LEWIS SMITH LAKE - Auburn University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following questions and answers pertain to suggested restoration activities to address water quality problems identified in the Phase I DiagnosticlFeasibility Study ofLewis Smith Lake. I. Will the proposed projects displace any people? NO 2. Will the proposed projects deface existing residences or residential areas? NO 3. Will the proposed projects be likely to lead to a change in established land use patterns such as increased development pressure near the lake? NO 4. Will the proposed projects adversely affect a significant amount ofprime agricultural land or . agricultural operations on such land? NO 5. Will the proposed projects result in a significant adverse effect on parkland, other public land or lands ofrecognized scenic value? NO 6. Will the proposed projects result in a significant adverse effect on lands or structures of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural value? NO 7. Will the proposed projects lead to a significant long-range increase in energy demands? NO 8. Will the proposed projects result in significant and long range adverse changes in ambient air quality or noise levels? NO 9. Do the proposed projects involve use ofin-lake chemical treatment? NO 10. Will the proposed projects involve construction ofstructures in a floodplain? NO II. Will dredging be employed as part ofthe restoration procedures, and ifso, where will the dredge material be deposited? NO 12. Will the proposed projects have a significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, or on wetlands or any other wildlife habitat, especially those ofendangered species? NO 161
13. Are there additional feasible alternatives to the proposed restoration projects, and why were they not chosen? Feasible alternatives for restoration will be evaluated on a case by case basis. 14. Are there additional adverse environmental impacts from the proposed restoration projects that were not addressed in the previous questions? NO 162
Page 1 and 2:
LEWIS SMITH LAKE Phase I Diagnostic
Page 3 and 4:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 5 and 6:
January 1986 (Bayne et al. 1987). T
Page 7 and 8:
Total alkalinity, the concentration
Page 9:
found at concentrations ranging fro
Page 16 and 17:
etween 10 and 15 mgIL as CaCO, but
Page 19 and 20:
Table 1-1. Table 1-2. Table 2-1. Ta
Page 21 and 22:
List ofTables (Continued) Table 10-
Page 23 and 24:
List ofTables (Continued) Table 10-
Page 25 and 26:
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8-I. Locatio
Page 27 and 28:
PARTI. DIAGNOSTIC STIJDY 1
Page 29 and 30:
Table I-I. Morphometric characteris
Page 31 and 32:
2.0 BASIN GEOLOGY AND DRAINAGE Smit
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2-1 (Cont'd) Suitability/Limi
Page 35 and 36:
4.0 SIZE AND ECONOMIC STRUCTIJRE OF
Page 37 and 38:
- U. II Table 4-2. Number ofbusines
Page 39 and 40:
I, Table 4-4. Agricultural producti
Page 42 and 43:
7.0 LAKE USE COMPARISON WIlli NEARB
Page 44 and 45:
00 Table 8-1. Actual point source l
Page 46 and 47:
N 0 Table 8-1 (Continued) Actual To
Page 48 and 49:
N N Table 8-1 (Continued) Actual To
Page 50 and 51:
Table 8-1 (Continued) Actual Total
Page 52 and 53:
tv 0- Table 8-2 (Continued) Permitt
Page 54 and 55:
Annual point source total suspended
Page 56 and 57:
Table 9-1. Location oftributary sam
Page 58:
nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, total a
Page 68:
highly positively correlated (p < 0
Page 71 and 72:
(31.4% and 30.5%, respectively). Ro
Page 73:
In 1985, the paucity ofinfonnation
Page 76 and 77:
population of 1.15 million. In addi
Page 78 and 79:
V> tv Table 10-1. Schedule of activ
Page 80 and 81:
..,. en IN o 2 4 i Miles Figure 10-
Page 82 and 83:
sample were poured into Nalgene"' c
Page 84:
flows encountered in 1995,428 days.
Page 87 and 88:
Table 10-6. Mean (range) temperatur
Page 89:
Table 10-8. Mean (range) temperatur
Page 94 and 95:
Examination oftemperature, DO and s
Page 96 and 97:
Table 10-10. Mean (range) turbidity
Page 98 and 99:
Table 10-12. Mean (range) turbidity
Page 100 and 101:
Table 10-14. Mean (range) Secchi di
Page 102 and 103:
Table 10-16. Mean (range) Secchi di
Page 105 and 106:
a low of 7 mgIL to a high of67 mgIL
Page 107 and 108:
Table 10-18. Mean (range) pH, total
Page 109 and 110:
Table 10-20. Mean (range) pH, total
Page 111 and 112:
Table 10·21. Ammonia, nitrite, nit
Page 113 and 114:
Table 10-23. Mean (range) ammonia,
Page 115 and 116:
in concert with changes in algal bi
Page 117 and 118:
Table 10-25. Orthophosphate and tot
Page 119 and 120:
Table 10-27. Mean (range) orthophos
Page 121 and 122:
stratification (Fig. 10-2). During
Page 123:
Table 10-30. Chloride, total organi
Page 126 and 127:
Table 10-33. Mean (range) chloride,
Page 128 and 129:
In August 1986, iron and manganese
Page 130 and 131:
1971). Productivity measured during
Page 132 and 133:
Table 10-36. Mean (range) phytoplan
Page 134:
Table 10-38. Mean (range) phytoplan
Page 139: Table 10-39. Phytoplankton taxa by
Page 145: (station 2) in the winter to a high
Page 149 and 150: Table 10-41. Mean (range) phytoplan
Page 151 and 152: Table 10-42. Mean maximum dry weigh
Page 153 and 154: Table 10-43. Temporal and spatial v
Page 155 and 156: 11.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11.1 Fish
Page 157 and 158: Table 11-1. Total number, catch per
Page 159 and 160: Table \\-3. Ranking by quality indi
Page 161 and 162: Table 11-5. Checklist of fish speci
Page 163 and 164: Table 11-5 (Continued) Scientific N
Page 165: 11.2 WILDLIFE A checklist ofbirds,
Page 169 and 170: Table 11-7 (Continued) Family Scien
Page 174: Table 11-7 (Continued) Family Scien
Page 181 and 182: PART II. FEASffiILITY STUDY 154
Page 183 and 184: from Atlanta, Georgia received an a
Page 185 and 186: An additional source ofnutrients to
Page 187: Indirectly, low pH can result in hi
Page 191 and 192: Bayne, D. R., W. C. Seesock, P. P.
Page 193: Taylor, W.D., S.c. Hem, L.R. Willia
show all

LEWIS SMITH LAKE - Auburn University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?