauses,
be written into contracts to guarantee compliance with
construction guidelines,
3. Alternatives D (complete tunneling) or E (partial
tunneling) be selected for the Scpe Creek interceptor
in order to preserve the Palisades*
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Martin
Secretary
cc: Mr. Ernest Barrett
Chairman, Cobb County Commission
Mr. Rogers C. B« Morton
Secretary, Department of the Interior
Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Friends of the River, Inc.
Suite 421, 100 Colony Squar
1175 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
404/892-8242
June 23, 1971
Mr. John Thoman, Acting Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
As president of "Friends of the River, Inc.", I
wish to put on record the consensus of the membership
of this organization regarding the proposed Cobb County
Soap Creek Interceptor sewer line.
First, let me assure you that we are very aware
of the need for cleaning up the pollution of the Chatta-
hoochee River, and wholeheartedly endorse this objective.
It would, however, seem that these sewer lines could
be better located.
Based on our evaluation of the preliminary study,
and aware of the impact which developmental sewers have
on the growth patterns of the areas they serve, we are
opposed to the present recommended route. Alternate
Route "D", as shown in the study, would be far more
desirable from an environmental point of view, however,
it does not appear to be feasable from a cost standpoint.
Therefore, we recommend alternate Route "E" with the
addition of a short tunnel to protect the small out-
cropping which occurs near the head of Long Island.
We feel that while alternate Route "E* is less
desirable than Route "D" it is the minimum recommenda-
tion that is acceptable. We recognise that additional
funds will be needed to follow this recommended alterna-
tive and strongly urge that methods be found to insure
maximum participation by the Federal Government in the
funding.
-------
Page 2 June 23, 1971
Mr. John Thoman
We would be remiss if we failed to commend this
preliminary plan for recognizing the need for exploring
and recommending alternative routes. We would also like
to compliment Cobb County for its cooperation with the
other agencies which have contributed so much time to
this project.
In spite of the thoroughness with which this report
was put together, our organization was struck with the
omission of any pre-planning to protect the beds of the
smaller creeks which lie in the path of the proposed
sewer line.
We are further concerned about the restoration of
the area. Past experience has proven the need for ade-
quate guarantees that complete restoration will be carried
out, and with a minimum delay between the completion of
the line construction and the beginning of the restoration
process.
Lastly, we urge you to initiate further intensive
environmental impact studies before further penetration
is made in either the valuable Soap Creek or Rottenwood
Creek areas.
Cordially ,
s. Harold C. McKenzie,
President ,
Friends of the River, Inc.
KBM:wo
cc: Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus, Admin.
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Rogers C. B. Morton,
Secretary of the Interior
-------
nmcFRS
• -Irs. GMarie-, Yafn, Jr., President
i I C-,-,:ipr. Vicp President
'.'•!:• irrt i . Grrenblatt. Secretary
.: o. >oh'v;on Treasurer
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1 •' '- • •' • I'.' -on. Jr.. Composer
-, ; . Lireml-er:;. Civi<- lender
' Cockier. Lawyer
; •- • o.- F Oenn.ird. Lawyer
::i!,'.,:i1 L. :!':) Jl..
SAVE
SAVE AMERICA'S VITAL ENVIRONMENT
P. 0. Box 52652
Atlanta. Ga. 30305
June 23, 1971
Mr. John Thoman
Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street. N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Thoman:
We would like to have these coranents on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of the Cobb County Sewerage Improvement Project
included in the final Impact Statement*
We would like to compliment the Environmental Protection Agency
on the outstanding environmental protection offered the riverbanks
and scenic rock outcrop areas along the Chattahooche Palisades area.
The tunneling as proposed in alternatives D ,or E is an absolute
necessity for the preservation of the beauty of this unique area
of the river.
The construction precautions recommended on page 15 are excellent,
but we feel they must be guaranteed in order to be effective.
We applaud Fulton and Cobb Counties for their cooperative efforts
to clean up existing pollution and preserve the scenic aspects of
the river. However, we were disappointed that no protective en-
vironmental consideration had been offered for the numerous creeks
involved in the project.
We can only conclude that the fate of these creeks may be the same
as or worse than that of the formerly beautiful gorge and valley
of Rottenwood Creek. The devastation of Rottenwood' Creek is a poignant
example of what can happen to a creek even when a sewer line is placed
in the bed or gorge with care. Alternate routes for river bank and
creek bed sewers, even though possibly necessitating pumping stations,
must be found. No such alternatives were considered for any except
the Palisades area in this impact statement.
We do not believe the Citizens of these Counties, the State of Georgia,
nor of the United States are willing to accept the destruction of
their natural resources as the price they must pay for clean water.
We hope the Federal Government can find a way to further supplement
the funding of this project in view of the local government's praise-
-------
- 2 -
worthy efforts to clean up and preserve this river which is being
considered for a national urban park.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. Charles Yarn ^
President, SAVE
JHT/gn
-------
UNITING GEORGIA'S CONSERVATIONISTS
THE GEOROIA CONSERVANCY, INC.
1O25 CANDUER BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEOROIA 30303
4O4/525-I828
June 24, 1971
Mr. John Toman
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Toman:
The Georgia Conservancy would like to comment on the
environmental impact statement on the Chattahoochee River
tendered to us, and have these comments included in the
final draft.
First, we wish to congratulate the Environmental
Protection Agency for its efforts to simultaneously
stimulate both cleaning up of the pollution in the Chat-
tahoochee, and preservation of its natural beauty. We
particularly wish to endorse alternative E concerning the
planned Sope Creek Interceptor, which would provide safe,
effective removal of sewage, and maintain the extraordinary
scenic beauty of the Cobb County Palisades.
We would also like to commend Cobb County for under-
taking a sewage abatement program before the situation
becomes critical, and we urge the allocation of federal
funds to aid Cobb in following alternative E for the Sope
Creek Interceptor.
There are, however, some curious and serious omissions
from the study.
-------
Mr. John Toman
June 24, 1971
page 2
^Perhaps most serious is the failure to discuss any
environmental assessment on the various creek basins, and
to discuss the adverse impact which sewer construction
will have on these historic, beautiful creeks.
Also not discussed is whether the creeks will be
returned to a relatively pure state by the sewer Ci.e.,
will it remove the sewage from Sope Creek? Does the
Rottenwood sewer make Rottenwood clean?).
We feel that the tremendously adverse impact of sewer
placement in Rottenwood Creek Gorge should be surveyed
and considered before any new sewers are considered for
Sope and other creeks in Cobb County, or before Rotten-
wood Creek is altered, not only for our lifetimes, but
for geological times.
While we stronfcly advocate pollution abatement, we do
not believe that it must entail such extensive environ-
mental disruption.
Sincerely,
CLActuAeE
Claude E. Terry I
CET:j
cc: Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus
-------
APPENDIX I
PRIVATELY BUILT SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
WHICH COBB COUNTY WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM OPERATES
Plant M
Atlanta Country Club Estates
Cochise Subdivision
Farmington Subdivision
Franklin Road
Interstate North
Johnson Woods (Vinings) Subdivision
Regency Apartments
Seven Springs Estates
Terrell Mill Estates
Waverly Woods
Woodland Brook Farms
Treatment Processes
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination*
Extended Aeration
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination*
Extended Aeration, Sand Filtration*, Chlorination*
Extended Aeration
Aerated Lagoon, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Extended Aeration, Chlorination, Polishing Pond
Notes:
* Not in service at time of May, 1968 inspection
1 Construction essentially complete; not yet accepted by Cobb County Water and Sewerage Systei
2 Under construction
3 Not yet receiving sewage flow
Remarks
1
1
2,3
1,3
1
------- |