Warrior River Project FERC No. 2165 Applicant Prepared

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, AL

WARRIOR RIVER PROJECT LEWIS SMITH AND BANKHEAD DEVELOPMENTS FERC PROJECT NO. 2165

APPLICANT PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

JULY 2005

Prepared by:

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, AL

WARRIOR RIVER PROJECT LEWIS SMITH AND BANKHEAD DEVELOPMENTS FERC PROJECT NO. 2165

APPLICANT PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

JULY 2005

Prepared by:

APPLICANT-PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WARRIOR RIVER PROJECT LEWIS SMITH AND BANKHEAD DEVELOPMENTS FERC PROJECT NO. 2165

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 1.0 APPLICATION ...... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...... 2-1 2.1 Need for Power ...... 2-2 2.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment...... 2-3 2.2.1 Geographic Scope ...... 2-3 2.2.2 Temporal Scope ...... 2-3 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 3-1 3.1 Project Description...... 3-1 3.1.1 Smith Development ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 3-6 3.2 Description of Current Project Operations ...... 3-8 3.2.1 Smith Development ...... 3-8 3.2.1.1 Typical Operations...... 3-8 3.2.1.2 Flood Control Operations ...... 3-11 3.2.1.3 Low Water Operations...... 3-13 3.2.1.4 Description of Non-Power Operations...... 3-14 3.2.2 Bankhead Development...... 3-15 3.2.2.1 Typical Power Operations...... 3-15 3.2.2.2 Flood Control Operations ...... 3-16 3.2.2.3 Low Water Operations...... 3-16 3.2.2.4 Description of Non-Power Operations...... 3-16 3.3 Proposed Action...... 3-17 3.3.1 USFS and APC Settlement ...... 3-17 3.3.2 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 3-19 3.3.3 Smith Development ...... 3-19 3.3.4 Bankhead Development...... 3-21 3.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...... 3-22 3.4.1 Alabama Rivers Alliance, American Rivers and World Wildlife Fund 3-22 3.5 No-Action Alternative ...... 3-23 3.5.1 Smith and Bankhead Developments ...... 3-23 3.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 3-24 3.6.1 Termination of License and Project Decommissioning...... 3-24 3.6.2 Federal Takeover ...... 3-24 3.6.3 Non-Power License...... 3-25 3.6.4 Alternative to Maximize Energy Production ...... 3-25 3.6.5 Alternative to Maximize Environmental Resources...... 3-25 3.7 Alternatives Summary Table ...... 3-25 3.8 Economic Comparison of Alternatives...... 3-32

i Table of Contents (Con’t)

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE...... 4-1 4.1 Relicensing Team Consultation ...... 4-1 4.2 NEPA Scoping...... 4-2 4.3 Agency Consultation...... 4-3 4.4 Mandatory Requirements, Prescriptions and Conditions...... 4-4 4.4.1 Section 18 – Fish Passage...... 4-4 4.4.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification...... 4-4 4.4.3 Coastal Zone Management Act...... 4-7 4.4.4 Endangered Species Act ...... 4-7 4.4.5 Section 106 Consultation ...... 4-8 4.4.6 FPA Section 4(e) Conditions ...... 4-8 5.0 EXISTING RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS...... 5-1 5.1 General Description of the Warrior River Basin ...... 5-1 5.2 Analysis of Site Specific Resources ...... 5-2 5.2.1 Geological and Soil Resources ...... 5-2 5.2.1.1 Affected Environment...... 5-2 5.2.1.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-2 5.2.1.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-4 5.2.1.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-5 5.2.1.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-6 5.2.1.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-8 5.2.1.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-8 5.2.1.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-8 5.2.2 Water Resources ...... 5-9 5.2.2.1 Affected Environment...... 5-9 5.2.2.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-13 5.2.2.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-20 5.2.2.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-26 5.2.2.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-27 5.2.2.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-30 5.2.2.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-33 5.2.2.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-33 5.2.3 USACE Issues - Flood Control...... 5-33 5.2.4 Aquatic and Fisheries Resources ...... 5-34 5.2.4.1 Affected Environment...... 5-34 5.2.4.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-34 5.2.4.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-36 5.2.4.1.3 Migratory Fish Species ...... 5-37 5.2.4.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-38 5.2.4.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-42 5.2.4.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-47 5.2.4.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-49 5.2.4.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-50 5.2.5 Terrestrial Resources ...... 5-50 5.2.5.1 Affected Environment...... 5-50 5.2.5.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-50 5.2.5.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-54 5.2.5.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-56

ii Table of Contents (Con’t)

5.2.5.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-59 5.2.5.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-61 5.2.5.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-61 5.2.5.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-61 5.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 5-62 5.2.6.1 Affected Environment...... 5-62 5.2.6.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-64 5.2.6.2.1 APC/Agency Enhancement Alternative ...... 5-65 5.2.6.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-66 5.2.6.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-67 5.2.6.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-67 5.2.7 Cultural Resources...... 5-67 5.2.7.1 Affected Environment...... 5-67 5.2.7.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-67 5.2.7.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-71 5.2.7.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-73 5.2.7.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-73 5.2.7.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-74 5.2.7.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-74 5.2.7.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-75 5.2.8 Recreation Resources...... 5-75 5.2.8.1 Affected Environment...... 5-75 5.2.8.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-77 5.2.8.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-79 5.2.8.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-79 5.2.8.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-79 5.2.8.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-86 5.2.8.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-87 5.2.8.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-87 5.2.9 Socioeconomics ...... 5-88 5.2.9.1 Affected Environment...... 5-88 5.2.9.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-90 5.2.9.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-90 5.2.9.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-91 5.2.9.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-91 5.2.9.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-91 5.2.10 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources...... 5-91 5.2.10.1 Affected Environment...... 5-91 5.2.10.1.1 Smith Development ...... 5-96 5.2.10.1.2 Bankhead Development...... 5-100 5.2.10.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives...... 5-102 5.2.10.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal...... 5-102 5.2.10.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative...... 5-104 5.2.10.2.3 No Action Alternative...... 5-105 5.2.10.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-105 5.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis Summary...... 5-105 5.3.1 Cumulative Effects...... 5-105 5.3.1.1 Water Resources ...... 5-105

iii Table of Contents (Con’t)

5.3.1.2 Aquatic Resources ...... 5-108 5.3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Resources ...... 5-110 5.3.1.4 Recreation Resources...... 5-114 5.3.1.5 Land Use Resources...... 5-115 6.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS...... 6-1 6.1 Power and Economic Benefit...... 6-2 6.2 Cost of Environmental Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures...... 6-2 6.2.1 Economic Comparison of Alternatives...... 6-6 6.2.2 Economics of the APC Enhancement Proposal...... 6-6 6.2.3 Economic Summary of APC Enhancement Proposal...... 6-8 6.2.4 Economics of the AR/ARA/WWF Alternative...... 6-8 6.2.5 Cost Comparison of Alternatives...... 6-10 6.3 Pollution Abatement ...... 6-11 7.0 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES 7-1 7.1 Recommended Alternative...... 7-1 8.0 CONSISTENCY WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOMMENDATIONS...... 8-1 9.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... 9-1 10.0 FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT...... 10-1 11.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 11-1 12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ...... 12-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.2.1-1: Regulation Schedule for Flood Control Operation at Smith Development1...... 3-12 Table 3.7-1: Summary of APC’s Proposed Action and Other Alternatives – Smith and Bankhead Developments ...... 3-26 Table 3.8-1: Summary of Annual Project Costs...... 3-32 Table 5.2.1-1: Summary of Erosion Hotspots at the Smith Development ...... 5-4 Table 5.2.2-1: Water Quality Criteria for Surface Waters Adopted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management...... 5-12 Table 5.2.2-2: Ranges of TSI Values and the Corresponding Trophic Classification/ Condition...... 5-13 Table 5.2.2-3: Lewis Smith Dam Forebay Nutrient/Chemical Analyses Summary from Data Collected 1994 to 2001...... 5-15 Table 5.2.2-4: Lewis Smith Lake Summary of DO and Temperature at Five-Foot Depth Below the Surface for Varying Distances Upstream (U.S.) of the Dam, 1992 to 2001 ...... 5-16 Table 5.2.2-5: Bankhead Dam Forebay Nutrient/Chemical Analyses Summary from Data Collected 1994 to 2001 ...... 5-21 Table 5.2.2-6: Bankhead Lake Summary of DO and Temperature at Five-Foot Depth Below the Surface for Varying Distances Upstream (U.S.) of the Dam, 1992 to 2001 ...... 5-23 Table 5.2.4-1: Estimated Annual Total Number of Potentially Entrained Fish Warrior River Project Developments ...... 5-47 Table 5.2.6-1: Federally Listed Species in or near the Warrior River Project Area (USFWS, 2004, as modified by Kleinschmidt) ...... 5-63 Table 5.2.8-1: Growth Coefficients for Recreation Projection - Southern Region, 2000 through 2015 ...... 5-76

iv Table of Contents (Con’t)

Table 5.2.8-2: Estimated and Projected Usage by Activity Type ...... 5-78 Table 5.2.8-3: Summary of Recreation Facilities Scheduled for Improvement During the New License Term...... 5-80 Table 5.2.8-4: Proposed Recreation Improvements ...... 5-82 Table 5.2.8-5: Proposed Forest Service Improvements...... 5-83 Table 5.2.10-1: Percentages of Land Use Classifications in the Warrior River Basin by Counties in the Project Area ...... 5-92 Table 5.2.10-2: Farms and Farmland Within the Vicinity of the Warrior River Project ...... 5-93 Table 5.2.10-3: Existing Land Use Activities Along the Shoreline of the Smith Development...... 5-96 Table 5.2.10-4: Land Classifications Associated with Shoreline Uses Surrounding Smith Lake Reservoir ...... 5-103 Table 5.3.1-1: Summary of Major Black Warrior River Impoundments...... 5-112 Table 6-1: Assumptions for Economic Analysis of the Warrior River Developments...... 6-1 Table 6.2-1: Cost of PM&E (in 2007 Dollars)Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental Effects of Relicensing the Warrior River Project (Smith and Bankhead Developments) ...... 6-3 Table 6.3.1-1: Cost Comparison of Alternatives for the Smith and Bankhead Developments ...... 6-11 Table 6.3.2-5: Various Amounts of Fuel, Resulting Pollutants, and Removal Costs Necessary to Produce an Equivalent Amount of Generation (3,050,000 MWh) From and Alternative Energy Source for the Coosa River Developments...... 6-12

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.0-1 Black Warrior River Basin Map ...... 1-3 Figure 3.1.1-1: Smith Development Location Map...... 3-4 Figure 3.1.1-2: Location of Bankhead National Forest ...... 3-5 Figure 3.1.2-1: Bankhead Powerhouse Location Map ...... 3-7 Figure 3.2.1-1: Rule Curve for the Smith Development...... 3-10 Figure 5.2.2-1: APC Monthly DO and Temperature Profiles at Lewis Smith Dam Forebay During the Summer of 2001 ...... 5-17 Figure 5.2.2-2: APC Monthly DO and Temperature Profiles at Bankhead Dam Forebay During the Summer of 2001 ...... 5-24 Figure 5.2.10-1: Smith Land Use Map ...... 5-98

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: APC and USFS Settlement Agreement (FINAL, no signatures) Appendix B: Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal Appendix C: APC, ADCNR, USFWS Term Sheet Appendix D: ADEM 401 Water Quality Certificate Appendix E: Fish Typical of the Smith and Bankhead Drainage Appendix F: Representative Information on Stocking Efforts Appendix G: Typical Plant Species in the Project Area Appendix H: Typical Mammal, Amphibian, Reptile, and Bird Species Found in the Region

v Table of Contents (Con’t)

Appendix I: Wildlife Management Plan and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program Appendix J: Cultural Overview from Prehistory to Project Development Appendix K: Socioeconomic Information on Counties in Alabama

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACAMP - Alabama Coastal Area Management Program ACC - Alabama Control Center ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act ADCNR - Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ADECA - Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs ADEM - Alabama Department of Environmental Management AL - Alabama ALP - Alternative Licensing Procedures APC - Alabama Power Company APCA - Alabama Power Cooperative Approach APEA - Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment ARA - Alabama Rivers Alliance AR - American Rivers ASSF - Alabama State Site File BMP - Best Management Practice BNF - Bankhead National Forest BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand BWWB - Birmingham Water Works Board C - Celsius CAFO - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation cfs - Cubic feet per second CFR - Code of Federal Regulations CLFS Clean Lakes Feasibility Study CPI - Consumer Price Index CRREF Coosa River Recreation Enhancement Fund CWA - Clean Water Act DO - Dissolved Oxygen DOI - United States Department of Interior EA - Environmental Assessment EAP - Emergency Action Plan

vii

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA - Endangered Species Act F - Fahrenheit FW Fish and Wildlife (as it pertains to water quality parameters) FAD - Fish Attraction Device FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIMS - Fisheries Information Management System FPA - Federal Power Act FPC - Federal Power Commission (predecessor of FERC) FPWG - Fish Passage Working Group ft - Feet or foot ft3/sec - Cubic feet per second ft/sec - Feet per second GIS - Geographic Information System HEP - Habitat Enhancement Plan HOBO - Home Owners and Boat Owners Association HPMP - Historic Properties Management Plan IAG - Issue Action Group IIP - Initial Information Package km - Kilometers kW - Kilowatt kVA - KiloVolt-Amps mg/L - Milligrams per liter MGD - Million gallons per day MOU - Memorandum of Understanding msl - Mean sea level MW - Megawatt NADB - National Archaeological Database NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act NERC - North American Electric Reliability Council NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations

viii

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act NRHP - National Register of Historic Places NWI - National Wetlands Inventory OAR - Office of Archaeological Research OWR - Office of Water Resources PA - Programmatic Agreement PM&E - Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement RRM - Reservoir Regulation Manual RSL - Restricted Service List RTE - Rare, Threatened, Endangered SA Settlement Agreement SD1 - Scoping Document 1 SERC - Southeastern Electric Reliability Council SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office SMP - Shoreline Management Plan SST - Sweet Smelling Toilet STEP - Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal STWG - Smith Tailrace Working Group TSI - Trophic State Index TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority USACE - United States Army Corp of Engineers USDA - United States Department of Agriculture USFS - United States Forest Service USGS - United States Geological Service USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service WCRT - Warrior Cooperative Relicensing Team WHERP Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program WMA - Wildlife Management Area WQ - Water Quality WQC - Water Quality Certification WWF - World Wildlife Fund

APPLICANT-PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WARRIOR RIVER PROJECT LEWIS SMITH AND BANKHEAD DEVELOPMENTS FERC PROJECT NO. 2165

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Applicant-Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) has been prepared as a part of the relicensing effort for the Warrior River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2165) on the Black Warrior River in Alabama. The Project is an existing, licensed hydroelectric facility owned and operated by the Alabama Power Company (APC). The Warrior River Project consists of the Smith and Bankhead hydroelectric developments. APC owns and operates the Smith development in north central Alabama, in the headwaters of the Black Warrior River. Alabama Power Company has a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Bankhead powerhouse only. The Bankhead dam and reservoir are owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Bankhead powerhouse is located on the Warrior River in west central Alabama. The Smith and Bankhead developments have a combined electric generating capacity of 211,050 kW.

Alabama Power Company has utilized the FERC’s Alternative Licensing Procedures for developing the license application for the Warrior River Project. These procedures combine the pre-filing consultation, study, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review processes, and are designed to facilitate public input and local resolution of environmental and recreational resource issues. The FERC will conduct an independent evaluation of this APEA and will then issue its own NEPA document prior to or concurrent with issuing its licensing decision in a Commission order.

Based on this analysis, relicensing the Warrior River Project as proposed in the APC Enhancement Alternative is recommended.

ES-1

APPLICANT-PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WARRIOR RIVER PROJECT LEWIS SMITH AND BANKHEAD DEVELOPMENTS FERC PROJECT NO. 2165

1.0 APPLICATION

The Warrior River Hydroelectric Project (hereinafter “Project”) is an existing, licensed major hydroelectric facility owned and operated by Alabama Power Company (APC). The Project consists of the Lewis Smith (hereinafter “Smith”) and Bankhead developments. APC owns and operates the Smith development which is located in Walker, Winston, and Cullman counties in north central Alabama, on the Sipsey Fork, a tributary of Mulberry Fork and a headwater tributary of the Black Warrior River (hereinafter “River”) (See Figure 1.0-1). APC has a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter “FERC” or “Commission”) license for the Bankhead powerhouse only. The dam and reservoir are owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Bankhead powerhouse is located on the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa County in west central Alabama. Within the Smith development’s project boundary are 505 acres of federal lands (including approximately 90 miles of shoreline) between the 510 and 522 contours. There are a total of 2691.44 total USFS acres (inundated and non- inundated) at the Smith development. These 505 acres are part of the 180,000-acre Bankhead National Forest (hereinafter “BNF”), managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). These 505 acres of federal land are approximately 10 percent of the Smith development total acreage of land within the project boundary. The Smith and Bankhead developments have a combined electric generating capacity of 211,050 kW.

The current license for the Project was issued by FERC on September 1, 1957, and expires on August 31, 2007. On September 22, 2000, APC filed a letter requesting the use of the Alternative Licensing Procedures (ALP) for the relicensing of the Warrior River Project, pursuant to 18 CFR §4.34(i). On January 29, 2001, FERC granted APC’s request to use the ALP. On November 16, 2001, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §16.6 (c), APC filed a Notice of Intent to relicense the Warrior River Project.

1-1

This Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) has been prepared in lieu of the Environmental Report (License Exhibit E) typically prepared in a license application. The remainder of the license exhibits comprising the final license application for the Warrior River Project is being distributed concurrent with this APEA.

1-2

Figure 1.0-1 Black Warrior River Basin Map

All Basin maps and project location maps are classified as Non-Internet Public (NIP) and can be requested from FERC’s Public Reference Room. This material is also available on the Volume 2 CD, which is available from Alabama Power Company.

1-3

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Most non-federal hydroelectric projects in the United States are operated under licenses issued by FERC. The Federal Power Act (FPA) gives FERC the exclusive authority to issue licenses to construct, operate, and maintain certain non-federal hydropower projects.

FERC must give equal consideration to power and non-power values when deciding how projects should be operated during the new license term. Non-power values include fish and wildlife, terrestrial resources, cultural resources, aesthetic and scenic resources, recreation, energy conservation, flood control, water use and quality, and other environmental considerations.

The purpose of this APEA is to analyze how APC’s Proposed Action and the alternatives to the Proposed Action will affect the Project’s environmental and economic resources. In accordance with Section 10(a) of the FPA and the Commission’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. §4.34(i), Section 7 of this APEA seeks to disclose and evaluate power and non-power values with extensive input from the public, regulatory agencies, and the licensee. This APEA contains recommendations to FERC on whether to issue a license and the terms and conditions to include in any license issued. FERC, in its final licensing decision, will balance power and non-power (i.e., environmental and recreational resources) benefits in accordance with its statutory obligations.

Under Section 10(a)(1) of the FPA, for any license issued, FERC must determine that the Project as licensed will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued, FERC must also give equal consideration to the purposes of: (1) energy conservation; (2) protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); (3) other beneficial public uses, including flood control, water supply, irrigation, and recreation; and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. This APEA takes the above considerations into account.

2-1

2.1 Need for Power

The Project is located in the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) region of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). SERC is the largest of the NERC regions in terms of total generation and total load and encompasses 464,000 square miles in 13 states (NERC, 2003). SERC is a summer peaking region, and NERC projects an annual growth rate in electrical summer peak load (demand) in the region of 2.3 percent (from 155,756 MW in 2004 to 187,417 MW in 2012) (NERC, 2003).

Each year NERC provides a ten-year reliability assessment of bulk electric systems in North America. The latest NERC report (December 2003) indicates that generation and transmission resources within SERC are expected to be adequate over the next ten-year period (NERC, 2003).

APC operates the Project within the Southern sub-region of SERC (NERC, 2003; SERC, 1998). The geographic area of the Southern sub-region includes Georgia, Alabama, southeastern Mississippi, and the panhandle of Florida. APC expects to continue to operate the Project to help meet the need for power within the SERC/Southern sub-region in the long term. The Southern sub-region is serviced by Southern Company, the largest generator of electricity in the United States. APC is the second largest subsidiary of Southern Company, providing 30 percent of the power needs for the Southern Company’s residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Of this 30 percent, 7.2 percent of the power is derived from APC’s 14 hydroelectric facilities, including the Smith and Bankhead developments. These facilities provide a significant source of reliable, dependable, and reasonably priced electricity for APC’s customers.

The Project is a clean and renewable source of generation and serves to displace nonrenewable fossil-fueled generation. In addition, the Project’s hydroelectric generation contributes to diversification of APC’s generation portfolio and serves to enhance system reliability. The loss of all or part of the Project’s capacity, energy generation, and ancillary services (such as spinning reserve and voltage control) would need to be replaced within the SERC region or else system reliability would be incrementally affected. Additionally, due to the

2-2

flexible nature of hydroelectric power generation, the replacement method would potentially be less efficient and would lead to higher consumer costs.

2.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

2.2.1 Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of the environmental analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the Proposed Action’s effects on the specific resource. Because the Proposed Action affects some of the resources differently, the geographic scope of analysis for each resource may be different in order to accommodate all interests. The geographic scope has been further defined, where needed, in consultation with the stakeholders in this process and is listed in each resource category in Section 5.

The geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined for the Project relicensing by the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the Proposed Action’s effects on recreational and environmental resources, and (2) contributing effects of other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the Warrior River Basin (FERC, 2002).

2.2.2 Temporal Scope

The temporal scope includes an analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. The baseline (what exists now) for the analysis will be defined as the condition of the river basin beginning at the end of project construction. Pre-project conditions will not be analyzed, but existing pre-project data, when available, may be used in the analysis. Assuming compliance with the new license, actions that are reasonably foreseeable for 30 to 50 years are also examined. For example, if additional water withdrawal requests are known, they are discussed briefly with their reasonably anticipated potential effects. However, it must be recognized that projecting data and possible actions and effects far in the future is difficult and subject to interpretation at a given point in time (FERC, 2002).

2-3

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This section includes a brief description of the Smith and Bankhead developments and their corresponding operations (typical, low flow, and flood operations). Detailed project descriptions are included in Exhibit B of the final license application (Volume 1). The primary purpose of this section is to describe APC’s proposal for the new license—including operation, environmental, recreation and land use measures—and any action alternatives that have been developed as a result of stakeholder consultation.

3.1 Project Description

The Project, which includes both the Bankhead and Smith developments, is located in the Black Warrior River basin in northwestern Alabama. The Black Warrior River begins at the confluence of the Locust and Mulberry Fork Rivers and extends over 150 miles south to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. Additional information on the Project is provided in Exhibits A and B of the license application (Volume 1).

3.1.1 Smith Development

The Smith development is located in Walker, Winston, and Cullman counties in north central Alabama, on the Sipsey Fork, a tributary of the Mulberry Fork and a headwater stream of the River (Figure 3.1.1-1). The Smith development is approximately 14 river miles above the mouth of the Sipsey Fork. Approximately 505 acres of federal lands (2691.44 acres of inundated and non-inundated total) —including lands owned and managed by the USFS as part of the 180,000-acre BNF—are located within the Project area (Figure 3.1.1-2).

The water retaining structures at the Smith development include the dam, powerhouse, a spillway, and headworks. The dam is a rock fill embankment, 2,200 ft long and 300 ft high, with a top elevation of 550 ft msl. The powerhouse is a rectangular reinforced concrete structure 193 ft long, 60 ft wide, and 140 ft high which is built integrally with the adjacent dam facilities. The 105 ft high concrete intake structure is located 120 ft upstream from the dam in the right abutment and is used to provide flow to the hydro turbines through two 22 ft diameter, 630 ft

3-1

long concrete-lined tunnels, which are controlled by vertical gates. The powerhouse contains two vertical Francis type turbines, each rated at 111,500 horsepower at 210 ft of net head, and two generators, each rated at 78.75 MW (87,500 kVA at 0.9 power factor). This yields a total rated capacity of 157.5 MW.

The storage capacity of Smith Lake is 1,390,000 acre-ft at the normal pool elevation of 510 ft msl and 1,670,600 acre-ft at the spillway crest elevation of 522 ft msl. APC retains flood easement from elevation 510 ft msl to 522 ft msl. Smith Lake extends 35 miles upstream from the dam and has a surface area of 21,200 acres at a normal water surface elevation of 510 ft msl. The lake also has 500 miles of shoreline, a maximum depth of 264 ft at the dam, and a maximum width of less than 1.5 miles.

The Sipsey Fork of the West Fork River, commonly known as the Sipsey Fork or simply “Sipsey River”, was designated as a National Wild and Scenic River on October 28, 1988 (P.L. 100-547). Because of this legislation, 61.4 miles of the Sipsey Fork of the West Fork (Sipsey Fork) River and its headwater tributaries became part of the National System (letter from James A. Gooder, Forest Supervisor, USFS to Mike Akridge, APC, April 28, 2002).

The outstanding remarkable values of the Sipsey Fork as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study Report and the Wild and Scenic River Implementation Schedule are:

• Scenery – Rock bluffs and shelters, waterfalls, seepages, and crystal clear water occur throughout the corridor. For most of its length, the Sipsey Fork flows in a deeply entrenched canyon or through areas of high bluffs, constantly curving and meandering. Vegetation types are diverse with seasonal color. The flora is characterized by a biotic community unique to the Sipsey Fork river corridor, and includes many endemic and/or threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species and their habitats;

• Recreation – The diversity of natural features and scenic beauty of the Sipsey Fork corridor provide the base for a diversity of recreation opportunities, including canoeing, fishing, hiking, photography, rock climbing, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, day-use and primitive camping. The River also provides outstanding opportunities for solitude. The

3-2

Sipsey Fork river corridor encompasses some of the highest density areas for archeological sites on the BNF, comprised primarily of bluff shelters and sandy terraces near the river; and

• Geology – The Sipsey Fork flows though a deeply incised gorge and areas of overhanging bluffs in excess of 100 feet. There are markedly different geologic formations. The northeast section of the watershed exhibits semi-Karst topography, with small caves and sinkholes common. An almost continuous sandstone escarpment, ranging from 25 to 100 feet, characterizes the headwaters of the northwest section. The central and southern sections of the watershed transition to broad-rolling ridge tops with short steep side slopes.

3-3

Figure 3.1.1-1: Smith Development Location Map

3-4

Figure 3.1.1-2: Location of Bankhead National Forest (Kleinschmidt, 2004)

3-5

3.1.2 Bankhead Development

The Bankhead Powerhouse is located on the Black Warrior River (Warrior River) in Tuscaloosa County in west central Alabama, approximately 154 river miles upstream of the confluence of the Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers (Figure 3.1.2-1). The USACE owns and operates the dam, spillway, navigation lock, and reservoir. APC owns only the powerhouse and a non-overflow section of dam between the powerhouse and the spillway, including a trash gate. There are 18.7 acres of federal lands within the Project boundary. A general description of the Project structures and features is included below. A detailed description is provided in Exhibit A of the final license application (Volume 1).

3-6

Figure 3.1.2-1: Bankhead Powerhouse Location Map

3-7

3.2 Description of Current Project Operations

3.2.1 Smith Development

3.2.1.1 Typical Operations

APC operates the Project principally in a peaking mode, with approximate seasonal variation in storage and generation as shown by the Storage Delineation or Rule Curve for the Smith development (Figure 3.2.1-1). From early April through the end of June, the lake is operated near the normal full pool level of 510 ft msl. Drawdown begins in early July and ends in late November near the winter pool level of 496 ft msl. The winter pool level is maintained until January 31st and the lake is refilled from early February through the end of March. APC normally schedules power operations based on system demands and availability, seeking to keep the pool at or below 510 ft msl at all times when flooding is not occurring. Generation may be restricted during periods of downstream flooding and is increased for the emptying of flood control storage, within the limitations described below (APC, 1965).

The Smith development provides critical flows downstream for maintenance of water quality near APC’s Gorgas Steam Plant. Typically, during the months May through October, releases from Smith Dam supply cold water to the Gorgas Steam Plant for use in once-through cooling. This cooler water allows Gorgas to meet its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for temperature. APC implements a special coordination procedure based on monitoring the water intake and discharge temperatures at Gorgas. A procedure is utilized to provide sufficient releases from Smith in coordinating with once-through cooling discharges at Gorgas. Since initiation of the procedure in 1974, downstream water quality requirements have been successfully met. The coordination typically requires releases from Smith Dam five days per week for five or six hours per day. These releases are scheduled to meet the peak load usage on APC’s electric grid. Variation in release patterns can be caused by high intervening inflows at Gorgas Steam Plant, abnormally low ambient temperatures, unit outages at Gorgas Steam Plant, critical electric system needs, and evacuation of flood storage at Smith Dam. Over the past 30 years, the ability to coordinate Smith Dam releases with Gorgas

3-8

Steam Plant once-through cooling needs has met NPDES permit requirements and saved the cost of construction and operation of an alternative cooling system at Gorgas Steam Plant.

APC operates the Smith development either locally or remotely from the Alabama Control Center (ACC) in Birmingham. The ACC monitors the APC electrical system and directs the generation schedule. The plant may be brought on line at any time to most effectively meet system load requirements (APC, 1995). Usable storage of approximately 675,000 acre-ft is provided by an allowable drawdown of 22 ft to 488 ft msl. The normal static tailwater elevation is approximately 256 ft msl, providing 254 ft of gross head at normal full pool.

3-9

Figure 3.2.1-1: Rule Curve for the Smith Development

515

510

505

500

495 Flood Control Guide Drought Contingency

490

485

3-10

3.2.1.2 Flood Control Operations

Smith Lake’s flood control pool is from 510 ft msl to 522 ft msl and provides 280,600 acre-ft of storage. This volume is equivalent to 5.6 inches of runoff from the drainage area and is sufficient, with the prescribed plan of operation, to contain the runoff from the flood of March 15 through 18, 1951, the maximum of record at the site prior to the beginning of construction. Smith Lake is typically lowered near 496 ft msl during the winter, which can result in additional flood storage. The storage space between elevations 510 ft msl and 522 ft msl is available for flood control use.

The necessity for flood control operations is normally determined by stages at the Cordova gauge, located at the Saint Louis and San Francisco Railroad bridge on Mulberry Fork at the town of Cordova, 27 miles downstream from Smith Dam. The gauge is owned by the USACE and is equipped with a Data Collection Platform that transmits stage measurements to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) internet webpage for display in real time. Data from this site are simultaneously transmitted to APC’s Hydrologic Data Acquisition System for real time display of stage reading and continuous monitoring at the ACC (see Table 3.2.1-1).

3-11

Table 3.2.1-1: Regulation Schedule for Flood Control Operation at Smith Development1 (Source: APC, 1965, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

CORDOVA POOL STAGE STAGE AT SMITH SCHEDULE1 OPERATION REQUIRED3 (ft gauge DAM datum)2 (ft msl datum) A Below 13.5 Below 510 Normal power operation.

C At 510 Operate to prevent rise in pool by releasing daily inflow up to 1/2 of full plant volume capability. (Greater releases may be made at Company option.)

D 510 to 513 Release daily volume equal to 1/2 of full plant volume capability. (Greater releases may be made at Company option.) Above 513 Release continuously at full plant capacity. B Above 13.5 ft Below 522 Limit release volume to 2,100 acre-feet each rising, and all 24 hours, at rates up to full plant capacity, in stages above any pattern convenient to the Company. 16.0 ft At 522 Release may equal inflow up to full plant capacity. Above 522 Release may be continuous at rates up to full plant capacity.4

EMPTYING FLOOD CONTROL STORAGE 16.0 to 13.5 Above 510 but less Release daily volume equal to 1/2 of full feet and than 522 plant volume capability.5 falling. Below 13.5 Above 513 Release continuously at full plant capacity.6 510 to 513 Release daily volume equal to 1/2 of full plant volume capability. (Greater releases may be made at Company option.) 1 This schedule will be followed for the conditions shown except when specific instructions for flood control operations are issued by the USACE District Engineer. 2 Determine stages as specified in paragraphs 34-36. If stage cannot be determined, and there is a possibility that flood conditions exist, the operation will be limited to Schedule "B". 3 Releases designated only in terms of volume may be made at any time and rate convenient to the Company, within the limitations shown. 4 When the pool stage exceeds elevation 522, this release may be in addition to the spillway discharge. 5 The operation will revert to full flood control if this release results in a rise exceeding the 16-foot stage at Cordova. 6 If this release results in a rise exceeding a stage of 15 feet on the Cordova gauge the outflow rate will be reduced to 1/2 of full plant capacity until the Cordova stage again drops to 13.5 feet or less.

3-12

3.2.1.3 Low Water Operations

During periods when flows are low1 downstream, water is released from the Project for the benefit of navigation. The Project is expected to contribute a daily average of 245 cfs to downstream inflows during these dry periods.

The USACE has the right to request that water be released from the Smith development for navigation. However, normal power releases combined with other inflow to Bankhead Lake have typically been sufficient for navigation purposes. Additional flow may be required during periods of extreme drought, after floods (if shoaling occurs in the upper reaches of Bankhead Lake), and during any extended drawdown of Bankhead Lake.

During periods of low inflows at the Smith development, water is released from the storage pool to help maintain downstream water quality, aquatic habitat, power generation, navigation, and recreational opportunities. A lower guide curve (Drought Contingency guide) has been added to the Smith Rule Curve, Figure 3.2.1-1 to protect the reservoir in extreme drought conditions.

Experience and studies indicate that during extreme droughts, storage volumes will be sufficient to provide minimum flow needs at reduced levels during the summer/fall time period if these elevations could be attained by June 1. From the peak in June, the curve is extrapolated linearly to show how storage could be used to support Project purposes during the time period when, historically, runoff is at a minimum for the year. If the reservoir reaches the Drought Contingency guide, then APC will consult with the USACE, and determine an appropriate course of action including, but not limited to, the reduction of releases from storage. The amount and timing of the reductions will be in conformance with the Alabama State Drought Management Plan.

The purpose of the Alabama Drought Management Plan is to minimize the impact of drought, to develop methods to identify droughts, to develop action plans to be used during a

1 A “low threshold” would be of sufficient volume to maintain the level of Bankhead Reservoir in the in the normal operating range in very dry years, In very dry years, Smith would be expected to reach elevation 488 ft by late fall.

3-13

drought and to reduce the risk of drought impacts. The plan will outline both long-and short- term measures to be used to mitigate the effects of drought and to respond to drought conditions.

3.2.1.4 Description of Non-Power Operations

In addition to power production, the Smith development provides ecological and recreational benefits to the region and immediate vicinity including recreational and environmental enhancements.

Coupled with coldwater releases from Smith Lake, rainbow trout from the Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery are stocked downstream of the Smith development seven times a year making this river section the only coldwater trout fishery in Alabama. APC monitors the water quality in the Smith development tailrace and has also studied trout distribution in the tailrace. A quick release, in the form of a sluice pipe, was also installed below the dam to make it easier for the fish to be stocked in the tailrace. In 1999, APC also installed fish attraction devices to provide velocity refuges and additional habitat structures in the tailrace area.

Enhancement of the Smith Lake fishery has always been important. Since 1994, APC has been very successful in stabilizing lake levels during the spring to enhance fish spawning. Through a voluntary agreement with the Smith Lake Civic Association, the USACE, and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), lake levels are held constant or slightly rising for purposes of black bass spawning. Upon notification by the ADCNR that spring spawning is near peak and in coordination with the USACE, APC implements the special lake level management for a period of 14 days. At the end of the 14-day period, operations return to normal. The agreement is not intended to adversely affect electric system operations or flood control. Generation from the development for a system emergency is not prohibited; however, all efforts are made to terminate any emergency releases as soon as the situation allows. Likewise, during high inflow conditions, the lake level is allowed to surcharge according to the Regulation Schedule for Flood Control Operations. Flood storage is emptied at the normal rate until the lake is lowered to its full summer pool level (elevation 510 ft msl) where it is then held for the remainder of the 14-day period. At the end of the period, the lake level is returned to normal.

3-14

The Sipsey Fork below the Smith development also supplies municipal drinking water to Birmingham/Jefferson County. The Birmingham Water Works Board (BWWB) notes that drinking water is the most important use of the water today. The BWWB noted that keeping the Bankhead pool above 253.7 ft msl elevation during normal operation is an existing requirement that allows the operation of the BWWB’s permitted water withdrawal at Sipsey Intake Pumping Station. They also noted that keeping the Bankhead Lake above 252 ft msl elevation would avoid adversely impacting the BWWB’s permitted municipal water withdrawal at the Mulberry Intake Pumping Station. Releases from Smith Lake should always be sufficient to accommodate the Board’s operations during drought conditions (letter from BWWB to James Crew/Barry Lovett, June 28, 2003).

3.2.2 Bankhead Development

3.2.2.1 Typical Power Operations

APC operates the Bankhead powerhouse principally in a peaking mode, either locally or remotely from the ACC in Birmingham. The ACC monitors the APC electrical system and directs the generation schedule. The plant may be brought on line at any time to most effectively meet system load requirements. Usable storage of 26,000 acre-ft is provided by an allowable daily drawdown of 3 ft to elevation 252 ft msl. However, because of development of the lake by private owners, APC generally limits drawdown to about 254 ft msl. Because of navigation requirements, the pool must not be drawn below elevation 252 ft msl. Normally, the power plant will operate on a weekly cycle and the power generated is available for use in daily peak load periods. The normal static tailwater elevation is 186.5 ft msl, providing 68.5 ft of gross head at normal full pool.

The USACE operates the Bankhead Dam as a run-of-the-river project. Basically, water entering the lake each day is released that same day. The unit in the powerhouse is operated daily to maintain the proper lake elevation while generating electricity during the peak use times. When high inflows to the lake exceed turbine discharge capacity, APC notifies the USACE Lock Operator that use of the spillway gates will be required. The Lock Operator raises the required

3-15

spillway gates to manage the proper lake elevation. When the high inflows recede, the spillway gates are closed and the water level is managed by turbine releases.

3.2.2.2 Flood Control Operations

All flood routing and spillway operations for the Bankhead Dam are the responsibility of the USACE. The USACE is also responsible for dam break analyses and the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) related to the dam and spillway, with APC to be notified of any emergencies. The maximum reservoir level for the spillway design flood, as estimated by the USACE, is elevation 270.3 ft msl. This leaves 4.7 ft of freeboard below the top of the powerhouse intake and adjacent walls. The design flood tailwater elevation of 205.2 ft msl is below both the generating floor and the powerhouse operating floor (Freese and Nichols, Inc., 1998). The dam has a “high” classification for downstream hazard potential. The USACE notifies APC of all planned flood control operations. The flood of record for the facility occurred in April 1979, with a peak daily flow rate of 143,000 cfs. During this event, plant flow was 9,000 cfs and peak spillway flow was 162,300 cfs, for a total peak flow of 171,300 cfs.

3.2.2.3 Low Water Operations

Because Bankhead Dam is a run-of-the–river project, water releases during low inflow conditions are equal to inflow. The lack of seasonal storage prevents the Project from making sustained releases in excess of inflows. During low inflow conditions, releases are made through the lock as long as the pool remains above elevation 252 ft msl. The low water “threshold” would be approximately elevation 253.7 ft msl.

3.2.2.4 Description of Non-Power Operations

The Bankhead powerhouse does not perform any non-power operations.

3-16

3.3 Proposed Action

The proposed action represents a suite of enhancement, protection, and mitigative measures that were developed and agreed upon by many stakeholders in the APC relicensing process. As further discussed in Sections 4 and 5, environmental, recreational and land issues were identified, discussed, studied, and resolved mostly within the issue-specific IAGs for the Project. Because the Smith development includes 505 acres non-inundated USFS lands, (22691.44 acres of inundated and non-inundated total), within the Project boundary, Section 4(e) conditions apply if deemed necessary by the Forest Supervisor. A summary of the USFS consultation and resulting settlement with APC is presented followed by a discussion of additional items that APC proposes for the new license term. Many of the PM&E measures included in the APC Enhancement Proposal resulted from additional communication and meetings with the USFWS and ADCNR following the distribution of the draft license application and preliminary draft APEA in December 2004.

3.3.1 USFS and APC Settlement

Due to the presence of USFS lands within the Smith development FERC boundary2, APC initiated one-on-one consultation with the USFS as a special IAG known as “Forest Service IAG”. APC and the USFS held numerous IAG meetings during the 5 year relicensing process to discuss recreational and ecological issues of concern (Volume 9). Meetings often included field visits to the three USFS recreation sites (Clear Creek, Corinth, and Houston) and to examine encroachment sites. Studies were conducted to address USFS issues including flattened musk turtle surveys, terrestrial habitat fragmentation and illegal/encroachments on USFS lands, a survey of sites that would be critical for T&E species, water quality sampling and recreation erosion and facility improvements.

As a result of direct consultation with the USFS, site visits, and the mutual desire of both APC and the USFS to resolve Section 4(e) conditions prior to filing the license application with

2 Under the requirements of Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, the USFS has authority to submit to FERC such conditions as the USFS deems necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of the Bankhead National Forest, and such conditions must be included in any new license FERC issues for the Project.

3-17

FERC, APC and the USFS developed a settlement agreement (SA) (Appendix A and Volume 9). The SA addresses the appropriate scope and amount of PM&E measures that are necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of the Bankhead National Forest as it relates to the Smith development. These measures, if implemented, would satisfy the USFS’s Section 4(e) authority with regard to the Smith development. The SA includes funding and in-kind services for the following PM&E measures to include:

• Facility improvements to the recreation areas of Clear Creek, Houston and Corinth facilities/areas to include, but not be limited to, O&M, replacement of facilities, road improvements, recreation access, erosion repair, beach sand replacement, etc; • Collection of water quality data in the mainstem of the reservoir to characterize changes in the lake water quality; • Retrofitting selected road crossing culvert systems on USFS property that have fragmented many of the tributaries of Smith Lake; • Additional analysis of terrestrial habitat data including areas of high probability of T&E species; • Clean up the current encroachment areas on USFS lands, educate Smith Lake contractors on encroachment issues on USFS lands, and provide information to the USFS when encroachments are detected on USFS lands; • Continuation of studies of flattened musk turtles (and or other T&E species) and work with the USFWS in addressing this species as part of Section 7 ESA consultation; • Performing periodic surveys of existing populations of T&E species in the Smith Lake watershed; • Assisting with a public education program that will support the USFS with some of their education issues for users of USFS lands; and • Continue cultural resources surveys and implement a Programmatic Agreement (PA) and an approved Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to address cultural properties on USFS lands.

3-18

3.3.2 APC Enhancement Proposal

APC and the stakeholders have discussed many environmental and recreational issues at the Project. Their goal was to resolve as many issues as possible and to develop a consensus- based Proposed Action. Unless otherwise noted, the Proposed Action represents the consensus of APC and the stakeholders. Where other recommendations on specific PM&E measures differ from APC’s proposal, an analysis of those recommendations and their effects on specific resources is presented in Section 5. Other Action Alternatives, as defined below, are also presented in Section 5.

3.3.3 Smith Development

APC proposes to continue to operate the Smith development in peaking mode and regulate lake levels according to the current rule curve (normal summer pool is elevation 510 ft msl and winter elevation of 496 ft msl) (see Section 3.2.1).

APC also proposes to implement additional recreational and ecological enhancements that are not part of current operations. These enhancements include:

• Implement the APC and USFS SA as described in section 3.3.1; • Design, install, operate, and monitor a turbine aeration system within 18 months of license issuance to provide 4.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen levels in the turbine discharge; • Minimize the occurrence of elevations lower than 495 ft msl. APC and the stakeholders reached concurrence on this request by adding, as an exception, events associated with critical electric system needs and other authorized project purposes; • Implement the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (Appendix B) that includes:

3-19

2. Provide a minimum flow of approximately 50 cfs in the Smith Tailrace during non-generation periods when the tailrace elevation drops to 256.2 ft msl. This flow would be provided through valves that would be installed on the two penstocks in the powerhouse; 3. Provide instream habitat enhancements as specified in the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal and Smith Tailrace Recreation Plan; and 4. Incorporate aeration in the minimum flow valves as needed

• Monitor and repair two (2) erosion areas identified in the powerhouse tailrace as described in the Warrior Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (APC, 2005); • Implement the APC, ADCNR and USFWS Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet (Appendix C) that includes providing $2.8 million for 16 years to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of an aquatic research and culture facility for the propagation of aquatic species of concern within the state; • Implement the APC, ADCNR and USFWS Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet (Appendix C) that includes providing $4.7 million in funding to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of an aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program for habitat enhancements at APC developments; • Prepare and implement the Wildlife Management Plan recommendations for the Warrior Basin; • Provide funding to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of a Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program for habitat enhancements in the Smith and Bankhead developments; • Consult with USFWS and USFS on species under Section 7 of the ESA; • Continue to administer the Aquatic Plant Management and Mosquito Control Program; • Continue to cooperate with ADCNR in the control of exotic species in the state of Alabama; • Implement modifications (e.g., placement of shoreline rip-rap, shoreline buffer zones, and implementation of shoreline best management practices (BMPs)) to the Lake Shore Use Permitting Program as described in the Warrior River Project Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) (APC, 2004);

3-20

• Implement an approved recreation plan for the Warrior Project that provides facility and access improvements at numerous locations according to a priority schedule, as described in Section 5.2.8.2.1; • Implement a Styrofoam policy to eliminate un-encapsulated Styrofoam by 2010 as part of the SMP; • Develop and implement a public education plan for the Warrior Project; and • Implement a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the protection of cultural resources at the Project, and develop and implement an approved Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).

3.3.4 Bankhead Development

APC proposes to continue to operate the Bankhead development between elevations 252 ft msl and 255 ft msl in coordination with the USACE operations as set forth in the Reservoir Regulation Manual. Limiting elevations for the reservoir power operations at Bankhead Lock and Dam are elevations 255 ft msl and 252 ft msl. APC proposes to continue to voluntarily restrict the drawdown to 253.7 ft msl because of extensive development of the lake area by private owners.

APC also proposes to implement the PA and HPMP to protect and enhance any cultural properties found on APC’s land associated with the Bankhead development. Due to APC’s limited ownership of the lands around the Bankhead powerhouse (i.e., 126 acres), and the USACE’s control of operations of the Bankhead Lake and surrounding lands, APC does not propose additional measures for the Bankhead development.

3-21

3.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

3.4.1 Alabama Rivers Alliance, American Rivers and World Wildlife Fund

Alabama Rivers Alliance (ARA), American Rivers (AR) and the World Wildlife Fund (collectively “AR, ARA, and WWF alternative”) submitted an operational, environmental and recreational alternative on June 3, 2005 that addressed resource issues related to the Coosa Basin relicensing; however, there were three recommendations within that alternative that APC thought directly applied to the Warrior Project also, as discussed in detail below. These recommendations differ from those PM&E and/or operational measures proposed under the APC Enhancement Proposal.

Specific recommendations within this alternative include:

• Amount of flow release at each dam will be adequate to attain D.O. water quality standards of 4.0 mg/l in each tailrace during generation and 5 mg/l in Weiss bypass at all times and in each tailrace during non-generation; and protect native species; • Monitor flow, DO, and ramping rates to assure compliance with DO standards and measurable objectives for protection of aquatic species; • APC will establish a Coosa River Recreation Enhancement Fund (CRREF) as mitigation of the Project's continuing impact on boating, angling, and other forms of riverine recreation; $10 million upon license issuance and $500,000 per year thereafter for the license term; a reference is made in this alternative to utilize any remaining funds from the CRREF for the Warrior Basin; • APC will deposit the funds in a trust account; it will transfer control over CCREF to its Governing Board upon mutual execution of a Trust Instrument which certifies that the Governing Board has adopted and will implement a CRREF which includes 1) measurable objectives for enhancement of river recreation; 2) specific strategies and measures which are cost-effective to achieve those objectives; 3) provision for the Governing Board’s performance of such measures; 4) provisions for monitoring of the results of implemented measures, and adaptive management of the specific strategies and measures in response to such results; and 5) provisions for the Governing Board’s annual

3-22

reporting of such monitoring results and its forecast of expenditures for the next fiscal year; • CRREF will be used to protect and enhance off-site opportunities for riverine recreation; it will be used to acquire fee title or easement in such lands and undertake appropriate measures to enhance recreation opportunities, such as construction and operation of access so long as they are not inconsistent with CAHEF measures designed for protection and/or enhancement of aquatic resources; • Topical priority for CRREF for CRREF will be boating and angling opportunities— priority will be given to projects that provide habitat benefits as well; • Geographical priority for CRREF expenditures will be the Coosa River Watershed; the Governing Board may consider other suitable locations in Alabama, including the Black Warrior Watershed, if projects within the Coosa are not feasible; • Priority will be given to projects that are integrated into existing recreation programs (e.g., Forever Wild); such projects may be undertaken by qualified members of the Governing Board or by contract with third parties (e.g., Nature Conservancy); • No funds can be expended for regulatory compliance; and • Fund will be governed by a Governing Board consisting of ADCNR, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Birmingham/Jefferson Regional Planning Commission, and Alabama Rivers Alliance or successor; the Trust Instrument will provide that the Governing Board will 1) act by consensus and 2) consult with APC and the Ecological Management Team in the development and implementation of the CRREF Plan.

3.5 No-Action Alternative

3.5.1 Smith and Bankhead Developments

Under the No Action Alternative, the developments would continue under current operating conditions, as outlined in the existing license, and no additional PM&E measures would be implemented. This alternative establishes the existing resource conditions (Section 5.2) that are compared with other alternatives.

3-23

3.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

As part of the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) issue scoping and relicensing team meetings, APC and the Warrior Cooperative Relicensing Team (WCRT) considered several alternatives to the Proposed Action, but eliminated them from detailed analysis because the alternatives were deemed not to be reasonable options. The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis:

1. Termination of License and Project Decommissioning; 2. Federal Takeover; 3. A Non-Power License; 4. Maximizing Energy Production; and 5. Maximizing Environmental Resources.

3.6.1 Termination of License and Project Decommissioning

The issue of decommissioning of the Project has not been raised by any stakeholder as a reasonable or appropriate alternative during this relicensing process. Project decommissioning is not considered a reasonable alternative because the Smith and Bankhead developments are viable, safe, clean, and renewable energy resources that provide important economic, social, navigation, and flood control benefits to the region. Therefore, this alternative is not evaluated in this APEA.

3.6.2 Federal Takeover

The issue of federal takeover of the Project has not been raised by any stakeholder as a reasonable or appropriate alternative during this relicensing process, nor has any federal agency expressed an interest in operating the developments. While these facts do not preclude further consideration of a federal takeover, there is no evidence indicating that this alternative should be recommended to Congress.

3-24

3.6.3 Non-Power License

A non-power license is a temporary license issued by the Commission for the operation of the developments for purposes other than power generation. The non-power license is subject to termination at the time when another governmental agency assumes regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the Commission’s non-power license. The issue of a non-power license for the Project has not been raised by any stakeholder as a reasonable or appropriate alternative during this relicensing process, nor is there basis for concluding that the Project should no longer be utilized for power generation. Therefore, this alternative is not evaluated in this APEA.

3.6.4 Alternative to Maximize Energy Production

The alternative to maximize energy production at the Smith and Bankhead developments would require APC to alter operations that would likely conflict with other reservoir uses and the social, environmental, recreational, navigation, and flood benefits the Project provides to the region. Therefore, this alternative is not evaluated in this APEA.

3.6.5 Alternative to Maximize Environmental Resources

The alternative to maximize environmental resources would place constraints on Project operations in order to maximize benefits to non-power resources. These constraints on the Project would likely conflict with generating power and other reservoir uses (i.e., navigation, flood control). APC, the WCRT, and other stakeholders have developed a set of proposed actions that provide an appropriate level of PM&E measures at the developments while continuing to provide electrical power. Therefore, this alternative is not evaluated in this APEA.

3.7 Alternatives Summary Table

Table 3.7-1 provides a summary of APC’s proposal and each action alternative identified. Section 5.2 provides the detail on how each resource, if applicable, is affected by APC’s proposal and the other alternatives.

3-25

Table 3.7-1: Summary of APC’s Proposed Action and Other Alternatives – Smith and Bankhead Developments

ARA, AR, AND WWF ALTERNATIVE APC ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Resource Smith - Continue operating Smith development in Both the Smith and Operations peaking mode and regulate lake levels according to Bankhead developments current rule curve (el. 496 to el. 510). APC will also would continue to operate minimize the occurrence of lake level elevations lower as they have under the than 495 ft msl at Smith development. existing license. No new Bankhead – Continue to operate between el. 252 ft msl improvements as listed in and 255 ft msl in coordination with USACE operations the Proposed Action would and voluntarily restrict drawdown to 253.7 ft msl due to occur. extensive development around the lake.

Supplement tailrace flow during periods of non- Determine and release a No flow release in the Flow Releases generation with approximately 50 cfs through valves minimum flow that would Smith tailrace would installed on two penstocks in the powerhouse. protect native species occur. downstream of the projects.

See operations discussed above; APC will minimize the Both the Smith and Lake Level occurrence of lake level elevations lower than 495 ft Bankhead developments msl at Smith development. would continue to operate as they have under the existing license. No new improvements as listed in the Proposed Action would occur

3-26

ARA, AR, AND WWF ALTERNATIVE APC ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Resource Monitor and repair specific erosion areas identified in No new improvements as Soils/Erosion the Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan; provide listed in the Proposed funding to assist USFS with erosion repairs at various Action would occur. recreation sites; develop and implement SMP for the Smith development, including BMPs.

Design, install, operate and monitor an aeration system Attain DO of 4mg/L in each No new improvements as Water at Smith development within 18 months of license tailrace during generation, and 5 listed in the Proposed issuance; make aeration additions to the minimum flow mg/L in the Weiss bypass at all Action would occur. as needed; continue collection of water quality data in times and in each tailrace during the mainstem of the reservoir to chart changes in lake generation; monitor flow, DO, water quality; continue administering FERC-approved and ramping rates to assure water withdrawal policy on Smith. compliance with DO standards and measurable objectives for protection of aquatic species.

3-27

ARA, AR, AND WWF ALTERNATIVE APC ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Resource Implement modifications to shoreline permitting No new improvements as Aquatic and including placement of shoreline rip-rap; provide listed in the Proposed fisheries funding to assist USFS with retrofitting selected road Action would occur. crossing culvert systems on USFS lands; Provide funding to assist ADCNR and USFWS with an aquatic research and culture facility to serve the Warrior and Coosa Basins, provide funding to the ADCNR to assist with the creation and operation of an aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program, enact the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (STEP): provide $24K annually (adjusted annually by CPI) for stocking coldwater fish species in Smith Tailrace, provide a minimum flow during non-generation; improve water quality in turbine releases and during non-generation periods, and provide habitat enhancements as specified in the STEP and Smith Recreation Plan.

3-28

ARA, AR, AND WWF ALTERNATIVE APC ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Resource Consult with USFWS and USFS on species under No new improvements as Threatened and Section 7 of the ESA; continue to evaluate the listed in the Proposed Endangered restoration of selected species of mussels and snails Action would occur. species with ADCNR and USFWS; As part of the Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet, provide funding to ADCNR to assist with the construction and operation of an aquatic research and culture facility and provide funding to the ADCNR to assist with the creation and operation of an aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program; provide funding to assist USFS with continued studies on the threatened flattened musk turtle; provide funding and resources to the USFS to perform periodic surveys of existing populations of T&E species in Smith Lake watershed. Provide funding for the USFS to obtain additional data No new improvements as analysis of terrestrial data from Dr. David Whetstone; listed in the Proposed Terrestrial implement the Wildlife Management Plan Action would occur. Resources recommendations for the Warrior Basin.

Implement a PA for the Warrior Project (Smith and No new improvements as Cultural Bankhead developments), and develop and implement listed in the Proposed an HPMP. Action would occur.

3-29

ARA, AR, AND WWF ALTERNATIVE APC ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Resource Implement an approved recreation plan for the Warrior APC will establish a Coosa No new improvements as Recreation Project that provides facility and access improvements River Recreation listed in the Proposed at numerous locations according to a priority schedule; Enhancement Fund Action would occur. provide funding to the USFS for capital expenditures/ (CRREF) as mitigation of improvements at the USFS’s Clear Creek, Houston and the Project's continuing Corinth facilities; provide funding for operation and impact on boating, angling, maintenance of USFS facilities per the USFS and APC and other forms of riverine Settlement. recreation; $10 million on license issuance and $500,000 per year thereafter for the license term; Geographical priority for CRREF expenditures will be the Coosa River Watershed; the Governing Board may consider other suitable locations in Alabama, including the Black Warrior Watershed, if projects within the Coosa are not feasible.

Implement a SMP and improved Lake Shore Permitting No new improvements as Shoreline Program; implement Styrofoam policy; encourage use listed in the Proposed Management of BMPs by all landowners; provide funding to clean up Action would occur. the current encroachment areas on USFS lands; provide information to the USFS when encroachments are detected by APC on USFS lands. Continue implementing the aquatic plant management program and mosquito control program.

3-30

ARA, AR, AND WWF ALTERNATIVE APC ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Resource Develop and implement a public education plan for the No new improvements as Public Education Warrior Project, especially related to issues of the SMP; listed in the Proposed provide funding to assist USFS with public education Action would occur. that will address issues related to the USFS lands and use of the Sipsey Wild and Scenic River.

USFS Issues Implement the SA containing PM&E measures for recreation, cultural, land resources, and ecological recourses.

3-31

3.8 Economic Comparison of Alternatives

A summary of the cost of each alternative is presented below.

Table 3.8-1: Summary of Annual Project Costs.

APC NO ACTION ARA/AR/WWF ENHANCEMENT ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL Annual Cost ($) 7.6 million 9.8 million 100.5 million ($ per MWh) 19.00 24.50 252.49

3-32

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE

In this section, the relicensing consultation process used for the Warrior Project is described including the NEPA scoping process. A list of persons that commented on the draft preliminary APEA distributed in December 2004 is included in Volume 3. Lastly, this section includes a description of compliance with applicable federal statutes and other processes necessary to complete the relicensing process.

4.1 Relicensing Team Consultation

APC began the relicensing process in 1999 by contacting federal, state, and local agencies, NGOs, and members of the public (both organized groups and individuals), to solicit support for using the ALP. The ALP combines the pre-filing consultation and study processes with the environmental review process required by NEPA. The ALP is designed to encourage settlement agreements and help licensees and stakeholders identify issues early and attempt to resolve them at a local level.

In October 2000, APC prepared and circulated a comprehensive Initial Information Package (IIP) (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000) for the Project that described in detail the relicensing process, the Project structures, its operation, area environmental resources, and proposed studies. APC filed a letter on September 22, 2000, requesting that the Commission approve the use of the ALP pursuant to 18 CFR § 4.34(i) of the Commission’s regulations. FERC approved the request on January 29, 2001.

To further enhance the relicensing process, APC developed the Alabama Power Cooperative Approach (APCA). The APCA promoted and facilitated early identification of issues. In November 2000, APC held informal scoping meetings open to the public, which were called “Issue Identification Workshops.” During the workshops and follow up communication, all interested stakeholders were invited to work cooperatively with the licensee to address the issues identified. The WCRT was formed in January 2001. The WCRT membership included APC, state, federal, and local agencies, NGOs, and homeowner representatives (Volume 3). The WCRT focused on process issues (i.e., the team operating procedures, developing issue sheets)

4-1

and ecological and recreational issues at the Project (Volumes 4 and 5). When deemed necessary, the WCRT formed various IAGs, which were comprised of a smaller number of resource/technical experts to address specific ecological and recreational issues. Members of the WCRT and various IAGs were very involved in the relicensing process including attending many meetings, participating in field studies, and participating in document review. Other entities that were consulted but did not actively participate on the WCRT were kept apprised of the relicensing activities and provided opportunities to comment.

4.2 NEPA Scoping

On February 12, 2002, the Warrior SD1 was distributed by FERC to federal, state and local agencies, NGOs, and other interested stakeholders. SD1 contained Project information, a description of the potential issues at the Project, and a list of proposed alternatives to be investigated in the preliminary draft APEA. Because of the degree of stakeholder participation and public outreach that was conducted prior to FERC’s formal scoping meeting, many of the issues were identified and included in SD1. Notice of a public scoping meeting was published in local newspapers and the Federal Register as well as in APC’s newsletter, Shorelines, which is distributed to lakefront property owners, commercial establishments, and other interested parties. The notice encouraged interested parties to provide written comments to APC and to attend the FERC scoping meeting. The scoping meeting was held on March 12, 2002, and all written and verbal comments were transcribed and made part of FERC’s official record for the Project. A tabular summary of scoping comments is presented in Volume 3.

Following July 2005, FERC staff will prepare their NEPA document (either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)) and issue it for public comment, usually for a period of 30 to 45 days. FERC will incorporate comments and issue a license order, which will contain the terms of the new license. If FERC issues an EIS rather than an EA, there will be an additional comment period following FERC’s issuance of the final EIS.

4-2

4.3 Agency Consultation

APC documented agency and public consultation by relying on meeting summaries of the WCRT, IAG, USFS, county, and municipal meetings which were distributed to all participants and posted on APC’s relicensing website. A list of all meetings for the Project is located in Volume 3. Further, APC filed a summary of the relicensing activities with the Commission every six months, beginning in July 2001. These summaries are located in the Commission and APC’s public files, and on APC’s relicensing website, and on the Volume 3 CD. In addition, APC distributed a quarterly relicensing newsletter to all interested stakeholders.

APC distributed the preliminary draft APEA and draft license application on December 8, 2004 and held a public meeting with stakeholders to discuss the APEA and the review process. Stakeholders had until March 9, 2005 to submit written comments to FERC and APC on the draft documents. APC received 668 comments from 12 stakeholders on both the Coosa and Warrior River Projects. Each comment, along with a response on how the comment is addressed in the APEA and/or final license application, is contained in Volume 3.

Following the comment period on the draft documents, APC offered to meet with any entity upon request to discuss remaining issues or comments that were filed on the draft documents. APC received two requests (USFWS and ADCNR) to meet with various stakeholders with interests in the Warrior Project. The USFS also continued to meet with APC to discuss settlement on Section 4(e) conditions. APC met with the aforementioned stakeholders during February through June 2005. As a result of these meetings, APC, USFWS, and ADCNR reached agreement on the Smith tailrace operations and enhancements, funding for the habitat enhancement program, and the funding for the aquatic research and culture facility. Many of the enhancement, protection and mitigation measures in the APC Enhancement Proposal are a culmination of consensus agreements reached among many stakeholders within the numerous IAGs (both recreation and ecological) that developed throughout the relicensing process and were finalized between March and June 2005. Entities that disagree or have different alternatives for analysis are discussed in Section 3.4.1

4-3

4.4 Mandatory Requirements, Prescriptions and Conditions

The following mandatory requirements, prescriptions and conditions and any terms or conditions that have been recommended as part of the requirements listed below are summarized and further analyzed in Section 5 of this APEA.

4.4.1 Section 18 – Fish Passage

Pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act if the USFWS has adequate administrative record, they may prescribe the licensee to design, construct, operate, and maintain appropriate structures to allow passage of fish up and or downstream of the Project.

Based upon results of existing data and analyses, the United States Department of Interior (DOI) - USFWS will reserve its authority under Section 18 of the FPA to require fishways at the Project during the license term. Reserving their authority would reserve DOI’s option to review and comment on any new information concerning fish passage facilities, which may become available at a future time. Should the need for passage facilities at the Project be determined at some later date, the need for those facilities will be demonstrated, justified, and required by the DOI and the Commission prior to any action by APC.

4.4.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), APC is required to obtain either: (1) state certification that any releases from the Project will comply with applicable provisions of the CWA, or (2) a waiver of certification by the appropriate state agency. The Commission requires that APC apply for such certification or waiver before they file their final license application and APEA, if applicable.

APC applied for Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for the Warrior River Project on July 2, 2004. On July 1,2005 ADEM issued a 401 WQC with the following conditions for the Warrior developments (Appendix D and Volume 4).

4-4

1. The operation of the individual developments, including the operation of the turbines, shall be managed such that no less than 4.0 mg/L of dissolved oxygen shall be maintained at all times at the monitoring locations prescribed herein. Management required to maintain the 4.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen criterion shall be implemented. 2. APC shall develop and implement measures to increase the DO downstream of the project discharges to comply with the limitations herein through structural and/or operational modifications at the project within 18 months of a new license for the Warrior Project by the FERC. 3. The tailrace monitors used to determine compliance with paragraph 1 above shall be placed in the tailrace of the Lewis Smith dam on the west bank at latitude 33 56’ 34”N and longitude 87 06’ 22”W approximately 300 feet downstream from the powerhouse and in the scroll case of the generating unit at Bankhead Dam at latitude 33 27’ 33”N and longitude 87 21’ 31”W. The monitor at Lewis Smith dam shall record DO and temperature at 60-minute intervals during periods of generation following one continuous hours of generation beginning on February 1 and ending on November 30 and during periods of water discharge associated with providing minimum flow, if any. The monitor at Bankhead dam shall record DO and temperature at 60- minute intervals during periods of generation following one continuous hour of generation beginning on March 1 and ending on November 30. During flood events, the monitoring may be temporarily discontinued until the tailrace elevation returns to normal. The DO concentration in the tailrace at Bankhead dam shall be determined as follows:

a. Tailrace DO, mg/L=Incoming DO, mg/L + DO added by aeration, mg/L + DO added by spillway gates, mg/L; b. Incoming DO shall be recorded by the monitor in the scroll case. The DO added by aeration shall be that determined

4-5

from the turbine aeration system performance tests and the DO added by the spillway gates shall be that determined from the spillway gate performance tests. 4. The monitoring program shall begin within 18 months following the effective date of issuance of a new license for the Warrior Project if the effective date is within the prescribed monitoring period. If the effective date of the license is not within the prescribed monitoring period, monitoring shall begin the following February 1 at Lewis Smith dam and the following March 1 at Bankhead dam. The monitoring shall continue for a period of three years. 5. The monitoring equipment shall receive adequate and frequent maintenance and calibration to assure proper operation. The DO monitoring equipment will be calibrated at an acceptable frequency using the manufacture’s recommendations, the Winkler Method, Method 360.2 of the EPS’s Method for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, latest edition, or other equivalent methods. 6. DO and temperature monitoring reports shall be submitted with appropriate certifications to the ADEM within 90 days following the end of the annual monitoring period. Following the final year of monitoring, the complete set of data shall be submitted to ADEM for review and comment prior to submittal to FERC. In addition to DO and temperature data, the monitoring reports shall specify whether turbines were in operation at the time of the DO and temperature time of the measurements. Monitoring reports shall be submitted in an electronic form compatible with the Microsoft Excel and Word software. 7. An assessment of the effects of the operation of the Warrior River project on the State of Alabama’s water quality standards shall be conducted using the results of the monitoring as described in the previous paragraphs. If the monitoring results do not indicate substantial compliance with the State of Alabama water quality standards (maintenance of a DO concentration of 4.0 mg/L or greater),

4-6

APC shall develop and implement measures to ensure compliance with the 4.0 mg/L criterion through structural and/or operational modifications at the project as prescribed in paragraph 2. The assessment shall be filed with ADEM within 6 months following the end of the three year monitoring period. As a part of the assessment APC shall furnish, at the Department’s request, other data and information that may be available but not expressly required in this monitoring plan.

The 401 WQC issues are discussed in Sections 5.2.2; 5.2.4; 5.2.6; and 5.3.1

4.4.3 Coastal Zone Management Act

The State of Alabama has a Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) that applies to the coastal lands and waters seaward of the continuous 10 ft contour in Baldwin and Mobile Counties. Implementation of the ACAMP is shared by the ADCNR and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). Due to the location of this Project, the Coastal Zone Management Act does not apply. On October 7, 2004, Mr. Steven Jenkins, Chief of Field Operations, noted that the Warrior Project was not in Alabama’s coastal zone and was not subject to the ACAMP (personal conversation, Shane Boring, Kleinschmidt with Mr. Steven Jenkins, October 7, 2004). On October 27, 2004, APC sent ACAMP a letter asking the ACAMP office to confirm that the Warrior Project is outside the boundaries of the ACAMP Program. On November 10, 2004, ACAMP responded and stated that the activity is not subject to the permitting requirements of the coastal area management program (letter from Steven O. Jenkins, Chief, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, November 10, 2004) (Volume 3).

4.4.4 Endangered Species Act

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Section 7), Federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats. On August 14, 2003, FERC designated APC as its non-Federal representative for

4-7

purpose of initiating consultation with the USFWS under Section 7. APC initiated informal consultation with the USFWS on January 14, 2004. Federally listed species and designated critical habitats known to occur or potentially occur near Smith and Bankhead developments are detailed in Sections 5.2.6.1 with analyses of the potential effects of the proposed actions following in Sections 5.2.6.2. A draft biological assessment is included in Volume 4.

4.4.5 Section 106 Consultation

FERC initiated the Section 106 process during the pre-filing phase of the relicensing process with the intent of identifying the parties to be consulted under Section 106 and to develop – with those parties – a Programmatic Agreement (PA). The PA, when executed by the Commission, Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), USFS, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would satisfy the Commission’s Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated. On November 20, 2002, FERC issued a notice proposing a Restricted Service List (RSL) for the purpose of developing the PA described above. A RSL limits consultation on protected cultural resources to those entities with regulatory, statutory, or tribal responsibilities. A copy of the RSL is included in Volume 7.

APC initiated Section 106 Consultation with the Parties on FERC’s RSL per letter dated April 12, 2002. FERC has given APC and its consultants the ability to directly consult with the SHPO, the USFS, and the interested tribes to determine the Area of Potential Effect and to consult under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). APC and the Parties on the RSL have met various times over the past two years to develop a PA and a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP), as described in Sections 5.2.7.1 and 5.2.7.2.

4.4.6 FPA Section 4(e) Conditions

Because the Smith development boundary includes 505 acres of land owned and managed by the USFS, the USFS has statutory authority to request conditions in the new license on those USFS lands within the Smith development. The USFS is also required to conduct a NEPA analysis of its lands affected by the Project for the issuance of USFS Special Use Permits.

4-8

Per the SA described in Section 3.3.1, 4(e) conditions are addressed by the implementation of the SA.

There are no federal lands within the Bankhead development boundary (i.e., the powerhouse and associated lands) and therefore, 4(e) conditions do not apply.

4-9

5.0 EXISTING RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

5.1 General Description of the Warrior River Basin

The Black Warrior River Basin (Basin) drains 6,276 square miles in north and west central Alabama (USGS, 2003). The Basin lies completely within Alabama state boundaries and lies within the Southwestern Appalachian and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces. The Black Warrior River is formed by the confluence of the Locust Fork and Mulberry Fork, the second and third longest free-flowing rivers, respectively, remaining in Alabama. The Black Warrior River is a tributary of the Tombigbee River, which joins with the Alabama River to form the Mobile River. Based on streamflow, the Mobile River Basin is the fourth largest in the United States (USGS, 2003). The Black Warrior River Basin has five major dams, including APC’s Smith Dam and four USACE lock and dam facilities: Bankhead, Holt, Oliver, and Selden (Figure 1.0-1).

Forested land is the major land use in the Basin (75%), followed by agriculture (17%). Within the Basin, Cullman County is one of the largest producers of chicken in the United States (Cullman County Commission, 2004). Coal mining is another significant activity within the Basin, with a majority of the active coal mining sites in Alabama located within the Basin. Barges operating within the Black Warrior-Tombigbee system of locks and waterways provide transportation for 25 million tons of cargo worth over $1.5 billion annually (BWRCWP, 2004).

The Basin also serves as an important municipal water supply source. Three reservoirs (Harris, Nichol, and Tuscaloosa) serve as municipal water supplies for the cities of Tuscaloosa and Northport. In addition, the City of Birmingham has two water withdrawals, one located on the Sipsey Fork below Smith Dam and another on the Mulberry Fork near Burnwell (approximated River Mile 408). Based on 2000 census data, the estimated population within the Basin is 1,011,625 (BWRCWP, 2004).

The Basin is located within three ecoregions: Southeastern Plains, Southwestern Appalachians, and Ridge and Valley. The topography of the Basin includes mountainous terrain, rolling hills, flat plateaus, and meandering flood plains. The climate is moist and temperate,

5-1

experiencing long, warm, and humid summers with relatively short, cool winters. Mean annual precipitation within the basin, occurring primarily as rainfall, is approximately 54 inches. Average monthly temperatures within the basin vary from 42º to 46º F during the winter to 77º to 80º F during the summer. Winter temperatures can dip below 32º F for short periods of time and summer temperatures can often reach into the 90’s with relatively high humidity.

Water resources within this highly regulated basin are managed for a variety of uses including: flood control, hydroelectric generation, water supply, environmental management, navigation, and recreation. The developments are primarily operated for flood control, hydroelectric generation, and navigational flow augmentation. 5.2 Analysis of Site Specific Resources

5.2.1 Geological and Soil Resources

5.2.1.1 Affected Environment

The Warrior basin is located within the Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Province. This province is generally characterized by an undulating surface, comprised of sandstone and shale soils, that is frequently dissected by valleys and hollows (Mettee et al., 1996; Mitchell and Loerch, 1990).

5.2.1.1.1 Smith Development

The Smith development is underlain by bedrock comprised of nearly flat-lying sedimentary rock formations (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). The sediments in this formation are sandstone, siltstone, and shale, with occasional thin layers of coal. Some of the sandstone strata are very resistant to weathering, resulting in a topography where the higher elevations and ridgetops are broad and gently to moderately sloping with steeply sloping side-slopes at the margins of stream valleys. The landscape is deeply dissected by streams. The topography and bedrock of the region result in a dendritic (tree-like) drainage pattern. Sandstone outcrops/exposures are found along portions of the river. Coarse-textured and excessively well- drained alluvial parent materials are found on the floodplains and valley terraces in the lower

5-2

elevations. Areas of colluvium are also found localized in the base material of side-slopes. Coal seams from the Warrior coal field occur throughout the area and mining occurs both at and below the surface (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

The dominant soils at the Smith development are derived from Ultisols (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). This soil order, which covers the majority of the state of Alabama, has developed in forested, humid/high rainfall, subtropical conditions on old landscapes (i.e., not glaciated or recently flooded). These soils are often acidic and low in plant nutrients. The surface layer is acidic from weathering due to high rainfall that has occurred over long periods, and parent materials are low in base forming minerals. Although Ultisols are not as fertile as many other soil orders they do support abundant forest growth and respond well to agricultural management.

The alluvial soils of the stream valleys and floodplains of the area are in the Inceptisol and Entisol orders (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). These relatively younger soils, derived from alluvial parent materials, are generally very productive and are not as susceptible to erosion since they lie on flat plains in valley bottoms. Soils derived from colluvium occur on steep sideslopes and are generally susceptible to erosion.

Dominant soils associations found around the immediate perimeter of development are the Sipsey and Bankhead soils. The Sipsey soils are formed in loamy material from weathered sandstone and are moderately deep and well drained. They are typically found on gently to moderately sloped hillsides and ridgetops and have a high potential for erosion. Bankhead soils are formed in colluvium derived from sandstone and are moderately deep, well drained, and occur primarily on benches and side-slopes.

Below the Smith development, the Sipsey and Bankhead soils remain the dominant types, but are interspersed with Mooreville (frequently flooded) and Spadra (occasionally flooded) soils. Mooreville and Spadra soils are formed in alluvium derived from weathered sandstone, shale, and siltstone, are deep, moderately to well-drained, have higher fertility ratings than either the Sipsey or Bankhead soils, and occur on nearly level floodplains and gently sloping stream terraces.

5-3

APC performed an erosion survey and found five erosion sites in the Smith tailrace area. These five erosion sites are the result of land uses practices and have been exacerbated by project operations and natural forces (Table 5.2.1-1; Volume 4).

Table 5.2.1-1: Summary of Erosion Hotspots at the Smith Development (APC, 2003a, as modified by Kleinschmidt) PRIMARY APPROX. APPROX. ADJACENT LAND SITE ID SOILS CAUSE LENGTH HEIGHT USE SM 101 Land Use 150 feet 100 feet Sandy Roadway/Wooded Loam SM 102 Land Use 200 ft 15 ft Sandy Early Vegetation/Clear Loam Cutting SM 103 Land Use 50 ft 100 ft Sandy Road and Pumping Loam Station SM 104 Land Use 300 ft 20 ft Sandy Agriculture Loam SM 105 Land Use 150 ft 20 ft Sandy Pasture Loam

5.2.1.1.2 Bankhead Development

The Bankhead development exhibits similar geological and soil characteristics as those described at the Smith development (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000; Mettee et al., 1996). Downstream of the Bankhead is predominantly Quaternary alluvial deposits placed there by the natural flooding of the River. Sand and gravel deposits along the River floodplain are often mined for commercial purposes.

Soils in the Bankhead development vicinity are primarily a mix of Ultisols and Entisols. The Entisols in the area are alluvial soils derived from sediment deposited during river flooding. Dominant soil associations flanking the River near the Bankhead development are Ellisville silt loam and Urban land. Ellisville soils are formed in alluvium derived from weathered sandstone, shale, and siltstone, and are deep and well-drained. They occur on nearly level floodplains and gently sloping stream terraces and have higher fertility ratings and organic matter contents than other soil types in the area. Urban land soils occur on extensively built-up areas, and are

5-4

classified as being 85 to 100 percent of mapped areas that either are covered by structures and/or pavement or have been disturbed by cutting and filling.

Other soil types found in the Bankhead area include Choccolocco silt loam, Montevallo- Nauvoo complex, and Smithdale fine sandy loam. These loamy soils are formed from weathered sandstone, siltstone, and shale materials, or from thick loamy marine deposits of the Coastal Plain uplands. They primarily occur in the uplands away from the development, but do extend to the banks of the River in a few places and are generally deep, well-drained, and typically situated on gently sloping to moderately sloping side-slopes and ridge-tops.

The area surrounding the Bankhead development is very similar to that of the Smith development in terms of the general geologic stability that both areas share. However, at the Bankhead development, there are no large faults in the immediate area, nor have any significant faults been delineated directly at the powerhouse site.

There have been no erosion sites identified within the Project boundary of the Bankhead development (APC, 2003a; Volume 4).

5.2.1.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

In many cases, the analysis in this APEA is based on cooperative efforts by the stakeholders in the Warrior Project relicensing process. Through the issue-based teams, APC and stakeholders addressed ecological issues identified during the scoping process and throughout the relicensing process. As such, descriptions of these teams and their work are a necessary prelude to the discussion of environmental effects.

During the initial Issue Identification Workshops held in 2000, stakeholders from the Warrior basin identified bank erosion as an issue to be addressed during relicensing. The erosion issue was focused on project operation impacts to erosion within the project boundary. The Erosion and Siltation IAG (E2 IAG) was formed in January 2002 to explore the effects of erosion and siltation on the public uses and water quality in the project area. The E2 IAG met six times in 2002 and 2003. The IAG initially created an E2 IAG Work Plan (January 30, 2002)

5-5

to guide its efforts. As part of the work plan, the IAG identified erosion “hotspots” in the Project area and created a study plan to assess those sites. APC's field team conducted a reconnaissance of the Smith tailrace and identified five erosion sites within a 3.25 mile section of the tailrace (Table 5.2.1-1). The reconnaissance team noted that local land use practices had initiated the erosion, and Project operations have exacerbated erosion at each site. The Bankhead tailrace area was not studied due to a lack of request by IAG members to inspect that area. APC produced a report summarizing the findings of these surveys (Erosion Study Final Report – March 2004) which was reviewed and approved by the IAG. Based on the Erosion Report, APC drafted an Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (May 2005; Volume 4) to guide management efforts of sites that warranted additional monitoring and/or repair.

5.2.1.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

APC has proposed multiple actions to enhance the resources of the Warrior developments. To specifically address erosion issues at the developments, APC proposes to:

• Monitor specific identified erosion sites as described in the Coosa – Warrior Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (APC 2005); • Repair two sites in the Smith Tailrace as described in the Coosa – Warrior Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (APC 2005); • Promote existing erosion control methods (SMP); • Develop a public education plan that will include information related to erosion and implementing BMPs; and • Implement modifications (e.g., placement of shoreline rip-rap, shoreline buffer zones, and implementation of shoreline BMPs) to the Lake Shore Use Permitting Program as described in the Warrior River Project SMP (APC, 2004a).

Monitoring information collected through the Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan will be used to identify any corrective actions needed for problematic erosion sites as well as determine criteria to formally evaluate these repairs. Implementation of this plan would develop appropriate actions for the identified erosion areas. Repair of the two Smith tailrace erosion sites should reduce the deposition of erodible soils into the Smith tailrace. Reduced soil runoff into

5-6

the tailrace would likely improve the general quality of aquatic habitat and water quality in the tailrace and may improve fishing opportunities for recreational anglers. Additionally, repairing these sites would likely improve the aesthetic qualities of the tailrace area.

APC has developed an agreement with the USFS to enhance resources of the Smith development associated with USFS lands. APC has proposed to provide funding to the USFS that may be used for erosion repairs at several of the USFS recreation areas, including replacement of beach sand at the Clear Creek beach. These repairs will primarily provide aesthetic benefits, but will also provide some limited improvement of the existing aquatic resources along the shores of these recreation areas.

Promoting the benefits of existing soil conservation and protection programs and BMPs should increase stakeholder awareness, which may result in a reduction in stakeholder practices and land management uses that contribute to excessive levels of soil erosion and deposition into the developments’ reservoirs. Additionally, APC’s public education plan will contain information to educate landowners and developers on the importance of implementing BMPs on private property.

Modifications to APC’s Lake Shore Use Permitting Program, including the placement of rip-rap in front of all newly constructed sea walls, the adoption of shoreline buffer zones, and the promotion and adoption of shoreline BMPs, would likely result in a cumulative reduction in soil erosion and deposition into the reservoirs. The placement of rip-rap in front of all newly constructed seawalls should absorb soil-eroding wave forces and help to decrease their effects. The placement of rip-rap should also improve the integrity of the shoreline as well as shoreline habitats. A shoreline buffer zone on APC-owned lands should reduce soil deposition into the reservoir, reducing both erosion and siltation and resulting in improved water quality and shoreline terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

APC will also implement other improvements that will have short-term impacts to the soil resources of the development. The initial implementation of the proposed recreation improvements on the Warrior Project may result in some minor short-term soil erosion and deposition associated with construction; however, the implementation of standard erosion control

5-7

measures would minimize soil erosion during construction and the long-term impacts of implementing these recreation improvements should be minimal. Increased boating use of the reservoirs created by these recreation improvements may increase erosive wave action forces. The formalization and expansion of bank fishing access sites may reduce soil erosion by reducing the informal bank fishing sites created by many anglers. Soil erosion and deposition created by the implementation of the proposed recreation improvements should be negligible over the long term.

Cumulatively, these proposals would likely reduce the erosion of vulnerable silty and sandy soils and the deposition of these soils into the Warrior Project reservoirs. In the long term, these proposals would likely improve the physical integrity of the Smith development’s shoreline, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, as well as the overall aesthetic and recreational qualities of the developments, and, to a lesser extent, the overall water quality of the reservoirs.

5.2.1.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

ARA/AR/WWF has offered no specific recommendation in their June 3, 2005 letter related to soil resources on the Warrior Project.

5.2.1.2.3 No Action Alternative

The No Action alternative would maintain conditions described under the existing license. Under the No Action alternative, it is likely that soil erosion and siltation levels would continue at their current levels or increase due to natural erosive actions (wind, wave) and man- made erosion in informal/undeveloped recreation sites. There would continue to be localized limited negative impacts on shoreline habitats, reservoir aesthetics, and recreation resources.

5.2.1.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Wave and wind action on the reservoirs and land use practices outside the boundaries of each development will continue to have adverse impacts on erodible soils around the reservoirs

5-8

and tailrace areas of the developments. Implementing APC’s proposed measures would likely reduce the extent of these continuing adverse impacts.

5.2.2 Water Resources

5.2.2.1 Affected Environment

Water Quantity

The 21,200 acre Smith Lake has a drainage area of 944 square miles, which constitutes 16% of the Basin. The gross storage capacity of the Smith development at normal full pool elevation (510 ft-msl) is 1,390,000 acre feet, and the gross storage capacity of the development at its maximum flood control elevation (522 ft-msl) is 1,670,600 acre feet. The usable storage capacity of the development is 675,000 acre-ft. There is a scarcity of hydrologic records that are applicable to Smith Lake since there are no existing water flow gauge stations on the Sipsey Fork River. However, APC has developed an inflow hydrograph for Smith Lake using operating records since 1961 (Exhibit B, Volume 1).

Flow duration data for an adjacent river (Sipsey River near Elrod) are available from the USGS gauge No. 02446500. Although the Sipsey River gauge is not located in the Smith development watershed (Sipsey Fork River), the flow duration data were used to depict typical flow patterns for the basin. Since the Smith drainage area is 944 square miles and the Sipsey River–Elrod gauge has a 528 square mile drainage, a straight proration was used to estimate similar flows for the Sipsey River– Elrod gauge. The monthly and annual flow duration data for the Sipsey River–Elrod gauge are presented in Exhibit B of the Final License Application.

The period of record available for the Sipsey River–Elrod gauge is September 1, 1928 to March 31, 1932; October 1, 1939 to September 30, 1971; and October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1999. The data from 1961 to 1971 and from 1978 to 1998 were used to prepare the flow duration curves. Based on these data, the historic minimum and maximum for the Sipsey River– Elrod gauge is 50 cfs (September 5 and 6, 1987) and 37,903 cfs (April 13, 1979), respectively. The average annual flow is 1,533 cfs (1961 to 1971; 1978 to 1999).

5-9

APC operates an extensive network of rainfall and streamflow gauges in the Bankhead drainage basin. Rainfall is reported to APC through 13 automated rain gauges. Tributary streamflow is monitored with four gauges. These gauges automatically report data every 15 minutes. Inflows into the Bankhead development come from the 3,969 square mile (66% of the Warrior River Basin) Bankhead drainage basin. Bankhead Lake has a usable storage of 26,000 acre-ft that is provided by the USACE to APC through an allowable 3-ft daily drawdown.

The historic minimum and maximum flows were 0 cfs (on many days) and 143,000 cfs (April 13, 1979), respectively. The average annual flow is 6,716 cfs (October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1999). Flow duration data for the Bankhead development were determined from the USGS gauge No. 02462500 (Bankhead Lock and Dam near Bessemer, Alabama), which coincides with the location of the dam. The period of record for this gauge is October 1, 1928 to September 30, 1936 and October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1999. The data from October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1999 were used to prepare the flow duration figure for Bankhead development (Exhibit B, Volume 1).

The standard Land Use Article in the existing FERC issued Warrior River Hydroelectric Project License has granted APC the authority, with FERC approval, to permit water withdrawals from the Smith developments. The permitting process requires consultation with the State of Alabama’s Office of Water Resources (OWR), as well as consultation with state and federal resource agencies. FERC’s approval process also requires an environmental review by FERC staff. The OWR lists 1 water withdrawal from the Smith development and 7 withdrawals from the Bankhead development. These water withdrawals are primarily for process cooling water, water treatment, municipal, and industrial uses, as well as agricultural practices. APC manages these water withdrawals through a permitting system that accounts for environmental concerns, calculates appropriate operating impacts, and provides for the necessary FERC oversight and approval. Additional information regarding APC’s water withdrawals policies and permitting system is available in Volume 4 (E4 - Water Quantity, Water Use, and Water Withdrawals, APC 2004).

APC implemented a water withdrawal policy program that included fees for withdrawal of fresh water from any of the reservoirs that they operate. This program went into effect in

5-10

1987 shortly after a severe drought. The requests for water withdrawals at that time far exceeded the supply and it was apparent that demands on the resource needed to be conserved. The overarching principle of the policy is to promote conservation of the resource in order to support two purposes: the first is to maintain an adequate water supply for the existing users and the second is to anticipate meeting water needs due to the growth of these users as well as for other future uses. Even with this policy, the available water for new developments may be exhausted within the life of the requested new license. Water quantity issues and conservation of this resource will remain critical over the next 30-50 years.

Water Quality

The two Black Warrior River projects encompass approximately 113 miles of the River’s length. In general, water quality in both project reservoirs and tailwaters (turbine releases) is influenced by both point (e.g., sewage treatment plant discharge) and non-point source (e.g., agricultural runoff) pollution. Both APC and ADEM have conducted extensive monitoring of water quality in the reservoirs and tailwaters of each project on the Black Warrior River, with specific emphasis on dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature. The water quality criteria set by ADEM for surface waters in the state, including the two Black Warrior River projects, are summarized in Table 5.2.2-1.

5-11

Table 5.2.2-1: Water Quality Criteria for Surface Waters Adopted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (Source: ADEM 1999b, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

pH Shall not deviate more than one unit from the normal or natural pH nor be less than 6.0 nor greater than 8.5.

Temperature Maximum temperature in streams, lakes, and reservoirs, shall not exceed 90o F (32 o C).

Dissolved Oxygen For diversified warmwater biota, daily DO concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/l at all times; except under extreme conditions due to natural causes, it may range between 5 mg/l and 4 mg/l provided that all other water quality is favorable in all other parameters. In no event shall the DO level be less than 4.0 mg/l due to discharges from existing hydroelectric generation impoundments.

Bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 2,000/100 ml nor exceed a maximum of 4,000/100 ml in any sample in stream segments classified as PWS (Public Water Supply). For stream segments classified as F&W (Fish and Wildlife), fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 1,000/100 ml on a monthly average nor exceed a maximum of 2,000/100 ml in any sample. For stream segments classified as S (Swimming), fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml.

In addition to the water quality criteria, ADEM uses the commonly accepted method known as the Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) as a way of assessing the biological health of a lake or reservoir. The use of chlorophyll a concentrations to assign a TSI value is considered the best way to estimate the biotic response of lakes/reservoirs to nutrient enrichment when phytoplankton is the dominant plant community. TSI values fall into ranges that allow for trophic classification of the lake or reservoir, which are summarized in Table 5.2.2-2.

Starting in 2002, ADEM established nutrient water quality criteria using chlorophyll a as the means of measurement and will utilize a phased approach to incorporate these criteria. The nutrient criteria are set on a lake-specific basis at particular locations in each reservoir such as the dam forebay and mid-reservoir. The regulation states that "lake specific chlorophyll a

5-12

criteria would be attained if the mean of monthly samples taken April through October within the photic zone of the main river channel were not exceeded" (ADEM 2002a).

Table 5.2.2-2: Ranges of TSI Values and the Corresponding Trophic Classification/Condition (Source: Wetzel 2001)

TROPHIC OLIGOTROPHIC MESOTROPHIC EUTROPHIC HYPEREUTROPHIC CLASSIFICATION TSI Values < 40 40 - 49 50 – 70 > 70

Every two years, ADEM must submit to Congress a water quality report entitled the Clean Water Act §305(b) Report which assesses the current status or quality of the state's waters. Waters found not to support their designated use(s) as set forth by the state (e.g., recreation, fish and wildlife) are considered impaired and are placed on the state 303(d) list. The 303(d) list shows the specific segment of the water body impaired, the cause and source of the impairment, priority ranking, and the proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) date (i.e. the deadline for the development of a TMDL for a pollutant in a specific water body; ADEM 2002a) . A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant sources. None of the waters within the Black Warrior River projects have water quality impairments, based on the Alabama's Final 2002 Section 303(d) list (ADEM 2003).

5.2.2.1.1 Smith Development

The Lewis Smith Project is the most upstream of the two APC developments on the Black Warrior River, which makes it the first of the reservoirs impacted by any upstream pollution. Pollution in the lake is attributed to both point and non-point sources within the watershed. APC and ADEM have monitored lake water quality, specifically DO, temperature, and nutrients, at several locations since the early 1990s, including the tailwaters below the dam.

5-13

Water Quality Classifications and Criteria

ADEM’s “Use Classification” system is based on existing uses, future uses, and uses not now possible because of pollution but that could be available if the effects of pollution were controlled or eliminated. Lewis Smith Lake, the Black Warrior River, and all of its major tributaries are currently classified as FW, S, and PWS (ADEM 1999b).

Table 5.2.2-1 lists the ADEM water quality criteria as they apply to the Black Warrior River Basin including lakes, reservoirs and all supporting tributaries. Lewis Smith Lake is scheduled for implementation of nutrient criteria in 2003 (ADEM 2002a).

Lake Water Quality

Nutrients and the Trophic State Index

During the Clean Lakes Feasibility Study (CLFS), 54 algal species were detected in Lewis Smith Lake (Bayne et al. 1997). All of these species are common to lake phytoplankton communities in the region. Phosphorus was identified as the nutrient responsible for limiting phytoplankton growth in most sections of the lake, with relatively high levels of nitrate compared to more eutrophic reservoirs in Alabama. Chlorophyll a concentrations in Lewis Smith Lake ranged from 0.6 µg/l in the Ryan Creek embayment (winter) to 4.5 µg/l in the Rock Creek embayment (summer). These chlorophyll a values indicate a mesotrophic classification for the reservoir, indicating moderate levels of algae and nutrients (Bayne et al. 1997).

Intensive agricultural operations and increased housing development around the lake are suspected of causing elevated levels of both chlorides and nitrates at several sites around Lewis Smith Lake, particularly at downstream sites closer to the dam. High chloride levels are indicative of animal waste introduced from the watershed. Septic systems from homes around the lake are believed to contribute sewage and nutrients to the lake because of the shallow soil depth to bedrock and the steep slopes around the lake. In Lewis Smith Lake most of the plant nutrients appear to enter the lake from mid-reservoir downstream to the dam, with both chlorides and nitrates following a similar pattern. Both non-point sources, animal wastes and

5-14

malfunctioning septic systems around the lake, are considered the primary sources of nutrient inputs to the downstream half of the lake (Bayne et al. 1997).

APC has collected nutrient data in the forebay from 1994 to 2001. At least 38 samples of each parameter were analyzed over this eight-year period. Table 5.2.2-3 summarizes the minimum, maximum, and average concentrations measured for each parameter.

Table 5.2.2-3: Lewis Smith Dam Forebay Nutrient/Chemical Analyses Summary from Data Collected 1994 to 2001 (Source: APC 2002b, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

NUMBER MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE NUTRIENT OF CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION SAMPLES Ammonia 58 0.005 1.00 0.06 (mg/l) Nitrite 40 0.01 1.00 0.07 (mg/l) Nitrate 62 0.01 0.74 0.27 (mg/l) Total 48 0.01 1.66 0.24 Kjedahl Nitrogen (TKN; mg/l) Phosphate 68 0.00 0.09 0.02 (mg/l) Chlorophyll 38 0.01 11.5 2.5 a (µg/l)

Trophic state index (TSI) values for the lake have ranged from 35 to 51 with a mean of 43 for the last 18 years, classifying the lake as mesotrophic (ADEM 2002a). A study conducted by ADEM in 1998 showed that while most of the lake is mesotrophic, Crooked Creek and its embayment area of the lake are considered eutrophic (ADEM 1999a). Crooked Creek, from its source to Lewis Smith Lake, is currently listed on the state 303(d) list with causes including ammonia, organic enrichment and the resulting DO effects, and pathogens (ADEM 2003).

5-15

Dissolved Oxygen and Water Temperature

The CLFS documented the occurrence of thermal stratification in the lake, lasting from April to October or November. Chemical stratification was also observed in Lewis Smith Lake, based on vertical profiles of DO in the water column. DO decreased with increasing depth, displaying completely anoxic conditions at the bottom of several deep areas of the lake. The relatively deep nature of the reservoir (maximum depth of 264 feet at the dam) and the resulting long hydraulic retention time of 435 days provide a very low flushing rate through the lake. The result is significant thermal and chemical stratification in most sections of the lake (Bayne et al. 1997).

APC and ADEM have monitored lake water quality, specifically DO and temperature, at several locations since the early 1990s, and APC continues to monitor water quality within Lewis Smith Lake and its tributaries. Profile data at locations in the lake upstream of the dam indicate that thermal and chemical stratification extends at least sixteen miles upstream from the dam. Figure 5.2.2-3 illustrates an example of monthly DO and temperature profiles at the dam forebay during the summer months. Table 5.2.2-4 presents maximum/minimum/average temperature and DO data from five feet below the surface of the lake at different distances from the dam collected by APC from 1992 to 2001 (APC 2002b). ADEM studied the reservoir in 1984 and concluded that DO levels at five feet below the lake surface, even during the summer months, were always above the 4.0 mg/l state standard (ADEM 1984).

Table 5.2.2-4: Lewis Smith Lake Summary of DO and Temperature at Five-Foot Depth Below the Surface for Varying Distances Upstream (U.S.) of the Dam, 1992 to 2001 (Source: APC 2002b, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG LOCATION DO DO DO TEMP TEMP TEMP (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) Tailrace 3.5 11.4 7.1 8.6 19.8 13.8 Dam Forebay 6.8 10.9 8.1 8.8 31.2 24.9 3.0 miles US 7.5 10.6 8.6 8.9 30.4 19.1 7.5 miles US 7.1 10.8 8.8 8.9 30.1 19.1 15.5 miles US 6.8 10.9 8.5 8.7 30.1 19.0

5-16

305(b), pH, and Alkalinity

The 305(b) Water Quality Report to Congress (ADEM 2002a) indicates that all of Lewis Smith Lake’s designated uses of aquatic life, recreation, and public water supply are currently supported. The Lake typically meets state water quality standards. Total alkalinity, the concentration of acid-neutralizing compounds called bases (expressed as mg/l CaCO3) such as bicarbonate and carbonate, was found to be quite low in Lewis Smith Lake.

Figure 5.2.2-1: APC Monthly DO and Temperature Profiles at Lewis Smith Dam Forebay During the Summer of 2001 (Source: APC 2002b, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

0 June July August September October 10

40 ) eet 50 h (f t Dep 60

100 0123456789101112 DO (mg/l)

5-17

0 June July August September October 10

(feet) 50

Depth 60

100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Temperature (Degrees C)

Mainstem alkalinity values ranged from 7.5 mg/l as CaCO3 in the spring of 1995 to 20.0 mg/l as CaCO3 in the summer of 1995 (Bayne et al. 1997). These values indicate infertile soils that are low in soluble forms of carbonate. Embayment alkalinities were similar to those measured in the mainstem of the lake. These low alkalinity conditions resulted in lake pH values ranging from 6.5 to 9.2 (1986 and 1995 data) within the top 2 meters of the water column. The low alkalinity conditions allow for significant shifts in pH that can be detrimental to certain lake biota (Bayne et al. 1997).

Point and Non-Point Sources of Pollutants

Currently the Lewis Smith Lake watershed has 35 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) industrial discharge permits, 2 municipal/semi-public discharges, 7 concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permits, 24 storm water construction permits, and 10 mining permits (APC 2002b). ADEM monitors these facilities by establishing and enforcing water quality standards through the issuance of discharge permits.

Current pollutants of concern for the lake include nutrients and metals, specifically from non-point sources. Metal concentrations in fish tissue were listed as an area of potential concern 5-18

for Lewis Smith Lake, but no fish consumption advisories are currently in effect (ADEM 2002a). In 1986, a study conducted by ADEM and Auburn University found levels of chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc in Lewis Smith Lake that occasionally exceeded EPA criteria (Bayne et al. 1987).

ADEM has expressed concern regarding several major non-point source inputs to Lewis Smith Lake. The primary non-point source of concern is runoff associated with unreclaimed mining sites in the watershed. Other non-point sources include:

• Sewage entering the lake from cabin cruisers, residences, and infrequent overflows of sewer pump stations and septic field leachate; • Intensive animal rearing operations in the watershed; • Land application of animal wastes in the watershed; • Forestry within the watershed; and • Residential development along the lake shoreline.

Tailwater Water Quality

Tailrace data below the Lewis Smith Dam collected by APC from 1992 to 2001 indicate DO levels are typically above the state standard of 4.0 mg/l. DO concentrations during these spot measurements in the Lewis Smith tailrace ranged from 3.5 - 11.4 mg/l with an average of 7.1 mg/l. Simultaneous temperature data from the spot measurements during the 1992 to 2001 period ranged from 8.6 - 19.8ºC with an average of 13.8ºC. APC conducted continuous tailrace monitoring of temperature and DO during the summer months from 1999 to 2001. The continuous monitoring data showed a DO range of 1.3 - 9.9 mg/l with an average of 5.4 mg/l, while temperatures ranged from 7.1 - 19.0ºC with an average of 11.3ºC (APC 2002b).

The tailrace discharge dropped below the state standard of 4.0 mg/l approximately 18.8% of the time during generation and 0.7% of the entire period (both generation and non-generation periods) of continuous monitoring during the summer months of 1999 to 2001. In 1999 and 2000, DO levels dropped below the 4.0 mg/l state standard approximately 34.0% and 30.0% of the time during generation, respectively. DO conditions were greatly improved in the tailrace

5-19

during 2001 summer months, with only 7.5% of the generation hours exhibiting DO levels below 4.0 mg/l (APC 2002b).

5.2.2.1.2 Bankhead Development

The Bankhead development is located downstream of the Lewis Smith development on the Black Warrior River. APC and ADEM have monitored the lake water quality, specifically DO, temperature, and nutrients, at several locations since the early 1990s, including the tailwaters below the dam. Water quality problems in Bankhead Lake are specifically related to the tributaries of two embayment areas, Valley Creek and Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River (ADEM 1999a).

Water Quality Classifications and Criteria

Waters from Bankhead Dam/Lock upstream to the junction of the Locust and Mulberry Forks of the Black Warrior River are classified as "F & W", "S", and "PWS". Waters from the dam/lock downstream 19.2 miles to Hurricane Creek are classified as "F & W" and "S" (ADEM 1999b).

Table 5.2.2-1 lists the ADEM water quality criteria as they apply to the Black Warrior River Basin including lakes, reservoirs and all supporting tributaries. Bankhead Lake is scheduled for implementation of nutrient criteria in 2003 (ADEM 2002a).

Lake Water Quality

Nutrients and the Trophic State Index

In the late 1990’s ADEM conducted a water quality survey of the entire Black Warrior River basin, including Bankhead Lake. The study found that water quality concerns in Bankhead Lake are related to water quality issues in the Valley Creek and Locust Fork embayments. Both embayments exhibited some of the highest total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in the entire basin, with levels increasing as mean discharge from the dam decreased, indicating

5-20

significant point source contribution of both nutrients. Chlorophyll a concentrations in the two embayments were the highest of any location in the basin, which reflect TSI values in the eutrophic range during most of the summer months (ADEM 1999a).

Bankhead Lake was upgraded from eutrophic status (1998) to mesotrophic status following completion of the 2002 305(b) report. That report also removed the non-supporting status from the dam upstream to Big Yellow Creek. Bankhead Lake’s current TSI is 46, making it 31st out of the 41 reservoirs tested in Alabama. This mesotrophic TSI indicates the lake has moderate levels of plant life and nutrients. Historically, TSI values for the month of August in the lake have ranged from 32 to 58 with a mean of 50 for the last 18 years (ADEM 2002a).

APC has collected nutrient data in the Bankhead Dam forebay from 1994 to 2001. Nutrient data included parameters such as ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), phosphate, and chlorophyll a. At least 45 samples of each parameter were analyzed over the eight-year period (1994 - 2001). Table 5.2.2-5 summarizes the minimum, maximum, and average concentrations measured for each parameter.

Table 5.2.2-5: Bankhead Dam Forebay Nutrient/Chemical Analyses Summary from Data Collected 1994 to 2001 (Source: APC 2002a, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

NUMBER MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE NUTRIENT OF CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION SAMPLES Ammonia 50 0.01 0.75 0.09 (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) 60 0.01 0.13 0.03 Nitrate (mg/l) 53 0.09 1.14 0.43 Total Kjeldahl 55 0.01 1.57 0.35 Nitrogen (TKN; mg/l) Phosphate 72 0.00 0.25 0.04 (mg/l) Chlorophyll a 45 0.01 12.8 3.8 (µg/l)

5-21

Dissolved Oxygen and Water Temperature

Water quality profile data collected by ADEM in 1984 from Bankhead Lake suggest that chemical stratification with respect to DO occurs during the summer months (ADEM 1984). The 1998 ADEM survey documented the occurrence of thermal stratification in Bankhead Lake at the dam forebay during the summer months, starting in May and ending in August. Chemical stratification (DO) at the dam forebay began in May and lasted until October, with DO levels below 5.0 mg/l throughout the entire water column in September and October. Most of the embayments exhibited some degree of thermal and chemical stratification as well (ADEM 1999a).

APC and ADEM have monitored lake water quality, specifically DO and temperature, at several locations in Bankhead Lake since the early 1990s, and APC continues to monitor water quality within Bankhead Lake and its supporting tributaries. Water quality profile data indicate strong chemical (DO) stratification by mid-summer at depths of 20 feet or more (maximum depth of the lake is 74 feet at the dam), with DO levels less than 3.0 mg/l at depths of 20 - 30 feet from the surface. The chemical stratification period typically lasts from June to September of each year and extends throughout most of the lake. Occasional low DO readings were observed approximately five feet below the surface near the dam. No significant thermal stratification occurs in the lake during the summer months (APC 2002a). Figure 5.2.2-4 illustrates an example of monthly DO and temperature profiles at the dam forebay during the summer months. Table 5.2.2-6 presents maximum/minimum/average temperature and DO data collected by APC from five feet below the surface of the lake at different distances from the dam during the 1992 to 2001 period (APC 2002a).

5-22

Table 5.2.2-6: Bankhead Lake Summary of DO and Temperature at Five-Foot Depth Below the Surface for Varying Distances Upstream (U.S.) of the Dam, 1992 to 2001 (Source: APC 2002a, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

MIN MAX AVG MIN DO MAX DO AVG DO LOCATION TEMP TEMP TEMP (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (ºC) (ºC) (ºC) Tailrace 2.9 8.3 5.3 22.0 30.0 25.4 Dam Forebay 3.0 10.9 6.7 8.2 31.4 25.4 14.5 miles u.s. 6.0 11.7 8.5 8.0 30.6 19.3 64.5 miles u.s. 5.2 11.7 8.6 6.0 22.2 13.6

305(b), 303(d), and TMDL Status

Currently the designated uses of Bankhead Lake are supported, based on the delisting of a section of the lake from the Alabama Draft 2002 Section 303(d) list, which had indicated organic enrichment and resulting low DO conditions (ADEM 2002b). The Final 2002 Section 303(d) list did not include any of the waters of Bankhead Lake as impaired (ADEM 2003).

Point and Non-Point Sources of Pollutants

Water quality in Bankhead Lake has steadily improved due to reductions in pollutant discharges from industries, mining, and non-point sources in the watershed. An ADCNR report concluded that the low DO sags at the project were the result of oxygen demands placed on the system resulting from waste assimilation processes in the lake (ADCNR 1988). Highly polluted tributary streams are suspected of causing periodic DO sags during times of hot weather and low river flows, with several of the tributaries on the Alabama Final 2002 Section 303(d) list such as Locust Fork and Big Yellow Creek (ADEM 2003).

5-23

Figure 5.2.2-2: APC Monthly DO and Temperature Profiles at Bankhead Dam Forebay During the Summer of 2001 (Source: APC 2002a, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

25 ) t 30 e e f 35 pth (

De 40

60 June July August September 65

70 0123456789101112 DO (mg/l)

0 June July August September 5

25 )

t 30

35 pth (fee

De 40

70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Temperature (Degrees C)

5-24

Water quality in Bankhead Lake is primarily influenced by several point and non-point sources of pollutants within the watershed. Numerous permitted industrial and domestic effluents from the Birmingham metropolitan area continue to flow into the lake. Currently the Bankhead Lake watershed has 415 NPDES industrial discharge permits, 24 municipal/semi- public discharges, 35 concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permits, 114 storm water construction permits and 205 mining permits (APC 2002a). This does not include permits not reported to EPA such as minor industrial discharges, some mining discharges, and some municipal/semi-public discharges. ADEM monitors the permitted facilities by establishing and enforcing water quality standards through the issuance of discharge permits. The NPDES and the Alabama Water and Air Pollution Control Act provide the standards for protecting surface waters within the state.

In addition to point source discharges, ADEM has expressed concern regarding several non-point source inputs to Bankhead Lake, which include:

• Strip mining runoff; • Forestry practices; • Sewage that may go into the lakes from cabin cruisers, residences, and infrequent overflows of sewer pump stations and septic field leachate; and • Agricultural runoff from fields and stock operations.

Tailwater Water Quality

Tailrace water quality data below the Bankhead Dam collected periodically by APC from 1992 to 2001 indicate that DO levels were typically above the state standard of 4.0 mg/l. DO concentrations in the Bankhead tailrace during the lake’s summer stratification period ranged from 2.9 - 8.3 mg/l with an average of 5.3 mg/l. Simultaneous temperature data from the spot measurements during the 1992 to 2001 period ranged from 22.0 - 30.0ºC with an average of 25.4ºC. APC conducted continuous monitoring of temperature and DO in the scroll case of the turbine units during the summer months from 2000 to 2001. The continuous monitoring data showed a DO range of 1.6 - 11.1 mg/l with an average of 6.9 mg/l, while temperatures ranged from 6.2 - 31.1ºC with an average of 17.7ºC (APC 2002a).

5-25

Based on the continuous monitoring data, the DO levels in tailrace dropped below the state standard of 4.0 mg/l only 0.6% of the time during generation. This small percentage is the result of the turbine aeration system that has been used at the Bankhead development for a number of years. The aeration system is activated by opening the air valve on the turbines when the DO in the scroll case drops below 4.5 mg/l. The aeration system remains activated until the DO in the scroll case rises to 4.7 mg/l. The turbine aeration systems like those at the Bankhead Project are typically capable of raising DO levels from 1 to 3 mg/l depending on the incoming DO and temperature conditions (APC 2002a).

5.2.2.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

E1 – Point and Non-Point Source Pollution

The Point and Non-point Source Pollution IAG (E1 IAG) was formed in January 2002 to explore the effects of pollution (e.g., both point, non-point, trash, etc.) that originate within the Basin on the water quality of the lakes and rivers of the project study area. The E1 IAG met three times in 2002 (1/30, 3/12, 6/25) to create a work plan (1/30), review studies, lists, and maps of point sources of pollution in the basin, and identify ways to reduce point and non-point sources of pollution affecting water quality in the developments’ reservoirs.

The E1 IAG made several recommendations (6/25) that were presented to and approved by the WCRT, including the following:

• Use the Warrior Basin Assessment, the ADEM 303(d) list, and the NPDES information for developing the Warrior Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment.

5-26

• APC should continue to share data and stay involved with the Clean Water Partnership (CWP) process.

• APC should consult with ADEM and ADECA on public education efforts at the state and local levels, such as inclusion of education information into the Warrior Project Shoreline Management Plan.

E3 – Water Quality in Lakes and Rivers

The Water Quality IAG (E3 IAG) was formed in January 2002 to explore the effects of project operations on water quality in the rivers and reservoirs. The E3 IAG met five times in 2002 and 2003. The IAG initially created a work plan to guide its efforts (1/30/02). As part of the work plan, APC consolidated all available water quality data into a report for each project reservoir. These reports were reviewed by the IAG, revised based on member comments, and finalized (2/19/03). At the February 19, 2003 E3 IAG meeting, APC explained that it was investigating techniques that would ensure turbine releases met state water quality standards, and that certain techniques have already been employed at developments. Data from the Water Quality reports were used to prepare this section of the APEA. Additionally, these reports and water quality data collected subsequently were used to prepare the application for 401 Water Quality Certification, which was approved by ADEM on July 1, 2005 (Appendix D and Volume 4).

5.2.2.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

Water Quantity and Use

APC proposes to continue to administer its FERC-approved water withdrawal policy on Smith Lake. Under this policy, any application to APC for water withdrawals must include OWR consultation and must be submitted to FERC for environmental review and approval if the withdrawal request is greater than one (1) MGD.

There is only one permitted withdrawal on Smith Lake with a maximum limit of 1 MGD (1.55 cfs). The effect of this withdrawal on storage capacity is insignificant, because the lake 5-27

storage is 1,390,000 acre-ft at normal pool elevation (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). This withdrawal should also have no effect on downstream flow releases, because the average minimum release flow (even during drought periods) is established by the USACE at 245 cfs for navigation and downstream protection purposes (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). APC has also proposed a new continuous minimum flow release of approximately 50 cfs, which should not be affected by the permitted withdrawal. The permitted maximum withdrawal of 1.55 cfs is 0.1% of the average annual flow (1,533 cfs) of the Smith development. Because this withdrawal does not have an effect on lake levels or downstream releases, it should have no impact on aquatic resources of the development.

By continuation of this permitting process on Smith Lake and charging for water withdrawals, APC’s proposed action will continue to promote conservation of the resource and maintain adequate water supply for the existing withdrawals; and will provide water for growth of current and future users during the license.

Water Quality

In order to meet State water quality standards of 4 mg/L DO below the Smith development during generation, APC has proposed to design, install, and operate an aeration system within 18 months of issuance of the new FERC license for the Project. APC will monitor the system for three years following installation in accordance with the 401 Water Quality Certification (Appendix D and Volume 4). If the monitoring results do not indicate substantial compliance with the applicable State water quality standards (i.e., maintain a DO concentration of 4 mg/L or greater), APC has proposed to develop and implement additional measures to increase the DO in the Project’s releases through structural or operational modifications at the Project. The monitoring assessment will be filed with ADEM within six months following the three-year monitoring period.

APC is also proposing a minimum release of approximately 50 cfs during non- generation. Preliminary tests indicate that the DO concentration in this minimum flow can range as high as 8 to 9 mg/L (STWG Meeting Notes 8-22-03 – Volume 4).

5-28

Currently, low DO periods are limited to a few months of the year. DO levels are much higher (generation and non-generation) during most of the year. In addition, increasing the turbine discharge to 4 mg/L will virtually aerate the entire river flow to a higher level and should positively influence areas further downstream of the immediate tailrace. Non-generation periods will be positively influenced by the minimum flow. The combined DO enhancements should improve the distribution of aquatic fauna and/or reduce the seasonal stress on aquatic fauna from lower DO levels currently experienced. According to ADEM, the use classification for the Sipsey Fork below Smith Dam is “Fish & Wildlife.” The State standard associated with this classification is intended to provide for the “propagation of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life” (ADEM, 1999). As such, the combined generation releases of 4 mg/L DO and the minimum flow releases during non-generation should protect and enhance the aquatic resources of the tailrace and Sipsey Fork downstream.

APC proposes to continue to monitor water quality at their standardized sampling sites on the main stem of the West Sipsey Branch of the reservoir. These data will be made available to the USFS on an annual basis. Continuing to monitor water quality will provide the USFS with information to evaluate the effects of land management practices in the BNF on the water quality of Smith Lake.

APC has designed, installed, and operated a “draft tube aeration” system at the Bankhead development to improve water quality downstream of the Bankhead Lock and Dam. This method uses the low-pressure area below the turbine runner, created by a deflection plate, to aspirate atmospheric air into the draft tube via a pipe manifold opening, which draws air into the water flow. As the water-air mixture moves into the tailrace area, the entrained bubbles float up to the surface. However, some of the oxygen previously in the bubbles remains dissolved in the water. The turbine aeration system installed at Bankhead Dam has been very effective in ensuring that DO concentrations downstream of the development meet or exceed applicable State water quality standards. The DO levels in the tailrace are equal to or greater than the applicable State water quality standard for DO 99.82% of the time during generation, based on the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Bankhead from January 2000 through September 2003. APC proposes to monitor the existing system for three years following issuance of a new license by FERC in accordance with the monitoring plan in the 401 Water

5-29

Quality Certification (Appendix D and Volume 4). If the monitoring results do not indicate substantial compliance with the State water quality standards (i.e., maintenance of a DO concentration of 4 mg/L or greater during generation), APC has proposed to develop and implement measures to increase the DO in the discharges through structural or operational modifications at the development. These modifications may include coordinating releases though the dam gates with the USACE to provide additional DO enrichment in the water downstream of the dam.

APC proposes to continue their participation on the Clean Water Partnerships until they are complete and share data gathered under the relicensing effort with the partnerships. Participation in these groups will help in the implementation of water quality improvement plans and help the general water quality of the developments.

APC also proposes to implement BMPs and shoreline buffers (as part of the Warrior SMP) around the lake, which could result in less storm water runoff, and some limited improvement of water quality in the lakes.

5.2.2.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

ARA/AR/WWF Alternative proposes that APC maintain 4 mg/L of DO in the turbine discharge and 5 mg/L of DO in the tailrace area during non-generation periods.

Because low DO periods are present in the Warrior River, it is valuable to discuss and understand the impacts of low DO levels on aquatic resources. DO is one of several factors that can affect the growth and survival of fish and aquatic invertebrates (USFWS, 1999). To address the issue of low DO level impacts on aquatic resources, one must first understand the lethal and chronic impacts of low DO on aquatic resources. Lethal DO levels result in mortalities of aquatic resources and chronic DO levels are related more to reduced growth or some impairment of those same resources.

One of the most comprehensive reviews of observations on lethal levels of DO was reported by Doudoroff and Shumway (1970). They summarized results of numerous studies on a

5-30

wide range of species dating back to 1937 and stated that a minimum level of 3 mg/L was in all likelihood adequate to support all adult species of fish for “a day or two” if other water quality conditions were acceptable. This study also reported that numerous tests on many species of fish showed that fish survived DO levels of 2 and even less than 1 mg/L. They also reported that many of the tests were conducted for greater than 24 hours and often up to seven days.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1986) reported in the DO criteria document the results of additional studies following Doudoroff and Shumway (1970) and concluded the following: “If the period of exposure to low DO is limited to less than 3.5 days, DO levels of 3 mg/L or higher should produce no direct mortality of salmonids.” There is not as much data on the effects of lethal levels of DO on non-salmonids, but EPA concluded that 3 mg/L should be sufficient to avoid fish kills unless this level of DO persists for an extended period of time, greater than a “few hours” for some fish but in most cases “24- to 96-hour duration.”

The EPA (1986) also reported that “there is a general paucity of information on the tolerance of freshwater invertebrates to low DO.” However, they stated that invertebrates often require higher levels of DO than fish. They presented results from the literature that showed many species appear to require a minimum DO level of about 4 mg/L to survive; but DO levels less than 3 mg/L are adequate for many other species. Most of these results are based on 96-hour exposure periods instead of short-term exposures typical of cyclical DO levels that are common to tailwater areas.

Recent work on Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) tailwaters have shown that invertebrates occur in high densities where DO is as low as 4 mg/L for up to several months in the discharges from the upstream projects (Saylor, 2001). The reported densities in these tailwater areas are much greater than reported for free-flowing rivers in the Tennessee Valley.

With this information as a basis, it is clear that ADEM’s criteria of 4 mg/L in the turbine discharge is sufficient to protect aquatic resources and reduce DO related mortality in most fish and aquatic invertebrates.

5-31

The EPA (1986) also addressed the issue of low DO in association with chronic impacts – reduced growth. The EPA’s recommended criteria for growth considerations for warmwater species is a DO range of 3 mg/L (minimum DO), 4 mg/L (7-day mean of the minimum daily DO values), and 5.5 mg/L (30-day mean of all values). Research has shown that the duration of the exposure to lower DO levels is an important factor in determining its effects (USFWS, 1999). Short-term exposure to low DO levels (3 mg/L) may have little or no impact, while prolonged exposure can result in reduced growth, reduced reproductive success, and even mortality.

APC has proposed to increase the DO in turbine generation to 4 mg/L and has also proposed a minimum flow of approximately 50 cfs below the Smith Dam to enhance the aquatic habitat and recreational fishing. It is anticipated that the minimum flow releases will be 4 mg/L DO or higher based on test results performed at the August 22, 2003 meeting of the Smith Tailrace Working Group at the Smith Dam. During that test the DO was approximately 8 to 9 mg/L from the penstock drain valves. The benefit of this proposal would be associated with a DO level of 4 mg/L or more during generation which should reduce chronic impacts and/or increase growth rates over that presently observed.

APC proposes that the combination of these two enhancements will assure compliance with State Water Quality Standards and should meet the ARA/AR/WWF alternative a large portion of the time.

Requiring 5 mg/L DO at all times during non-generation would require APC to release the minimum flow immediately upon cessation of the turbines. The APC Enhancement Proposal calls for letting the tailrace drain down to 265.2 ft msl before turning on the minimum flow. This would result in an additional loss of dependable generation capacity at the Smith development and would result in increased costs over that proposed by APC. Section 6 and 7 of this APEA describes the cost and the relative benefit for the additional cost for maintaining a 5 mg/L during non-generation.

5-32

5.2.2.2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing developments would continue to operate in their existing conditions and incidences of DO levels less than 4 mg/L during generation would continue to occur. These instances would occur more frequently during both generation and non-generation periods under the no action alternative than they would under the proposed action due to the lack of turbine enhancements and proposed operational changes at the developments.

5.2.2.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The proposed operations and enhancements described under the APC Enhancement Proposal and the ARA/AR/WWF alternatives would not lead to any unavoidable adverse effects on water resources at the developments, based on the available information. Under the No Action alternative, state standards for water quality during generation would likely not be met during some periods of time during the year. Watershed practices and the existing nutrient load in the river will continue to result in problematic nutrient conditions in the developments’ reservoirs.

5.2.3 USACE Issues - Flood Control

As discussed in Section 3.2.1. and 3.2.1.2, flood control in the basin is provided by the operation of the Smith Reservoir. Smith Lake’s flood control pool is from 510 ft msl to 522 ft msl and provides 280,600 acre-ft of storage. This volume is equivalent to 5.6 inches of runoff from the drainage area and is sufficient, with the prescribed plan of operation, to contain the runoff from the flood of March 15 through 18, 1951, the maximum of record at the site prior to the beginning of construction. During periods of flooding, APC maintains communication with the USACE and with the National Weather Service’s Southeast River Forecast Center (NWS- SERFC) in Atlanta, GA to coordinate its flood control operations. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the Smith and Bankhead reservoirs are operated under an existing MOU between APC and the USACE and in accordance with the USACE’s Reservoir Regulation Manuals (RRM) (USACE, cite existing RRM). The purpose of the RRMs are to define a plan of operation at the aforementioned storage reservoirs during the occurrence or threatened occurrence of damaging

5-33

flood conditions at downstream stations, when such conditions may be alleviated or partially alleviated by the operation of the dam and power plant in the interest of flood control. APC is not proposing any changes to the current operations that would affect their flood control operations.

5.2.4 Aquatic and Fisheries Resources

5.2.4.1 Affected Environment

The Basin contains diverse assemblages of aquatic habitat and species. The Locust Fork and Mulberry Fork are the second and third longest free-flowing reaches of river in Alabama, respectively (Figure 1.0-1). Aquatic habitats within the Basin include numerous small and medium sized streams, mainstem rivers, and reservoirs. The waters of the Basin are home to 130 species of fish, some of which are endemic (Mettee et al., 1996). The headwaters of many streams, primarily in protected areas of Bankhead National Forest, support vestiges of mollusk populations that were once widespread, including species endemic to the drainage. Several species have been extirpated from upper reaches of the Black Warrior system.

5.2.4.1.1 Smith Development

Reservoir

Due to the dendritic (tree-like) shape of Smith Lake, an extensive variety of habitats is available for aquatic species. Backwater sloughs and coves provide shallow water habitat required by many fish species. In addition, the steeply sloping shoreline and rocky substrates of the mainstem creek channel provide excellent habitat for striped bass and spotted bass. A diverse community of warmwater fish species populates Smith Lake, with over 70 species having been documented in the lake (Appendix E). Dominant recreational fish species include spotted bass and bluegill, with a forage base of gizzard shad and threadfin shad. The ADCNR has stocked Gulf coast striped bass and Florida largemouth bass into the lake since 1980 to enhance recreational fishing. Representative information on stocking efforts is shown in Table F-1 (Appendix F). As a result of management and stocking efforts, Smith Lake is considered to

5-34

have an excellent spotted bass fishery and a trophy striped bass fishery (Bayne et al., 1997). A former world record spotted bass (8 lbs 15 oz) was caught in Smith Lake in 1978 (ADCNR, 2000a).

APC operates some voluntary fisheries enhancement programs. These include stabilization of lake levels during the spring, and installation of Christmas tree clusters. As part of the lake stabilization program, APC provides a two-week period (coordinated with the ADCNR) of limited water level fluctuations during the peak spawning period for black bass to enhance reproduction. As part of the Christmas tree program, APC collects donated Christmas trees, ties them in bundles with concrete blocks, and sinks them in areas of the reservoir that lack suspended aquatic habitat. These tree bundles provide cover for fish and other aquatic organisms. Such cover can serve as a refuge to protect juvenile fish from predators, thereby increasing recruitment of some fish species. These structures can also congregate fish, allowing increased success rates for anglers (Brown, 1986).

In addition to the sport fishery, a commercial catfish fishery exists on Smith Lake. The primary harvest method used is trotlines, but slat boxes are also used. In 1994, the ADCNR noted that this commercial fishery was increasing (Bayne et al., 1997).

Tailrace

Coldwater (hypolimnetic) releases from Smith Lake have made it possible for the ADCNR to stock rainbow trout from the Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery into the tailrace to create a unique “put and take” fishery. The program has been in effect since the 1970’s (Table F-2, Appendix F). Rainbow trout are stocked by the USFWS through a cooperative agreement with the ADCNR and APC (Bayne et al., 1997). The Dale Hollow Fish Hatchery usually stocks 3,000 to 3,500 rainbow trout every sixty days, with an extra stocking in the spring. Trout are usually stocked the second or third week of January, March, April, May, July, September, and November. In late May 2004, approximately 3,500 trout were released.

APC recently performed a radio telemetry tracking study on trout to better understand fish distribution in the tailrace and lower tailwater areas. Preliminary results indicate that the

5-35

trout fishery may extend over 30 miles downstream of Smith Dam (APC, 2003c). In addition, APC conducted an electrofishing study in 1999-2000 to characterize the tailrace fishery below Smith Dam (APC, 2000b).

In addition to the trout fishery, large hybrid or striped bass are occasionally caught in the downstream waters. A state record hybrid weighing over 25 lbs was landed in 1996 (ADCNR, 2000), and large specimens have been collected during electrofishing. Other species found in the tailrace include freshwater drum, sunfish, largemouth bass, and spotted bass (Moss and McHugh, 1988; APC, 2000a). There are no fish consumption advisories currently in effect for Smith Lake (ADPH, 2005).

5.2.4.1.2 Bankhead Development

Reservoir

The southern and central parts of Bankhead Lake are characterized by steep, rocky shorelines. In the northern portion, the lake gradually becomes more riverine, with numerous weed beds and log jams that provide excellent habitat for many species of fish. Bankhead Lake and its tributaries are inhabited by a diverse community of warmwater fish species, including many sport and commercial species. A total of 113 fish species are believed to be present in the lake and its drainage (ADCNR, 1988; Appendix E). Dominant recreational fish species include largemouth bass, spotted bass, white crappie, hybrid striped bass, bluegill, and rainbow trout. Fish stocking has been limited to hybrid striped bass and the Florida subspecies of largemouth bass. As previously discussed, rainbow trout are stocked upstream of Bankhead Lake in the Smith tailrace. Representative information on stocking efforts is shown in Table F-3 (Appendix F).

There are currently no fish consumption advisories for Bankhead Lake (ADPH, 2004).

5-36

Tailrace

The Bankhead tailrace fishery (headwater of Holt Lake) is typical of other southeastern tailrace fisheries. Typical recreational species are largemouth bass, spotted bass, hybrid striped bass, and catfish.

5.2.4.1.3 Migratory Fish Species

There are several species of fish that migrate within and between bodies of water (oceans, rivers, and lakes) as part of their reproductive process. These species are typically referred to as anadromous, catadromous, and diadromous (riverine) species. The life cycle of these fish species typically involves an upstream or downstream migration to a “spawning area” where fish concentrate to spawn. The presence of dams, habitat degradation, NPDES releases, mining activities, and other human activities have interfered with this reproductive migration. The impact of this interference on each type of migratory species has a varied impact on the success of their reproduction.

Anadromous Fish

Anadromous fish are species that upon maturity migrate from the ocean into freshwater environments to spawn. The Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) are anadromous fish species that are currently known to use Alabama rivers. Historically, these species migrated from Gulf Coast waters to inland rivers in Alabama to spawn (Mettee et. al., 1996). However, use of the river by these species has been impeded and/or effectively blocked since the 1960’s by the construction of several USACE lock and dam projects along the river system downstream of Bankhead (Coffeeville and Demopolis on the Lower Tombigbee River, and Selden, Oliver, and Holt on the Black Warrior River).

There are no records indicating any recent occurrence of Alabama shad in the vicinity of Smith or Bankhead reservoirs. Also, based on available literature, the extent to which these species may or may not have historically inhabited the Basin is unclear.

5-37

Landlocked populations of striped bass are present in the Smith and Bankhead reservoirs due to stocking efforts by the ADCNR. The ADCNR has stocked the Gulf Coast (native) strain of striped bass in Smith reservoir since 1983. Although the ADCNR has never stocked striped bass in Bankhead reservoir, those fish stocked in the Smith reservoir are periodically passed downstream to Bankhead through the Project.

Catadromous Fish

Catadromous fish are species that live most of their lives in freshwater environments and, upon reaching sexual maturity, migrate to the ocean to spawn. The juvenile offspring of catadromous fish migrate through the ocean to the mouths of rivers and move upstream to various habitats to live until adulthood. The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is the only catadromous species native to the Black Warrior River system (Mettee et al., 1996). As with anadromous fish species discussed above, upstream movements of American eel into the Warrior River System are impeded by several USACE lock and dam projects along the river system downstream of Bankhead (Coffeeville and Demopolis on the Lower Tombigbee River, and Selden, Oliver, Holt, and Bankhead on the Warrior River).

There are no records indicating any recent occurrence of American eel in the vicinity of Smith or Bankhead reservoirs, or in the upper Black Warrior River Basin.

5.2.4.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

In many cases, the analysis in this APEA is based on cooperative efforts by the stakeholders in the Coosa Project relicensing process. Through the issue-based teams, APC and stakeholders addressed ecological issues identified during the scoping process and throughout the relicensing process. As such, descriptions of these teams and their work are a necessary prelude to the discussion of environmental effects.

5-38

E8 – Lake Level Fluctuations

The Lake Level Fluctuations IAG (E8 IAG) was formed in October 2001 to explore the effects of project-related lake level fluctuations on aquatic resources. The IAG met six times in 2001 and 2002. The IAG initially created a work plan (10/24/01) to guide its efforts. Major components of this work plan included the following:

• Review current project operations and operational constraints; • Identify areas within the project study area that will benefit environmentally from changes to current lake level fluctuations; • Identify goals and objectives for improving areas affected by project operations; • Work with the APC Project Operations Group to identify “reasonable” changes and alternatives for modifying project operations; • Identify studies necessary for evaluating changes to project operations; • Assess and/or predict the operational and biological effects of potential changes in lake level fluctuations; and • Make recommendations regarding a range of reasonable alternatives to current project lake level fluctuations.

E9 – Habitat Fragmentation & Fish Passage

Initial discussions regarding habitat fragmentation began at a meeting on November 14, 2002. At this meeting, the USACE, USFWS, and Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) representatives all presented information supporting the conclusion that fish passage at USACE dams on the Alabama River was of greater and more immediate importance than passage on the Warrior River or Coosa River. After this meeting, the Fish Passage Working Group (FPWG) was formed to explore how APC might assist in the effort to provide passage on USACE dams on the Alabama River in lieu of USFWS pursuing passage options on the APC developments. The FPWG initially met on June 18, 2003 to discuss the benefits of passage on the Alabama River. At an April 15, 2004 meeting, the USFWS suggested APC draft a concept document that might govern an agreement for assistance. APC and USFWS have worked together during relicensing to prepare this concept document. In their letter providing comments on the draft

5-39

APEA (March 10, 2005), the USFWS indicated they would request a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways for the Warrior Project. In subsequent discussions (May 11, 2005), the USFWS indicated a desire for APC to participate in future discussions with the USACE on potential opportunities to improve fish passage on the Alabama River in accordance with the APC, ADCNR and USFWS Relicensing Term Sheet.

E10 – Downstream Flows

The E10 Issue Action Group (IAG) was formed at the September 28, 2001 joint Ecological Resource Advisory Team and WCRT meeting. The IAG’s primary goal was to address “Project Releases and Downstream Flows” at the Coosa and Warrior developments. The membership of the E10 IAG varied widely from agency experts to NGOs to local homeowners. At the October 23, 2001 meeting, the IAG agreed upon a work plan to address issues related to project flows during operations and the need for minimum flows within specific areas of the developments (Volume 4).

The IAG identified several areas that should be investigated and addressed. These included: Weiss Bypass, Weiss Tailrace downstream to Gadsden (Neely Henry reservoir), Neely Henry tailrace downstream to Broken Arrow Creek (Logan Martin reservoir), Logan Martin tailrace downstream to Childersburg (Lay reservoir), and Smith tailrace to Mulberry Fork. The IAG also discussed a variety of methods and models that could be used for analyzing instream flow. During the November 13 conference call, the IAG noted that priority areas of study on the Warrior River should be the Smith tailrace. The IAG asked APC to consolidate information available for the Smith tailrace area so that the group could better understand the specific issues of concern. Based on the information, a “strawman” method for analyzing tailrace areas was discussed at the January 29 and March 13, 2002 meetings.

At the August 29, 2002 Weiss Bypass Working Group meeting, the group discussed priority issues for the Smith tailrace and developed a recommendation that the E10 IAG also form a sub-group to address the Smith Tailrace. At the September17, 2002 meeting, the IAG followed this recommendation and formed a sub-group of aquatic experts from the IAG to work on and prepare a Smith Tailrace flow recommendation. Based on this recommendation, the

5-40

Smith Tailrace Working Group (STWG) was formed and met initially on October 7, 2002 at the Smith Powerhouse. The STWG discussed the current condition of the Smith Tailrace and discussed potential ways to improve the existing cold water fishery and habitat. The STWG identified enhancement of the existing stocked trout fishery, recreation improvements, DO improvements, and a minimum flow enhancement at the February 19 and June 18, 2003 meetings. The Group noted that dredging activities by the Birmingham Water Works (BWW) in the past had converted the stream habitat from the BWW pumping station downstream to deeper pool habitat. The area upstream of the BWW pumping station was still “stream like” in nature and would be the focus of minimum flow enhancements.

Upon review of the internal dam structures, APC identified a penstock drain valve that could be opened during non-generation periods to deliver a minimum flow to the tailrace. On August 22, 2003, the STWG met at Smith Dam to observe the resulting minimum flow from the drain valve. The minimum flow approximated 100 cfs and was deemed fairly satisfactory for improving habitat by the Group. The issue of angler access was also identified and was resolved separately by the Smith Recreation IAG. At the September 17, 2003 meeting the STWG continued to discuss the specifics of a “recreation – fishing flow”. This discussion included timing, duration, and flow amount (cfs). APC performed additional review of operation of the drain valve and determined that a replacement automated valve would have to be added to the penstocks. This replacement valve would only deliver approximately 25 cfs. Therefore, at the November 17, 2003 meeting, APC proposed to operate two automated valves to deliver 50 cfs flow during non-generation periods (during the weekends and overnight) when the tailrace elevation dropped to 256.2 ft msl.

The STWG identified the components of a “Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal” that would be the basis for their recommendation for inclusion in the license application. The final version of the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal was distributed to the STWG on May 18, 2005 (Appendix B) and is included in this APEA as part of APC Enhancement Proposal.

5-41

E11 – Impingement and Entrainment

The Impingement and Entrainment IAG (E11 IAG) was formed in January 2002 to explore the potential effects of impingement and turbine entrainment and mortality on fishes in the project area. The IAG met six times between 2002 and 2003. The IAG initially created a work plan (1/30/02) to guide its efforts. Specific components of the work plan included the following:

• Determine a method to estimate impingement, entrainment, and turbine mortality impacts for the Project developments; • Prepare a Study Plan to assess potential impingement, entrainment, and turbine mortality impacts; and • Determine the overall impact of impingement, entrainment, and turbine mortality.

The IAG agreed to use a desktop study to determine order-of-magnitude estimates of turbine entrainment and mortality and the potential for impingement impacts. Kleinschmidt prepared and the IAG approved a “desktop” study plan. The IAG met several times between 2002 and 2003 to review progress on the desktop study and review and approve certain details of the analysis methodology. Ultimately, the IAG approved a final version of the Impingement, Entrainment and Turbine Mortality Study (December 2003). The IAG agreed that the desktop study provided acceptable order-of-magnitude estimates of entrainment and turbine mortality, and provided a sufficient analysis of the potential for impingement. The IAG recommended that the final study report be used to prepare the APEA (Volume 4).

5.2.4.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

Operations

APC has proposed to continue to operate the Smith and Bankhead developments as currently operated under the existing license. Since the proposed operations are the same as the baseline condition, there would be no new effects on aquatic resources. As discussed in section 5.2.1, streambank erosion along the Sipsey Fork below Smith Dam is exacerbated by project

5-42

operations. APC has proposed to repair two of these sites, which would enhance aquatic habitat in the Sipsey Fork by reducing turbidity and siltation.

USFS - Bankhead National Forest

Through extensive research, data and information collection, site inspections and discussions, APC and the USFS have determined the appropriate scope and amount of measures that are necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of the Bankhead National Forest as related to the Smith development. The current land management practices of the BNF and operation of the Smith development influence the watershed and subsequently the terrestrial and aquatic resources of Smith Lake. The USFS and APC entered into a settlement agreement (SA) (Appendix A and Volume 9). Under the SA, APC would assist the USFS in implementing certain measures by providing funding and services during the term of the new license. The SA provides a framework for APC to assist USFS in evaluating terrestrial and aquatic resources and the influence of BNF land management practices and Smith development operations on those resources. The information will be used by the USFS and APC to improve current land management practices for the BNF and operations at Smith.

While the SA allows for some flexibility in the expenditure of funds and services, the USFS and APC identified numerous potential items that would enhance aquatic resources on BNF lands. These would include:

• Water quality data collection and reporting; • Sensitive species surveys; and • Aquatic habitat restoration.

Downstream Flows

Members of the WCRT formed the Smith Tailrace Working Group (STWG) to address aquatic resource issues in the tailrace. These issues included the trout fishery, habitat enhancements, minimum flows during non-generation periods, and snail/mussel restoration. STWG members, including APC, ADCNR, USFWS, and Trout Unlimited prepared the “Smith

5-43

Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (STEP)”, which identified several measures that would enhance aquatic resources in the tailrace (Volume 4). Snail and mussel restoration are discussed in Section 5.2.6.

As discussed in the STEP, coldwater releases from Smith support a trout fishery in the tailrace. Due to the peaking mode of operation at Smith, the tailrace is subject to large fluctuations in water levels (up to 10 ft) and flow (up to 10,000 cfs) during generation. During non-generation, the tailrace receives runoff and leakage from the dam, which was measured at approximately 30 cfs. APC proposes to supplement this flow during periods of non-generation with approximately 50 cfs. This flow would be provided through valves that would be installed on the two penstock drains in the powerhouse. Each valve would provide an estimated 25 cfs continuous flow. The minimum flow would be provided when the tailrace water surface elevations drops to 256.2 ft msl. This flow would enhance water quality in the tailrace during non-generation, stabilize a base level of aquatic habitat, and improve the experience for anglers (especially fly anglers) targeting trout in the tailrace. This flow would result in minor increases in water depth (up to 0.5 ft), velocity (0.5 ft/sec), and wetted perimeter (1 ft).

The STEP also includes aquatic habitat enhancements in the tailrace. These enhancements include provisions for APC, in consultation and coordination with ADCNR, to install, monitor, and maintain artificial instream habitat in the tailrace. These may include log bundles, rock gabions, fish attraction devices (FADs), and large boulders. These structures would serve as velocity refuge areas for trout during periods of generation. The placement of the instream habitat would take into account developed recreational fishing areas and access (Section 5.2.8).

APC will also assist ADCNR with trout stocking in the Smith tailrace and APC and ADCNR will meet once every ten years to review the trout stocking program. Since trout stocking is primarily a recreation enhancement, it is discussed in Section 5.2.8.

5-44

Fish Passage

The USFWS recommended that, because there is no evidence that warrants the installation of fish passage facilities at Smith, it will reserve its authority to require APC to construct, operate, and maintain such fishway as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior in the future.

Water Quality

As described in Section 5.2.2, generation at the Smith and Bankhead developments results in the release of hypolimnetic water from the reservoirs into the tailraces. Between summer and late fall, this water is periodically low in DO. As a result, generation releases can fall below the state standard for DO of 4 mg/L. APC operates a turbine aeration system at Bankhead to maintain the DO levels of 4 mg/L. Generation releases from Smith fall below 4.0 mg/L for a significant percentage of total generation time.

Research has shown that the duration of exposure to low DO levels is an important factor in determining its effects (USFWS, 1999). Short-term exposure to low DO levels likely has little or no impact, while prolonged exposure can result in reduced growth and reproductive success, and even mortality. At Smith and Bankhead, these low DO excursions typically represent a small percentage of time compared to total generation.

According to 401 Water Quality Certification issued by ADEM for the Warrior River Project (Appendix D and Volume 4), APC would make necessary modifications to the Smith development to ensure generation releases meet the state standard. According to ADEM, the 4 mg/L standard is adequate to maintain designated uses including “…the propagation of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life…” (ADEM, 1999b). As such, ensuring that generation releases meet the 4 mg/L DO standard would protect and enhance the aquatic resources of the tailraces. According to the 401 Certificate, APC would also monitor water quality at each development to ensure the effectiveness of modifications to increase DO in the releases. APC’s proposal to provide a minimum flow release at Smith would enhance water quality and aquatic resources in the tailrace during periods of non-generation (Section 5.2.2.2.1 – Water Quality).

5-45

Entrainment

Warrior project operations result in the entrainment and turbine mortality of some fish from the reservoir as they pass through the Project turbines during generation. The WCRT formed the E11 – Entrainment and Impingement IAG (E11 IAG) to investigate impingement, entrainment, and turbine mortality. Based on IAG recommendations, Kleinschmidt estimated the annual number of fish potentially entrained and potentially lost due to turbine mortality using data from studies performed at other hydro projects and on generation data for Smith (Volume 4).

Kleinschmidt concluded that there is little or no potential for fish impingement at the Smith development due to relatively wide trashrack spacing (i.e., 5.37 inches) and low intake velocities (i.e., 3.94 ft/second). Kleinschmidt estimated a total of 274,922 fish are potentially entrained and an estimated 41,060 are potentially lost due to turbine mortality annually at the Smith development (Table 5.2.4-1). Approximately 43% of the estimated number of fish lost due to turbine mortality are shad, with sunfish and catfish each constituting 14% of the mortality estimate.

Kleinschmidt concluded that there is little or no potential for fish impingement at the Bankhead development due to relatively wide trashrack spacing (i.e., 5.37 inches) and low intake velocities (i.e., 3.68 ft/second). Kleinschmidt estimated a total of 678,660 fish are potentially entrained and an estimated 102,948 are potentially lost due to turbine mortality annually at Bankhead (Table 5.2.4-1). Approximately 47% of the estimated number of fish lost due to turbine mortality are shad and herring, with catfish and sunfish constituting 13% and 12% of the mortality estimate, respectively.

5-46

Table 5.2.4-1: Estimated Annual Total Number of Potentially Entrained Fish Warrior River Project Developments (Kleinschmidt, 2003a)

DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATED ENTRAINMENT Smith 274,922 Bankhead 678,660 Warrior River Project Total 953,582

Fish entrainment and turbine mortality due to Warrior River Project operations do not appear to have a significant impact to the fisheries. ADCNR management reports indicate that the reservoir fisheries are in good condition in terms of densities, size distribution, stock structure, fish condition, and growth rate (Ekema et al., 2004; Moss et al., 2000).

Habitat Enhancements

APC has proposed to provide funding to the ADCNR for creation and annual operation of an aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program. This program will concentrate on improvement of aquatic habitats in the Warrior Project Developments, primarily on the Smith Development and its tributaries. These habitat improvements may offset habitat fragmentation and project operation impacts.

5.2.4.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

ARA/AR/WWF has proposed that APC maintain a minimum DO level of 4 mg/L during generation, and a level of 5 mg/L in the tailrace during non-generation. As a condition of its 401 WQ Certification, APC is already required to meet a minimum DO level of 4 mg/L during generation at Smith and Bankhead. Minimum flow releases from Smith Dam during non- generation are also required to maintain the tailrace at 4 mg/l or higher.. The Bankhead tailrace (also Holt Lake) is also required by the 401 Water Quality Certificate to be maintained at 4 mg/l during generation. It would require additional measures within the tailrace to maintain a level of 5.0 mg/L during non-generation.

5-47

The primary potential advantage that would be associated with a 5 mg/L level during non-generation is reduced chronic impacts and/or increased growth over that observed at 4 mg/L. The exact incremental benefit to fish growth provided by an additional 1 mg/L in the minimum DO level (to 5 mg/L) during limited periods where that level is not already met is not well defined and may only be determined through in situ field studies. This proposal is discussed in greater detail Section 5.2.2.2.

ARA/AR/WWF have proposed that APC implement “ramping” to enhance fish populations. Ramping is sometimes used at peaking hydroelectric facilities to reduce the impact of large swings in flow in the tailrace. The Smith tailrace experiences fluctuations in flow of up to 10,000 cfs with associated increases in water depth up to 10 ft. Ramping at the Smith development would provide only limited benefits to the fish community. Due to past dredging of the tailwater (Sipsey Fork), generation flows typically subside gradually, taking 12-13 hours, on average, to recede to normal elevations. Additionally, the proposed minimum flow release from Smith Dam that would be initiated during non-generation would alleviate some impacts of water level fluctuations. The primary benefit to the fishery would be a reduction in streambank erosion associated with rapid water level fluctuations. As discussed in Section 5.2.1.2, APC has proposed to repair two eroding areas in the tailwater, and monitor others. Once problem sites are repaired, and if land uses adjacent to the river do not initiate new erosion areas, the incremental benefit of erosion reduction associated with ramping would be relatively small.

As part of the concurrent relicensing process taking place in the Coosa River Basin, the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative also proposes that APC establish a Coosa Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Fund (CAHEF) to mitigate for Project impacts to passage of fish and other aquatic species within the project area. This alternative proposes that the remainder of funds not used for enhancements in the Coosa Basin be utilized for enhancements in the Warrior River Basin. Predicting effects to aquatic resources in the Warrior Basin from the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative is difficult. Since it is not known how much, if any, of the CAHEF would be available to the Warrior River Basin, projections of potential effects—either beneficial or adverse—would be strictly hypothetical.

5-48

5.2.4.2.3 No Action Alternative

Operations

Under the no action alternative APC would continue to operate the developments as specified in the existing license. The Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan would not be implemented, and enhancements to aquatic resources associated with reduced turbidity and siltation would not be realized.

Bankhead National Forest

The SA between APC and USFS specifies that even if FERC were to select the No Action Alternative, the two parties would still honor the agreement. As such, enhancements to aquatic resources associated with that agreement would still be implemented under the no-action alternative.

Downstream Flows

Under the no action alternative, APC would not make necessary project modifications and release a minimum flow from Smith Dam during periods of non-generation. Enhancements to the trout fishery and aquatic resources, including DO, associated with the minimum flow would not be realized.

Fish Passage

Because the USFWS has chosen to reserve its authority to require a fish passage at Smith Dam, the no action alternative and proposed action are the same.

Water Quality

Under the No Action Alternative, modifications that ensure generation releases meet state water quality standards would not be implemented since no action would continue under the

5-49

existing license and no 401 Water Quality Certification would be required. At certain times, some of the Smith development may not meet the state DO standard of 4 mg/L and the aquatic resources would be periodically impacted.

Entrainment

Under the No Action Alternative, entrainment and mortality of reservoir fishes due to turbine operation would continue.

Habitat Enhancements

Under the No Action Alternative, funding for the aquatic habitat enhancement program would not be implemented and aquatic habitat improvements associated with project operations and habitat fragmentation would not be undertaken. Other habitat enhancements as described and recommendations under the ARA/AR/WWF alternative would also not occur.

5.2.4.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Continued operation of the Warrior River Project will have some continuing impacts on the aquatic resources of the Warrior. Periodic entrainment and mortality of fish will continue to occur but should not significantly impact the structure of the reservoir fisheries. Flow alterations will continue to influence the dominance and distribution of aquatic species within the reservoirs.

5.2.5 Terrestrial Resources

5.2.5.1 Affected Environment

5.2.5.1.1 Smith Development

The Smith Development lies within the Cumberland Plateau section of the Appalachian Highlands. The natural vegetative communities of this region are oak-hickory-pine forests and mixed mesophytic forests, segregates of the Eastern Deciduous Forest Biome (Martin and Boyce,

5-50

1993; APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). Mixed mesophytic forests are found primarily in the many canyons that flank the entrenched streams of the region, while most oak-hickory-pine forests are restricted to plateau surfaces. At one time or another, most original forests have been cleared for pasture, agricultural fields, lumber, mining, and other purposes. Relatively inaccessible sites have pockets of second-growth that serve as evidence of original vegetation. Present day vegetation consists of a patchwork of communities ranging from early successional communities, such as meadows, to forests with closed canopies (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

Mixed mesophytic forests in the area have a canopy dominated by tulip-poplar, hemlock, bigleaf magnolia, oaks, and hickories, among other species (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). On drier sites, these forests give way to similar taxa but canopy dominance is mostly by oak and hickory species. Though oaks are variable, sites commonly have white, black, scarlet, rock chestnut, southern red, and to a lesser extent, post oaks. Pignut and mockernut, are prevalent, though usually less abundant than oak species. Pines are less abundant in forests than are hardwoods, though one commonly encounters loblolly, shortleaf, and scrub pine (i.e., Virginia Pine) (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000; Martin and Boyce, 1993). Most of the pine communities are maintained for their commercial value, particularly in and around the BNF. The extreme disturbance due to mining has resulted in an abundance of scrub pine communities. Diversity in pine plantations is low as with most other cultivated communities. On these sites, important canopy taxa frequently observed include tulip-poplar, red maple, beech, and persimmon. Interestingly, hemlock and beech are commonly encountered in these canyons. Hemlocks are very prevalent in ravines and canyons around Smith Lake (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000), though they are relatively rare in northeastern Alabama in counties nearer the species’ primary range.

Subcanopy composition is variable, but sourwood, black gum, flowering dogwood, and black cherry are commonly important species. Shrub strata frequently have low-bush blueberry, deerberry, blackberry, sweet shrub, sparkleberry, high-bush blueberry, and strawberry-bush. Canyon slopes often have a thick understory of mountain laurel. Herb species are numerous, particularly in the canyons and ravines, but they seldom form a distinct stratum on drier sites. Lianas commonly include cross-vine, cow-itch vine, poison-ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, and Virginia creeper (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

5-51

Non-forested communities are diverse. Reclaimed strip mines often have black cherry, scrub pine, silk-tree, red mulberry, and Russian-olive as dominants. Weedy taxa are pervasive. Pasture communities are comprised mostly of non-native forage grasses such as Bahia grass, fescue, dallis grass, Bermuda grass, and a host of others. Fencerows, rights-of-way, and roadsides are vegetated by mostly herbaceous plants, though some of the woody taxa with aspect dominance include species such as sassafras, smooth sumac, winged sumac, dewberry, chicksaw plum, and privet (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

Appendix G provides tables of typical plant species found in the project area (Latin and common names).

Wetlands

Wetlands are transitional land areas between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the land surface or the land is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al., 1979). Due to the topography and geology described previously, the basin contains relatively few wetlands compared with downstream areas of the Mobile Basin and other Coastal Plain areas of Alabama (Sharitz and Mitsch, 1993). The majority of wetlands that do exist are primarily limited to wetted reservoir shorelines and mouths of tributaries (Volume 4).

There are 1,316 acres of wetlands within the Smith development boundary, which can be broadly classified into lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine wetland types. Wetlands are mostly 1 to 5 acres in size, usually occupying a fringe near the confluence of small streams (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). The dominant wetland type within the project boundary is lacustrine littoral wetlands along the reservoir shoreline, accounting for 67% (876 acres) of the total wetland acreage. Palustrine forested and emergent wetlands account for approximately 20% (273 acres) and 10% (131 acres) of the total wetland area, respectively.

Lacustrine littoral wetlands are reservoir shoreline wetlands that are characterized by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as consisting of unconsolidated substrata that support little to no vegetative cover (less than 30%; Cowardin et al., 1979). However, these areas are only seasonally flooded and may be exposed during periods of low lake levels. During the spring and

5-52

growing season, these flats are vegetated by annual herbs that include toothcup, redstem, and creeping rush (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

Palustrine forested wetlands includes those areas commonly referred to as bottomland hardwoods and are characterized by woody vegetation 20 ft (6 m) tall or taller (Cowardin et al., 1979). Dependent upon local conditions, the forests may be stratified into canopy, subcanopy, shrub, and herb layers. Canopy species common in the Warrior Basin include swamp chestnut oak, red maple, Drummond’s red maple, box-elder, silver maple, overcup oak, willow oak, water oak, green ash, honey-locust, sycamore, and river birch. Hornbeam, red buckeye, and hop- hornbeam are prime components of the subcanopy in communities with a short hydroperiod (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). Presence of herbaceous species and vines is highly variable according to hydroperiod and may include Japanese honeysuckle, virgin’s-bower, buckwheat- vine, pepper-vines, and cow-itch vine (Kricher and Morrison, 1988; APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

Emergent palustrine wetlands are characterized by erect rooted herbaceous hydrophytes that have most of their vegetative parts above water (Cowardin et al., 1979). Species composition of palustrine emergent wetlands varies depending on hydroperiod. Sites with a longer hydroperiod commonly support jewel-weed, climbing hemp vine, Spanish-needles, lizard’s-tail, soft-stem rush, leather rush, marsh seedbox, marsh mallows, cat-tails, wool-grass, flatsedges, spikerush, panic grass, beaksedge, water-willow, cut grass, switch grass, and manna grass. Cardinal flower, goldenrod, boneset, and St. John’s wort are common on sites with a shorter hydroperiod (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

The remaining 3% (36 acres) of project wetlands consist of 19 acres of palustrine and riverine unconsolidated bottom and open water habitats, which would not be expected to contain significant vegetative cover, and 17 acres of palustrine scrub/shrub habitat (APC et al., 2003). Palustrine scrub/shrub communities have woody plants that are generally short in stature, usually less than 20 ft (6 m). The canopy is open, though tree species may be present. Commonly encountered species are alder, swamp dogwoods, box-elder, willows, red maple, and button- bush. Lianas may include pepper-vines, Virginia creeper, and buckwheat-vine (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

5-53

Wildlife

The Mixed Mesophytic Forests and Oak-Hickory-Pine Forests of the Cumberland Plateau region of northwest Alabama provide an abundance of suitable wildlife habitat. Wildlife assemblages found in the basin often vary considerably depending on the vegetative community present. Appendix H provides tables of typical mammal, amphibian, reptiles, and bird species found in the region (Latin and common names).

Forested areas surrounding Smith Lake provide habitat for a variety of woodland species such as gray fox, white-tailed deer, Virginia opossum, woodchuck, turkey, fox squirrel, and gray squirrel. An associated variety of songbirds, reptile, and amphibian species also make use of forested sites in the vicinity.

5.2.5.1.2 Bankhead Development

Vegetation

The Bankhead Development lies within the Cumberland Plateau section of the Appalachian Highlands. The natural vegetative communities of this region are oak-hickory-pine forests and mixed mesophytic forests, segregates of the Eastern Deciduous Forest Biome (Martin and Boyce, 1993; APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000). Mixed mesophytic forests are found primarily in the many canyons that flank the entrenched streams of the region, while most oak-hickory- pine forests are restricted to plateau surfaces. At one time or another, most original forests have been cleared for pasture, agricultural fields, lumber, mining, and other purposes. Relatively inaccessible sites have pockets of second-growth that serve as evidence of original vegetation. Present day vegetation consists of a patchwork of communities ranging from early successional communities, such as meadows, to forests with closed canopies (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000).

5-54

chestnut, southern red, and to a lesser extent, post oaks. Pignut and mockernut are prevalent, though usually are less abundant than oak species. Pines are less abundant in forests than are hardwoods, though one commonly encounters loblolly, shortleaf, and scrub pine (APC and Kleinschmidt, 2000; Martin and Boyce, 1993). The extreme disturbance due to mining has resulted in an abundance of scrub pine communities. Diversity in pine plantations is low as with most other cultivated communities. Other important canopy taxa on these sites include tulip- poplar, red maple, beech, and persimmon.

Appendix G provides tables of typical plant species found in the project area (Latin and common names).

Wildlife

5-55

present. Appendix H provides tables of typical mammal, amphibian, reptile, and bird species found in the region (Latin and common names).

Forested areas surrounding Bankhead Lake provide habitat for a variety of woodland species such as gray fox, white-tailed deer, Virginia opossum, woodchuck, turkey, fox squirrel, and gray squirrel. A concomitant variety of songbirds, reptile, and amphibian species also make use of forested sites in the vicinity.

There is one Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and a Public Hunting Area in the vicinity of the Bankhead Lock and Dam. The Mulberry Fork WMA is a 35,360-acre tract of land to the northwest of the Bankhead Lock and Dam, and the West Jefferson Public Hunting Area, a 42,678 acre tract of land, is located southeast of the Project area. Neither of these areas directly adjoins the lake. The Mulberry Fork WMA and the West Jefferson Public Hunting Area are owned by U.S. Steel Corporation and are managed and operated by the ADCNR. Each of these areas provides valuable habitat for a variety of wildlife.

5.2.5.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

In many cases, the analysis in this APEA is based on cooperative efforts by the stakeholders in the Warrior Project relicensing process. Through the issue-based groups, APC and stakeholders addressed ecological issues identified during the scoping process and throughout the relicensing process. As such, descriptions of these groups and their work are a necessary prelude to the discussion of environmental effects.

The Wetlands IAG (E12 IAG) was formed in 2001 to assist the CCRT and WCRT in addressing potential effects of project operations on wetlands within the project boundaries of the Warrior Basin development. Specifically, the E12 IAG was tasked with gathering information describing the existing wetlands environment in both the Coosa and Warrior basins. The E12 IAG Work Plan, which was approved at the IAG’s first meeting on August 16, 2001 (see meeting notes), identified the following tasks as necessary to deliver the required work product and to fulfill the scope of work of the IAG:

5-56

• Identify major sources of wetland information available (e.g. EPA, ACT study, etc.). • Consolidate existing wetland information and identify data gaps. • Characterize the existing basin-wide wetland environment. • Characterize the existing wetland environment at the projects. • Identify wetland areas that may be impacted by project operations. • Long-term task - Identify potential alternatives for protection, mitigation, and/or enhancement measures that can be implemented for wetland areas.

In accordance with the E12 Work Plan, APC reviewed and collected wetlands data from numerous sources identified by the IAG, including the USACE (ACT/ACF studies), the USEPA, and the USFWS’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and organized it into an electronic Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The E12 IAG met on several occasions during development of the database in 2001 (October 23) and 2002 (February 14 and March 13) to review the consolidated wetlands information, identify data gaps, and refine the content and “user friendliness” of the database (see meeting notes). The final database was reviewed and approved by the E12 IAG at the March 13, 2002 meeting (see meeting notes). On March 21, 2002, the completed database was distributed to E12 IAG members and other interested parties along with GIS viewing software and an NWI wetland code classification key to further explain project wetlands. The final E12 Wetlands Database presents the type and extent of wetlands that are found within the FERC regulated project boundaries of APC’s Warrior and Coosa basin hydroelectric projects. In addition to the database itself, APC also developed and distributed to stakeholders a Wetlands Database Summary Report (Volume 4), which summarizes the contents of the database and how it was developed. The E12 IAG subsequently recommended that the final wetlands database be used in preparation of the APEA.

In addition to the database, APC developed a wetland public education outline, which was forwarded to the Public Education Group (R8) Following development of the public education outline and wetlands database, the E12 issued the following recommendations to the WCRT and CCRT:

5-57

1) The E12 IAG recommends that APC provide protection for wetlands located within the project boundaries of the Warrior and Coosa hydroelectric projects. Specifically, APC should:

• Incorporate the wetlands database into APC’s GIS database as a tool for administering the Shoreline Management Plan. • Continue to cooperate with the USACE wetland permitting process for developments that impact jurisdictional wetlands. • As part of the Shoreline Management Plan, APC will investigate guidelines to protect riparian zones located within the project boundary.

2) The E12 IAG recommends that the R8 IAG identify existing material or programs that can be used to provide public education on wetlands and determine if additional education materials/programs should be developed. This effort should include:

• Providing the E12 IAG Public Education Outline to the R8 IAG to provide direction. • 1 to 2 members of the E12 IAG working with the R8 IAG.

The proposed Wildlife Management Plan was developed by APC, cooperatively with the ADCNR and USFWS, to address the E13 Wildlife Management Issue. APC met initially with the ADCNR on September 8, 2003, to identify wildlife management goals for the Warrior Project lands. The draft Wildlife Management Plan was subsequently developed and submitted to the ADCNR for their review. A number of meetings were held between the ADCNR and APC to refine the draft plan (July 30 and November 4, 2004; May 24, 2005). APC, ADCNR, and USFWS are currently working out the final details of the Draft Wildlife Management Plan. The consensus-based executed copy of the Final Plan will be filed with the FERC upon it's completion.

5-58

5.2.5.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

Operations

No specific impacts to terrestrial resources related to Project operations were identified during the scoping phase of the relicensing process. Therefore, continued operations of the Smith and Bankhead developments in the current mode are not expected to result in adverse impacts to terrestrial resources, including wetlands, wildlife, and upland vegetative communities.

Terrestrial Enhancements

APC proposes to implement an SMP for the approximately 500 miles of shoreline within the Smith Development Project Boundary. The proposed SMP includes implementation of a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based shoreline classification system to guide future management actions to protect natural resources. This system classifies reservoir shorelines into one of five land use categories according to their current and future designated uses. Implementation of this system would enhance the shoreline permitting program and significantly enhance protection for terrestrial resources in shoreline areas. For example, under the proposed SMP, any shoreline permit application to conduct construction or other activities within, or partially within, an area that has been designated as Sensitive Resource Lands (Class 4) would require an environmental review by APC’s Environmental Affairs department prior to issuance of the permit. Certain other lands have been designated as Natural Undeveloped Lands (Class 4). These lands are typically owned in fee by APC and would remain in an undeveloped state under the proposed SMP.

The proposed SMP, if implemented, will also provide for establishment of a minimum 15-foot-wide linear shoreline buffer zone of unmanaged vegetation along reservoir shorelines. Establishment of a vegetated buffer would be required on all project lands owned in fee by APC and would be recommended (through public education efforts) on privately-owned project lands adjacent to the reservoirs. Implementation of this buffer zone by private shoreline landowners and by APC would promote native vegetative communities, protect shoreline wetlands, and enhance wildlife habitat within the Warrior Basin development boundaries. In addition,

5-59

establishment of unmanaged buffer zones around the reservoirs would help protect riparian zones and their ability to function as filters for water quality.

APC also proposes to enhance protection for wetlands in the Warrior River Basin by incorporating the E12 Wetlands Database into their existing GIS system as a tool for administering the proposed SMP (APC, 2004a). This database, developed by the E12 Wetlands IAG (E12 IAG) during the relicensing process, compiles all available data for wetlands in the Warrior River Basin into a single GIS-based electronic database (APC et al., 2003). In the proposed SMP, certain areas mapped as wetlands in the database have been designated as Sensitive Resource Lands. Under the proposal, any shoreline permit application to conduct construction or other activities within, or partially within, an area that has been designated as “Sensitive” would require an environmental review by APC’s Environmental Affairs department prior to issuance of the permit.

The USACE has deferred some limited authority to APC to issue Dredge and Fill Permits (Clean Water Act, Section 404) for certain types of activities (i.e., dock building, small boat ramp projects, etc.) that have the potential to impact jurisdictional wetlands within the project boundary. APC administers its deferred authority under Section 404 as part of its Shoreline Use Permitting Program. APC proposes to continue to administer the shoreline permitting program in cooperation with the USACE to ensure protection of jurisdictional wetlands within the project boundary.

Finally, APC proposes to provide public education on the value of wetlands. This will be further defined through a comprehensive public education plan to be completed upon relicensing of the Warrior developments.

Wildlife Enhancements

APC proposes to implement a Wildlife Management Plan (Appendix I) to enhance and protect the wetland and upland wildlife habitats surrounding the Smith development. Along with the SMP, the Wildlife Management Plan proposes unmanaged buffer strips around the reservoir that would enhance available food and cover for wildlife species, provide corridors that enhance

5-60

linkages between larger habitat patches, and protect nearshore environments. Nearshore environments provide important breeding and nursery areas for numerous fish and amphibian species and are utilized for feeding and cover by species such as river otter, beaver, and various wading birds and waterfowl. At a microhabitat level, accumulated leaf litter, pine needle duff, and course woody debris (Fallen logs, etc.) in these vegetated buffers will provide much needed refugia for reptiles and amphibians. APC has also proposed to provide funding for various general wildlife management activities and enhancements through the Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program (WHERP) (Appendix I).

5.2.5.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

As part of the concurrent relicensing process taking place in the Coosa River Basin, the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative proposes that APC establish a Coosa Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Fund (CAHEF) to mitigate for Project impacts to passage of fish and other aquatic species and to purchasing terrestrial buffers along the reservoir and tributaries within the project area. This alternative proposes that the remainder of funds not used for enhancements in the Coosa Basin be utilized for enhancements in the Warrior River Basin. Projecting effects to terrestrial resources in the Warrior Basin from the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative is difficult. Since it is not known how much, if any, of the CAHEF would be available to the Warrior River Basin, projections of potential effects would be strictly hypothetical.

5.2.5.2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, neither the enhancements proposed in the APC Alternative nor those proposed in the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative would be implemented, and project terrestrial resources would remain in their current state.

5.2.5.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Neither the APC Proposal nor the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative are expected to directly result in unavoidable adverse effects to terrestrial resources. However, increasing demand for

5-61

residential waterfront development has some potential to result in indirect unavoidable adverse effects due to removal of trees and vegetation and erosion during construction.

5.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species

5.2.6.1 Affected Environment

The WCRT formed the E6 – Threatened and Endangered Species IAG (E6 IAG) to address the issue of threatened and endangered species. The E6 IAG compiled all available information on threatened and endangered species in the Basin into a database. The database also includes information on other kinds of sensitive species. A report summarizing the database is available in Volume 4.

In August 2003, FERC designated APC as its non-Federal representative for the purpose of initiating consultation with the USFWS, under Section 7 of the ESA for any federally listed species. In January 2004, APC began informal consultation with USFWS on federally listed species for the Warrior River Project. In April 2004, USFWS provided a list of species and proposed Critical Habitats within or near the Project area. In consultation with the USFWS, it was determined that 15 species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered or are candidates for federal listing under ESA are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the project boundary or in the vicinity of APC’s Warrior Basin developments (Table 5.2.6-1). Detailed information regarding conservation status, life histories, and occurrence of these species within the basin is provided in the attached Biological Assessment (Volume 4).

5-62

Table 5.2.6-1: Federally Listed Species in or near the Warrior River Project Area (USFWS, 2004, as modified by Kleinschmidt) FEDERAL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COUNTIES STATUS1 Birds bald eagle Haliaeetus Cullman, Jefferson, T leucocephalus Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, Walker, Winston red-cockaded Picoides borealis Cullman, Jefferson, E woodpecker Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, Walker, Winston Plants Kral's waterplantain Sagittaria secundifolia Winston T Alabama streak-sorus Thelypteris pilosa var Winston T fern alabamensis Amphibians Black Warrior Necturus alabamensis Cullman, Jefferson, C waterdog Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, Walker, Winston Reptiles flattened musk turtle Sternotherus depressus Cullman, Tuscaloosa, T Walker, Winston Fish Cahaba Shiner Notropis cahabae Jefferson E Mussels Orange-nacre mucket Lampsilis perovalis Lawrence, Winston T, CH Fine-lined pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Lawrence, Walker, T Winston Alabama Medionidus Lawrence, Winston T,CH moccasinshell acutissimus Coosa moccasinshell Medionidus parvulus Winston E, CH Dark pigtoe Pleurobema furvum Lawrence, Winston E, CH Ovate clubshell Pleurobema Lawrence, Walker, E, CH perovatum Winston Triangular Ptychobranchus Lawrence, Walker, E, CH kidneyshell greenii Winston 1 – E (listed as Endangered); T (listed as Threatened); C (Candidate for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered) CH – Critical Habitat

5-63

5.2.6.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

The geographic scope of analysis for this resource is limited to the Smith drainage and tailwater area to the Gorgas Steam Plant. Threatened and endangered resources are cumulatively affected by many activities in the basin; see Section 5.3.

The Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species IAG (E6 IAG) was formed in 2001 to address issues related to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. At the first meeting in August 7, 2001, the IAG approved the draft E6 IAG Work Plan. The Work Plan identified as the immediate task of developing a database of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species, which could be used during the Coosa – Warrior Cooperative Relicensing Process. The Work Plan identified the following tasks as necessary to deliver the required work product (the database) and to fulfill the scope of work of the IAG:

• Produce a list of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species for the Coosa and Warrior Basins; subdivide by county and subdivide into project area of effect. • Provide the status of each species – Federal status, State status, and Global rank. • Determine if there are existing restoration plans for the identified species. • Identify if other sources of information are needed. • Provide information and recommendation to the Coosa Ecological Resource Advisory Team and Warrior Cooperative Relicensing Team.

In accordance with the Work Plan, APC compiled species data from sources identified by the IAG into a relational database - the E6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Database (RTE Database). The RTE Database consolidated data from a number of sources including the USFWS, ADCNR, NatureServe, and the Georgia and Alabama Natural Heritage Programs for a 37 county region that encompass the Black Warrior and Coosa basins and a portion of the Alabama River Basin upstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam. The database includes the state and federal status for each species, as well as its occurrence by county, a habitat description, and location data (GIS coordinates) for known populations, if available. A draft of the RTE Database was presented to the IAG on October 24, 2001. Following revisions, the IAG approved

5-64

the final RTE Database on January 15, 2002 and developed the following recommendations, which were presented to and accepted by the WCRT and CCRT on January 29, 2002:

• Make the TE&S Species database available to other IAG within the relicensing process. • Reconvene the E6 IAG should TE&S Species need further analysis as to the effects of project alternatives and recommendations.

The final E6 RTE Database was distributed to stakeholders on a Compact Disk (CD). This CD included an interface summarizing which species have USFWS Recovery Plans, as well as full text versions of these plans.

5.2.6.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

APC proposes to increase the dissolved oxygen (DO) level in the turbine releases at Smith and Bankhead to 4 mg/L and to provide a supplemental flow of 50 cfs below Smith during non-generation. Although distribution of threatened and endangered species in each development tailrace is limited or non-existent, these enhancements would benefit any aquatic species presently located in the tailrace area of each development.

APC’s proposal to provide funding for an Aquatic Research and Culture Center to propagate species of concern in the state will allow for the timely reintroduction of endemic species and species of concern to the Warrior Basin. The facility would also provide valuable information on the life cycle of mussel species that are part of the restoration effort. Also, funding of the ADCNR Habitat Enhancement Program would also benefit species of concern and restoration efforts in the Warrior Basin. This program would also help offset the effects of habitat fragmentation associated with the developments.

With the exception of red-cockaded woodpecker, Indiana bat, and bald eagle, all of the species identified by the USFWS during the Section 7 process as potentially occurring within the Warrior Project Area are aquatic species. Implementation of the SMP will likely enhance habitat for all of these species by reducing erosion and siltation and protecting nearshore habitats.

5-65

A more detailed analyses of the potential impact of APC’s proposed action on threatened and endangered species and their associated critical habitats are presented in the attached Draft Biological Assessment (Volume 4).

BNF Enhancements

APC created a database of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that showed several species are located on the West Sipsey Branch arm of the Smith Reservoir. Because much of the Sipsey watershed is influenced by the BNF, the USFS is concerned about the condition of these T&E species populations and the BNF influence on those populations. APC proposes to provide funding and APC technical resources during the new license to gather additional information that may be needed to protect, enhance, and restore T&E species. The information will be used by the USFS to enhance their current land management practices for the BNF. The study information will also be shared with the USFWS to help develop or refine restoration/recovery plans for the species.

During relicensing, APC and the USFS performed cooperative field studies to provide basic information on the flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) populations in Smith Lake (Volume 9A). Because the flattened musk turtle is a threatened species, APC proposes to provide additional funding to the USFS to continue studies of this species. The information gained through these studies will be used by the USFS to enhance their current land management practices for the BNF. The study information will also be shared with the USFWS to help develop or refine restoration/recovery plans for the species.

5.2.6.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

5-66

resources in the Warrior Basin from the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative is difficult. Since it is not known how much, if any, of the CAHEF would be available to the Warrior River Basin, projections of potential effects would be strictly hypothetical.

ARA/AR/WWF have also proposed to increase DO in the tailrace of the project to 4 mg/L during generation and 5 mg/L during non-generation. As described in the Water Quality section (5.2.2.2), APC’s current proposal should produce the same aquatic benefits as the ARA/AR/WWF alternative.

5.2.6.2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Smith and Bankhead developments would continue to operate as they have in the past and habitat for threatened and endangered species within the Project area would remain in its current state.

5.2.6.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Neither the APC Enhancement Proposal nor the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative are expected to directly result in unavoidable adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. However, continued human activity (access, recreation activity, land development), particularly at the Smith development, could potentially result in increased impacts to environmental resources during the new license term.

5.2.7 Cultural Resources

5.2.7.1 Affected Environment

5.2.7.1.1 Smith Development

Archaeological evidence suggests that Paleoindian groups reached Alabama at least 11,000 years ago. North Alabama, in particular, contains numerous sites dating to this stage. These ancient sites are difficult to identify because of their age and the mobility of the small

5-67

family units, which left little cultural material behind. There is little documentation regarding Paleoindian sites in the Black Warrior drainage. In fact, Futato (1989) notes that no sites dating to the Paleoindian time period have been systematically investigated. A few fluted points have been identified to the west in the central Tombigbee River valley (Ensor, 1982, 1985), and some Late Paleoindian Dalton sites have been reported along both the Tombigbee and Black Warrior drainages. However, evidence is apparent in the Tennessee River Valley cultural area. A chronology and explanation of the historic periods of civilization that have occupied Alabama is included in Appendix J.

From a chronological perspective, the Smith Lake area lies within a cultural divide between the Tennessee Valley to the north and the lower Black Warrior River valley to the south, and can be characterized as a hinterland throughout its human occupation (Futato, 1992). A cultural chronology was written by Eugene M. Futato (1992) for the BNF, which is adjacent to Smith Lake to the west and northwest, and provides an excellent reference for this area. However, little in-depth research has been conducted for the remainder of the Smith Lake region. Due to the location of Smith Lake on the outskirts of the major culture areas to the north and south, much of this chronology draws from research conducted in the Tennessee Valley and Black Warrior-Tombigbee drainage basins.

There is little documentation regarding Paleoindian sites in the Smith Lake area. A few unverified site forms are noted along Smith Lake in Cullman County (Futato, 1992). Some Late Paleoindian sites have also been reported. Utilization of the Smith Lake area apparently was very limited and sporadic, and probably was mainly confined to the Late Paleoindian period.

The Smith Lake area was likely sparsely populated during the Early Archaic (Futato, 1992). There appears to be a marked increase in the number of Middle Archaic sites in the area as compared to the earlier occupations. In the BNF, Futato (1992) notes that there is a two and one-half times increase in the number of sites, which reflects the regionalization of Middle Archaic cultures.

There are two distinct Woodland cultural sequences surrounding the Smith Lake area. The Woodland sequence for the Tennessee Valley consists of Colbert, Copena, and

5-68

McKelvey/Flint River. Although Smith Lake is located in the upper reaches of the Black Warrior drainage, it seems to have a stronger affinity with the Tennessee Valley during the Middle Woodland period. The Late Woodland period is more strongly associated with the lower Black Warrior drainage.

No Woodland components have been found in the Smith Lake area (Futato, 1992). Therefore, the Woodland stage in this region includes just the Middle Woodland (A.D. 100 to 700) and Late Woodland (A.D. 700 to 1000) periods.

The Late Woodland period for the Smith Lake area dates ca. A.D. 700 to 1000. These sites are more likely related to the Miller III of the Tombigbee River valley, rather than the McKelvey culture of the Tennessee Valley.

Miller III is an extensive occupation in the middle Tombigbee valley and a number of large ties, many with extensive shell middens in association, have been excavated in association with the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Futato, 1983). These large shell middens are associated with large, intensive occupations, though it is debatable if they served as seasonal basecamps or permanent villages. Small campsites in the uplands still occur as well. Burial mounds have not been identified for the Miller III, nor are burials within the village sites very common. Subsistence patterns during this time period now include corn (Caddell, 1981). Deer forms a lesser part of their subsistence, while turtles, small mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish have an increasing importance (Woodrick, 1981).

The latest Woodland occupation in the Smith Lake area would have been the West Jefferson phase, dating A.D. 900 to 1050. West Jefferson sites are distributed throughout the Black Warrior drainage in western Alabama (Jenkins, 1978). The distinguishing characteristic between the earlier Miller III components and West Jefferson components is the presence of Mississippian vessel forms and handle forms, in addition to a minority of shell tempered ceramics. The West Jefferson phase is often considered a cultural transition between Woodland and Mississippian traditions.

5-69

The Mississippian occupation of the Smith Lake area is very ephemeral, as Futato (1992) points out for the BNF area. The upland environment of this region offered little to attract these agricultural people and most likely would have served as hunting areas. Nevertheless, there is at least one rockshelter site in the BNF that was used during the Mississippian times, probably serving as either a hunting shelter and/or ceremonial locale.

History of the Project Area

The potential for hydroelectric development of the Sipsey Fork was formally considered by the United States Government in 1932 (APC, 1965). During 1952 to 1953, a comprehensive report was prepared by the USACE entitled “Interim Report on Headwater Reservoirs, Warrior River, Alabama” (APC, 1965). The report established a general plan for the development of the headwater region primarily for flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power, and pollution abatement (APC, 1965). On July 27, 1954, APC filed an application to investigate the possibility of developing this site and on August 3, 1956, filed a request with the Federal Power Commission (FPC) (predecessor to the FERC) for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project (APC, 1965). In 1957, the FPC authorized APC to construct the dam and powerhouse at the Sipsey Fork Tributary on the Warrior River. The Smith Dam was constructed between November 1957 and September 1961. Since 1961, APC has made various upgrades and modifications involving plant facilities, safety, and maintenance.

Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, APC prepared the Bankhead & Smith Project Lands – Recorded Archaeological Sites (APC, 2000a) report in order to determine the effects of the Project on any archaeological or historical properties that may be located within the FERC Project boundaries. In 1998, APC contracted with the University of Alabama’s Office of Archaeological Research (formerly known as the Office of Archaeological Services) (OAR) to perform the inventory. The inventory included the examination of the National Archaeological Database Bibliography (NADB) and the Alabama State Site File (ASSF) (APC, 2000a).

It was determined that there were 44 archaeological sites known to exist and 24 cultural resources surveys that are known to have been conducted on the Smith Project lands. These

5-70

archaeological sites are either partially or entirely within the Project area and show evidence from the above prehistoric time periods.

As a result of the FERC relicensing consultation process, in January and February 2004, APC contracted with MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) to conduct a Phase I cultural resources survey of 101 shoreline segments within the Smith Project in the determination of the potential for properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to occur within the Smith Project Area of Potential Effect.

Two archaeological sites and one segment containing Isolated Finds were identified as the result of this Phase I survey. MACTEC in its report stated that both archaeological sites possessed sufficient integrity to be considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

In July 2004, APC contracted with the University of Alabama’s OAR to perform an additional inventory survey of the ASSF to determine if any archaeological sites had been recorded since 1999 that may be located within the FERC Smith Project boundaries. In addition, APC requested the University of Alabama’s OAR determine if any surveys had been conducted within these boundaries. As a result of this survey, it was determined that one additional archaeological site had been recorded in the ASSF and that no surveys had been conducted since 1999.

5.2.7.1.2 Bankhead Development

It is likely that this upland environment was more of a hinterland throughout its prehistory, while the lower part of the Black Warrior River served more as a cultural center for the region. A cultural chronology was written by Vernon J. Knight (1982) for the Oliver Lock and Dam Project, which is further downstream, and provides an excellent reference for the region. A more recent reference for the Black Warrior River drainage is also provided by Blaine Ensor (1993). However, the Paleoindian and Archaic periods are not well understood in this region, so the Tennessee Valley serves as a primary point of reference for these cultures.

5-71

Jenkins (1981) identified four Miller III subphases in the upper Tombigbee drainage, including Vienna (A.D. 600 to 900), Catfish Bend (A.D. 900 to 1000), Gainesville (A.D. 1000 to 1100), and Cofferdam (A.D. 1000 to 1200). Each subphase is defined by the varying percentages of ceramic types and varieties.

The Black Warrior River valley was distinguished by the Moundville culture, which was centered in the lower part of the drainage at the renowned Moundville site at the present day Tuscaloosa-Hale county line. The Moundville variant dominated the Black Warrior valley between the Fall Line at Tuscaloosa and the swamps near Demopolis (Futato, 1989), although its culture influenced a much wider region. Several phases are defined for Moundville. Ceramic type-variety frequencies and vessel forms distinguish the different phases.

History of the Project Area

The first European settlers came to the Tuscaloosa area from the Carolinas in 1816. The city and county of Tuscaloosa were created in 1819 and became the state capital in 1826. The capital was later moved to Montgomery in 1847. Tuscaloosa County and the Warrior River are named after a Choctaw Creek Indian Chief who was killed in the battle with Spanish explorers (Chamber of Commerce of West Alabama, 1999). Tuscaloosa City adopted the name of the nearby 1809 Creek settlement that was destroyed in the Creek War of 1813.

The USACE constructed the John Hollis Bankhead Dam and Lock in 1915 to provide navigation, hydropower generation, and flood control. This development was the last to be constructed on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. The USACE remains the owner and operator of the Bankhead Lock and Dam. APC constructed the powerhouse at the Bankhead Dam between February 1961 and July 1963. USACE’s dam and APC’s powerhouse have been modernized, by the respective entities, and a new lock was constructed by USACE.

Archaeological Sites

In regards to the Bankhead Project lands, the University of Alabama’s OAR determined that no archaeological sites are known to exist. In addition, APC understands that the USACE

5-72

conducted a cultural resources survey of the Bankhead Project lands that yielded no sites being recorded. Finally, there are no federally recognized Native American tribal lands within or adjacent to the Project area.

Sites Listed on National Register

No Project features, structures, or components in Bankhead development area have been identified as historic properties included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

5.2.7.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

5.2.7.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

The geographic scope of analysis for this resource is limited to the area of potential effect, which is defined as lands enclosed by the Project boundary, which extends to elevation 522 ft msl, and lands or properties that may be outside the Project boundary where the authorized Project uses may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any historic properties exist. There are no cumulative impacts associated with this resource.

APC is proposing to implement a PA and a HPMP to enhance and protect cultural resources surrounding the Warrior Project developments. During the development of this plan and at FERC’s direction, APC consulted with the respective SHPO of Alabama , the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council), and the appropriate federally recognized Native American tribes ( Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Chickasaw Nation, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Kialegee Tribal Town of the Muscogee, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the Coushatta Indian Tribe) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are no federally recognized Native American tribes or historic properties listed in the NRHP within or adjacent to the developments.

5-73

APC is planning to conduct additional Phase I surveys of selected shoreline segments in the assessment of determining the potential for properties included in or eligible for the NRHP to occur with the Smith development Area of Potential Effect. The number and location of these segments including the respective schedule to examine them will be presented in the HPMP for the Smith Project.

In conclusion, it has been determined that there are 47 archaeological sites known to exist and 24 cultural resources surveys that are known to have been conducted on APC’s Smith development lands. The implementation of the HPMP will protect these resources; as such, the proposed action has no foreseeable adverse impacts to cultural resources in the area.

It has been determined that there are 0 archaeological sites known to exist and 1 cultural resources survey that is known to have been conducted on APC’s Bankhead development lands. The implementation of the HPMP will protect these resources; as such, the proposed action has no foreseeable adverse impacts to cultural resources in the area.

5.2.7.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

ARA/AR/WWF did not submit any specific PM&E measures relative to cultural resources.

5.2.7.2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, no additional protection or enhancement would occur to cultural resources at the developments. Archaeological sites would continue to be protected under the existing agreement. An HPMP would not be implemented. Additionally, minor erosion around Smith could potentially threaten archaeological sites along these reservoir shoreline. Furthermore, those sites located along the shoreline would not receive the additional protection of being classified as “Sensitive Resource Lands” under the SMP.

5-74

5.2.7.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Even with the proposed measures to protect archaeological resources, some properties may still be exposed to looting and erosion. The HPMP addresses these issues but does not assure that adverse impacts to properties will not occur.

5.2.8 Recreation Resources

5.2.8.1 Affected Environment

Northern and Central Alabama offer a variety of activities for outdoor enthusiasts including hiking, fishing, swimming, hunting, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, canoeing, and camping. The region is home to several state parks including Oak Mountain State Park, DeSoto State Park, Rickwood Caverns State Park, and Cheaha State Park (located in Talladega National Forest). The parks offer a variety of amenities including picnicking, camping, swimming, backpacking, horseback riding, golf, tennis, hiking, and fishing. There are two National Forests located in the Northern and Central regions of the state. The BNF, located in Northern Alabama, includes the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Talladega National Forest, located in Central Eastern Alabama, includes a scenic drive and numerous hiking trails. There are also nature preserves and wildlife management areas including: Ruffner Mountain Nature Preserve, Coosa WMA, St. Clair Community WMA, Choccolocco WMA, Bankhead WMA, and Mulberry Fork WMA.

Unusual natural features abound across the region including: canyons, waterfalls, and bluffs located in Little River Canyon National Preserve; underground caverns in Rickwood Caverns State Park; sandstone and quartz formations at Cherokee Rock Village; and rare trilobite fossils located along US Highway 280 in the Red Mountain Expressway Cut. In addition to the opportunities mentioned above, many tours are offered to explore the history of the region. Tour themes include Civil War History, Natural History, and Historic Birthplaces and Homes.

5-75

Existing Recreation Studies

The amount of existing use at each development was determined using a variety of sources including the Potential Impacts of Water Diversion on Recreational Use and Economic Values Associated with Six Alabama Reservoir Systems (Fishery Information Management Systems, unpublished data), and the FERC Form 80 data. Growth coefficients developed using Projections of Outdoor Recreation Participation to 2050 (Bowker et al. 1999) (Table 5.2.8-1) were applied to current use data from the FIMS study to produce recreation activity projections to the year 2015 for the project area. The growth coefficients used included a variety of factors that influence recreation use, including but not limited to population growth (Bowker et al. 1997). The projections were generated for individual activities. Local, county, state, and federal recreation plans and guidelines for the study area were also reviewed to provide information regarding recreation trends and needs.

Table 5.2.8-1: Growth Coefficients for Recreation Projection - Southern Region, 2000 through 2015 (Source: E/PRO, 2002) a

ACTIVITY FIMS PROJECT 2000 2005 b 2010 2015 b RECREATION ACTIVITIES Boat Fishing, Fishing Bank Fishing 1.02 1.06 1.11 1.15 Motorboating Boating 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01 Nonpool Swimming Water Recreation 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.05 Picnicking/Remote Camping c Land Recreation 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.12 a Source: Bowker, J. M., D. B. K. English, and H. K. Cordell. 1999. Projections of outdoor recreation: Projections to 2050. Pages 323-350 in H. K. Cordell, and 8 coeditors. Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL. b Interpolated c Growth coefficients are averaged to reflect the dominant land-based recreational activities at the Smith Reservoir.

5-76

5.2.8.1.1 Smith Development

Recreation Sites

A survey of existing recreation facilities was conducted in 2000 and was updated in 2001. Smith Lake has 34 formal recreation facilities that provide boating, fishing, swimming, and/or camping opportunities. Twenty-four of the facilities are commercially operated, three (3) are federally operated, two (2) are county operated, one (1) is state operated, one (1) is APC operated, one (1) is operated by a private entity, one (1) is operated by a local club, and one (1) is operated by both the state and APC.

There are 30 boat launching facilities on the lake that provide a variety of services including fuel, docking, and launching. Other opportunities on Smith Lake are provided by informal bank fishing areas and hand carry launches. Volume 5 – Recreation Plan lists the recreation sites on the lake and the support facilities available at each site.

Recreational Use

Recreational data presented in the FIMS report were in terms of both recreation hours and trips. Recreation use within the Smith Project was calculated to be 243,428 recreation trips in 2000 (E/PRO, 2002). Of the activities observed, boating was the most popular with 457,308 recreation hours. Land recreation (392,639 hours) and water recreation (369,542 hours) were also popular activities. Fishing activities also occur in the Project tailrace with 10,700 trips made in 1995. Use of the impoundment is projected to grow to 260,523 recreation trips and use in the tailrace will grow to 11,813 recreation trips by 2010 (Table 5.2.8-2).

5-77

Table 5.2.8-2: Estimated and Projected Usage by Activity Type (Source: E/PRO, 2002, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

1995 a 2000 b 2005 b 2010 b 2015 b Smith Reservoir Total Trips 244,406 243,428 250,577 260,523 274,090 Recreation Hours Boating 461,928 457,308 459,612 461,928 466,524 Water Recreation 384,940 369,542 380,915 392,639 404,022 Land Recreation 384,940 392,639 403,880 415,735 429,836 Boat Fishing 261,759 266,994 284,095 315,345 362,428 Bank Fishing 46,193 47,117 50,134 55,649 63,958 Avg. Growth Coefficient 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.12 Total Recreation Hours 1,539,759 1,533,600 1,578,637 1,641,296 1,726,768 Smith Tailwater Total Trips 10,700 10,914 11,354 11,813 12,228 Recreation Hours Bank Fishing 53,244 54,309 56,655 59,101 61,194 Land Recreation 13,480 13,749 14,143 14,558 15,052 Boat Fishing 674 687 717 748 775 Avg. Growth Coefficient 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.14 Total Recreation Hours 67,398 68,746 71,515 74,407 77,020 a 1995 estimates for total trips and total recreation hours were calculated from Fishery Information Systems, Inc. Unpublished. Potential Impacts of Water Diversion on Recreational Use and Economic Values Associated with Six Alabama Reservoir Systems, Vol. 4: The Smith Reservoir System. 1995 estimates for individual activities were calculated from Table 9.2.1 in Fishery Information Systems, Inc. Unpublished. Potential Impacts of Water Diversion on Recreational Use and Economic Values Associated with Six Alabama Reservoir Systems, Vol. 9: Study Overview. b Projections were developed using the growth coefficients presented in Table 5.2.8-4.

Based on information obtained from the 2003 FERC Form 80 for the Project, recreation facilities on Smith Lake are typically below facility capacity. Percent facility capacity is the average percent of the parking spaces that are full on weekend days. Boat ramps are the most heavily used facilities at 80% capacity. The tailwater fishing facility is typically at 40% capacity. However, capacity at some boating facilities is occasionally exceeded during special events such as fishing tournaments.

5-78

5.2.8.1.2 Bankhead Development

There are no formal facilities associated with the Bankhead development. All public facilities that exist on Bankhead Lake are operated and maintained by the USACE. Therefore, there will be no analysis of environmental effects on the Bankhead development.

5.2.8.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

The geographic scope of analysis for this resource is limited to the Project boundary and three federally owned recreation facilities adjacent to the Project boundary. Recreation resources are cumulatively affected by many activities in the basin; see Section 5.3.

5.2.8.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

The APC Enhancement Proposal proposes a comprehensive package of improvements to numerous recreation sites located around Smith Lake (Table 5.2.8-3). These improvements are a culmination of the five-year Warrior ALP and a specific, as well as extensive, consultation process with numerous multi-interest stakeholders. The proposed improvements (Table 5.2.8-4 and 5.2.8-5) address several recreation issues raised throughout the relicensing process including recreation demand, existing capacity concerns, local population projections, site security, and improvement implementation feasibility. Specifically, these improvements are designed to increase recreation access and enhance the overall recreation experience at the reservoir.

APC’s proposed recreation improvements were developed primarily by the Warrior Recreation IAG. This IAG was composed of state agency representatives, local homeowner and boat owner groups, and other recreation interests. Formed by the larger relicensing team, the IAGs purpose was to address technical and reservoir-specific issues. Based on input provided by this IAG and other stakeholders over the course of 17 relicensing meetings, APC developed initial recreation concept designs that outlined the proposed recreation improvements. The recreation IAG reviewed the initial recreation concept designs and were given several opportunities to review subsequent updates and revisions, resulting in this final, consensus based proposal.

5-79

Based on the efforts described above, APC developed a recreation plan (Volume 5) that includes detailed descriptions of the enhancements proposed for facilities and access at the Project. APC proposes to implement these enhancement measures according to a master schedule outlined in the recreation plan for Smith Lake.

These proposed improvements would collectively increase recreation access, specifically bank fishing and boating access, increase the useful life and efficiency of existing recreation sites, reduce user conflicts at access points, and help meet future recreation demand on the reservoir. By improving existing recreation sites, potential environmental effects of increased recreation access (i.e., trampling vegetation, overuse, erosion, etc.) are minimized. The implementation of these improvements would likely result in minor short-term impacts resulting from initial construction including minor amounts of erosion and siltation; these effects can be mitigated by the implementation of construction BMPs, and their long term effect should be negligible.

Table 5.2.8-3: Summary of Recreation Facilities Scheduled for Improvement During the New License Term

COMPONENTS SITE SITE PROJECT MAINTENANCE WITHIN FERC OWNERSHIP NUMBER NAME PRIORITY RESPONSIBILITIES PROJECT BOUNDARY APC construction; APC Boat 10-Ph 1 APC and WFF heavy 40 APC, leased to WFF Entire site. Launch 64–Ph2 maintenance; APC trash removal

Cullman County; 11-Ph 1 heavy maintenance by Smith Lake Cullman County, leased Boat ramp up to 48 22-Ph 2 WFF at the boat launch Park Launch to WFF elevation 522 33-Ph 3 ramp and courtesy dock

Private property and County APC fee lands and flood Launch Winston County day- Boat ramp up to 3 12 easement. Proposed across from to-day maintenance elevation 522. County will lease the Vickery’s property

5-80

COMPONENTS SITE SITE PROJECT MAINTENANCE WITHIN FERC OWNERSHIP NUMBER NAME PRIORITY RESPONSIBILITIES PROJECT BOUNDARY Private property, Mims Alabama Wildlife supported by Alabama Family Federation and Launch site to 89 39 Wildlife Federation and Public Champion Paper elevation 522 Champion Paper Access Site Company Company

Bank Fishing Area Currently no 96B 51 APC and private entities Most of site. Downstream maintenance of Pump Station

Bank Fishing Most of site. Up Area Currently no to elevation 405. 96A 75 APC and private entities Upstream of maintenance Private property Pump above. Station

Cullman County owns Project includes Smith Lake and is responsible for 49 72 Cullman County the shoreline to Park all O&M for the elevation 522 facility

Project includes County shoreline bank Road 63 Priority Currently no fishing area to 76 Houston beyond USFS maintenance elevation 522. Bridge Bank 2014 Remaining area Fishing is ALDOT ROW

Brushy Shoreline Priority Creek Currently no includes boat 16 beyond USFS Unimproved maintenance launch to 2014 Launch elevation 522.

Brushy Creek Project includes Bridge Priority ALDOT ROW and Currently no shoreline bank 97 (State beyond USFS maintenance fishing area to Highway 2014 elevation 522 278) Bank fishing Site

5-81

Table 5.2.8-4: Proposed Recreation Improvements

RECREATION SITE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Smith Lake Park Launch Three Phases. Realign the existing parking lot, create additional (Site 48) trailer rig parking, install a new fishing pier and single car parking, and construct a new trailer rig parking lot.

Smith Lake Park Improve road access to shoreline fishing area and install a fishing (Site 49) pier.

Mims Family Public Canoe access to the Sipsey River, make general road improvements, Access Site enhance the turnaround area, and repair some erosion problems. (Site 89)

County Launch across Realign the parking lot, create additional parking, and reposition the from Vickery’s boat ramp for all water level launch capabilities. (Site 3)

APC Boat Launch Install a new boat ramp and courtesy dock and expand the parking (Site 40) lot.

Brushy Creek Install concrete boat ramp to provide better low water access, make Unimproved Launch road improvements, and repair some erosion problems. Would (Site 16) require U S Forest Service approval.

County Road 63 Parking enhancements and bank fishing access improvements. Houston Bridge Bank Would require U S Forest Service approval. Fishing (Site 76)

Smith Tailwater Bank Access trail enhancement, fish holding structure installation, security Fishing Areas fencing and erosion control measures. (Sites 96A, 96B)

Brushy Creek Bridge Provide single car parking and bank fishing enhancements. Would (Site 97) require ALDOT and County approval.

All Improved Recreation Improve policing and litter removal through partnerships with local Sites governments.

5-82

Table 5.2.8-5: Proposed Forest Service Improvements

FOREST SERVICE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS RECREATION FACILITY Corinth Recreation Facility Boat ramp improvements, install boat docks, install a fishing (Site 9) pier, replacement of beach sand, drainage and maintenance issues at beach, barrier free low water enhancements, and new trail from beach to pavilion on hill. Support of ongoing recreation O&M.

Houston Recreation Facility Boat ramp improvements, install boat docks and sanitation (Site 11) facility at boat ramp parking lot. Support of ongoing recreation O&M.

Clear Creek Recreation Boat ramp improvements, install boat docks, install a fishing Facility pier, replacement of beach sand and construction of a beach sand (Site 20) retaining wall, barrier free low water enhancements and erosion repairs at the campground and picnic areas. Support of ongoing recreation O&M.

Smith Lake and Tailrace Facilities

The Smith Lake Park Launch (Site 48) is heavily used and is the primary boat launch facility for Smith Lake. The proposed improvements would likely alleviate overcrowding pressures by increasing the amount of parking available at the site. The realignment and designation of specific single car and boat trailer parking would also relieve congestion and improve traffic flow. The improved and additional parking, in addition to the installation of a new fishing pier, would provide additional boating and bank fishing access to the reservoir at this site.

The proposed improvements to Smith Lake Park (Site 49) would likely improve vehicle access to shoreline fishing and prohibit traffic from entering into shore drawdown zones. The installation of fishing piers would increase formal bank fishing opportunities at this site. These improvements would likely increase the overall recreation experience on the reservoir by improving seasonal recreation conditions at this site.

5-83

Mims Family Public Access Site (Site 89) is a well used carry-in boat launch facility. The proposed improvements to this site would enhance vehicle accessibility, allowing for additional and more efficient use, and would improve the general appearance and condition of the site. Cleaning up this site would likely increase the overall quality and security of this unique carry-in boat access point and reduce any adverse impacts to the soils and ground cover.

The boat ramp realignment and creation of additional parking at the County Launch across from Vickery’s (Site 3) would alleviate congestion during high-use periods, improve traffic flow, reduce user conflicts, and provide better boating access. The repositioning of the boat ramp would likely provide boating access to the reservoir at almost any water level, specifically during drawdown periods when boating access to the reservoir becomes limited.

The APC Boat Launch (Site 40) experiences high, moderate, and low use throughout the course of the year. The installation of an additional boat ramp at this site is initially intended for the removal of water logged Styrofoam from abandoned and rebuilt docks. The site is not currently over used; however, in the future the new ramp and courtesy dock would improve and increase boating access, as well as the efficiency of the existing boating facilities. These improvements would also increase low water boating access and alleviate parking congestion. Improved boating access would likely increase the value of fishing tournaments at the reservoir by enhancing the ability of participants to launch their boats. Additional fishing tournament participants would positively contribute to the local economy and improve the quality and prestige of the tournaments.

Improvements to bank fishing areas in the Smith tailwater (Sites 96A and 96B) would increase bank fishing access in the powerhouse tailrace. Increased bank fishing opportunities in the tailrace area would improve access to the valuable coldwater fishery that has developed in this area. This coldwater fishery is unique to the southeast and is in high demand by many anglers—both in and out of state. Satisfying this demand and formalizing these bank fishing sites would provide better opportunities to access this fishery in the powerhouse tailrace. Better access to this fishery would likely contribute to the growth of surrounding commercial interests and the local economy. The habitat enhancements outlined in the STEP, the DO enhancements, and the minimum flow proposal will potentially improve the fishery by providing anglers

5-84

specific structure to fish and providing some limited increase to size of trout and other fishes (Section 5.2.4.2).

Improvement plans for the Brushy Creek Unimproved Launch (Site 16), County Road 63 Houston Bridge Bank Fishing area (Site 76), and the Brushy Creek Bridge Bank Fishing area (Site 97) have also been prepared. Implementation of sites at the Brushy Creek Unimproved Launch (Site 16) and County Road 63 Houston Bridge Bank Fishing area (Site 76) will not take place until supported by the USFS. Winston County is not ready to partner on the Brushy Creek Bridge Bank Fishing area (Site 97). Implementation at these sites will be reevaluated in the future and addressed in updates to the Recreation Plan. Improvements at these sites would enhance bank fishing access, low water boating access, vehicle and parking access, as well as address some identified erosion issues. These improvements would also alleviate congestion, provide additional public safety, and improve overall recreation access.

USFS Facility and Access Enhancements

The APC Enhancement Proposal also includes a provision to implement a Settlement Agreement (SA) between the USFS and APC. APC proposes to provide the USFS with funding and in-kind resources to upgrade and improve existing USFS recreation facilities—Houston (Site 11), Corinth (Site 9), and Clear Creek (Site 20)—located on Smith Lake. Enhancements would include: improving the Houston Recreation Area boat launch facility; installing a boater courtesy dock; installing a Sweet Smelling Toilet (SST); and installing a barrier free fishing pier. The improvement of the boat launching facility, boater courtesy dock, and fishing pier will generally improve recreational access to the reservoir, especially during periods of low water, and increase satisfaction of recreationists’ experiences at this facility. The installation of the SST may help make a minor improvement to water quality in the reservoir by potentially reducing the dumping of waste into the reservoir by users of the facility.

APC proposes to provide funding for facility improvement and access at the USFS Corinth Recreation Area. Improvements include: the existing boat launch facility; installing a boater courtesy dock; installing a barrier free fishing pier; improving drainage at the existing beach; installing a barrier free beach access ramp for periods of low water; repairing the existing

5-85

rinse shower; installing a removable wooden bridge over the beach access road; and installing a walking trail from the beach area to the pavilion overlooking Smith Lake. These improvements would generally improve recreational access to the reservoir, especially during periods of low water, and increase satisfaction of recreationists’ experiences at this facility. In addition, the improvement of drainage at the existing beach facility will likely improve swimming opportunities at the USFS facility.

At the Clear Creek Recreation Area, APC proposes to provide funding to improve the existing boat launch; install a boater courtesy dock; install two barrier free fishing piers; repair a minor erosion site at the existing campground and day use area; improve the existing beach wall by raising the wall elevation and putting in fill behind the new wall; installing a barrier free beach access ramp for periods of low water; installing a SST; and upgrade the existing overnight facilities. These improvements would generally improve recreational access to the reservoir, especially during periods of low water, and increase satisfaction of recreationists at this facility. In addition, the repair of the minor erosion problem at the campground and day use area will help further stabilize the reservoir shoreline and help prevent further erosion. In some small way, the installation of the SST will help to improve water quality in the reservoir by potentially reducing the dumping of waste into the reservoir by users of the facility.

In addition to these one time capital costs, APC proposes to provide the USFS with operation and maintenance funds to assist with upkeep of the USFS facilities. These funds will provide long term recreation and some aesthetic benefits by helping the USFS keep the facilities and access areas free of trash and continue the improvement of swimming opportunities by maintaining the existing beaches.

5.2.8.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

Projecting effects to recreation resources in the Warrior Basin from the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative is difficult. Since it is not known how much, if any, of the CAHEF or CRREF would be available to the Warrior River Basin, projections of potential effects would be strictly hypothetical. However, it is known that the facility enhancements that are part of the USFS and APC SA would still take place. Implementing this alternative would likely eliminate the

5-86

stakeholder and APC consensus based recreation plans and have limited support from local governments (who would be responsible for any upkeep, law enforcement, etc. on site) for the ARA/AR/WWF alternative. If improvements were to take place at USFS facilities, and not at other public facilities, it is possible there would be some limited displacement from unimproved facilities to the USFS sites.

5.2.8.2.3 No Action Alternative

The No Action alternative would maintain recreation sites in their existing condition. Though this may be adequate in the short term, over the long term maintaining these resources in their current condition would most likely result in increased overcrowding pressures, user conflicts between boaters and non-boaters, parking and vehicle congestion and traffic, and a reduction in the overall recreation experience particularly with the fishing tournaments on the reservoir.

The environmental effects of implementing the No Action alternative would likely be minimal because there would be no recreation related construction activities to adversely affect the environment. However, there may be short term and long term environmental effects from not repairing identified erosion sites and users continuing to use and create new informal bank fishing access sites, trampling vegetation, and potentially creating erosion issues.

5.2.8.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

By improving existing recreation sites, potential environmental effects of increased recreation access (i.e., trampling vegetation, overuse, erosion, etc.) are minimized. The implementation of these improvements would likely result in minor short-term impacts resulting from initial construction including minor amounts of erosion and siltation; however, these improvements would not likely affect the environment in the long-term.

5-87

5.2.9 Socioeconomics

5.2.9.1 Affected Environment

The State of Alabama experienced a 10.1% increase in population from 1990 to 2000 and is currently ranked 23rd nationally in population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Alabama’s population is expected to increase to 4,648,291 in 2005; 4,884,761 in 2010; and 5,119,997 in 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).

The per capita income for Alabama was $11,486 in 1990 and $18,189 in 2000, which ranked 40th and 39th in the U.S., respectively. Alabama’s unemployment rate dropped from 6.9% in 1991 to 5.6% in 2004, which was approximately equal to the national average.

The region offers a wide variety of major businesses, industry, education, and health care, but also relies heavily on agriculture, mining, and forestry. Service and retail trade dominates the business establishments in the Smith Lake vicinity (Bayne et al., 1997). Other important businesses in the area include wholesale trade, construction, and manufacturing. The following summary of selected socioeconomic variables for each county in the Project area is from data contained in the Alabama County Data Book 2003 (ADECA, 2003), Alabama Agricultural Statistics (Alabama Statistical Office, 2004), and the U.S. Department of Census (2004).

Cullman County is served by 1,657 miles of highway (county, state, and interstate) and one public use airport. In 2002 the county had 2,301 farms and an unemployment rate of 5.9% (23rd lowest in state out of 67 counties). Major agricultural products include broilers, eggs, cattle, and dairy. In 2001, there were 1,677 private nonfarm establishments generating approximately $589,568 in retail sales. Major manufactured products include: refrigerator compressors; auto exterior moldings; motor vehicle parts and accessories; poultry processing; corrugated boxes; hubs, wheels and drums; tire retreading; and decorative trim. About 5% of the county’s population receives food stamps. Approximately 70% of the population, aged 25 years or older, are high school graduates. Opportunities for higher education within the county include G.C. Wallace Community College—Hanceville Campus. In 2001, there were 215 hospital beds in the county.

5-88

Tuscaloosa County is served by 1,703 miles of highway (county, state, and interstate) and one public use airport. In 2002 the county had 547 farms and an unemployment rate of 3.5% (2nd lowest in state). Major agricultural products include broilers and cattle. In 2001, there were 3,920 private nonfarm establishments generating approximately $1,557,316 in retail sales. Major manufactured products include: coal mining; sports utility vehicles; tires; aluminum and fiberglass insect screening, industrial fabric; publishing; specialty steel products; auto radiators, condensers; HVAC modules; poultry processing; DVDs, CD audios and CD ROMs; pipe and tank fabrication, modular assemblies; automotive axle systems; petroleum refining; polyurethane compact discs; polyurethane cassette tapes; and prepared meats. About 8% of the county’s population receives food stamps. Approximately 79% of the population, aged 25 years or older, are high school graduates. Opportunities for higher education within the county include the University of Alabama, Shelton State Community College, and Stillman College. In 2001, there were 814 hospital beds in the county.

Walker County is served by 1,308 miles of highway (county and state) and one public use airport. In 2002 the county had 543 farms and an unemployment rate of 7.1% (tied 34th lowest in state). Major agricultural products include broilers. In 2001, there were 1,392 private nonfarm establishments generating approximately $630,305 in retail sales. Major manufactured products include: mining bituminous coal, foundry coke; and poultry processing. About 7% of the county’s population receives food stamps. Approximately 67% of the population, aged 25 years or older, are high school graduates. Opportunities for higher education within the county include Bevil State Community College. In 2001, there were 267 hospital beds in the county.

Winston County is served by 905 miles of highway (county and state) and three public use airports. In 2002 the county had 650 farms and an unemployment rate of 10.2% (tied 51st lowest in state). Major agricultural products include broilers, eggs, and cattle. In 2001, there were 407 private nonfarm establishments generating approximately $104,191 in retail sales. Major manufactured products include: mobile homes; truck trailers; and aluminum and wrought iron furniture. About 9% of the county’s population receives food stamps. Approximately 63% of the population, aged 25 years or older, are high school graduates. There are no opportunities for higher education within the county. In 2001, there were 99 hospital beds in the county.

5-89

A summary of additional demographic variables for the counties in the Project area is provided in Appendix K—Socioeconomic Information on Counties in the Warrior River Basin.

5.2.9.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

5.2.9.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

The geographic scope of analysis for this resource is expanded to the counties surrounding the Project boundary. There are no cumulative impacts associated with this resource.

There are several proposals that may have the ability to affect socioeconomic resources in the Project area. The proposed recreational improvements would create jobs during the construction phases and generally add to the overall recreational use of the reservoir. There would likely be an increase in the number of jobs associated with the tourism industry as a result of increased use of recreation facilities surrounding the reservoir.

The proposed fishery enhancements in and around the reservoir will improve the recreational fishery, potentially attracting more anglers and their associated dollars. Also, the trout fishery and fishing opportunities in the tailrace of the Smith development will be improved by adding more access to the area and increasing the minimum flow from the dam, which could potentially draw more non-local recreationists to the area.

The proposed measures associated with the SMP have the potential to make the area more attractive to potential homeowners, thus increasing overall property values on the shoreline.

These enhancements also have the potential of causing adverse social impacts to the Smith development area. Since the area surrounding the reservoir is predominantly rural, an increase in the number of visitors to the area could put a strain on the social infrastructure (i.e., roads, public works, etc.).

5-90

5.2.9.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

Projecting effects to socioeconomic resources in the Warrior Basin from the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative is difficult. Since it is not known how much, if any, of the CAHEF or CRREF would be available to the Warrior River Basin, projections of potential effects would be strictly hypothetical.

5.2.9.2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the socioeconomic resources in and around the developments would not change from their current projections. No new jobs would be created as a result of continued operations. The developments would continue to provide benefits to the local economy and the associated economic impacts would continue.

5.2.9.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

As a result of increasing recreation access and facilities on and around the developments, additional development is likely to occur resulting in some short-term and potentially long-term infrastructure issues such as roads, schools, etc. that may become congested and over-crowded.

5.2.10 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources

5.2.10.1 Affected Environment

Regional Land Use

The developments lay within the Warrior River Basin (see Figure 1.0-1). The Basin extends from approximately the Tennessee Valley Divide in north Alabama to Demopolis, AL, where the Black Warrior River joins the Tombigbee River and has a drainage basin of approximately 6,300 square miles. Based on satellite imagery from the early 1990s, land use in the Warrior River Basin consists of approximately 73% forestland, 18% agricultural land, and 4% wetlands (USGS, 1992).

5-91

The Smith development extends through three counties in Alabama: Cullman, Winston, and Walker. The Bankhead development lies in Tuscaloosa County. Facts presented below are from the Alabama County Data Book 2003 (ADECA, 2003) and the U.S. Census Bureau (2004). Land use percentages (Table 5.2.10-1) are based on satellite images from the early 1990s and were calculated based on a resolution of 30 meters (about 100 feet). Therefore, only major land use categories are presented and may not match up with areas from other sources (i.e., the percentage of planted/cultivated land from the satellite data does not match the acreage of farmland from the Census of Agriculture). Acreage of harvested cropland (Table 5.2.10-2) is from the 2002 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2002).

Table 5.2.10-1: Percentages of Land Use Classifications in the Warrior River Basin by Counties in the Project Area (Source: USGS, 1992, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

Warrior CLASSIFICATION Cullman Tuscaloosa Walker Winston Basin Water 1 2.0 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.7 Developed 2 1.2 2.0 1.1 0.4 2.4 Barren 3 0.5 2.7 2.8 4.7 2.1 Forested Upland 4 62.5 76.5 84.6 83.6 72.8 Planted/Cultivated 5 33.2 9.8 10.1 8.9 17.5 Wetlands 6 0.4 7.1 0.3 0.1 3.6 1 All areas of open water or permanent ice/snow cover. 2 Areas characterized by a high percentage (30 percent or greater) of constructed materials (e.g. asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc). 3 Areas characterized by bare rock, gravel, sand, silt, clay, or other earthen material, with little or no "green" vegetation present regardless of its inherent ability to support life. Vegetation, if present, is more widely spaced and scrubby than that in the "green" vegetated categories; lichen cover may be extensive. 4 Areas characterized by tree cover (natural or semi-natural woody vegetation, generally greater than 6 meters tall); tree canopy accounts for 25-100 percent of the cover. 5 Areas characterized by herbaceous vegetation that has been planted or is intensively managed for the production of food, feed, or fiber; or is maintained in developed settings for specific purposes. Herbaceous vegetation accounts for 75-100 percent of the cover. 6 Areas where the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979)

5-92

Table 5.2.10-2: Farms and Farmland Within the Vicinity of the Warrior River Project (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2002)

Total No. of Farm Total Harvested COUNTY Miles (sq. Farms Acreage Cropland1 Cropland2 mi) Alabama 50,744 45,126 8,904,387 3,732,751 1,95,139 Cullman 738 2,301 231,400 113,067 53,612 Tuscaloosa 1,324 547 102,973 36,768 20,954 Walker 794 543 75,180 27,342 13,312 Winston 614 650 66,425 29,690 12,640 1 This category includes cropland harvested, cropland used only for pasture or grazing, cropland idle or used for cover crops or soil improvement but not harvested and not pastured or grazed, cropland on which all crops failed or were abandoned, and cropland in cultivated summer fallow. 2 This category includes land from which crops were harvested and hay was cut, and land used to grow short- rotation woody crops, land in orchards, citrus groves, Christmas trees, vineyards, nurseries, and greenhouses.

Cullman County has a land area of 743 square miles and contains the City of Cullman and ten other incorporated areas including Hanceville and Good Hope. The majority (80.2%) of the county’s population resides in rural areas. The majority (63%) of the county is forested, followed by about 33% of cultivated land. 1% of the county is developed. About 54,000 acres of the county is harvested cropland.

Tuscaloosa County has a land area of 1,324 square miles and contains five incorporated places including Tuscaloosa, Northport, Vance, and Coaling. The majority (70.7%) of the county’s population resides in an urban setting. The majority (77%) of the county is forested, followed by about 10% of cultivated land. 2% of the county is developed. About 21,000 acres of the county is harvested cropland.

Walker County has a land area of 794 square miles and contains the City of Jasper and 10 other incorporated places. The majority (72.2%) of the county’s population resides in rural areas. The majority (84.6%) of the county is forested, followed by about 10% of cultivated land. 1% of the county is developed. About 13,000 acres of the county is harvested cropland.

5-93

Winston County has a land area of 614 square miles and contains five incorporated places including Double Springs and Haleyville. The majority (80.1%) of the county’s population resides in rural areas. The majority (84%) of the county is forested, followed by about 9% of cultivated land. Less than 1% of the county is developed. About 13,000 acres of the county is harvested cropland.

Project Area Land Use

Land use in the vicinity of the developments is influenced by a variety of factors including topography, soil characteristics, APC permitting regulations, and the current uses of land and water resources. Social and economic factors such as employment, population, and development also influence land use patterns.

Existing land use evaluations were performed for lands within 500 feet of the project boundary. APC described land use patterns at the developments as follows: APC project operations; developed recreation; industrial/commercial; residential; sensitive resources; forest management/undeveloped; agricultural; and National Forest Service lands. Land use categories are described below.

APC Project Operations-All APC project lands used for APC operations. This includes land used for APC generation facilities, switchyards, transmission facilities, right-of-way areas, and other associated activities.

Developed Recreation-Project lands managed for concentrated, active recreational activities. This includes land that is developed for commercial recreation, public recreation, open space, and water access.

Industrial/Commercial-Project lands that are managed for economic development purposes. This includes industrial facilities, business parks, and industrial water access (intakes, discharges, barge terminals, etc.).

5-94

Residential-Project lands where private waterfront residential property exists. This includes residential docks, piers, ramps, boathouses, water intakes, marine rails, etc., paths, steps, picnic areas, utility lines, areas with shoreline stabilization.

Sensitive Resources-Project lands managed for protection and enhancement of sensitive resources. Sensitive resources, as defined by APC, include resources protected by the state or federal law or executive order, and other natural features that APC considers important to the area or natural environment. This includes archaeological resources, sites/structures listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, wetlands, floodplains, Project lands under easement, lease, or license to other agencies/individuals for resource protection purposes, APC land abutting land owned by other agencies/individuals for resource protection reasons, RTE habitat protection areas, significant scenic areas, and other sensitive ecological areas.

Forest Management/Undeveloped-Project lands that are being managed for timber and pulp production or are undeveloped. These lands are generally available for public use.

Agricultural Land-Project lands that are being managed for agricultural use or are adjacent to agricultural use.

National Forest Service Lands-Project lands that are within the National Forest or are within the National Forest administrative boundary.

Within the Smith development, the primary land classifications include residential and forest management (including BNF lands) (Table 5.2.10-3). Agricultural use within the Project is comparatively minor. The counties surrounding the project, however, support thousands of acres of farm land and hundreds of farms. Describing the land uses was a tool in formulating the land classifications in the SMP, presented below.

5-95

Table 5.2.10-3: Existing Land Use Activities Along the Shoreline of the Smith Development (Source: EPRO, 2004, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

PERCENT OF CLASS SUMMARY DESCRIPTION TOTAL SHORELINE (%) 1 APC Project Operations 3 2 Developed Recreation 2 3 Industrial/Commercial <1 4 Residential 44 5 Sensitive Resources 9 6 National Forest Service Lands 13 7 Forest Management/Undeveloped 27 8 Agricultural Land 1 64 USFS Lands with Houses1 <1 1 Class 64 describes lands that are classified as USFS, but have residential structures.

5.2.10.1.1 Smith Development

Smith Lake (21,200 acres)is located on the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River and has a drainage basin of 944 square miles. The lake extends 35 miles upstream from the dam and consists of 500 miles of shoreline. The Smith development area, including land and water, is approximately 26,823 acres. The Smith development lies within Cullman, Walker, and Winston counties. The largest cities near the lake are Cullman and Jasper and municipalities in the immediate vicinity of the lake include Dodge City, Arley, and Good Hope

A land use map for the Smith development is included as Figure 5.2.10-1.3 Most of the shoreline of Smith Lake was classified as residential (44%), followed by forest management

3 The land use maps were created using the Anderson land use classification system. The land cover data was digitally rendered at a scale of 1:250,000, which means that only major land use areas are shown on the map.

5-96

(27%), National Forest Service lands (13%), and sensitive resources (9%). Less than a total of 10% was classified as project operations (3%), developed recreation (2%), agricultural land (1%), and industrial/commercial (<1%).

5-97

Figure 5.2.10-1: Smith Land Use Map

All Basin maps, project location, and Land Use maps are classified as Non-Internet Public (NIP) and can be requested from FERC’s Public Reference Room. This material is also available on the Volume 2 CD, which is available from Alabama Power Company.

5-98

APC generally owns lands in fee up to the normal full pool 510 ft msl, and flood easements for lands between 510 to 522 ft msl. The lake shoreline contains numerous private and commercial developments. Along the shoreline of the lake, the Ryan Creek arm is primarily agriculture; the Sipsey Fork arm drains the BNF; and the Clear Creek arm is heavily forested.

There are no land use plans for Walker, Winston, and Cullman Counties.

Major land use activities within the BNF include timber management and harvesting, recreation use, passive use, and watershed protection. The USFS has standards and guidelines for the management of riparian areas, which are defined as all areas within 100-year floodplains, wetlands, or a minimum 100 ft horizontal distance from the edge of all perennial water bodies (including streams and lakes) (USFS, unknown date). Streamside management zones protect streams from land disturbance activities. Requirements in these zones, which are established on a case-by-case basis, include a 70% or greater canopy closure for the BNF. Other requirements for riparian areas include the restriction of aerial and soil applied chemicals not approved for aquatic use, exclusion of prescribed burning during site preparation, exclusion of roads except over designated crossings, avoidance of mechanical site preparation, establishment of a buffer zone from 33 ft to 290 ft depending on the erosion hazard, and location of proposed facilities outside of the 100 year floodplain (boat docks and launching ramps excepted), unless no practical alternative exists (USFS, unknown date).

Smith Lake offers unique, scenic views, as it is one of the largest lakes in the region. The land around the lake is characterized by steep to hilly largely rural terrain that is partially covered with timber and forestland (Freese and Nichols, Inc., 1999). The lake has dozens of feeder streams, winding bays, steep rock bluffs and outcroppings around much of the lake, and hundreds of coves (Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, 2000). Since the lake spreads significantly into several branches, there are no single vantage points in which to view the entire lake. However, vantage points located at recreation sites and near bridges offer views of the shoreline, which are a mixture of forestland and development. Boating around the lake offers diverse views from various creeks and tributaries.

5-99

Vantage points above and below the dam at the Public Boat Launch and in the Tailrace and Dam Area offer views of the dam and associated facilities. The Sipsey Fork below the powerhouse and dam also provides excellent aesthetic opportunities, primarily due to its undeveloped nature.

5.2.10.1.2 Bankhead Development

Bankhead Lake (9,100 acres), which is owned and operated by the USACE, is located within the upper Warrior River drainage basin and has a drainage basin of 3,969 square miles. The lake extends upstream approximately 78 miles from the dam and is bordered by 400 miles of shoreline. The lands in the Project boundary at the Bankhead development are limited to those associated with the powerhouse and directly adjacent and comprise approximately 126 acres. Project lands lie completely in Tuscaloosa County. The largest city near the Project is Tuscaloosa and municipalities in the vicinity of the Project include Northport and Brookwood.

There are no land use plans for Tuscaloosa County specifically regarding shoreline permitting and zoning. The USACE maintains shoreline permitting on Bankhead Lake and tailwaters, including in the Bankhead development area.

Since APC’s boundary includes only 126 acres surrounding the powerhouse, vantage points for viewing the Bankhead Lake and Warrior River are limited. The Project area is relatively undeveloped and provides views of wooded shorelines. Vantage points above the dam offer views of Bankhead Lake and the John Hollis Bankhead Lock and Dam. Below the dam, the tailrace and undeveloped shoreline can be viewed by accessing a road on the western bank.

APC’s Shoreline Permitting Program

APC maintains a Shoreline Permitting Program that manages all shoreline property within the Smith development boundary. The USACE has given APC the authority to manage certain permitting on the lake that ordinarily would be subject to USACE permitting. The objective of this management approach is to control all development activities and monitor the shoreline areas on a regular basis to preserve the scenic, recreational, and environmental

5-100

attributes of the lake. This management approach allows APC to quickly respond to shoreline owner permitting needs.

Private shoreline property is subject to permitting by APC. The shoreline permitting program provides a proactive, ongoing plan for shoreline development by private property owners, commercial developers, and local, state and federal agencies that want to construct piers, boat ramps, seawalls, boathouses, boat slips, or other structures on lands within the Project area. Private and commercial owners are provided a copy of APC’s general guidelines for recreational development and a copy of APC’s permitting program and permit application. APC schedules on-site meetings with the property owner to review the placement of structures and specific issues that must be addressed prior to APC approval. The property owner gives APC a detailed drawing of the proposed structure, a copy of the deed to the property, and any other necessary permits or approvals from the appropriate state or local agency, where applicable. Commercial property owners must follow a more detailed procedure that includes review by APC’s Corporate Real Estate, Hydro Licensing, and Environmental Affairs Departments, as well as state and federal agencies, before final review and approval by FERC.

Upon FERC approval, APC issues a permit and monitors the construction of the project for compliance with the terms of the permit. The construction of the project must be completed within one year of issuance of the permit. After completion, APC marks the structures with metal tags depicting the APC permit number. These tags are displayed for APC’s reference during regular field inspections. APC maintains permit records and copies are sent to the USACE where applicable.

APC’s Shoreline Permitting Program was established in 1991. Since then, APC has issued approximately 3,130 permits for the Smith development (personal communication, Walter Ramey, APC, April 11, 2000). Structures built (prior to 1991) on the lake that are in good condition are not included in this total. If improvements or enhancements are made to these structures, the individual property owner must follow the above permitting process.

Because Bankhead Lake is operated by the USACE, all lake activities, such as boat docks, etc. are permitted by the USACE.

5-101

5.2.10.2 Analysis of Environmental Effects and Alternatives

5.2.10.2.1 APC Enhancement Proposal

The geographic scope of analysis for this resource is limited to the Project boundary. Land uses are cumulatively affected by many activities in the basin; see Section 5.3.

APC is proposing to implement a SMP in conjunction with its relicensing activities for the Project. This SMP covers approximately 500 miles of shoreline and 29,000 acres of Project land (both inundated and non-inundated). It will: 1) provide guidance for existing and future management actions within the FERC boundary, including specifying long-term shoreline management goals for the development; 2) state APC’s policies relative to activities that may affect shoreline management (e.g., dredging, bank stabilization, channelization, etc.); 3) establish a shoreline classification system to protect natural resources and guide future shoreline management actions (Table 5.2.10-4) describe, promote and recommend property owner shoreline best management practices in three key areas: buffer zones and vegetation management, water quality, and property development and management; 5) summarize APC’s enhanced shoreline permitting guidelines; and 6) describe an implementation plan and review cycle for the SMP.

Beginning in late 2002, stakeholders were presented with a memo at a WCRT meeting on the components and draft table of contents of the SMP. Stakeholders were able to comment on the draft table of contents and make suggestions for improvement of the SMP. In January 2003, the WCRT met again to talk about the draft table of contents and review comments received on the proposed classification scheme. APC representatives also gave a presentation on the current permitting system at this meeting. In June 2003, the WCRT were presented with another draft outline of the SMP, and stakeholders were divided into breakout groups to discuss specific aspects of the SMP. Comments received from these breakout groups can be reviewed in the June 19, 2003 WCRT meeting summary. The meeting topics included enhancing the proposed BMPs and shoreline permitting program. Two other meetings were held in 2003 in which the final shoreline classification system was presented and stakeholders provided comments on the working draft of the SMP. In April 2004, stakeholders reviewed the SMP maps with the new

5-102

shoreline classification system. This session was followed by a SMP workshop in which comments on the complete draft SMP were discussed. Comments were addressed by APC staff and are found in the comment table attached to the SMP. A general synopsis of the SMP follows; effects of the SMP are discussed under the appropriate resource section. The complete SMP and associated meeting summaries are found in Volume 6.

Under the APC Enhancement Proposal, APC proposes the following enhancements to strengthen the effect of the SMP to provide for the protection of shoreline resources. Where physically and economically practical, APC proposes to require through its permitting system that rip-rap be placed in front of all newly constructed seawalls. On APC owned lands within the Project boundary, APC will also require that permittees maintain a minimum of 15-ft of unmanaged vegetation that will serve as a shoreline buffer zone. Additionally, APC will encourage the use of BMPs by all private land owners through a combination of public education and outreach efforts as well as lake shore use permits. To assist and educate stakeholders on the permitting process and the BMPs, APC is planning stakeholder workshops, a website, and an educational brochure. Finally, APC is also implementing a fee structure for new permits and modifications to existing permits to partially recover the administrative costs of implementing shoreline management. To ensure that the SMP is meeting the resource goals, APC will conduct a review of the SMP every 6 years, consistent with the FERC Form 80 recreation review. This review will involve stakeholder consultation.

Table 5.2.10-4: Land Classifications Associated with Shoreline Uses Surrounding Smith Lake Reservoir (Source: APC, 2004, as modified by Kleinschmidt)

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION APC Project Operations Project lands reserved for current and potential future operational activities. This includes all Project lands used for hydroelectric generation, switchyards, transmission facilities, right-of-way areas, security lands, and other operational uses. These lands are owned by Alabama Power in fee title.

Recreation Project lands managed by Alabama Power for existing and/or potential future concentrated recreational activities. This includes land that is developed for commercial recreation with provisions for adequate public access, public recreation, open space, water access, and future recreational development. These lands typically are owned by Alabama Power in fee title, but may be operated under a lease agreement with 5-103

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION APC.

Multiple Use Lands Project lands managed for multiple uses including, but not limited to: existing or potential future private residential waterfront development such as residential docks, piers, ramps, boathouses, private water intakes, paths, steps, utility lines, and areas with shoreline stabilization; commercial recreation facilities such as marinas; industrial facilities, business parks and industrial water access (intakes, discharges, barge terminals, etc.); wildlife management; and agriculture. These lands will be managed to accommodate reasonable demands for public and private uses within the guidelines of Alabama Power's Lake Shore Use Permitting Program. These lands are privately owned and/or owned by APC, with Alabama Power maintaining a flood easement on such lands for the purposes of operating the Project.

Sensitive Resources Lands Project lands managed for protection and enhancement of sensitive resources. Sensitive resources include resources protected by state and/or federal law, executive order, and other natural features considered important to the area or natural environment. This includes archaeological resources, sites/structures listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, wetlands, floodplains, Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) habitat protection areas, significant scenic areas, and other sensitive ecological areas. Permitted activities, if applicable, in these areas will be highly restrictive to avoid potential impacts to sensitive resources. This will trigger an environmental review by APC’s environmental department. Sensitive Resource Lands typically are privately owned, with Alabama Power maintaining a flood easement on such lands for the purposes of operating the Project.

Natural / Undeveloped Lands Project lands to remain in an undeveloped state for specific Project purposes including: to protect environmentally sensitive areas; to maintain natural aesthetic qualities; to serve as buffer zones around public recreation areas; and to provide a means for preventing overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas. This classification allows for public hiking trails, nature studies, primitive camping, wildlife management (excluding hunting), and normal forestry management practices. These Project lands are typically owned in fee by APC and are managed for effective protection of associated resource values.

Forest Service Lands Project lands that are owned by the United States and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These lands will be managed in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and its applicable Land and Resources Management Plan for the Bankhead National Forest.

5.2.10.2.2 ARA/AR/WWF Alternative

Projecting effects to land use in the Warrior Basin from the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative is difficult. Since it is not known how much, if any, of the CAHEF or CRREF would be available to the Warrior River Basin, projections of potential effects would be strictly hypothetical.

5-104

5.2.10.2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current permitting system would remain in effect and the benefits of increased shoreline protection, revised land use categories, BMPs and buffer zones on APC lands would not occur. Furthermore, the lack of a voluntary buffer zone around the shoreline would further degrade the aesthetic values of an undeveloped shoreline.

5.2.10.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Development around the shoreline of the Smith development will continue into the foreseeable future. Regardless of the implementation of the SMP, private development will continue to affect land use practices surrounding the developments. It is likely that no matter which alternative is selected to be in the public interest, changes in the percentages of shoreline in the land use classes shown in Table 5.2.10-3 will occur.

5.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis Summary

5.3.1 Cumulative Effects

5.3.1.1 Water Resources

Over the existing Warrior Project license, there have been a number of activities within the basin that have affected the water resources of the Warrior Basin. Water quality of the Warrior Basin is generally thought to be good but has been affected by the operation of the Warrior Project, increased urban growth and development, increasing impacts from agriculture and forestry operations, and continued coal mining.

Smith Lake is a relatively deep reservoir, which results in a fairly long hydraulic retention time (volume of lake / mean discharge from Smith Dam) of 435 days and provides a very low flushing rate throughout the lake. This results in thermal and chemical stratification in most sections of the lake (Bayne et al., 1997). This stratification and the location of the turbine

5-105

intakes has created a coldwater release from the project, which has affected the thermal regime of the Sipsey River from Smith Dam downstream to the Gorgas Steam Plant and periodically the DO level in the immediate tailrace in vicinity of the Smith powerhouse.

Assessments by ADEM in 1998 and again in 2003 have shown water quality impacts in the tributaries that enter the eastern portion of the Smith Reservoir. However, little impact to water quality was detected in the main body or tailwater of the development. Sources of sediment from land disturbances associated with urban and agricultural uses was also detected in these streams but not in the main body of the lake or below in the tailwater of the Project. This could indicate that the Project reservoir serves as a “sink” for both of these inputs and improves downstream water quality parameters.

Bankhead Lake is a relatively shallow reservoir and is operated as a “run-of-river” development. Operation of APC’s powerhouse (located on the Corps’ dam) has only minimal effects on water quality. APC’s aeration program actually improves dissolved oxygen levels (adds 2 mg/l) to the downstream tailrace.

Water quality in Bankhead Lake is primarily influenced by numerous point and non-point sources of pollutants within the watershed. Data from assessments indicate significant sediment and nutrient loads from tributaries that feed the reservoir (ADEM, 1998). While there is an indication that water quality in Bankhead Lake has steadily improved (due to reductions in pollutant discharges from industries, mining, and non-point sources such as agriculture in the watershed), permitted industrial and domestic effluents and urban stormwater from the Birmingham metropolitan area continue to flow into the lake. Inputs from highly polluted tributary streams (Locust Fork and Big Yellow Creek, Village Creek, Valley Creek and Five Mile Creek) are suspected of causing periodic DO sags during times of hot weather and low river flows. Several of the tributaries are listed on the 2002 303(d) (ADEM, 2002).

Due to the highly valued aesthetics, open space, and accessibility to Birmingham, there have been increasing levels of impact to water quality associated with residential growth adjacent to the reservoirs and in the surrounding areas. Increased TSS concentrations were noted by ADEM in 1998. This growth and general construction activity is projected to continue in the

5-106

basin and continue to impact water quality. The increasing amount of impervious surface associated with development, both residential and commercial, has limited the recharge to the ground water and increased direct uncontrolled stormwater runoff from these areas. This in turn has increased the level of pollutants moving directly into the lakes (BRPC, 2000).

According to the Dept. of Public Health the soils in the area are classified as moderate for septic tank systems, with a large portion of the homes in the Basin using this as the primary means of sewage disposal. In Cullman County, 20% of the septic systems have failures and 5 to 10% of Walker and Winston Counties have failures. In Jefferson County, municipal wastewater treatment and system overflows and storm water runoff over the past 10 years have continued to impact water quality. Another source of sewage entering the lakes is from cabin cruisers releases. Over time, these conditions have created another source of nutrients as well as a major source of pathogens that have affected water quality of the lakes (BWRCWP, 2004).

Forested land is the primary (75%) land use in the basin. The revenue from forestry in the basin is relatively small, but has resulted in sedimentation impacts to tributaries and the reservoirs. Since a majority of the adjacent lands feeding the reservoir are primarily forested, the potential for this source of impact will likely increase in the future.

Agriculture is the secondary land use (17%) in the basin. Lake water quality has been affected by the increase in non-point source runoff associated with intensive animal rearing operations and the land application of those wastes in the watershed. Cullman County alone is one of the largest producers of chickens (85 million broilers) in the United States and also has over 90,000 head of cattle produced annually (Cullman County Commission, 2004). This industry has grown to over $400 million annually and has replaced row cropping as the primary agricultural industry over the last 20 years (Alabama Ag Statistics, 2000; SWCC, NPS Assessment, 2000).

While some water quality improvements have been made with the implementation of BMPs and changes in farm owner/operator practices, continued growth of this industry is anticipated, resulting in little if any nitrogen or phosphorus reductions. Crooked Creek (Cullman County) exhibits elevated concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus directly related to poultry

5-107

and beef production (ADEM, NPS 1998). It has been estimated that there is more than 100 years of phosphorus available for crop uptake on Cullman County farms (AU Agronomy Dept).

Coal mining is another significant activity within the Basin, with a majority of the active coal mining sites in Alabama located within the Warrior Basin (BRCWP 2004). Current pollutants of concern for the lake include nutrients and metals, specifically from non-point sources (active and inactive coal mining sites). Metal concentrations in fish tissue were listed as an area of potential concern for Smith Lake, but no fish consumption advisories are currently in effect (ADPH, 2004). However, this activity will continue to have an impact of water quality in the future.

5.3.1.2 Aquatic Resources

Historical Effects

Populations of mollusks and fishes in the Black Warrior River basin have been cumulatively impacted by a variety of factors over the past century. The construction and operation of dams in the Black Warrior River basin is one of many impacts that have affected aquatic resources in the basin. Smith Dam construction began in 1957, and the facility began operating in 1961. The USACE constructed Bankhead Lock and Dam in 1916. Also, the USACE constructed three other lock and dam facilities on the Black Warrior River downstream of Bankhead: Holt (1966), Oliver (1940), and Selden (1962). Together, these dams converted much of the riverine habitat of the Black Warrior River into a series of large pools. Other historical impacts to the basin include many human activities such as mining, dredging, and agriculture, with the accompanying erosion, siltation, and non-point source pollution.

Combined, these impacts adversely modified or degraded habitat required by aquatic species. Also, construction of the dams and river and stream crossings have fragmented habitat required by these species. This resulted in the reduction of many species of mollusks and fish and in the extinction of some aquatic species that were endemic to the Black Warrior River basin.

5-108

APC has proposed to provide funding for an aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program to be operated by the ADCNR. The primary goal of this Program will be restoration and enhancement of aquatic habitat on the developments. APC’s proposal to provide funding for an Enhancement and Restoration Program for Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern to assist the ADCNR with the establishment of an Aquatic Research and Culture Center for aquatic species of concern will allow for the timely reintroduction of endemic species and species of concern to the Warrior Basin. The facility would also provide valuable information on the life cycle of mussel species that are an essential part of the restoration effort.

The USFS settlement agreement provides a framework for APC to assist USFS in evaluating terrestrial and aquatic resources and the influence of BNF land management practices and Smith development operations on those resources. The information will be used by the USFS and APC to improve current land management practices for the BNF and operations at Smith. The funding associated with the agreement will be used for aquatic habitat restoration, including projects that would reduce the fragmentation of valuable habitat in BNF.

Another historical impact is the conversion of several miles of the Sipsey Fork below Smith Dam from a warmwater fishery to a coolwater fishery. Due to the configuration of the intakes, generation at Smith results in the release of cool water into the tailrace (Sipsey Fork). The cool water impact typically extends downstream approximately 12 miles to the confluence of the Sipsey Fork and Mulberry Fork, but may extend further depending on flows in the Mulberry Fork. As described in Section 5.2.3, the coolwater generation releases made possible a put-and-take trout fishery. Based on telemetry studies, the trout fishery may extend up to 30 miles downstream of Smith (APC 2003c). An additional impact to the tailrace was caused when the Birmingham Water Works dredged the Sipsey Fork from its Sipsey Pumping Station (0.6 miles below Smith Dam) to its mouth, approximately 12 miles downstream, during the early 1960’s. This altered the habitat in the river by removing gravel and cobble substrate and large, woody debris, and effectively converting riffles into large pools. In fact, during non-generation, the headwaters of Bankhead Lake (normal pool 255 ft msl) extend upstream to the Birmingham Water Works’ Sipsey Pumping Station. APC’s proposal to enhance instream aquatic habitat (FHERP) and to fund trout stocking will not offset these impacts, but will create a unique fishery for public recreation.

5-109

Future Cumulative Effects

The relicensing of the Holt Project (FERC No. 2203) is an action that may contribute to cumulative effects on aquatic resources. The Holt Project, located immediately downstream of Bankhead, has a license that is set to expire in 2016. Similar to Bankhead, Holt is a USACE lock and dam on which APC constructed a powerhouse. It is not expected that the relicensing of Holt will result in any changes that would reduce or increase impacts to aquatic resources in the Black Warrior River.

Continued operation of Smith, Bankhead, and Holt will result in the entrainment and mortality of some fish as they pass through project turbines. However, fish populations in the area are in relatively good condition, and it is not expected that entrainment mortality would contribute to a significant adverse cumulative effect on resident fish populations. The funding provided by the Habitat Enhancement Fund to enhance aquatic and wildlife habitat should help offset this continuing impact.

Another action that may contribute to cumulative effects on aquatic resources is the proposed listing of critical habitat for several species of mussels in the Black Warrior River Basin (USFWS 2003). Designation of critical habitat would provide additional protection for federally listed species and ensure that remaining suitable habitat within the basin is maintained in its current state.

Additionally, future water withdrawals for the project are unknown. As human development increases in the basin, increased supplies of dependable water will be needed. To maintain a balance of human needs versus environmental needs, APC will continue to implement their water withdrawal policy and seek FERC approval for substantial withdrawals. APC will also continue to work with the OWR to limit long-term impacts.

5.3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Resources

In Alabama, the majority of federally listed species are associated with the aquatic environment. Historically, 175 species of mussels and 174 species of snails have been reported

5-110

from Alabama. However, Alabama’s mussels and snails have experienced drastic declines in abundance and diversity, extirpation from large portions of their historic ranges, and even extinction. Currently, only 71% of these mussel species and 75% of the snail species are still found in Alabama (Garner, 2004). In the Black Warrior River Basin, Bogan et al. (1995) reported that of the 17 species of freshwater snails believed to historically occur, only seven (7) have been located in recent surveys, and two (2) are presumed extinct.

In Alabama, the most diverse assemblages of freshwater mussels, snails, and fish are typically found in riffle and shoal sections of medium to large rivers and streams in moderate to swift current with substrates of clean sand, gravel, and cobble. Freshwater mussels are filter feeders and require good water quality with low turbidity. Similarly, most freshwater snails prefer medium to large flowing rivers with clean and stable substrate, and relatively clear, well- oxygenated water.

These species and habitats have been, are now, and will continue to be cumulatively affected by a variety of historical, current, and future human activities in the basin. Actions that have led to the decline and current status of federally listed species in the Basin include: the construction of dams, channelization and dredging, mining, land use practices, and point and non-point source pollution.

Federally listed terrestrial species within the Basin include a variety of plants and a few animal species. In general, the most important cumulative effect on these species is land use practices.

Historical Effects

In the past, the largest impact to listed aquatic species was the construction of dams with large impoundments. Within the Black Warrior River Basin, six (6) large impoundments totaling approximately 48,381 surface acres have been constructed (Table 5.3.1-1). Construction of these impoundments resulted in the conversion of the entire mainstem from a riverine to an impounded condition. Additionally, these impoundments have affected the habitat in the lower reaches of major tributaries, including Mulberry Fork, Locust Fork, Sipsey Fork, and the North

5-111

River. Since many listed aquatic species are relatively intolerant of impoundment flow conditions, those species could no longer inhabit these reaches. These impoundments have also resulted in the fragmentation and isolation of numerous tributary populations. Lacking genetic diversity and migration routes to other suitable habitat, these populations are especially vulnerable to catastrophic events such as floods, droughts, and chemical spills. One federally listed species, the bald eagle, may have benefited from the construction of these impoundments, since they increased the surface area of water in the Basin, providing more productive and expansive forage areas and increased roosting habitat.

Table 5.3.1-1: Summary of Major Black Warrior River Impoundments

SURFACE AREA LENGTH RESERVOIR ACRES % TOTAL MILES % TOTAL Bankhead 9,200 19 65 27 Holt 3,296 7 19 8 Oliver 1,000 2 15 6 Warrior 7,800 16 78 33 Lewis Smith 21,200 44 38 16 Tuscaloosa 5,885 12 25 10 Total 48,381 239.8

A variety of other historical activities has cumulatively impacted the quality of aquatic habitat in the Basin. The Basin has been mined for coal, limestone, iron ore, and sand and gravel since the 1800s (BWRCWP, 2004). Dredging and channelization were performed to facilitate commercial transportation of goods on the Black Warrior – Tombigbee Waterway. Agriculture and silviculture are other important historical activities that have produced both point and non- point source pollution, which have had a cumulative effect on water quality in the Basin. Combined, these activities resulted in the alteration of stream bottoms, increased erosion and siltation, and degradation of water quality that led to the decline and current status of federally listed species within the basin (USFWS, 2000).

5-112

Land use practices within the basin have affected terrestrial species of plants and animals. The conversion of forest habitat to pine monocultures for silviculture, residential and commercial development, agricultural practices, and surface mining have all reduced the available suitable habitat for federally listed species.

Future Cumulative Effects

Of the historical effects described above, land use practices and point and non-point source pollution will continue to threaten listed species in the Basin. As populations increase, so will stormwater, municipal, and industrial waste discharges. Also, non-point source pollution associated with increased residential development, agriculture, silviculture, and mining will continue to have a cumulative effect.

Various programs administered by ADEM are aimed at reducing the levels of impairment due to point and non-point source pollution in Alabama waters. These programs rely on a variety of state and federal regulations, proactive and reactive management, as well as voluntary implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollution levels. To the extent these programs are successful, federally listed species will benefit from improved water quality.

The future relicensing of the Holt Project (FERC No. 2203) is an action that may contribute to cumulative effects on aquatic resources. The Holt Project, located immediately downstream of Bankhead, has a license that is set to expire in 2016. Similar to Bankhead, Holt is a USACE lock and dam on which APC constructed a powerhouse. It is not expected that the relicensing of Holt will result in any changes that would reduce or increase impacts to threatened and endangered species in the Black Warrior River Basin.

Another action that may contribute to cumulative effects on listed species is the designation of critical habitat for several species of mussels in the Black Warrior River Basin (USFWS, 2004). A critical habitat designation provides additional protection for federally listed species by ensuring that remaining suitable habitat within the Basin is maintained in its current state. This is especially important since some species may have been extirpated from the Basin.

5-113

Protecting the suitable habitat in the historic range of those species will provide an opportunity for potential reintroduction and stocking in the future.

APC has proposed several measures to help protect and restore federally listed species in the Warrior Basin. These include assisting the USFS in modifying selected road culverts on Bankhead National Forest. These modifications are intended to reduce the fragmentation of remaining suitable aquatic habitats by ensuring that the culverts are capable of allowing fish species to move freely up and downstream of culvert locations. As noted earlier, the federally listed mussel species all require certain species of fish as reproductive hosts. Ensuring that these host fish species have access to all available suitable habitats would increase the potential viability of both the mussels and their hosts. APC has also committed to funding and donated labor in an SA that will allow the USFS to periodically survey specific populations of threatened and endangered species. These surveys will help to track the protection and recovery of selected federally protected species. Additionally, APC has proposed to provide funding to assist the ADCNR with development and operation of a mollusk and fish research/culture facility that would be used to study and enhance existing populations of threatened or endangered species within the state. Additional research on the life history and reproductive habits of federally listed mussels is essential to their protection and recovery (USFWS, 2000). Also, due to the small size of many of the remnant populations of these species, captive propagation and reintroduction into the remaining suitable habitats where those species have been extirpated is an important recovery goal.

5.3.1.4 Recreation Resources

The area surrounding Smith Lake was primarily rural prior to the construction of the dam. The creation of the reservoir has had many historical effects on recreational use of the lands surrounding the reservoir. Prior to construction, there were probably limited recreational opportunities in the Sipsey River; however, once the dam was constructed, the area experienced a significant increase in recreational use of the newly formed reservoir.

Recreation is the primary human use of the Smith development. Therefore, many of the other resource areas outlined have the potential to cumulatively impact the recreation experience

5-114

at the reservoir and tailrace. If the fishery is positively impacted by APC’s proposed action, an increase in recreational fishing trips may occur, potentially having both positive and negative effects. The obvious positive effects result from the economic activity associated with anglers and the goods and services they require. Negative effects could include increased pollution from an increasing number of recreational users with an increase in litter and gasoline powered engines. Land use changes could alter the experience at the reservoir by changing the natural viewsheds around the reservoir and replacing them with increased development. Water quality is obviously very important to the recreational experience as it affects other ecological systems and the ability of the reservoir to support fishing and swimming.

Future Cumulative Impacts

Increasing recreational use at the reservoir has the potential to affect other resources in the future as well. With increasing use, the reservoir may become crowded in particular areas, or at least be perceived to be crowded. However, research has shown that those recreationists that are more sensitive to crowded conditions will seek areas that are less crowded and be displaced from recreating at Smith Lake. It is not known if there are acceptable substitutes within a reasonable distance for the recreation experience at Smith Lake. Increased use may also continue to impact the water quality of the reservoir. Positive effects from the revised shoreline permitting program will continue into the foreseeable future. With the removal of Styrofoam from the reservoir, the natural experience of the lake will grow, and the pollution associated with loose Styrofoam will decrease. While it is not possible to foresee all of the cumulative impacts, continued stakeholder involvement is paramount to addressing these impacts as they arise.

5.3.1.5 Land Use Resources

In the early part of the century, the area surrounding the lake contained a rural population that depended on row crop agricultural practices. Land use gradually changed from farming to industries such as forestry and strip mining. Land in the 1970s consisted of 50 to 70% forests, 10 to 30% agricultural lands, and the remaining was a combination of industrial, business, and residential (ADCNR, 1988). Forestry and mining remain the major industries in the area today, with as much as 50 to 60% of the Bankhead Lake watershed considered as potential strip mining

5-115

sites (ADCNR, 1988). The USACE reports that the Warrior Basin is one of the most industrialized areas in the Southeast (USACE, 1998).

As noted above for water resources, forested land is the primary (75%) land use in the Warrior basin. A 1994 study estimated that 440,000 families and individuals own three-fourths of the forestland in Alabama (www.foresty.state.al.us). The revenue from forestry in the basin is relatively small, but has resulted in sedimentation impacts to tributaries and the reservoirs. Since a majority of the adjacent lands feeding the reservoir are primarily forested, the potential for this source of impact will likely increase in the future. The average forester in Alabama is either a white collar professional or older retired persons; farmers only own about 5% of Alabama’s forests (Nix, 1996). Nix also notes that there is evidence throughout the southeast of “parceling”—the practice of breaking larger forested tracts into smaller parcels, leading to some fragmentation.

Additionally, land development around Smith Lake is on the rise. Private housing developments and shoreline property sales and development will continue to impact land use, aesthetics, and other environmental resources, such as water quality, on Smith Lake and in the Warrior River Basin.

5-116

6.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we discuss the project’s use of the available water resources of the Sipsey Fork, a tributary of Mulberry Fork and a headwater tributary of the Black Warrior River, to generate hydropower, estimate the economic benefits of the project, and estimate the cost of various environmental measures and the effects of these measures on project operations and power benefits.

Under its approach to evaluating the economics of hydroelectric projects, as articulated in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division (72 FERC ¶61,027, July 13, 1995), FERC employs an analysis that uses current costs to compare the costs of the project and likely alternative power with no consideration for potential future inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. FERC’s economic analysis provides a general estimate of the potential power benefits and costs of a project and reasonable alternatives to project-generated power. The estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license.

For the economic analysis of alternatives, the following assumptions, values, and sources shown in Table 6-1, which are common to all developments, were used.

Table 6-1: Assumptions for Economic Analysis of the Warrior River Developments (Source: APC)

ASSUMPTION VALUE Power value (2007)a $120.0 MWh Capacity value (2007) $41.2/MWh (Included in power value) Period of analysis 30 years Term of financing 50 years Interest/discount rate 7.826% Cost of capital 7.826 percent Escalation rate- O&M 2.75 % Escalation rate – Capacity cost 2.25 % for 2.5 life cycles of combined cycle capacity a The Power value is based on an estimate of the cost of alternative power from gas fired Combined Cycle capacity at construction cost as provided by the Department of Energy EIA. Two and one half life cycles (20 years each) of combined cycle capacity is deemed equivalent to hydro capacity over the 50 year study period. Power and capacity value (in $/MWh) are 2007 dollars, level over 30 years.

6-1

6.1 Power and Economic Benefit

The Smith and Bankhead developments have an installed capacity of 211.5 MW, can generate up to 398,223 MWh of power annually, and will have an average annual power cost of $9.8 million/year under the APC Enhancement Proposal. Costs for the developments include: (1) conducting studies and preparing the Warrior license application and APEA,($ 2,542,372); (2) annual O&M ($2.1million/yr) and taxes; and (4) cost of protection, enhancement and mitigation (PM&E) measures as discussed below.

6.2 Cost of Environmental Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures

The annual cost estimates associated with the APC Enhancement Proposal are presented in Table 6.2-1 but may not include all final costs. Should cost estimates change, APC will supplement this license application filing to include these final costs.

6-2

Table 6.2-1: Cost of PM&E (in 2007 Dollars)Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental Effects of Relicensing the Warrior River Project (Smith and Bankhead Developments) (Source: APC) NET PROPOSED/ O&M ENHANCEMENT/ CAPITAL ANNUAL RECOMMENDED COST MITIGATION MEASURE COST ($) COST BY ($/YR) ($/YR)

Continue operating Smith development in peaking mode and regulate APC $4,701,506 lake levels according to current rule curve (el. 496 to el. 510). APC will also minimize the occurrence of lake level elevations lower than 495 ft msl at Smith development

Continue operating the Bankhead development between el. 252 ft msl APC $626,867 and 255 ft msl in coordination with USACE operations and voluntarily restrict drawdown to 253.7 ft msl due to extensive development around the lake

Supplement tailrace flow during periods of non-generation with APC $470,151 $100,995 approximately 50 cfs through valves installed on two penstocks in the powerhouse

Monitor and repair (as necessary) specific erosion areas identified in the APC $104,478 "Erosion Monitoring and Repair Report”

Design, install, operate and monitor aeration systems within 18 months APC $835,823 $2,944 of license issuance to meet 4 ppm during generation to meet 401 conditions

Continue collection of water quality data in the mainstem of the APC $32,015 reservoir to chart changes in lake water quality

6-3

NET PROPOSED/ O&M ENHANCEMENT/ CAPITAL ANNUAL RECOMMENDED COST MITIGATION MEASURE COST ($) COST BY ($/YR) ($/YR) Continue administering FERC-approved water withdrawal policy on APC $10,448 Smith development

Implement the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal and Recreation APC $20,896 $30,124 Plan

Provide funding to assist ADCNR and USFWS with an aquatic culture APC $13,060 $11,264 facility in the Warrior Basin (Coosa Basin also)

Prepare and implement the Wildlife Management Plan APC $15,672 $3,577

Implement the USFWS requirements for Section 7 Endangered Species APC Act species and issues as outlined in their Biological Opinion1

Implement a PA for the Warrior Project and develop and implement an APC $132,165 HPMP.

Implement an approved recreation plan for the Warrior Project that APC $1,251,645 $43,804 provides facility and access improvements at numerous locations according to a priority schedule

Implement a SMP and improved Lake Shore Permitting Program, APC $47,015 $176,219 including placement of shoreline rip-rap, and review every 6 years

Continue to administer the Aquatic Plant Management and Mosquito APC $9,265 Control Program

Develop and implement a public education plan for the Warrior Project APC $2,090

Implement the Settlement between the USFS and APC APC $3,876,130 $33,259

6-4

NET PROPOSED/ O&M ENHANCEMENT/ CAPITAL ANNUAL RECOMMENDED COST MITIGATION MEASURE COST ($) COST BY ($/YR) ($/YR) Attain DO of 4mg/L in each tailrace during generation, and 5 mg/L in ARA/AR/WWF $7,574,648 $202,079 the Weiss bypass at all times and in each tailrace during non-generation

Implement “ramping” to reduce impacts to less mobile aquatic species ARA/AR/WWF $76,268,868 an to assure water quality standards

Monitor flow, DO, and ramping rates to assure compliance with DO ARA/AR/WWF standards and measurable objectives for protection of aquatic species2

APC will establish a Coosa River Recreation Enhancement Fun ARA/AR/WWF (CRREF) as mitigation of the Project's continuing impact on boating, angling, and other forms of riverine recreation; $10 million on license issuance and $500,000 per year thereafter for the license term3

1 Since the BO has not been issued, we were not able to formulate a cost for this PM&E measure. 2 These costs are included in the individual PM&E measures. 3 It is unknown how much of the CRREF will be available for use in the Warrior Basin.

6-5

6.2.1 Economic Comparison of Alternatives

The proposed action—the APC Enhancement Proposal—and two alternatives—the Alabama Rivers Alliance (ARA), American Rivers (AR) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Alternative and the No Action Alternative for the Smith and Bankhead developments are analyzed and the effects on power benefits are presented below.

6.2.2 Economics of the APC Enhancement Proposal

APC proposes to implement a suite of operational, environmental, land use and recreation measures including, but not limited to:

• Implementation of the USFS and APC Settlement Agreement; • Per the Water Quality Certification issued by ADEM on July 1, 2005, design, install, and operate, a turbine aeration system at the Smith development within 18 months of license issuance to provide 4.0 mg/L DO in the turbine discharge and monitor for 3 years following installation; • Continue collection of water quality data in the mainstem of the reservoir to characterize changes in lake water quality; • Minimize the occurrence of elevations lower than 495 ft msl. APC and the stakeholders reached concurrence on this request by adding, as an exception, events associated with critical electric system needs and other authorized project purposes; and • Implement the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (STEP) that includes:

6-6

3. Provide instream habitat enhancements as specified in the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal and Smith Tailrace Recreation Plan; and 4. Incorporate aeration in the minimum flow valves as needed.

• Monitor and repair two (2) erosion areas identified in the powerhouse tailrace as described in the Warrior Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (APC, 2005); • Provide funding to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of an Aquatic Research and Culture Center for the propagation of aquatic species of concern within the state; • Provide funding to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of an aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program for habitat enhancements in the Smith and Bankhead developments; • Prepare and implement the Wildlife Management Plan recommendations for the Warrior Basin; • Provide funding to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of a Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program (WHERP) for habitat enhancements in the Smith and Bankhead developments; • Consult with USFWS and USFS on species under Section 7 of the ESA; • Continue to administer the Aquatic Plant Management and Mosquito Control Program; • Continue to cooperate with ADCNR in the control of exotic species in the state of Alabama; • Implement modifications (e.g., placement of shoreline rip-rap, shoreline buffer zones, and implementation of shoreline best management practices (BMPs)) to the Lake Shore Use Permitting Program as described in the Warrior River Project Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) (APC, 2004); • Implement an approved recreation plan for the Warrior Project that provides facility and access improvements at numerous locations according to a priority schedule, as described in Section 5.2.8.2.1; • Implement a Styrofoam policy to eliminate un-encapsulated Styrofoam by 2010 as part of the SMP; • Develop and implement a public education plan for the Warrior Project; and

6-7

• Implement a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the protection of cultural resources at the Project and develop and implement an approved Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).

6.2.3 Economic Summary of APC Enhancement Proposal

The Smith and Bankhead developments would generate an average of 398,223 MWh/yr of electricity, have an average annual project cost of $9.8 million ($24.6/MWh), and an estimated annual project value of $95.4 MWh. For a detailed description of project economics, see Exhibit D in Volume 1.

6.2.4 Economics of the AR/ARA/WWF Alternative

In this economic analysis, we provide a summary of project economics of the ARA/AR/WWF alternative. This alternative contains recommended PM&E measures that differ from that in the APC Enhancement Proposal. APC estimates the average annual project cost of ARA/AR/WWF alternative to be $100.5 million ($252.4/MWh) and an estimated annual project value of negative $132.4/MWh. For a detailed description of the ARA/AR/WWF alternative, see Exhibit D in Volume 1.

ARA/AR/WWF recommend the following PM&E measures:

• Amount of flow release at each dam will be adequate to attain D.O. water quality standards of 4.0 mg/l in each tailrace during generation and 5 mg/l in each tailrace during non-generation; and protect native species; • Monitor flow, DO, and ramping rates to assure compliance with DO standards and measurable objectives for protection of aquatic species; • APC will establish a Coosa River Recreation Enhancement Fund (CRREF) as mitigation of the Project's continuing impact on boating, angling, and other forms of riverine recreation; $10 million upon license issuance and $500,000 per year thereafter for the license term, a reference is made in this alternative to utilize any remaining funds from the CRREF for the Warrior Basin;

6-8

• APC will deposit the funds in a trust account; it will transfer control over CCREF to its Governing Board upon mutual execution of a Trust Instrument which certifies that the Governing Board has adopted and will implement a CRREF which includes 1) measurable objectives for enhancement of river recreation; 2) specific strategies and measures which are cost-effective to achieve those objectives; 3) provision for the Governing Board’s performance of such measures; 4) provisions for monitoring of the results of implemented measures, and adaptive management of the specific strategies and measures in response to such results; and 5) provisions for the Governing Board’s annual reporting of such monitoring results and its forecast of expenditures for the next fiscal year; • CRREF will be used to protect and enhance off-site opportunities for riverine recreation; it will be used to acquire fee title or easement in such lands and undertake appropriate measures to enhance recreation opportunities, such as construction and operation of access so long as they are not inconsistent with CAHEF measures designed for protection and/or enhancement of aquatic resources; • Topical priority for CRREF will be boating and angling opportunities—priority will be given to projects that provide habitat benefits as well; • Geographical priority for CRREF expenditures will be the Coosa River Watershed; the Governing Board may consider other suitable locations in Alabama, including the Black Warrior Watershed, if projects within the Coosa are not feasible; • Priority will be given to projects that are integrated into existing recreation programs (e.g., Forever Wild); such projects may be undertaken by qualified members of the Governing Board or by contract with third parties (e.g., Nature Conservancy); • No funds can be expended for regulatory compliance; and • Fund will be governed by a Governing Board consisting of ADCNR, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Birmingham/Jefferson Regional Planning Commission, and Alabama Rivers Alliance or successor; the Trust Instrument will provide that the Governing Board will 1) act by consensus and 2) consult with APC and the Ecological Management Team in the development and implementation of the CRREF Plan.

6-9

6.2.5 Cost Comparison of Alternatives

A cost comparison of known alternatives and recommended protection, enhancement and mitigation measures contained in the proposed action and alternatives is presented as a summary of the net costs and benefits of all projects combined for APC Enhancement Proposal, the ARA/AR/WWF alternative and the No Action alternative (Table 6.3.1-1).

For both developments, the APC Enhancement Proposal would generate an average of 398,223 MWh/yr of electricity, have an annual replacement cost of $47.7 million, total annual costs of $9.8 million, and an annual project value (i.e., avoided cost) of $37.9 million.

Alternative 2 (ARA/ AR/WWF Alternative) would generate an average of 398,223 MWh/yr of electricity, have an annual replacement cost of $47.7 million , a total annual cost of $100.5 million, and an annual project value of negative $52.8 million. Annual project value would be $90.7 million less than the APC Enhancement Proposal and $92.9 million less than the No Action.

Alternative 3 (No Action) would generate an average of 398,223 MWh/yr of electricity, have an annual replacement cost of $47.7 million, and a total annual cost of $7.6 million. Annual project value (avoided cost) would be $40.1 million.

6-10

Table 6.3.1-1: Cost Comparison of Alternatives for the Smith and Bankhead Developments

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 APC ENHANCEMENT ALTERNATIVE ARA, AR, AND WWF NO ACTION (CURRENT PROPOSAL ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS) Annual 398,223 398,223 398,223 Generation1 (MWh) Annual $37.9 million ($52.8 million) $40.1 million Project value Annual cost 9.8 million 100.5 million 7.6 million Average Annual 24.6/MWh $252.4/MWh $19.1/MWh Project Cost (/MWh) 1 Annual generation stays the same for each alternative to APC’s Enhancement Proposal since APC would provide this generation under any circumstance.

In section 7, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, APC presents the reasons for recommending the APC Enhancement Proposal and why the environmental benefits are worth these costs.

6.3 Pollution Abatement

Estimates were developed of the amount of fossil fuels necessary if energy from the Warrior River developments were generated in a steam-electric plant rather than hydropower. Estimates were also developed for the amount of pollutants (oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter) produced by burning fossil fuels. In this analyses, it is assumed that the coal burned would contain 1.0 percent sulfur and the powerplants would not have state-of-the-art emission control systems. Results of analyses are presented in Table 6.3.2-5.

6-11

Table 6.3.2-5: Various Amounts of Fuel, Resulting Pollutants, and Removal Costs Necessary to Produce an Equivalent Amount of Generation (3,050,000 MWh) From and Alternative Energy Source for the Coosa River Developments (Source: APC)

COAL (TONS) Fuel Quantity (tons) 160,981

Pollutants (tons): Oxides of Sulfur 3,059 Oxides of Nitrogen 773 Carbon Monoxide 5 Carbon Dioxide 398,223 Particulates 97 Removal Costs:

SOX $ 2,447,447

NOX $ 2,317,658 a APC’s cost estimates for removing oxides of sulfur and nitrogen are $800 per ton of sulfur dioxide removed and $3000 per ton of nitrogen oxide removed.

6-12

7.0 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require FERC to consider all uses of the waterway on which the project is located. When the FERC reviews a hydropower project, the recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the involved waterway are considered equally with its electric energy and other developmental values. In determining whether, and under what conditions, to license a project, the FERC must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in the decision.

This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, APC’s recommendations to the FERC for the relicensing of the Warrior Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures.

7.1 Recommended Alternative

Based on our review and evaluation of the APC Enhancement Proposal, the ARA/AR/WWF Alternative, and the No Action Alternative, we select the APC Enhancement Proposal as the preferred and recommended alternative.

APC recommends this alternative because: (1) issuance of a license would allow the Smith and Bankhead developments to continue to operate as a dependable source of electric energy; (2) the developments would avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled electric generation and capacity, continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; (3) the public benefits of this alternative would exceed those of the No Action alternative and the ARA-AR-WWF alternative because APC has resolved the majority of issues through the direct and long-term participation of the multi-party multi-interest stakeholders; (4) the recommended measures would enhance fish and terrestrial resources, protect threatened and endangered species, enhance water quality, improve public use of recreational facilities and resources, improve multiple use and management of project lands, and maintain and protect historic, cultural, and archaeological resources within the area affected by project operations; and (5) the APC Enhancement Proposal would meet all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

7-1

APC recommends including the following measures in any license issued by the Commission for the Warrior Project:

• Implement the APC/USFS SA as described in Section 3.3.1; • Implement 401 Water Quality Certification conditions issued July 1, 2005 to include, design, installation, and operation of a turbine aeration system at the Smith development within 18 months of license issuance to provide 4.0 mg/L DO in the turbine discharge and monitor the system for 3 years following installation; • Minimize the occurrence of elevations lower than 495 ft msl at the Smith development. APC and the stakeholders reached concurrence on this request by adding, as an exception, events associated with critical electric system needs and other authorized project purposes; and • Implement the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal that includes:

1. Provide $24K annually (adjusted annually by CPI) for stocking cold water species (e.g. rainbow trout or other species) in Smith Tailrace and meet with ADCNR once every 10 years to review the cold water fish stocking program and discuss the stocking of recreational species other than rainbow trout; 2. Provide a minimum flow of approximately 50 cfs in the Smith Tailrace during non-generation periods when the tailrace elevation drops to 256.2 msl. This flow would be provided through valves that would be installed on the two penstocks in the powerhouse; 3. Provide instream habitat enhancements as specified in the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal and Smith Tailrace Recreation Plan; • Monitor and repair two (2) erosion areas identified in the powerhouse tailrace as described in the Warrior Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (APC, 2005); • Implement the provisions of the Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet to include providing $4.7 million to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of a Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program for habitat enhancements within the Project and $2.8 million in funding over a 16 year period for the Aquatic Research and Culture Center for species of concern; • Implement the Wildlife Management Plan recommendations for the Warrior Basin;

7-2

• Provide funding to assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of a Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program for habitat enhancements in the Smith and Bankhead developments; • Consult with USFWS and USFS on species under Section 7 of the ESA; • Continue to administer the Aquatic Plant Management and Mosquito Control Program; • Continue to cooperate with ADCNR in the control of exotic species in the state of Alabama; • Implement modifications (e.g., placement of shoreline rip-rap, shoreline buffer zones, and implementation of shoreline best management practices (BMPs)) to the Lake Shore Use Permitting Program as described in the Warrior River Project Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) (APC, 2004); • Implement an approved recreation plan for the Warrior Project that provides facility and access improvements at numerous locations according to a priority schedule, as described in Section 5.2.8.2.1; • Implement a Styrofoam policy to eliminate un-encapsulated Styrofoam by 2010 as part of the SMP; • Develop and implement a public education plan for the Warrior Project; and • Implement a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the protection of cultural resources at the Project, and develop and implement an approved Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).

We summarize these recommendations in the following section. Note that the costs referenced in this section are 2007 dollars, level over 30 years.

1. Operations

APC’s proposal to maintain existing operations at the Smith and Bankhead developments and release a 50 cfs minimum flow in the Smith tailrace during non- generation periods would enhance the fishery population. APC concludes that, as discussed in the STEP, coldwater releases from Smith support a trout fishery in the tailrace. Due to the peaking mode of operation at Smith, the tailrace is subject to large fluctuations in water levels (up to 10 ft) and flow (up to 10,000 cfs) during generation.

7-3

During non generation however, APC’s 50 cfs flow would enhance water quality in the tailrace, stabilize a base level of aquatic habitat, and improve the experience for anglers (especially fly anglers) targeting trout in the tailrace. Minor increases in water depth (up to 0.5 ft), velocity (0.5 ft/sec), and wetted perimeter (1 ft) would have no adverse impacts. The cost to continue existing operation at both developments and add 50 cfs during non-generation is $5,798,5244 and O&M cost for the 50 cfs minimum flow would be $100,995/yr. Because the existing operations adequately protects existing aquatic species, provides a source of generation and meets recreation needs—including those at the USFS facilities—APC recommends that FERC include as a license condition the existing operation parameters and a 50 cfs minimum flow at the Smith tailrace per the STEP.

2. Other Aquatic Habitat Improvements

In agreement with the USFWS and ADCNR, APC would implement the STEP which includes funding to the ADCNR to continue stocking cold water species in the Smith tailrace—the only cold water aquatic habitat in Alabama. APC would also provide instream habitat improvements to create additional angler access, fish attraction devices near the angler access, and provide structures that create velocity refuges for changing flows in the tailrace. Anglers should benefit from implementing the STEP as it includes formal access to the tailrace which is not currently present. APC’s cost to provide these enhancements is $20,896 in capital cost and $30,124 annually.

ARA/AR/WWF recommended ramping the units at Smith and Bankhead to reduce impacts to less mobile species and assure water quality standards. The analysis in Chapter 5 indicates an assumption of 500 cfs per unit with a 1-hour ramp schedule. In comparison, APC’s STEP includes installing fish attraction devices (FADS) and habitat structures in the Smith tailrace to provide refuge for aquatic species when additional units are coming on-line and velocity may increase and water levels are rising. The STEP was designed with stakeholder input and in consultation with the ADCNR who has suggested

7-4

specific areas for APC to install FADs and structures for refuge. ARA/AR/WWF’s cost to provide ramping at the Smith and Bankhead developments would be $76,268,868 million per year. The cost to provide the ramping of these units far exceeds the benefits and APC’s proposal to provide minimum flow during non-generation and to provide FADs and other habitat structures in the Smith tailrace would accomplish the goal of protecting aquatic species from sudden changes in flow and velocity levels.

Therefore, APC recommends that FERC include a license article in a new license issued for the Warrior Project to implement the STEP measures, including FADs and habitat structures.

3. Water Quality Improvements

On July 1, 2005, APC received a Water Quality Certification from the ADEM that includes designing, installing and operating an aeration system at the Smith development within 18 months of license issuance in order to meet 4 mg/L DO during generation. APC will also be monitoring the water quality for 3 years following installation and operation. Meeting the conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification is an important part of maintaining a healthy river system, having ecological and recreational benefits. The cost to meet the Water Quality Certification conditions is $893,823 with an annual cost of $2,944. Since state Water Quality Certification conditions are mandatory, APC recommends these conditions be included in a new license issued to APC.

4. Settlement Agreement between APC and USFS

Through extensive research, data and information collection, site inspections and numerous discussions, the USFS has determined the appropriate scope and amount of measures that are necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of the Bankhead National Forest as related to the Smith development and that these measures, if implemented, will satisfy its Section 4(e) authority and its other conditioning authorities and responsibilities under the Federal Power Act with regard to the Project. APC

7-5

proposes to assist the USFS in implementing these measures by providing funding and services to the USFS during the term of the new license for the Project to address fully all of the USFS’s issues related to the relicensing of the Project. The total capital cost to implement the SA is $3,876,130 and $33,259 in O&M annually.. The schedule for enhancements and the exact cost per year is provided in the APC USFS SA. The measures to be implemented include enhancements to protected species in the USFS and project area, additional flattened musk turtles studies, additional ecological studies, culvert repairs for the movement of aquatic species within tributaries to Smith Lake, recreational access and facility improvements within the project area and USFS facilities, erosion repair, encroachment monitoring and enforcement, additional cultural resources studies per the Programmatic Agreement, and public education. These measures address project area issues on USFS lands. APC recommends that FERC adopt the stipulations of the SA and include the SA in a new license issued by FERC for the Warrior Project.

5. Erosion Repair and Monitoring

APC conducted an erosion site study based on “hotspots” detected at the Smith development. Two sites were deemed necessary for repair and monitoring. APC proposes to repair two sites at Smith and implement the consensus based Erosion Monitoring and Repair Report. Repairing these sites would result in less soil deposition in the Warrior River and associated tributaries and prevent further erosion to the tailrace. The cost to complete these repairs is $104, 478. APC recommends that FERC include a license article to implement the Erosion Monitoring and Repair Report, specifically for repair of the two sites at the Smith development.

6. Aquatic Culture Facility Per the Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet

APC, in cooperation and consultation with the ADCNR and USFWS, has reached agreement on providing funding to assist with the ADCNR Aquatic Culture Center (ACC). Under ADCNR management, propagation of aquatic species endemic to the Warrior Basin may occur and reintroduction of various species in the Warrior Basin (Project area) may follow. The annual cost to provide funding for the ACC is $13,060.

7-6

APC recommends that FERC include a license article in a new license for the Warrior Project for funding for the ACC in accordance with the APC, ADCNR, and USFWS Relicensing Term Sheet.

7. Wildlife Management Plan

APC proposes to implement a Wildlife Management Plan for the Warrior River Project. The Wildlife Management Plan is a cooperative effort between APC and ADCNR. The Wildlife Management Plan contains provisions that would enhance and protect the wetland and upland wildlife habitats surrounding the Smith development. Along with the SMP (as described in No. 10 below), APC would provide unmanaged buffer strips around the reservoir that would enhance available food and cover for wildlife species, provide corridors that enhance linkages between larger habitat patches, and protect nearshore environments. In addition, APC would provide barrier free hunting access, offering a unique opportunity for hunters with disabilities. The cost to provide a Wildlife Management Plan for the Warrior Project is $15,000 capital cost and a total of $102,700 in O&M over a 30-year analysis. APC recommends that FERC include a license article requiring implementation of the Wildlife Management Plan in a new license issued for the Warrior Project.

8. Shoreline Management Plan

APC worked with the stakeholders to develop a Warrior Project Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) that utilizes land planning, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and enhancements to APC’s permitting program. Where physically and economically practical, APC proposes to require through its permitting system that rip- rap be placed in front of all newly constructed seawalls. On APC owned lands within the Project boundary, APC will also require that new permittees maintain a minimum of 15-ft of unmanaged vegetation that will serve as a shoreline buffer zone and encourage the use of BMPs by all private land owners through a combination of public education and outreach efforts as well as lake shore use permits. To assist and educate stakeholders on the permitting process and the BMPs, APC is planning stakeholder workshops, a website,

7-7

and an educational brochure. Finally, APC is also implementing a fee structure for new permits and modifications to existing permits to partially recover the administrative costs of implementing shoreline management. To ensure that the SMP is meeting the resource goals, APC plans to review the SMP every 6 years, consistent with the FERC Form 80 recreation review, which will involve stakeholder consultation. These shoreline improvements would result in categorizing lands in sensitive areas based on GIS data that notes there is a cultural resource in the area or an endangered species present. APC has invested in the collection of numerous data and consolidated it to afford the unique and comprehensive planning tool. If a permit application is received by APC, it will now know whether a formal environmental review is needed.

The cost to implement a SMP is $47,015 in capital costs and $176,219 O&M/year. APC recommends that FERC include a license article requiring implementation of the Warrior SMP in a new license issued for the Warrior Project.

9. Recreation Plans

A recreation plan is filed along with this APEA that includes facility and/or access enhancements to nine recreation sites (not including those covered under the USFS/APC SA). The sites have been selected, discussed, and agreed to through extensive consultation with state and federal agencies, lake and homeowners’ groups and local government. The recreation plan is a partnership with the communities to ensure a commitment by local entities for law enforcement and litter removal. The cost to implement the recreation plan is $1,252,654 in capital costs and $43,804 in annual O&M.

The ARA/AR/WWF proposed a Coosa River Recreation Enhancement Fund (CRREF) of $10 million upon license issuance and $500,000/yr for the license term to mitigate the Project’s continuing impact on boating, angling and other forms of riverine recreation. ARA/AR/WWF notes that the focus of the CRREF is for the Coosa River but funds could be expended on the Warrior Basin, if warranted. The ARA/AR/WWF’s CRREF was not developed in consultation with Warrior Basin stakeholders and seems to place the focus of recreation improvements in the Coosa Basin. Further, the CRREF’s

7-8

proposed purpose is to improve “other forms of riverine recreation.” APC’s stakeholder developed recreation plan focuses improvements to many forms of recreation focused on Smith Lake and in the river below the Smith Dam. Riverine and lake recreationists would benefit from the APC proposed recreation plan and APC’s proposal includes additional stakeholder consultation, capital improvements and O&M to address the recreational needs of the Warrior Project. In contrast, it is unknown how much, if any of the CRREF would actually be expended in the Warrior Basin.

APC concludes that the recreation plan as proposed by APC and developed in consultation with and agreement by the Warrior Project stakeholders, would provide the most benefit for the public over the term of the new Warrior Project license. Therefore, APC recommends that FERC include in a new license, an article that APC implement the Warrior Project Recreation Plan.

10. Cultural Resources

APC is proposing to implement a PA and a HPMP to enhance and protect cultural resources surrounding the Warrior Project developments. To supplement existing studies and those completed during the pre-filing phase of relicensing, APC will conduct additional Phase I surveys of selected shoreline segments in the assessment of determining the potential for properties included in or eligible for the NRHP to occur with the Smith development Area of Potential Effect. The PA and HPMP were developed in consultation with and have consensus of the parties on the cultural resources RSL, which includes the Alabama SHPO and various tribes. The number and location of these segments including the respective schedule to examine them will be presented in the HPMP for the Smith Project. The cost to conduct additional studies and to implement the PA and HPMP for the term of a new license issued for the Warrior Project is $3,964,936.

Therefore, APC recommends that FERC include in a new license issued for the Warrior Project a license article to implement the PA and HPMP for the Warrior Project.

7-9

Implementing this agreement and management plan would continue to provide protection and enhancement for the cultural resources of the Warrior Project.

11. Other Enhancements

APC proposes to continue to administer the Aquatic Plant Management and Mosquito Control Program and to develop and implement a public education plan for the Warrior Project. Implementing both of these items would reduce the chance of invasive species issues on Smith Lake and continue to provide mosquito protection for the lake residents and users. A public education plan with an emphasis on Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residents, lake users, and developers may help to reduce the impacts associated with sea wall construction, application of herbicides and pesticides and reducing riparian buffers. The cost to continue administering the Aquatic Plan Management and Mosquito Control Program is $277,953 (total O&M), which is $9,265/year. The cost to design and implement a public education plan for the Warrior Project is $62,687. with an annual cost of $2,090.

APC recommends that FERC require in a license article that APC implement the Aquatic Plant Management and Mosquito Control Program and design and develop a public education plan.

7-10

8.0 CONSISTENCY WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOMMENDATIONS

Under the provisions of Section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. Section 10(j) of the FPA states that, whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purpose and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.

The APC Enhancement Proposal was developed with the consensus of the agencies that have the statutory and regulatory responsibility to submit 10(j) recommendations. The APC Enhancement Proposal incorporates the agencies’ 10(j) recommendations but nothing in this APEA precludes the agencies from filing 10(j) recommendations pursuant to FERC notice; however, the 10(j) recommendations should support and be consistent with the APC Enhancement Proposal.

This Section is completed by FERC Staff in their NEPA Document following Public Notice of Agency final Terms, Conditions, and Recommendations.

8-1

9.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Section 10(a) (2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and conserving waterways affected by the project. Under Section 10(a) (2), Federal and state agencies filed a total of 26 plans that address various resources in Alabama. Of these, we identified and reviewed 9 plans relevant to the Project5. No inconsistencies in any approved plans were found.

5 Alabama: (1) Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1986. Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Montgomery, Alabama. (2) Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1990. Wildlife lands needed for Alabama. Montgomery, Alabama. Federal: (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. North American waterfowl management plan. Gulf Coast joint venture plan. Department of the Interior. (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. (4) National Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (5) National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) Recovery/Management Plan. Prepared by the Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Task Team. (6) National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Fishery Management Report No. 35 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: Shad and river herring - Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. (7) National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring.

9-1

In addition to the comprehensive plans filed with the FERC, there are several state and federal plans that are relevant to the project.6 APC also reviewed the USFS’s Bankhead National Forest Management Plan (2004). No inconsistencies with any approved plan or the BNF Plan were found.

6 Other Plans: (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Recovery Plan for Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem. Atlanta, GA. (2) Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Draft. Alabama’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Montgomery, AL. (3) Mirarchi, R.E. (Ed.). 2004. Alabama Wildlife, Volume 1: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. (4) Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O’Neil (Eds.). 2004. Alabama Wildlife, Volume 2: Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. (5) Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, T.M. Haggerty, and T.L. Best (Eds.). 2004. Alabama Wildlife, Volume 3: Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. (6) Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O’Neil (Eds.). 2004. Alabama Wildlife, Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for Imperiled Wildlife. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. (7) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin. Atlanta, GA. (8) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for 6 Mobile River Basin Aquatic Snails. Jackson, Mississippi.

9-2

10.0 FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

The APEA for the Smith and Bankhead developments was developed pursuant to NEPA requirements. Implementing the protection measures described in this APEA would ensure that the environmental effects of the Project would remain insignificant. There would be no significant unavoidable adverse effects.

Based on this analysis, APC believes that FERC can issue a license for these two developments that would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. With the recommended measures included in the APC Proposal, aquatic and riparian resources, recreation resources, USFS resources and any cultural resources that would be found during project maintenance or operation, would be protected.

10-1

11.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 1988. Bankhead Reservoir Management Report 1987. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Fisheries Section. Montgomery, AL. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). May 14, 2000. Alabama Record Freshwater Fish. http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/fishing/freshwater/records.cfm. September 3, 2004. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 1984. The effects of hydroelectric dams on water quality in Alabama. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Montgomery, AL. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 1999. ADEM Administrative Code, Division 6, Water Quality Program, Volume 1, Chapter 335-6. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Montgomery, AL. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 1999a. Intensive Water Quality Survey of Warrior River Basin Reservoirs 1998. December 1999. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 1999b. Water Division - Water Quality Program, Volume 1, 335-6. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2002a. Alabama's 2002 Water Quality Report to Congress (Clean Water Act §305(b) Report). Alabama Department of Environmental Management ADEM. 2002b. Alabama's Draft 2002 Section 303(d) List. Alabama Department of Environmental Management ADEM. 2003. Alabama's Final 2002 Section 303(d) List. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2004. Alabama 2004 Water Quality Report to Congress. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Montgomery, AL. Alabama Power Company (APC) and Kleinschmidt. 2000. Initial Information Packages – Lewis Smith and Bankhead Developments. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. Alabama Power Company (APC), Kleinschmidt, and E/PRO Consulting. 2003. Warrior/Coosa Relicensing Project – E12 Wetlands Issue Report. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. Alabama Power Company (APC). 1965. Black Warrior – Tombigbee River Basin Reservoir Regulation Manual - Appendix A: Lewis M. Smith Reservoir. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL Alabama Power Company (APC). 2000a. Bankhead and Smith Project Lands – Recorded Archaeological Sites. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL Alabama Power Company (APC). 2000b. Smith Tailrace Electrofishing Data 1999 – 2000 (unpublished data). Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL.

11-1

Alabama Power Company (APC). 2002a. Water Quality Report for the Bankhead Project. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. Alabama Power Company (APC). 2002b. Water Quality Report for the Smith Project. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. Alabama Power Company (APC). 2003a. Coosa and Warrior Projects – Erosion Study Final Report. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. Alabama Power Company (APC). 2003b. E4 – Water Quantity, Water Use, and Water Withdrawals Issue Report. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. June 2003. Alabama Power Company (APC). 2003c. Radiotelemetry tracking of rainbow trout in Sipsey Fork (unpublished data). Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, Alabama. Alabama Power Company (APC). 2004. Shoreline Management Plan for the Warrior River Project. Alabama Power Company. Birmingham, AL. Bayne, D.R., Seesock, W.C., and C. Webber. 1987. Water quality of Lewis Smith Lake. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Montgomery, Alabama. Bayne, David R., W. C. Seescock, E. Reutebuch, and S. Holm. 1997. Smith Lake Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility Study. Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University. Auburn, Alabama. Behler, J. L. and F. W. King. 1991. The Audubon Society: Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Chanticleer Press. New York, NY. Black Warrior River Clean Water Partnership (BWRCWP). 2004. Black Warrior River Watershed Management Plan. CAWACO Resource Development Council, Birmingham, AL. Caddell, Gloria M. 1981. Plant Resources, Archaeological Plant Remains, and Prehistoric Plant-Use Patterns in the Central Tombigbee Valley. In Biocultural Studies in the Gainesville Lake Area. Volume IV of Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, by Gloria M. Caddell, Anne Woodrick, and Mary C. Hill, pp. 1-90. Report of Investigations 14. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. Chamber of Commerce of West Alabama. 1999. West Alabama Chamber of Commerce. http://www.tuscaloosachamber.com. March 28, 2000. Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131pp. Cullman County Chamber of Commerce. 1998. Cullman, Alabama – The Premier Community. DeSelm, H. R. and N. Murdock. 1993. Grass-dominated communities. In: W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht. eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

11-2

Doudoroff, Peter, and Dean L. Shumway. 1970. Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Freshwater Fishes. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 86. E/PRO. May 10, 2002. Preliminary Recreational Usage Estimates and Forecast for the Lewis Smith Project. Available at: Use and Forecast for the Lewis Smith Project (5-10-02).pdf. November 22, 2004. Ekema, Phil D., T. D. George, and K. B. Floyd. 2004. Lewis Smith Reservoir Management Report – 2003. ADCNR. Montgomery, AL. Ensor, H. Blaine. 1982. Paleo-Indian and Archaic Studies in the Gainesville Lake Area. In Archaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis. Volume V of Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, by Ned. J. Jenkins, pp. 15-47. Report of Investigations 23. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. Ensor, H. Blaine. 1985. The Joe Powell Site (1Pi38): A Dalton Manifestation on the Alabama Gulf Coastal Plain. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 31(1):1-47. Ensor, H. Blaine. 1993. Big Sandy Farms: A Prehistoric Agricultural Community near Moundville, Black Warrior River Floodplain, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Report of Investigations 68. Prepared for Basin Pipeline, Birmingham. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Washington D.C. Floyd, Keith B., Doug Darr, and Phil D. Ekema. 1994. Smith Reservoir Management Report 1992. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Fisheries Section. Montgomery, AL. Freese and Nichols, Inc. 1998. Seventh Safety Inspection Report – Bankhead Hydro Electric Plant, 1998. Freese and Nichols, Inc. Fort Worth, TX. Freese and Nichols, Inc. 1998. Seventh Safety Inspection Report - Smith Dam, 1998. Freese and Nichols, Inc. Fort Worth, TX. Futato, Eugene M. 1983. Archaeological Investigations in the Cedar Creek and Upper Bear Creek Reservoirs. Report of Investigations 29. Prepared for the Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. Futato, Eugene M. 1992. Archaeological Overview. In William B. Bankhead National Forest: A Cultural Resource Overview, by Eugene M. Futato and Catherine C. Meyer, pp. 43-59. Report of Investigations 67. Prepared for the United States Forest Service. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. Garner, J. T. 2004. Freshwater Mussels and Snails Introduction. Pp. 10 - 12 in R. E. Mirarchi, J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, P. E. O’Neil, eds. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. Great Outdoor Recreation Pages. 2000. William B. Bankhead National Forest. http://www.gorp.com. September 7, 2004.

11-3

Holliman, D. C. 1963. Mammals of Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama Birds, 2nd Ed. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, AL. Jenkins, Ned J. 1978. Ceramic Chronology in the Gainesville Reservoir. Paper presented at the 35th Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Knoxville, TN. Jenkins, Ned J. 1981. Gainesville Lake Area Ceramic Description and Chronology. Archaeological Investigations in the Gainsville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, vol. 2. Report submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile by the Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. Report of Investigations 12. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. Kleinschmidt. 2004. E-6 Threatened and Endangered Species Database Summary Report. Prepared for Alabama Power Company. Kleinschmidt. West Columbia, SC. Knight, Vernon J. Jr. and Alexander, Lawrence S. 1982 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Oliver Lock and Dam Project Area Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Report of Investigations (33). The University of Alabama, Alabama. Knight, Vernon J., Jr., and Vincas P. Steponaitis (Editors). 1998. Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Kricher, J. C., and G. Morrison. 1988. A Field Guide to Eastern Forests of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Martin, W. H., and S. G. Boyce. 1993. Introduction: the southeastern setting. Pp. 146 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Mettee, Maurice F., P. E. O’Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House. Birmingham, AL. Moss, Jerry L. and J. J. McHugh. 1988. Bankhead Reservoir management report. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Fisheries Section. Montgomery, AL. Moss, Jerry L., J. B. Haffner, and J. M. Piper. 2000. Bankhead Reservoir management report. ADCNR. Montgomery, AL. Mount, R. H. 1984. Vertebrate Wildlife of Alabama. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University. Auburn, AL. Nix, Steve. 1996. Alabama’s Forest Land – Who is in Control? Presented at the Alabama Forestry Association Woodland Managers Meeting, August 21, 1996. North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). 2003. Long-Term Reliability Assessment. NERC. Princeton, NJ. Oakley, Carey B. and Eugene M. Futato. 1975. Archaeological Investigations in the Little Bear Creek Reservoir. Report submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga by the Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University. Research Series 1. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, University.

11-4

Sharitz, R.R., and W.J. Mitsch. 1993. Chapter 8: southern floodplain forests. Pp. 311-371 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Skeen, J. N., P. D. Doerr, and D. H. Van Lear. 1993. Oak hickory pine forests. Pp. 1 33 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and 1990 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments. U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. The Effect of Fluctuating Oxygen Concentrations on Rainbow Trout. Research Project WO3972-01. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Walker County, Alabama. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA). 1981. Soil Survey of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. United States Forest Service – Southern Region (USFS). Unknown. Land Management and Resource Management Plan – National Forests in Alabama. United States Forest Service. Atlanta, GA. Walker County Chamber of Commerce. 2001. Walker County Demographics. Walker County Chamber of Commerce, Jasper, AL. http://www.walkerchamber.us/Demographics.htm. September 7, 2004. Walthall, John A. and Ned J. Jenkins. 1976 The Gulf Formational Stage in Southeastern Prehistory. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Southeastern Archaeological Conference, edited by Drexel A. Peterson, Jr. pp. 43-49. Bullentin 19. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Memphis. Wetzel, Robert G. 2001. Limnology - Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd ed., San Diego: Academic Press. Woodrick, Anne. 1981. An Analysis of the Faunal Remains from the Gainesville Lake Area. In Biocultural Studies in the Gainesville Lake Area. Volume IV of Archaeological Investigations in the Gainesville Lake Area of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, by Gloria M. Caddell, Anne Woodrick, and Mary C. Hill, pp. 91-168. Report of

11-5

Investigations 14. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL.

11-6

12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Per discussion in Section 4.1, the WCRT and IAGs were formed in part to assist APC with the APEA. This assistance included raising environmental and recreational resource concerns, attendance at relicensing meetings, development of recommendations and alternatives and review of documents, including this APEA. The following lists the preparers and contributors to APC’s APEA.

Commission Staff

Alabama Power

• James F. Crew, P.E.—Editor (Relicensing Manager; B.S. Civil Engineering)

• Bill Gardner—Cultural Resources (Senior Engineer; B.S. Biology, B.S. Civil Engineering) • Jim Lochamy – Aquatic Resources, Terrestrial Resources, & Threatened and Endangered Species (Environmental Affairs Field Services Supervisor; B.S. Wildlife Sciences) • Barry K. Lovett, Editor (Relicensing Manager, B.E.E.T. Electrical Engineering, B.S.E. Electrical Engineering) • Pamela McDaniel, P.E., CPESC—Geological and Soil Resources & Water Resources (Senior Engineer; B.S. Chemistry, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, M.S. Environmental Engineering) • Christy Nix—Description of Current Project Operations & Proposed Operational Measures (Hydraulic Engineer; B.S. Civil Engineering, M.S. Civil Engineering) • Alan Peeples—Water Resources & Land Use and Aesthetic Resources (Senior Engineer; B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Civil Engineering) • J. Malcolm Pierson—Terrestrial Resources, Aquatic and Fisheries Resources, & Threatened and Endangered Species (Senior Aquatic Biologist; B.S. Biology, M.S. Fisheries Science) • Andy Sheppard, P.E.—Description of Current Project Operations & Operation Enhancements (Reservoir Operations Coordinator; B.S. Engineering) • Bill Sim—Geological and Soil Resources & Water Resources (Supervising Engineer; B.S. Mechanical Engineering, M.B.A.) • Sheila Smith—Land Use and Aesthetic Resources (Senior Real Estate Specialist)

12-1

• Charles M Stover, Operations and Water Management (Supervisor Reservoir Management, B.S. Civil Engineering; P.E. Alabama; J.D. Law; Member Alabama State Bar) • David A. Tubbs, P.E. – Economic Analysis (Project Engineer; B.S. Electrical Engineering; M.S. Engineering)

Kleinschmidt Associates

• David K. Anderson, Ph.D.—Recreation Resources, Land Use and Aesthetic Resources, & Socioeconomics (Recreation Specialist; B.S. Secondary Education, M.S. Geography, Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences) • Shane Boring—Terrestrial Resources & Threatened and Endangered Species (Environmental Scientist; B.S. Biology, M.S. Ecology) • Henry G. Mealing, III—Water Resources, Aquatic and Fisheries Resources, Terrestrial Resources, & Threatened and Endangered Species (Sr. Fisheries Scientist/Manager; B.S. Biology, M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science) • Jason W. Moak—Aquatic and Fisheries Resources & Threatened and Endangered Species (Fisheries Biologist; B.S. Biology) • Tim Oakes—Editor (Senior Licensing Coordinator; B.A. English) • Kelly Schaeffer—Application, Purpose and Need for Action, Proposed Action and Alternatives, & Consultation and Compliance (Senior Regulatory Advisor; B.S. Management Parks and Recreation, M.S. Recreation Resources) • James M. Moore III, Water Resources (Senior Licensing Coordinator, B.S. Civil Engineering)

E/PRO

• William Campbell—Recreation Resources & Land Use and Aesthetic Resources (Environmental Science Specialist; B. S. Environmental Science) • Heather Seiders—Recreation Resources & Land Use and Aesthetic Resources (Recreation Specialist; B.S. Parks, Recreation and Tourism)

12-2

Balch & Bingham

P. Stephen Gidiere, III, Partner – Balch and Bingham, LLP; J.D., University of Alabama School of Law, 1996; summa cum laude Order of the Coif, Alabama Law Review, Hugo Black Scholar, M. Leigh Harrison Award ; B.S., University of the South, 1993; summa cum laude Valedictorian, Phi Beta Kappa. James H. Hancock, Jr., Partner – Balch and Bingham, LLP, J.D., University of Alabama School of Law, 1988. Editor, Alabama Law Review; B.A. Auburn University, 1985.

12-3

APPENDIX A

APC AND USFS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FINAL, NO SIGNATURES)

APPENDIX B

SMITH TAILRACE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL

APPENDIX C

APC, ADCNR, USFWS COOSA/WARRIOR RELICENSING TERM SHEET

APPENDIX D

ADEM 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE

APPENDIX E

FISH TYPICAL OF THE SMITH AND BANKHEAD DRAINAGE

APPENDIX F

REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION ON STOCKING EFFORTS

APPENDIX G

TYPICAL PLANT SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA

APPENDIX H

TYPICAL MAMMAL, AMPHIBIAN, REPTILE, AND BIRD SPECIES FOUND IN THE REGION

APPENDIX I

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX J

CULTURAL OVERVIEW FROM PREHISTORY TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX K

SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION ON COUNTIES IN ALABAMA