DOCSLIB.ORG

FERC Project No. 13102-003

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FERC Project No. 13102-003 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Demopolis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 13102-003 Alabama Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 July 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................ x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... xii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need For Power ........................................................ 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................ 2 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ....................................................... 4 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .................................................................. 5 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................... 10 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................ 10 1.4 Public Review and Comment ...................................................................... 11 1.4.1 Scoping .......................................................................................... 11 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................. 12 1.4.3 Comments on the License Applications ........................................ 12 1.4.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Terms and Conditions .............. 13 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 15 2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................................. 15 2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Existing Corps Facilities................................................................ 15 2.2.2 Existing Corps Operations ............................................................. 17 2.2.3 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................ 18 2.2.4 Project Safety ................................................................................. 19 2.2.5 Proposed Project Operation ........................................................... 20 2.2.6 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................... 20 2.2.7 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal – Mandatory Conditions .. 25 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 27 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ................................................................................... 30 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 31 3.1 General Description of the River Basin ...................................................... 31 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................ 33 i 3.2.1 Geographic Scope .......................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ............................................................................. 34 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ................................................... 34 3.3.1 Geology and Soil Resources .......................................................... 34 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment................................................... 34 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 36 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 53 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment................................................... 53 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 89 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................... 142 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 144 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment................................................. 144 3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 158 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................... 180 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................. 180 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 191 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use Resources ........................................... 212 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment................................................. 212 3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 216 3.3.6 Aesthetic Resources ..................................................................... 220 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................. 220 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 220 3.3.7 Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 222 3.3.7.1 Affected Environment................................................. 222 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 228 3.4 No-action Alternative ................................................................................ 229 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 230 4.1 Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project.................................... 230 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................... 232 4.2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................. 232 4.2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ................................................................... 232 4.2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................... 233 4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures .............................................................. 233 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 251 5.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative ................ 251 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by the Applicant .......................................... 251 5.1.2 Additional Staff-recommended Measures ................................... 253 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff ........................................ 284 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................... 287 5.3 Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations ........................................... 289 5.4 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ................................................... 290 ii 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................... 292 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 293 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 307 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 308 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................. 324 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Location of the proposed Demopolis Project (Source: Birch Power, as modified by staff). ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-1. Schematic of the Tombigbee River, Black Warrior River, and Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. Navigation miles are from Bankhead Tunnel (U.S. Highway 90), Mobile, Alabama (Source: staff). ......................................... 16 Figure 2-2. The Corps’ Demopolis Lock and Dam (Source: Google Earth, 2014; as modified by staff). ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-3. Proposed project facilities. Region shaded in red is the flow affected area (Source: Birch Power as modified by staff). ............................................... 19 Figure 3-1. Riverbed characteristics downstream of Demopolis Lock and Dam (Source: Google Earth, 2014; as modified by staff). ................................................. 42 Figure 3-2. Downstream flows at the project during operation when inflows are 5,000 cfs to 20,000 cfs (Source: Google Earth, 2014, as modified by staff). ............. 44 Figure 3-3. Downstream flows at the project during operation when inflows are 20,000 cfs to 40,000 cfs (Source: Google Earth, 2014, as modified by staff).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints
    Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints PERSONAL VISION STATEMENTS “I want to live in a city that cares about air quality and the environment.” “Keep Birmingham beautiful, especially the water ways.” 4.1 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS GOALS POLICIES FOR DECISION MAKERS natural areas and conservation A comprehensive green infrastructure • Support the creation of an interconnected green infrastructure network that includes system provides access to and natural areas for passive recreation, stormwater management, and wildlife habitat. preserves natural areas and • Consider incentives for the conservation and enhancement of natural and urban environmentally sensitive areas. forests. Reinvestment in existing communities • Consider incentives for reinvestment in existing communities rather than conserves resources and sensitive “greenfields,” for new commercial, residential and institutional development. environments. • Consider incentives for development patterns and site design methods that help protect water quality, sensitive environmental features, and wildlife habitat. air and water quality The City makes every effort to • Support the development of cost-effective multimodal transportation systems that consistently meet clean air standards. reduce vehicle emissions. • Encourage use of clean fuels and emissions testing. • Emphasize recruitment of clean industry. • Consider incentives for industries to reduce emissions over time. • Promote the use of cost-effective energy efficient design, materials and equipment in existing and private development. The City makes every effort to • Encourage the Birmingham Water Works Board to protect water-supply sources consistently meet clean water located outside of the city to the extent possible. standards. • Consider incentives for development that protects the city’s water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Deeds, Wills, Administrations of Jefferson County, State of Alabama
    1 DEEDS – WILLS – ADMINISTRATIONS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BOOK 2 Vol. V 1833 – 1837 Page 221 – 289 Vol. VI 1836 – 1839 Page 290 – 378 Vol. VII 1839 – 1840 Page 379 – 467 Vol. VII 1840 – 1844 Page 468 – 1844 Birmingham Public Library Birmingham, Alabama Works Progress Administration 1937 2 STATE OF ALABAMA – JEFFERSON COUNTY DEEDS – WILLS – ADMINISTRATIONS 1833 – 1837 Vol. 5 MORTGAGE DEED Page 1 & 2 REASON DUKE to PEYTON KING, trustee, both of Jeff. Co. Ala. Premisis. All corn now on hand and a black horse, cupboard, two tables, 4 chairs, 2 beds and their furniture, and two bed steads, his crop of corn and cotton now planted. Whereas, Jason Addington is security for Reason Duke, in three notes, Viz: One to Curtis Williams in the sum $120, one to Lightfoot Williams, in the sum of $13, and the other to John Martin, in the sum of $64. Reason Duke being willing to secure the payment of said debts, executes this deed of trust Dated Apr. 3, 1833. Ack. Before B. E. Grace Clk. of C.C. Apr. 3, 1833. Filed Apr. 3. Recorded Apr. 15, 1833. B. E. Grace, Clk. of C.C. MORTGAGE Page 2 & 3 DANIEL WATKINS TO BAYLIS E. GRACE, both of Jeff. Co. Ala. Premises. One sorrel mare with a blazed face, about eleven or twelve yrs. Old. Whereas, Watkins is indebted to Grace in the sum of $20.93 ¾, due by note payable to Grace & Kelly. And Watkins being willing to secure the payment of same, executes this mortgage. Wit. Abner Killough Dated Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Use at the Holt Project Holt Hydroelectric Project
    WATER USE AT THE HOLT PROJECT HOLT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2203 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA Prepared by: OCTOBER 2011 WATER USE AT THE HOLT PROJECT HOLT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2203 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES AND OPERATION .............2 2.1 LOCATION .................................................................................................................2 2.2 HOLT PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................7 2.3 USACE HOLT LOCK AND DAM DESCRIPTION ..........................................................7 2.4 PROJECT OPERATION ................................................................................................8 3.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2-1 BLACK WARRIOR RIVER BASIN PROJECTS ................................................................3 LIST OF PHOTOS PHOTO 2-1 HOLT LOCK AND DAM AND HOLT PROJECT—POWERHOUSE VISIBLE ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF RIVER ..........................................................................................4 PHOTO 2-2 HOLT POWERHOUSE, LOOKING DOWNSTREAM .........................................................5 PHOTO 2-3 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER’S HOLT LOCK—VIEW LOOKING
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Communities of South Carolina
    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY JOHN B. NELSON SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE & MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1986 INTRODUCTION The maintenance of an accurate inventory of a region's natural resources must involve a system for classifying its natural communities. These communities themselves represent identifiable units which, like individual plant and animal species of concern, contribute to the overall natural diversity characterizing a given region. This classification has developed from a need to define more accurately the range of natural habitats within South Carolina. From the standpoint of the South Carolina Nongame and Heritage Trust Program, the conceptual range of natural diversity in the state does indeed depend on knowledge of individual community types. Additionally, it is recognized that the various plant and animal species of concern (which make up a significant remainder of our state's natural diversity) are often restricted to single natural communities or to a number of separate, related ones. In some cases, the occurrence of a given natural community allows us to predict, with some confidence, the presence of specialized or endemic resident species. It follows that a reasonable and convenient method of handling the diversity of species within South Carolina is through the concept of these species as residents of a range of natural communities. Ideally, a nationwide classification system could be developed and then used by all the states. Since adjacent states usually share a number of community types, and yet may each harbor some that are unique, any classification scheme on a national scale would be forced to recognize the variation in a given community from state to state (or region to region) and at the same time to maintain unique communities as distinctive.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Scientists Join Our Opposition to the Proposed Shepherd Bend Mine
    Issue 23: 2014 Part 1 ® Top Scientists Join Our Opposition to the Proposed Shepherd Bend Mine IN THIS ISSUE The University of Alabama (UA) is the main owner of land and minerals at the proposed Shepherd Northern Beltline Update 2 Bend Mine site across from a major drinking water supply for the greater Birmingham area on the Mulberry Fork of the Black Warrior River. Therefore, we recently sent UA’s Trustees and campus leaders two new “Save Our Water” 3 letters from esteemed scientists who oppose this remarkably shortsighted coal mining proposal. Riverkeeper Patrol Notes 4-5 The 1,773-acre strip mine would discharge polluted water at 29 outfalls, including one that is 800 feet Board Member Bio: across the river from the Birmingham Water Works Board’s Mulberry Intake. Metals, sediment, and other 6 Professor Bill Andreen pollutants discharged from the mine would lead to decreased source water quality for 200,000 citizens served by that intake, and potentially increased water bills for 600,000 Birmingham Water Works Board customers. Fishing in the Black 6 Three preeminent researchers on water pollution from coal mines recently wrote the following in a Warrior River Watershed public letter highlighting the need to protect Birmingham’s drinking water from coal pollution: “Despite our Donation Form and 7 extensive collective experience regarding permit applications in the coalfields of West Virginia and Kentucky, “About us” the Shepherd’s Bend mine is the first mining permit application that we have seen immediately adjacent to a Interns and Accolades 8 public drinking water supply. Given the extensive literature linking surface coal mining to a variety of human health problems with enormous associated public health costs, such activity seems particularly ill advised.” Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioactive Steroids and Saponins of the Genus Trillium
    molecules Review Bioactive Steroids and Saponins of the Genus Trillium Shafiq Ur Rahman 1,*, Muhammad Ismail 2, Muhammad Khurram 1, Irfan Ullah 3, Fazle Rabbi 2 and Marcello Iriti 4,* ID 1 Department of Pharmacy, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir 18000, Pakistan; [email protected] 2 Department of Pharmacy, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 25120, Pakistan; [email protected] (M.I.); [email protected] (F.R.) 3 Department of Pharmacy, Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar 25120, Pakistan; [email protected] 4 Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Milan State University, 20133 Milan, Italy * Correspondence: shafi[email protected] (S.U.R.); [email protected] (M.I.); Tel.: +92-334-930-9550 (S.U.R.); +39-025-031-6766 (M.I.) Received: 17 October 2017; Accepted: 1 December 2017; Published: 5 December 2017 Abstract: The species of the genus Trillium (Melanthiaceae alt. Trilliaceae) include perennial herbs with characteristic rhizomes mainly distributed in Asia and North America. Steroids and saponins are the main classes of phytochemicals present in these plants. This review summarizes and discusses the current knowledge on their chemistry, as well as the in vitro and in vivo studies carried out on the extracts, fractions and isolated pure compounds from the different species belonging to this genus, focusing on core biological properties, i.e., cytotoxic, antifungal and anti-inflammatory activities. Keywords: bioactive phytochemicals; cytotoxic activity; anti-inflammatory activity; analgesic activity; antifungal activity 1. Introduction Natural products obtained from plants have played remarkable role in drug discovery and improvement of health care system [1–6].
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Plants
    !Yt q12'5 3. /3<L....:::5_____ ,--- _____ Y)Q.'f MUSEUM BULLETIN NO.4 -------------- Copy I NATIVE VASCULAR PLANTS Endangered, Threatened, Or Otherwise In Jeopardy In South Carolina By Douglas A. Rayner, Chairman And Other Members Of The South Carolina Advisory Committee On Endangered, Threatened And Rare Plants SOUTH CAROLINA MUSEUM COMMISSION S. C. STATE LIR7~'· '?Y rAPR 1 1 1995 STATE DOCU~ 41 ;::,·. l s NATIVE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR OTHERWISE IN JEOPARDY IN SOUTH CAROLINA by Douglas A. Rayner, Chairman and other members of the South Carolina Advisory Committee on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants March, 1979 Current membership of the S. C. Committee on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants­ Subcommittee on Criteria: Ross C. Clark, Chairman (1977); Erskine College (taxonomy and ecology) Steven M. Jones, Clemson University (forest ecology) Richard D. Porcher, The Citadel (taxonomy) Douglas A. Rayner, S.C. Wildlife Department (taxonomy and ecology) Subcommittee on Listings: C. Leland Rodgers, Chairman (1977 listings); Furman University (taxonomy and ecology) Wade T. Batson, University of South Carolina, Columbia (taxonomy and ecology) Ross C. Clark, Erskine College (taxonomy and ecology) John E. Fairey, III, Clemson University (taxonomy) Joseph N. Pinson, Jr., University of South Carolina, Coastal Carolina College (taxonomy) Robert W. Powell, Jr., Converse College (taxonomy) Douglas A Rayner, Chairman (1979 listings) S. C. Wildlife Department (taxonomy and ecology) INTRODUCTION South Carolina's first list of rare vascular plants was produced as part of the 1976 S.C. En­ dangered Species Symposium by the S. C. Advisory Committee on Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants, 1977. The Symposium was a joint effort of The Citadel's Department of Biology and the S.
    [Show full text]
  • RIVERKEEPER® Black Warrior Riverkeeper’S Mission Is to Protect and Restore the Black Warrior River and Its Tributaries
    Issue 18: 1st Half 2011 Black Warrior RIVERKEEPER® IN THIS ISSUE The Black Warrior Joins America’s Most Endangered Rivers State Stormwater Case 2 Pollution caused by coal mining near the Black Warrior River has landed the river on the annual list of America’s Most Endangered RiversTM – a report issued by the conservation group American Rivers. Northern Beltline Case 3 The Black Warrior River and its tributaries are a major drinking water source for Birmingham, Jasper, Shepherd Bend Mine Cullman and Tuscaloosa. The headwaters of the Black Warrior include the federally designated Wild and Scenic 4 Opposition Updates Sipsey Fork, which, along with the river’s Mulberry and Locust Forks, is rated among the top 2% of United States streams by the National Park Service. The river, known for fishing, boating, commercial navigation, recreation, Riverkeeper Patrol Log 5 and wildlife, also runs through the Warrior Coal Field, where most of Alabama’s coal reserves are found. Save the Black Warrior: For many years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has allowed the majority of the Black 6 2011 Recap Warrior River watershed’s approximately 95 active coal mines to operate under a general permit known as Board Member Bio: Nationwide Permit (NWP) 21. NWP 21 does not take local wetland and stream conditions into account, study the 6 Tony Diliberto possible impacts of the mines or provide for public input. This situation contrasts with the process in other Appalachian states, where the Corps last year suspended the use of NWP 21 to require more careful consideration “About Us” and 7 of a mine’s impacts on water resources and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report
    ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT HOLT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2203 EXHIBIT E DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION Alabama Power Company Birmingham, Alabama Prepared by: July 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT HOLT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2203 EXHIBIT E DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION Alabama Power Company Birmingham, Alabama Prepared by: July 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT HOLT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2203 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA EXHIBIT E DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 CONTENTS OF EXHIBIT E ..........................................................................................1 1.2 COMMONLY USED TERMS IN EXHIBIT E ...................................................................2 1.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...........................................................2 1.4 PROJECT FACILITIES..................................................................................................6 1.5 PROJECT LANDS AND WATERS ..................................................................................8 1.5.1 FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ....................................................................12 1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT GENERATION AND OUTFLOW RECORDS .............................13 2.0 PROJECT CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Communities Tracked
    Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Communities Tracked by the SC DNR Heritage Trust Program June 11, 2014 Scientific Name Common Name USESA Status State Protection GRank SRank Vertebrate Animals Amphibians Acris crepitans Northern Cricket Frog G5 S5 Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander LT: Threatened SE: Endangered G2 S1 Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum Eastern Tiger Salamander G5 S2S3 Aneides aeneus Green Salamander G3G4 S1 Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender G3G4 SNR Desmognathus aeneus Seepage Salamander G3G4 SNR Desmognathus marmoratus Shovelnose Salamander G4 S2 Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander G5 SNR Hyla andersonii Pine Barrens Treefrog ST: Threatened G4 S2S3 Hyla avivoca Bird-voiced Treefrog G5 S5 Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander SE: Endangered G3G4 S2 Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf Siren ST: Threatened G5 S2 Pseudotriton montanus flavissimus Gulf Coast Mud Salamander G5T4 S3S4 Rana capito Gopher Frog SE: Endangered G3 S1 Rana palustris Pickerel Frog G5 SNR Rana sylvatica Wood Frog G5 S3 Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk G5 S3? Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow G3 S3 Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow G4 SNA Ammodramus maritimus Seaside Sparrow G4 SNR Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow G5 SNRB,SNRN Anas acuta Northern Pintail G5 SNRN Anas platyrhynchos Mallard G5 SNRB,SNRN Anas rubripes American Black Duck G5 SNRN Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup G5 SNRN Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper G5 SNA Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern G4 SNRN Calidris alba Sanderling G5 SNRN Calidris
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 City of Tuscaloosa Floodplain Management Plan Tuscaloosa, Alabama
    2015 City of Tuscaloosa Floodplain Management Plan Tuscaloosa, Alabama Prepared under the direction of the City of Tuscaloosa Floodplain Management Planning Committee With the support of the City of Tuscaloosa Office of the City Engineer By: Funding provided through the FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program April 12, 2016 2015 City of Tuscaloosa Floodplain Management Plan City of Tuscaloosa Floodplain Management Planning Committee City Department Representatives: Josh Yates, CFM, Chair, Floodplain Admin. Storm Drainage Engineer Office of the City Engineer Kevin Turner, CFM, CRS Coordinator Engr. Environ. Compliance Coordinator Office of the City Engineer Philip O'Leary, AICP Deputy Director Planning and Develop. Services Deidre Stalnaker Public Relations Coordinator Public Relations Office Kip Tyner Councilor City Council John Brook Deputy Chief Fire & Rescue Services LaParry Howell Director Federal Programs Office Public Representatives: Joseph A. Robinson, PE Retired Tuscaloosa City Engineer City Resident Abner Patton, PG President Patton Geologics, Inc. Anne Wynn, GISP GIS Specialist Geologic Survey of Alabama Mary Wallace Pitts Instructor University of Alabama Brienna Bayles Real Estate Agent Duckworth Morris Brock Corder Member Homebuilders Association Rick Deerman, PE, CFM Civil Engineer CFM Group Other Participating Stakeholders Rob Robertson Director Tuscaloosa County EMA John Powell Webb, PE, CFM Assistant City Engineer City of Northport Katherine Holloway, PE Civil Engineer Tuscaloosa County Public Works Contacts Josh Yates, CFM James E. Lehe, AICP William Thomas, PE, CFM Storm Drainage Engineer Manager Sr. Environmental Project Manager City of Tuscaloosa Lehe Planning, LLC Walter Schoel Engineering Co., Inc. tuscaloosa.com leheplanning.com schoel.com 2201 University Boulevard, P.O. Box 2089 300 Century Park S, Ste.
    [Show full text]