April 1, 2011
Lynn Sisk Chief, Water Quality Section Water Division Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, AL 36110-1463
Submitted via Electronic Mail
RE: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification for the Martin Hydroelectric Project (FERC #P-349)
Mr. Sisk:
On behalf of American Rivers and our members in the Tallapoosa River Watershed, the Alabama Rivers Alliance hereby submits comments on the application for water quality certification as part of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for Alabama Power Company‟s (APCO) Martin (Tallapoosa River) hydroelectric project and urge ADEM to deny the application because the department cannot determine that there is a reasonable assurance that the discharge resulting from the project will not violate applicable water quality standards under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act and Title 22§22-22-9(g), Code of Alabama,1975. Our organizations are non-profit organizations dedicated to the protection and restoration of the rivers of Alabama. We have been and will remain active participants in the re- licensing of the Martin project. We very much appreciate the extension of the deadline for comments. This is a very complex and important issue and the Department is to be commended for encouraging maximum public participation.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTED WATERS
The Martin Project is an existing hydropower facility located on the Tallapoosa River in Coosa, Elmore and Tallapoosa Counties in Alabama. Along with Yates and Thurlow, the two subsequent “run of river” dams, Martin Dam impounds approximately 41 miles of river. The entire Tallapoosa River is designated for Fish and Wildlife and the river is known for its exceptional water quality and recreational opportunities. The reach immediately below Thurlow dam is widely used for white water boating and other whole body contact sports and ADEM has recently nominated Lake Martin as Alabama‟s first ever Treasured Alabama Lake. The Martin project include four hydroelectric generation units with a total installed capacity of 182.5 MW. Martin‟s units 1-3 were recently refurbished for increased capacity.
SECTION 401 CERTIFICATIONS
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides Alabama Rivers Alliance 2027 Second Avenue North, Suite A * Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 322-6395 * Facsimile (205) 322-6397 Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011
(1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates… that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this title
In issuing a certification, the State must ensure that the activity will comply with the requirements of the CWA and not violate Alabama‟s Water Quality Standards. The Purpose of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation‟s Waters,” 33 U.S.C§ 1251(a). Thus in issuing a certification, ADEM must ensure that the activity with contribute to the restoration of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the State‟s waters, or at the very least not interfere with such restoration.
The department may deny certification if a project does not assure compliance with the water quality standards and other applicable requirements of the CWA. “No license or permit shall be granted if certification has been denied by the State…” CWA §401(a)(1). In accordance with CWA and State law, ADEM can only issue a certification if there is a reasonable assurance that the discharge resulting from the proposed activity as outlined in the licensees 2010 application will not violate applicable water quality standards under the CWA and Title 22, §22- 22-9(g), Code of Alabama, 1975. Accordingly, the department must make findings that the projects, including the measures specified in its certifications, will assure compliance with all of Alabama‟s water quality standards applicable to the affected reaches of the Tallapoosa River as well as the entire Mobile Bay watershed. In the event of a waiver, ADEM must demonstrate that such a grant of the water quality certification is in the public interest.
ADEM SHOULD REQUEST WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION OR DENY THE APPLICATION BECAUSE A SUFFICIENT DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE AT THIS TIME
The certification of a project such as this under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is an extremely large and important decision and the consequences of any action on the part of the State will have significant, far reaching impact on the water quality of the Tallapoosa, Alabama, and Mobile Rivers as well as Mobile Bay and the Alabama Gulf Coast. The 401 certification is the culmination of a process that routinely last over 10 years.1 Therefore it is incumbent on the Department to proceed cautiously to ensure that it has the best data for making such a consequential decision.
A decision of such importance must not be taken without complete information. The Alabama Administrative Procedures Act expressly prohibits agency actions that are “[u]nreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious…” 41-22-20(k), Code of Alabama, (1975). For this reason we renew our request that the Department not make a determination until the utility has
1 For Example, Alabama Power began the relicensing process for the Coosa River with a letter to FERC dated September 22, 2000. Almost 11 years later, the process is ongoing. Currently, FERC is waiting on the biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the applicant amended its biological opinion on January 24, 2011, almost 6 years after ADEM issued its water quality certification. The License for the Black Warrior River was issued on March 31, 2010; 5 years after ADEM issued its water quality certification 2
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011 submitted its final application and all information regarding potential impacts to water quality have been submitted for review.2
With respect, we strongly disagree with the Department‟s assertion that the applicant has provided enough information in its application and on its website to make a determination unless such determination results in a denial of the application.3 To date the utility has not adequately undertaken to study the effects of the project downstream of Thurlow Dam; the applicant has not adequately studied the impacts of project operation on fish populations downstream of the project; the applicant has not provided sufficient information regarding the impact to water quality from proposed rule curve changes; and neither the applicant nor FERC have begun discussions regarding proposed measures and plans to protect, mitigate, or enhance environmental resources (PM&E measures). Request for these studies have been repeatedly brought to the applicant as part of the Integrated Licensing Process (Attachments 1-3). Except for modifications proscribed by FERC which extended the geographic scope of the studies below Thurlow Dam to river mile 12.9 on the Tallapoosa River (Attachment 4) the applicant has refused to undertake the studies necessary for a sound assessment of the impacts to water quality from project operation. Any decision based on the information provided by the applicant to date would be premature.
Additionally, the environment assessment process required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has not begun. Nor has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion on project impacts. The information required for these assessments is essential to determining the impact that the proposed action will have on the State‟s water quality standards. ADEM does not generally conduct equivalent environmental assessments on its own. ADEM should defer its certification until FERC‟s required NEPA assessment is completed and the FWS has issued its biological opinion in order to make use of their data and findings. In light of recent relicensings on the Coosa and Black Warrior Rivers, deferring the certification until these studies are complete will in no way delay the final license for the applicant.
ADEM must therefore either request that the applicant withdraw is application to resubmit it at a later date once the applicant has submitted its application to FERC and all required environmental studies have been completed or deny the application outright and request that the applicant resubmit once it has filed its final application with FERC and all environmental have been completed. 4
We understand that, under the CWA §401(a)(1), the department must make a determination within one year of the date of application and that the utility prematurely
3 Time and date discrepancies plague the data APC provided. For example, APC gave ADEM 2 additional data points after 10/25/2002 at 18:00, but the next data (from 19:30 on 10/25/2002 to 7:30 on 10/26/2002) are missing. The next data point occurs on 10/26/02 at 8:00 (DO recorded at 4.5 mg/l), followed by another break until 14:30 (DO recorded at 4.59 mg/l). That single datum point is followed by another break in recorded DO data until 10/27/02 at 8:30 and 9:00 (DO recorded 4.65 mg/l and 4.60mg/l, respectively). Another, albeit smaller, data gap occurs with the next recorded DO is 4.52 mg/l at 14:00 on 10/27/02. In aggregate, the time of day gaps in data from 2002 – 2005 can be best seen in Figure 2. A similar trend exists for those data 2006 – 2009. See Comments on the 401 Certification submitted by World Wildlife Fund, April 1, 2011. 4 FERC regulations provides that “[a]n application for a new or subsequent license must be filed no later than 24 months before the existing license expires.” 18 CFR § 5.17(a). The applicants license expires on June 8, 2013 and its application must be filed no later than June 8, 2011. 3
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011 submitted its application for certification in the summer of 2010 - well before the submission of even its Preapplication Package to the FERC. However, unless the agency has undertaken substantial independent studies to determine for itself the project‟s projected impacts on the State‟s water quality standards, ADEM has no alternative but to defer a decision until the Department can build a suitable record to support its determination. Deferment can be accomplished by either a withdrawal of the application by the utility or ADEM may deny the application until such data is available to the department.
CERTIFICATION MUST PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSURANCES THAT THE PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
A Certification Must Include All Water Quality Components
A certification may by a certifying agency shall include the following: … (3) A statement that there is a reasonable assurance that the activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards
40 CFR §121.2 (a)
While hydropower projects are most notorious for their harmful impacts on the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) level in river systems, a certification includes whatever conditions are necessary to assure compliance with water quality standards in the receiving waters. See CWA §401(d). Such conditions are not limited to DO levels. In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept. of Ecology (Jefferson County PUD), 511 U.S. 700, 715 (1994), the Supreme Court held that “[a] certification requirement that an applicant operate the project consistently with state water quality standards – i.e., consistently with the designated uses of the water body and the water quality criteria- is both a „limitation‟ to assure compl[iance] with … limitations imposed under [CWA] §303, and an „appropriate‟ requirement of state law.” A certification must also assure that an applicant will operate the project consistently with the antidegradation policy that all existing instream water use will be maintained and protected See id., p. 719; 40 C.F.R §131.12(a)(1)(1993). Thus the certification must provide a reasonable assurance that all water quality standards, both numeric and narrative, will not be violated.
A Certification Should Require a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Level of 5.0 Mg/L at All Times
We are concerned about the effects that extended periods of low DO may have on aquatic species, especially benthic organisms that can‟t quickly relocate to areas of better water quality. The applicant has installed aeration devices at Martin Dam. The data submitted by the applicant contains substantial gaps and time lapses. See WWF comments submitted April 1, 2011. However, the data that is present shows that there are still violations of the DO standard below the dam. ADEM should require the applicant to provide specific data regarding the impacts of low DO on aquatic species in the area. ADEM should initiate consultation with state and federal agencies and other biological experts and incorporate their comments into applicable certification conditions to ensure protection of aquatic species in the vicinity of these projects.
4
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011
Absent such data and consultation, ADEM cannot assure that the project will not impair the designated use of fish and wildlife
The prevailing scientific opinion is that even short periods of low DO can cause irreversible damage to aquatic life and sometimes even lead to species die-off. Moreover, even if individual of a species survive low DO events, their populations may not thrive in the long term as reproduction and species health could be negatively impacted. While we are aware that scientific information regarding the oxygen needs of some benthic organisms is limited, we urge ADEM to err on the side of caution and require strict adherence to water quality standards protective of fish and wildlife. While 4.0 mg/l is the minimum DO standard the Department can apply to a hydropower project, ADEM has within its discretion to prescribe a higher DO standard if it is necessary to assure the protection of beneficial uses. As part of the relicensing of the Coosa River, substantial evidence was presented to the Department that the 4.0 mg/l DO standard is inadequate to protect fish and other aquatic life. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) noted the following impacts on fish and freshwater mussels: DO concentrations less than 5.9 mg/l may result in reduced growth in juvenile largemouth bass; DO concentrations between 3.0 and 5.0 mg/l may result in increased sickness, deformities, and parasitization in largemouth bass; DO concentrations below 2.0 to 3.0 mg/l may result in latent mortality for several mussel species; DO concentrations below 6.0 mg/l may result in below normal metabolism for freshwater mussels; and DO concentrations below 5.0 mg/l may result in increased mortality for freshwater mussels. See FWS comments to Coosa Water Quality Certification, p.7, February 15, 2005.
In its review of ADEM‟s Triennial Review, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 (EPA Region 4), suggested that
“[t]he State should consider eliminating of modifying the 4 mg/l standard variance for dissolved oxygen for existing hydroelectric generation impoundment discharges. A default provision in the standard allowing dissolved oxygen to be degraded to 4 mg/l during periods of hydroelectric impoundment discharge should not be allowed if a dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/l can be met or if a standard higher than 4 mg/l can be met. If the 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen cannot be met, then the State must make a demonstration documenting the lower water quality is adequate to protect existing uses fully, in accordance with CFR 131.12(a)(2).
Letter from Joan Benante, Chief, Water Quality Planning Branch, Region 4, U.S. EPA (August 20, 2010).
According to the applicant, the DO levels below Martin Dam averages 5.91 mg/l and according to the description of existing technology in use at the project it is well within the applicant‟s capability to maintain a DO level above 5.0 mg/l. Therefore, the State should exercise its discretion and require a minimum DO of 5.0 mg/l at all times.
In any event, the state minimum standard of 5.0 mg/l should apply to all areas below the mixing zone of the tailraces of Martin Dam and the two subsequent “run of river” projects, Yates and Thurlow. It is inappropriate to exempt the applicant from complying with the 5.0 mg/l standards in areas beyond the mixing zones of these tailraces. The certification should provide 5
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011 clear guidance for determining the distance below each dam that is subject to the 4.0 mg/l DO standard.
A Certification Must Clearly Specify Compliance Requirements During Periods Of No- Discharge
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), a water quality certification for a jurisdictional project must address all water quality impacts in a manner adequate to restore and protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the river. See Jefferson County PUD, at 713 (1994). Thus, the entire project, not just the discharge, must comply with all water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. See id. In some cases, protection of designated uses requires measures beyond those necessary to satisfy numeric and narrative criteria. See id. at 714.
When APC is operating the turbines, the current minimum level for DO in the tailrace of the project is 4.0 mg/l. However, when the applicant is not discharging from the turbines, the applicable water quality standard for dissolved oxygen in the tailrace becomes 5.0 mg/l, according to the criteria for the designated uses below the dams (Ala. Administrative Code 335- 6-10-.09).
In its response to comment during the 2009 Triennial Review, ADEM stated:
The Department interprets the provisions for dissolved oxygen criterian at 335-6- 10-.09 regarding hydroelectric impoundments to mean that during periods when there is no discharge from the impoundment the applicable dissolved oxygen criterion is 5.0 mg/l in waters with Public Water Supply and Fish and Wildlife designated uses.
ADEM response to comments, June 29, 2009.
The continuous tailrace data provided by APC was collected only during periods of generation at the dams. In its application, the utility makes no mention of DO levels whatsoever during periods when it is not discharging, nor does it discuss actions that it will take to ensure that state water quality standards are met during periods when it is not generating.
Since the applicant has constructed and operates Martin (and therefore Yates and Thurlow) in a manner that does not provide regular releases of water, it is incumbent on the applicant to ensure that DO standards are also being met during periods of non-generation. Because the applicant has not provided any data which demonstrates the project‟s compliance with applicable water quality standards during periods of non-generation, we cannot provide effective comments regarding the “reasonable assurances” of the applicant to meet water quality standards. We request that the application be revised to include the continuous tailrace data and be resubmitted for public review. At the very least, the continuous tailrace data should be made available to state and federal agencies as well as interested non-governmental groups and members of the public for review and comment.
In any certification, we ADEM should clearly state the requirements for maintaining water quality standards and require dissolved oxygen data to be collected during periods of non- 6
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011 generation below the dams to ensure water quality standards are being met in the tailraces of each hydropower dam.
A Certification Should Require Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting for the Entire Term of the License
Monitoring is necessary to ensure compliance. The applicant is proposing to monitor tailrace water quality for a period of only 2 years. We consider this monitoring period to be too short. We request that ADEM require APC to monitor water quality for the term of the hydropower license. Given that the term of the license will be 30 to 50 years, two years of monitoring is not sufficient to ensure compliance or “reasonable assurance” of compliance for the entire length of the license. An alternating monitoring program may be acceptable, with monitoring required in an alternating pattern of years, provided that the provisions discussed below are included in the monitoring plans.
The Water Quality Monitoring Plan submitted by the applicant needs to include provisions for dry/wet year sampling and continued monitoring in the event of continued non- compliance during the monitoring period. Moreover, the applicant needs to ensure that water quality standards are being met during any monitoring period, especially during critical conditions such as low flow summer months. In the event that a wet water year should occur during the designated period of monitoring, the applicant should continue the monitoring program until a normal or dry year has occurred. Critical conditions for many water quality parameters, including DO, occur during dry or low-flow conditions. Therefore, it is important for that monitoring occur in normal and dry years to ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards.
Additionally, the applicant should continue the monitoring programs for additional years as necessary until compliance has been demonstrated during an acceptable length of normal or dry years. For instance, if compliance has not been achieved in the proposed years of the monitoring program, the monitoring program will continue until sufficient compliance with water quality standards has been demonstrated.
Based on our discussions regarding compliance with water quality standards during periods of non-generation, it is appropriate for ADEM to require monitoring in the tailraces during periods of both generation and non-generation periods. We recommend that APC operate continuous tailrace monitors during the months of June through October, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to ensure compliance at all times.
For the proposed monitoring program to be useful, a standardized reporting system should be developed by ADEM that includes specific requirements for the information being reported. For instance, as ADEM determines compliance based on the number of days with violations rather than a percentage of continuous time, the utility should report the number of days when water quality standards were not met. In addition, APC should analyze and report periods of duration of water quality standard violations. These analyses have been included in the application and therefore should be easily provided in future monitoring reports. Furthermore, we request that the applicant submit their water quality data in a usable format which is easily transferable to data analysis programs such as Excel. ADEM should post all water quality data and reports to its Efile system in an easily searchable format. 7
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011
A Certification Should Require a Continuous Minimum Flow Regime Which Is Protective of Water Quality Standards
A certification includes whatever conditions are necessary to assure compliance with water quality standards in the receiving waters. See CWA §401(d). Such conditions may include minimum flow releases. In Jefferson County PUD, 511 U.S. 700, 723 (1994), the Supreme Court held that Washington State had the authority to include minimum flow requirements in a certification issued pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA as needed to enforce a designated use contained in a state water quality standard. The certification must assure that the applicant will operate the project consistently with the antidegradation policy that all existing instream water use will be maintained and protected. See id. at 719; C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(1) (1993). Currently the reaches of Tallapoosa affected by Martin dam are designated as Fish and Wildlife with demonstrated existing and historically whole body contact activities occurring regularly. These uses must be protected through a scientifically based flow regime. By not requiring a minimum flow regime below Thurlow dam, the certification will not provide a reasonable assurance that the project will operate in a manner that will comply with the water quality standards of the State.
The Certification Process Should Provide Adequate Opportunity for Public Participation
The CWA specifically requires that the State establish procedures for public participation, including notice and hearing, in certifications proceedings. See CWA §401(a)(1). In order to comply with this requirement and to afford adequate opportunity for public comment on such a complex project, we request that the department publish a draft certification for public review and hold a public hearing to receive comments. Additionally, we request that department provide responses to comment before issuing the final certification. Considering the significant impact that this project will have on the Tallapoosa River over the next several decades, the public should be allowed to review and provide comments on the proposed certification rather than be limited to comments on the application. Finally, we request that the Department provide specific, written response to all comments submitted regarding this application. The opportunity for public comment is rendered meaningless if the Department does not acknowledge public comments.
We request that the Department add the following representatives to the service list for this proceeding:
Mitchell Reid Alabama Rivers Alliance 2027 2nd Ave N. Birmingham, Al 35203
Matthew Rice Rebecca Haynes American Rivers 1001 Washington Street, Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: 803-771-7206 Cell: 803-422-5244 8
Re: Comments on Application for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Alabama Rivers Alliance April 1, 2011
Fax: 803-771-7580 [email protected]
Richard Roos-Collins Julie A. Gantenbein Water and Power Law Group PC 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 802 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 296-5588 [email protected] [email protected]
CONCLUSION
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at 205.322.6395 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Mitch Reid, J.D. Program Director Alabama Rivers Alliance 205.322.6395 [email protected]
Attachements. cc. The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE Washington, DC 20426
James Giattina, Director, Water Protection Division, USEPA REGION 4, 61 Forsyth St, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303
James F. Crew, Manager, Hydro Services, Southern Company Generation, 600 North 18th Street, Birmingham, Al 35291
Jeff Powell, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne ES Field Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526
Tom Littlepage, Alabama Office of Water Resources, 401 Adams Avenue, Suite 434, Montgomery, Alabama 36104
J. Chris Greene, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 64 North Union Street, Suite 658, Montgomery, AL 36130
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
) Alabama Power Company ) Martin Dam Project ) P-349-150 )
COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION DOCUMENT, STUDY REQUESTS, AND COMMENTS ON SCOPING DOCUMENT BY AMERICAN RIVERS AND ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE
1 Introduction
On August 4, 2008, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued a Scoping Document (SD1) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the relicensing of Alabama Power Company’s (APC) Martin Dam Project. Alabama Rivers Alliance and American Rivers respectfully submit these comments on FERC’s Scoping Document and APC’s Preliminary Application Document (PAD), which was filed with the Commission on June 5, 2008.
The Alabama Rivers Alliance (ARA) is a nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of waters in the state of Alabama. We are headquartered at 2027 Second Avenue North, Suite A, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Alabama Rivers Alliance’s mission is to unite the citizens of Alabama to protect clean, healthy waters. We represent more than 800 individuals and 60 grassroots groups.
American Rivers (AR) is a non-profit corporation whose headquarters are located at 1101 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005. Our Southeastern Regional Office is headquartered at 2231 Devine Street Suite 202, Columbia, SC 29205. AR is a national organization that stands up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. We believe that rivers are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. American Rivers mobilizes an extensive network of more than 65,000 members and activists located in every state across the county. Both organizations are active participants in a number of other hydropower licensing proceedings in Alabama. We intend to participate fully in this process and file a Motion to Intervene after APC files its license application.
2 Comments on FERC’s SD1
Given the size and scope of the project, we recommend that FERC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 182.5-megawatt Martin Dam Project impounds 31 miles of river, creating a reservoir with 700 miles of shoreline and more than 1.6 million acre-feet of storage. The project’s operations are the primary driver for flows in the mainstem Tallapoosa River downstream, causing significant daily flow fluctuations that can be seen at least as far downstream as Montgomery, Alabama.1 The scope and significant impact of this project necessitates that the Commission prepare an EIS. If, however, the Commission deems that an EA is sufficient, we request that the Commission publish a draft EA and allow adequate time for public review and comment, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e). Opportunity for public comment on both the draft and final EA documents is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations, which provide “public scrutiny [is] essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b).
2.1 Geographical Scope of Project Effects
In our view, the Geographic Scope identified in section 4.1.2 of FERC’s SD1 for the analysis of cumulative impacts is a good start, but not sufficiently inclusive. We strongly agree that the Tallapoosa River downstream of the Yates/Thurlow Development must be included in any analysis of direct effects of project operations, since the flows in that section of river are primarily driven by the operation of the Martin project. APC’s PAD makes clear that flows below Yates/Thurlow are primarily driven by Martin: “APC operates the Yates/Thurlow Project as run of river projects that take advantage of peaking releases from Martin,” and “[o]n many occasions, releases from Martin Dam are necessary to allow Thurlow powerhouse to meet [its minimum flow requirement of 1,200
1 See USGS gauges 02419500 (Tallapoosa River at Milstead, AL) and 02419890 (Tallapoosa River near Montgomery, AL – Montgomery Water Works) at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/current/?type=flow
2 cfs].” PAD, p. 4-8. The project’s operations involve significant daily flow fluctuations which can be seen at USGS stream gages as far downstream as Montgomery, Alabama. At a minimum, the Commission’s analysis should consider the project’s effect on fisheries and water resources for the entire 45-mile length of the unimpeded segment of the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam. We recommend that all studies dealing with fisheries and water resources be expanded to address this geographic scope.
APC’s PAD further points out that APC also operates its Tallapoosa reservoirs (of which Martin has the most storage capacity) to “maintain a flow of 4,640 cfs at Montgomery, Alabama as part of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin system-wide requirements. Because APC also operates its reservoirs on the Coosa River (FERC project no. P-2146) to meet the flow targets specified in this agreement, APC has operational control over nearly all of the flows in the Alabama River basin upstream of Montgomery, AL. Because flow releases from the Tallapoosa system may directly impact flow releases and project operations within the Coosa system (and vice-versa), we recommend that FERC extend its cumulative impacts analysis of fisheries and water resources to the Coosa River basin and, to the greatest possible extent, coordinate the relicensing of the Martin Dam Project with its ongoing licensing of the Coosa River project to ensure that both licensing decisions are ultimately, consistent with the requirement in section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 803(a), that any license be “best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife […] and for other beneficial public uses.”
2.2 Alternatives to be Addressed in FERC’s Environmental Analysis
The discussion of alternatives to the proposed action is the “heart” of the environmental document. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c)(iii). The environmental document should “present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public.” Id. The
3 Commission must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” Id. It must also “[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.” Id. As lead agency under NEPA, the Commission must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives…” and possible environmental measures before approving the license application. Id. (emphasis added).
FERC’s Scoping Document identifies only one action alternative (Staff’s modification of the proposed action) in addition to APC’s proposed action and the no- action alternative. While we expect that the study results will help the Commission and other stakeholders to develop and analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, we recommend that the commission consider the alternative below in addition to the alternatives proposed in the Scoping Document.
2.2.1 Recommended Alternative: Modify existing peaking operations
Modifications to the natural hydrograph caused by peaking or load-following operations at hydropower dams often have significant adverse impacts to the downstream ecosystem. FERC should consider an action alternative in which the operations of Martin dam are modified from a peaking/storage facility to a “run-of-reservoir” facility where the instantaneous inflow into the project reservoir is roughly equivalent to the outflow. Run-of-reservoir operations typically have fewer adverse impacts on water quality, erosion, and aquatic ecosystems than peaking/storage operations. While many social and economic changes would result from this proposed alternative, the ecological, aesthetic, and environmental benefits would be considerable. Run-of-reservoir operations would lead to more stable lake levels, enhance recreational opportunities within the project boundary and on the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam, and improve fish production.
These benefits would likely occur even if Martin were operated in a modified run- of-river or run-of-reservoir mode that allowed slight modifications to accommodate flood control requirements and downstream minimum flow requirements. FERC’s analysis of
4 this alternative should consider both scenarios. This alternative is also consistent with and supportive of the stakeholder comments identified in section 4.4.2.1 of APC’s PAD expressing interest in higher and more stable lake levels, including changes that would result in a higher winter pool elevation at Lake Martin or in extending the length of time during which the project is held at its summer pool elevation.
In its analysis of this alternative, we recommend that FERC consider the effects of the proposed operational changes on downstream flows; erosion and sedimentation in the project area and in the free-flowing section of the Tallapoosa downstream; impacts and benefits to fish and wildlife habitat within the project boundary and within the free- flowing section of the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam. It should also consider APC’s ability to meet flow targets and flood control requirements.
3 Comments on APC’s PAD
We appreciate APC’s willingness to consult with stakeholders in advance of filing its PAD and NOI, and for seeking stakeholder input into its study plans. While this is not a requirement of FERC’s integrated licensing process, it is our experience that advance stakeholder involvement is one of the components of a successful hydropower relicensing, and APC deserves credit for its initial efforts in this area. It is our sincere hope that APC continues to work collaboratively with all interested parties to ensure that issues that have been identified during that process as well as in this scoping and study plan development process are fully considered and resolved. In particular, we stress the need for high-quality studies which can fill all gaps in existing information so that the environmental analysis and the subsequent final license decision will be supported by substantial evidence. We also stress the need for inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders as proposed license conditions are being developed.
While there is a great deal of useful information in the PAD, we are concerned that there are also several remaining gaps. Some of these gaps can be addressed through existing information that was not included in the PAD. Others can be addressed in the study phase, either through APC’s proposed studies with the recommended improvements below, or through additional studies as proposed in these comments. In the
5 following sections, we will outline information that is missing from the PAD and propose improvements to APCs proposed study plan.
4 Requests for Additional Information
In the following section, we address information gaps in the PAD that can be filled with existing information that was not included in the PAD. For convenience, the subheadings of our information requests correspond to the numbering of existing sections in the PAD where we believe that additional information is needed.
Section 4.3.3 – Powerhouse
On p. 4-3 of the PAD, APC states that it “has no operating experience with discharges less than best gate on all units (minimum hydraulic capacity).” Because of the unknown consequences, operating points lower than best gate cannot be used for long periods of discharge.” This information is not sufficient to describe the full range of operational capabilities at the Martin powerhouse. It does not appear that APC is unable to undertake studies or testing that would allow it to gain “operating experience,” only that it has not done so to date. We request that APC provide a complete description of the operational capabilities of each of the four turbines as designed and their ability to operate at a full range of discharges, including those discharges that are outside of APCs operating experience. We request that APC conduct any necessary tests or modeling that will allow it to gain “operating experience with discharges less than best gate on all units.”
Section 4.4.6 – Summary of Generation and Outflow Records
This section does not include outflow records for the project; rather it merely offers an extremely brief, qualitative description of how Martin’s operations fit into APC’s Tallapoosa River system. We request that APC provide hourly flow information from Martin, Yates, and Thurlow Dams, as well as inflows into the Martin reservoir, so that these data can be independently analyzed and used to assess any proposed operational changes. We request raw data, not summary data. In the case that hourly information is not available, we request that APC provide flow information in the most detailed time increment for which it is available. We recommend that this information be
6 provided in Excel, CSV, Access, or other format that can readily be imported into a spreadsheet or database.
We also request that APC provide more detailed information about the project’s actual generation. Ten years of average monthly generation is not sufficient. Rather, APC should provide generation statistics for each month for every year for which such statistics exist from the date that the project’s existing license was issued until the present. Such information will assist stakeholders in understanding how APC operates its project during different water year conditions and will help parties to assess the relative effects of proposed operational changes. We recommend that this information be provided in Excel, CSV, Access, or other format that can readily be imported into a spreadsheet or database.
We request that APC provide a flow exceedance curve which shows the daily pattern of discharge under the existing and the proposed license. In other words, how often does the project operate at minimum capacity, maximum capacity, and other increments between minimum and maximum?
Section 4.4.7 – Delivery of Water for Non-Power Uses
Each of the water withdrawals in this section are described in terms of “projected” average use. We request that APC clarify this projection to outline both the methodology and assumptions on which these projections are based, and the time scale for which this projection applies. In other words, does APC anticipate that the volume of any these withdrawals may increase or decrease at any point over the 30-50 year term of any new license? If so (or if not), what is the basis for this assumption? We also request that APC disclose the process and set of criteria that are used as the basis for issuing water withdrawal permits.
Section 5.1.2 – Existing Erosion
A 2004 order amending APC’s license for the Yates and Thurlow Developments (P-2407) requires that APC conduct monitoring to determine the effects of flows on downstream bank erosion on the Tallapoosa below Thurlow Dam:
7 “(E) Within 6 months of the issuance of this order amending license, the licensee shall develop a plan, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, to monitor the effects of the new project flow regime on downstream bank erosion for 2 years.”
106 FERC 62,014. We request that APC provide all monitoring data, analysis, and other information collected pursuant to this monitoring requirement.
Section 5.2.8 – Federally Approved Water Quality Standards
In this section, APC describes the status of the NPDES permits that it has obtained for the ten existing discharge points at the Martin powerhouse. Additional information about these and other NPDES permits is needed so that the EA might properly analyze the cumulative impacts of the Martin project on water quality within the project area. We request that APC provide the status of all NPDES permits that involve discharges into the project area. This information should articulate 1) to whom each permit has been issued; 2) what discharge(s) each permit regulates; 3) the requirements of these permits; 4) the date when each permit was or is scheduled to be issued and the date when it is scheduled to be reissued; and 5) a description of any compliance issues for each permit.
Section 5.2.3.1 – Flow Statistics
Article 404 of Alabama Power’s license for the Yates and Thurlow Developments (P-2407) requires that APC:
“[F]ile with the Commission for approval, a final streamflow gaging plan which includes: (1) establishment of a gaging system to measure hourly flows within 0.5 miles downstream from Thurlow Dam in the Tallapoosa River; and (2) a provision for reporting daily calculations of minimum flows including all input values (runoff into Yates and Thurlow impoundments, scheduled flow releases from Martin Dam, storage, etc.).”
66 FERC 62,068 at p. 19 (emphasis added). APC submitted this plan on August 1, 1994, and FERC approved the plan on February 23, 1995. Despite these requirements of APC’s license, the PAD states that “the closest (gauges) to Lake Martin include Gage No. 02414715, located approximately five mi upstream of Lake Martin at Horseshoe Bend,
8 and Gage No. 02419500, located downstream of Lake Martin near Milstead Alabama,” further noting that the Milstead gauge does not record flow in cfs, but rather gage height. We request that APC provide all flow/gaging information collected pursuant to this license article. We also request that APC provide any and all other available flow/gaging information which describes or measures inflows into and outflows from the Martin reservoir. We request that this information be provided in Excel, CSV, Access, or other format that can readily be imported into a spreadsheet or database. We request raw, not summary, data.
We further note that the USGS previously operated a gauge at Tallassee Alabama (USGS Gage No. 02418500), but the gage appears to have ceased operation. The gage recorded flow discharge information in cfs from October 1, 1928 until September 30, 2007, and can be accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/uv/?site_no=02418500. A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to APC dated March 8, 1995 suggests that APC relied on this gauge to calibrate its gages at Thurlow Dam. “Comments of US Fish/Wildlife Service on AL Power Co's modified stream flow gaging plan under Art 404 of Yates & Thrulow Proj-2407 et al.,” FERC Accession No. 19950322-0103.
Section 5.3 – Fish and Aquatic Resources
APC’s license for the Yates/Thurlow project requires APC to conduct monitoring to assess the effects of flows in the Tallapoosa below Thurlow dam on fisheries and aquatic resources. Article 406 of the license provides:
“Within 180 days of license issuance, the Licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a plan to monitor macroinvertebrate and fish populations 5 and 10 years (years 1997 and 2002) after initiation of the minimum flow releases in the Tallapoosa River downstream of the Thurlow Project.”
66 FERC 62,068. This license article was later modified in a 2004 license amendment in 2004, extending the monitoring period:
“(D) The licensee shall extend the biological monitoring study previously approved for the years 1997 and 2002 to include sampling in the years 2007
9 and 2012. The monitoring shall be conducted as done in 2002, to properly define the effects of the new project outflow on the downstream aquatic resources.
106 FERC 62,014. We request that APC provide all monitoring data, analysis, and other information collected pursuant to these monitoring requirements.
5 Study requests and Comments on Proposed Studies
In this section, we have folded our study requests into our comments on APC’s proposed studies using FERC’s criteria for study requests, and we request that the Commission consider each of our recommendations as comment on APC’s proposal and a study request in its own right. We commend APC for its collaborative approach to developing these studies with stakeholder groups, and we hope that our comments and recommendations will prove useful as APC further refines and improves its study plan.
5.1 Evaluation of Minimum Flows (Corresponds to APC’s Study proposal 3)
5.1.1 Study Description and Objectives
Operation of the Martin Project in a peaking mode results in impacts downstream of the project area in the tailrace and the riverine stretch below Thurlow Dam. We would like to understand the relationship of the project operations and the potential impacts of hydro-peaking on aquatic fauna and aquatic habitat in the Martin tailrace area and in the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam. AR and ARA would like to explore possibilities for flexibility in Martin Dam operations that could enhance downstream areas; in the Martin Tailrace, Yates Reservoir, Thurlow Reservoir, and the Tallapoosa River.
5.1.2 Study Area
APC’s proposed study area includes: Martin Reservoir and its tributaries, and Martin Tailrace. Because operations at Martin Dam dramatically alter conditions on the free-flowing river section downstream of Thurlow Dam we recommend expanding the study area to include Yates Reservoir, Thurlow Reservoir, and the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow. The downstream section of this study should, at minimum, extend to the USGS Gauging station at Milstead (USGS gage 02419500).
10 5.1.3 Resource Management Goals
We support ADCNR and USFWS to explore flexibility in regards to project operations (peaking) and to work with APC to develop strategies to offset downstream impacts to fisheries resources associated with peaking operations.
5.1.4 Relevant Public Interest
There is significant public interest in fisheries resources in the Martin Tailrace, Yates Reservoir, Thurlow Reservoir, and the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam to the Milsted gauging station.
5.1.5 Existing Information
Several sources of information exist that can be used to describe current operations at Martin. There is however, insufficient information in the PAD describing how operations at Martin impact conditions below the Thurlow Dam downstream to the Milsted gauging station (USGS 02419500). APC may also have existing information available pursuant to license requirements for the Yates and Thurlow project. This information was not included in the PAD (please see our request for this information above).
5.1.6 Nexus to Project
We concur with APC that a clear nexus exists between project operations and conditions in the Martin Tailrace as well as in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam. Neither Yates Reservoir nor Thurlow Reservoir has the storage capacity to capture peaking releases from Martin. Therefore, the operations of the Martin Project largely regulate the allocation, timing, levels and distribution of water flows in the Tallapoosa River.
5.1.7 Study Methodology
APC proposes a methodology to evaluate minimum flows downstream of Martin Dam that includes three parts: 1) review of project operations; 2) review existing environmental data for the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam; and 3) perform limited field surveys in the Martin Dam tailrace as needed to evaluate habitat
11 potential for unionids. We request that APC specifically describe the methodology to be used in studying macro invertebrate and fish habitat availability, mussel, snail, and crayfish distribution, water quality, and other studies relevant to downstream flows in the Martin tailrace and downstream of the Thurlow Dam to the Milsted gauging station. We also recommend the licensee incorporate one or more peer reviewed methodologies for evaluating flows into their downstream flow study plan. This is common practice in other FERC relicensings. Several methodologies have been developed and widely used include, but are not limited to:
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Target Fish Community Assessment Method Biological Response to Flow Correlation Method Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Models Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model
5.1.8 Level of Effort and Cost
We request that APC specifically describe the methodology it will use in the evaluation of minimum flows downstream of Martin Dam. This methodology is consistent with accepted methods studying/evaluating downstream flows for hydropower relicensing projects. The methodology that is implicit in the existing study proposal may well be acceptable, but we cannot evaluate its quality since the proposal does not identify the methodology to be used. If so, our request will result in minimal change to APC’s projected cost. If, however, APC chooses to use a methodology that is different from the one it does not identify in its study plan, the costs of the study might differ.
5.2 Erosion and Sedimentation (Corresponds to APC’s study proposal 10)
5.2.1 Goals and Objectives
To understand the correlation between Maritn Project operations and shoreline eriosion and sedimentation in areas of Lake Martin, to understand peaking project impacts to bank erosion downstream of Thurlow Dam, and to quantify how the Martin
12 Dam interrupts bedload and suspended sediment transport to the Tallapoosa River downstream of the project.
5.2.2 Relevant Public Interest
Biodiversity within the Tallapoosa River is dependent on normal river functions which include bedload and suspended sediment transport. Certain bedload sediments provide critical habitat for mussels as well as essiantial spawning and rearing habitat for several species of substrate spawning river fishes.
5.2.3 Background and Existing Information
We are not aware of any sediment transport information in the Tallapoosa River downstream of the Martin Project.
5.2.4 Project Nexus
The existence of the Martin Project dramatically alters natural river functions including sediment transport downstream of the project in the Tallapoosa River. All sediment transport from the mainstem Tallapoosa River and upstream Tallapoosa tributaries including reservoir tributaries are intercepted and prevented from moving to the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam. Hydro-peaking operations at Martin directly impact conditions including bank erosion in the Tallapoosa River downstream.
5.2.5 Study Area
The study area should include the Martin project boundary, reservoir tributaries and the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam to the USGS gauging station near Milsted.
5.2.6 Methodology
Accepted scientific methods to determine Martin Project impacts on Martin Lake, Martin Tailrace, Yates Reservoir, Thurlow Reservoir, and the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam may include but are not limited to:
13 Sediment Supply
Sediment dynamics exert important controls on channel morphology and texture that affect habitat quantity and quality for aquatic and riparian species. Aquatic habitat attributes such as spawning gravel availability and the amount of fine sediment in the channel bed are determined by the size distribution and rate of sediment input and by the capacity of stream channels to store and transport sediment. Sediment transport and storage characteristics control the average time required for sediment of various sizes to be routed through the channel network, influencing the sensitivity of channels to disturbances
Sediment Transport and Channel Condition
A coarse-level analysis of channel morphology is commonly conducted for hydroelectric project relicensings to examine historical changes and identify locations for intensive study. Coarse-level analyses utilize historical aerial photographs, digital elevation models (DEM), digital orthophotography, and previous studies on channel geomorphology. A coarse-level analysis typically involves assessment of channel confinement, channel slope, channel sinuosity, sediment source area, presence of alluvial sediment (gravel bars), potential hillslope sediment source areas, and the distribution of side channels.
Characterization of Channel Morphology and Bed Surface Texture
Surveys at intensive study sites commonly involve measuring a longitudinal profile of the channel bed along the thalweg and water surface, sediment facies mapping, three or more cross-sections extending onto the floodplain and to the adjacent hillslope toes where feasible, pebble counts conducted at cross-sections to estimate channel roughness and calibrate facies mapping estimates, coarse particle embeddedness and estimation or measurement of armoring ratio, and bulk sampling of surface and subsurface material located in mobile sediment patches.
14 Bedload Transport
Bedload transport creates and modifies bedform topography, controls sediment storage, affects surface texture through selective transport and abrasion, influences channel migration, and directly influences aquatic habitat. The flux rate of coarse material is an important component of sediment mass balance within a regulated reach. Higher bedload transport capacity can lead to greater potential geomorphic impacts of reduced coarse sediment supply. Bedload transport is typically modeled and calibrated with field studies at intensive study sites to estimate surface-based dimensionless Shield stress, critical discharges to mobilize the channel bed, coarse (> 2 mm) bedload transport capacity, and bedload grain size distributions. Model input parameters commonly include channel cross-section data, water surface slope, grain size (channel roughness) data of either the channel surface substrate or the bedload supply, and annual flow duration curves of the current and reference flow regimes. Model output parameters commonly include Shields stress versus discharge rating curves, average annual coarse bedload transport capacity, and grain size distributions of either the bedload supply or channel surface (depending on whether the input parameter was surface or bedload supply grain size). Long-term synthetic hydrologic flow records representing current and reference conditions may be used to generate flow duration curves for modeling bedload transport capacity.
Fine Sediment Transport
In regulated reaches with abundant supply of fine sediment, decreased peak flow magnitude and/or frequency may increase fine sediment accumulation in pools and in gravel interstices, affecting the quality of stream habitat for fish and other aquatic species. Fine sediment (< 2 mm) accumulation in project-affected reaches (e.g., bypass reaches) can be evaluated by: (1)Bulk sediment samples from the bed surface and subsurface to determine fine sediment concentration; and (2) V* (proportion of residual pool volume occupied by mobile fine sediment) or equivalent techniques for estimating fine sediment deposition in pools.
15 Distribution of Side Channels
Project effects on LWD loading, sediment supply, active channel storage, and peak flows may reduce connectivity to side channels, as well as their extent and stability. Reduced peak flow magnitude and/or frequency may also impact the functionality of side channels by reducing access to flow. Methods for evaluating project effects on the distribution, frequency, and length of side channels includes analysis of an aerial photographic time series and field inventories of side channels during low flow. Field inventories may include evaluation of mechanisms of side channel formation (e.g., LWD, channel and/or valley morphologic controls, or sediment deposition), vegetation age on the island bars or terraces between the side channel and main channel, stability of the side channels, and connectivity with the main channel. At the inlet and outlet controls (minimum elevation for surface water from the main channel to connect with the side channel) of the side channels, differential leveling may be used to survey the local water surface and thalweg elevations of the main and side channels to assess topographic controls on surface water flow connectivity with the main channel. Cross-sections and channel roughness data at side channel inlets can also be surveyed as input parameters for water surface modeling aimed at estimating stage-discharge thresholds for surface flow connectivity
Sediment Storage
Channel sediment storage can be altered by sediment trapping in project impoundments, flow regulation, alterations to LWD volume, anthropogenic increases in erosion rates, and other natural events that affect sediment supply and transport. The dynamics of within-reach channel sediment storage, however, is often difficult to assess due to limited historical information, spatial and temporal variability in sediment storage, and uncertainties in sediment activity level and residence time. Changes in stored sediment volume in project-affected reaches may be quantified using several approaches, including reoccupying historical channel cross sections, repeated surveying of channel topography to determine volumetric changes through time, and by assessing the relative activity and response times of sediment in storage based on reservoir theory.
16 Sediment Budget
A sediment budget is a useful approach to integrating each of the previously discussed areas of potential hydrogeomorphic effects (hydrology, sediment supply, sediment transport, and sediment storage) into a sediment mass balance perspective that provides a framework for interpreting changes in fluvial geomorphology caused by hydroelectric projects and other land uses. Sediment budgets may be constructed at various scales and to varying levels of detail; ranging from those that incorporate detailed long-term field measurements of sediment supply, transport, and storage processes in a channel reach; to rapid sediment budgets that describe geomorphic processes and rates throughout a drainage basin using the best available information. The methods used to develop a sediment budget depend on the specific goals and objectives of the study, and most of approaches described in previous sections are directly applicable.
5.2.7 Level of Effort and Cost
It is difficult to predict cost differences between APC’s proposed study plan and the scientifically accepted study methods listed in section 1.6. APC may in fact be proposing an adequate study plan in which case the change in cost would be minimal. However, expanding the geographic scope of the study may result in increased effort and cost. The vague description of the study plan and methodology make it impossible to determine additional or reduced costs.
5.3 Water Quality, Water Use, Water Balance, and Water Withdrawals (corresponds to APC’s study proposal 11)
5.3.1 Study Description and Objectives
Several issues have been identified concerning water quality, water quantity, and water that relate to the Martin Project. An objective of American Rivers and The Alabama River Alliance is to learn about the correlation between Lake Martin water storage, Yates and Thurlow water storage, R.L. Harris water releases, water withdrawals, hydroelectric operations at all four projects (Martin, Yates, Thurlow, and R.L. Harris) and ecological and navigational flow requirements in the Tallapoosa and Alabama Rivers. It is important to understand the range of operational conditions at APC’s projects
17 within the Tallapoosa River Basin and Thurlow and the effect that these operations have throughout the project area and the river basin as a whole.
To fully understand the impact of any new license proposal, one must understand how the project’s proposed operations would contrast with the results of alternative operating proposals. The simplest way to accomplish this goal is to simulate the operation of the project over a long period of hydrologic history, taking into account other water withdrawals and returns in the basin. We recommend that APC create an open, transparent water balance model that all participants can use to evaluate multiple alternative operational scenarios.
Such a model would facilitate collaborative resolution of issues related to flows, lake levels, and project releases. This model would allow a thorough examination of lake elevations in the Martin development, as well as flows at multiple points in the river over a long period of history. From these data, summary statistics could be generated that allow participants to understand the dynamics of the Tallapoosa system and the impact of the Martin Project’s operations on this system.
To facilitate this model and the understanding of the full range of operational possibilities, we also request that APC conduct any necessary tests or modeling that will allow stakeholders to understand APC’s ability to operate the project at a full range of discharges, including those discharges that are outside of APCs operating experience.
5.3.2 Relevant Resource Management Goals
Recent drought has severely stressed water resources in the Tallapoosa Basin. Operations at the Martin project to a large extent regulates the allocation, timing, levels and distribution of flows downstream in the Tallapoosa River and significantly contributes to minimum ecological and navigational flow requirements in the Alabama River below the confluence with the Coosa River. As drought and population increases put further pressure on the basin, it is critical to understand APC’s management of this water resource in the context of its management of the basin.
18 5.3.3 Background and Existing Information
Citizens Groups, existing water quality data, records of operation, existing gauging, flow, release, and generation data, information about water withdrawals in the project area.
5.3.4 Project Nexus
There is a clear nexus between the operations of the Martin Project and the balance of water throughout the Tallapoosa and Alabama River Basins. Martin’s reservoir provides the bulk of the system’s storage capacity, and the project’s operations affect water availability for current and future withdrawals and ecological and navigational flow requirements in the Tallapoosa River Basin. It is imperative to understand the relationship between the Martin Project, water scarcity, and competing demands on these resources when determining how to manage this valuable public resource. The project’s existence and operations have a direct impact on water quality, influencing water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, nutrient cycling, and turbidity.
5.3.5 Study Area
In order to understand the nexus between project operations, water scarcity, and competing interests including current and future water withdrawals and downstream flow requirements it is import expand the study area outside of the project boundary. The study area should include Lake Martin, APC-owned lands within the Project Boundary, Lake Martin tributaries, as well as areas downstream in the Tallapoosa and Alabama Rivers.
5.3.6 Proposed Methodology
APC’s proposed draft study plan does not offer a specific explanation of how data will be collected and analyzed. It is therefore impossible to comment on the adequacy of the proposed methodology or whether the study is consistent with generally accepted scientific practice. In order to understand the correlation between hydroelectric operations at Martin and water quantity and water quality demands and constraints in the
19 basin it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive study that expands the geographic scope of study to include areas outside of the project boundary. Many relevant scientifically accepted water quality, water quantity, and water balance methodologies are available. We recommend that APC and FERC consider the water balance model that was used in the Roanoke Rapids relicensing (and which was later adapted for the licensing of the Smith Mountain Project) as a model for this study.
5.3.7 Level of Effort and Cost
It is difficult to predict the difference in effort and cost between the licensee’s proposed study and a study with a specific methodology. If the licensee is in fact proposing an adequate study it would result in a minimal change to the predicted effort and cost. However, expanding the geographic scope of the study may result in increased effort and cost. APC’s vague description of its study plan and methodology make it difficult for us to estimate additional or reduced costs.
5.4 Recreation (corresponds to APC’s Study Plan 14)
5.4.1 Goals and Objectives
A recreation plan for the Martin Project should include a description of the project and existing facilities, an analysis of current and future estimates, and proposals for future recreation facility development and enhancement. Because flow based recreation in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam is dependent on releases at Martin, a recreation plan should also include an assessment of downstream recreational use including economic benefits associated with flow based recreation (boating, fishing, wading), safety hazards associated with current peaking operations, and current and future recreational use (flow based boating, fishing, wading).
5.4.2 Relevant Resource Management Goals
FERC requires that each licensee prepare and implement a recreation plan. This plan should include all aspects of the proposed recreation plan and include an assessment of flow based recreation in the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam to the USGS river gage at Milsted (02419500)
20 5.4.3 Background and Existing Information
The licensee has identified several sources of existing information that will be valuable in completing this study plan.
5.4.4 Project Nexus
Operation of the Martin facility clearly effects flow based recreation downstream of Thurlow Dam. Current hydro-peaking operations may enhance, degrade, or present safety hazards to flow-based recreational users in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam.
5.4.5 Study Area
The study area should focus on the Martin Project but include the Tallapoosa River downstream of the Thurlow Dam to the USGS river gage at Milstead (02419500).
5.4.6 Proposed Methodology
Scientifically accepted approaches for designing a recreation study may include but are not limited to the following methods:
Inventory studies
Inventory studies primarily provide descriptive information about recreation resources, use, and users in a project area. Although one type of study examines future recreation demand, these studies generally focus on existing recreation resources and use, while avoiding evaluative information that describes what “should” occur. The output from these studies are broadly equivalent to the recreation section of an “affected environment” chapter of an agency NEPA document such as an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Specific types of inventory studies include:
facility inventories, access inventories, existing use inventories, use trends and future demand, trip and user characteristics, and
21 regional recreation context.
Impact/evaluation
These are the studies that assess how a hydroelectric project has affected (or could affect) recreation or how recreation may be affecting other resources. This has more evaluative information and comprises the alternatives/impacts analysis components of a typical NEPA document. Specific types of impact/evaluation studies common during relicensing include:
flows and recreation, reservoir levels and recreation, facility need assessments, use conflicts, recreation capacity assessments, and recreation economic studies.
Integrating inventory and impact information
Integration of information from inventory and impacts studies forms the basis for developing and evaluating alternatives in a plan regarding management actions that might be taken to meet needs or address problems.
Ultimately, the objective is a list of potential management measures (actions) and a description of how they might change recreation opportunities and quality. These could include cost estimates, implementation constraints, effects of creating new opportunities, and discussion of trade-offs from taking actions that enhance one opportunity but may diminish another. These are typically organized along the lines of:
facility improvement options, reservoir level/flow regime changes, education program options, regulation options, and use limit options.
22 Evaluating use trends and future demands
Information about potential future recreation use (e.g., demand) is also relevant in relicensing. Future use is sometimes estimated by summarizing current use and applying national or regional recreation trend information (e.g., the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment; the Outdoor Industry Association survey on human-powered outdoor activities, state-by-state trend information usually developed in mandated Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans or SCORPs).
However, this method may not be viable for river reaches that do not have current use (due to a lack of flows or access), or for predicting use of reaches or reservoirs whose characteristics will be modified by new hydropower development or operations. Efforts to estimate this demand generally require professional judgment and/or demand “experiments,” in addition to a review of trend information, but may also include analysis of survey responses to questions about future use (recognizing that intentions are not always good predictors of behavior).
5.4.7 Level of Effort and Cost
6 Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments, and look forward to collaborating with FERC staff, APC, and other stakeholders during the relicensing of this project.
Dated: October 11, 2008
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Cindy Lowry
Cindy Lowry Executive Director Alabama Rivers Alliance 2027 2nd Ave N, Suite A Birmingham, AL 35203 205-322-6395 [email protected]
23 /s/ Matt Rice
Matt Rice Associate Director Southeast Conservation American Rivers 2231 Devine Street, Suite 202 Columbia, SC 29205 803-771-7206 [email protected]
/s/ John Seebach
John Seebach Director, Hydropower Reform Initiative American Rivers 1101 14th St. NW, Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 202-347-7550 ext. 3055 [email protected]
24 Judy A. Takats World Wildlife Fund
Southeast Rivers and Streams 2021 21st Avenue S, Ste 200 Nashville, TN 37212
Direct Phone: 615-279-1814 Fax: 615-297-1429 [email protected]
worldwildlife.org
12 October 2008
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A Washington, DC 20426
RE: Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (P-349-150), Alabama Power Company
Secretary Bose:
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the “Pre- Application Document" (PAD) dated June 2008 and the Scoping Document dated August 5, 2008 for the Martin Hydroelectric Project, P-349-150 and related study plans. Our comments fall into four categories: (1) comments on the PAD, (2) comments on the Scoping Document (3) comments on the draft study plans and (4) additional recommended studies.
WWF has been an active participant in APC’s organized Martin Relicensing stakeholder meetings (May 24-25, 2007, September 26-27, 2007 and April 1-2, 2008), the Martin Rule Curve Meeting (March 6, 2008) and has provided APC with written comments on two separate occasions (October 15, 2007 and December 15, 2007). Copies of those comments are attached as Appendix A.
WWF is an international 501(c)(3) nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to protecting the world's wildlife and wildlands. WWF maintains its primary office in Washington, DC, and has a regional office in Nashville, Tennessee. The mission of the Nashville office is to ensure the protection, preservation and enhancement of aquatic life in the rivers and streams of the southeastern United States, specifically the Cumberland, Mobile and Tennessee River Basins. WWF has over 1 million members in the United States and over 7,000 members in Alabama.
We appreciate continued efforts by many parties working on this process and look forward to continued dialogue with APC staff and other stakeholders in this relicensing process.
Sincerely,
Judy Takats Senior Program Officer
Page 1 of 97
Section 1
COMMENTS ON THE PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT (PAD), BY SECTION
Page 2 of 97
1.2 Summary of Contacts APC states that they received comments, but only those they considered "appropriate” were included in the Draft Study Plans. WWF and other stakeholders made comments on draft documents and were not given reasons as to why those comments were not incorporated. These responses are part of the open exchange necessary in a broad stakeholder process and instrumental in the success of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). Recommendation: We believe that if a stakeholder makes comments that are later excluded from consideration, especially on study plans, the rationale for that decision should be stated and discussed akin to alternatives in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.
2.4.1 Document Distribution Recommendation: To Microsoft Word and portable document format (PDF) add Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel should be the default format for sharing any data (e.g. water quality).
3.2 Other Diversion Structures in the Basin Recommendation: Include in Table 3.2-1(page 3-6) the stream on which each dam or diversion is located and the proximity (in river miles) to the Project area.
3.4 Climate Recommendations: Discuss the seasonal patterns of precipitation to understand how water management in the Tallapoosa in general and at Martin in particular shifts periods of peak and low flows.
Discuss how climate change will affect the projected patterns in precipitation. This discussion is critical as a cumulative effect, given the operational alternatives considered. For example, if more intense high flows are expected in late winter and spring, the likelihood of flooding under status quo increases and the likelihood of the Project having to pass flooding flows with a higher winter pool increases even more that would be predicted using recent past precipitation data.
4.1 Project Introduction, Location, Facilities, and Operations APC has described the Martin Project as a “peaking” project – a description WWF understands to mean that generation occurs during periods of peak use by the company’s customers. During periods of lesser use, power production at Martin is either curtailed or stopped. Although two additional APC hydroelectric projects occur on the Tallapoosa River immediately downstream of the Martin Project (Yates and Thurlow, FERC Project No. 2407), they operate in a supposed run-of- river fashion - an operational condition where each development passes the same amount of water that enters the project at any given time. Run-of-river operations do not create the types of “peaks and valleys” in river stage shown by United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage records from the Milstead, AL (USGS gage 02419500) nor the downstream Montgomery Water Works station (USGS gage 02419890), as exemplified in the Figures 1 and 2 for data in September and October 2007. As a reference points, we have included stage or flow information covering the same time period for two “headwater” USGS stations (02422930 and 02413300) in the Tallapoosa watershed.
Page 3 of 97
FIGURE 1
Page 4 of 97
FIGURE 2
Page 5 of 97
Comparison of stage/flow at those two headwater gages to the stage information from the two gages downstream of Martin shows that weather patterns are not the reason behind the daily increases and decreases in river stage in the Tallapoosa River all the way to the confluence with the Coosa River. Stage fluctuations at the Milstead gaging station ranged as high as 8 feet and were commonly 2.5 feet in October 2007. Downstream at the Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Water Works station, fluctuations were commonly 1 foot in October 2007 but ranged as high as 3.5 feet. These fluctuations, at least in October 2007, include both an up and down ramp within a 24 to 28-hour period. Both gages are located considerably downstream of the Martin Dam.
We believe these data show clear flow affects from Martin on the Tallapoosa River to Montgomery, AL. Because these flow affects have the potential to influence water quality as well as fish and mollusk habitat quality, we assert that the geographic scope of many of the studies described needs to extend the length of the Tallapoosa River downsteam of Martin dam. Recommendation: The last paragraph of this section should include the distance (in river miles) from the mouth of the Tallapoosa River (confluence of the Tallapoosa with the Coosa River). Since Yates and Thurlow dams do not markedly shape flows in the Tallapoosa River, the effects of peaking or load following operations at the Martin Project have the potential to affect Tallapoosa River flows downstream some distance.
4.2 Measurement of Elevation at the Martin Project Recommendation: Describe the intake trash racks including the size of the bars making up the racks, the spacing between bars, and approach velocities of water flowing through the racks at the various, typical generation levels (including the period during which each unit is “spinning”). This information would help in understanding the risk of entrainment and impingement at the site.
4.3.2 Dam Recommendation: We suggest describing the order in which gates are opened for passing floodwaters and the rationale for that order. Current information indicates scouring downstream based on flooding, but a change in the order which the gates are opened might reduce (or increase) this impact.
4.4 Current and Proposed Project Operations The effects of this peaking facility which “does not typically generate on Sunday" on species are not discussed in the document, leaving us wondering what effect this day of non-generation has on aquatic fauna and if the effects of the dam could be avoided or minimized if additional water (beyond the leakage) was released. According to APC, there is flow from the dam (page 4-8) – ranging from leakage up to 17,900 cfs. If the turbines are motored during periods between generation, the amount of water typically passed during motoring would also provide flow to the tailwater area, so that the typical range in this reach of the Tallapoosa River would be leakage plus motoring to 17,900 cfs. Recommendation: Provide some estimate of typical low flow in the Martin tailwater (leakage or leakage plus turbine motoring, whichever is appropriate).
4.4.8 Current Net Investment Recommendation: Expand the section to answer the following questions: How much investment (by year), in 2007 US Dollars, is expected between 2008 and 2013? Between 2013 and the requested end date of the new license (by year)? What is the projected capital expense(by year), in 2007 US Dollars, between 2008 and 2013? Between 2013 and the requested end date of the new license (by year)?
Page 6 of 97
What has been invested to date (by year) in 2007 US Dollars, including dates of major investments? What is expected to be invested (by year) in 2007 dollars between 2013 and the requested end date of the new license, including dates of major investments? What is the expected depreciation (by year), in 2007 US Dollars?
4.4.9 Project Boundary In communications with APC staff, it is our understanding that the current project boundary does not include all of the "islands" found in the Project reservoir. Recommendation: Expand the Project boundary to include all “islands” in the reservoir.
5.1 Geology and Soils The significance of the different rock formations and soils along the lake, in the tailwater, and along the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thrurlow dam to the mouth should be discussed as they relate to erosion. For example, It is unclear how the areas of 15% slope and 90% slope be "treated" for erosion. Given the 75% difference in slope, the plan for treating one area will likely not work for another. General rock formation and soil classifications for the counties within which the Martin Project is located are not terribly useful to describe the likelihood for Project operations to cause or contribute to erosion along the impoundment margins from wave action or along the Tallapoosa River from flow fluctuations. Recommendations: Describe how areas of varying slope will be treated for erosion.
Shoreline and riverbank areas with soils that are particularly prone to erosion should be highlighted as areas to look for “erosion hotspots” in Draft Study Plans 10 and 12 (d).
5.1.1 Soil Types in Project Area Recommendation: We suggest adding to this section how the current erosion issues affect water quality and chemistry.
5.1.2 Existing Erosion The discussion of existing erosion in the Project area seems to omit consideration of erosion from Project operations in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam. It seems that Martin operations are responsible for large river stage fluctuations in the Tallapoosa River from Thurlow dam to the mouth near Montgomery. To WWF’s knowledge, no one has conducted a survey to describe erosion patterns in the Tallapoosa River along this reach. It is possible that erosion affecting the Tallapoosa River banks is occurring along this reach as the result of river stage fluctuations that occasionally measure eight to ten feet at the Milstead gaging station. For example, there is a large riverbank section demonstrating active erosion at the AL Highway 229 bridge, about 8.5 miles downstream of Thurlow Dam. Two other locations for investigation occur about 15.5 and 18.1 miles downstream of Thurlow Dam.
The statement, "Many of Lake Martin's 700 miles of shoreline are armoured with exposed bedrock and fabricated seawalls and so shoreline erosion in those areas generally does not occur" seems too generalized. Recommendations: Anywhere erosion occurs should be noted, described, and the contribution from Martin Project operation (ranging from none to complete) established. If the erosion is because of or exacerbated by project operations, then a plan to avoid the impacts, minimize and mitigate for those impacts should be developed.
Page 7 of 97
Delete the statement in this section, "Nearly all reservoirs experience some level of natural erosion." should be deleted as no evidence is presented to demonstrate that the erosion is in fact natural versus an effect of the existence of the Project.
5.1.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Impact Moving forward in the relicensing process, it is important for APC, alongside the stakeholders, to identify those resources that are affected then narrow the analysis to issues of regional or local significance. WWF believes that any cumulative effects analysis must also have spatial and temporal boundaries. Using erosion as an example, those geographic effects likely exist beyond the Thurlow Dam (Figures 1 and 2). The temporal scale of the analysis will look forward throughout the term of license.
5.2.3.1 Flow Statistics Recommendation: WWF suggests that APC coordinate with the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) to add real-time dissolved oxygen and water temperature monitoring equipment and create a stage-flow relationship for the Milstead gage during this relicensing process. It is clear from data presented in a previous section that the Martin Project has an effect on river elevations as far downstream as this gage. Additional data would only allow the stakeholders and APC to determine other effects, if any, of project operations.
5.2.5 Morphometric Data for Existing Reservoirs Recommendations: The morphometric data for Martin reservoir should include usable storage capacity and the gross storage capacity.
The reservoir depth information should include an average for the reservoir overall and information specific to the larger reservoir embayments (maximum and average depths). These larger embayments include the Kowliga Creek arm, Blue Creek arm, Sandy Creek arm, and Mannoy Creek arm, and the two arms either side of Wind Creek State Park.
5.2.6 Gradient of Downstream Reaches The effects of the Martin Project’s peaking operations on river stage are detectable from USGS river stage monitoring to the mouth of the Tallapoosa River (See Figures 1 and 2). Recommendation: Include a description of the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam because impacts from flow variation along this section of the Tallapoosa are evident.
5.2.8 Federally Approved Water Quality Standards In addition to the water quality standards discussed in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends a target dissolved oxygen concentration of 6.5 mg/l for early life stages and a 6.0 mg/l at other life stages to have "no production impairment" to existing fisheries and 8.0 mg/l invertebrates (EPA 1986). Based on the potential biological effects of low dissolved oxygen concentrations to fishes and aquatic invertebrates (Spoor 1977, Cech et al. 1979, Chen 1998, Kaiser and Barnhart 2006) it seems clear that low dissolved oxygen concentrations impact the ability of fishes, mussels, snails, and other aquatic animals from using necessary habitats or from persisting. Recommendation: Because of the aquatic fauna present in the area affected by project operations, incorporate the above EPA standard as a requirement for project operations.
5.2.9 Existing Water Quality Data This section refers to and generally summarizes several sources of water quality data collected by APC, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), and Alabama Water Watch
Page 8 of 97
(AWW) over the recent past. The existing water quality data, as summarized and presented, do not seem complete enough to establish the current baseline water quality conditions, as required by 18CFR § 4.51 (2) (ii) that states:
A description of existing water quality in the project impoundment and downstream water affected by the project and the applicable water quality standards and stream segment classifications.
Based on data presented during the scoping meeting in September on primary productivity in reservoir embayments and along the longitudinal axis of the Martin impoundment, it seems clear that information to describe differences along these gradients (east-side embayments v. west- side embayments and along the impoundment’s length) is needed. Water quality differences in the different sections of the reservoir could manifest as differences in the timing of thermocline development and the strength of resulting thermoclines. These thermoclines, in turn, may affect open water reservoir fish species such as Striped Bass and their prey species, including Gizzard and Threadfin Shad.
Generation releases waters that have been stored within the Martin reservoir. Depending on the depth of intake, the depth and strength of the thermocline, and the characteristics of the turbines at Martin dam, waters discharged directly into the tailwater may differ substantially from the conditions in the receiving water body in terms of temperature, dissolved oxygen and total dissolved gas concentrations, and nutrient levels. To describe these conditions and the manner in which aquatic fauna using the tailwater are affected by these conditions, water quality data should be collected throughout the year and both during periods of generation and storage. Finally, waters spilling over dams as high as Martin could create gas supersaturation conditions, which, in turn, may affect aquatic organisms. If spill events occur during the relicensing period, total dissolved gas information should be collected to describe the potential for this effect.
As demonstrated in previous sections, Martin Dam operations appear to effect river stage all the way to the mouth of the Tallapoosa River. The PAD did not contain any information to describe water quality conditions in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam. Pulsing river stage could have an effect on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient levels, and turbidity. The relicensing application should demonstrate what these water quality parameters are during existing operations and should further demonstrate how they may change under the operational alternatives evaluated. Recommendations: Reservoir water quality information should be collected during relicensing to fill any data gaps in the existing information with respect to reservoir gradients (east-side embayments, west-side embayments, and along the reservoir) and seasons. These reservoir water quality data should characterize the timing and strength of thermoclines and include temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and primary productivity characteristics.
Tailwater water quality conditions should be better characterized for existing operational patterns to include temperature, dissolved oxygen and total dissolved gas concentrations, and nutrient levels during both generation and non-generation periods. If any operational alternatives are evaluated, the predicted changes from current operations to tailwater water quality at daily and seasonal scales must be described.
Describe water quality conditions across daily and seasonal operational patterns for current operations. Any proposed operational alternatives evaluated in the license application must include predicted changes to water quality conditions (e.g., water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, nutrients, turbidity) from the current condition. Page 9 of 97
5.2.9.1 APC Monitoring Data A more thorough treatment of data collection methodology is required to put these data into context. Information that would help better understand all the data summarized in this section might include time periods, frequency, time of day, equipment used and quality assurance/quality control procedures.
Given that the previously collected data tersely presented in the PAD are going to form the primary basis for establishing the water quality baseline in Martin Lake and the Martin Dam tailwater (Draft Study Plan 8, 12(b), and 12(c)), the PAD should present these data organized in a way that is useful for reviewer assessment. The information as provided does not allow reviewers to determine how much effort might be needed to establish baseline water quality conditions, an important consideration for stakeholders’ study plan evaluations and specific comment development.
The PAD provides no information on water quality conditions in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam, despite the fact that Martin Project operations clearly affect river flow all the way to the mouth of the Tallapoosa River (confluence of the Tallapoosa with the Coosa River). Previously collected data coupled with an investigation of the effects of peaking on water quality parameters including nutrients, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, bacteria, and chlorophyll-a are necessary to describe the baseline water quality conditions for a license application (as a part of Draft Study Plan 8). Moreover, these data will be necessary to make comparisons for an assessment of operation alternatives examined in this licensing proceeding (Draft Study Plan 12(c)).
APC states that they "performed extensive water quality monitoring" of the reservoir and the tailrace. However, the number of "counts" presented in Table 5.2-4 totals only 208, not an extensive number. If there are other data, we request they be provided to stakeholders in an excel spreadsheet with dates and times of samples so a more open discussion of potential, if any, project impacts.
The biological survey collected in 1995 and presented in Table 5.2-4 are helpful for trend analysis, but more studies need to be conducted (see Sections 3 and 4).
The data in Table 5.2-5 moving forward in the relicensing process should also contain the number of times and duration of any excursions below the applicable standard DO standard (5.0 mg/l in all cases except downstream of powerhouses during generation). Presenting the data in this manner would yield a better picture of compliance with this standard.
Recommendations: Provide all data, especially those above, to stakeholders in Microsoft Excel format and post Microsoft Excel files to APC’s Martin website.
Representing data by month would be helpful to understanding trends. Reservoir profile information should be graphically presented to show how parameters vary by depth. Additional data summary statistics and summary data presentation methods to include in future reporting are variance, frequency histrograms, or box and whisker plots.
The number of times water quality parameters exceed (or fall below depending on the criterion) Clean Water Act standards needs to be included in water quality data analysis. For periods when water quality measures do not meet state standards over more than one sample, the duration of that water quality excursion should be presented as well. Presenting the data in this
Page 10 of 97 manner would yield a better picture of compliance with this standard. It is important to note that aquatic fauna do not live on averages. Periods of low dissolved oxygen could be fatal to aquatic fauna therefore, it is important to maintain a suitable level of dissolved oxygen.
Data from the recent droughts are not included in the tables in this section. If there are other data, we request they be provided to stakeholders in an excel spreadsheet with dates and times of samples so a more open discussion of potential, if any, project impacts.
5.2.9.2 ADEM and Other Project Related Monitoring Data Recommendation: Data from the recent droughts are not included in this section. If there are other data, we request they be provided to stakeholders in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with dates and times of samples so a more open discussion of potential, if any, project impacts.
5.2.10 Potential Issues and Cumulative Impacts WWF asserts that any cumulative effects analysis must have spatial and temporal boundaries. For the purposes of water resources, those geographic effects likely exist beyond the project boundary and may include areas of new or expanding industrial facilities (e.g. Hillabee Creek). The temporal scale of the analysis will look forward throughout the term of license and should include the projected increase in development pressures in the watershed.
5.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources This section is void of a description of the species in upland Piedmont Physiographic Region and the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain. Although the whole of the Martin Project is located within the Upland Piedmont Province, the effects of flow manipulation at Martin range into the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain. Identifying fish and aquatic mollusks found in the Tallapoosa downstream of Thurlow dam to the mouth is necessary to contemplate potential effects of flow fluctuations from the Martin Project (see next pages). WWF provided such lists to APC twice (see Appendix A).
APC states (page 5-39), "Due to the deep nature of the Lake (maximum depth of 155 ft) and relatively long retention time, thermal and chemical stratification occur annually." We would suggest adding more information (e.g. like the approximate date this stratification usually occurs) to help all stakeholders understand the impact (and potential cumulative impact) of the project on the waters of the Tallapoosa River.
APC states (page 5-40), "Due to low levels of DO in these deep water levels, fish kills of Striped Bass have been observed..." We suggest adding crucial information in this section such as the approximate number of fish that have died and how project operations might be changed to avoid such a kill.
The list of fishes provided in Table 5.3-1 does not show where in the Tallapoosa River these fishes have been collected or expected to occur. This information is important in considering how project operations might each species (e.g., flow fluctuations).
Results from tailrace surveys and the dates of those surveys were not included. We suggest those data be added moving forward in the relicensing process. If those data do not exist, the studies should be conducted over several seasons and at critical times (e.g. spawning) for fishes and other aquatic fauna. APC should provide those data Microsoft Excel format.
We recommend that the survey data that led to such statements as, "Diversity values were similar among all sites" be included in this section and posted on APC's website so all stakeholders can
Page 11 of 97 understand such a broad conclusion. All stakeholders should receive those data (including such items as site, date of sample, time of sample, number of species, scientific name of species and sampling method used) in Microsoft Excel format.
Moving forward in the relicensing process, we suggest statements such as "...it does not appears that the macroinvertebrate community is being adversely affected by other type of disturbance" be explained with data and those data provided to all stakeholders. Recommendations: Describe the differences in aquatic fauna between Upland Piedmont Physiographic Province and Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain Province sections of the Tallapoosa River.
Expand this section beyond listing some of the unique and diverse fish fauna in Table 5.3-1 and describing two pelagic fish (Striped Bass and Shad) and those data provided in Microsoft Excel format.
Include in the fishes list (Table 5.3-1) where each of these species is expected to occur (Lake Martin, Martin tailwater, Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow, Tallapoosa River upstream of Martin impoundment, and tributaries to Lake Martin).
Add a mollusk list to this section. Such a list would include each of these species is expected to occur (Lake Martin, Martin tailwater, Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow, Tallapoosa River upstream of Martin impoundment, and tributaries to Lake Martin).
The Freshwater Unionid sub-section should include a description of the fauna in the lower sections of the river.
5.3.2 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects WWF believes that any cumulative effects analysis must have spatial and temporal boundaries. For the purposes of aquatic fauna, those geographic effects likely exist beyond the current project boundary – downstream of Thurlow Dam - and may include a decrease in the genetic robustness of populations of aquatic species (see Sections 3 and 4). The temporal scale of the analysis should look forward throughout the term of license.
5.5.3 Riparian, Wetland and Littoral Habitat It is unclear from this section whether an inventory of wetlands has been conducted within the Project boundary. Such an account would be used to assess how current operations interact with these productive and important wildlife habitats. Recommendations: An inventory of wetland areas inside the project boundary or those affected by project operations (including those along the entire length of the Tallapoosa) should be conducted. If results from such a survey exist, they should be provided to all stakeholders. Include these areas in an evaluation of impacted areas or enhancement opportunities under proposed operation alternatives.
5.6 Rare, Threatened, Endangered (RTE) and Special Status Species This section only describes federally protected species, although the title of the section suggests that other special status species should be included. The PAD should describe the status of these species, the sorts of habitats in which they occur and how the Martin project and its operations could potentially impact each species. The host fish for each unionid should be identified and included in the prospective impact identification.
Page 12 of 97
The PAD should summarize the effort that has gone into searching for each of these species. Since each of these species has been identified as being in need of some sort of conservation priority, the applicant should provide ample evidence that the Project and its operations do not impact these species. Such an analysis must start with a solid understanding of each species presence and distribution within the Project affected area. The Martin Lake Mussel and Snail Survey Draft Summary Report dated November 2006 was included, but we assume other surveys have been conducted or are planned. Recommendation: This section should include State of Alabama priority species (with the priority status), American Fisheries Society imperiled species (Jelks et al. 2008) and those species listed by Boschung and Mayden (2004) as rare or in need of conservation attention. Using this list, WWF sees adding Table 1to this section.
5.7.2 Current Project Recreation Use Levels and Capacities APC should include how the 14 recreation sites were chosen (e.g. random, selected by MIG committee, etc,). The surveys conducted were at a time of the 2007 drought and may not be representative of historical or even current use.
APPENDICIES APC included a representative (not necessarily comprehensive) list of birds, mammals and reptiles, (Appendix K) and Plants (Appendices L, M and Y) in the PAD A comprehensive list of mollusk, crayfish and fish species should be included in the appendices as well.
Tallapoosa River Fish Passage Concept Document As a potential option for mitigation, APC is considering fish passage at Claiborne Dam. APC does not identify the “other stakeholders” with whom they are engaging in these discussions. Though APC correctly identified WWF as an interested party – though erroneously stated we “withdrew” from the process – neither company staff nor their representatives asked about the plan or WWF’s involvement in it. WWF would be willing to explore revisiting this topic as a possible way to mitigate for project impacts.
Page 13 of 97
Table 1 Federally listed species that historically occurred in the Tallapoosa River and species with State of Alabama Priority, American Fisheries Society Imperiled (Jelks et al. 2008) and those species listed by Boshung and Mayden (2004) as rare or in need of conservation attention in the Tallapoosa River.
Common Scientific Location Common Scientific Location Name Name Name Name Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser LT Alabama Elliptio arca UT oxyrinchus desotoi Spike Alabama Scaphirhynchus LT Delicate Spike Elliptio arctata LT, UT, Sturgeon suttkusi trib? Paddlefish Polydon spathula LT Finelined Hamiota altilis UT Pocketbook Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae LT Alabama Medionidus LT Moccasinshell acutissimus Lined Chub Hybopsis LT Alabama Obovaria LT lineapunctata Hickorynut unicolor Shoal Chub “A” Machrybopsis sp. cf LT Southern Pleurobema LT M. aestivalis “A” Clubshell decisum Shoal Chub “B” Machrybopsis sp. cf UT, trib Tallapoosa Quadrula UT M. aestivalis “B” Orb asperata archeri Southeastern Cycleptus LT Alabama Strophatus LT Blue Sucker meridionalis Creekshell connasaugae nsus Stippled Fundulus bifax UT, trib Studfish Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella LT
Lipstick Darter Etheostoma UT, trib chuckwachatte Harlequin Etheostoma histrio LT Darter Freckled Darter Percina lenticula LT Muscadine Percina smithvanizi Bridled Darter LT – Lower Tallapoosa River UT – Upper Tallapoosa River trib – tributaries to Upper Tallapoosa River and Martin impoundment
5.6.1 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects WWF believes that any cumulative effects analysis must have spatial and temporal boundaries. For the purposes of rare threatened, endangered species, those geographic effects may exist beyond the current project boundary – downstream of Thurlow Dam - and may include a decrease in the genetic robustness of populations of aquatic species (see sections 3 and 4). The temporal scale of the analysis should look forward throughout the term of license.
Page 14 of 97
Literature Cited
Boshung, Herbert T. Jr, and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books: Washington, DC.
Cech, J. J., Jr., C. G. Campagna, and S. J. Mitchell. 1979. Respiratory responses of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) to environmental changes in temperature and dissolved oxygen. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:166-171.
Chen, L. 1998. The respiratory physiology and energy metabolism of freshwater mussels and their responses to lack of oxygen. Ph.D. dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. Available at http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/fisheries/fisheries_3308.pdf
Kaiser, B.E. and M.C. Barnhart. 2006. Effects of hypoxia on brood survival in the freshwater mussel, Venustaconcha ellipsiformis. Presented at the North American Benthological Society Meeting. Anchorage, Alaska. Abstract available at http://www.benthos.org/database/allnabstracts.cfm/db/Anchorage2006abstracts/id/736.
Spoor, W. A. 1977. Oxygen requirements of embryo and larvae of the largemouth bass, (Micropterus salmoides) (Lacepede). Journal of Fish Biology 11:77-86.
Page 15 of 97
Section 2
Comments on Scoping Document
Page 16 of 97
The Scoping Document dated 5 August 2008 omits or narrows several potential impacts of the Martin dam and its operation on resources that are of extreme interest to WWF. These items were not identified in the Pre-Application Document. That omission is despite our highlighting issues regarding habitat connectivity and the influence of project operations on natural flow patterns issues since the first stakeholder meetings and in written comments (sees Appendix A).
Habitat Connectivity
WWF agrees that Martin dam and Project operations (including flow, operational impacts on water temperature and dissolved oxygen) have the potential to interrupt fish migrations in the Tallapoosa River. Examples of such interruption include physically blocking movement at the dam and at shallow riffles and shoals during low periods in river stage or interfering with cues to migration (e.g., steady increasing or decreasing flows, water quality conditions). The study plan APC drafted addresses some of these issues, but WWF believes that the study should include an investigation into how seasonal and daily flow patterns affect migratory fish species and not just assemble a list of past and present migratory fish use.
As evidenced from the hydrographs presented in Figures 3-6, during certain times of the year, Martin peaking operations mask natural rising and falling patterns of precipitation events in the lower Tallapoosa.
Using May 2008 (Figure 4) as an example, river stage patterns in the upper Tallapoosa suggest that four rain events occurred during the month (and the tail end of one event bridged late April and early May). The graphs of the upstream gaging stations show the month starting with the descending limb of one rain event and show the distinct rise and fall patterns of four additional events through the month. The events that occurred completely in May had durations of four, six, two, and two days as measured at gage 02411930 (Tallapoosa River near Tallapoosa, Georgia). Examining the Milstead (USGS gage number 02419500) and Montgomery Water works gaging stations (USGS number 02419890) shows a very different pattern. Instead of four peaks during the month of May, the river stage graphs from these gages show 18 peaks at Milstead and 15 at Montgomery Water Works. If there are fish species that time use spring freshets as a cue to time their upstream spawning runs, the frequent peaks created by Martin may interfere with proper timing.
Although there have been several populations of diadromous species known to use the Tallapoosa River (Gulf sturgeon, Alabama sturgeon, Alabama shad, Gulf striped bass, and American eel) WWF believes that fishes that migrate within the Tallapoosa or from the Alabama River to the Tallapoosa River to spawn are also important to include in this study. These fishes include, but are limited to Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, Paddlefish and Channel Catfish, Blue Catfish.
While we are encouraged by the “concept document” approach, as appended to APC’s current draft study plan, WWF would rather see the development of guiding principles for that document as early as practicable. We encourage the use of a broad suite of technically capable stakeholders to inform the process. Early input across the range of interested and knowledgeable parties should result in the development of a supportable product. The “concept paper” should include biological objectives, assessment of the project’s affects on meeting those objectives, potential solutions to any impacts, and information gaps.
Page 17 of 97
FIGURE 3
Page 18 of 97
FIGURE 4
Page 19 of 97
FIGURE 5
Page 20 of 97
FIGURE 6
Page 21 of 97
In addition to freshwater species that regularly travel long distances to spawn, the Martin Project potentially interrupts the connection among populations of small stream resident fishes (some of which serve as mussel hosts). The Tallapoosa River is home to many mollusks and small fishes that reside in streams and creeks tributary to the Tallapoosa River. In the years prior to dam construction and impoundment, individuals from adjacent populations likely moved to neighboring populations (mussels moved during their parasitic stage on fish hosts). This occasional dispersal provided an important flow of genetic material. This gene flow maintains genetic diversity in these populations, allowing them to adapt to changing environmental conditions, such as those that may occur as the planet’s climate shifts. Genetic diversity is critical to the long-term health of each individual population.
WWF has identified a number of papers that show how formerly connected populations of stream fishes diverged genetically following isolation (Neville et al. 2006, Yamamoto et al. 2006). In each of these cases, measurable genetic differentiation was detectable in as short as 15 years.
Martin dam and the impoundment that it creates may be an impassable barrier to fishes that reside in streams tributary to the Tallapoosa River. WWF has identified Wind Creek, Blue Creek, Sandy Creek, Mannoy Creek, Hillabee Creek, Jaybird Creek, Timbergut Creeks, and Emuckfaw Creek as streams that may once have been connected for stream fishes to migrate between, but which now may be unconnected due to Martin dam and the slackwater created by the impoundment.
Scoping recommendations: Clearly there is opportunity for Martin dam to have contributed to genetic differentiation among formerly connected, and more genetically similar, populations. For fishes and mussels inhabiting these streams that are rare, formerly listed, or locally abundant but endemic to the Tallapoosa River reestablishing gene flow that is currently blocked by Martin dam and impoundment could be an important conservation action to provide those isolated populations the greatest chance to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Fishes and mussels for which this is particularly important include Longjaw Minnow, Stippled Studfish, Tallapoosa Sculpin, Lipstick dater, Muscadine Bridled Darter, Alabama Spike, Delicate Spike, and possibly the Alabama Hickorynut.
The license application should include evidence demonstrating this effect or lack thereof by comparing genetic differentiation among small stream fishes using tributaries unaffected by Martin dam and impoundment versus those that are affected. If genetic differences between these two sets of tributaries is established, some form of enhancement will be necessary to mitigate for this impact.
WWF has developed a study plan detailing one approach to investigating this potential Project effect on the rare aquatic taxa of the Tallapoosa River system (see Section 4).
Martin Operations
Fluctuating Flows: A description of how current operations manifest in river downstream of Martin Dam is missing. The section on Existing and Proposed Project Operations describes the Martin Project as a peaking facility that generally operates during the weekdays. However, this section fails to characterize operations. The document also states that generation discharge from Martin flows directly into the Yates and Thurlow Project, but does not describe operations of those facilities other than to characterize the minimum flow requirement of 1,200 cfs from Thurlow.
Examination of stream gage records from two United States Geologic Survey gaging stations in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam show almost daily pulses of flow during spring, summer and fall months. River stages at the Milstead Gage (USGS gage (02419500) frequently rise and fall four to six feet on a roughly 24-hour cycle. During May of 2008, nested among rainfall events, river stage changes at this site were occasionally as great as 10 feet in amplitude. The Montgomery Water Works gage (USGS gage 02419890) shows these same patterns of river stage rise and fall thought the amplitudes are typically in the one to three foot range, occasionally approaching five feet in amplitude (see Figures 2 – 6).
APC has stated that the Yates and Thurlow developments operate in an essentially run-of-river fashion. We understand this to mean that flows that are released from generation and spill at Martin Dam are allowed to flow through the Yates and Thurlow developments and, aside from assuring the minimum flow of 1,200 cfs is met at all times, these flow peaks and troughs are not re- regulated in any way. Therefore, it seems that the river stage fluctuations demonstrated at the Milstead and Montgomery Water Works gaging stations are the result of Martin Operations and natural precipitation events and not the result of operational decisions made at either the Yates or Thurlow developments. Although the amplitude of these changes may be within the historic range of occurrence, natural stage change events demonstrate a prolonged descending limb, that is to say, it takes the river a number of days to more than a week for the river to return to its baseline stage following a precipitation event.
Under Martin operations, flows fluctuate from base to peak and back to base on a roughly 24- hour cycle. This river flow pattern has the potential to disrupt fish movement during migrations and spawning movements. Several fish species found in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam move to and from spawning or rearing areas. Some fishes are known to cue migration timing to rising flow levels as shoals and riffles can be easier to navigate with higher flows. The frequent pulses of increased flow from Martin operations may interfere with natural cues for species like Paddlefish, Mooneye, American Eel, Skipjack Herring, Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, and Blue Catfish.
The Tallapoosa River provides habitat for a large number of fishes and aquatic mollusks. Several of these species are listed either on by the federal Endangered Species Act or by the State of Alabama as High or Highest Conservation Concern. Moreover, a number of species are not listed by either aforementioned program, but still garner conservation concern from Boschung and Mayden (2004) or Jelks et al. (2008). Some of these species spawn in the Tallapoosa River by making nests among gravels in riffles and shoals or in crevices created by large rocks or undercut banks, laying demersal eggs in shallow water that settle between gravels and cobbles, or laying eggs that adhere to vegetation, rocks, or debris. Flows that fluctuate on a daily frequency may compromise the spawning and juvenile rearing habitats of these fishes by dewatering stream margin habitats supporting eggs or larval fishes and mollusks. Fishes WWF is particularly concerned about with respect to this set of possible impacts from Martin Dam operations include Paddlesfish, Mooneye, Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, Blue Catfish, Crystal Darter, Harlequin Darter, Freckled Darter, and possibly Skygazer Shiner. Mollusks WWF is particularly concerned about in relation to fluctuating flows include Delicate Spike, Finelined Pocketbook, Alabama Moccasinshell, Alabama Hickorynut, Southern Clubshell, Ovate Clubshell, and Alabama Creekshell. These species all warrant some conservation concern and have spawning characteristics that could be compromised by large, daily fluctuations in flow.
Cursory evaluation of a recent, seven-day period from September 26 to October 3 (Figure 7) revealed just how fast existing Martin operational patterns fluctuate river stage at the Milstead gaging station. Existing patterns of generation show upramp rates of 0.57 to 1.6 feet per hour with
Page 23 of 97 an hourly maximum of 2.74 feet per hour and downramp rates of 0.23 to 0.38 feet per hour with an hourly maximum of 0.87 feet per hour. The river stage typically declined at a rate greater than 0.5 feet per hour for the first several hours of the downramp. These rates may result in adult fish and possibly snail stranding, particularly during spawning periods.
FIGURE 7: Tallapoosa River Gages Ramping, September 26, 2008 – October 3, 2008
10 9 8 7 6 5 4
3 River Stage (ft) Stage River 2 1 0
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Time
Milstead Montgomery Water Works Little Tallapoosa
Large increases in river stage can saturate streambank soils. If river stage falls quickly, these saturated soils can erode if cohesion is unable to support the weight of the saturated soil. While this is a natural process and undoubtedly occurs during natural precipitation events to some extent, Martin Project operations frequent and rapid up and downramping along the Tallapoosa River may exacerbate this process, increasing erosion and possibly contributing to turbidity. There are several sites along the Tallapoosa River where this effect may be demonstrated including 8.5, 15.5, and 18.1 miles downstream of Thurlow Dam. Areas where the operations of Martin Dam affect erosion should be closely surveyed for rare, threatened, and endangered plants such as Georgia Rockcress (Arabis georgiana).
Maintenance and Outage History: Although the ordinary operations of the project are clearly a focus of this relicensing, the relicensing should also describe and characterize operations during unusual events and routine maintenance. The PAD presented by APC does not describe any maintenance activities routinely performed at the Martin Project and how operations are changed to accommodate them. If there are not any routine maintenance activities that require altered operations, the PAD should state this is the case. WWF is interested in the outage
Page 24 of 97 history at Martin Dam. Questions such as these should be answered in the license application: How frequently do unforced or planned outages occur? What are the predominant causes of such outages (particularly unplanned outages), and What are the consequences to operations from such outages?
Scoping recommendations: It seems that Martin Dam operations cause large, nearly daily river stage fluctuations during certain periods of the year. WWF recommends that APC investigate the effects of Martin Project peaking operations on the Tallapoosa River downstream to the confluence with the Coosa with respect to: fish movement (Paddlefish, Mooneye, American eel, Skipjack Herring, Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, Blue Catfish), spawning and juvenile rearing success (Paddlesfish, Mooneye, Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, Blue Catfish, Crystal Darter, Harlequin Darter, Freckled Darter, Delicate Spike, Finelined Pocketbook, Alabama Moccasinshell, Alabama Hickorynut, Southern Clubshell, Ovate Clubshell, and Alabama Creekshell, and possibly Skygazer Shiner), adult fish, mollusk, and snail stranding, and streambank erosion, resulting turbidity, and relation to RTE plant species.
The license application should include summaries of the routine maintenance schedule and operational considerations for performing maintenance at Martin dam in additions to a summary of the recent outage history including cause, duration, and operational considerations to accommodate outages. These unique operational situations could impart some effect on flow fluctuations differently from typical operations that, in turn, could affect aquatic fauna
4.2.1 Geology and Soil Resources Based on data provided above, we suggest expanding the geographic scope of this resource issue to include project-affected stream reaches affected by project operational flow releases downstream from the Thurlow dam.
4.2.2 Water Resources Based on data provided above, we suggest the geographic scope of this resource group issue should be extended to include project-affected stream reaches affected by project operational flow releases downstream from the Thurlow dam.
We suggesting editing the first bullet to read: Effects of the proposed project operation on water quality in Lake Martin, as well as effects on temperature and dissolved oxygen in the Tallapoosa River downstream from Martin dam and the project’s ability to meet state water quality standards and protect and enhance species and the habitats on which they depend.
4.2.3 Aquatic Resources WWF suggests substituting “migratory fish” in the first bullet for aquatic fauna.
We suggest editing the fourth bullet to read: Effects of project operations, including seasonal and daily fluctuations, on aquatic resources in project affected waters downstream form Martin Dam, including the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam.
Page 25 of 97
Literature Cited
Boshung, Herbert T. Jr, and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books: Washington, DC.
Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. Available at http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/fisheries/fisheries_3308.pdf
Neville, H. M., J. B. Durham, and M. M. Peacock. 2006. Landscape attributes and life history variability shape genetic structure of trout populations in a stream network. Landscape Ecology 21:901-916.
Yamamoto, S., K Maekawa, T. Tamate, I. Koizumi, K. Hasegawa, H. Kubota. 2006. Genetic evaluation of translocation in artificially isolated populations of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis). Fisheries Research 78:352-358.
Page 26 of 97
Section 3
COMMENTS ON DRAFT STUDY PLANS
Page 27 of 97
As the largest Gulf Coast drainage system east of the Mississippi, the Mobile River Basin comprises seven major river systems and hundreds of smaller rivers, creeks, and springs. Experts consider this vast watershed to be one of the most diverse in the continental United States, serving as home to a wide array of important wildlife including 38 percent of America’s fish species, 52 percent of its freshwater turtle species, and 60 percent of its mussel species. For these reasons, WWF focuses specific conservation attention to the freshwater resources in this river system. In particular, several fishes and mollusks found in the Tallapoosa River are known to occur only in the Tallapoosa River or the Mobile Basin. These endemic animals, and other fishes and mollusks that are protected by federal or state law and the water quality and habitat on which they depend, are important to our organization. We have developed and attached a list of fishes and mussel species potentially affected by project impacts (see Appendix B). These lists, however, should not be considered final. Information that becomes known during APC studies could influence these lists by adding or subtracting species based on their likelihood to be impacted by project operations. Specifically, WWF has little information on the status of crayfishes that are found in the project affected area, but recommend that APC develop such a list.
At this point in the process, we are focused on gaining a better understanding about the species residing within and adjacent to project affected areas and precisely how the project’s existence and operation influence these species. We believe Project influence can be either positive or negative and can be either directly to the species of interest or to the habitat and water quality characteristics upon which those species depend. These interests are directly articulated by the Federal Code describing the requirements of a licensee preparing an application seeking a new license for an existing major hydroelectric facility in 18CFR § 4.51. Specifically, the license application must include (emphases added):
(2) (ii) A description of existing water quality in the project impoundment and downstream water affected by the project and the applicable water quality standards and stream segment classifications.
(3) (i) A description of the fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of the project and its vicinity, and of downstream areas affected by the project, including identification of an species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ….
These descriptions are informed entirely by extant information augmented or superseded by information collected, analyzed and summarized by the licensee. In the absence of existing data, it has been our experience that the licensee fills that data gap with input from the stakeholders in the process.
WWF is interested in impacts continued operation and maintenance of the Martin Project has on fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats in the areas affected by the project. Our goal is to ensure the studies consider potential impacts of the Project and those impacts are determined prior to the development of measures to avoid Project-related impacts, enhance impacted resources, or mitigate Project-related impacts.
Our comments in this section are not a substitute, but supplement those provided to Alabama Power Company (see Appendix A).
Page 28 of 97
Draft Study Plan 1 WWF contends that Alabama Power Company’s study must include some analysis of how fluctuating flows due to the operation of the Martin Project affects migratory fishes to fulfil the obligations set forth under 18 CFR 4.51. Listing the potential migratory species that historically used and currently use the Tallapoosa River is only a first step. WWF requests that APC add an objective to assess how seasonal and daily flow patterns affect migratory fish species in the Tallapoosa River.
APC proposes to summarize relevant documents that address migratory fish species in the Tallapoosa. We agree that this document summary is important, and respectfully request that Alabama Power Company further synthesize information by species and then assess how that species is likely to be affected by Martin Project in terms of:
Physical passage impediment at Martin dam Effects of flow regime on migration (e.g., flow-related passage barriers at shoals) Effects of flow regime on migration cues Effects of project-related water quality impacts to migration.
The language in Section 4.0 of the study plan suggests that diadromous species will be included in the review, but not those that migrate exclusively in freshwater. We suggest that species such, but not limited to Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, Paddlefish and Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish and Flathead Catfish may also be affected by fish passage barriers or behavioral disruptions from flow impacts (high and low) and should be included in any study on migratory fishes.
In addition to freshwater species that regularly travel long distances to spawn, this study should also include a focus on non-migratory species for which population connectivity may be important. The Tallapoosa River is home to many mollusks and small fishes that reside in streams and creeks tributary to the Tallapoosa River. In the years prior to dam construction and impoundment, individuals from adjacent populations likely moved to neighboring populations (mussels moved during their parasitic stage on fish or other animal hosts). This occasional dispersal provided an important flow of genetic material, critical to the long-term health of each individual population. Martin dam, and its impoundment, may be limiting or eliminating the connections between neighboring tributaries (e.g., Hillabee, Jay Bird, Timbergut, and Emuckfaw creeks). We provided a study request in October 2007 entitled Species Connectivity that outlines our proposal to address this concern (see Appendix A).
While we are encouraged by the “concept document” approach, as attached to the study plan, we would like to see the development of guiding principles for that document as early as practicable. We further encourage APC include a broad a suite of technically capable stakeholders as possible. Early input across the range of interested and knowledgeable parties should result in the development of a supportable product. The “concept paper” should include biological objectives, assessment of the project’s affects on meeting those objectives, potential solutions to any impacts, and information gaps.
Draft Study Plan 2: The Auburn University fishery professionals with whom APC conferred with on the development of this study greatly improved this study plan. We note that this study mirrors recommendations we offered on previous versions. We do have the following suggestions based on this current draft:
Page 29 of 97
Section 5.0 includes assessment in only one embayment of the Martin impoundment. WWF again believes that for meaningful analysis, the sites should represent a variety of areas across the reservoir, not from just one embayment. Due to differences in water quality, it seems reasonable to have four stratifications: East-side embayments (3 site: Blue, Sandy, and Mannoy Creek arms) West-side embayments (3 sites: Kowliga Creek arm and the two creek arms either side of Wind Creek State Park); Upper main reservoir (to Wind Creek State Park); and Lower main reservoir.
We recommend at least 6 sites from each area within each stratification for a total of 96 (6 sites per 4 habitat type, per 4 strata sites.
We also recommend, as we have previously, that a number of collection methods to gather species data. Electrofishing, as the sole method, may provide misleading results. Fish of various species and size-classes have different susceptibility to various collection gears. We suggest including some passive collection gears such as hoop or trap nets or minnow traps or snorkelling, if practical and safe to do so.
Section 5.0 should include presence (and maybe type) or absence of aquatic vegetation as a factor in choosing study sites. Aquatic vegetation can serve as cover for ambush predators like Largemouth Bass, Spotted Bass, Black Crappie, and White Crappie, all of which are present in the Martin impoundment. If study site collection does not purposefully select sites consistent for aquatic vegetation, this factor may confound analyses and complicate decision-making based on otherwise well collected data.
We note that this study has improved and mirrors recommendations we offered on previous versions.
Draft Study Plan 5: In addition to the changes made from previous versions, this study plan should include surveys throughout the affected project area. For the aquatic environment, this would include the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam and all streams flowing into the Martin impoundment (APC appropriately recognizes the geographic scope of the potential impact on page 5-49 of the PAD and in Draft Study Plan 12 (e) that includes the lower Tallapoosa River). Surveying in one habitat unit in each tributary stream, as in section 6.1 of the study plan for Hillabee and Jaybird Creeks, is not sufficient to detect the presence of potentially impacted or federally protected species. Cursory field surveys are not likely to detect presence of rare fauna when, in fact, the species may occur. It can take a great effort, using a variety of methods, to detect these species. However, it is important their presence or absence be determined. This intensive survey also holds true for unionid and snail surveys. Section 6.1 suggests that typical survey forays will be 10-minutes in duration – leaving us wondering if that is sufficient time to examine thoroughly the habitat.
In addition to the survey sites listed in Section 6.1, WWF recommends including Wind Creek (Tallapoosa tributary immediately downstream of Martin dam) and Emuckfaw Creek (Tallapoosa tributary slightly upstream of Martin impoundment) to their sampling schedule. Listed and special status fishes, mollusks, and mollusk host fish may occur in these streams and are potentially affected by lack of connectivity with adjacent tributary populations from Martin Dam or impounded waters created by Martin Dam.
Page 30 of 97
This study should also include surveys for species that are imperiled or rare but not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. These species are included in Table 1.
WWF finds it odd that this Draft Study Plan does not propose any surveys for Georgia Rockcress, a listed species known to be found in the Tallapoosa sub-basin along streams at disturbed sites. It would seem that surveys along Lake Martin and any Tallapoosa River riparian areas downstream of Martin Dam within and slightly beyond the known range of this species are warranted to assess the possible effects of the Martin Project on this candidate species.
Study Plan 6: In Objective 2 of this study, WWF recommends, again, that APC collect water quality profile information from each embayment. Striped Bass use the entire reservoir and each embayment may demonstrate different thermocline characteristics based on unique shape, inflow, current/wind characteristics, water quality of tributary streams, or use patterns. Understanding the water quality and thermocline development and strength in each embayment is an important consideration to this study.
Study Plan 8: Section 5.0 needs to include the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam. As Martin Project operations affect stream flow and river stage in the lower reaches of the Tallapoosa River, they may also have some effect on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, bacteria, chlorophyll-a, and nutrient levels. This study should seek to collect information that demonstrates how peaking operations do or do not affect these water quality parameters as downstream to the confluence of the Tallapoosa River to the Coosa River.
Section 8.0 suggests that data summaries will include maps of water quality sampling stations and raw data presented in a tabular form. WWF finds these data presentation methods inadequate to summarize such important resource information. We recommend that the report show reservoir profiles for each month (for information collected at a series of depths from a single site) and employ box and whisker plots to describe longer term, surface water quality conditions (one plot per site) like water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, bacteria, chlorophyll-a, and nutrients. Box and whisker plots in particular are useful to show the distribution of data for a given parameter as they visually present mean, upper and lower quartile, range, and outlier data points. Multiple plots can be shown on a given figure so that water quality conditions along a gradient (e.g., a river, a reservoir, longitudinally along an embayment) can be shown together making trends in data more apparent.
Study Plan 10: The entire length of the Tallapoosa River from Thurlow Dam downstream to the confluence of the Tallapoosa River to the Coosa River should be added to this study. Martin operations cause large increases and decreases in Tallapoosa River stage along this reach for about half of the year. Several sites along the Tallapoosa River may have increased erosion as a result of these peaking operations including sites about 8.5 miles (just upstream of AL Highway 229 bridge), about 15.5 and about 18.1 miles downstream of Thurlow Dam. There may be others and WWF recommends that Alabama Power use soil information to prioritize search areas for additional erosion hot spots in the lower Tallapoosa River.
APC should, in Section 6.0, survey the entire reservoir for erosion hot spots, in addition to those suggested by stakeholders. In addition, each tributary mouth should be examined for head
Page 31 of 97 cutting. Picking and choosing where data are collected allows for the possibility of missing important impacts.
WWF understands that shoreline development can increase the likelihood that erosion occurs at a given site. The type of soil located at the site also plays an important role in these potential impacts. However, we remain unclear how Alabama Power Company proposes to determine how reservoir fluctuation, recreation, wind-related wave action, or development are the cause for identified erosion. More clarity in the study plan is necessary to understand how Alabama Power Company will make these determinations.
Study Plan 11: The Martin Project is a water storage facility, shaping water releases from the upstream hydrograph to allow for peaking power production, navigation, and flood control. The PAD does not contain any information showing how Martin’s operations shift daily or seasonal discharge patterns in the Tallapoosa River. The results of this study should include some attempt to describe how Martin operations change natural hydrologic patterns at daily, seasonal, and annual time steps. Operation alternatives evaluated during the licensing proceeding should also be examined with respect to daily, seasonal, and annual discharge shifts from the natural condition. These changes may be important to understanding how the Project affects certain migratory fishes such as Paddlefish, Mooneye, Alabama Shad, Southeastern Blue Sucker, River Redhorse, Blue Catfish, and others.
Section 5.0 should include the Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin Dam in the geographic scope. These areas need to be considered as the Martin Project stores (“uses”) water, shifting the timing of release downstream. This storage likely changes how water is discharged on a daily, seasonal, or annual time step.
Draft Study Plan 12 (a): This study plan should include how the various operational alternatives will affect daily, seasonal, and annual discharge patterns in the lower Tallapoosa River as compared to status quo operations. Important considerations that this study should explore as part of its analysis include: Will peaking operations start earlier or continue later in the year? Will spring discharge mimic natural flow patterns in the basin more closely because there is less storage?
This study should also examine the projected effects of climate change on precipitation patterns in the Tallapoosa River. The likely future condition could be an important consideration in evaluating the cumulative impacts of operational patterns.
Draft Study Plan 12 (b): Section 6.0 should include an analysis of how alternative operational patterns impact headcutting in sediment deposits at the head of creek arm embayments. Study Plan 10 examines this potential impact under for current operations and should provide the raw information necessary to analyze how alternative operations will exacerbate or ameliorate the current condition.
Draft Study Plan 12 (c): Operational changes in the rule curve will likely change the duration of peaking operations at Martin. To the extent that peaking operations have an impact on water quality conditions, rule curve changes could result in water quality improvement or degradation in the Tallapoosa River Page 32 of 97 downstream of Thurlow Dam. This study should analyze these changes and should include a geographic scope extending to the confluence of the Tallapoosa River to the Coosa River.
Section 6.0 should include more detail to clarify how APC will determine water quality degradation or improvement under proposed, alternate operations. The least biased approach would involve water quality modelling to characterize the complex dynamics of water inputs form a variety of sources, stratification patterns, and interrelated water quality parameter interactions. Water quality modelling should include reservoir, tailwater and lower Tallapoosa River areas.
Draft Study Plan 12 (d): Section 1.0 should include an analysis of how proposed, alternative operations affects the duration of peaking operations from Martin dam. Changes to the length of the year during which peaking occurs may correlate to increased or decreased erosion in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam. Of course, the ability to make comparisons depends on Study Plan 10 including the Tallapoosa River in a baseline erosion hot spot analysis (and examining the role of current operations’ contributions to these erosion sites). WWF asks that these analyses be included in Draft Study Plan 12 (d).
Draft Study Plan 12 (e): Section 1.0 properly recognizes that changes from proposed, alternate operations may impact rare, threatened and endangered species. WWF recommends APC broaden the suite of species analyzed as we have listed in our comments to Draft Study Plan 5, above. Further, WWF recognizes that the geographic scope of Draft Study Plan 12 (e) includes the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam while Draft Study Plan 5 does not include this section of the Tallapoosa River. It seems reasonable that if shifts in operations could affect rare, threatened and endangered species and those of special status along this river reach, then current operations could affect these same plants and animals.
WWF recommends the first sentence in Section 2.0 include “and lands and waters affected by Project operations” in addition to “… within the project boundary.”
Page 33 of 97
Section 4
Additional Recommended Studies
Page 34 of 97
HYDROLOGY
Martin dam interrupts the free flow of water in the Project area by impoundment and controlled release to generate electricity and provide flood control.
Goals and Objectives: This study will document the effects of these activities on flow level and timing in the Tallapoosa River downstream as far as they persist, and at least downstream to the mouth of Tallapoosa River. We recognize that two Alabama Power Company hydroelectric projects exist both upstream and downstream of Martin dam. These and other flow control structures impart their impact on hydrology in the Tallapoosa River, complicating the analysis. This study should include evaluation of flows over the course of a day (how do flows at various downstream locations vary in relation to Martin operations) as well as on a seasonal and annual basis (does the hydrograph or mean annual yield in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin dam shift as a result of Project operations).
Relevant public interest: The Mobile River Basin is among the most biodiverse temperate freshwater landscapes on the planet. The biodiversity within this river system is dependent upon and adapted to specific hydrologic conditions that, in part, drive water quality conditions and cue various life history requirements of component species. To the degree that project operations may change the hydrology of the Tallapoosa River, water quality characteristics and aquatic species may be impacted negatively. Any such impact would affect Alabamans and others interested in the diversity of life in this river.
Existing information: Existing information includes, but may not be limited to USGS gaging records.
Nexus to project operations and effects: Operation of the Martin dam dramatically alters the otherwise free-flowing, riverine environment of the Tallapoosa River by storing water and releasing it (either through generation or spill) usually in a controlled manner. These operations clearly alter hourly flows in the Tallapoosa River and may alter daily, seasonal, and annual flow patterns in this river system.
Methodology: This study will assess how flows over a range of temporal scales differ from expected flows but for the project. We envision a series of comparisons demonstrating how flows downstream of Martin dam diverge from the expected flows over that same time scale (the sum of flows from the Tallapoosa River and its tributaries upstream of Martin dam). Comparing actual to expected flows downstream of Thurlow dam will require more complicated methods (likely some sort of modeling exercise due to the complication of flow control facilities both upstream and downstream of Martin dam in the Tallapoosa system).
Considerations of costs and alternatives: The study methods and scope provided above represent WWF’s thoughts on how to determine the potential for Project impact and its magnitude. While WWF does not have alternative methodologies identified at this time, we are interested in and open to exploring other means of answering the questions of “if” and “to what degree” Martin Project operations affect hydrologic resources in the Tallapoosa River with APC and other stakeholders.
Page 35 of 97
WATER QUALITY
Martin dam impounds water for storage and to create head and then uses that water to generate electricity. In some circumstances, water passes the Project via spill (though gates) instead of through the powerhouse. Each of these activities potentially alters the water quality characteristics of the Tallapoosa River.
Goals and Objectives: This study will describe how continued operation of the Martin dam influences a variety of water quality characteristics through the various modes of operation. In particular, we would like to see how water temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and primary productivity are affected by Project existence and operation. The Project’s effect on these water quality parameters for any proposed, future operational configuration must also be evaluated.
Relevant public interest: The Mobile River Basin is among the most biodiverse temperate freshwater landscapes on the planet. The biodiversity within this river system is dependent upon and adapted to the water quality conditions of the streams and rivers within the basin, including the Tallpoosa sub-basin. Alabamans and other visitors to the region also should be able to enjoy the Tallapoosa River for its beneficial uses including contact recreation and its native aquatic fauna.
Existing information: Among the existing data are citizen’s groups and Lake Watch of Lake Martin have collected and compiled water quality information over the recent past. Nexus to project operations and effects: Operation of the Martin dam dramatically alters the otherwise free-flowing, riverine environment of the Tallapoosa River by storing water and releasing it (either through generation or spill), usually in a controlled manner. The Project’s existence and operation have a direct impact on water quality through storage, generation, spill, and release patterns that potentially influence water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, total dissolved gas concentrations, nutrient cycling, primary productivity and turbidity.
Methodology: This study will assess how the proposed operation of the project influences water quality characteristics in the Tallapoosa River and in Martin Lake. We recommend that this study examine Project influence on water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, total dissolved gases, various nutrients, primary productivity, and turbidity for all contemplated operational alternatives.
For the riverine segments of the Project affected areas, actual water quality measures should be compared to conditions in the Tallapoosa River immediately upstream of the Project area, adjusted for expected differences at the current site of Martin dam under a free flowing condition. This will require direct measurement of inflow to Martin Lake including principal tributary streams and likely some form of water quality modeling. The focus of these studies is on reservoir and tailwater conditions. Special consideration should be given to dissolved oxygen and total dissolved gas conditions in the Martin tailwater during a range of generation and spill operational scenarios to include an uncontrolled spill event as would occur during a flood. If total dissolved gas levels are particularly high, researchers should direct effort toward evaluating biotic responses to those conditions in the tailwater. Some fishes and mollusks are susceptible to high dissolved gas levels that may cause direct mortality or interfere with proper physiological and reproductive functions.
Within the reservoir, the study should focus on the timing and “strength” of stratification along the main reservoir body and within tributary “embayments”. Constituents to measure include Page 36 of 97 temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll α, and various nutrient parameters (ammonia [as N], orthophosphate [as P], total phosphorous, and TKN). Ultimately, there may be a link between overall reservoir water quality, stratification, hypolimnetic water quality, and the performance of certain fishes in the reservoir, particularly those species using open-water habitats such as striped bass, gizzard shad, and threadfin shad.
Considerations of costs and alternatives: The study methods and scope provided above represent WWF’s thoughts on how to determine the potential for Project impact and its magnitude. While WWF does not have alternative methodologies identified at this time, we are interested in and open to exploring other means of answering the questions of “if” and “to what degree” Martin Project operations affect water quality resources in the Tallapoosa River with APC and other stakeholders.
Page 37 of 97
AQUATIC SPECIES SURVEYS
Martin dam interrupts the free flow of water in the Project area by impoundment and controlled release to generate electricity and provide flood control. These activities may affect fish, mollusk, and crayfish populations in the Project area and downstream by altering physical habitat, hydrology, impacting water quality or interrupting movement. Before assessing the potential for the Martin hydroelectric project to impact aquatic species, we have to understand what resources are present within and around the project area.
Goals and Objectives: This proposed survey work will establish the basis for assessing project impacts to the aquatic species of the Tallapoosa River. This survey will document the presence of aquatic species in impounded areas (littoral and open water, coves and main lake areas), tailwater, flowing stream reaches upstream of impounded areas (each tributary and Tallapoosa River), and flowing stream reaches downstream of Martin dam to the mouth of the Tallapoosa River. Survey work will incorporate appropriate effort across seasons to determine the presence of spawning and juvenile life stages within and nearby the project affected area and protocol surveys (or USFWS approved methods) for protected species likely to occur.
Relevant public interest: The Mobile River Basin is among the most biodiverse freshwater landscapes in the temperate world. The Tallapoosa River is home to as many as or slightly more than 130 species of fish, 30 species of mussels and 10 species of crayfish. Among these, 5 species of fish, 2 species of mollusks, and 2 species of crayfish are considered endemic to the Tallapoosa River. Several conservation organizations have designated the Tallapoosa River as a river of conservation concern because of its biodiversity and high levels of aquatic species endemicity.
Existing information: WWF recommends the following general sources to aquatic species diversity in the Project area.
Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books. Washington, D.C. USA.
Mattee, M .F., P. E. O’Neill, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House. Birmingham, Alabama USA.
Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T. M. Haggerty, T. L. Best, M. F. Mattee, and P. O’Neil. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 4: Conservation and Management Recommendations for Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, Alabama USA.
Nexus to project operations and effects: The Martin dam, the impoundment it creates, and project operations dramatically alter the otherwise free-flowing, riverine environment of the Tallapoosa River and some of its tributaries. Impoundment converts flowing waters into essentially standing waters, favoring those species adapted to the open water or deep pools and fine substrates over those fishes that thrive in shallow, fast moving habitats with gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates. Seasonal or daily shifts in flow regime and water level (in the tailwater, downstream reaches, and in the impounded reaches) may influence spawning and rearing success of aquatic species. Although the survey work described in this study request may not specifically answer such questions, results from this study will form the basis for asking more specific questions relating project operations to species or “guild” specific effects. In turn, these
Page 38 of 97 more narrowly tailored studies would lead to identification of necessary mitigation or enhancement measures to offset project-related impacts.
Methodology: The survey methodology must be robust to provide meaningful information. We suggest a range of sampling techniques for each habitat type to provide the best opportunity to capture various age classes and target taxonomic groups. This should include: • Reservoir, Littoral – experimental gill / trammel nets; hoop nets, minnow traps, seines, larval trawls; electrofishing, others • Reservoir, “pelagic” and deep water – vertical gill nets / trammel nets; trawls, larval trawls, others • Streams – seines, electrofishing, minnow traps (pools), trap/fyke nets, snorkeling/diving, (other crayfish or mussel survey methods).
Data collectors must survey each site across a range of seasons to document intra-annual use patterns of habitat types by different species or by certain life history stages (spawning/incubation, juvenile, adult, migration). We suggest they conduct surveys in early spring, late spring, summer, and fall to produce a robust understanding of habitat use by season. To document upstream spawning migration run impacts to migratory species such as suckers, stripped bass, and Alabama sturgeon (among others), surveyors should make collections in the tailwater of Martin and Thurlow dams every other week from early spring through early summer.
We believe that extant survey information is applicable provided it is recent (collected in last 10 years), and sufficiently robust to include aquatic animals of various sizes, life history phases, and preferred habitats. For any seasons, water bodies, or size / life history phase / habitat that are known or likely to have been missed in an existing survey, Alabama Power Company should collect that missing information to bolster the work previously performed.
These techniques for sampling aquatic species are generally used by the fisheries and aquatic biologist communities to collect fishes, mollusks, and crayfishes. We are not prescribing the exact gear-types to be used in any survey work, only that surveyors utilize a sufficient range of gears to capture animals of various sizes and mobility levels in a range of habitats.
Considerations of costs and alternatives: This survey work is essential baseline information upon which further understanding of potential project impacts will be based. We are asking that Alabama Power Company paint a complete picture of the aquatic animals that are using waters in and around the project area, present that information to the appropriate technical experts over the near term, and design more specific studies to document and quantify Project effects on specific animals if warranted. While WWF does not have alternative methodologies identified at this time, we are interested in and open to exploring other means of answering the questions of “if” and “to what degree” Martin Project operations affect aquatic species in the Tallapoosa subbasin.
Page 39 of 97
AQUATIC SPECIES CONNECTIVITY
Martin dam and the impoundment it creates interrupt the connectivity of stream animal populations. This situation may limit or eliminate movement between streams by small fish species that use small streams predominantly or exclusively. Within the Tallapoosa, there are several species that inhabit these smaller streams and are of high conservation concern.
Goals and Objectives: This study will examine whether interrupted connectivity results in any measurable genetic differences in select stream-dwelling animals. These situations include those stream downstream of Martin but upstream or at the very upper end of Yates pool from adjacent streams that are upstream of Martin dam and those tributary streams that flow directly into Martin reservoir whose downstream reaches are impounded.
Relevant public interest: The Mobile River Basin is among the most biodiverse freshwater landscapes in the temperate world. The persistence of many organisms relies on connections among a group of populations, making the species as whole resilient to changing environmental conditions and providing insurance against localized extirpation events (that could arise from natural or anthropogenic disturbance events). Connectivity is particularly important for those taxa endemic to the Tallapoosa River residing in the vicinity of the Project as these populations are, by nature, of limited distribution and may be particularly susceptible to localized disturbances. Some of the fishes residing in the Project area and immediately upstream are hosts for the parasitic juvenile stage of mussels. Mussel populations, therefore, were capable of distribution throughout at least portions of the Project area prior to impoundment. By limiting movement among neighboring populations, genetic bottlenecks are more likely and recovery from local disturbances is compromised. Both of these considerations make isolated tributary fish populations more susceptible to local extirpation.
Existing information: WWF is not aware of any aquatic species connectivity information for the Tallapoosa River in the vicinity of Martin Lake. However, Brogdon et al. (2003) provides some evidence of population structure for Tallapoosa darter and Neville et al. (2006) and Yamamoto et al (2006) demonstrate that genetic isolation among fish populations can occur from man made structures.
Nexus to project operations and effects: Martin dam itself precludes upstream movement of fishes in the Tallapoosa and further prevents small stream dwelling fishes from Channahatchee and Wind Creeks from interacting with populations in Blue, Rocky Ford, and possibly Sandy Creeks. Likewise, it is possible that impounded waters behind Martin dam do not allow fish populations from small streams to periodically connect with one another (e.g., Sandy, Rocky Ford, Blue, and Manoy Creeks; Hillabee, Jay Bird, Timbergut, and Emuckfaw Creeks, among others).
Methodology: This study would establish an expected genetic difference between populations in adjacent and proximal streams based on tributary streams in free-flowing sections of the Tallapoosa River. Researchers would also establish genetic differences for the same or similar species in adjacent and proximal streams upstream and downstream of Martin dam and tributary streams affected by impoundment. These genetic differences would be compared to reveal any genetic isolation resulting from the Project. APC along with select stakeholders would determine the species to study, focusing on species known to move freely among tributary streams or along the longitudinal gradient of the Tallapoosa River or rare / limited distribution species most susceptible to extirpation from localized disturbances (see Table 2).
Page 40 of 97
Table 2: Fishes most suitable for mitorchondiral DNA study
Scientific Name Common Name Comments Cyprinella gibbsi Tallapoosa Shiner Very good candidate, predominantly piedmont, widespread distribution and common in Tallapoosa Hybopsis lineapunctata Lined Chub Good candidate, restricted to piedmont, may want to include samples from lower Coosa River in addition to Tallapoosa drainage samples Fundulus bifax Stippled Studfish Very good candidate, common in preferred habitat but preferred habitat uncommon, extant distribution all along Martin reservoir and just upstream Etheostoma chuckwachatte Lipstick Darter Good candidate, Hillabee Creek may be only “Martin affected” tributary (limiting replication among streams for treatment), avoid extreme upstream populations Etheostoma stigmaeum Speckled Darter Fair candidate, unresolved taxonomy, Steve Layman did some work on this “species” throughout their range and found differences across the different Mobile subbasins, Karen Pearson will be looking at microsatellite DNA from Tombigbee populations and we may be able to plug into her work by adding some Tallapoosa samples for analysis Etheostoma tallapoosae Tallapoosa Darter Very good candidate, widespread in piedmont section of Tallapoosa but little fear that upstream populations are different from those around Martin Percina kathae Mobile Logperch Good candidate, this species is widespread and common, use only samples from upstream of fall line, species does well in impounded waters and is likely to be able to move between tributaries – interesting to see if differences manifest Percina smithvanizi Muscadine Good candidate, recently confirmed Bridled Darter taxonomy, may use reservoir (like Mobile Logperch above)
Considerations of costs and alternatives: The study methods and scope provided above represent WWF’s thoughts on how to determine the potential for Project impact and its magnitude. While WWF does not have alternative methodologies identified at this time, we are interested in and open to exploring other means of answering the questions of “if” and “to what degree” the Martin Project affects connectivity of aquatic animals hydrologic resources in the Tallapoosa River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the Martin Project. The above referenced
Page 41 of 97 project is likely to cost between $40,000 and $50,000 to perform data collection and analyses for one species. Additional species could be added at reduced costs.
Literature Cited
Brogdon, Stephen M. Christopher R. Tabit, and Leos G. Kral. 2003. Population Structure of the Tallapoosa Darter (Ethoestoma tallapoosae). Southeastern Naturalist 2(4):487.498.
Neville, H. M., J. B. Durham, and M. M. Peacock. 2006. Landscape attributes and life history variability shape genetic structure of trout populations in a stream network. Landscape Ecology 21:901-916.
Yamamoto, S., K Maekawa, T. Tamate, I. Koizumi, K. Hasegawa, H. Kubota. 2006. Genetic evaluation of translocation in artificially isolated populations of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis). Fisheries Research 78:352-358.
Page 42 of 97
WETLAND AND RIPARIAN SURVEYS
The impoundment created by Martin dam nourishes riparian flora along the edge of the impoundment. Wetlands of various types likely exist along the lake at high lake levels. These same habitats occur in the Tallapoosa River reaches downstream of the dam. Goals and Objectives: This study will identify and quantify these habitats; further, it will assess how changing water levels (both in the reservoir and in the river downstream of Martin dam) affect these habitats.
Relevant public interest: The Mobile River Basin is among the most biodiverse freshwater landscapes in the temperate world. Riparian and wetland habitats contribute to habitat diversity and normative river function required to maintain aquatic animal biodiversity.
Existing information: WWF is not aware of any existing habitat surveys along Martin Lake or in the Project affected area.
Nexus to project operations and effects: Operation of the Martin dam dramatically alters the otherwise free-flowing, riverine environment of the Tallapoosa River by storing water and releasing it (either through generation or spill) in a controlled manner. These activities produce hourly, daily, and seasonal variations in river stage downstream of the dam and lake levels throughout the impoundment. These fluctuation water levels can impact wetlands and compromise the health of riparian habitats immediately adjacent to the waterway, particularly in the varial zone (between the typical high and low water marks).
Methodology: Habitat surveys form the basis for this study. Riparian and wetland habitats should be catalogued along the impoundment and as far downstream on the Tallapoosa River as Martin operations impact river stage. Surveyors should repeat surveys to assess how conditions change at low and high reservoir and river levels respectively. The habitat conditions between these conditions (i.e., the varial zone) must be described in detail and assessed for their habitat value and potential impact to riparian / wetland dependent species (flora and terrestrial / amphibious animals) and spawning aquatic animals.
Considerations of costs and alternatives: This survey work is essential baseline information upon which further understanding of potential project impacts may be based. We are asking that Alabama Power Company paint a complete picture of the wetland and riparian habitats along the reaches of the Tallapoosa sub-basin affected by the Martin Project and its operations, present that information to the appropriate technical experts over the near term, and design more specific studies to document and quantify Project effects on specific animals if warranted. While WWF does not have alternative methodologies identified at this time, we are interested in and open to exploring other means of answering the questions of “if” and “to what degree” Martin Project operations affect these critically important habitat types in the Tallapoosa subbasin.
Page 43 of 97
RAMPING
Martin power generation and water management operations result in fluctuating flows in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin dam.
Goals and Objectives: The goal of this study is to describe and quantify the impacts of fluctuating flows on aquatic animals in the affected river reach (the Tallapoosa River and tributary mouths between Martin dam and where river stage changes from Marting Project operation are no longer measurable). In particular, researchers should examine how stage changes impact breeding habitats (nest and egg desiccation) and strand fishes and mollusks.
Relevant public interest: The Mobile River Basin is among the most biodiverse freshwater landscapes in the temperate world. The biodiversity within this river system is dependent upon and adapted to specific flow conditions. The normative flow regime is more stable over an hourly time step than the current condition under project operations.
Existing information: USGS records demonstrate the magnitude of fluctuating flows at two sites downstream of the Martin Project. WWF is not aware of any plant, animal, or water quality sampling or observation regarding possible effects of flow fluctuations on those resources.
Nexus to project operations and effects: Operation of the Martin dam dramatically alters Tallapoosa River stage downstream of Martin dam over a short time step. These daily changes in stage can strand mobile aquatic animals at any season. During spawning, fish behavior may be affected by such fluctuating flows as suitable spawning sites are made more or less available or abundant at different water levels over the course of a day. If animals successfully spawn in habitats within the fluctuation zone, eggs, larval fishes or individuals of mollusk species would likely be subject to periodic desiccation on ensuing days, subjecting them to increased mortality.
Methodology: This study should provide an examination of river stage changes at various locations downstream of Martin dam. The survey will include mouths of tributaries (e.g., Wind Creek) that are influenced by varying flow levels. On the ground surveys should document the amount of habitat of various types inundated / exposed under current and proposed flow releases. Further, survey work will document use of these habitats by spawning or rearing aquatic animals and estimate the impact to these populations by dewatering spawning areas or stranding individuals.
Considerations of costs and alternatives: The study methods and scope provided above represent WWF’s thoughts on how to determine the potential for Project impact and its magnitude. While WWF does not have alternative methodologies identified at this time, we are interested in and open to exploring other means of answering the questions of “if” and “to what degree” daily ramping at the Martin Project affects aquatic and riparian habitats, aquatic animals, and riparian plants in the Tallapoosa sub-basin.
Page 44 of 97
Appendix A
World Wildlife Fund Comments To Alabama Power Company Dated October 15, 2007 and December 15, 2007
Page 45 of 97
Page 46 of 97
Page 47 of 97
Page 48 of 97
Page 49 of 97
Page 50 of 97
Page 51 of 97
Page 52 of 97
Page 53 of 97
Page 54 of 97
Page 55 of 97
Page 56 of 97
Page 57 of 97
Page 58 of 97
Page 59 of 97
Page 60 of 97
Page 61 of 97
Page 62 of 97
Page 63 of 97
Page 64 of 97
Page 65 of 97
Page 66 of 97
Page 67 of 97
Page 68 of 97
Page 69 of 97
Page 70 of 97
Page 71 of 97
Page 72 of 97
Page 73 of 97
Page 74 of 97
Page 75 of 97
Page 76 of 97
Page 77 of 97
Page 78 of 97
Page 79 of 97
Page 80 of 97
Page 81 of 97
Page 82 of 97
Page 83 of 97
Page 84 of 97
Page 85 of 97
Page 86 of 97
Page 87 of 97
Page 88 of 97
Page 89 of 97
Page 90 of 97
Page 91 of 97
Page 92 of 97
Page 93 of 97
Page 94 of 97
Appendix B
LIST OF FISH AND MOLLUSKS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY PROJECT OPERATIONS (UPDATED OCTOBER 2008)
Page 95 of 97
Tallapoosa River Fishes of Conservation Priority Fishes Of The Tallapoosa River System That May Be Affected By The Operation Of The Martin Hydroelectric Project Prepared by World Wildlife Fund 10/07/2008 - DRAFT
Region Special Concern Potential Impacts Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name
CoastalPlain Piedmont Tallapoosa Endemic MobileEndemic Endangered Threatened Candidate Rareor Listed AFS Priority1 Priority2 Inundatedhabitat Unstable flow Flowmigration & Passagebarrier Interrupted connectivity Acipenseridae Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi X X X X X X Alabama sturgeon Scaphirhynchus suttkusi X X X X X X X Polyodontidae Paddlefish Polyodon spathula X X X X Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrara X X Hiodontidae Mooneye Hiodon tergisus X X X Clupeidae Alabama shad Alosa alabamae X X X X Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris X X X Cyprinidae Alabama shiner Cyprinella callistia X X X X Tallapoosa shiner Cyprinella gibbsi X X X X Lined chub Hybopsis lineapunctata X X X X X "Shoal chub" Machrybopsis sp. cf. M. aestivalis "A" X X X X "Shoal chub" Machrybopsis sp. cf. M. aestivalis "B" X X X X X Longjaw minnow Notropis amplomala X X X X Burrhead shiner Notropis asperifrons X X X Ironcolor shiner Notropis chalybaeus X Skygazer shiner Notropis uranoscopus X X X Pugnose minnow Opsopoedus emiliae X X X X Riffle minnow Phenocobias catastomus X X X X Catostomidae Southeastern blue sucker Cycleptus meridionalis X X X X X River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum X X X X X Ictaluridae Black madtom Noturus funebris X X X X Speckled madtom Noturus leptacanthus X X X X Fundulidae Stippled studfish Fundulus bifax X X X X X Cottidae Tallapoosa sculpin Cottus sp cf C. bairdi X X X X Centrarchidae Shadow bass Ambloplites ariommus X X X X Redspotted sunfish Lepomis miniatus X X X Redeye bass Micropterus coosae X X X Percidae Crystal darter Crystallaria asprella X X X Lipstick darter Etheostomoa chuckwachatte X X X X X X Harlequin darter Ethoeostoma histrio X X X Greenbreast darter Etheostoma jordani X X X Speckled darter Etheostoma stigmaeum X X X X Tallapoosa darter Etheostoma tallapoosae X X X X Mobile logperch Percina kathae X X X X X Freckled darter Percina lenticula X X X Bronze darter Percina palmaris X X X X X Saddleback darter Percina vigil X X Muscadine bridled darter Percina smithvanizi X X X X X
Priority 1 - Highest Conservation Concern Priority 2 - High Conservation Concern
Sources: Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books. Washington, D.C. USA.
Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E Diaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren, Jr. Mattee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House. Birmingham, Alabama USA. Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221
Page 96 of 97
Tallapoosa River Mussels of Conservation Priority Mussels Of The Tallapoosa River System That May be Affected By The Operation Of The Martin Hydroelectric Project Prepared by World Wildlife Fund 3/11/2007 - DRAFT
Region Special Concern Potential Impacts
Federal State
Piedmont Tallapoosa Endemic Mobile Endemic Endangered Threatened Candidate Priority1 Priority2 Inundated Habitat Timingand Durationof Flow Migration andPassage Interrupted Connectivity Common Name Scientific Name CoastalPlain Threeridge Amblema plicata X X X Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus X X Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata X X X Alabama Spike Elliptio arca X X X X X Delicate Spike Elliptio arctata X X X X X X Elephantear Elliptio crassidens X X X Gulf Pigtoe Fusconaia cerina X X? X X Ebony Shell Fusconaia ebena X X X Finelined Pocketbook Hamiota altilis X X X X X X Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata X X X Southern Fatmucket Lampsilis straminea X X X Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres X X Alabama Heelsplitter Lasmigona alabamensis X Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis X Black Sandshell Ligumia recta X X X Alabama Moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus X X X X X X Washboard Megalonaias nervosa X X? X Threehorn Wartyback Obliquaria reflexa X Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor X X? X X X X X X Southern Clubshell Pleurobema decisum X X X X X Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema perovatum X X X X X Bleufer Potamilus purpuratus X X X X Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis X X Southern Mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata X Alabama Orb Quadrula asperata asperata X X Tallapoosa Orb Quadrula asperata archeri X X X Gulf Mapleleaf Quadrula nobilis X Ridged Mapleleaf Quadrula rumphiana X X X Pistolgrip Quadrula verrucosa X X X Alabama Creekshell Strophitus connasaugaensis X X Lilliput Toxolasma parvum X X Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis X Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus X X Paper Pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis X X Little Spectaclecase Villosa lienosa X X X X Southern Rainbow Villosa vibex X X Priority 1 - Highest Conservation Concern Priority 2 - High Conservation Concern
Sources: Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221
Page 97 of 97
Judy A. Takats World Wildlife Fund
Southeast Rivers and Streams 2021 21st Avenue S, Ste 200 Nashville, TN 37212
Direct Phone: 615-279-1814 Fax: 615-297-1429 [email protected]
worldwildlife.org
2 April 2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A Washington, DC 20426
RE: World Wildlife Fund comments on Alabama Power Company's Martin Hydroelectric Project (Project P-349-150) March 18, 2009 Final Study Plan filing
1. Introduction
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) appreciates the time and effort Alabama Power Company (APC) took to develop responses to stakeholder comments submitted in February on draft study plans for the Martin Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 349-150) relicensing process. The tabular account of each stakeholder comment and APC's response to each comment, in particular, was very useful and clearly presented. We reviewed APC's responses to our comments and offer clarifications to a number of our points. WWF has limited the comments in this submittal only to those issues or points that we believe APC misunderstood and; therefore, are in need of additional discussion or explain. Our comments in the letter dated 17 February 2009 that have neither been addressed by APC nor elaborated upon below still remain active issues from our perspective. We simply did not want to repeat the same arguments in this letter.
WWF is an international 501(c)(3) nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to protecting the world's wildlife and wildlands. WWF maintains its primary office in Washington, DC, and has a regional office Nashville, Tennessee. The mission of the Nashville office is to ensure the protection, preservation and enhancement of aquatic life in the rivers and streams of the southeastern United States, specifically the Cumberland, Mobile, and Tennessee River Basins. WWF has over 1.2 million members in the United States - over 26,000 of whom reside in Alabama and Georgia, the two states through which the Tallapoosa River flows.
WWF has been an active participant in APC’s (APC) organized Martin Relicensing stakeholder meetings (May 24-25, 2007, September 26-27, 2007 and April 1-2, 2008), the Martin Rule Curve Meeting (March 6, 2008), draft study plan meeting (January 7, 2009) and relicensing modeling workshop (February 10, 2009). WWF also participated in the Martin Hydroproject tour and scoping meeting (September 10-12, 2008) where we provided public comment on our interests and potential points of intersection with the operation and maintenance of the Martin Project. In addition to providing comments on the Scoping Document 1 (SD1), Pre-Application Document, June 2008 draft study plans (October 12, 2008), and November 2008 draft study plans (February 17, 2009), we have also commented directly to APC on early drafts of the study plans (October 15 and December 15, 2007).
2. Study Plan 1
WWF requested the addition of several objectives to this Migratory Fish Tallapoosa Basin Literature Review study plan. APC's response was that this particular study is not designed to assess project effects on aquatic species and that some of the objectives WWF requested are included under another study plan (Study Plan 3: Evaluation of Minimum Flows Downstream of Martin Dam). WWF offers that one of the targets for a relicensing package is to document the resources in the project area and to describe any continuing impacts or new impacts from alternative operation or maintenance proposals. This is best characterized in 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(3)(iv) which states that "a description of any anticipated continuing impact on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of continued operation of the project, and the incremental impact of proposed new development of project works or changes in project operation" (emphasis added). Moreover, APC lists under section 2.0 of this study plan that "Impacts to migratory rare, threatened, endangered or commercial fish species ... are of concern to the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of their Section 18 authority provided in the Federal Power Act." WWF's request to include an assessment of existing and proposed seasonal and daily flow patterns on migratory fishes seems to fall directly under the federal regulations governing relicensing studies and the stated resource management goals in the study plan itself. WWF agrees with APC that population integrity of migratory fish species is a part of Study Plan 3.
WWF also offered several specific information needs related to the potential effects of Martin dam and operation that we believe would help USFWS, NMFS, APC, Alabama Department of Conservation of Natural Resources (ADCNR), and other stakeholder better understand how the project may impact migrating fishes in the Tallapoosa Basin. These specific recommendations include: Physical passage impediment at Martin dam; Effects of flow regime on migration (e.g., flow-related passage barriers at shoals) for each alternative; Effects of flow regime on migration cues for both alternatives (i.e., do daily peaks mask migration cues for any species); Effects of project-related water quality impacts to migration; and effects on any known mussel species which use migrating fishes as a host during its reproductive cycle.
Page 2 of 10
Again, Alabama Power responded to this request by stating that this study is not designed to assess project impacts. Our intent in providing this list of characteristics is to help inform the literature review / expert interview process. WWF contends that answers to these questions are needed for USFWS and NMFS to make reasoned decisions with respect to their Federal Power Act Section 18 obligations. Moreover, answers to these questions are needed for fulfilling relicensing application requirements directed under 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(3)(iv).
WWF recommended that APC include a procedure to conduct interviews or workshops with species experts for any target migratory species for which established literature (published or gray) is not available. APC revised their study plan to include a procedure to document personal communications. WWF's comment is not so much focused on documenting the phone calls or meeting communications; instead, WWF’s comment is about having APC commit to seeking out that expertise for any migratory species that has no or little written information. Along these lines, we suggest adding a sentence in item 2) of the Proposed Methodology that describes a commitment to interview experts for any of the identified migratory species that have limited, outdated, or no relevant literature upon which to base a review.
WWF greatly appreciates the list of fishes USFWS submitted that APC incorporated into this study plan. As we understand, this list will direct the species for which APC will gather information related to fish passage in the Tallapoosa River and its inclusion in this iteration of the study plan helps bring focus to the effort. WWF requests APC add to this list is the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), a species known to occur in the Alabama River downstream of the Tallapoosa River confluence and historically known to occur in the Tallapoosa. WWF has a strong interest in conservation of this species and has committed funds to support research efforts on this species.
Along with our comments to Study Plan 1, WWF also submitted a stand alone study plan proposal to APC entitled Aquatic Species Connectivity Study Plan. This is not the first time that WWF has submitted this to APC for consideration. WWF first proposed this study plan in October 2007., shortly after APC first described their draft study plans in a series of Martin Issue Group meetings. This proposed study plan is crafted to specifically address the potential for the Martin impoundment to interrupt the ability of small stream fishes to occasionally disperse among nearby tributary streams. In APC's response to this comment, they correctly describe that connectivity is included in Section 2.0 of Study Plan 5 (Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys). Study Plan 5, however, only includes surveys for rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species and these surveys will only occur in tributary river reaches immediately upstream of reservoir influence. While these surveys may document the occurrence of protected fish or mollusk populations in adjacent or nearby tributaries, it will not assess potential impact from interrupted connectivity. The study WWF is proposing attempts to establish expected genetic differences among adjacent tributary streams that flow into flowing sections of the Tallapoosa and compares those against the actual genetic differences among adjacent tributary fish populations that flow into the Martin impoundment. Large differences between expected and actual genetic differences would then be discussed as a possible impact that could be mitigated with an active program that moves a small number of Page 3 of 10 priority species between adjacent streams - replicating the gene flow of the Pre-Project environment. WWF does not know how such a potential impact could be documented without this approach, but is open to having a discussion specifically about this issue.
3. Study Plan 2
WWF commented that the presence or absence of aquatic macrophytic vegetation should be included as a survey site characteristic in selecting survey sites. APC responded that aquatic vegetation at Lake Martin is a non-issue at this time and went on to assert that "the study sites will be as similar as possible including slope, soil type and aquatic vegetation (or lack thereof)." We note that the revised study plan submitted by Alabama Power on 18 March does not include vegetation explicitly as a characteristic in their selection of replicate study sites. WWF understands that the sites will be selected in the dry during the winter pool level and the presence of aquatic vegetation will be difficult if not impossible to forecast. However, if some sites have vegetation nearby while other sites do not, this could strongly impact the results of the fish collection surveys. To the extent possible, WWF strongly recommends that selected sites should be consistent with respect to this habitat parameter.
WWF recommended that the benthic macroinvertebrate study sites straddle the winter pool level and that survey crews sample fishes in the fall in addition to the spring. APC's response deferred these decisions to the technical experts at ADCNR and Auburn University. This is certainly a reasonable response; the individuals consulted in the development of this study plan know these resources and Martin impoundment. We request, however, that APC forward the comments made by WWF to the specific technical staff as input to the study design. This request is true to the spirit of collaborative study design development. WWF believes both of our recommendations would make for a more robust evaluation of these habitat features and deserve consideration by the technical experts.
4. Study Plan 3
WWF again points to the relevant sections of 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(3)(i) related to relicensing application requirements. The guidelines for the report on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources states that the application must include a "description of the fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of the project and its vicinity, and of downstream areas affected by the project ..." WWF believes that Study Plan 3 successfully meets this threshold with respect to fishes and mollusks. However, Federal guidance continues to ask for "a description of any anticipated continuing impact on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of continued operation of the project ..." (emphasis added) in 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(3)(iv). APC's study plan will not characterize the impacts of the continued operation of the Martin Project on fish or mollusk resources in the Tallapoosa River immediately downstream of Martin Dam or in the reaches of the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam that appear to be affected by Martin Peaking operations. Rather, Study Plan 3 proposes to describe the resulting effect of these impacts in terms of current fishes and mollusks present, without examining the actual impacts and the mechanisms by which Martin operations potentially affect fishes and mollusks. The difficulty in Page 4 of 10 this latter approach is that, without knowing what the fish and mollusks distribution and relative abundance estimates are without Martin operations, it is extremely difficult to assess what project operations are actually having an impact and how those operations are affecting aquatic resources. Peaking operations at Martin Dam result in relatively rapid, high amplitude stage fluctuations on a nearly daily basis throughout the year. At any time, these rapid, large river stage fluctuations could strand fishes, particularly benthic fishes and juveniles (that frequently orient to shorelines). During spawning periods, many fishes lay eggs that sink to the bottom of the stream and attach to the substrate in riffles and shoals. These habitats may have very large areas that area affected by fluctuating flows, leaving active nests or incubating eggs susceptible to changing river stage.
WWF proposed a series of questions in our initial comments related to Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) to demonstrate the sorts of analyses that would lead to a description of Martin Dam operations' continuing impacts. APC responded that they will have discussions with ADCNR regarding the Paddlefish fishery and potential enhancements related to operational flexibility. The thrust of WWF’s initial assertion is that similar conservations between APC and ADCNR, USFWS, and other technical experts, tailored to the species of interest and the ways in which that species may be impacted by Martin Dam or operations, are needed for all species found in the Martin tailrace and Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam, particularly RTE and Alabama Priority Species, commercially or recreationally important species, and locally rare or Tallapoosa / Mobile endemics. By limiting conversations with ADCNR and other fish management entities, APC is missing a range of potential impacts and opportunities for enhancement to a number of priority fish, mollusk, and crayfish species.
5. Study Plan 5
WWF requested that the rare, threatened and endangered species surveys outlined in Study Plan 5 include appropriate survey methods and documentation of fishes that serve as hosts to RTE mussel species. These surveys should be conducted in all reaches where RTE mussels are known or thought to occur. APC's response to this recommendation was related to the sampling sites where crews will conduct surveys. We reiterate here that our request in this instance is not about where sampling is conducted, but rather to expand the target species to include RTE mussel fish hosts. The fish species that act as hosts to the glochidial stage for these mussels are an essential part of each species' life history. In essence, they are a habitat requirement. Some of the mussel species have very specific fish hosts. The presence and status of fish host populations in the vicinity of mussel populations is a critical evaluation component for these species.
6. Study Plan 7
WWF requested that APC incorporate inventories of vegetation (botanical resources) and wildlife as parts of Study Plan 7 (Wildlife Management Program). APC responded that they will develop the information necessary to manage wildlife and timber resources with ADCNR. WWF offers two perspectives on this response: Page 5 of 10
(1) we believe that wildlife and botanical resource inventories within the Project boundary and along the reaches of the Tallapoosa River affected by Project operations is necessary to provide a "description of the fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of the project and its vicinity, and of downstream areas affected by the project ..." as required by 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(3)(iv); and (2) it seems necessary that a wildlife management plan would require an inventory of some sort upon which to base management decisions. Without a good understanding of the plants and animals found in an area, it is possible to develop management targets and activities that help some species and unintentionally harm others.
The management plan should document all the potential effects of its activities and the developers of this plan will not be able to make these determinations without a solid understanding of the small and large mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants that occur within the planning boundaries. WWF notes here that such inventories do not need to be field intensive efforts; much good information can be collected through discussions with local birding organizations, ADCNR, USFWS, and research institutions in the area (university faculty or other research institutions). This information can be supplemented with limited field surveys to fill in identified faunal, seasonal, or regional gaps.
7. Study Plan 8
WWF requested that APC extend the geographic scope of this study to include the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam to the mouth. The peaking operations at Martin Dam clearly affect river stage in the Tallapoosa throughout its length downstream of the dam (see WWF’s previous letters). This operational pattern may influence water quality conditions throughout the course of the day as flows and river stage rise and fall. A description of the continuing effects of operations on water quality conditions is required under 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(2)(ii), which states the applicant must provide "a description of existing water quality in the project impoundment and downstream water affected by the project and the applicable water quality standards and stream segment classifications" (emphasis added).
WWF requested that the Baseline Water Quality study report include current water quality conditions in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow that are affected by peaking operations at Martin Dam and water quality information during periods of both generation and non-generation. APC responded that data collection and presentation will include what is necessary to complete the requirements for the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. We understand the need to collect information sufficient to apply for the Water Quality Certification. This would include the collection and presentation of data specifically demonstrating water quality compliance with Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) standards. In most cases, these data are sufficient to meet the 18 CFR Section 4.51(f)(2)(ii) guidance for relicensing applications, which states the applicant must provide "a description of existing water quality in the project impoundment and downstream water affected by the project and the applicable water quality standards and stream segment classifications" (emphasis added). As some interpret Alabama’s water quality regulations, there Page 6 of 10 is not a threshold dissolved oxygen concentration during periods of non-generation. In this instance, by only collecting and presenting information to conform to ADEM standards, APC would fall short of fully describing the existing water quality conditions in the waters downstream of the Martin Dam during periods of non-generation. Certainly the act of not passing flow through a hydroelectric facility should be considered part of that Project's operation. This cessation of flow has the potential to affect water quality conditions, dissolved oxygen in particular, and the aquatic animals that rely on water quality. Our comment, however, does not solely relate to dissolved oxygen during periods of non-generation. WWF also believes that APC should assess whether or not peaking hydroelectric operations impact water temperatures (particularly during summer) and turbidity (particularly during up and down ramping). To accomplish both of these requests, APC would take temperature and turbidity measurements at different locations along the Tallapoosa River (some of the turbidity sampling stations should be associated with active erosion areas and others should be far from active erosion areas) and relate recorded turbidity and temperature measurements with river stage. This information is important in describing existing and potential continuing impacts of the Project to water quality conditions in the Project affected area. Moreover, WWF further contends that these effects could influence habitat quality conditions for certain aquatic animals that reside, or otherwise would reside, in these reaches of the Tallapoosa River. Therefore, APC's assessment of these water quality parameters has ties to the descriptions referenced in our comments to Study Plans 3 and 5 above.
WWF recommended a few methods for APC to consider employing when presenting water quality data in their reports and license application. APC responded that they will use methods recommended by ADEM. Just to clarify, the methods APC used to display water quality data in the Pre-Application Document (filed June 5, 2008) does not provide the reader a sense of how water quality parameters fluctuate over the course of time (at a daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonal scale). Certainly overall averages and ranges are important statistics. However, aquatic animals experience water quality in an instantaneous fashion. Extreme high temperatures or low dissolved oxygen concentrations over just the part of a day may negatively impact aquatic animals in ways that cannot be predicted by presenting average or partial daily information. We restate that APC should present water quality data in a manner that shows the distribution of results and provides more detail with respect to when measures were collected and under what conditions (depth, reservoir level, river stage, date, time, etc.).
8. Study Plan 10
WWF requested that the geographic scope of this study extend to the Tallapoosa River from Thurlow Dam to the mouth. APC responded that they would focus the study on erosion hot spots within the reservoir area as that is the erosion affected by the project. WWF agrees that the Martin Project may contribute to erosion within the reservoir area. However, we disagree that Martin Project operations do not contribute to erosion in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin Dam. WWF thinks that the answer to this question is unknown at this time and can only be answered if assessment of the Martin Project effect on erosion in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam is included in this study plan. Page 7 of 10
APC is correct in asserting that erosion is a natural process that occurs even in unimpacted hydrologic systems. Erosion frequently occurs along rivers during high flow events, either from increased erosive forces of fast moving water, or as a result of stream bank soils, saturated during high flows, sloughing into the river as river stage recedes. WWF contends that it is possible the frequent fluctuations of the Tallapoosa River from Martin peaking operations may contribute to erosion beyond what would naturally occur along the Tallapoosa River and is therefore an effect of project operations. Stage fluctuations at the Milstead gage are frequently in the 3 to 5 foot range (extending up to as much as 9 feet on occasion) and occur five or so times per week during spring, summer, and part of the fall seasons. Increased erosion along the Tallapoosa River due to Martin operations is possible and could contribute to short term turbidity impacts and decreased habitat quality or reproductive success for fishes, mollusks, crayfishes, and other aquatic animals. WWF believes there is a nexus between Martin operations and erosion along the Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin Dam and that some evaluation or assessment of the potential for fluctuating flows to contribute to unnaturally high erosion along these reaches is warranted.
WWF made a comment related to examining headcutting in tributary mouths as well as examining reservoir erosion hotspots. APC responded that they did not understand our definition of headcutting in this instance. WWF is referring to erosion in tributary/reservoir confluence areas during the winter period. Fine sediments are deposited and may accumulate where streams enter the Martin impoundment during the summer, when reservoir levels are high. If these deposits are substantial in volume, the tributary will "cut through" these accumulated sediments during the winter when reservoir levels are as much as 10-feet lower. This yearly erosion may constitute some erosion related impact to either water quality or fish passage from reservoir to stream as the stream headcuts through the deposited sediment. We are asking Alabama Power to examine these tributary mouths during the winter to describe and evaluate the circumstances related to this potential impact.
WWF requested that APC more clearly describe how they will make determinations related to the causes of erosion hot spots around Lake Martin. APC responded that they will utilize their certified erosion expert to perform the surveys. WWF requests APC have their certified erosion expert describe their technique and insert this into the methodology portion of the study plan so the information is available to all stakeholders.
9. Study Plan 12
WWF made a general comment related to the need for a better description of how the proposed alternatives for the winter rule curve would affect water management at the Martin Project in terms of seasonal and daily patterns. Clearly the summer pool will persist longer into the fall and return to full pool will occur earlier in the spring each year. This change, in itself, constitutes a seasonal shift within the reservoir environment. Moreover, the amount of water to release in the fall and "store" in the spring is reduced by about half if the winter drawdown changes from 10 to 5 feet. These changes can be accommodated in many ways and APC Page 8 of 10 responded by stating that it is too early to assert that seasonal or daily operational patterns would likely change. WWF would like to clarify our position by stating that one way to accommodate the proposed rule curve changes could be through seasonal or daily operational changes (although we are relatively sure something is going to have to change rather dramatically in terms of timing or duration/magnitude of flow releases if winter rule curve decreases from 10-feet to 5-feet). In any circumstance, APC should provide clear descriptions of how water management under each alternative differs from the current circumstance and incorporate study elements to assess the impacts of such changes so that stakeholders can understand how resources of interest might be affected and discussions can occur during issue group meetings. If those changes involve shifting seasonal or daily operational patterns from the current situation, APC must assess the potential for impact to the river environment both in the tailrace and in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam to the mouth of the Tallapoosa River.
10. Study Plan 12(c)
WWF recommended that APC assess how water quality conditions would change under the proposed alternative operations in special circumstances like during drought conditions. APC responded that “the goal of this study is to provide ADEM with sufficient data to examine the potential effects on water quality as a result of changing the winter rule curve elevation and/or extending the duration of the summer pool …”. We agree with this assertion and point out that drought conditions periodically occur and to the extant that the proposed operations enhance or negatively impact water quality in droughts under the proposed alternative operations compared to current operations should be an important consideration for everyone with a stake in Martin’s reservoir and the Tallapoosa River. We restate that APC should examine how the alternative operational proposals might affect water quality during drought and extended drought conditions.
11. Study Plan 12 (d)
WWF recommended that APC employ a water quality model as a way to assess the potentially complicated effects of proposed, alternate operations to water quality in the Martin reservoir. APC responded that they believe the analysis described in this study plan is sufficient to determine the changes. APC’s proposed analysis is to assess the probability of water quality change, but does not reference the direction of water quality change. WWF reiterates here that water quality changes in reservoirs can be very complicated, especially reservoirs as long and with as many large embayments as Martin. WWF further asserts that an understanding of the probability of water quality changes due to alternate operations does not seem sufficient for stakeholders to make informed assessments. The analysis must go further to ascribe a direction and relative magnitude of water quality parameter changes under alternate operational schemes.
Page 9 of 10
12. Study Plan 12(e)
WWF commented that this study should include an analysis of how potentially changed water quality parameters in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam (resulting from proposed, alternate operational changes at Martin Dam) might affect RTE species. APC responded that study plan 12(e) is focused on effects to RTE species and that information from other studies will be synthesized with RTE information in the biological assessment. WWF concurs with APC that a biological assessment is an appropriate place to consolidate the range of potential enhancements and negative effects that may impact RTE species. However, we note that APC has not proposed to examine the potential effects of proposed, alternate operations to water quality in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow Dam in study plan 12(c). If APC does not examine the possible effects to water quality in these downstream reaches of the Tallapoosa, then information will not be available to incorporate into the biological assessment. It may be that the proposed, alternate operations do not have an effect on water quality, but no one will know one way or the other if APC does not look at this issue in the course of completing study 12 (c).
We appreciate the continued efforts by the many parties working on this process and look forward to continued dialogue with APC staff, other stakeholders, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in this relicensing process.
Judy Takats Senior Program Officer
Page 10 of 10
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20426 May 1, 2009
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 349-150-Alabama Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project Alabama Power Company
Mr. Eugene B. Allison, Hydro General Manager Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street P.O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291
Reference: Clarification for Study Plan Determination for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project Issued on April 17, 2009
Dear Mr. Allison:
On April 27, 2009 you requested clarification of the geographic scope for five studies approved by the Director, Office of Energy Projects on April 17, 2009. You had also inadvertently omitted study plan 10 from Table 1 in your clarification letter. The geographic scope of study plans 3, 5, 10, 12(a), 12(d), and 12(e) should extend to River Mile 12.9 in the Tallapoosa River.
If you have any questions, please contact Lee Emery at (202) 502-8379.
Sincerely,
Mark Pawlowski, Chief Hydro East Branch 2
cc: Mailing List Public File