FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT.

TOMBIGBEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES LUXAPALILA CREEK SEGMENT, AND

Prepared by U. S. Army Engineer District, Mobile , December 1974. SUMMARY

Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Luxapalila Creek Segment, Alabama and Mississippi

□ Draft Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, P. 0. Box 2288, Mobile, Alabama 36628, 205-690-2511

1. Name of Action: Administrative £ J Legislative

2. Description of Action: The proposed flood control work on Luxapalila Creek analyzed in this environmental statement involves channel excavation and the clearing of the banks along a total of 19.9 miles of Luxapalila Creek beginning at the mouth, representing a reduction of 6.3 miles in the natural channel mileage of 26.2. Work on the lowermost 2.1 miles has already been completed. The lower 15.2 miles of construction would be in Lowndes County, Mississippi, and the upper 4.7 miles in Lamar County, Alabama. A total of 1,258 acres would be cleared, which would consist of the removal of all growth except selected trees, from a strip 300 feet to 900 feet in width. All snags, drift, and other debris would also be removed from the channel. The work consists of 6.6 miles of new channel and 13.3 miles of channel enlargement. The excavated material would be placed in mounds intermittently along both banks of the modified channel at least 25 feet from the top of the cut slope. No excavated material would be placed across the mouths of tributary streams entering the channel, and frequent gaps would be left in the mounds to provide for lateral drainage and prevent local ponding along the stream. The mounds would be grassed to guard against erosion. Three floodways, consisting of a total length of approximately 11,650 feet, would be included as fish and wildlife mitigation measures. This statement also discusses authorized projects on other tributary streams and the Tombigbee River in the upper Tombigbee Basin because of possible interrelated impacts.

3. a Environmental Impacts: The proposed action will provide flood control resulting in reduced damage to the Columbus, Mississippi, urban area and agricultural lands upstream from Columbus. There will be a loss in habitat for certain species of and plants with a corresponding increase in habitat for others. A total of 1,258 acres will be cleared. A small temporary increase in turbidity may be expected. The overall impact on the fishery will be detrimental.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Loss of 1,258 acres of stream bank habitat for wildlife use initially, and indefinitely with maintenance of the project; loss of 19.9 miles of natural aquatic habitat along the stream; loss of aesthetic value for natural setting; loss as recreational resource; loss of 3,500 man-days per year of fishing; reduction in the present capacity for 350 man-days of waterfowl hunting and 6,500 man-days of small game hunting; reduction of $500 per year for trapping industry; slight reduc­ tion in water quality; probable loss of a walleye population in Luxapalila Creek; and destruction of archeological sites in the lower 2.1 miles of the project completed in October 1973.

4. Alternatives; Alternative channel dimensions, headwater reservoirs, levee construction, complete system of floodways, and no-development and/or restriction of development within the flood plain.

5. Comments Received:

Department of the Interior Department of HUD Department of Transportation ^ Department of Agriculture, SCS Environmental Protection Agency Mississippi State Clearinghouse for Federal Programs submitted: Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District Mississippi State Board of Health State of Mississippi, Department of Archives and History State of Mississippi, Board of Water Commissioners Golden Triangle Planning and Development District State of Mississippi Game and Fish Commission West Alabama Planning and Development Council Alabama Development Office - State Clearing House submitted: Muscle Shoals Council of Local Governments Environmental Health Administration

6. Draft Statement to CEQ 24 June 1974.

Final Statement to CEQ ______. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT TOMBIGBEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES LUXAPALILA CREEK SEGMENT, ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI

Table of Contents

Para. Page No. No.

1.01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... -...... 1 1.02 Overall Project --- 1 1.06 Group 1: Tombigbee River and Town Creek (formerly known as East Fork and West Fork, Tombigbee River) ------2 1.07 Group 2: Tibbee River ------4 1.08 Group 3: Buttahatchie River ------4 1.09 Group 4: James Creek 4 1.10 Group 5: 4 1.11 Group 6: Sipsey River 4 1.19 Group 7: Luxapalila Creek Project 7

2.01 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 14 2.02 Overall Project - Upper Tombigbee River Basin, General 14 2.03 Hydrologic Characteristics 14 2.08 Physiography 16 2.10 Geology 16 2.11 Minerals 17 2.12 Paleontology 17 2.13 Archeology and History 17 2.14 Economic and Social Aspects 18 2.20 Recreation 22 2.29 Water U s e - 24 2.31 Botany 24 2.37 Zoology 27 2.58 Interrelation of Other Projects 32 2.63 Luxapalila Creek 35

3.01 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS 42

4.01 THE PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION- 45 4.02 Probable Environmental Impact of Overall Project 46 4.21 Probable Environmental Impact of Luxapalila Creek Segment 51

5.01 ANY PROBABLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 56

6.01 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 56

7.01 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 59 Para. Page ■ No. No.

8.01 ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED...... 60

9.01 COORDINATION AND COMMENTS AND RESPONSES...... 60 9.02 Public Participation ------60 9.06 Government Agencies------61 9.11 Citizen Groups------86

List of Tables

Table Page No. Title No.

1 Pertinent Data for Tombigbee River and Tributaries Project Authorized by P.L. 85-500 (Excluding Luxapalila Creek) ------— --- 3

2 Land Requirements------9

3 Summary of Annual Costs and Benefits, Luxapalila Creek Flood Control Project 10

4 Summary of Average Annual Flood Control Benefits Attributed to Luxapalila Creek Flood Control Project 11

5 Mean and Extreme Monthly and Annual Rainfall in Inches at Columbus, Mississipp 15

6 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Tombigbee River Basin A r e a 20

7 Historic Population (1970) and Base Line Population Projections (1980-2020) for Alabama and Mississippi Counties within the Tombigbee Basin (OBERS Projections)- 21

8 Known Stages and Discharges of Floods on Luxapalila Creek at Waterworks Road (State Highway 50) Bridge 38

9 Amount of Reduction in Stream Stage and the Resulting Level of Urban Damage ($) in the Columbus, Missis­ sippi, Area as Opposed to the Recurrence Frequency of Various Flpods on Luxapalila Creek at Waterworks Road (Mississippi Highway 50) Bridge 53 Table Page No. Title No.

10 Pertinent Data and a Summary of Costs for Alternative Development Plans Considered ------57

11 Summary of Economic and Environmental Considerations Follows of Alternative Flood Protection on Luxapalila Creek ------58

List of Plates

Plate Follows No. Title Page No.

1 Flood Control on Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Mississippi and Alabama, Watershed M a p ------86

2 Channel Modification Project, Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Luxapalila Creek, Project Location ------86

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A Economic Data Extracted from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers General Design Memorandum Luxapalila Creek, Lowndes County, Mississippi and Lamar County, Alabama

APPENDIX B List of Fishes Reported to Occur in the Upper Tombigbee River System by Dr. Herbert T. Boschung of the University of Alabama (Supplemented by Other Sources as Noted)

APPENDIX C Habitat Preference, Abundance, and Distribution of Fishes Reported from the Upper Tombigbee River Basin. The Probably Adverse Impacts Upon the Fishes of the Proposed Flood Control Project are also Indicated.

APPENDIX D Bibliography

APPENDIX E Letters of Comment on Draft Statement FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT TOMBIGBEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES LUXAPALILA CREEK SEGMENT, ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI

1.01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. This document is the environmental statement (required by Public Law 91-190) for the Luxapalila Creek Segment of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Mississippi and Alabama, project described in House Document 167, Eighty-fourth Congress, regarding construction and operation of the project for flood control and related purposes. This project was authorized in the Flood Control Act approved 3 July 1958 (Public Law 85-500). Feasibility and project formulation information are described in detail in the survey report. The most complete economic analysis of the overall project (May 1955), based on a 50-year project life, produced an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2 to 1 with benefits de­ rived from flood control protection through flood damage prevention and land enhancement. Land enhancement refers to the ability to convert land, which is periodically flooded, from present low value uses into more intensive uses.

1.02 Overall Project. The overall project provides for flood reduction measures consisting of channel clearing, snagging, enlargement and realign­ ment for 22 streams tributary to the Tombigbee River in northeast Mississippi and northwest Alabama. For descriptive purposes the streams have been divided by location into seven groups. The first group includes seven streams: six tributaries of the Tombigbee River (East Fork) and Town Creek (West Fork). The second group consists of 10 streams: the Tibbee River which enters the Tombigbee from the right bank and nine of its tributaries. The last five groups, one of which is Luxapalila Creek, each consists of a single stream. A map of the upper Tombigbee basin showing the pertinent tributary streams is presented as Plate 1.

1.03 Plan implementation for the stream segments of the authorized projects is in various levels of development. Advanced planning for implementation of the individual stream segments has progressed in accordance with prior­ ities established by the local interests or sponsors. The local interests or sponsors are responsible for operation and maintenance of the improve­ ments after initial construction by the Federal Government. For the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project, the Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District has been designated to act as project sponsor in the State of Mississippi and the Tombigbee Valley Development Authority is the sponsor for those portions of the project in the State of Alabama.

1.04 As outlined in H.D. 167 and amended |jy Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1958, responsible local interests trust give satisfactory assurances that they will: (a) furnish without cost to the all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) make at their expense all road, highway bridge, and utility changes, alterations, additions, and relocations necessary for the project; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction work; (d) prevent future encroachments on the improved channels; (e) maintain all the works after completion in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (f) contribute in cash or equivalent work the sum of $1,473,000; and provided further that construction may be initiated on any portion of a stream, or group of streams for which the requirements of local cooperation have been met subject to the condition that construction has been started on all portions of the stream or group of streams downstream therefrom.

1.05 This environmental statement is only for proposed implementation of the Luxapalila segment of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. However, the overall 22-tributary project and its associated impacts, both beneficial and detrimental, are discussed in the statement in order to place the impacts of the Luxapalila project in perspective with the remain­ ing tributary projects. Table 1 contains pertinent data obtained from H.D. 167, 84th Congress, on the authorized tributary groups with the exclusion of Luxapalila Creek which will be discussed later in this state­ ment. Each of the seven tributary groups will be discussed in the follow­ ing paragraphs with special emphasis being placed on Luxapalila Creek, the seventh group.

1.06 Or£U£ 1_:_ Tombigbee Rivej: and Town_Cjreek_(^orm£r_ly_known_a£ East F£rk and We£t_Fork,_Tomtji£b£e_Rlver^.* This portion of the authorized Tombigbee River and Tributaries project includes modifications on the following streams: Twenty Mile Creek, Stanefer Creek, Big Browns Creek, Little Browns Creek, Donivan Creek, Mantachie Creek, and Town Creek (West Fork). Of these, work has been performed on all but Little Browns Creek and Town Creek. Table 1 contains a breakdown of the work on the streams in this tributary group and Plate 1 shows the location of these streams. Construction plans scheduled 37.5 miles of stream to be altered for this segment of the project which included bank clearing, snagging, channel alterations, and cutoffs. A total of 1,061 acres along the stream bank will have been cleared and a total of 4,691,360 cubic yards of material excavated when this entire segment of the project is completed. Stanefer Creek project plans include special project features in order to mitigate fish and wildlife losses associated with the channel modification.

*This group is not covered by this statement. The description has been provided as background only. Table 1

Pertinent Data for Tombigbee River and Tributaries Project Authorized by P.L. 85-500 * (Excluding Luxapalila Creek) Design chan­ Total lengtii Channel alterations from mile Design chan­ Excava­ nel capaci­ developed to mile (along existing channel) nel bottom tion Clear­ Tributary ties channel New Channel en­ Clearing & width (cubic ing Group ** (c.f.s.) (miles) channel largement snagging (feet) yards) (acres) Group 1: Tombigbee R.(East Fork] Twenty Mile Cr. 4,000-5,600 11.4 0.0-11.4 60-90 2,456,080 470 Stanefer Cr. 1,500 (1) 6.1 (a) 2.2 (b)0.0-7.0 20-35 300,500 102 Big Browns Cr 2,000 2.7 0.0-2.7 70 456,600 100 Little Browns Cr. 2,100 7.6 2.6-7.6 0.0-2.6 25-32 649,000 195 Donivan Cr. 1,700 3.7 0.0-3.7 22-24 164,060 71 Mantachie Cr. 2,500 5.0 0.0-2.0 2.0-5.0 15-26 133,120 67 Town Creek (West Fork) 11,800 (2) 1.0 1.4-3.1 90 532,000 56 Group 2: Tibbee River 11,200 24.0 3.0-24.0 0.0-3.0 25-35 1,771,600 855 Catalpa Creek 2,000 (3) 8.5 1.5-11.0 0.0-1.5 24 664,950 267 Sakatonchee Creek 2,200-5,200 (4) 31.5 0.0-11.3 11.3-34.0 15-70 5,003,700 965 Houlka Creek 2,300-4,700 (5) 22.5 (a) 0.8 (5)0.0-27.7 28-80 3,223,000 835 Line Creek 3,500 (6) 12.3 0.0-21.0 30-60 2,378,000 498 North Canal 2,700 5.8 0.0-5.8 15-40 192,900 128 South Canal 1,000 5.0 0.0-5.0 (c.) 201,300 115 Johnson Creek 1,100 3.2 0.0-3.2 10 39,530 48 Trim Cane Creek 2,000 5.6 0.0-5.6 20 433,340 159 Sim Creek 1,500 5.3 0.0-5.3 16 568,000 150 Group 3: Buttahatchie R. 3,000-6,400 (7) 58.7 (h) 3.2 (b)0.0-69.0 36-50 4,864,640 1,207 Group 4: James Creek 1,100 9.0 0.0-9.0 150 Group 5: Noxubee River 4,200-8,200 (8) 101.8 (a) 1.1 0.0rl05.0 30 314,840 1,895 Group 6: Sipsey River 4,000-5,800 (9) 116.5 (a) 11.2 32.0-140.0 0.0-32.0 55 12,995,000 4,508

* Data obtained from House Document 167, Eighty-fourth Congress. ** Projects in this tabulation are included because their actions upon the environment are interrelated. The implementationsof these projects are covered generally by this environmental statement in order to give the total picture of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries Project. (a) Total length in miles. NOTE: Improvements eliminate old channel: (b) Includes new channel. (1) 0.9 mile.. (6) 8.7 miles. (c) Cut to grade. (2) 0.7 mile. (7) 10.3 miles. (3) 2.5 miles. (8) 3.2 miles. (4) 2.5 miles. (9) 23.5 miles. (5) 5.2 miles. 1.07 Grou£ Tibb_ee_RiverJ_* This portion of the authorized Tombigbee River and Tributaries project includes modification on a series of streams in the Tibbee River basin which includes Tibbee River, Catalpa Creek, Sakatonchee Creek, Houlka Creek, Line Creek, North Canal, South Canal, Johnson Creek, Trim Cane Creek, and Sun Creek. Table 1 contains a break­ down of the work proposed to be performed on the streams in this tributary group. Plans call for 123.7 miles of stream to be altered for this segment of the project which includes bank clearing, snagging, channel alterations and cutoffs. A total of 4,020 acres along the stream bank would be cleared and 14,476,320 cubic yards of material would be excavated.

1.08 Crou£ 3:_ Buttahatchie_River.* This portion of the authorized Tonbigbee River and Tributaries project occurs within Lowndes and Monroe Counties, Mississippi, and Lamar County, Alabama. Project plans for the Buttahatchie River consist of channel enlargement, snagging, cutoffs, and bank clearing for the lower 69 miles of the stream. Plans call for 3.2 miles of cutoffs resulting in 58.7 miles of altered channel. A total of 1,207 acres along the stream bank would be cleared and 4,864,640 cubic yards of material would be excavated. The altered channel would have capacities varying from 3,000 to 6,400 c.f.s. Plans for a parallel flood­ way are also under consideration.

1.09 Grouj) 4:_ Jamejs £reek._* Work on James Creek was completed in 1968. The banks were cleared and the channel cleared and snagged from the mouth to mile 9.0. The clearing limits varied from 180 feet in the first 1,000 feet from the mouth of the stream to 130 feet for the remainder. Approxi­ mately 150 acres were cleared along the stream bank and no excavation was performed. Work remaining to be performed on James Creek involves annual operation and maintenance by the local sponsor. This work consists of maintaining the clearing along rights-of-way and snagging and removing shoal areas in the channel.

1.10 Gr£u£ _5:_ Noxubee Rivei:.* The authorized project for Noxubee River occurs in Sumter County, Alabama, and Noxubee County, Mississippi, and would consist of clearing and snagging from the mouth to mile 105.0. Plans call for 1.1 miles of cutoffs in four short reaches in the vicinity of Macon, Mississippi. A total of 1,895 acres along the stream bank would be cleared and 314,840 cubic yards of material would be excavated. The altered channel would have capacities varying from 4,200 to 8,200 c.f.s.

1.11 Gr£U£ <5:_ Si£sey_RiyerJL* This portion of the authorized Tombigbee River and Tributaries project occurs within Fayette, Tuscaloosa, Pickens, and Green Counties, Alabama. Project plans consist of clearing and snagging the Sipsey River between the mouth and mile 32.0 and channel

* This group is not covered by this statement. The description has been provided as background only. enlargement and straightening between miles 32.0 to 140.0. Channel straightening would require 83 cutoffs. The proposed work would result in 116.5 miles of altered channel. A total of 4,508 acres along the stream bank would be cleared and 12,995,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated. The altered channel would have an average capacity within banks of 4,000 to 5,800 c.f.s.

1.12 The remaining clearing and snagging work on the above six tributary groups would consist of the removal of the undergrowth and sandbars and all but a few of the larger, healthy, well-rooted trees from an area 20 feet wide or more beyond the top of the bank, and the clearing of the channel of snags, debris, drift jams, and other obstructions to stream flow from the channels. The material excavated from the channels would be placed intermittently along both banks, at least 25 feet landward from the top of the cut. It would be placed in mounds with maximum heights of 15 feet above natural ground. No excavated material would be placed less than 200 feet from the top bank of each major tributary stream or drain entering a developed channel, and frequent gaps of 50 feet would be left in the spoil mound to provide for lateral drainage and prevent local pond­ ing along the stream. The mounds would be grassed along with the altered channel side slopes and berms to guard against erosion.

1.13 A separate and individual environmental statement (EIS) will be prepared for each of the Tibbee, Buttahatchie, Noxubee, and Sipsey River segments of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries flood control project. The environmental statement for each of the four stream segments will be written concurrently with its respective Phase 1 report of the general design memorandum early in the post-authorization planning stage. The information presented in the Phase 1 report will be limited to the investi­ gations and studies necessary to reaffirm or reformulate the plan presented in the authorized project report. This may include a finding that construc­ ting the project segment may no longer be in the public interest.

1.14 Although these four stream segments are authorized, they will under­ go a rigorous reevaluation, based on current situations, policies, prior­ ities, needs and public desires, to determine if implementation is in the best public interest. Each stream segment will have to stand on its own economic feasibility. The environmental and social implications will be evaluated in the light of other existing projects and the natural and human resources of the area.

V. 1.15 The Phase 1 report studies will include the results from the complete analysis and coordination of all aspects of the project in order to:

• Reaffirm the basic planning decisions made in the general in­ vestigation stage or reformulate the project to respond to changes since authorization. • Establish the scope of the project, based on current criteria, and develop from a multi-objective standpoint the optimum plan from the alternative plans studied.

• Coordinate the project plan with views of other governmental agencies and local interests.

• Provide the basis for a reliable, up-to-date estimate of project cost.

• Provide a basis for updating environmental impacts and effects of the proposed action and preparing the environmental statement.

• Establish the current economic aspects of the project.

• Provide a basis for cost sharing agreements, preparation of plans and specifications, acquisition of lands, and negotiation of relo­ cation agreements.

• Establish operating requirements and determine that the project will meet such requirements.

• Facilitate the orderly scheduling and programming of funds for detailed design and construction of the project.

• Provide an analysis of the consequences of possible alterna­ tives, considering engineering feasibility, environmental effects, eco­ nomic factors including regional and national development, social well­ being, and other considerations as applicable.

• Describe and consider the costs and means of eliminating, minimizing, or ameliorating possible adverse economic, social, and environ­ mental effects that may result from the project.

• Provide the basis for a "Statement of Findings" signed by the District Engineer describing the evaluation and decision process; i.e., that the proposed action is based upon consideration of a reasonable set of appropriate alternative courses of action for achieving the stated objectives; that the action is fully consistent with national policy, statutes, and administrative directives; and that the total public inter­ est is best served by its implementation.

1.16 During the Phase 1 report studies, an environmental analysis (including environmental quality enhancement measures) will be accomplished for each of the four stream segments. Developments and environmental changes which have occurred in the intervening time since authorization in 1958 (when the entire 22-tributary project was authorized) and their significance will be evaluated and explained as compared with the original recommendations of the authorized project plan. 1.17 A draft EIS for each of the four stream segments will be prepared utilizing input from State, local, and Federal agencies and public and conservation groups, including a public meeting if warranted.

1.18 The draft EIS and the draft Phase 1 report will be sent for review and comment to concerned Federal and State agencies. The draft EIS will be filed with the Council on Environmental Quality and circulated to other agencies, groups and individuals on the project mailing list for review and comment. A public meeting for all four stream segments or separate public meetings for each segment will also be held at this stage. The Phase 1 report and final EIS will be completed, incorporating review and public comments. The final EIS will then be forwarded through Corps of Engineers' channels to the Council on Environmental Quality.

1.19 Grou£ Luxa£a_li_la_C_re£k_S£gTnent_. The plan that was selected for the reduction of flood damages along Luxapalila Creek would involve excava­ tion and the clearing of the banks along a total of 19.9 miles of developed channel. A contract referred to as Phase 1) for the lower 2.1 miles of Luxapalila Creek was awarded in April 1971. This work was completed on 24 October 1973 and the flood control project turned over to local interests on 15 November 1973. The remaining work on the upper 17.8 miles of the project (referred to as Phase 2) is in the advanced design and planning stage. This environmental statement will cover both the completed Phase 1 and the proposed Phase 2 works. The location and a typical section of the Luxapalila project are shown on Plate 2. The lower 15.2 miles of construc­ tion would be in Lowndes County, Mississippi, and the upper 4.7 miles in Lamar County, Alabama. A total of 1,258 acres would be cleared, which would consist of the removal of all growth except selected trees larger than 10 inches in diameter, from a strip 300 feet to 900 feet in width. The number of such trees left standing would not exceed 5 to 10 per acre and they would not be left in clusters. All snags, drift and other debris would also be removed from the channel. The channel excavation begins at the mouth and extends upstream 19.9 miles, consisting of 6.6 miles of new channel and 13.3 miles of channel enlargement. The channel would be exca­ vated with side slopes of 1 vertical on 3 horizontal and would be grassed to guard against erosion. The excavated material would be placed inter­ mittently along both banks of the modified channel at least 25 feet from the top of the cut slope. The possibility of placing spoil on only one bank is being evaluated at this time and it appears that this may be done at some locations. No excavated material would be placed across the mouths of tribu­ tary streams entering the altered channel, and frequent gaps would be left in the mounds to provide for lateral drainage and prevent local ponding along the stream. Height of the mounds would be limited to 15 feet above natural ground. The mounds would be grassed to guard against erosion. The upper ends of three abandoned bendways on the lower 2.1 miles (Phase 1) of Luxapalila Creek on which work has been completed were backfilled with the excavated material. The abandoned bendways along the remaining 17.8 miles (Phase 2) of the project will not be backfilled. 1.20 The developed channel would vary in bottom width from 150 feet (mouth to Mile 5.5) to 70 feet (Mile 5.5 to Mile 19.9) except for the floodways and would average 15 feet in depth. The bottom would rise 25 feet from the mouth to Mile 5.4 and slope 4.7 feet per mile from Mile 5.5 to Mile 7.2; 5.8 feet per mile from Mile 7.6 to Mile 10.9; 9.1 feet per mile from Mile 11.5 to Mile 12.6; and 6.7 feet per mile from Mile 14.2 to Mile 19.9, the upper limit of the channel modification. The altered channel at Waterworks Road bridge (Mississippi Highway No. 50) would have a bankfull capacity of 21,000 c.f.s. which is the flow expected to occur on an average of once every 5 years.

1.21 Pertinent data for the authorized Luxapalila Creek project, are as follows:

Total length of altered channel (miles) ------19.9 Length of old channel eliminated by alteration (miles)- 6.3 Total length of new channel (miles) ------6.6 Re-excavation of old channel (miles) ------4.7 Channel enlargement from mile to mile, along existing channel (miles) ------0.0 - 26.2 Design channel bottom width (feet) ------150* 70** Amount of material excavated (cubic yards) ------7,100,000 Clearing (acres) 1,258

* From mouth to Mile 5.5 **From Mile 5.5 to Mile 19.9 NOTE: There would be a 500-foot transition zone from the 150-foot channel to the 70-foot channel at Mile 5.5.

1.22 Local interests will be required to obtain a perpetual and assignable easements on all lands needed to construct, operate and main­ tain channel alteration works. Operation and maintenance of the flood control project would involve the following: periodic inspection of the project area; keeping channel clear of debris; removing shrubs and trees from cleared area; preventing encroachments into floodway; excavation of shoals and silted areas; control of bank erosion; maintenance of riprap sections; and maintaining grassed areas. The project will require 1,387 acres of land of which 1,152 acres are in Lowndes County, Mississippi, and 235 acres are in Lamar County, Alabama. The total area of 1,387 acres will consist of 691 acres for rights-of-way and 696 acres for spoil areas. Table 2 gives the required area for the stream by reaches. Table 2

Land Reauirements Area for rights- Area for Total area Reach of-way (acres) spoil (acres) (acres)

Lowndes County, Miss. Mouth to mile 2.1 (Phase 1) 76 112 188 Mile 2.1 to mile 5.6 178 141 319 Mile 5.6 to mile 11.7 203 230 433 Mile 11.7 to mile 15.2 106 106 212 Total for Lowndes Co. 563 589 1,152

Lamar County, Ala. Mile 15.2 to mile 19.9 128 107 235

Total for project 691 696 1,387

1.23 Minor changes from the preauthorization report have been made in the proposed channel alignment for Luxapalila Creek and the work in Lamar County, Alabama, has been extended upstream about 3,800 feet in order to tie into an adequate section of the existing canal which has progressively filled with sediment since the preauthorization studies were made. In addition, floodway-type developments have been provided at three locations to mitigate fish and wildlife losses. The floodways are labeled on Plate 2 as Floodways A, B and C, consisting of 1,350, 2,200 and 8,100 feet, respectively. Measures have also been included to assure that during periods of low flow the upstream flow depths will be adequate for uninterrupted operation of the existing intake for municipal water supply at Columbus, and the channel bottom slope has been slightly modified based on more detailed information. The control section in the channel at the water intake structure will consist primarily of a sudden change of bottom elevation and an increase in stream width in order to augment a natural control in the existing channel. This will insure that during periods of low flow the upstream flow depths will be adequate for uninterrupted operation of the Columbus pumping station. The control structure design was based on information provided by the City of Columbus indicating that proper functioning of the pumping station requires a water depth of at least 2 feet above the bottom of the intake sluice gate. An accumula­ tion of sediment upstream of the rise is to be expected but this should create no significant problem since the trapped material will be periodi­ cally removed as part of the normal maintenance program for the project. During construction,use will be made of sheet piling, weirs, and baffles in order to protect the water supply from turbidity created by construction- related activities. 1.24 Local interests will make all relocations at their expense, except railroad bridge alterations. Reconstruction of portions of the Illinois Central Gulf and the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad bridges was accom­ plished at Federal expense under authority of Section 3 of the 1946 Flood Control Act. The five road bridges will be relocated or modified in the following manner: (1) Pickensville Road bridge, U. S. Highway 82 bridge, and Bell Avenue bridge will be replaced entirely; (2) Waterworks Road bridge (Mississippi Highway 50) will be provided with substructural protection; and (3) Steens bridge will not require any improvements but will have riprap placed on the creekbed under the bridge in order to pre­ vent damages created by the scouring action of increased flow velocities. The Bell Avenue bridge replacement is under construction and it is approxi­ mately 25 percent complete. The work on the four remaining road bridges is still in the planning stage. In addition to the bridge relocations required by the project, 3,100 feet of barbed wire fence will be removed, two pipe­ lines and one waterline will have to be relocated, three outfalls (two drainage outfalls and one sewer outfall) will have to be modified; and several power poles and one telephone pole will have to be relocated.

1.25 The most recent (July 1974) economic analysis of the Luxapalila Creek project produced a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1 over the 50-year economic project life. If area redevelopment (in the form of increased employment, wages paid to construction workers, and purchase of supplies and materials) is included in the computations, the B/C ratio is improved to 1.6 to 1. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the estimated annual charges and benefits for the Luxapalila Creek project. A summary of the average annual flood control benefits is included in Table 4. As can be seen from the table, 53 percent of the annual flood control benefits is due to damage reduction in urban areas, principally in the vicinity of Columbus, Mississippi.

Table 3

Summary of Annual Costs and Benefits Luxapalila Creek Flood Control Project

Annual Charges Interest @ 3.0 percent ------Amortization @ 0.887 percent ------Maintenance 5.1 percent ------Total

Annual Benefits Damages prevented Land enhancement (change in land use) Area redevelopment T o t a l 787,000

B/C Ratio Without area redevelopment 1.5 With area redevelopment ------— ------— -— ...... 1.6 Table 4

Summary of Average Annual Flood Control Benefits _____ Attributed to the Luxapalila Creek Flood Control Project Damage Reduction Land Enhancement Damage Reduction tol Reach Roads & 1/ „ . „ Changed land use Future Development^' Crops 1/ uroan (Mile to Mile) Railroads Cleared Woods Rural Urban Total

$ 373,700

o o $ 000 0 - 5.6 o $ 000 $ 373,700 $ 000 $ 000 $ 000

5.6 -11.7 36,700 10,000 000 53,800 29,900 11,400 000 141,800 184,500 11.7 -19.9 54,400 000 000 50,700 67,600 11,800 000 $ 700,000 Total $91,100 $10,000 $373,700 $104,500 $97,500 $23,200 $ 000

1/ Average 1973 prices and estimated December 1975 development.

2/ Urban development after 1969 was not included in the computations.

3/ Refers to rural land presently cleared and forest land which may be converted to more intensive uses due to flood protection.

4/ Average annual equivalent, December 1975-December 2025, 3 percent interest rate. 1.26 The initial construction cost for the lower 2.1 miles of the proj­ ect is $905,800 and the remaining construction costs are estimated to be $5,864,000. When relocations, engineering and design, and supervision and administration are included, the total Federal first cost is $9,405,000. A summary of project cost, itemized annual benefits, average annual charges and the benefit-to-cost ratio is included in Appendix A.

1.27 In the urban area of Columbus, Mississippi, the altered channel is designed to confine within banks a flood which can be expected, on an average, at 5-year intervals. Developments in the Luxapalila flood plain would remain subject to inundation and damages from the larger, less fre­ quent floods. The City of Columbus and Board of Supervisors of Lowndes County passed resolutions in 1970 which:

• Established a 100-year floodway along Luxapalila Creek within the corporate limits of the City of Columbus, Mississippi, in which no addi­ tional developments would be permitted which would adversely affect flood heights or would be susceptible to significant damages (A 100-year flood­ way is defined as the channel of a stream and that portion of the adjoining flood plain required to provide for the passage of the 100-year frequency flood with an insignificant increase in the water surface above that of the pre-floodway condition and without producing hazardous velocities.);

• Adopted building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision regula­ tions, and other controls necessary to establish minimum floor elevations of structures and other construction criteria for future developments in the flood hazard area in order to prevent future damages; and

• Provided that legislation would be sponsored, if necessary, enabling the City of Columbus to enact and enforce zoning restrictions.

1.28 The City of Columbus has adopted zoning restrictions and building codes in the Luxapalila flood plain enabling residents and businesses in the flood plain to qualify for protection under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. In order for the benefits of the Luxa­ palila segment of the flood control project to be realized, Lowndes County and the City of Columbus have adopted a flood plain management program.

1.29 As previously indicated, elements of the entire authorized Tombigbee River and Tributaries project are in various stages of development. Few major departures are anticipated from the project as outlined in H.D. 167, 84th Congress, except in the design of channel dimensions. Modifications of channel dimensions and alignment within the individual tributary groups were made in the advanced planning stages based on the more detailed topographic coverage and changes in hydrologic factors resulting from more recent data. Summarizing the work that has or has not been done on the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project: flood control improvements have been completed on Twenty-Mile, Stanefer, Big Browns, Donivan, Mantachie, and James Creeks; construction on the lower 11,000 feet of Luxapalila Creek (Phase 1) was initiated during the spring of 1971 and was completed in October 1973, with the implementation of the remaining work (Phase 2) on Luxapalila Creek currently proposed to begin in March 1975 pending the filing of an adequate final environmental statement; some planning has been accomplished on the Buttahatchie River, Tibbee River, and Catalpa Creek segments; and advanced planning has not been initiated and is not presently scheduled for either the Noxubee or the Sipsey River segments (Groups 5 and 6,.respectively).

1.30 For some tributary groups, essentially no further planning or studies have been accomplished since those presented in the authorizing document, while the planning for others has progressed to the point of preparing detailed plans for construction, and some have been constructed. Since these varying degrees of detailed planning exist, it would be inappropri­ ate to develop a single environmental statement to serve for implementing all of the remaining tributary groups as authorized. Therefore, as previously indicated, this environmental statement is only for proposed implementation of the Luxapalila Creek segment of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. The overall project and its associated impacts, both beneficial and detrimental, are described in order to place these impacts in perspective. Draft and coordinated final environmental state­ ments will be prepared and filed with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), as previously stated, for the remaining four tributary groups (Noxubee, Sipsey, Buttahatchie, and Tibbee Rivers) that would be considered for implementation. Another important factor which dictates this approach is that even though all 22 tributary streams are authorized, each must be completely reevaluated and stand on its own merit in order to warrant implementation. This means that each proposed stream action must not only have a favorable benefit-cost ratio based on current plans but must have been subjected to appropriate social and environmental evaluations before a decision is made whether or not to proceed. 2.01 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT. The environmental setting of the entire upper Tombigbee River basin is generally described in the following paragraphs with Luxapalila Creek being dealt with in more detail at the end of this section.

2.02 Overall Project - Upper Tombigbee River Basin. General^ The Tombigbee River (East Fork) is formed by the junction of Big Browns, Little Browns, and Mackeys Creeks in Itawamba County, Mississippi, and flows southwesterly 62 miles to the confluence of Town Creek (West Fork) in Monroe County, Missis­ sippi. The Tombigbee River then flows southeasterly 207 miles to its junc­ tion with the Warrior River near Demopolis, Alabama, and then southerly 175 miles to join the , forming the which flows 45 miles to enter the at . Above its confluence with the Warrior River, the Tombigbee River drains an area of 8,915 square miles, of which 5,549 are in Mississippi and 3,366 are in Alabama. The Tombigbee River and Tributaries project area is in this drainage area, including all or part of eighteen counties in Mississippi and ten counties in Alabama. A map showing the area is included as Plate 1. +

2.03 Hy

2.04 The Tennessoe-Tombigbee Waterway, which is presently under construc­ tion and is scheduled for completion in 1981, will alter the flow charac­ teristics (i.e., decrease the velocity) of the Tombigbee River by providing a series of 4 run-of-the river navigation impoundments along the main stem of the river. These are the Gainesville, Aliceville, Columbus, and Aberdeen Locks and Dams as one proceeds upstream from the confluence of the Tombigbee and Warrior Rivers. This segment of the waterway is designated as the River Section and all of the authorized Tombigbee River and Tributary projects which remain to be implemented are tributaries to this portion of the water­ way. The canal section of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway begins below the junction of Town Creek (West Fork) and the Tombigbee River (East Fork) and parallels the Tombigbee River and Mackeys Creek to the proposed Bay Springs Lock and Dam. Five locks are planned to be located along the canal section. Releases during lockages at Bay Springs Lock and Dam will introduce, in full operation, up to 1,246 c.f s. (expressed over a 24-hour period) of water into the Waterway. Each lockage is equivalent to about 50 c.f.s It is estimated that it will take about 40 years for the waterway to reach full operation. The location of the dams, locks and impoundments and their relationship to the various tribu­ tary streams can be seen on Plate 1.

2.05 A combination of climatic, physiographic, and hydraulic factors makes the streams of the Tombigbee basin especially susceptible to floods. Rain­ fall over the project area is abundant and storms of great intensity, covering major portions of the watershed, are common. The monthly and annual rainfalls at Columbus, Mississippi, are given in Table 5.

Table 5

Mean and Extreme Monthly and Annual Rainfall in ______inches at Columbus, Mississippi

Month Mean Maximum Minimum

January 5.74 15.64 0.90 February 5.44 11.74 0.60 March 5.68 12.57 0.42 April 4.19 13.01 0.50 May 3.38 10.67 0.33 June 3.51 16.06 0.31 July 5.12 15.67 0.13 August 2.99 12.02 0.27 September 3.37 12.95 0.00 October 2.77 12.55 0.00 November 3.81 12.68 T(l) December 4.72 13.32 0.60 Annual 50.72 76.88 33.14 (1) Trace - an amount too small to measure

2.06 The streams of the Tombigbee River system exhibit wide variations in runoff characteristics which range from very flashy in hill sections to slow rising and falling in the lower reaches of the main stream. Flood characteristics of the principal tributaries are dissimilar in that Town Creek (West Fork), the Buttahatchie River and Luxapalila Creek are flashy streams while the Tombigbee River (East Fork) above its junction with Town Creek, the Tibbee, Sipsey, and Noxubee Rivers are all relatively slow in rising. General floods occur on an average of once in about 10 years and are usually associated with frontal systems. Intense local rainfall produces flooding on the tributaries several times a year. Although flood producing storms may occur at any time over any part of the basin, they are more frequent in winter and spring when runoff conditions are more favor­ able.

2.07 Climatic conditions are fairly uniform throughout the project area. Temperatures average about 63°F annually and mean daily temperatures range from the mid-40's in winter to the low 80's in summer. The length of the growing season ranges from 200 to 225 days. Rainfall averages about 52 inches per year with the wettest seasons being winter and spring. Average annual snowfall varies from a trace near Demopolis to about 4 inches in the northern portion of the basin. Prolonged droughts seldom occur, and excessive rather than insufficient rainfall is more common.

2.08 Physiography. The Tombigbee basin lies almost wholly in the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The fall line, the divide between the Appalachian Plateau and the Coastal Plain provinces, extends along the extreme northeastern edge of the basin. The part of the basin immediately to the west and south of the fall line lies in the Fall Line Hills District. The topography in this area varies from smoothly rounded hills of low relief separated by broad valleys, to hills and ridges about 200 feet high with steep slopes, narrow crests, and narrow separating valleys. The Black Belt lies to the west and south of the Fall Line Hills and has topography varying from nearly level to low broadly rounded hills that rise in places to a maximum height of 40 feet above the broad, shallow separating valleys. The Pontotoc Ridge District lies to the west of the Black Belt in all but the lower portion of the basin where it is replaced by the Flatwoods District. In the western portion of the Pontotoc Ridge District the hills rise 40 to 50 feet above the valleys and have gentle slopes and broadly rounded crests. Toward the eastern edge, the sharpness of the relief increases, the crests and valleys become narrow and the slopes steep. The Flatwoods District to the southwest of the Black Belt is a gently undulating to slightly rolling plain.

2.09 The topographic aspect of the Tombigbee River Valley has been modi­ fied by terrace-forming processes. The variable topography results from differential erosion of the irregularly bedded sands, clays, gravels, and thin rock layers composing the underlying Cretaceous age formations. The river is at or near the western edge of a valley 7 to 15 miles wide whose eastward side rises toward the hills in a series of at least 5 terrace plains of irregular width. These slope gently upstream and appear to merge with the present flood plains of the main headwater branches of the river. The flood plains are blanketed with alluvial and terrace deposits ranging from Pliocene to Recent age. Thicknesses of these deposits range up to 50 feet. They so effectively cover large parts of the valley that exposures of bedrock are rare and are only found in steep slopes.

2.10 Geology. Sedimentary strata of Upper Cretaceous Age underlie all but the southwest portion of the basin where they are overlapped by Paleocene strata. The Cretaceous strata form a gently dipping monocline whose strike swings from due south in the northern and central portion to southwest in the southern portion. In general, the strata dip about 30 feet per mile to the west and southwest normal to the strike. The deposits subdivided into geologic units in ascending order on the basis of their lithologic character consist of the Tuscaloosa Group, the McShan and Eutaw Formations, and the Selma Group. These formations are all irregularly bedded and indurated sands, clays and gravels, and chalk. Their differential resistance to erosion is reflected in the hilly topog­ raphy of the area. The Black Belt is underlain by the chalky members of the Selma Group, varying from relatively pure chalk to more or less argillaceous and sandy chalk. To the west, the Pontotoc Ridge is under­ lain by sandy beds of the Selma Group. Southwest of the Black Belt, the Flatwoods District is underlain by the dense impervious Porters Creek clay of Paleocene age.

2.11 Minerals. Mineral resources in the basin are varied. Deposits of bentonite, bauxite, clay, and tripoli are found in northeast Mississippi. Sand and gravel deposits are abundant except in the Black Belt District where there are numerous outcroppings of white Selma Chalk which underlies the area. The chalk, a soft, impure, argillaceous limestone, has lost much of its value as a commercial product. However, both the production and the use of mineral commodities have a favorable effect on the economy of the basin.

2.12 PaJ^eontology. The Tombigbee River passes through geologic forma­ tions rich in marine fossils. In Mississippi and Alabama, the river exposes both the Selma Chalk and Eutaw Formation and many fossil-collecting sites along the main river are known to paleontologists. These sites are not within the vicinity of the authorized tributaries project and no such sites are known to exist on the tributary streams.

2.13 Ar£heoloj^_and_History. Archeological remains, principally of Indian origin, are widely distributed in the Tombigbee River basin. These remains are primarily ceremonial tumuli, shell or refuse mounds, and camp­ sites. Along the main stem and some tributary streams, to date, 318 sites have been located and described in the basin. Some of the locations are known to have been affected by past agricultural and construction operations, while others have been nearly obliterated by curiosity and treasure seekers. Numerous historical sites of early settlements are also located in the basin. Many antebellum homes and structures are situated in the larger urban areas and on some rural areas which were originally plantations. A check with the Mississippi Department of Archives and History and the Alabama Historical Commission revealed'that no sites included in the National Register of Historic Places are located within the construction areas of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. However, there is the possibility that a few archeological sites may occur within these areas. The has been funded to conduct a survey of Luxa- palila Creek in order to determine the area's archeological resources.

2.14 Ec£noml_c_and_SociLalL As£ects^ The 1970 population of the 28 project area counties, which lie either wholly or partially within the upper Tombigbee basin above Demopolis, Alabama, was 661,299, a 3 percent decrease over 1960. The two largest cities, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Columbus, Mississippi, had populations of 65,773 and 25,795, respectively. The 28- county region is primarily agricultural with some manufacturing in the urban centers. The latest land use statistics available for the region were compiled in 1967. Of the 10,902,400 acres which make up the region (excluding water areas of 40 acres in size or streams 1/8 mile and over in width) approximately 61 percent were in forest, 18 percent were used for cropland, 13 percent were in pastures, with the remaining 8 percent making up other uses. This latter category consists of urban areas, roads, marshes, wastelands, national forests, parks and other unclassified purposes. Also included in the other use category are 56,300 acres of small water areas of less than 40 acres in size and streams less than 1/8 mile in width representing 0.5 percent of the total land area in the 28-county region. There was a slight increase in the cropland and pasture acreage in the region from 1959 to 1967 followed by a corresponding decrease in the acre­ age in forest.

2.15 During the period between 1959 and 1964, the average farm increased in size from 131 to 147 acres in the Tombigbee basin and the crops and livestock produced increased 26 percent in value to $134.6 million.

2.16 Between 1959 and 1964 the average farm in Mississippi increased from 135 to 163 acres, and in Alabama, from 143 to 195 acres. Thus, the Tombig­ bee basin has somewhat smaller farms than the averages for the two states. The rural population for the basin has been decreasing at a faster rate than for the two-state area (-9.3% vs. -7.7%). Conversely, the urban population for the basin is increasing much more rapidly than for the states. These trends can be expected to continue in the near future. There will be fewer, larger farms as more rural families move to the urban areas.

2.17 In the period 1958-1967, the basin had a decrease of less than one- half of one percent of land in forest. The Mississippi portion showed a decrease, while the Alabama counties actually increased the amount of land in forest. With proper management practices, it is reasonable to expect that the basin's forests will remain relatively constant although there will be variations in the amount of forested land at the county level.

2.18 All of the counties in Mississippi and eight of the ten counties in Alabama are included in the Appalachia Program. This area is recog­ nized as being abundant in natural resources and rich in potential, but lagging behind the rest of the Nation in its economic growth. Thus, the people have not shared properly in the Nation's prosperity. Socio-economic characteristics of all the counties are shown in Table 6. In addition the population projections for these counties, as developed from data compiled for the Water Resources Council by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce and the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture (the Office of Business and Economic Research Service - "OBERS" projections) are presented in Table 7. However, local areas may be subject to accelerated growth; e.g., Columbus, Mississippi, following completion of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.

2.19 A network of paved roads connects the principal populations centers of the region, and improved roads lead into all agricultural districts. There are six Federal and five State highways crossing the basin. In addition the , a federal scenic highway, extends through northeast Mississippi from Webster County on the southwest to Tupelo in the central portion. The Parkway is proposed to be extended from Tupelo northeasterly through Prentiss and Tishomingo Counties into Alabama and Tennessee. There are five railroads serving the area. The Illinois Central Gulf has three main lines that traverse the basin in a north and south direction. The St. Louis and San Francisco crosses the northern part of the basin. Other lines include the Columbus and Greenville and the Southern. Branch lines interconnect with these railroads and serve the principal cities and towns with rail transportation in all directions. Table 6

Socio-economic Characteristics of the Tombigbee River Basin Area Income Population Percent Percent urban Percent Negro per capita Percent County 1960 1970 change 1960 1970 1960 1970 1959* 1969* change

Alcorn 25,282 27,179 7.5 45.3 42.6 11.8 $ 1,088 $2,133 96.0 16,891 16,805 - .5 30.8 34.0 38.5 35.6 $ 1,029 $ 2,321' 125.6 8,423 8,440 .2 29.9 28.0 630 1,444 129.2 Clay 18,933 18,840 .5 45.2 46.3 51.3 49.4 1,101 2,567 133.2 Itawamba 15,080 16,847 11.7 17.2 5.8 5.6 923 2,023 119.2 Kemper 12,277 10,233 -16.6 58.7 54.8 580 1,380 137.9 Lee 40,589 46,148 13.7 42.4 44.4 25.3 20.7 1,287 2,991 132.4 Lowndes 1/ 46,639 49,700 6.6 53.1 60.1 38.0 32.7 1,492 2,530 69.6 Monroe 33,953 34,043 .3 38.1 39.3 33.8 31.1 1,121 2,456 119.1 Noxubee 16,826 14,288 -is;i 18.3 71.7 65.8 648 1,662 156.5 Oktibbeha 26,175 28,752 9 8 34.5 55.5 43.7 34.8 970 1,897 95.6 Pontotoc 17,232 17,363 .8 — 19 9 19.1 17.8 852 1,924 125.8 Prentiss 17,949 20,133 12.2 19.4 29.3 12.2 11.7 890 1,828 105.4 Tippah 15,093 15,852 5.0 17.7 22.0 16.3 1,031 1,718 66.6 Tishomingo 13,889 14,940 7.6 4.9 4.4 961 2,067 115.1 Union 18,904 19,096 1.0 27.2 33.7 17.5 15.4 964 2,222 130.5 Webster 10,580 10,047 - 5.0 24.8 22.4 782 1,988 154.2 Winston 19,246 18,406 - 4.4 26.3 36.0 43.0 39.1 866 2,171 150.7 Total 373,961 387,112 3.1 27.4 35.5 33.0 28.6 1,024 2,252 119.9 MISSISSIPPI 2,178,141 2,216,912 1.2 37 7 44.5 42 0 36 8 1,175 2,349 99.9 Fayette 16,148 16,252 .6 26.2 29.0 15.9 13.8 943 2,064 118.9 Franklin 21,998 23,933 8.8 30.1 32.6 5.6 5.4 954 2,116 121.8 Greene 13,600 10,650 -21.7 20.5 26.3 81.3 74.8 656 1,308 99.4 Lamar 1/ 14,271 14,335 .4 14.7 14.3 1,059 1,812 71.1 Marion 21,837 23,788 8.9 13.3 26 2 3.3 3.1 1,099 2,281 107.6 Pickens 21,882 20,326 - 7.1 14.6 14 0 44.7 41.4 881 1,857 110.8 Sumter 20,041 16,974 -15.3 14.6 17.9 76.3 65.3 698 1,505 115.6 Tuscaloosa 109,047 116,029 6.4 70.4 74.0 28.7 25.0 1,516 2,428 60.2 Walker 54,211 15,246 3.8 25.8 24.0 8.2 2,003 Winston 14,858 16,654 12.1 25.2 24.8 0.4 1,265 2,125 68.0 Total 307,893 274,187 1.5 26.0 46.8 31.0 25.9 1,161 2,160 86.0 ALABAMA 3,266,740 3,444,165 5.4 54.8 58.4 30.0 26.4 1,421 2,623 84.6 TOMBIGBEE BASIN 681,854 661,299 2.4 26.8 40.2 32.2 27.5 1,081 2,214 104.8 *U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics 1/ Counties in the immediate Luxapalila Creek project area. Table 7

Historic Population (1970) and Base Line Population Projections (1980-2020) for Alabama and Mississippi Counties ______within the Tombigbee Basin (OBERS Projections)______

County 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Alcorn 27 ,179 29,000 32,000 35,000 38,000 42,000 Chickasaw 16 ,805 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,000 20,000 Choctaw 8 ,440 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Clay 18 ,840 19,500 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 Itawamba 16 ,847 18,500 20,500 23,000 26 ,000 29,000 Kemper 10 ,233 9,500 9,100 9,000 9,000 9,000 Lee lf 46 ,148 54,000 65,000 77,000 89,000 104,000 Lowndes — 49 ,700 54,000 58,000 62,000 67,000 72,000 Monroe 34 ,043 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 40,000 Noxubee 14 ,288 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Oktibbeha 28 ,752 35,000 38,000 41,000 45,000 50,000 Pontotoc 17 ,363 17,500 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 Prentis? 20 ,133 22,000 24,000 26,000 29,000 32,000 Tippah 15 ,852 16,000 16,500 17,000 18,000 19,000 Tishomingo 14 ,940 16,500 17,500 18,500 19,500 21,000 Union 19 ,096 19,300 20,000 21,000 22,500 24,000 Webster 10 ,047 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Winston 18 ,406 19,000 20,200 21,000 23,000 25,200 Total 387 ,112 412,300 442,800 476,000 515,000 561,200 MISSISSIPPI 2,216 ,912 2,362,100 2,362,100 2,847,200 3,155,700 3,496,000

Fayette 16 ,252 18,300 20,500 22,900 25,700 28,800 Franklin 23 ,933 27,000 30,700 34,000 37,800 41,500 Greene 10 ,650 9,800 9,000 8,200 7,500 6,900 Lamar 1/ 14 ,335 17,600 21,500 26,200 32,000 39,100 Marion 23 ,788 27,000 30,500 34,300 38,800 43,900 Pickens 20 ,326 22,000 23,700 25,500 27,500 29,600 Sumter 16 ,974 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 Tuscaloosa 116 ,029 127,000 138,400 150,200 163,900 178,000 Walker 56 ,246 58,000 59,500 60,900 62,600 64,400 Winston 16 ,654 19,000 21,600 24,500 27,900 31,700

Total 315 ,187 342,700 372,400 403,700 440,700 481,700 ALABAMA 3,444 ,165 3,812,500 4,214,600 4,655,000 5,191,700 5,861,400

1/ Counties in the immediate Luxapalila Creek project area. 2.20 Re£reatlon. With the exception of several urban areas, the basin is characteristically rural and sparsely settled. A 1965 inventory of the recreational developments revealed that most of the nationally recog­ nized categories of recreation were represented in the area, although there were few riding stables and game management areas. Small lakes, ponds, streams, fields and woods provide excellent fishing, hunting, and other recreational activities. Although most categories are present, the recreational opportunities are wholly inadequate for the present popula­ tion, since most facilities are owned or controlled by private interests and not available for public use.

2.21 Developments within the Mississippi portion of the upper Tombigbee River basin include a wildlife refuge in the headwaters of the Noxubee River and three State parks. The Noxubee on the Noxubee River west of Brooksville, Mississippi, comprises about 38,200 acres and includes the 1,200-acre Bluff Lake formed by a low dam across the river. It is important as a waterfowl area and winters several thou­ sand ducks and geese annually. A large part of the area is also suited . to upland game. Lake Loakfoma, a 600-acre impoundment, is also in the Noxubee Refuge. Bluff Lake and Lake Loakfoma are managed for the produc­ tion of waterfowl food and game fish. The three State parks in the upper Tombigbee River basin are in Tishomingo County with an area of 1,404 acres, J. P. Coleman State Park in Tishomingo County with an area of 1,450 acres, and Tombigbee State Park in Lee County with an area of 522 acres. Two national battlefield sites and a fish hatchery are also located in Lee County. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission lakes in the basin include Lake Lamar Bruce north of Tupelo, Lake Monroe south of Amory, and Oktibbeha County Lake in Oktibbeha County. Lake Lowndes in Lowndes County is owned by the Mississippi State Park Commission. The Choctaw Wildlife Management Area in Choctaw County provides exceptional hunting opportunities. The State of Mississippi is developing the 11,000- acre Mackeys Creek Wildlife Management Area in the upper portion of the basin. This area provides wildlife and waterfowl habitat and wood duck nesting areas, and thereby will increase waterfowl hunting opportunities in the basin. Two national forests are partially located within the upper Tombigbee basin. Holly Springs National Forest is found within Tippah, Benton, Union, Pontotoc, and Marshall Counties and consists of 143,500 acres. Tombigbee River National Forest is located within Chicka­ saw, Choctaw, and Winston Counties and is composed of 65,232 acres. Davis Lake (200 acres) and Choctaw Lake (100 acres) are two U. S. Forest Service lakes located within the Tombigbee River National Forest. Chewalla Lake (265 acres) is another U. S. Forest Service lake which is found in Holly Springs National Forest; however, the Chewalla Lake is not within the upper Tombigbee basin. The 800-acre Yellow Creek Wildlife Management Area located in Tishomingo County and operated by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, although not in the upper Tombigbee River drainage basin, is in the general project area for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. 2.22 Three Alabama county lakes managed by the Department of Conserva­ tion and Natural Resources — Fayette, Lamar, and Marion County Lakes — are located within the Alabama portion of the upper Tombigbee basin. The Lamarion Game Management Area has been established in Marion and Lamar Counties by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

2.23 Buttahatchie River and Bull Mountain Creek were included in a bill to establish the Mississippi Natural and Scenic Waterway System in 1971, but the bill failed to pass in the regular session of the Mississippi Legislature.

2.24 In Alabama, the lower half of the Sipsey River from U. S. Highway 82 and State Highway 140 downstream to the mouth of the river (approxi­ mately 40 miles) has been recommended to be placed on the national list provided for by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) presented this suggestion upon completing a study of the Sipsey River from its head­ waters to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. The recommendation was based on the scenic and recreational potential of the lower segment of the Sipsey River. In addition to this Sipsey River segment being placed on the national list of wild and scenic rivers, SCORP also recommended the following: (1) the Corps of Engineers give adequate consideration to this segment in both its overall environmental study and in its recrea­ tional development planning studies for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway; (2) the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources reevaluate the potential of this segment of the Sipsey River based on findings of other studies now underway; and (3) the Alabama Development Office and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission be requested to consider adequately the scenic and recreational potentials of this segment of the Sipsey River in their comprehensive river basin and water quality studies.

2.25 The SCORP study revealed that the upper half of the Sipsey River (above U. S. Highway 82 and State Highway 140) has little water-oriented recreational potential because of a shallow channel and low water flow in summer and flooding in winter. Road access and other factors keep it from being classed as a wild river. While scenic areas are found, SCORP concluded that overall water and land features are such that it should not be considered for designation as a wild and scenic river in the upper half of the stream.

2.26 In addition to the Sipsey River, twelve other streams outside the upper Tombigbee River basin in various parts of Alabama were included in the study of potential wild and scenic rivers. The Governor of Alabama, in a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, suggested that the Cahaba River, Little River Canyon area, Locust Fork of the , Shoal Creek, Cypress Creek, Tallapoosa River, Conecuh River, Escatawpa River, Perdido River, Styx River and Sipsey River be included in the National Wild Rivers Study. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources added Hatchet Creek and the West Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River to the Study. 2.27 The Legislature of Alabama passed a constitutional amendment in 1973 subject to voter referendum establishing a public corporation to be named the Buttahatchie River Development Authority for the development of the • Buttahatchie River, its tributaries and watershed. The watershed designated by the legislation included all land in Marion and Lamar Counties, Alabama, lying within 15 miles of the Buttahatchie River and any of its tributaries. The Authority was to be created in order to develop the Buttahatchie water­ shed for the purposes of navigation, water conservation and supply, flood control, irrigation, industrial development, public recreation and related purposes. It was to be authorized to: (1) investigate the resources of the Buttahatchie River watershed; (2) determine requirements for its full development and control; and (3) carry out a unified comprehensive program of resource development which provides for the construction of water control structures, channel modifications, and other facilities as a part of the comprehensive plan. A statewide referendum was held in December 1973 to determine whether the amendment providing for the Authority would become a valid part of the State constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was defeated.

2.28 Streams in the upper Tombigbee basin have no extensive whitewater areas. Most of the streams can be rated as Canoe Class 1, safe and not very challenging. There are no major islands in the basin, but sand and gravel bars and shoals are numerous in the streambeds. The only extensive wetland areas occur along the Tombigbee River in Greene County, Alabama, and along the Sipsey River north of Highway 82.

2.29 Watejr Us£. All public, industrial, and domestic water supplies in the basin are obtained from groundwater sources except the Columbus munici­ pal supply which comes from Luxapalila Creek. Paleozoic aquifers, primarily in rocks of Mississippian age, are presently used as sources of groundwater by the town of Iuka in Tishomingo County, Mississippi; however, the aquifers of Cretaceous age supply the majority of the groundwater used in the area with the most prolific aquifers being the sand beds of the Eutaw and Gordo Formations. Generally, these are not intensively developed and in many places only the shallowest aquifer is used, even though one or more deeper ones are present. The hydrologic characteristics of the Cretaceous aquifers vary considerably, those aquifers in the Tuscaloosa Groups being the most productive.

2.30 The States of Alabama and Mississippi have adopted stream classifi­ cations for the Tombigbee River and most of its tributaries. Fish and wildlife is the dominant use classification for the Tombigbee River and its tributaries, the exceptions being portions of tributaries classified for public water supply (such as Luxapalila Creek above Columbus, Mississippi) or recreation.

2.31 Botany. According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39 entitled "Wetlands of the United States," the wetland areas occurring along the Tombigbee River and its tributaries are defined as seasonally flooded basins or flats. The soil is characteristically covered with water, or is waterlogged, during variable seasonal periods but usually is well drained during much of the growing season. Flooding usually occurs in late fall, winter, or spring along the Tombigbee and its tributaries. Vegetation typically varies greatly according to the season and the duration of flood­ ing. It includes bottomland hardwoods as well as some herbaceous growths.

2.32 Major forest types in the basin vary from oak-pine and oak-hickory in the northern portion to loblolly-shortleaf pine in the south. The main stem of the Tombigbee River and its major tributaries have an oak-gum- cypress forest type. Under pristine conditions the flood plain is charac­ terized by the growth of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo gum (Nvssa aquatica) , overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii), black willow (Salix nigra), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and water hickory (Carya aquatica) . With only a slight increase of elevation, the dominant forest trees are southern shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) , mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa) , white oak (Quercus alba) , southern red oak (Quercus rubra falcata), sweetgum, (Liquidamber styraciflua) , black cherry (Padus serotina), and hackberry (Celtis sp.). Higher elevations support mixed stands of oak-hickory and pine. In some places the river is bordered by bluffs which support American beech (Fagus grandifolia).white oak (Quercus alba) , yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), basswood (Tilia sp.), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). An impressive amount of soil conservation and land drainage have been practiced in the basin, and much of the adequately drained land has been cleared for cultivation and pasture. Most of the forests have been harvested in the past and are in various stages of regeneration. Ex­ tensive areas are being reforested and maintained with monocultures of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).

2.33 Many areas of the Black Belt were naturally treeless when Europeans first arrived in the basin. Most of the land has been cultivated for so long that the original treeless areas are presently indiscernible. This region is largely devoid of trees, but scattered clumps of crabapple (Malus sp.), hackberry (Celtis sp.) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) with decidiuous holly (Ilex decidua) and honey locust (Gleditsia triancanthos) occur in low depressions. Red cedar is the dominant vegetation along fences and out-croppings of Selma Chalk. Osage orange (Maclura pomifera) is a common escape along fence rows.

2.34 The river bottoms have been largely cut over and are presently covered with second growth hardwoods and pine. The more common trees in this area include bittemut hickory (Carya cordiformis) , wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) , black willow (Salix nigra), cottonwood (Populus deltoides) , American hornbean (Ostrya virginiana) , river birch (Betula nigra), alder (Alnus serrulata) , overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), cherry bark oak (Quercus falcata pagodaefolia), willow oak (Quercus phellos) , wahoo (Euonymus americanus), sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica). Northern red oak (Quercus rubra borealis) and beech (F£gus grandifolia) are found in coves. The less common trees are nutmeg hickory (Carya myristicaeformis), Durand oak (Quercus durandii). and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) . Shrubs and vines in the river bottom include coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens) , buckwheat vine (Brunnichia cirrhosa), wisteria (Wisteria frutescens), pawpaw (Asimina sp.), and buckeye (Aesculus sp.). Associated herbaceous forms are clematis (Clematis sp.). jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) , buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), leafcup (Folymnia sp.), violets (Viola sp.), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea).

2.35 Six species of bottomland hardwoods reach their northern limit of distribution in Mississippi near Columbus. These are laurel oak (Quercus laurifolla), Georgia hackberry (Celtis georgiana), buckthorn (Bumelia lycioides), Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii),Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana). and yaupon (Ilex sp.). Thrfee species of arborescent cove flora— pale hickory (Carya pallida), sand post oak (Quercus margaretta). and blue jack oak (Quercus incana)-are similarly limited. A study area known as Watson's Woods in the Tombigbee bottoms in southeastern Lowndes and northeastern Noxubee Counties, Mississippi, supports 96 species of arborescent plants. In addition, 420 species of non-aborescent vascular plants have been listed by Walter C. Holmes, doctorial candidate in the Department of Botany, Mississippi State University in Starkville. This area, about six square miles in extent and on the west banjk of the Tombigbee River, is frequented by faculty and students of Mississippi State University. The Watson's Woods area is shown on Plate 1. Old Robinson Road Natural Area in Winston County, Mississippi, is a 46-acre Federal research natural area for the study of bald cypress.

2.36 There is a paucity of information on the aquatic flora of the Tombig­ bee River basin. Aquatic macrophytes in Mississippi include pondweed (Potamogeton diversifolia), water arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), broadleaf water plantain (Alisma subcordatum), mayaca (Mayaca sp.), river- weed (Podostemum cerotophyllum), watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), knotweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), water shield (Brasenia schreber), water pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides), parrot's feathers (Myriophyllum brasiliense), bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), muskweed (Chara sp.), spadderdock (Nupher luteum), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), willow weed (Justicia americana), white-water lily (Nymphea odorata), bur-reed (Sparganium amerlcanum), hedge hysop (Gratiola neglecta), water leaf (Hydrolea quadrivalvis), and duckweed (Wolffiela floridana). A phytoplankton study in the Tombigbee River near Columbus indicated that a small indistinctive community was present. The study failed to reveal measurable quantities of chlorophyll "a", suggest­ ing low standing crops of phytoplankton. This is typical for streams like the Tombigbee River since they normally function as energy import systems. 2.37 .ZoologZ- Benthic organisms which have been reported from the Tom- bigbee River are typical of those found throughout the southeastern United States. Thirty-four families representing 14 orders of aquatic insects and 9 orders of other invertebrates are attributed to the river near Columbus. A sporadic mussel fishery exists in parts of the river but the resource has been poorly utilized in recent years. Several of the streams have populations of Mollusca (clams and snails). The Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminea, is reportedly widespread in the Tombigbee basin.

2.38 A total of 116 species of fish has been reported from the upper Tombigbee River basin. Ninety-seven species are found within the main channel with the remaining 19 species apparently being restricted to the small tributaries. The shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus), blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus), frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus), crystal darter (Ammocrypta asprella), and freckled darter (Percina lenticula) have been collected in the basin in the past and are declining in abundance due to adverse environmental conditions as a result of the activities of man. Game fish are abundant in the basin and support a moderate sport fishery. The sport species taken include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) , crappie (Pomoxis annularis) , walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), catfishes, and various sunfishes. A significant commercial fishery exists in the Tombigbee River producing catfishes, buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) , freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) , and carp (Cyprlnus carpio) .

2.39 Appendix B contains a listing of the fishes from the upper Tombigbee River basin as reported by Dr. H T Boschung in a study financed by the Corps. Data from studies conducted by the Mississippi Game and Fish Com­ mission and Drs. Dale H. A m e r and Glenn H. Clemmer, Mississippi State University, are also included in the appendix. Mississippi State University is conducting a study, under contract with the Department of the Interior, on the effects of channelization on the fisheries and limnology of Luxapalila Creek. The fishes listed in Appendix B are categorized as to their occurrence in the Tombigbee River and the following tributaries: Luxapalila Creek, Buttahatchie River, Sipsey River, Noxubee River, Tibbee River, and other tributaries. The chestnut lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus), iorn-color shiner ( chalybaeus), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), brown bullhead catfish (Ictalurus nebulosus), and slough darter (Etheostoma gracile) are included in the appendix; however, their occurrence is doubted due to past literature references whose accuracy of identification cannot be verified. Of the fishes of the upper Tombigbee River, five appear on the Alabama list of Rare and Endangered Species: shovelnose sturgeon, Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) , blue sucker, crystal darter, and freckled darter. The striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula) have also been reported from the upper Tombigbee River in the past and are there­ fore included in the appendix. However, the presence of the alligator gar (a coastal fish) and the striped bass (an anadromous fish) in the project area is doubted due to restrictions in their distribution created by the construction of Coffeeville and Demopolis Dams along the lower Tombigbee River. Appendix C displays the habitat preference of the fishes reported from the upper Tombigbee River basin, an indication of their abundance in the basin and their range or distribution within the basin and the United States. 2.40 The walleye of the upper Tombigbee River drainage basin has been the subject of a great deal of study by the State of Mississipp i in order to determine its status in the river system. According to a sur­ vey (1 July 1968 through 31 August 1971) conducted by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, the distribution of the walleye in the Tombigbee River system in Mississippi is widespread; however, the species is not abundant anywhere in the system. The walleye was found to occur in the Tombigbee River, Buttahatchie River, Sipsey Creek, Luxapalila Creek, Yellow Creek, Noxubee River, Hashgua Creek, Sucamoochee Creek, Ponta Creek and Bull Mountain Creek. Walleye have also been reported from Mackeys Creek, Browns Creek, Weavers Creek, and McCowers Creek in the past. Among the major tributaries of the Tombigbee River, Tibbee River and Town Creek (West Fork) are the only streams from which walleye are not known. The average known annual walleye catch in the Tombigbee system within Mississippi during the survey period consisted of 100 fish or 337.3 pounds.

2.41 In the main stem of the Tombigbee River, walleye appear most abundant in the deep-water sections in Lowndes County, between the mouth of the Buttahatchie River and several miles below the mouth of Luxapalila Creek. In Tombigbee River tributaries, the Columbus area of Luxapalila Creek, Sipsey Creek in the Buttahatchie system, and Hashugua Creek in the Noxubee system are indicated to be some of the areas where catches are most frequent. The frequency of walleye catches, generally, is reported to have declined gradually through the years.

2.42 Water temperature and certain physiographic features, such as depth, presence of springs, presence of shoal areas, shading, and probably bottom composition, influence distribution of the walleye. Although temperature alone does not determine the walleye's distribution within the upper Tombigbee system, walleye may be attracted to influxes of cooler water, afforded by springs, during summer months. Temperatures attained and annual duration of higher temperatures probably influence overall walleye abundance. Walleye may not tolerate prolonged water temperatures much in excess of 85 F. Higher summer water temperatures appear to restrict feeding activity, especially of the younger fish, with the most active feeding period occurring during the cooler months of September, October, November and December. The Mississippi Game and Fish Commission concluded that the ranges of dissolved oxygen, free carbon dioxide, turbidity and alkalinity encountered throughout the Tombigbee drainage basin do not determine walleye distribution.

2.43 The study conducted by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission indicated that streams or stream segments having uniform shallow or moder­ ate depths, generally under seven feet at low flow, and consistently steep banks are avoided by walleye and usually abound with carp. This is typical of Tibbee River, Town Creek and portions of Noxubee River and Tombigbee River. Holes or pools ranging from eight to over twenty feet in depth alternating with shoal and bar areas appear preferable. Widening of stream beds and filling in of deeper holes (as has resulted on Sucar- noochee Creek and Ponta Creek from timber removal from the immediate banks, on the Tombigbee River between Bull Mountain Creek and Town Creek from gravel operations, and on portions of the Tombigbee River in Itawamba County from channel alterations for flood control) coincide with declines in walleye. Influxes of sand and silt in the upper Tombigbee River result­ ing from channelization of Browns Creek, Little Browns Creek, Donovans Creek, Twenty-Mile Creek and Mantachie Creek have resulted in further elimination of deep holes in this area. While gravel operations in the area mentioned above have reduced walleye habitat in the main stem of the Tombigbee River, adjacent gravel pit lakes are utilized by walleye. It is speculated by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission that planned alter­ ations for flood control, even if confined to snagging and clearing, would probably eliminate walleye from the section above the mouth of Town Creek.

2.44 Tributary streams from which walleye are most frequently caught tend to be heavily shaded. Walleye also appear to be most abundant in areas with sandy bottoms and/or bottoms with varied composition consisting of sand, gravel, marl, and soapstone.

2.45 According to the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, distribution of walleye in the Tombigbee River system appears more closely related to habitat preferences than to variations in abundance of suitable forage species. Also, the walleye does not appear to be associated with any par­ ticular fish species.

2.46 Walleye spawning occurs between early March and early to mid-April at probable water temperatures between 48 and 55 F. Walleye ascend tribu­ taries at this time in order to spawn, selecting spawning sites with water depths less than 30 inches. It is surmised that peak walleye spawning is preceded by spotted sucker spawning and followed by carp and buffalo spawning. As is evidenced by its long history of occurrence in the upper Tombigbee basin, the walleye experiences some spawning success; however, evaluation of the degree of spawning success has not been accomplished. Substantial increases in water levels due to storm rainfall subsequent to spawning may reduce hatches in most of the Tombigbee River tributaries annually. It is not known whether limited hatching of eggs or low survival of hatches is most responsible for the indicated small walleye populations in the upper Tombigbee basin.

2.47 The walleye has the potential of being an important sport fish in the deeper portions of the impoundments along the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, adding to their recreational value. If left in their natural or unaltered state, the large tributary streams which enter the Tombigbee River will provide adequate spawning sites for the walleye in order that population levels may be maintained.

2.48 The lands adjacent to the main stem of the Tombigbee River and its major tributaries support wildlife resources of high and increasing value. The bottomland hardwoods, although extensively harvested, provide excellent deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopvao) habitat, and population sizes and utilization are increasing. Excellent habitat exists for squirrels (Sciurus sp.) and rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.) and their numbers are generally high. Cultivated areas and woodland edges in the basin provide excellent quail and dove (Zenaidura macroura) cover. Fur bearers, such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) . otter (Lutra canadensis), and fox (Vulpes fulva) are hunted for sport. Woodcock (Philohela minor) winter in the marshy bottoms, and wood ducks (Aix sponsa) are abundant. Present use by migratory waterfowl is low but excellent opportunities exist for development of this resource. The king­ fisher (Megaceryle alcyon aIcyon), pileated woodpecker (Hylatomus pileatus), and bank swallow (Riparia riparia riparia) are relatively common along the stream banks.

2.49 The most productive habitats for small mammals, as reported in an ecosystem study of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway route by the Institute for Environmental Studies, Mississippi State University under contract by the Corps, are bottomland hardwood forests and disturbed areas in early stages of vegetative succession (2 - 5 years old). These two habitat types are among the most common along the waterway route and tributary streams to the Tombigbee River. Outside of the Tombigbee River and tributaries flood plains, northeast Mississippi is lacking in bottomland hardwood wildlife habitat. The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project will remove a large portion of this habitat along the Tombigbee River proper. Clearing by the public sector following project completion will add to this loss.

2.50 Considerable numbers of small mammals occupy hardwood forests (some being restricted to them) along the Tombigbee River. Many old field species occur adjacent to forests, and it is highly likely that the home range of,these animals extends into the woods; in other words, these species would not exist in fields without the proximity of woods. Several species prefer open areas to forest habitats. There seems to be a trend for greater diversity and higher densities in the fields as opposed to • the forests. In addition, some species are habitat specific whereas others are not. Also, results of the study indicate that there may be some geographic and possibly seasonal variation in population levels of small mammals within the Tombigbee River basin. These statements may be extrapolated to describe those tributary streams in the Tombigbee River basin which possess similar vegetative cover. Pine plantations which occur in the drainage basin possess wildlife communities of lower diversity and smaller numbers than the hardwood forests occurring along the streams.

2.51 Waterfowl which winter in the Tombigbee River basin in descending order of abundance are the mallard (Anas platyrhynos), gadwall (Anas strepera) and American widgeon (Anas americana). Other species which comprise the winter waterfowl population are the blue winged teal (Anas discors), green winged teal (Anas carolinensis) , black duck (Anas rubripes), wood duck, pintail (Anas acuta tzitzihoa), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), shoveller (Spatula clypeata), and Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Wood ducks and black ducks inhabit secluded woodland areas. During flood periods more feeding areas are created, thus scattering the birds over wide areas. Agricultural fields are by far the most productive waterfowl habitat, with marshes, oxbows, beaver ponds, and flooded woods ranked in decreasing order of productivity. The amount of invertebrates attached to aquatic plants is an essential ingredient when considering the potential waterfowl productivity of a specific habitat. The Black Belt physiographic division has the largest concentration of wintering waterfowl within the upper Tombigbee basin according to the ecosystem study by the Institute for Environmental Studies, Mississippi State University.

2.52 A survey of the herpetofauna occurring within the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project area was a facet of the Institute's ecosystem study. The three areas investigated along the route of the Waterway are as follows:

(1) The southernmost study area was centered around Watson's Woods located on the west bank of the Tombigbee River in Lowndes County south of Columbus, Mississippi (Plate 1). This area occurs within the Black Belt physiographic division (referred to as the prairie ecosystem) and is categorized as bottomland forest, except for a section of sandy soil with its characteristic flora.

(2) The middle study area was situated near Aberdeen, Mississippi, in Monroe County, and consisted of bottomland forest and farmland. This area is located on the eastern fringe of the Black Belt and is referred to as the Tombigbee Sand Hills ecosystem.

(3) The northernmost study area was situated in Prentiss and Tisho­ mingo Counties and contained the largest variety of habitats of the three areas studied along the river. This area occurs within the Fall Line Hills physiographic division constituting the extreme southwest influence of the Appalachian Plateau which includes habitats comparable to areas farther east, such as cool, rocky streams, ravines, highly dissected topography, springs, etc. The fauna of this area include a number of Appalachian species in addition to the more wide-ranging species found elsewhere, many of which enter from the south. This area is referred to in the study as being in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Divide Hills ecosystem.

2.53 In some cases, a species collected during the study may be uncommon because it is near the margin of its range in this area, while in other cases, a species simply does not maintain dense populations or a species is not particularly uncommon in its habitat, but the habitat is restricted.

2.54 A total of 95 species was reported during this herpetofauna survey, 60 of which were reptiles with the remaining 35 being amphibians. The total of 95 species was composed of 1 crocodilian, 18 turtles, 9 lizards, 32 snakes, 19 salamanders, and 16 frogs. Although only three areas adjacent to the route of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway were studied, the distribution of species reported may be extrapolated to include the tributaries authorized for channel alterations and developments. In particular, those tributaries whose headwaters originate in or whose basins occur within geologic formations similar to that of the three areas studied may be expected to contain similar species composition.

2.55 Suitable habitat exists in the basin for the following endangered species: American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis), southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) , American ivory-billed woodpecker (Canpephilus principalis), northern red-cockaded woodpecker (Dendrocopus borealis), Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), and Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis) . The alligator has been reported recently from the upper Tombigbee River. Dr. Jerome Jackson (Mississippi State University) has reported sighting the eagle and red-cockaded woodpecker in the basin. It is doubtful that the ivory-billed woodpecker still occurs in the area, and the presence of Bachman's warbler is yet to be determined.

2.56 The alligator is known to occur along the Sipsey River portion of the authorized project and is classified as an endangered species by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the exception of the alligator, no rare or endangered species are known to live or reproduce in the project area, although some species of endangered birds may be occasional visitors. The bald eagle is an occasional visitor to various areas but the nearest resident members of this endangered species occur at Noxubee Wildlife Refuge. Two species of fishes listed as of undetermined status by the State of Alabama occur and probably spawn in the Sipsey River. These are the blue sucker and the Alabama shad.

2.57 The ranges of many species of animals overlap various portions of the upper Tombigbee River basin. Data taken from field guides are pre­ sented in the following tabulation to illustrate the faunal diversity of the area. Number of species and/or subspecies

Reptiles 60 Amphibians 35 Birds 118 Mammals 43

2.58 JtaJtejrrtilation of_0th£ r_P_roject£. The Tombigbee River and its tribu­ taries is an ecosystem that must be considered as an entity, not as a group of unrelated streams. Ecological changes within any of its tributaries could cause ecological changes in the Tombigbee River. Therefore, the impact of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project upon the ecosystem has to be considered in conjunction with other existing or authorized projects in the region. Included are projects of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Agriculture. These are discussed below. 2.59 A certain amount of snagging and clearing has been accomplished in the Tombigbee basin under the authority of the Flood Control Act of 1937 as amended. Under that authority, the following works have been accom­ plished :

• Tombigbee River (East Fork). Flood control improvements along the Tombigbee River in Itawamba and Monroe Counties, Mississippi, were completed in 1940. The flood control work on this segment of the river consisted of the excavation of 21 cutoffs, the removal of all drift jams and snags from the river channel and clearing of its banks. The total length of the cutoffs was 3 miles which provided a reduction in distance of 8 miles from the natural river. Fourteen of these cutoffs are still active while in the case of the remaining seven, the river has reclaimed its original channels. These cutoffs, along with many natural cutoffs, create numerous sloughs and oxbow lakes along the river. This segment of the river is now about 47 miles long. The bank clearing was not maintained along the river and over the years the areas which were cleared reverted to a bottomland forest type condition. In 1971, 1972 and 1973 maintenance work was performed by the Corps in Itawamba County. This was restricted to removal and disposal of snags and obstructions within the banks of the river. No bank clearing was practiced and the only living vegetation removed was overhanging trees, which were considered to represent an impending obstruction, and some selected vegetation where access for equip­ ment was required. A final coordinated environmental statement for this maintenance work and the continued maintenance of the Tombigbee River (East Fork) in Itawamba County, Mississippi, was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on 30 October 1973. The responsibility for maintain­ ing the completed works of improvement for the alleviation of flooding on the Tombigbee River (East Fork) in Itawamba County rests with the United States. The responsibility for the remaining 15-mile downstream reach in Monroe County rests with local interests. The Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District, an agency of the State of Mississippi, has assured that this reach of the Tombigbee River, above the mouth of Town Creek (West Fork) to the Itawamba-Monroe County line, would be maintained in a similar manner as the Corps maintenance work, thus insuring the integrity of the project.

• In 1940, the lower reaches of the following tributaries of the Tombigbee River (East Fork) were also modified: Boguefala Creek, Bull Mountain Creek, Cummings Creek Canal, Twenty-Mile Creek Canal, Donivan Creek Canal, Twenty-Mile Fulton Canal, Hurricane Creek Canal, Browns Creek Canal, and Second Channel, Browns Creek Canal. In addition to the removal of drift jams and snags, the clearing of the banks to flood stage was con­ tinued for some distance up these streams. Subsequently, work involving bank clearing, channel enlargement and straightening, and clearing and snagging of channels was completed on the following five tributaries to the Tombigbee River (East Fork): Big Browns Creek in 1965, Donivan Creek in 1966, Twenty-Mile Creek in 1966, Mantachie Creek in 1967, and Stanefer Creek in 1971. This work was part of the authorized Tombigbee River and flood control project. • Town Creek (West Fork of Tombigbee River). - Seven cutoffs with an aggregate length of 3.3 miles were excavated by Works Progress Adminis­ tration workers. The channel was also snagged and cleared from the mouth to about 2\ miles above the Monroe-Lee County line, including the lower miles of Chiwapa Creek Work was completed in May 1940. The channel of the upper West Fork was snagged and the banks cleared during 1951 and 1952 by the Corps of Engineers. The work commenced at the mouth of Chiwapa Creek and extended upstream into Lee County for about 15 miles to U. S. Highway 45 north of Tupelo.

• Sipsey River. - The channel was cleared and snagged for about 24 miles from the Fayette-Tuscaloosa County line to the Southern Railroad crossing at Fayette, Alabama, by Works Progress Administration workers. Six cutoffs were also made. Work was completed in September 1940.

• Tibbee River. - Work by the Works Progress Administration con­ sisted of clearing the banks and removing the accumulating drift jams and snags in the channel from the mouth to the lower ends of the existing canals on Line and Sakatonchee Creeks. Work was completed in December 1942.

• Luxapalila Creek. - This stream was channelized in 1922 for 42 miles from near Winfield, Alabama, to the Mississippi-Alabama line. In 1942, work was completed on 18 miles of the Luxapalila from the mouth of Yellow Creek near Steens, Mississippi, to about one mile above Millport, Alabama. This 1942 work involved bank clearing, removal of snags and drift jams, and reexcavation of a portion of the old drainage canal which was constructed in 1922. Work on the lower 2.1 miles of Luxapalila Creek was completed in October 1973 and turned over to local interests in November 1973. This work was part of the authorized Tombigbee River and Tributaries flood control project and is covered in this environmental statement.

2.60 The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, connecting the Tombigbee and Tennessee Rivers by way of the Tombigbee River (East Fork) and Mackeys and Yellow Creeks to provide a waterway from Demopolis, Alabama, to the Pickwick pool on the Tennessee River, was authorized by the River and Harbors Act of 1946. Implementation of the project requires the commitment of approximately 70,000 acres of land which presently are in forests or are used for agricultural pursuits. Of this amount about 36,000 acres would be fully committed with the remainder committed in varying degrees. The latter, which is presently planned to be procured by permanent ease­ ment, will not be completely removed from the agricultural and forest land base. About 40,000 acres of water surface will be created as a result of the project. Within the confines of the newly established lakes about 170 miles of tributary Jtreams and 140 miles of the main stem of the Tombigbee River will lose their identity as free-flowing streams. The final coordinated environmental statement for that project was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on 20 April 1971. Construction was initiated on 22 September 1972 with the waterway scheduled to be in opera­ tion in 1981.

2.61 The Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, has included all of the Tombigbee watershed within organized soil conservation districts. In recent years, the Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with State Water Management Districts, under Public Law 566 has completed watershed protection and flood prevention work plans and some actual construction in the following watersheds in the upper Tombigbee River basin: Browns, Town, Chiwapa, Chuquatonchee, Houlka, and Line Creeks. Watershed work plans on Mantachie, Trim-Cane-Sun, and Sakatonchee Creeks in Mississippi and Factory, Sipsey, and Cut Bank Creeks in Alabama, are in the planning stage. Watershed planning was suspended in December 1971 on the Luxapalila due to the inability of local interests to organize and make commitments toward a project. The Soil Conservation Service has no further plans for Luxapalila Creek at present.

2.62 The entire portion of the Tombigbee River basin in Mississippi is included in the Northeast Mississippi Resource, Conservation and Develop­ ment (RC&D) Project. The Alabama counties of Lamar, Fayette, Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Sumter, and Greene are included in the Tombigbee Valley RC&D Project along with Bibb and Hale Counties which are outside of the Tombig­ bee basin. The project, authorized by the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, is locally initiated, sponsored and directed; however, the Department of Agriculture is authorized by the Act to provide local groups technical and financial help in conserving and developing their natural resources. The project plan describes and outlines the needs and opportunities in the area. Some of the objectives included in the plan are:

• Increase job opportunities and income

• Develop and manage water resources

• Accelerate conservation programs

• Improve rural housing

• Improve the management and utilization of private woodlands

• Develop recreational potential on public and private lands

• Beautify the area

• Develop fish and wildlife enterprises

2.63 Luxapalila Creek. Luxapalila Creek is located in northeast Missis­ sippi and northwest Alabama as shown on Plate 1. It rises in southern Marion County near Winfield, Alabama, and flows southwesterly for 75 miles through Fayette and Lamar Counties, Alabama, and Lowndes County, Missis­ sippi, joining the Tombigbee River at river mile 362.35 just south of the City of Columbus, Mississippi. The creek drains a watershed area of approximately 802 square miles or 513,280 acres.

2.64 The basin area includes the eastern part of the City of Columbus, Mississippi, which extends from about mile 2.5 to mile 5.6 along the altered channel alignment. Most of the urban development in this area is located on high ground between the Tombigbee River and Luxapalila Creek but in recent years expanding development has resulted in residences and commercial establishments being constructed in the flood plain along both banks of the creek. Within the 100-year flood plain are approximately 1,600 residences, 220 businesses, and 15 industrial firms that would incur damages from a flood of the 100-year frequency. Based on average 1973 price levels, the damage to these structures is estimated at $14,439,000.

2.65 Upstream from Columbus, the basin area includes several small towns as well as expanding urban development at Fayette, Alabama. Eleven hundred acres are classified as urban, but otherwise the region is almost entirely rural in character. Cotton, corn, and soybeans are the predominant crops produced in the project area with pastureland and hayland utilized for live­ stock. Small grain crops are planted as winter cover. Based on 1967 dollars, the total personal income for agriculture in Lowndes County, Mississippi, for 1971 was $6,118,000. In 1971 there were approximately 1,250 persons employed in agricultural pursuits.

2.66 A study entitled "An Ecological and Recreational Use Survey of the Luxapalila River" by Arner, Anding, Lunceford and Summerour, was con­ ducted in 1969. The report prepared as a result of this study was used extensively in preparing this description of the environmental setting of Luxapalila Creek without the project.

2.67 The Luxapalila Creek channel in the project area reach (from the mouth to about 4.7 miles above the Mississippi-Alabama State line) has a fall of about 3.7 feet per mile and averages about 65 feet in bottor. width and 14 feet in depth. The banks, except in some of the urban areas, are generally overgrown with pine and hardwood trees with dense underbrush. The flood plain in the project area contains about 23,105 acres, of which 8,790 acres are cleared for agricultural purposes and 2,265 acres are in the urban area of Columbus.

2.68 The Luxapalila Creek basin is located in a region that has a tem­ perate climate with long, warm summers and short, usually mild winters. The mean annual temperature based on 92 years of record at Columbus is 64.4oF with mean monthly temperatures ranging from 46.9 F in January to 81.7 F in July. A minimum of 7 F below zero and a maximum of 113°F have been recorded. The normal frost-free period of 8 months lasts from April to November.

2.69 The basin is located in a region that normally receives an abundant rainfall which is fairly well distributed throughout the year. The mean annual rainfall is 50.72 inches of which 57 percent occurs in the winter and spring, 24 percent in the summer and 19 percent in the fall. The average annual snowfall is about 3.5 inches. Monthly and annual rainfall data at Columbus, Mississippi, are given in Table 5.

2.70 Flood-producing storms may occur at any season, but they are more numerous in winter and spring when higher rates of runoff are usually the rule. The major flood-producing storms that occur in the area during the winter and spring are usually of the frontal type that last from two to four days and often cover large areas. Summer storms are generally of the thunderstorm type with high intensities over small areas.

2.71 The U. S. Geological Survey operated a gaging station on Luxapalila Creek at Waterworks Road (State Highway 50) bridge from August 1928 to August 1930. The U. S. Corps of Engineers has operated a crest-stage gaging station at this site in recent years and also obtained a few high- water profiles in earlier years. The Corps also operates a gage at Steens, Mississippi, with 27 years of streamflow data recorded. For the period of record, the average annual streamflow at Steens is 466 c.f.s. with a minimum of 23 c.f.s. and a maximum of 14,200 c.f.s. The computed mean c.f.s./square mile flow rate at the Steens gage was considered to be repre­ sentative of the entire Luxapalila watershed. On this basis, the average annual discharge is 1,155 c.f.s. at the mouth of Luxapalila Creek. Accord­ ing to historical information related to the gage at Waterworks Road bridge, the greatest floods known on Luxapalila Creek occurred in April 1877, April 1892 and July 1916. Little factual data are available on these floods except from newspaper reports. From these and other information,the April 1892 flood apparently was the greatest known to occur. It is estimated that the stage of the April 1892 flood at Waterworks Road bridge crossing was about 177.5 feet m.s.l. This is 2.5 feet higher than the January 1949 flood which was the greatest known to occur since July 1916. Table 8 lists the known flood stages and discharges at Waterworks Road bridge. For average annual discharge conditions (1,050 c.f.s.), the stage height is 153.1 feet m.s.l. at Waterworks Road bridge.

2.72 There is a substantial loss of low flow in the Luxapalila between Millport, Alabama, and Steens, Mississippi, according to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Losses are due in part to high evapotranspiration losses and water infiltration into the Eutaw and McShan Formations during periods of low flow, which generally coincide with periods of low water table.

2.73 Luxapalila Creek is near the landward edge of the Gulf Coastal Plain within the Tombigbee River Hills or Fall Line Hills Physiographic Province. The topography within this region is early maturity. The sur­ face is generally hilly and ranges from low, smoothly rounded hills of 40 or 50 feet relief with broad intervening valleys to hills and ridges up to 200 feet high separated by narrow valleys with steeply sloping sides. Table 8

Known Stages and Discharges of Floods on Luxapalila Creek at Waterworks Road (State Highway 50) Bridge Peak Stage Peak Discharge Date of Flood (feet m.s.l.) (c.f.s.)

April 1877 April 1892 177.5 i 7 56,000 July 1916 --- 1923 171.1 18,000 December 1926 173.2 23,500 March 1929 168.8 13,800 November 1929 170.4 17,500 February 1948 172.0 20,400 January 1949 175.0 30,500 March 1951 173.8 25,500 February 1961 173.4 24,200 December 1961 174.0 26,200 April 1964 169.5 15,500 February 1965 168.9 14,500 December 1967 172.0 20,400 March 1973 172.9 30,000

NOTE: Stage height during average annual discharge conditions (1,050 c.f.s.) is 153.1 feet m.s.l. 1/ Estimated.

2.74 Recent-age alluvial soils occur within the coastal plain of Luxa­ palila Creek from the surface to an average depth of 15 feet. The Eutaw formation of Cretaceous age underlies the alluvial materials. The Eutaw is a persistent formation that crops out in an arcuate pattern extending from the northeastern corner of Mississippi southward to Columbus, where it turns and continues across the central part of Alabama in a belt up to 15 miles wide. The Eutaw dips gently to the southwest and is approximately 350 feet thick within the Luxapalila Creek area. It consists of gray, well compacted, micaceous, and glauconitic silty clay, clayey sand and sandy clay.

2.75 The natural suspended sediment load at the mouth of Luxapalila Creek for water year 1972 (October 1971 to September 1972) was 80 acre-feet per year. The bed load of the Luxapalila was assumed to be 15 acre-feet per year based on measurements taken at various locations in the Luxapalila basin. The sediment load of Luxapalila Creek is estimated to be approxi­ mately 20 percent of the sediment load of the Tombigbee River at Columbus, Mississippi, 2.3 miles upstream from the mouth of the Luxapalila. 2.76 In 1922, non-Federal interests channelized the Luxapalila for 42 miles from near Winfield, Alabama, to the Mississippi-Alabama State line. A channel 30 feet wide and 9 feet deep was excavated in order to allevi­ ate floods on 21,500 acres of bottomlands in that reach. However, an adequate outlet to the old creek channel in Mississippi was not provided and the lower end of the canal ultimately became clogged with sand and debris so that the bottomland adjacent to the filled section was often covered by pools of stagnant water, creating a more undesirable condition than existed before the project was undertaken. As a result of these conditions, 18 miles of Luxapalila Creek, from the mouth of Yellow Creek near Steens, Mississippi, to about one mile above Millport, Alabama, re­ ceived additional work by the Works Progress Administration, with super­ vision and equipment provided by the Corps of Engineers. This work, completed in December 1942, consisted of clearing and snagging the natural channel for 5 miles from the mouth of Yellow Creek upstream to the Mississippi-Alabama State line and reexcavating the lower 13 miles of the old drainage canal in Alabama. The flood and drainage conditions were much improved by the remedial work accomplished in 1942, but addi­ tional filling has occurred since that time and the lower end of the excavated canal is reverting to the old conditions. Trees are now found in dense growths to the edge of the banks along the excavated channel near Millport, Alabama.

2.77 Trees and shrubs along the banks and in the flood plain of Luxa­ palila Creek are typical of a shady bank stream in this part of the country. Characteristic trees are water oak (Quercus nigra) , overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) , river birch (Betula nigra), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) , American holly (Ilex opaca) , ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) , sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica) , and water elm (Planera aquatica) . Shrubs include button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Sebastian bush (Sebastiana fruticosa), and Elliott blue­ berry (Vaccinium elliottii). These trees stabilize the banks and provide shade which moderates temperatures locally.

2.78 Few vascular plants are present in the water, probably due to floods which hinder the development of such plants. Water willow (Justicia americana) grows along the islands and banks of the stream, often associ­ ated with swift water. Aquatic bryophytes (Fontinalis novae-angliae, Brachelyma robustum, and Porella pinatta) occur around the bases of trees such as bald cypress and tupelo gum and on submerged limbs and logs. Such plants serve as shelter and as a source of food for aquatic organisms.

2.79 Luxapalila Creek is classified in Mississippi as public water supply from the Mississippi-Alabama line to Waterworks Road (State Highway 50 bridge) and as fish and wildlife from the Waterworks Road bridge to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. Water quality is generally good and the City of Columbus utilizes the creek for its municipal water supply, withdrawing approximately 4.5 million gallons per day. However, untreated wastes consisting of sewage, urban runoff, and creosote, are discharged into Luxapalila Creek below the intake structure. The City of Columbus is presently studying the possibility of converting its sew­ age treatment over to a mechanical plant utilizing secondary treatment at approximately 85 percent treatment efficiency. Luxapalila Creek presently receives about 2,000 pounds per day of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5 ) from municipal and industrial sources in the Columbus area. Municipal waste is treated in 98 acres of waste stabilization lagoons which are estimated by the State Air and Water Pollution Control Commission to be 150 to 200 percent overloaded. Treated and untreated industrial wastes from a toilet seat manufacturing plant, a soft drink manufacturing plant, a tire and other rubber products plant and a furniture manufacturing plant are discharging into Luxapalila Creek and/or its tributaries. In spite of these waste discharges, water quality studies have not revealed low dissolved oxygen in Luxapalila Creek. Various studies have shown that the water quality parameters vary over a wide range as follows: temperature, 49 to 87°F; dissolved oxygen, 4.6 to 12.4 ppm; carbon diox­ ide, 3.0 to 32.5 ppm; alkalinity, 8 to 55 ppm; chlorides 9 to 16 ppm; turbidity, 12.2 to 50.0 ppm; and suspended solids, 5 to 24 ppm. The quantities of nitrates and phosphates generally range less than 1.0 ppm. Seasonal changes occur in the chemical nature of the water, especially in nitrates and phosphates, which affect the abundance of aquatic organ­ isms. In general, the Luxapalila Creek is an unpolluted biologically productive stream above Columbus, relatively high in chemical constitu­ ents.

2.80 From Columbus downstream to the Tombigbee River, the discharge of untreated wastes has drastically reduced the fishery and water-related recreational values. Above Columbus, Luxapalila Creek produces high populations of flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus); moderate populations of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and suckers, (Catostomidae); and a low population of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). A rotenone sample conducted by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, 1 October 1968, yielded a species composition by weight of 36.9 percent channel catfish, 27.4 percent freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), 10.7 percent river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum), 6.3 percent gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), 5.2 percent spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops), 5.2 percent spotted bass, 4.1 percent highfin carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer), 1.4 percent blacktail redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum), 0.6 percent walleye, 0.2 percent bluegill, 0.2 percent largemouth bass, 0 2 percent black crappie, and 1.6 percent miscellaneous fishes including minnows, darters, and others of lesser abundance. 2.81 From the Alabama-Mississippi State line to Columbus, Mississippi, the stream has good access at regular intervals and supports a moderate to high fishery, with catfish, bass, crappie and bluegill receiving the heaviest fishing pressure. Float fishing is a popular method. The Mississippi Game and Fish Commission has established a successfully repro­ ducing population of walleye that is becoming an important and popular sport fish. The Columbus area of Luxapalila Creek is indicated as one of the areas where catches of walleye are most frequent. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the Luxapalila Creek has the capacity to support 3,500 man-days of fishing annually from the Alabama-Mississippi State line to Columbus, Mississippi, in the absence of the proposed project.

2.82 A total of 60 species of fish was reported from the Luxapalila Creek and its tributaries by Dr. Herbert T. Boschung in a study of the fishes of the upper Tombigbee River basin financed by the Corps. Eighteen species of this total were collected solely from Yellow Creek, a major tributary of the Luxapalila. In a study of the effects of channelization on the fisheries and limnology of Luxapalila Creek, Drs. Dale H. Arner and Glenn H. Clemmer, Mississippi State University, reported 81 species of fish from the Luxapalila. Appendix B contains a listing of fishes from the upper Tombigbee River basin broken down as to their occurrence in the Tombigbee River, Luxapalila Creek, and four of the tributary groups which are author­ ized for flood control projects, as well as other streams tributary to the Tombigbee River.

2.83 Data show that there are seasonal cycles of abundance for the vari­ ous invertebrates (typical of such animals) inhabiting the Luxapalila, especially the insects, indicating that their population densities are not constant. Seven dominant classes of invertebrates were noted, includ­ ing Insecta, Arachnida, Pelecypoda, Gastropoda, Oligochaeta, Hirudinea, and Crustacea, with the most numerous class being Insecta. Seven orders of insects (Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Plecoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera) were commonly present with Coleoptera and Ephemeroptera the most numerous.

2.84 Wildlife resources within the immediate project area are of low to moderate value. Beaver ponds and flooded bottomland areas near Steens, Mississippi, are of high value for wildlife and provide excellent wood duck (Aix sponsa) habitat. Wood ducks and migratory waterfowl utilize the proposed project area and provide about 350 man-days of hunting per year. Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), quail (Colinus virginianus), and dove (Zenaidura macroura) are present in moderate abundance and provide the major portion of the overall hunting, estimated at 6,500 man-days per year. A few deer (Odocoileus virginianus) inhabit the wooded bottomland and provide some hunting opportunity. Moderate populations of fur animals, mostly mink (Mustela vison) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), yield an annual fur harvest which was valued at $500 in 1967 at the trapper level. The stream appears to have a large popula­ tion of turtles. No rare or endangered species are known to reside in the project area. 2.85- The Luxapalila Creek is readily navigable north of Columbus by canoes and johnboats and is used for float-fishing, canoeing and swimming by local people.

2.85 One archeological site is recorded near the project area. It is from the Woodland Period and is located on the east bank of Magby Creek just above its confluence with Luxapalila Creek within the city limits of Columbus. The site will not be affected by the proposed Luxapalila Creek project. The possibility exists that there are other archeological sites located along the Luxapalila in elevated areas in the bottomlands along the creek. Mark Rucker, an archeologist in the Environmental Section of the Mississippi State Highway Department, reported that several archeo­ logical sites were destroyed during the Phase 1 work (lower 2.1 miles) on the Luxapalila. The National Park Service has been funded to per­ form a survey of the proposed project area's archeological resources. A check with the Mississippi Department of Archives and History revealed that no sites included in the National Register of Historic Places are located within the construction area.

3.01 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS. The two counties within the Luxapalila project area are in separate planning districts. Lowndes County, Mississippi, is included in the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District (GTPDD) along with six other Mississippi counties. Lamar County, Alabama, has been assigned to the West Alabama Planning and Development Council (tyAPDC) along with six other Alabama counties.

3.02 According to a preliminary land use plan published in April 1973, the basic goal of the GTPDD in land use planning is to provide an environ­ ment within the District that will be aesthetically pleasing while at the same time present a setting for economic growth and development. Land use objectives utilized in the GTPDD land use studies are:

(1) To provide adequate amounts of land for both urban and non- urban uses:

• To provide residential areas capable of accoirmodating the 1990 projected population.

• To provide adequate commercial opportunities to serve those who reside in the District and those who travel in it.

• To reserve future industrial areas for the purpose of broaden­ ing the tax base, attracting industrial development, and providing jobs for district residents.

• To preverve the quality of natural resources such as rivers, forest, and scenic areas in the form of open space and recreational areas, both public and private, and to develop as an economic and recreation asset the potential of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and the accompany­ ing Columbus and Aliceville Reservoirs. (2) To locate development in areas where topography, soil, drain­ age, etc., will best allow the desired uses.

(3) To take advantage of the District's transportation system.

(4 To arrange land uses to produce the most efficient and harmo­ nious pattern.

3.03 Existing land use along the Luxapalila in the Columbus, Mississippi, area is categorized as residential, commercial, and industrial. Above (to the Alabama line) and below Columbus the land along the creek is currently being used for timberland immediately adjacent to the creek and for agriculture some distance from the creek. The planned Aliceville Lake along the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway is the only major land use change expected to occur in the future in the immediate vicinity of the Luxapalila project area. The 6,080-acre lake will inundate the lower 4.8 miles of Luxapalila Creek. GTPDD projected changes in future land use in the project area and stated that certain areas now being cultivated should be left as open spaces or for forest production and that gravel pits should be restored when mining operations are completed.

3.04 As a result of these objectives and projections, the GTPDD future land use plan map indicates generally that the land adjacent to Luxapalila Creek and other streams in the District should be left in an undeveloped con­ dition. According to the GTPDD, the undeveloped land use classification includes swampy land and stream flood plains. The GTPDD's open space and recreation plan states that these flood plain areas (along with national and state forests, wildlife management areas and hunting preserves) are necessary for the conservation of timber, wildlife and other natural re­ sources, and as a reserve to meet future recreational needs. In addition, these areas provide existing recreation in the form of hunting, fishing, and wildlife study. Consultation with a GTPDD official revealed that it is proposed that no structures be constructed on land designated to be in the undeveloped category; however, agricultural and timber production activities may take place in these areas. From a structural standpoint, the proposed channel alteration project along the Luxapalila would not conflict with the objectives of the GTPDD land use plan since no permanent structures are to be constructed. However, the adverse environmental impacts associated with the Luxapalila project in the form of reduced suit­ able fish and wildlife habitat and diminished fish populations are not in complete harmony with the GTPDD objective to preserve the quality of natural resources such as rivers, forest, and public and private recrea­ tion.areas.

3.05 The upper 4.7 miles of the proposed Luxapalila Creek flood control project occurs within Lamar County, Alabama. The WAPDC is the responsible planning agency for the county and has developed a preliminary land use plan, the purpose of which is to create the best possible physical environ­ ment for living, working and playing by defining and interpreting the relationship between people, land and activities. The following goals are designed to serve as a foundation to support the preliminary land use plan:

• Develop a greater regional consciousness and spirit of coopera­ tion as a step in increasing the strength of local governments to meet needs beyond their individual capabilities.

• Coordinate the various programs and activities of public and private agencies and citizens within the county related to physical, economic and social development.

• Provide an environment for living, encompassing all the insti­ tutions, services and facilities necessary for the convenience and well being of the residents of the county.

• Encourage the urbanized areas in the county to organize the relationship between land uses in their areas of jurisdiction to reduce congestion and hazards, to avoid encroachment by incompatible uses, and to discourage development from occurring beyond the range of community facilities and services.

• Provide a reasonable distribution of community facilities and utilities, with an emphasis on finding rational locations for those functions and services that can serve the county more effectively or efficiently by expanding their service radius.

• Encourage the provision of a full range of housing types, both private and public, which are varied in location, cost and design, and available in sufficient numbers to provide every family in the county with sound, decent housing.

• Protect and improve the quality of existing residential areas and provide new planned locations for safe, quiet and attractive resi­ dential development that are located within convenient travel time and distance from places of work, shopping areas, and areawide educational, recreation and cuTt'ural facilities.

• Coordinate the private use of land with the planned provision of public and semi-public facilities and services such as schools, rec­ reation areas, libraries, fire protection and police protection.

• Provide areas for commercial facilities and services that are related to each other in a beneficial manner, are served by the necessary community facilities, and are conveniently accessible to customers.

• Reserve adequate space for the development of new industries and for expansion of existing plants at a variety of sites that can be served by suitable public utilities and transportation facilities. 3.06 Existing land use within the project area is restricted to agricul­ ture and forest land. Some residential and a small amount of commercial and industrial areas occur along the highways which parallel the Luxapa­ lila, both north and south of the creek. Long-range land use plans call for residential, commercial, and industrial development to continue along the highways. The flood plain existing along the Luxapalila has been identified as a barrier to development. Although farming and some urban development have occurred in the flood plain area, the WAPDC recommends that these areas should not be utilized for intense development since residential and agricultural uses have little protection from floods. The WAPDC also suggests that flood plain studies are needed in order to plan for the proper utilization of these flood plain areas.

3.07 The WAPDC has developed an open space plan (including developed recreation areas and undeveloped natural areas such as swamps, flood plains, fertile soils, and steep slopes) which sets forth a program of open space acquisition and development consistent with the goals and ob­ jectives of the overall comprehensive plan. Incorporated into the plan are projections of open space needs to 1992. With additional importance now being placed on conserving land for use in agriculture and forestry, preventing inappropriate development in flood plain areas and protecting our environment (air, water, and land), the WAPDC feels that county and city officials should give their attention to these aspects of open space. In order to accomplish these objectives and preserve lands which are beneficial to natural processes, the conservation area category of the open space plan was created by the WAPDC Conservation areas include drainage basins, agricultural areas, forest lands, wildlife refuges, and certain types of extensive, low use recreation areas (such as wilderness areas). The most easily defined and identified areas in Lamar County which fall within the conservation category of open space are the flood plains, forest lands, and agricultural lands.

3.08 The WAPDC recommends that the flood plain areas along Luxapalila Creek and Buttahatchie River be set aside and held as conservation areas. Uses which have been designated by the WAPDC as appropriate for flood plain areas are recreation, agriculture, marinas, port facilities, water storage, and treatment facilities. According to the WAPDC, flood plain zoning would be the most desirable way to protect this land by limiting development in these areas; however, no flood plain zoning has been accomplished at the present time. Consultation with a WAPDC official indicated that the proposed Luxapalila Creek flood control project would not conflict with the goals of the WAPDC land use plan.

4.01 THE PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. The probable environmental impact of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project is generally described in the following paragraphs with the Luxapalila Creek segment being dealt with in more detail. 4.02 Probable Environmental Impact of Overall Project. A total length of 466 miles of developed channel would result from complete implementa­ tion of all authorized segments along the 494 miles of affected tribu­ taries. Channel alterations along the streams would result in 103 miles of new channel, 328 miles of channel enlargement, and 154 miles of clearing and snagging. There is some overlap in the stream mileage for some of the operations. Complete implementation of the project would require excavation of 40,198,360 cubic yards of material; the clearing of 14,099 acres of adjacent stream bank; and would result in the modifi­ cation of about 494 miles of natural stream. Approximately 39 miles of the authorized 466 miles have been developed on the following streams: Twenty Mile, Stanefer, Big Browns, Donivan, Mantachie, James, and Luxapalila Creeks.

4.03 Implementation of the project segments and continued maintenance would reduce flooding of existing and potential farm land and developed areas within the flood plain of the various streams. Farmers would in­ crease their yield by having longer growing seasons between major floods (since protection from the smaller, more frequent floods would result) and protection for their crops from local summer floods. Damages to crops and developed areas would be reduced allowing financial resources to be utilized for other purposes. The richer bottomlands, more produc­ tive than the adjacent higher ground during years of few floods, could be more effectively farmed, adding to the local economy. Roads that cross the various flood plains and now suffer frequent inundation and flood damage would be more useful and less expensive to maintain. The reduced frequency of overbank flows provided by the channel improvements would result in a substantial reduction of anopheline and culicine mosquitoes. The developed channel capacities provided would prevent most of the over­ bank flows during the May through mid-October mosquito season. Also the reduction in flooding would alleviate the potential threats to human health associated with contamination of private water supplies and the flooding of private sanitary facilities.

4.04 Stream bank habitat essential to some animal and plant species, and beneficial to many other animals inhabiting the area, would be removed. The cleared zone would be utilized by deer, quail, and dove, but would limit the access of small mammals to the river since they would not readily cross the open space between woodland and stream. The fur harvest would be adversely affected since it consists mostly of beaver, raccoon, mink and other fur bearers that require tree cover to the water's edge.

4.05 Removal of shade trees along the banks of the streams would cause an increase in water temperature with a corresponding decline in some water quality parameters including dissolved oxygen. This could result in a corresponding decrease in the present assimilative capacity of the streams. The impact on the stream assimilative capacity is of a very complex nature and depends on many dynamic factors such as time of travel, temperature, initial D.O., turbulence, etc. High turbidities may result in the chan­ nelized segments even during periods of low flow, immediately following the construction period. 4.06 Many fishes of the streams would be detrimentally affected by the alteration of the 494 miles of stream. Implementation would remove shoals and riffle areas which are essential to some species now inhabiting the streams and which serve as spawning grounds to several species that come up from the Tombigbee River, such as the walleye. The distribution and abundance of such species may be critically reduced with complete imple­ mentation of the project. In several cases, small commercial fisheries would be adversely affected by the project. According to a survey on the distribution of walleye in the Tombigbee River system in Mississippi made by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission in 1968 to 1969, 36 part-time commercial fishermen were reported utilizing the river and its tributaries.

4.07 In a report on the fishes of the upper Tombigbee River prepared under contract with the Corps, Dr. Herbert T. Boschung of the University of Alabama stated that small streams which have been channelized experi­ ence a shift in species composition. The shift in fish species make-up produces an ichthyofauna similar to that of unchannelized transitional streams (streams which are intermediate in size between small streams and rivers). In other words, a community of fishes is produced whose popula­ tion structure is characteristic of both small streams and rivers. With complete implementation of the project, approximately 466 miles of developed channel would produce, in many cases, community structures similar to the general condition mentioned above. In addition to the obvious harm implementation would have on the natural species composition presently existing in the undeveloped streams, there exist the adverse impacts associated with the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway impoundments which affect the Tombigbee River and the lower portions of its tributary streams. The adverse impacts of the authorized flood control projects on the tribu­ tary streams, together with those associated with the construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, compounded upon one another could seriously reduce the abundance and distribution of fishes in the entire upper Tom­ bigbee River basin. This would especially be true of fishes like the walleye which promises to be an important sport fish in the impoundments along the waterway.

4.08 The major adverse effect of channel alterations would be on stream resident fish species requiring shoals and riffle areas, and river species which migrate up the tributary streams in order to spawn. Among those fish species which migrate up the tributary streams to spawn are the lampreys, paddlefish, mooneye, shovelnose sturgeon, members of the herring family, suckers, and walleye. Among those fishes which require small wooded, clear and swift-flowing streams with alternating pools and riffle areas and sand, gravel, or rocky bottoms are the following: stoneroller, bigeye chub, speckled chub, pretty shiner, blacktail shiner, mimic shiner, bluntnose minnow, creek chub, some madtom catfishes, spotted bass, and the majority of darters. Appendix C displays the fishes reported by Dr. Boschung and others from the upper Tombigbee River basin, indicating habitat preference, range in Mississippi, abundance in the upper Tombigbee drain­ age area, range in the United States, and the predicted degree of adverse impact on each species due to channel modification. The degree of impact is given for every species in the basin in order to indicate the possible impacts of implementing the proposed flood control project on all 22 tributaries. Although Appendix B shows only 81 of these species reported from the Luxapalila, it is highly likely that some of the others are present in the stream.

4.09 The benthic and aufwuchs (aquatic organisms associated with under­ water substrates) biota will be temporarily disturbed. Several of the streams have populations of Mollusca (clams and snails) that will be reduced where channel enlargement is required. Populations of mollusks may reestablish after construction is completed, provided sufficient parent stock are not disturbed. Benthic insect communities should also reestablish themselves in the affected stream segment, although in quantities smaller than those which existed prior to channel alterations.

4.10 Numerous biological studies have been conducted on the effects of channelization projects on the aquatic biota of streams in various parts of the country. The findings of these studies may be extrapolated to reflect the probable impacts attributed to the implementation of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. Channelization appears to affect game fish more than nongame fish. A reduction of 90 percent may be expected in game fish exceeding the size of 6 inches with a reduction in standing crop up to 80 percent and a loss in weight up to 85 percent. Also, a decrease in game fish by weight per surface acre may be expected. The average size of all fish in the channelized streams may be expected to be smaller than the average size and weight of fish in the unaltered stream condition. The average carrying capacity of fish per surface acre will probably be reduced by one third of that of the stream in its natural state. Also the diversity of fish species may be reduced by as much as 25 percent following channelization. In general, those species which are less tolerant of destruction of natural habitat will show a decrease in abundance in channelized areas, especially some species of forage fish within the minnow family () and game species within the sunfish family (Centrarchidae). Alteration of habitat will have a more serious impact upon the redfin pickerel, chain pickerel, redbreast sunfish and largemouth bass; while the bluegill, pumpkinseed, and warmouth will be somewhat less seriously affected. Channel alteration is not ex­ pected to adversely affect the number of channel catfish in the channel­ ized sections; however, larger specimens of this species will probably no longer occur in the altered sections due to the destruction of natural habitat. The ratio of individuals between game and nongame fish species is expected to be altered. Finally, the results of studies on channelized streams indicate that significant recovery of the fish fauna in the affected streams to natural population levels may require 15 to 40 years, provided no further alterations of the stream bed, bank, forest canopy or aquatic vegetation take place as would happen during channel mainte­ nance. 4.11 The macrobenthic invertebrates of the affected streams may be expected to be reduced by as much as 80 percent as a result of the alter­ ation of bottom type and stream flow regimen associated with channel alterations. The total habitable benthic area is expected to be reduced by as much as 65 percent by channel alteration, thereby reducing the total number of benthic organisms available in the channelized section. The decrease of benthos within the altered sections of the streams would contribute to the decrease in size of the fish populations since, in an ecosystem where the components of lower trophic levels of the food chain are reduced, it follows that the biomass of consumers in higher trophic levels will be reduced.

4.12 The decreases in the sizes and weights of the fish as well as the numbers of fish species in the altered stream channels will be directly related to a reduction in usable habitat by the fish. The greater re­ duction of game fish over nongame fish following channelization would reduce the value of the streams to the sport fisherman even more than is indicated by the reduction of the total weight of all fish in the streams. When the flood control projects on the tributary streams of the Tombigbee River are considered individually, the losses to the fish­ ery resources may appear relatively minor until the effects are summed. The synergistic interactions of the individual sections of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project will amplify the total impact on the entire upper Tombigbee drainage system.

4.13 Although numerous archeological sites have been located and described in the basin and along some tributary streams, no significant sites are known to exist, at this time, in the areas which would be affected by the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. However, the National Park Service has been requested to perform a survey of the Luxapalila Creek project area.

4.14 Implementation of two segments of the project, Little Browns Creek and Sipsey River, would not be compatible with the plans expressed by agencies of the States of Mississippi and Alabama. Mississippi has begun development of an 11,000-acre wildlife management area which in­ cludes the lower portion of Little Browns Creek. A State recreation study has recommended that the lower 40 miles of the Sipsey River in Alabama be included in the National Wild and Scenic River Act.

4.15 All of the streams in this authorized project are tributaries of the Tombigbee River drainage system and are consequently integral parts of the same ecosystem. Alterations of any part of the system affect the overall system. The potential impact of each stream group on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway will be discussed under the individual Environmental Statements for the separate increments of the project, but an overall impact on the entire ecosystem must also be considered. 4.16 Implementation of the Waterway requires the commitment of approxi­ mately 70,000 acres of land which presently are in forests or are used for agricultural pursuits. Of this amount about 36,000 acres would be fully committed with the remainder committed in varying degrees. The latter, which is presently planned to be procured by permanent easement, will not be completely removed from the agricultural and forest land base. The bottomland hardwood and other forest areas which are cleared or killed by inundation will be lost for future timber production. About 40,000 acres of water surface will be created as a result of the project. Within the confines of the newly established lakes about 170 miles of tributary streams and 140 miles of the main stem of the Tombig- bee River will lose their identity as free-flowing streams.

4.17 It is a basic tenet of ecology that a diversity of species within a system enhances its stability and its ability to adjust to environmental changes. It is therefore desirable to maintain a diversity of habitat and species within the Tombigbee basin in the interest of biological pro­ ductivity.

4.18 As has been pointed out in the Environmental Statement of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, alterations to the environment required for navigation would result in a loss of bottomland hardwood forest and a shift to a more lacustrine aquatic regime. Shoals and riffle areas essential as habitat for some species of aquatic animals and as spawning grounds for other species, will be eliminated from much of the Tombigbee River. The ecosystem will be altered by these losses but few if any species will be extirpated from the system if similar habitat continues to exist in the tributaries of the Tombigbee River. The Tombigbee basin ecosystem would then retain much of its diversity and probably the quantity of biomass within the ecosystem would become more stable due to a reduc­ tion in the degree of extremes in water level now experienced by the river and its tributaries. If all or most of the tributaries within the basin are modified for flood control with a consequent loss of shoal and riffle habitat and bottomland forest, the ecosystem would suffer a loss in diversity of aquatic species and a reduction in both numbers and diversity of terrestrial animals associated with streams and bottomlands. A reduction in frequency of flooding would inevitably encourage the con­ version of bottomlands to cropland or pasture lands, further reducing the amount of biologically productive hardwood forests in the upper Tombigbee basin. Man would certainly gain in crop production but at the expense of game animals, game fish, and associated species. The environment would be reduced in biological productivity and geographic diversity which would reduce its aesthetic appeal. These losses would be further aggravated by an overall reduction in water quality within the drainage system brought about by the reduction of assimilative capacity of the tributary streams due to channelization and increased agricultural runoff.

4.19 A significant impact of these conversions on man would be a loss of choice in recreational opportunity. Stream fishing on free-flowing streams would be reduced. Canoeing, floating, and nature trips in this type of habitat would be detrimentally affected. Opportunity for scien­ tific study of riverine habitats would also be lost, and teachers and students would be required to go to other areas to pursue such studies. Hunting opportunity would be reduced in the face of an increasing demand for public hunting areas.

A.20 Many of these losses to man's environment conflict with the effort being expended to retain natural beauty and biological diversity along the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.

A.21 Probable Environmental Impact of Luxapalila Creek Segment. Comple­ tion of this segment of the authorized project would result in an altera­ tion of approximately 20 miles of Luxapalila Creek from a meandering woodland stream to a straighter, open stream with selectively cleared banks due to the clearing of 1,258 acres of mostly hardwood forest. Approximately 7,100,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and deposited intermittently as spoil mounds along both banks. These mounds would cover a total of 696 acres in the cleared areas adjacent to the altered stream.

A.22 In general, the adverse impacts to fish, insects, crustaceans, and other forms of aquatic life discussed under the impacts of the overall Tom- bigbee River and Tributaries project are also expected to occur in the pro­ posed Luxapalila Creek segment. For example, Drs. Dale H. Arner and Glenn H. Clemmer of Mississippi State University are conducting an investigation (financed by the Department of the Interior) of the effects of channeliza­ tion on the fisheries and limnology of Luxapalila Creek. Preliminary results, representing one year of study, indicate that those portions of Luxapalila Creek which have experienced channel modification have fewer species of fish than the reach of stream which has not received any channel work. Their study shows a species composition of 68 species for the unchannelized section, A3 for the old channelized section in Alabama, and 50 in the recently channelized lower 2.1 miles of Luxapalila Creek.

A.23 It Is estimated that implementation of the proposed project would result in an annual loss in the project area of about 3,500 man-days of stream fishing and 350 man-days of waterfowl hunting capacity; a reduc­ tion in the present capacity for 6,500 days of small game hunting; and a reduction in fur-harvest valued at $500 in 1967 at the trapper level. The population of walleye that the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission has successfully established in the Luxapalila would be drastically re­ duced and probably eliminated. The current popularity of float fishing on Luxapalila Creek would decline sharply due to the loss of sportfish and to the loss of shade trees and scenic beauty. This loss would occur in an area where the recreational opportunities available are inadequate for the present population.

A.2A Areas of natural environment would be adversely affected by the authorized project by clearing of bottomland hardwoods and by reduced flooding with accompanying loss of associated low to moderate value wild­ life habitat. Growing stock would be removed from the timber resource contributing to the ever-decreasing inventory of hardwood sites. The annual growth of timber would not be available to the forest industry, there would be a loss of income to the local logging contractors, and direct annual values from the forest products would be foregone.

4.25 The raw banks exposed by the new and enlarged channel would contrib­ ute to the turbidity of the stream and produce sediment deposits until stabilized by natural vegetation or by grassing and landscaping.

4.26 The use of the stream by quail and dove would probably increase with the establishment of open grass areas along its banks. Because of shallow depths and increased exposure to sunlight, an increase in water temperature and some decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations can be expected. However, water quality would remain generally good and the stream would remain satisfactory for use by the City of Columbus as its source of municipal water supply.

4.27 The reduced frequency of overbank flows provided by the development of Luxapalila Creek would result in a substantial reduction of anopheline and culicine mosquitoes. The channel capacities provided would prevent most of the overbank flows during the May through mid-October mosquito season. Threats to individual water supplies and sanitary facilities would be reduced.

4.28 The proposed project would provide flood protection to bottomland in agricultural and urban areas now subject to severe flooding. The in­ creased protection of floodplain lands would allow more intensive agri­ cultural use of these lands, higher yields, and lower production costs of agricultural products. Based on data obtained from local agricultural agents and farmers, it is estimated that 50 to 60 percent of the 1,550 woodland acres in the 100-year flood plain would be converted to more intensive land uses. Land use conversion is expected to take place over a 10-year plus period. Future cropping patterns are expected to gener­ ally follow predominant historic agronomic agricultural practices of cotton, corn, and soybean production with pastureland and hayland utilized for livestock._ Small grain crops are expected to be planted as winter cover. The resultant increase in disposable income of the low- income landowners would provide an opportunity for them to participate more fully in improvement of social and cultural values. Although the disposable income of affected persons is expected to increase, it is not expected to increase by significant amounts.

4.29 The project would reduce flood damages to transportation, resi­ dences, commercial establishments, and crops by $498,000 per year and enable an increase of $202,000 per year in use of rural lands now subject to frequent flooding. Table 9 presents information concerning the amount of reduction in stream stage and the resulting level of urban damage in dollars in the Columbus, Mississippi, area as opposed to the recurrence interval of various floods.

4.30 It is reported that several archeological sites were destroyed during Phase 1 work (lower 2.1 miles) on the Luxapalila. The possibility exists that other archeological sites are located along the stream and may be af­ fected in Phase 2 work. The loss of these sites would represent an adverse impact on the archeological resources of the area. Survey and salvage ac­ tivities are scheduled and will offer some mitigation for this loss. Table 9

Amount of Reduction in Stream Stage and the Resulting Level of Urban Damage ($) in the Columbus, Mississippi, Area as Opposed to the Recurrence Frequency of Various Floods on Luxapalila Creek at Waterworks Road (Mississippi Highway 50) Bridge Recurrence Stage (m.s.l.) Damages ($) interval j Existing With project Existing A/ With project 1/ (years) i conditions implementation conditions implementation

0.3 159.7 148.7 0.4 161.2 151.0 0.6 163.4 154.1 0.8 164.8 156.3 1 . 0 165.9 157.8 3,500 2.0 168.9 162.1 34,400 3.0 170.5 164.2 93,500 4.0 171.5 165.6 171,200 2,100 5.0 172.2 166.5 255,000 5,300 10.0 174.0 169.1 767,800 39,500 20.0 175.3 171.3 1,985,700 152,500 30.0 175.9 172.5 4,236,100 296,500 50.0 176.4 173.9 8,560,500 723,700 60.0 176.6 174.4 10,457,900 988,400 100.0 177.0 175.6 14,208,600 2,832,900

1/ Urban damages at average 1972 prices and 1969 development. 2/ Stage height for average discharge conditions is 153.1 feet m.s.l. NOTE: Derived from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers General Design Memo­ randum, Luxapalila Creek, Lowndes County, Mississippi and Lamar County, Alabama - Complete document is available at U.S.Army Engineer District, Mobile, Alabama.

4.31 Five highway bridges (three county, one city, and one Federal) and two railroad bridges cross the Luxapalila in the project area. Of the five highway bridges involved, two would be completely replaced, two others would be modified and protected, and the remaining one would not require any improvements. The two highway bridges which would be re­ placed are old and narrow. Replacement of these two outdated bridges would be an improvement to the transportation efficiency of the area. The two railroad bridges have already been modified at Federal expense.

4.32 The development of Luxapalila Creek for flood control and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway for navigation would have related ecologi­ cal impacts. Luxapalila Creek joins the Tombigbee River in the upper end of the future Aliceville pool of the waterway so the waterway will have very little influence on the creek except during periods of low flow when it will increase minimum water levels in the lower 4.8 miles.

4.33 The impact of developing the Luxapalila on the waterway would be most apparent in the aquatic fauna of the Aliceville pool. Necessary navigational requirements will change the Tombigbee River between the Aliceville Lock and Dam and Columbus, Mississippi, from a riverine eco­ system subject to great fluctuations in water level and velocity to a more lacustrine and more stable ecosystem. However, floods and high flows will not be affected by the run-of-the-river dam. This environmental change will benefit some species but hurt those dependent on gravel and sandbars with shallow, swift water. While the number of aquatic organisms will probably increase in this stretch of the river, the number of species will decrease. Many species of fishes, such as the walleye, now using both the Tombigbee River and Luxapalila Creek require riffle areas for spawning and would use the undeveloped Luxapalila for spawning after the Aliceville pool is completed. Development of the Luxapalila would remove this possibility with a consequent reduction in species diversity in the system. High level carnivorous fishes such as the largemouth bass will do well in the Aliceville pool but a reduction of species of small fishes and insects lower in their food web would lessen their potential. The Aliceville pool will have sufficient tributaries to maintain a diversity of habitat and breeding grounds in the system, but Luxapalila Creek is the largest of these tributaries. Past channelization of Luxapalila Creek has apparently reduced the diversity of species in it already so the effect of its development on the Aliceville pool ecosystem would not be as great as if the Luxapalila were in its natural state.

4.34 Sedimentation in Luxapalila Creek is expected to increase. A study is underway to quantify the degree of sedimentation which would result with implementation of Phase 2 work. Indications from the data collected thus far are that the increase in sediment contributed to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway by the modified Luxapalila channel would be relatively minor in comparison to the natural sediment load of Luxapalila Creek and the main stem of the Tombigbee River. Spoil areas being obtained for the Waterway were sized to accommodate both initial construction and maintenance dredg­ ing operations. Any increase in sediment load due to the Luxapalila Creek modification will not have a significant impact on the disposal requirements.

4.35 The upper 4.7 miles of the Luxapalila flood control project in Lamar County, Alabama, consists of reexcavation of the old channel which was channelized in 1922 and cleared and snagged in 1942. Although the channel still retains its straightened condition due to channelization, trees have become established along the edges of the banks. As a result, there is little apparent difference between the vegetation along the stream banks of the channelized and the unchannelized portions of Luxapalila Creek. However, the channel is still deep and appears canalized. With complete implementation of the project, 19.9 miles of the lower Luxapalila, to its confluence with the Tombigbee River, would become canal-like in appearance with adjacent cleared slopes. If the project were completed and subsequent maintenance were not performed, then the altered channel would gradually approach a condition similar in appearance to the channel­ ized portion of the Luxapalila in Alabama with the invasion and encroach­ ment of various plants along the cleared banks.

4.36 Approximately 4.0 miles of Luxapalila Creek in the project area would be left in a natural state in three separate segments. Three flood- ways having a length of 1,350 feet, 2,200 feet, and 8,100 feet (shown on Plate 2 as floodways A, B, and C, respectively) are included as project features in order to retain the selected portions of the old stream channel for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources. The intended purpose of the floodways is to pass within banks the design discharge of the altered channel without affecting the passage of normal flow at low stages in the existing natural channel. By incorporating the floodway features into the project plans, the complete destruction of habitat with the result­ ing loss of certain fish and wildlife requiring natural channel and stream bank conditions would be tempered.

4.37 Measures have been included in the project, in the form of a con­ trol structure, to assure an adequate depth of water in the channel at the existing intake for municipal water supply at Columbus, Mississippi. The pool which would be created with project implementation would benefit the water treatment plant by assuring an adequate supply of water during periods of low flow. Some temporary increases in the level of turbidity could be expected while construction activities are underway in the imme­ diate vicinity of the intake structure. Studies are underway to evaluate various measures which could be implemented if the increases in turbidity threaten the city's water supply. A turbidity surveillance program will be conducted during construction activities to determine if any protective measures would be required. Appropriate protective measures will be imple­ mented as necessary.

4.38 Implementation of the Luxapalila Creek segment is divided into two construction phases. Phase 1, the lower 2.1 miles of Luxapalila Creek, was completed in October 1973 and subsequently turned over to the local sponsor in November of 1973. Phase 1 work required 188 acres of adjacent ( stream bank to be cleared and graded. All slopes and spoil mounds were planted with various grasses in order to prevent erosion. Three cutoffs were made during the course of this work and the upper ends of these cutoffs were backfilled with spoil material. Project plans allowed for selected trees larger than 10 inches in diameter to remain in the cleared areas. Very few trees in the Luxapalila flood plain in the project area exceeded the 10-inch diameter requirement; therefore, only a few trees were left standing after completion of Phase 1. The majority of these trees were confined to the outer edges of the clearing limits and blend in with the surrounding trees. Although no scheduled water quality monitor­ ing program was conducted during construction, turbidity and dissolved oxygen measurements were taken periodically. Results of these measurements indicated no significant increase in turbidity or decrease in the level of dissolved oxygen occurred below the construction zone or in the Tombig- bee River after adequate mixing had taken place. The lack of increase in turbidity may be explained by the high gravel content of the soil in the construction area and the relative absence of turbidity forming clays. No significant increase in turbidity or decline in dissolved oxygen is expected to occur as a result of implementation of the Phase 2 segment, except during the actual construction activities.

5.01 ANY PROBABLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED. A free-flowing stream actively used for float fishing would be lost as a recreational resource and an estimated 3,500 man-days per year of fishing and 350 man-days of waterfowl hunting capacity would be lost. In addition, 1,258 acres of bottomland forest would be lost resulting in a reduction in the present capacity for 6,500 man-days of small game hunting as well as a reduction in fur harvest valued at $500 at the trapper level (based on a 1967 estimate). The removal of 1,258 acres of bottomland forest would preclude future timber production in the project area. A success­ fully introduced population of walleye would probably be lost. A reduction in the number of fish food organisms and in the size and weight of game fish (per water surface acre) may be expected, together with a reduction in the average carrying capacity of fish (per surface acre) and a decrease in the diversity of fish species in the altered stream section. The benthic and aufwuchs biota will be temporarily disturbed. A slight reduction in water quality can also be expected to accompany the action. It is reported that several archeological sites were destroyed during Phase 1 work (lower 2.1 miles) on the Luxapalila. The possibility exists that other archeological sites are located along the stream and may be affected in Phase 2 work. The loss of these sites would represent an adverse impact on the archeological resources of the area. Survey and salvage activities are scheduled and will offer some mitigation for this loss. These impacts relate only to the Luxapalila Creek segment of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. Similar impacts would be expec­ ted with the implementation of the remaining segments of the entire tributaries project.

6.01 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. During preauthorization studies headwater reservoirs were considered as an alternative to channel develop­ ment but were found not to be economically feasible. In addition, such projects would inundate large areas of forest and farm lands, thus block­ ing all future movements of fishes upstream in the creek and destroying existing wildlife. Levee construction to confine flood waters was also found to be uneconomical and, with accompanying drainage facilities, would destroy more bottomland forest than the authorized stream development.

6.02 Cutoff floodways were selected to be used in the authorized plan to maintain three segments of the creek (totalling four miles) in their natural state, but the narrowness of the flood plain makes a complete sys­ tem of floodways impractical. 6.03 Other alternative structural plans considered differed only in the degree of protection that would be provided by different channel dimensions. Of the alternative channel dimensions considered, a comparison of benefits and costs indicated that the maximum net benefits derived from the project would be provided by a 125-foot-wide channel from the mouth to mile 5.6 and a 70-foot-wide channel from mile 5.6 to mile 19.9. (There would be a 0.7-mile transition from mile 5.6 to 6.3.) The 70-foot-wide channel would provide an acceptable level of protection (1.5-year flood) for rural areas and was therefore adopted in the upper reaches for the authorized plan. The 125-foot-wide channel would handle the flows expected to occur on an average of about every 3 years but this is considerably less than the desired level of urban protection (10-year flood). Therefore, the selection of a 150-foot-wide channel in the urban reach was considered justified in order to provide at least a 5-year level of protection. Per­ tinent data and a summary of costs for the selected and alternative channel development plans for Luxapalila Creek are given in Table 10.

Table 10

Pertinent Data and a Summary of Costs for ____ Alternative Development Plans Considered_____ Average Interval ^ Channel Between Occurrence Bottom $1,000 — Benefit Capacity of Capacity Flows Width Total Annual Annual to-Cost . / Plan (c.f.s.) (years) (feet) Cost Cost Benefit Ratio -

Mouth to Mile 5.()

Selected 21,700 5.0 150 3,944.2 169.5 305.6 1.8 2 10,800 1.0 60 1,761.6 78.2 196.6 2.5 3 27,200 10.0 195 5,001.0 214.1 329.1 1.5

Mile 5.6 to Mile 11.7

Selected 12,300 1.5 70 989.5 48.7 76.2 1.6 2 9,800 1.0 50 764.5 37.7 63.0 1.7 3 20,100 5.0 130 1,674.5 80.0 94.7 1.2

Mile 11.7 to Mile 19.9 2/ Selected -z,8,300 1.5 70 1,184.9 58.8 100.2 1.7 2 f/6,400 1.0 50 936.6 46.6 83.6 1.8 3 -7,300 1.25 60 1,066.9 53.0 92.4 1.7

1/ Note: The monetary figures and B/C ratios have not been updated to correspond with those presented for the selected (proposed) plan in the Project Description section of the EIS. These values are included in the table for comparative purposes only. 2/ Channel capacity decreases above mile 15.0. 6.04 A no-action alternative would result in a loss of $498,000 per year in damage reduction benefits and $202,000 per year in changed land use benefits, but would eliminate the adverse impacts on the fish and wildlife resources associated with the stream alteration.

6.05 The City of Columbus and Lowndes County have adopted zoning restric­ tions and building codes in a flood plain management program in order to restrict development within areas prone to experience frequent flooding. An alternative to the flood control project as presented in this environ­ mental statement would be to carry the flood management program to its ultimate extent; that is to say, restrict all growth and development within the Luxapalila flood plain and therefore reduce the need to implement the Luxapalila segment of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries flood control project.

6.06 The lower 2.1 miles of the Luxapalila Creek flood control project were completed on 24 October 1973. With the completion of this portion it is virtually impossible to implement the previously mentioned alterna­ tives in their entirety. Therefore six new alternatives have been devel­ oped on the basis of the existing channel alterations on the lower 2.1 miles. Table 11 presents an economic and environmental summary of these alternatives. The plan delineated in the Project Description section of this environmental statement is alternative 1 for ease of comparison.

6.07 Alternatives5 and 7 from Table 11 are not feasible on an economic basis due to the fact that the annual flood control (primary) benefits attributed to these alternative plans are less than the total annual costs. Although much of the stream would remain in its natural state with alternative 5, the initial construction costs are higher and the costs would exceed the benefits as compared to the proposed plan (alternative 1) presented in the Project Description section of this environmental statement.

6.08 Alternatives 5 and 6 would involve additional channel alterations upstream to the Columbus, Mississippi, waterworks at approximately Mile 6.3. Upstream from this location, alternative 5 consists of the con­ struction of a floodway, parallel to the Luxapalila, to Mile 11.6, while alternative 6 involves the construction of levees to Mile 19.9. Alter­ native 6 would not provide an adequate outlet for flood waters from the Alabama portion of the stream. This outlet is desired since the reach of Luxapalila Creek from the mouth of Yellow Creek near Steens, Mississippi, to about one mile above Millport, Alabama, (excavated in 1942) has become clogged with sand and debris. Alternative 5 would result in a floodway 5.1 miles long through the Bonny Slough Channel which parallels the Luxapalila. The floodway would tie in with Luxapalila Creek just below Steens, Mississippi, and channel work would continue to Mile 19.9. Alter­ native 6 would require a larger amount of land, thus more wildlife habitat, for the levee system than the amount needed for the proposed plan (alter­ native 1). This factor, coupled with local drainage problems which would result due to the existing topography, would eliminate more bottomland hardwood habitat than the proposed plan. Local ponding inside the levee system could create mosquito control and other maintenance problems. table 11

SUMMARY,OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONS I DERAT 1 QNg nc ai tfrnAT I VE PLANS FOR FLOOD PRnTFnTtfni nw im y a d j u i i a p d p p k bUUNUM.iU-.UUNQIMcHA 1 IUNS__ ENvi rdmmfmt*. l uun oi JLnn 1 1 Uli > Total Annual ($) Miles of Acres Flood {ftvidei W«Suate Stream of Land Outlet for Flood Altered IA1 ter- Total Control Area Total Project (Primary) Redevelopment Waters from the Through ?M?urto U Inative I Description Costs Charqes Project Flood Alabama Portion of Channel- Mile) Benefi ts Benefi ts Benefi t« Fconomics Protection Luxaoalila Creek 1 Plan presented |n the 1 10,992,000 >181,000 700,000 r 1 87,000 787,000 Primary Provides protection Yes Project Description Section 19.9 1,387 Plan described in benefits for Columbus urban I (Proposed Plan) (0-19.9) Project Description Section exceed area and upstream of this environmental coits^ agricultural areas statement 2 1 Stop channel w/completed 1,150,000 71,000 81,000 10,000 Primary work on lower 2.1 miles 91,000 Provides less No 2.1 188 Leaves remaining land and protection for 1 (Phase 1) benefits (0-2.1) stream in existing state exceed Columbus urban area costs and none for upstream agricultural area 3 1 Stop channel just above I 10,637,000 151,000 597,000 19,000 I Columbus Waterworks 616,000 Primary Provides protection for No 6.3 558 Removes land from the tax benefits Columbus urban area (0-6.3) Plus base. Removes land from I (mile 6.3) and purchase agricultural production. 1 upper flood plain exceed but none for upstream 13,900 3/ Leaves remaining land and costs agricultural areas (6.3-19.9) stream in existing state 1 I Stop channel just above 6,728,000 299,000 163,000 19,000 I Columbus Waterworks (mile 512,000 Primary Provides protection for No 6.3 558 Leaves remaining land and 16.3) and leave upper end of benefits Columbus urban area (0-6.3) stream in existing state stream in its existing, or exceed but none for upstream natural, state costs agricultural areas

5 1 Stop channel just above 17,097,000 725,000 700,000 1 Col unbus Waterworks (mile 139,000 839,000 Costs Provides protection Yes 11.6 558 The floodway would be 5.1 miles 1 6.3) and build floodway to exceed long and would require the modi­ Imile 11.6 and continue for Columbus urban (0-6.3) Plus fication of Bonny Slough. The 1 channel work to mile 19.9 primary areas and upstream 1,300 1/ Luxapalila between miles 6.3 to benefits (6.3-19.9) 11.6 would be left in its exist­ agricultural areas ing state 6 1 Stop channel Just above 1 1^,900,000 656,000 660,000 117,000 777,000 Primary Provides protection No 6.3 558 Would require larger amount of Columbus Waterworks (mile 1 land, includ ing more wildlife 6.3) and build levees I benefi ts for Columbus urban (0-6.3) Plus habitat, along stream than exceed area and some upstream 1,200 5/ alternative 1. Local drainage and mosquito control problems costs agricultural areas (6.3-19.9) could also be created. 7 Stop channel with completed 28,336,000 1,276,000 work on lower 2.1 miles 700,000 256,000 956,000 Costs Provides protection No 2.1 188 Removes land from the tax (Phase 1) and build a head- exceed for Columbus urban plus (0-2.1) Plus base above mile 19.9. water reservoir (dry lake) primary area and upstream 8 6/ 1,700 7j Removes land from agricul- benefits agricultural areas (above 19.9) tural and timber production

* The and other uses propoted plan it included at an . «f r Even if this alternative were pursued, construction-related activities would adversely affect the stream to some degree. Alternative 7 con­ sists of no additional channel alterations but includes the construc­ tion of a reservoir which would inundate 4,700 acres of land above Mile 19.2, including 8 miles of the Luxapalila channel, in order to provide the same level of flood protection provided under the proposed plan (alternative 1). Although the proposed plan and alternatives 5 and 7 all provide the same amount of flood control (primary) benefits, the initial construction costs and average annual charges are greater for alternatives 5 and 7 as compared to the proposed plan.

6.09 Based on a comparison of total annual charges and (primary) benefits and a review of the estimated initial project costs as shown in Table 11, alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 6 appear to be economically feasible. Stopping further channel development, as suggested by alternative 2, would not pro­ vide additional flood protection for the Columbus urban area or for the rural areas farther upstream offered by the other alternatives. Alterna­ tives 3, 4 and 6 would involve additional channel alterations upstream to the Columbus, Mississippi, waterworks at approximately Mile 6.3. Alter­ native 3 consists of the purchase of the flood plain above this point, while alternative 4 would leave the upper reach of the Luxapalila in its natural, or present, state. However, neither alternative would provide an adequate outlet for flood waters from the Alabama portion of the Luxapalila. Alternative 3 would remove land from the tax base of the county and remove land from agricultural production. Alternative 4 would not provide flood protection to upstream agricultural lands.

6.10 Alternative 2 or 4 could be expanded to include clearing of debris, etc., to alleviate the flooding problem; thus avoiding either 17.8 or 13.6 miles, respectively, of channel modification. While there would be a re­ duction in the losses associated with wildlife habitat and stream altera­ tion, neither alternative would provide an adequate outlet for the flood waters from the Alabama portion of the Luxapalila since the channel would remain clogged with sand. It should also be noted that while the channel dimensions would not be modified with either alternative, clearing of some of the overbanks would be necessary for the construction equipment to move along the channel banks in order to perform the clearing operation.

6.11 Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would allow varying amounts of the Luxapalila channel and associated stream bank habitat between Miles 2.1 and 19.9 to remain in their existing state as compared with alternative 1 which would allow only three cutoffs to remain in their present state.

7.01 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. L^idiate” relief from flood damage would enhance the urban land use around the City of Columbus and rural land use along the project and upstream of the project by allowing land owners to convert land, which is periodically flooded, to more intensive uses. With the degree of flood protection provided by the proposed project, underdeveloped urban areas could be utilized as commer­ cial or industrial sites and woodland or pastures may be used for crop production or urbanization. 7.02 On a long-term basis an increased and more efficient use of rural land for agricultural purposes along Luxapalila Creek would be realized. Hardwood forest would be reduced with an accompanying reduction in hunt­ ing opportunity. Fishing and boating opportunity afforded by the natural stream would either lose value or be permanently lost to the area if the project is maintained for flood control.

7.03 It is conceivable that channel alteration of the Luxapalila could detrimentally affect the future productivity of the Aliceville pool (part of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway). However, past channelization of Luxapalila Creek has apparently reduced the diversity of species in it already so the effect of its development on the Aliceville pool ecosystem would not be as great as if the Luxapalila were in its natural state.

7.04 These relationships apply only to the Luxapalila Creek segment of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries project. Similar relationships would be expected with the implementation of the remaining segments of the entire tributaries project.

8.01 ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED. With the project in place and maintained, the reduction of aquatic and stream bank fauna and flora would be permanent. This loss would be irreversible unless maintenance of the project were abandoned and the stream allowed to return to a natural state. Whether or not the area would be able to assume its same value to the ecosystem is a matter of conjecture. Labor and energy expended during construction of the project would be irretrievable.

9.01 COORDINATION AND COMMENTS AND RESPONSES. This section covers the coordination with others and the comments and responses, including the three areas discussed in the following paragraphs.

9.02 Public Participation. Two public hearings were held in Demopolis, Alabama, and Columbus, Mississippi, on the 11th and 12th, respectively, of October 1939 to obtain the views of local interests concerning work on the Tombigbee River and tributaries for flood control. These hearings were attended by 95 people from the various sections of the basin, and included representatives of State and Federal agencies, county and city officials, county agricultural agents, farmers, and businessmen.

9.03 The general opinion was that improvements for flood control on a great number of tributaries and on the main stem of the Tombigbee River above Demopolis were desirable and necessary to the welfare of the region. The type of work desired included modification of channels by clearing, snagging, cutoffs, and channel enlargement, and protection by levees for the area around Columbus. No significant environmental issues were identi­ fied.

9.04 Since these hearings were held, numerous requests have been received from local interests for flood control work on particular tributaries or areas. These have included the area at Columbus, Mississippi; along the Buttahatchie and Sipsey Rivers; and the Town (West Fork), Houlka, Saka- tonchee, Mackeys, Luxapalila and Stanefer Creeks.

9.05 No public hearings specifically concerning the proposed Luxapalila Creek project have been held since those of 1939.

9.06 Government Agencies. In the preparation of the draft environmental statement (EIS) there was informal coordination with local organizations and State and Federal agencies. A description of the project was sent to appropriate organizations and agencies in 1970 to determine any conflicts involving environmental conditions and/or alternative uses of available resources. The following State and Federal agencies furnished their views and comments on the environmental impact of the proposed Luxapalila Creek flood control project:

* Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Department of the Interior, National Park Service Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service State of Mississippi Game and Fish Commission State of Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission

The information provided by these agencies was utilized in the preparation of the draft EIS.

9.07 In addition, the State of Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District, Golden Triangle Planning and Development District, West Alabama Planning and Development Council, Columbus-Lowndes Chamber of Commerce, and the Mississippi State University's Department of Anthropology were contacted at various times during the preparation of the draft EIS in order to gain their views and comments on particular aspects of the proposed project.

9.08 The draft EIS was circulated for review and comment to appropriate Federal, State, and local governments. A news release was issued indicating the availability of the statement to anyone interested in the action. Copies of government agencies' letters commenting on the draft EIS are included in Appendix E.

9.09 The following agencies were furnished a copy of the draft EIS but did not comment on the statement:

Pearl River County Development Association, Inc., MS Lowndes County, MS City of Columbus, MS Lamar County, AL 9.10 Pertinent comments received from each government agency are summarized below with responses as applicable.

a. De£a£tment_(jf the. _Interl£r. (Page E-l)

Comment: The statement provides a very good description of the work proposed for 22 Tombigbee River tributary stream segments making up the Tombigbee River and Tributaries Authorized Project, Alabama and Mississippi. The impact set forth for the Luxapalila Creek segment, sub­ ject stream, is in general agreement with that provided in the Fish and Wildlife report for the project. However, although the fish and wildlife losses associated with any one segment of the project seem minor, the total project will result in the alteration of about 490 miles of streams sup­ porting significant fisheries and 15,000 acres of associated high value wildlife habitat, including 12,860 acres of bottomland hardwoods. The end result will be a severe reduction in the capacity of involved areas in Alabama and Mississippi to support adequate stream fisheries and forest dependent wildlife species.

Response: The adverse impact to stream fisheries and forest dependent wildlife species of the complete 22-stream project was addressed in the draft environmental statement. All of the 14,099 acres which are authorized to be cleared are not considered to be high value wildlife habi­ tat. Some of these acres occur within or near urban or semi-urban areas while others are utilized for agriculture. These land uses detract from their value as wildlife habitat. The statement referring to the altera­ tion of 12,860 acres of bottomland has been deleted from the environmental statement due to the fact that the 14,099 acres to be cleared are all within the bottomlands of the streams which would be affected. (Para. 4.02, p. 46).*

Comment: Since the Authorized Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway will produce similar habitat changes along the main river, the effects of work on any associated tributary streams along the route takes on greater significance. The conversion of 70,000 acres of land to water and 140 miles 6f river and 170 miles of tributary streams to slack water condi­ tions will leave only the tributaries available as undisturbed areas. Some of these streams should be maintained in a free flowing undisturbed condi­ tion as spawning and nursery areas for fish. It is likely that bottomlands associated with undeveloped streams will then remain available for forest dependent wildlife species such as deer, turkey, furbearers and non­ game species. Therefore, we believe that the statement should be expanded to address the cumulative effects of the project.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifica­ tion was made. Response: It is true that approximately 70,000 acres of land would be required for implementation of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project. However, less than 36,000 acres would be directly affected by construction activities. Approximately 40,000 acres of water surface would be created as a result of the project. The statement has been ex­ panded to reflect these figures as they relate to the 22 tributary projects. (Para. 2.60, p.34) t

Comment: The State Game and Fish Agencies of Alabama and Mississippi and the Fish and Wildlife Service have expressed concern for the future welfare of resources involved in Tombigbee Basin projects be­ cause of the cumulative effects of such projects on the environment. The Water Resources Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-251, approved March 7, 1974, provides for reevaluation of projects based on prevailing conditions and any changes that have occurred since the preauthorized survey study. This should provide an adequate opportunity for updating data for project streams affected and offer the best plan for total resource planning for the upper basin. We suggest that the statement be expanded to address these points.

Response: As is stated in the environmental statement, the Tibbee, Buttahatchie, Noxubee, and Sipsey River segments of the 22 Tombigbee River and Tributaries authorized project will each undergo a separate and rigorous reevaluation. The reevaluation will determine if implementation is in the best public interest based on current situations, policies, priorities, needs, and public desires. Each stream segment will have to stand on its own economic feasibility. The environmental and social im­ plications will be evaluated in the light of other existing projects and the natural and human resources of the area.

Comment: (Page 11, para. 1.19 - Second full sentence from top of page.) Clearing limits should be restricted to a definite width. This would prevent "over" clearing as occurred along the completed 2.1 miles of excavation.

Response; Clearing limits are restricted to definite width and are shown on the construction plans for Phase II. The clearing limits vary from 300 feet to 900 feet. Clearing in the completed 2.1 miles of the excavation was done within the defined limits. Trees left in the clear­ ing limits were mainly confined to the outer edges of the limits and blend in with the surrounding trees. The statement has been modified to reflect these facts. (Para. 1.19, p. 7).*

Comment: (Page 11, para. 1.19 - Third full sentence from top of page.) Trees to be left should be marked prior to clearing for benefit of contractor. The contractor apparently was confused on this item during the construction of the lower 2.1-mile segment.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifica­ tion was made. Response: The contracting officer will select trees to be re­ tained prior to clearing Phase II. The trees selected will not only depend upon the type, location, and effect on design efficiency, but also on their contribution to the area's aesthetic quality. Trees on the fringe of the clearing limits in Phase I were marked by the contracting officer prior to clearing.

Comment: (Page 12, para. 1.21.) The tabulation of work required by the entire project indicates "clearing and snagging -- none." It might be advisable to omit this statement in view of the fact that a considerable part of the proposed work would consist of clearing and snagging (Summary, paragraph #2).

Response: This statement has been omitted from the statement. (Para. 1.21, p. 8)*.

Comment: (Page 22, para. 2.04 - Last sentence.) The "1,246 c.f.s." should be qualified as to time period.

Response: The statement has been expanded as suggested. (Para. 2.04, p. 15)*.

Comment: (Page 25, para. 2.09 and Page 59, para. 2.71.) No information has been found in the draft environmental statement on the character or physical properties of the alluvial and terrace deposits, ranging from Pliocene to Holocene age, that underlie the flood plains and in which the artificial channel would be excavated. Considering the large amount of excavation that is proposed, possibly in excess of seven million cubic yards, information should be provided on any significant variations in materials to be excavated along the 24 miles of the project that are still to be completed. Assurances should be provided that the character of the sediment has been considered in the design of channel cross sections (for example as shown on Plate 2).

Response: The composition of the materials to be excavated was taken into consideration during the design phase of the proposed project. The materials in the area vary from silty clays to clean sand and gravel, which is typical for the upper Tombigbee Basin.

Comment: (Page 27, para. 2.13.) It is stated that while no sites included in the National Register of Historic Places are located in the construction areas "there is a possibility that a few archeological sites may occur within these areas." On page 78 (4.14) it is stated "no significant sites are known to exist in the areas which will be affected by the ... project."

In the absence of documentation indicating the presence or absence of cultural sites, a direct examination of the area by professional archeologists or historians trained to recognize and evaluate such sites

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. should be performed. The environmental statement should specifically state what steps were taken to examine the area in question for unknown archeological or cultural values. If sites are found, they should be assessed in the statement.

Please refer to the document, "Guidelines for Discussion of Cultural (Historic, Archeological, Architectural) Resources," which ac­ companied the National Park Service's April 16 reply to your request for technical assistance on the project of deepening and widening the Gulf­ port Harbor channel.

Response: The Southeast Archeological Survey of the National Park Service has been funded to conduct an archeological survey of the Luxapalila Creek project area. The statement has been modified to reflect this fact. (Para. 2.13, p. 18 and Para. 2.86, p. 42).*

Comment: (Page 33, para. 2.21 - Third full sentence from top of page.) Dancing Rabbit Wildlife Management Area has been discontinued.

Response: This error in the statement has been rectified. (Para. 2.21, p. 22).*

Comment: (Page 33, para. 2.21 - Fifth full sentence from top of page.) Change "waterfowl" to "wood duck."

Response: The statement has been modified to reflect this comment. Wood ducks do nest in the wildlife management area, with other species of waterfowl occurring on a seasonal basis. (Para. 2.21, p. 22)*.

Comment: (Page 34, para. 2.22.) This paragraph should include the fact that the Lamarion Game Management Area has been established in Marion and Lamar Counties by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Response: The statement has been modified as suggested. (Para. 2.22, p. 23).*

Comment: (Page 41, para. 2.38 - Second full sentence from top of page.) According to local conservation officers and as reported in fish and wildlife studies for the Aliceville Lock and Dam unit, paddlefish are harvested in the upper Tombigbee River in the reach north of Columbus to the mouth of the Buttahatchie River by commercial fishermen.

Response: A biologist with the Mississippi Game and Fish Com­ mission was contacted on this matter. He stated that the paddlefish was found in the upper Tombigbee River basin; however, the number of individ­ uals is too small to be significant in the commercial fisheries of the area. Reference to the paddlefish, stating that this fish does not occur in the basin, has been deleted from the statement. (Para. 2.39, p. 27).*

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Comment: (Page 44, para. 2.46 - Last sentence from bottom of page.) This sentence has little value in the statement unless some streams are left in an undeveloped condition. All basin project proposals will involve the significant streams in the system if they are constructed.

Response: The sentence has been modified to state that the larger tributary streams which enter the Tombigbee River and the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway will provide adequate spawning sites for the walleye in order that population levels may be maintained if these streams are left in their natural or unaltered condition. The adverse impact to the wall­ eye, as well as other fishes, is also acknowledged in the statement if all 22 tributary streams were to receive the authorized flood control work. (Para. 2.47, p.29 )*

Comment: (Page 45, para. 2.48 - Last sentence in paragraph.) This addition should be made; "However, the 70,000 acres involved in the project will result in clearing of much of this habitat. Clearing by the private sector following project installation will add to this loss. Outside of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries flood plains, Northeast Mississippi is lacking in bottomland hardwood wildlife habitat."

Response: As stated earlier, the entire 70,000 acres acquired for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway will not be cleared. Less than 36,000 acres would be directly affected by construction activities. The remaining areas would be procured by a permanent easement and will not be completely removed from the agricultural and forest land base. The state­ ment has been modified to reflect this comment. (Para. 2.49, p.30 )*

Comment: (Page 50, para. 2.58 - Last sentence on this page and following sentence.) These sentences should be deleted or qualified. Ex­ tensive cleared banks were observed at Walkers bridge following the work.

Response: The Walkers Bridge area on the Tombigbee River (East Fork) was utilized as the initial access and parking area for construction equipment. Clearing guidelines were exceeded in the immediate area near the bridge; however, this situation was corrected and the remainder of the project was accomplished in an environmentally acceptable manner.

Comment: (Page 54, para. 2.61 - Second sentence.) The Tuscaloosa RC&D project is located in Lamar, Fayette, Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Bibb, Sumter, Greene, and Hale Counties.

Response: The statement has been modified to reflect this fact. (Para. 2.62, p.35).*

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Comment: (Page 58, Table 8.) We find that the discharge figures from February 1965 through January 1969 are 20 percent lower than values obtained by the U. S. Geological Survey. It may be that the accuracy of all the values is no better than 20 percent.

Response: The U. S. Geological Survey was contacted in order to check the values occurring within Table 8. It was concluded that the accuracy of the values calculated is limited to 20 percent when different methods of computation are employed.

Comment: (Page 58, para. 2.69.) It is highly unlikely that any water is transferred from the stream to the aquifers at low flow. Low flow of streams is maintained by groundwater discharge.

Response: It is agreed that low flow of streams can be main­ tained by ground water. However, in the case of Luxapalila Creek, the Federal Water Quality Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency) is of the opinion that part of the loss of low flow between Mill- port, Alabama, and Steens, Mississippi, is due to water infiltration into the Eutaw and McShan Formations during periods of low flow, which generally coincide with periods of low water table.

Comment: (Page 77, para. 4.11 - Last sentence in this section.) Channel maintenance is a requirement of local interest in such projects. Consequently, this discussion seems to have little value.

Response: It is conceivable that at some time in the future it could be decided that it is no longer feasible or justifiable to con­ tinue to perform maintenance on one or more of the flood control projects. Due to this possibility it was decided to include a statement on the rate of recovery of the stream and associated stream bank to their natural state if maintenance were discontinued.

Comment: (Page 80, para, 4.20.) This paragraph is not complete.

Response: This error in the statement has been rectified. (Para 4.20, p.51 )*.

Comment: (Page 81, para. 4.21.) There appears to be a large discrepancy in the amount of excavation that is required. It is stated on page 81 that "Approximately 7,100,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and deposited intermittently as spoil mounds along both banks." However, it had not (sic) been stated on page 12 that the amount of excavated material would be 2,856,200 cubic yards, or only about one-third as much.

Response: The statement has been corrected to show that 7,100,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and deposited inter­ mittently as spoil mounds along both banks. (Para. 1.21, p.8)*.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifica­ ion was made. Comment: (Page 82, para. 4.26 - First sentence.) This sentence should indicate what degree of the flood protection will be provided.

Response: The degree of flood protection which would be provided by project is shown as dollars of damage reduction in Table 4 and as the level of stage reduction in Table 9. It was also stated that in the urban area of Columbus, Mississippi, the altered channel is designed to confine within banks a flood which can be expected, on an average, at 5-year intervals.

Comment: (Page 84, para. 4.29.) The second sentence fails to cover flood situation. Raising the Tombigbee River level with the Alice- ville pool and providing faster flood water delivery on Luxapalila Creek to this artificial barrier will increase flood stages in and around Columbus during basin floods.

Response: The peak discharge on Luxapalila Creek will reach the Tombigbee River at a faster rate after the channel improvement project has been completed. The water from Luxapalila Creek being discharged into the future Aliceville pool will be a small amount when compared to the water in storage and the discharge from upstream of Luxapalila Creek caused by a basin flood. Therefore, only a minor increase in flood stages in and around Columbus during basin flood is anticipated.

Comment: (Page 85, para. 4.30.) The last sentence is mis­ leading. Recent contract studies of the Luxapalila Creek conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Department of Mississippi State University for the Fish and Wildlife Service indicate a good diversity of fish species in the unchannelized portion, including 2.1 miles to be subjected to impoundment by the Aliceville pool. Species composition over the past year showed 68 species for the unchannelized section, 43 for the old channelized section in Alabama and 50 in the recently channelized section. The recently channelized section adjoining the river contained some species in the sample that did not occur upstream, indicating invasion from the main river. Loss of the remaining natural section of the creek through project channelization will influence the resulting Aliceville pool eco­ system.

Response: The statement has been modified to indicate that those portions of Luxapalila Creek which have experienced channel modifi­ cations have fewer species of fish than the reach of the stream which has not received any channel work. It is not surprising that Mississippi State University collected some species from the lower 2,1 miles of the Luxapalila which did not occur upstream, indicating invasion from the Tombigbee River. When an intensive study of the fish fauna of a moderate sized stream is conducted, such as that mentioned above (66 collections at 3 sampling locations from June 1973 through May 1974) , it should be ex-

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. pected that some fish species, more commonly found in larger rivers, would be collected since some of these fish are probably transient visitors of tributary streams, especially during their spawning seasons. The possi­ bility that the loss of habitat in Luxapalila Creek may influence the resulting Aliceville pool ecosystem is addressed in the statement. (Para. 4.22, p .51) ,*

Comment: (Page 85, para. 4.31.) The fate of the six or more miles of natural channel of Luxapalila Creek in Alabama should be discussed. This section of the creek is evidently completely separate from the artifi­ cial channel, as shown on Plate 2. In addition, the artificial channel originally constructed in that area in 1922 and later cleared and snagged in 1942, evidently tends to become clogged with sediment and further restricted in capacity by vegetation. It is not clear from information presented whether the original channel of the Luxapalila in Alabama con­ tinues to carry a significant portion of the low flows or of the flood flows of the stream, or in what condition that part of the channel will be left after completion of the proposed channelization. The problem of stagnant pools becoming breeding places for mosquitoes has been briefly mentioned in relation to flooding (p. 82, section 4.25), but it might be advisable also to discuss any problems associated with stagnant pools along the abandoned sections of the stream, particularly the section of about 6 miles in Alabama. Last sentence beginning on the page. This sentence should be deleted unless local interest is expected to refuse to comply with project requirements.

Response: The natural channel in Alabama will remain as is. The existing artificial channel in Alabama does become clogged with sedi­ ment because of the inadequate outlet at the Alabama-Mississippi State line. This condition has caused the area near the Mississippi-Alabama State line to become flooded and to create a marsh. There have not been any studies made to determine the amounts of discharge carried in the artificial channel and the natural channel. Also, see response to your previous similar comment on page 66.

Comment: (Page 86, para. 4.32 - Last sentence.) Change "avoided" to "tempered."

Response: The statement has been modified as suggested. (Para. 4.36, p.55).*

Comment: (Page 87, para. 4.34 - Sixth sentence.) This sen­ tence should be deleted and the following one is suggested for replacement, "supervision was provided by the Corps during construction work (contract) resulting in only a token number of trees remaining along the 2.1 miles of cleared right-of-way."

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Response; See response to your similar comment on page 63. 'Hiis statement has been modified to reflect these facts (Para. 4.38, p.55).*

Comment; (Page 90, para. 6.05.) This paragraph should be expanded to further explain the merits of flood plain zoning. Since the project provides flood protection only up to the 5-year frequency at Columbus, zoning will prevent the need for additional projects in the future to protect added developments in the flood plain.

Response: It would be impractical and very undesirable to instigate flood plain zoning which would restrict all growth and develop­ ment within the Luxapalila flood plain areas, in particular on those areas around Columbus, Mississippi, which have been experiencing develop­ ment for a long period of time. In this case, the relocation hardships that would be created would greatly outweigh the benefits gained by complete zoning of the flood plain. The environmental statement discusses the zoning plan adopted by the City of Columbus. (Para. 1.27, p.12)*.

Comment: (Page 92, para. 7.01.) The degree of flood relief provided should be discussed as it relates to higher economical use of land involved.

Response; The statement has been modified as suggested (Para. 7.01, p.59 )* Also, see response to your similar comment on page 67 .

Comment; (Page 93, para. 8.01 - Second sentence.) Since main­ tenance assurance is a project requirement, reference to maintenance being abandoned should be deleted.

Response: See response to your similar comment on page 66.

Comment; (Plate 2.) The requirement for acquisition of acre­ age in Alabama should be explained further. Plate 2 suggests that the proposed work in Lamar County, Alabama, consists entirely of "re-excavation of old channel." Land requirements summarized on Table 2 (p. 13) show that 107 acres is required for spoils in that area, and another 128 acres f°r rights-of-way. The latter requirement should be explained in view of the proposal merely to re-excavate the old channel.

Response: Easements for the 1942 work were acquired by Lamar County and made available to the U. S. Government. Review of records indicate that the easements were not recorded; thus, they would probably not be effective against present land owners. In addition, the 1942 easements extended for 100-feet on either side of the stream's center- line. The proposed work described in this statement is larger in scope requiring more land than originally provided for under the older easements.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. b . De£artment_of Housing and Urban DevejLo£ment.

(1) Birmingham, Alabama, Area Office. (Page E-7)

Comment: We recommend that you write or call the Office of Management and Budget for a copy of "Directory of State, Metropolitan and Regional Clearinghouses under B.O.B. Circular A-95", and consult with such clearinghouses as appropriate.

Response: This has been done.

(2) Jackson, Mississippi, Area Office. (Page E-ll)

Comment 1: In reducing the 100-year flood level by approxi­ mately 2 feet; this project will contribute toward achieving a flood plain management in the Columbus Urban Area. For this reason, we support the above project.

Response: Concur with comment (actually 1.4 feet).

Comment 2: If feasible, channel improvements should provide 100-year level of protection rather than a 5-year level as is currently proposed, (reference page 89). An alternative approach would be to acquire land and structures within the Columbus Urban Floodway and relocate or demolish such structures--with benefits of the Uniform Relocation Act pro­ vided for all eligible persons.

Response: Alternative channel plans considered included protec­ tion for storms greater than the 5-year plan recommended. As discussed in paragraph 6.03, the most economically feasible channel project would have provided only about a 3-year level of protection. The selection of a larger5-year channel was considered justified in the lower reach due to the urban area involved.

The cost of acquiring the land and structures within the Columbus Urban Floodway would require a minimum of 20 percent costs being borne by the local sponsor and is not consistent with the cost sharing agreement signed by the local sponsor at the time project was authorized. Addition­ ally, it is estimated that the costs would exceed the primary benefits because of the extensive urbanization of the flood plain. The social and psychological implications of this alternative would also create ad­ verse impacts.

Comment 3: Rather than deposit dredged material in mounds, as planned, it may be worthwhile to consider transport of such materials to the Columbus Area and deposit in floodway fringe areas--in order to reduce flood hazard in those areas. Response: The local sponsor, Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District, is responsible for land acquisition necessary for the construction of the project. They have obtained a 30-acre site just above the Columbus Waterworks to be used as a site to deposit the excavated material. They are searching for additional sites to be used. However, it is doubtful that additional sites will be obtained due to difficulties in obtaining the necessary lands.

c . Oe£artment_o_f Trjm£sp£rtation.

(1) U. S. Coast Guard - No comments. (Page E-12)

(2) Federal Aviation Administration. (Page E-13)

Comment: Our review indicates there will be no significant adverse effects to the existing or planned air transportation system as a result of these projects.

Response: Concur with comment.

(3) Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama. (Page E-14)

Comment: We have reviewed your environmental submission and have considered the proposed project in relation to responsibilities of this office in regard to the Federal-aid highway program in Alabama and have no comments concerning the proposed project.

The above finding does not in any way commit our cooperating State agency, the Alabama Highway Department. We assume that comments will be solicited from the State through Clearinghouse procedures required by Bureau of the Budget Circular A-95.

Response: A copy of the Draft Environmental Statement was furnished to the Alabama State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies. The Alabama Highway Department did not provide any comments on the proposed flood control project.

(4) Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi. (Page E-15)

Comment: From the list of organizations and agencies whose comments were requested, we note that the Mississippi Coordinator of Federal-State programs, as well as the City of Columbus and County of Lowndes, were on the list. However, the environmental section of the Mississippi State Highway Department advised us on this date that they had not received a copy of the drr.lt.

This office is currently reviewing the draft, and any detailed comments which we may have will be forwarded by the requested August-15 date. Our main concern at this point is to emphasize the need for the State Highway Department to receive and review a copy of the Draft Environ­ mental Statement. Response: Copies of the Draft Environmental Statement were fur­ nished to the Mississippi State Clearinghouse for Federal Programs for distribution to State agencies. The Mississippi State Highway Department has not provided any comments on the proposed flood control project.

d. Envi£onm£n_taJL _Pr£t£ction_Aj>ency. (Page E-16)

Comment: We note the numerous adverse effects: fishing and hunting opportunities would be reduced; canoeing, nature studies, and other recreational enjoyments of the area would no longer be assets; and streams would become turbid and their capability for assimilating wastes would be greatly reduced. In view of this, we believe further considera­ tion should be gi'.en to the suggested alternatives.

Response: The alternative section of this statement has been ex­ panded. (Beginning at para. 6.01, p. 56).*

Comment: It is stated in the Summary that "all snags, drift, and other debris would be ... removed from the channel." Appendix B reveals an excellent fish population (60 species). Consideration should be given to the fact that, with the removal of substrata such as snags and debris, macroinvertebrates that provide food for the fish population will be reduced.

Response: The decline in the number of fish food organisms as a result of project implementation has been discussed in the statement.

Comment: On page 11 it is stated: "A total of 1,258 acres would be cleared, which would consist of the removal of all growth except selected trees larger than 10 inches in diameter from a strip 25 feet wide or more extending from the top of each bank. The number of such trees left standing would not exceed 5 to 10 per acre, and they would not be left in clusters." A further statement (page 87) says that "very few trees" were left after completion of Phase I. We suggest discussion of (1) why such extensive tree removal is necessary; (2) the value of trees removed during Phase I; and (3) what kind of costs would be incurred in tree removal in Phase II.

Response: (1) Extensive tree removal is necessary because of the area required for the movement of excavation equipment, for the place­ ment of the excavated material, and for the creation of a channel free of obstructions in order to increase the channel's hydraulic efficiency. (2) No timber estimate was made prior to the implementation of Phase 1, nor is one intended for the proposed Phase 2 work. Local landowners were allowed to remove timber prior to Phase 1 construction activities. (3) It is estimated that costs for tree removal are approximately $800 per acre.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Therefore it will cost $1,006,400 to clear the 1,258 acres necessary for the construction of the entire project. If more than 5 to 10 trees per acre are left standing, the cost for clearing will increase due to more time required to clear around the remaining trees. Also see response to Department of the Interior comments on pages 63 and 69.

Comment: It is stated (page 32) that "the recreational oppor­ tunities are wholly inadequate for the present population." With the loss of a fishery or extensive damage to it (as explained in the Summary), there will be one less recreation site. Luxapalila Creek, according to the Statement, is used for float-fishing, canoeing, and swimming.

Response: This loss has been recognized in the statement. It should also be noted that recreational development associated with the implementation of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway will provide increased recreational opportunities for the area.

Comment: "Since the project will result in substantial altera­ tion of stream and bottomland habitat, the Statement should relate the amount of such habitat to be lost to the total amount available in the project area. Such a relation might show the project would destroy a large percentage of this type habitat, which would drastically affect the animal species indigenous to it.

Response: The project area as used in the statement is defined as those lands along the Luxapalila which will be required for direct construction activities. Within the immediate project area, which repre­ sents a narrow band of 19.9 miles, all bottomland habitat will be lost. The value of the bottomland as wildlife habitat along the lower reaches of Luxapalila Creek is not as great as those bottomland areas along the upper Luxapalila due to the more intensive activities of humans. With available data it is impossible to state what amount of bottomland habitat would remain with project implementation. However, it is felt that a large portion of this type of habitat in the Luxapalila drainage basin will remain along the Luxapalila above the project area and along Yellow Creek as well as along several minor tributaries.

Comment: Consideration should be given to a monitoring pro­ gram, which should be coordinated with the State pollution control agencies and perhaps with the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission.

Response: A water quality surveillance program will be con­ ducted during Phase 2 construction in order to monitor any changes in water quality of Luxapalila Creek and determine if any remedial actions are required. e . De£a£tment_of^ Agriculture^

(1) Soil Conservation Service, Auburn, Alabama. (Page E-18)

Comment: The Tombigbee Resource Conservation and Development project in Alabama has been approved for operation. This project includes Lamar, Fayette, Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Sumter, Greene, Hale, and Bibb Counties. Additional information can be obtained by contacting Mr. James M. McCullough, Project Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service, Room 242, Federal Building, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401.

The watershed program under Public Law 566 for the Alabama portion of the project is as follows: (a) Little New River project has been completed; (b) Factory Creek is in the planning stage; (c) Sipsey and Cut Bank Creeks were determined not feasible; (d) The statement correctly describes activities on Luxapalila Creek.

Response: Concur with comments.

Comment: The amount of cropland is shown for the overall project and the Luxapalila Creek Segment but a breakdown of the predominant crops is not given. This should be included in the environmental setting for the flood plain area and the project area.

Response: The statement has been expanded as suggested. (Para. 2. 65, P. 36 ).*

Comment: Table 4 on page 17 shows benefits to land enhancement. The amount of rural land presently cleared and forest land which may be converted to higher land uses should be shown. Also the types of crops to be grown on these areas should be discussed.

Response: The statement has been expanded as suggested. (Para. 4.28, p .52 ).*

Comment: The majority of the benefits are to the urban areas. It is suggested that the approximate number of residences and businesses flooded and the magnitude of damages by the largest flood of record be shown. If the information is not available for a flood of record, it could be shown for a flood frequency such as the 10-year, 50-year, or 100-year event.

Response: The statement has been expanded as suggested. (Para. 2.64, p.36 ).*

Comment: The project could result in a significant change in land use in the area. This would result in the need for the application of conservation practices to minimize erosion problems. The need for land treatment with the project should be discussed.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Response: The mounds resulting from the placement of excavated material would be grassed, as discussed in the statement, along with the altered channel side slopes and berms,to guard against erosion. It is recognized that changed land use patterns induced by project implementation may create the need for land treatment to prevent excessive erosion. How­ ever, proper land treatment practices are the responsibility of the land- owners and other agencies. There are also existing programs to alleviate this potential threat.

Comment: The project is expected to increase disposable income to low-income landowners. Information on farm income in the project area should be provided to adequately describe the economic conditions in the area.

Response: The statement has been expanded as suggested. (Para. 2.65, p. 36).*

Comment: It is indicated that the project will be turned over to the sponsors after installation. There should be a discussion of the type of maintenance that will be required in order for the project to function as planned.

Response: The statement has been expanded (Para. 1.22, p. 8)* as suggested to indicate the following: The local sponsors will continu­ ously maintain the structures and facilities constructed by the United States for local flood protection in such a manner as to obtain the maxi­ mum benefits. They will be required to remove all debris, weeds, and wild growth from the channel or floodway. All deposits of waste material, un­ authorized structures and other encroachments that restrict the channel or floodways will be removed by the local sponsor. They will excavate all shoals and silted sections of the channel to the designed slopes and grades. Damaged side slopes will be restored to designed grades and slopes. The repaired side slopes will be reseeded and remulched using the same species of grass as used in the original seeding. The sponsors must repair all damaged riprapped areas to project dimensions.

Comment: There should be a discussion of the downstream effects from the planned work. Will peak discharges be increased? Will flood stages be greater with the project?

Response: Peak discharges will be increased due to the increased efficiency of the channel. However, flood stages downstream of the project, for natural or modified condition on Luxapalila Creek, are not expected to increase significantly after the Aliceville pool is raised.

Comment: The environmental effects of filling abandoned bend- ways should be discussed. These dead water areas could be used by water- fowl, fish and furbearers.

Response: The three abandoned bendways along the lower 2.1 miles of Luxapalila Creek (Phase 1) are connected to the main channel only during periods of relatively high water. Apparently, sedimentation has

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. occurred in the lower end of each bendway resulting in the separation of these areas from the main channel. During periods of low flow these bend- ways are separated from the main channel and possibly become stagnated. During periods of high flows, these areas serve as refuge and feeding areas for fish and are utilized by wildlife and waterfowl. Eventhough their value as fish and wildlife habitat is probably low, these areas are not completely lost since they still possess approximately 50 percent of their pre-construction vegetation. This is especially true for the bendway banks farthest from the main channel. However, sedimentation will result in the eventual filling of these areas, thus curtailing the utilization of the bendways by waterfowl, fish, and furbearers. During seasonally high flows these animals may still utilize these areas.

Comment: References to sources of information should be given in the text of the statement.

Response: It is not felt that formal references are required in the statement. However, attempts are made to cite the sources of in­ formation within the text of the statement. A bibliography of sources of information utilized in the preparation of this environmental statement is included in Appendix D.

Comnent: On page 36, the location of wetland areas is discussed. The type of wetland should be described in accordance with "Wetlands of the United States," U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Circular 39.

Response: The statement has been modified as suggested. (Para. 2.31, page 24).*

(2) Soil Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi. (Page E-20)

Comment: (Page 33.) It is indicated that two national forests are located in the Basin. We feel that a proper expression would be to say, "Two national forests are partially located within the Basin." Also, it should be pointed out that Chewalla Lake in the Holly Springs National Forest is not within this Basin.

Response: The statement has been modified as suggested. (Para. 2 .21, p. 22).*

Comment: (Page 53, para. 2.60). The second and third sentences should be rewritten as follows: "In recent years the Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with State Water Management Districts, under Public Law 566, has completed watershed protection and flood prevention work plans and some actual construction in the following watersheds in the Upper Tombigbee River Basin: Browns, Town, Chiwapa, Chuquatonchee, Houlka, and Line Creeks. Watershed work plans on Mantachie, Trim Cane-Sun and Shuqualak Creeks in Mississippi and Factory, Sipsey and Cut Bank Creeks in Alabama, are in the planning stage.

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Response: The statement has been modified as suggested. (Para. 2.61, p.35).*

Comment: (Page 54, para. 2.61.) The second sentence, "There are no RC&D projects in Alabama" is incorrect.

Response: The statement has been corrected (Para. 2.62, p.35).*

Comment: We offer no other comments on this statement and feel that it adequately reflects the benefits and adverse impacts of the environment for this proposed project area.

f. Mississi£pj1 State Clearinghouse _foir FederaJL Programs^ (Page E-21)

(1) Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District. (Page E-22)

Comment: Our District's staff has reviewed and supports the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U. S. Corps of Engineers for the Tombigbee River and tributaries, Luxapalila Creek Segment, in Alabama and Mississippi.

In our opinion, it would be advantageous to the project for the Corps to further investigate the archaeological and historical significance and to give further attention and study to the future water supply of the City of Columbus, Mississippi.

Response: The National Park Service has been funded to conduct an archaeological survey of the proposed Luxapalila Creek project area. Studies are underway to determine the measures, structural or otherwise, necessary to protect the Columbus water supply.

(2) Mississippi State Board of Health. (Page E-23)

Comment: We are concerned with the Luxapalila Creek portion of this project since it would affect the public water supply at Columbus, Mississippi. At the present time, the Columbus municipal water supply has reached its peak design capacity and has no reserve capacity for unusual cir­ cumstances. Some planning has been done on a future water supply for Columbus, however, no firm decisions or financing have been arranged to our knowledge at this time. We feel that this report does not adequately cover and answer a number of questions in relation to the Columbus water supply.

Response: At this time the exact method of protection for the Columbus water supply is not known; however, studies are underway to deter­ mine the measures required, structural or otherwise. Implementation of the project is not expected to have any adverse impact on future water supplies for the city.

Comment: What will be the effects of this project on low flow in the Luxapalila Creek, and what will be the duration of the anticipated low flow?

* his refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Response: A control section just downstream of the water intake structure will be employed to augment a natural control in the existing channel to insure that during periods of low flow the upstream flow depths will be adequate for uninterrupted operation of the water intake structure. A grade elevation of 148.0 for the top of the control section was adopted on the basis of information provided by the city, which indicated that proper functioning of the pumping station requires a water depth of at least 2 feet above the bottom of the intake sluice gate at elevation 145.5. This depth will be provided by the control section. The duration of the low flow is usually during the summer and fall. However, flood producing storms may occur at any time.

Comment: What will be the magnitude of deterioration of water quality due to construction procedures, and how long will deterioration of water quality remain due to erosion in the construction area?

Response: As is indicated in the statement, an increase in the level of turbidity is expected due to direct construction activities. This increase would be temporary, at least until the exposed raw banks became vegetated. With the removal of bank vegetation and its correspond­ ing shade some increase in water temperature would occur with a resulting decrease in the level of dissolved oxygen (D.O.). It is impossible to state the exact degree of water quality deterioration resulting from project implementation. However, a limited number of water samples collected during the construction of Phase 1 showed that the D.O. was always above 7.0 mg/1, except for one reading which was 5.0 mg/1, and that the increase in turbidity was not significant. The same conditions are expected to occur with construction of Phase 2.

Comment: What will be the permanent long-term effects on tur­ bidity and other water quality parameters in Luxapalila Creek?

Response: The increase in turbidity is expected to be tempo­ rary, at least until the exposed raw banks become vegetated. Some increase in the degree of downstream sedimentation is expected due to the elevated turbidity levels; however, it is felt that this sedimentation increase will be relatively insignificant.

Comment: Though there is some mention of construction measures to protect the Columbus water supply, we fail to see how these measures can be effective. We feel that more details should be provided so that we can be assured of adequate protection of the Columbus water supply.

Response: See response to your similar comment on page 78.

Comment: We do not know whether or not the Corps of Engineers has collected data on previous projects which would help answer the above questions. However, if no data are available, then certainly some research is essential in relation to the above questions in order to assure a con­ tinued safe water supply at Columbus. Response: See response to similar comment about a water quality surveillance program by the Environmental Protection Agency on page 74.

(3) State of Mississippi, Department of Archives and History. (Page E-25)

Comment: We will restrict our comments to the section dealing with archaeology and history, which, in this particular draft environmental statement, appears on page twenty-seven. In the professional judgement of our staff, that section of the draft environmental statement is woe­ fully inadequate, and, based on that statement, Departmental concurrence for this particular project can not be granted.

Allow us to point out that this project deals with Luxapalila Creek, while the archaeology and history section of the draft environ­ mental statement is a general statement of the situation in the entire Tombigbee River Basin. Nowhere is Luxapalila Creek even mentioned, much less any specific adverse impact that this particular project might have on historical and archaeological values in that specific area.

Mark Rucker, Archaeologist, Environmental Section, Mississippi State Highway Department, is the professional archaeologist most familiar with this area. In a telephone conversation of July 2, 1974, Mr. Rucker informed this Department that he has visited the area of the Luxapalila Creek Project where channel work is already completed (see plate 2) and that several archaeological sites on Luxapalila Creek were destroyed dur­ ing this work. Mr. Rucker feels that there are "many more" archaeological sites on Luxapalila Creek that would be destroyed if further channel work is performed. Our staff archaeologists agree with his evaluation of the situation.

Federal laws which touch on the destruction of cultural resources include: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Executive Order 11593.

A feasible course of action is available which will avoid the destruction of non-expendable archaeological sites and avoid delay or stoppage of this project because of unresolved questions about the archae­ ological sites in the project area. The Mobile District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers should employ, as soon as possible, an agency or institution to survey the project area on foot to determine what archaeological sites are present and which ones (if any) are non-expendable. If it is deter­ mined that there are non-expendable archaeological sites in the area that would be damaged by the proposed project, the Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, should then finance archaeological salvage excavations of those sites well in advance of the proposed work. This course of action would avoid any possible conflicts.

Allow me to suggest that the Anthropology Department of either the University of Mississippi or Mississippi State University are admirably suited to perform such work. There are, of course, other agencies similarly equipped, but this Department respectfully reserves the right to comment on any other selection made by the Mobile District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Response: The National Park Service has been requested to con­ duct a survey of the proposed Luxapalila Creek project area's archeological resources and funds have been provided for these investigations. The state­ ment has been expanded to reflect this fact. (Para. 2.13, p. 17 and para. 2.86, p. 42).*

(4) State of Mississippi, Board of Water Commissioners.(Page E-27)

Comment: (Page 88, para. 5.01.) The loss of potential hardwood timber production resulting from the removal of 1,258 acres of bottomland forest has been overlooked as adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided. Also, some attempt should be made to express the potential loss of recreation resulting from the project in a manner other than man-days. The placing of a monetary value on the expected recreational losses would aid the general public in assessing the worth of the proposed project.

Response: The statement has been modified as suggested concern­ ing the loss of bottomland forest. The inclusion of the three floodways as fish and wildlife measures was determined to be economically justified uti­ lizing a value of $3,500 and $1,050 for a loss of 3,500 man-days of fishing and 350 man-days of waterfowl hunting per year, respectively. A value of $13,000 may be assigned for an estimated 6,500 man-days per year of small game hunting. A complete loss of the present fishing and waterfowl hunt­ ing capacity is acknowledged; however, a complete loss in small game hunting is not expected.

Comment: (Table 11.) Data for alternative 7 appear question­ able in regard to total annual charges. These charges representing approximately 41 percent of the total project cost are suspicious.

Response: The figure in question in Table 11 for alternative 7 was a typographical error. The statement has been corrected. (Table 11, following p. 58).*

Comment: (Appendix A.) The disregarding of the expected loss of approximately 10,350 man-days of recreation and other miscellaneous losses in computing the benefits-to-costs ratio for the project substan­ tially detracts from the quality of the Draft Environmental Statement. These losses along with any previously excluded benefits should be assigned a monetary value and included in the computations necessary for developing an accurate benefits-to-costs ratio for the proposed project.

Response: See response to your similar comment above. In order to justify inclusion of the proposed fish and wildlife measures in the project design, the losses attributed to project implementation were

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. assigned a value of $5,050, of which $3,500 would be fishing losses, $1,050 hunting losses, and $500 fur harvest losses. The average annual charges of $3,800 attributed to the mitigation measures are less costly than the estimated project-induced damages of $5,050, therefore, justifying the proposed mitigation measures as project features.

(5) Golden Triangle Planning and Development District.

Comment: (July 9, 1974, page E-30). The proposed project is considered to be partially consistent with the District's goals, objectives, and plans for development. The extent of consistency is outlined below.

Basically we concur with the proposed channel improvement from the mouth of the Luxapalila through the Columbus urban area (to mile 6.3) because of the extremely high benefits to be derived from flood control improvements along this segment of the project. However, we have three areas of concern regarding the remainder of the project as expressed below:

1) As indicated on page 66 of the draft environmental statement, it is the expressed goal of the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District to promote the best use of land resources within the District. We feel that a substantial portion of the existing bottomland wood­ lands should remain in an undeveloped state to insure an adequate habitat for game and fish; to maintain areas for open space and recre­ ational uses; and to preserve the quality of existing natural resources. Thus it would appear that the proposed project could be counterproduc­ tive to our land use policy by bringing about a change in land use which, although a more "profitable" use, would not necessarily be the "best" use of the land.

2) We feel that the environmental statement does not adequately address itself to the flood potential expected in the Columbus urban area in the event the project is not implemented beyond mile 6.3, as opposed to full project implementation. It would seem that complete project implementation, resulting in a faster drainage of the Luxapalila watershed would tend to increase the flood potential downstream in the Columbus urban area than if the stream were left in its natural state beyond mile 6.3. If this is the case, then it is our opinion that any increase in flood potential in the Columbus urban area would not be offset or justified on the basis of decreased flood potential to adjacent lands upstream.

3) Our third major concern is the immediate and long-range effect of the project on water quality, since the City of Columbus relies on the Luxapalila Creek for its sole source of water. Columbus is experienc­ ing a rapid growth rate and with recent developments in the area it is expected that the present intake of 4.5 million gallons per day will increase sharply in the years ahead. As indicated on pages 81 and 82 of the draft environmental statement, a certain amount of water quality degradation is anticipated as a direct result of the project. However, it does not appear that the long-range effects resulting from a change in land use have been properly considered. We expect that with a re­ duction in flood potential along the stream much of the woodlands now within the flood plains will be cleared for agricultural uses. As more and more of the natural vegetation is removed, water quality in the Luxapalila can be expected to decline as agricultural runoff increases, thereby causing a rise in turbidity levels and agricultural chemical residues.

From our viewpoint, then, flood protection for the Columbus urban area, water quality protection for the Columbus municipal water supply, and con­ servation of natural resources should be the first and foremost considera­ tions in any analysis of the proposed projects.

(6 Sept. 1974, page E-32). It has come to our attention through con­ ferences and discussions with the Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District, the Mayor of Columbus, representatives of the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors, and interested citizens of the Columbus area that certain comments contained in our July 9th reply concerning your Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Flood Control of the Luxapalila Creek have been con­ strued as meaning that we are opposed to this project. This is certainly not our point of view as we have recognized for a long time the desperate need for flood control in the region.

As we noted in paragraph (1) of our reply of July 9th, the Land Use Plan of the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District has proposed that the land in question be maintained in its natural state. In other words, taken as a separate question, this parcel of land would best be used as a natural recreation area as opposed to being subdivided or commer­ cialized.

However, any projected land use for a parcel per se must also be evaluated in terms of the overall land use and quality of life in the region as a whole. The projected impact of the whole Luxapalila Project must be viewed in terms of its regional impact as opposed to its impact on any one specific parcel of land.

We feel that if the questions concerning the water quality and supply for the City of Columbus as posed by our District and the State Board of Health can adequately be answered and the value of channelization in terms of flood control for the region for that part of the project above mile 6.3 can be demonstrated as is the U. S. Corps of Engineer's contention, then the loss of this natural habitat is certainly a justifiable action when viewed in terms of the benefits the project will provide for the region as a whole.

As the Regional Clearinghouse under Circular A-95, Office of Manage­ ment and Budget, we would request that this explanation concerning our remarks of July 9th, be included as a part of the A-95 process. We thank you for this opportunity to comment and would like to express our wish to work with you in any manner possible for the overall good of our region.

Response: The statement acknowledges that the adverse environ­ mental impacts associated with the proposed project are not in complete harmony with the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District's objective to preserve the quality of natural resources such as rivers, forest, and public and private recreation areas.

The peak discharge on Luxapalila Creek will reach the Tombigbee River at a faster rate after the channel modification project has been completed. The water from Luxapalila Creek being discharged into the future Aliceville pool will be a small amount when compared to the water in storage and the discharge from upstream of Luxapalila Creek caused by a basin flood. Therefore, only a minor increase in flood stages in and around Columbus during basin floods will be anticipated.

Water quality degradation in the form of increased turbidity and sedimentation is expected to be temporary, at least until the exposed raw banks become vegetated. At this time, the exact method of protection for the Columbus water supply during construction activities is not known; however, studies are underway to determine the measures required, structural or otherwise. In regards to water supply, it is not anticipated that the pro­ posed project will adversely affect the quantity of water available to Columbus. A control section just downstream of the water intake structure will be employed to augment a natural control in the existing channel to insure that during periods of low flow the upstream flow depths will be adequate for uninterrupted operation of the water intake structure.

g. Missisjsijapi^ Game_and_Fish £°mmi.ss.ion.i_ (Page E-34)

Comment: Our Commission has gone on record in opposition to channelization projects such as this one, and we are opposed to the channelization of the Luxapalila.

Throughout the Draft Environmental Statement, the losses that will occur to fish and wildlife are noted. We concur with this statement and wish to emphasize that there will be very definite losses that will occur. Furthermore, it is proper to consider these losses in relation to the whole project and not as a separate unit. The effects of the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway will also make the separation from it improper.

This project is in opposition to one of the objectives of the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District as outlined on page 66.

We wish to reiterate that we are opposed to the destruction of this stream and feel that if due consideration is given to the fish and wildlife losses the B/C ratio may not make the project feasible. Response: The position of the Game and Fish Commission on stream channelization projects is appreciated. During the formulation of the environmental statement efforts were made to adequately portray the fish and wildlife losses associated with implementation of the Luxapalila Creek project, in particular as these losses were interrelated with the entire Tombigbee River and Tributaries project and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The statement acknowledges that the proposed Luxapalila Creek project is not in complete harmony with the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District (GTPDD) land use plan objectives. However, in a letter (included on page E-32) to the Corps on 6 September 1974, the GTPDD stated that "if the questions concerning the water quality and supply for the City of Columbus as posed by our District (GTPDD) and the State Board of Health can adequately be answered and the value of channelization in terms of flood control for the region for that part of the project above mile 6.3 can be demonstrated as is the U S. Corps of Engineers' conten­ tion, then the loss of this natural habitat is certainly a justifiable action when viewed in terms of the benefits the project will provide for •the region as a whole." Although fish and wildlife losses have not been included as monetary losses in the B/C ratio computations, these losses have been considered in determining if mitigation measures (floodways) could be justified. In this light the project cost was increased to miti­ gate for expected fish and wildlife losses and this influenced the B/C ratio.

h. We£t_AlLabama_P^annin£ anci Deve_lo£menJ: Council^ (Page E-35) .

Comment; The Council found the statement to be in order and has no additions to or deletions from the statement.

i. Alabama Develo£menJt Offi£e_-_State_Clearinj» House (Page E-36) .

(1) Muscle Shoals Council, of Local Governments. (Page E-37)

Comment: After reviewing identifiable pros and cons of this project, it appears that there is help and socio-economic benefits to be gained by the swift completion of this project which outweigh the damage done to the ecosystem.

(2) Environmental Health Administration. (Page E-38)

Comment; (P-46.) Gadwall sp.

Response; This error in the statement has been rectified. (Para. 2.51, p. 30).*

*This refers to the page and paragraph in the Final EIS where the modifi­ cation was made. Comment; (P-87.) How far downstream before "adequate" mixing?

Response; The exact point downstream at which adequate mixing will take place in the Tombigbee River will depend upon the flow character­ istics in both the Tombigbee River and Luxapalila Creek. However, avail­ able information indicates that mixing will take place in the river within one mile downstream of the confluence of Luxapalila Creek.

9.11 Citizen Groups. Copies of the draft EIS were furnished to the following individuals and citizen groups and organizations;

Environmental Defense Fund Ala. & Miss. League of Women Environmental Info Center, Inc. Voters Ecology Center of Louisiana Bus.& Sci.Div., Mobile Publ.Library Arkansas Ecology Center Center for Urban Affairs, North­ National Wildlife Federation western Univ., IL Alabama Wildlife Federation CLEAN, Starkville, MS Mississippi Wildlife Federation Mrs. Myrt Jones, Priv.Citz.,AL Dept, of Zoology, Auburn Univ. Clifford Danby, Priv. Citz.,LA Water, Air, Soil Prot. Soc. of J. Ronald Lawson, Priv. Citz.,GA Citrus Co., FL John R. Hughes, Priv. Citz., MS Orleans Audubon Society Library, University of West Florida National Audubon Society Sierra Club, New Orleans Group Sierra Club, Slidell, LA Sierra Club, Baton Rouge Group Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Group Sierra Club, Tuscaloosa, AL

In addition, coordination meetings were held with representatives of the Sierra Club (Tuscaloosa, AL) and an individual, Mr. Robert R. Reid, Jr., in the Mobile District Office. The proposed project was discussed and copies of the draft EIS were provided. No formal comments have been received from any private citizens or citizen groups.

APPENDIX A

ECONOMIC DATA

EXTRACTED FROM U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM LUXAPALILA CREEK LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND LAMAR COUNTY, ALABAMA

COMPLETE DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE AT U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, MOBILE, ALABAMA

Summaries of project cost, itemized annual benefits, average annual charges and the benefit-to-cost ratio are included in the following:

* Summary of Project First Costs First Cost Federal Construction $ 8,271,000 Engineering and design 661,200 Supervision and administration 521,000 Total construction cost 9,453,200 Less non-Federal cash contribution 48,200 Total Federal first c o s t 9,405,000

Non-Federal Lands, relocations, damages, etc. 1,385,000 Legal, engineering, and inspection 133,800 Cash contribution 48,200 Total non-Federal first cost 1,587,000

Total Project First Cost $ 10,992,000

* Summary of Annual Costs and Benefits Luxapalila Creek Flood Control Project

Annual Charges Interest @ 3.0 percent $ 330,000 Amortization @ 0.887 percent 97,000 Maintenance 5.1 percent 54.000 Total 481,000 Annual Benefits Damages prevented 498,000 Land enhancement (change in land use) - 20 2,000 Area redevelopment 87.000 Total 787,000 B/C Ratio Without area redevelopment 1.5 With area redevelopment 1 .6

* August 1968 figures updated in the design memorandum have been updated to July 1974. These figures represent the most recent official update (July 1973) of cost estimates contained in the Tombigbee River and Tributaries General Design Memorandum No. 2 for Luxapalila Creek prepared in August 1968. The Project Description section of this environmental statement also reflects these figures.

The expected loss of 3,500 man-days per year of fishing, a reduction in the present capacity for 350 man-days of waterfowl hunting and 6,500 man-days of small game hunting per year, and a reduction in fur harvest valued at $500 (in 1967) at the trapper level were not included in the computation of the benefits-to-cost ratio. However, fish and wildlife mitigation measures were included as project design features following an economic justification. Although monetary values for fish and wildlife losses were not included directly in the B/C computations, increased project costs to mitigate for these losses influence the B/C ratio. The probable decline in the size and weight of game fish (per surface acre), together with a reduction in the average carrying capacity of fish (per surface acre) were also excluded from the economic computation of losses. The loss of stream bank wildlife habitat is also not included. In order to offset a portion of the expected fish and wildlife losses associated with channel alteration, approximately 4.0 miles of Luxapalila Creek in the project area would be left in a natural state in three separate seg­ ments by provision of floodways. However, it is recognized that these floodways do not compensate for losses incurred by implementation of the project; rather, they serve only as mitigation measures. The expected benefits to be derived from the floodways were not included in the compu­ tation of the benefit-to-cost ratio. APPENDIX B List of Fishes Reported to Occur in the Upper Topibigbee River System by Dr. Herbert T. Boschung of the University of Alabama ______(Supplemented by Other Sources as Noted)______

1/

Fishes Found in the Upper Tombigbee River System -ap . :.. . 1 CO

k M 3 CD

eerC

xubeNo £ •H iJ

om igbee 4-» ’M rt u a Scientific Name Common Name ahctih lila T b S piejs River B tt- River River T bieeb O h u River River PETROMYZONIDAE Lamprey Family 2/ Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey—

Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern brook lamprey x - X

Lampetra aepyptera Least brook lamprey X X X

ACIPENSERIDAE Sturgeon Family 4/ Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose sturgeon— X

POLYODONTIDAE Paddlefish Family Polyodon spathula Paddlefish

LEPISOSTEIDAE Gar Family Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar X

Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar X X X X 0/ Lepisosteus spatula Alligator gar— X

AMIIDAE Bowfin Family

Amia calva Bowfin X X

ANGUILLIDAE Freshwater Eel Family

Anguilla rostrata American eel X X X

CLUPEIDAE Herring Family

Alosa alabamae Alabama shad — ^ X Alosa chrvsochloris Skipjack herring X J/*5 / Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad X X " * X Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad X x l / eebgi Fishes Found in the Upper Tombigbee River Svstem 1

-apaxuL 1 e eeb ­ - i ye r keerC a u r h r r eebbTi es r b e t e c b e s e u e m v t v t i h p v ri x v Scientific Name Common Name o i i a i i t r o i T R lila Bu R h S R O N R River T ta HIODONTIDAE Mooneye Family Hiodon tergisus 3/ Mooneye X x — X

ESOCIDAE Pike Family

Esox americanus Redfin pickerel X X X X X X X Esox niger Chain pickerel X X X X X CYPRINIDAE Minnow and Carp Family Campostoma anomalum Stoneroller X X X X X Cyprinus carpio Carp X X Ericymba buccata Silver jaw minnow X X X Hybognathus hayi Cypress minnow X x ^ X Hybognathus nuchalis Silvery minnow X X X X X X Hybopsis aestivalis Speckled chub X xl/ Hybopsis amblops Bigeye chub X X X x Hybopsis storeriana Silver chub X X Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead chub X X X X X Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner X X X X X x X Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner X X Notropis bailevi Rough shiner X X X X X X Notropis bellus Pretty shiner X X X X X X X Notropis callistius Alabama shiner X X Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor shined^ eebgi 1/ Fishes Found in the Upper Tombigbee River System -ap e eeb i - ye ee 1 CO r k r h a r r

r 3

e

N R O H -U CYPRINIDAE (Cont'd)

Notropis chrysocephalus Striped shiner X X X X X X Notropis edwardraneyi Pluvial shiner X

Notropis emiliae Pugnose minnow X X X X X X X Notropis maculatus Taillight shiner X X Notropis shumardi Silverband shiner X

Notropis stilbius Silverstripe shiner X X X X X Notropis texanus Weed shiner X X X X X X Notropis venustus Blacktail shiner X X X X X X X

Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner X X X X X X Notropis welaka Bluenose shiner X

Notropis sp. Shiner X X X X X X X

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow X X X X X X X

Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow X x X X X X X

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub X X X X X X X

CATOSTOMIDAE Sucker Family

Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback carpsucker X

Carpiodes velifer Highfin carpsucker X X A-/ Cycleptus elongatus Blue sucker —

Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker X X X X X X X Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker x X X X

Erimvzon tenuis Sharpfin chubsucker X X X

Hypentelium etowanum Alabama hog sucker X X X X X X 2 / Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker- 3/ Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo X x —

Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker X X X X Hoxostoma carinatum River redhorse X Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse X x ^ Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail redhorse X X X X X X

ICTALURIDAE Freshwater Catfish Family

Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish X x ^ Ictalurus melas Black bullhead X x ^ X X X X

Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead X X X ■ X X X Ictalurus nebulosus Brown bullhead^ Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish X X X X X X Noturus funebris Black madtom X X X X X

Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom X X X X X X X Noturus leptacanthus Speckled madtom X X X X X X Noturus munitus Frecklebelly madtom X X Noturus noctumus Freckled madtom X x ^ X X X Plvodictis olivaris Flathead catfish X xl/ , X X eebgi 1/ eeb e Fishes Found in the Upper TombiRbee River System -ap • m ee ye i - r

r M 3 U r r k h r a e u b e e e a s e c b t e t I

v £ x v b v v l p e t m xa t v i o i

i u w id i i i rC a o Common Name i

Scientific Name R O H U N T R li R R S Lu h Bu T R

APHREDODERIDAE Pirate Perch Familyr Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch X X X X X

BELONIDAE Needlefish Family Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish X

CYPRINODONTIDAE Killifish Family 3/ Fundulus notatus Blackstripe topminnow X x — X X X O / Fundulus notti Starhead topminnow X — X X Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted topminnow x X X X X X

POECILIIDAE Live bearer Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish X X X X X X X

ATHERINIDAE Silverside Family Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside X X X X

PERCICHTHYIDAE Bass Family 6/ Morone saxatilis Striped bass— X

CENTRARCHIDAE Sunfish Family Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass X X x X X X Centrarchus macropterus Flier X X X Elassoma zonatum Banded pigmy sunfish X X X X X Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish X X X X X X X X X Lepomis r u Io s u s Warmouth X X X eebgi -ap

e

Fishes Found in the Upper Tombigbee River System eeb

ih ye ee r k u- es r a- r r r b e er eerC axuL e e c s b e u e m v ib ri tt v v t p b v x v o i thO i i a i i i o Scientific Name Common Name i T R lila Tr ta ‘ Bu R S R h T R N R CENTRARCHIDAE (Cont'd) Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish X x X X Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill X X X X X X X Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish X X X X X X X Lepomis microlophus Readear sunfish X x ^ X X X X Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunfish X X X X X Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass X X X X X Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass X X X X X X X 3/ Pomoxis annularis White crappie x — X 3/ Fomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie X x — X X X

PERCIDAE Perch Family

Z l / Ammocrypta asprella Crystal darter — X X Ammocrypta beani Naked sand darter X X X X X Ammocrypta sp. Darter X X X X X X X Etheostoma chlorosomum Bluntnose darter X X X X X 2/ Etheostoma gracile Slough darter- Etheostoma histrio Harlequin darter X X X X Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter X X X X X X X Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe darter X X X X Etheostoma proeliare Cypress darter X X X X X X X Etheostoma rupestre Rock darter X X X X X X Etheostoma stigmaeum Speckled darter X X X X X X o » 1------ 1 / Fishes Found in the Upper Tombigbee River System x • 0* to 1 (0 •H U ; k « a u 0) u a> u x> u

paxuL 3

X 0 ) eerC 4 -i u a ) CO Q) J D 4 ) s a> 0 ) 3 T l £ 14 O 3 10 - H Scientific Name Common Name •H O * j m at H PS lila CQ JS PS c n pc H p c 2 5 PS O H j j

PERCIDAE (Cont'd)

Etheostoma swaini Gulf darter X X X X X X

Etheostoma whipplei Redfin darter X X X X X X

Etheostoma zoniferum Blackwater darter X X X

Etheostoma (Ulocentra) sp. Darter X X X X X Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp darter

Percina caprodes Logperch X X X X Percina lenticula Freckled darter^ X

Percina maculata Blackside darter X X X X X X X

Percina nigrofasciata Blackbanded darter X X X X X X

Percina sciera Dusky darter X X X X X X

Percina shumardi River darter X X

Percina uranidea Stargazing darter X X X X

Stizostedion vitreum Walleye x ^

SCIAENIDAE Drum Family

Aplodinotua grunniens Freshwater drum X X V O O c

TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 95 n 65 70 30 60 i 0 | t - 0

Habitat Preference, Abundance, and Distribution of Fishes Reported from the Upper Tombigbee River Basin. The Probable Adverse Impacts Upon the Fishes of the Proposed Flood Control Project are also Indicated Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/

Lamprey Family Chestnut lamprey !/ Both large rivers & jMississippi, Pearl Rare, doubtful Central U.S Moderate small streams with clearj& Tombigbee Rivers occurrence water & gravel bottom. Southern brook Widely scattered in Uncommon Northern Gulf Moderate

lamprey 2 ! Mississippi Coast to Ok­ lahoma Least brook lamprey!/ Gulf coastal streams Mobile Bay drain­ Common South Central Moderate age and State U.S. coastal streams

Sturgeon Family

Shovelnose sturgeon!/ Large rivers Depleted in Miss. Rare or no longer Miss. Valley Minimal Valley exists in basin south to northern H e x as & Alabama

Paddlefish Family Paddlefish !/ Large streams & lakes, jStatewide in all Common Gulf Coast up Moderate ' spawns over gravel bars major rivers Miss. Valley i Gar Family 1 Spotted gar .Most frequently found Statewide Uncommon Northern Gulf Minimal ;in weedy bayous. Coast to Great Lakes i Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected

Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/

Gar Family (cont'd)

Longnose gar Quiet water of large Statewide Abundant Eastern U.S., None rivers with logs and except New debris England States Alligator gar Estuarine areas Gulf coastal streams Rare or no longer East, Central None & Mississippi Basin exists in basin & Southern U.S. Bowfin Family

Bowfin Lakes, swamps, slug­ Statewide Uncommon Eastern U.S. Severe gish streams in weedy places Freshwater Eel Family

American eel Streams & lakes with Statewide Uncommon Central and Moderate connections to the sea Eastern U.S, in which they spawn Herring Family 3/ Alabama shad — Deep, swift rivers Tombigbee Basin Rare in Tombig­ Black Warrior Moderate bee River R., Alabama & Escambia R., Fla. Skipjack herring 2/ Swift, large streams Statewide Common Northern Gulf Moderate Coast and Mis­ sissippi Valley Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State .1/ United States 2 /

Herring Family (cont'd) 3 / ’ Gizzard shad — Larger streams and im­ Statewide Abundant Eastern U.S. Moderate poundments except New England States Threadfin shad — ^ Shallow areas of lakes Statewide Common Northern Gulf Moderate or pools Coast & Mis- sippi Valley Mooneye Family Mooneye — Larger parts of river Upper Tombigbee R. Common Central U.S. Moderate Basin To Tombigbee River Pike Family Redfin pickerel Prefers small streams Statewide Common Eastern U.S. Severe Chain pickerel Prefers large streams Statewide Common U.S. east of Severe Appalachian Mts. & lower Miss. Valley Minnow and Carp Family Stoneroller Clear, rocky or sandy Upper Tombigbee Abundant U.S. east of Severe streams with riffles Basin Rocky Mts. Carp Large streams and lakes Statewide Common U.S. Minimal Silver jaw minnow Sandy streams with Above Fall Line Common South, Cen­ Minimal swift to moderate cur­ tral U.S. rent 1 Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 21

Minnow and Carp Family (cont'd)

Cypress minnow Large tributaries with Statewide Common South,Central Minimal still or slow waters U.S. over muddy bottoms

Silvery minnow Large tributaries with Statewide Abundant U.S.east of None still or slow waters Rocky Mts. over muddy bottoms

Speckled chub Riffle areas of main Pascagoula and Common Northern Gulf Minimal rivers and larger trib­ Tombigbee Basins coast and Mis­ utaries over clean sissippi R. gravel

Bigeye chub Clear, sand and gravel, Statewide Abundant Central U.S. None main streams to Gulf States Silver chub Clean gravel streams Common Between Rocky Minimal of moderate current and.Appalach­ ian Mts. to Alabama, Pas­ cagoula and Pearl Rivers Bluehead chub Clear, warm streams of Abundant Mobile Bay Minimal intermediate gradients, drainage west­ with rubble and no ward to cer­ plants tain eastern tributaries of Miss. R. » Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2 /

Minnow and Carp Family ( Golden shiner Lakes and sluggish Statewide Abundant East of None

streams with aquatic Rockies to • plants the Gulf States Emerald shiner Lacustrine environ­ Statewide Common Great Lakes Minimal ment thru Miss. Valley to Ala Gulf coast Rough shiner Small wooded streams Tombigbee and Abundant Pascagoula R. Severe with gravel bottoms Pascagoula drain­ & Mobile Bay ages drainages Pretty shiner Still or running water Upper Tombigbee Abundant Gulf coast None portions of small basin streams of streams Ala. & Miss. Alabama shiner Upper Tombigbee basin Uncommon Tombigbee & None Alabama R. drainages Ironcolor shiner Coastal streams Coastal streams of Doubtful occur­ Coastal low­ None State rence in Tom­ lands of New bigbee basin Jersey to Texas and up lowlands of Miss. Valley Striped shiner Small to medium-sized Abundant U.S. east Severe clear streams, weedless of Rocky and with moderate to Mts. swift current in riffles Abundance in i Fishes Found in the Region: Expected i Upper Tombigbee River ! Upper Tombigbee i Adverse System 1 Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) \ Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Minnow and Carp Family ( Large rivers Abundant None Pugnose minnow Slow to still waters Statewide Abundant SE U.S. up Miss None Valley to Great Lakes Taillight shiner Swamps, lakes, streams Statewide Uncommon Lower Miss Uncertain and backwaters of Valley to SE streams Atlantic coast 6c N. Gulf states Silverband shiner Large silty rivers Uncommon W-Central U.S. None to Tombigbee 6c Alabama Rivers Silverstripe shiner Tombigbee R.basin Common Tombigbee basin Uncertain Weed shiner Fall Line Hills Abundant N. Gulf states Minimal of Tombigbee basin up the Miss. Valley Blacktail shiner Deep water of larger Statewide Abundant N.Gulf states None creeks and rivers up the Miss. Valley Mimic shiner Large streams with clean Statewide Common E. U.S. and None rock & gravel bottoms Miss, basin Bluenose shiner Cool weedy streams with Coastal streams of Rare St.Johns R., None humic waters state FL, to Pearl R. in Miss. Undescribed shiner Abundant None (Notroois sp.) Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Minnow and Carp Family (:ont'd) 3 / Bluntnose minnow — Lakes and streams Statewide Abundant N.Gulf States None W. of Appalach­ ian Mts. to the Great Lakes Bullhead minnow Mainly in large rivers Statewide Abundant N.Gulf States None in pools or backwater up the Miss. with sand or silted Valley bottoms Creek chub Small, clear streams Statewide Abundant Eastern,central Minimal with sand & pebble & southwestern bottoms & permanent U.S. flow Sucker Family 3 / Quillback carpsuckeir- Statewide Common Eastern U.S. Moderate 3 / High fin carpsucker*4- Clear rivers and lakes Statewide Abundant. N.Gulf States Moderate up Miss. Valley Blue sucker^ Large streams and Statewide Rare or no Pearl 6c Miss. Moderate artificial Impoundments longer exists Rivers to the in basin Rio Grande R. Creek chubsucker^ Prefers small streams Statewide Common Eastern U.S. Moderate of moderate to high gradient with gravel bottom Abundance in Fishes Found in the . Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River ! Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Sucker Family (cont'd) 3 / Lake chubsucker— Low gradient streams Throughout lowland Common E. U.S. except Moderate and oxbow lakes areas of State New England Sts 3 / Sharpfin chubsucker— Streams along swamps E. and S. parts of Common Northern Gulf Moderate State States 3 / Alabama hog sucker- Clear water Statewide Common Mobile Bay Moderate drainage 3 / Northern hog sucker^- Deep riffles of small to Restricted to Doubtful oc­ Eastern U.S. None moderate,clear streams Tenn. drainage currence with rocky bottoms o / Smallmouth buffalo^ Prefers clear Statewide Common N.Gulf States Moderate water of large streams up Miss. and lakes Valley Spotted sucker^ Smaller streams and E. and S. parts Conuion E. U.S. except Moderate rivers of State for N.Atlantic States River redhorse^ Clear, large rivers Common N.Gulf States Moderate up Miss. Valley Golden redhorse— ^ Pools in streams with Tombigbee, Pearl & Common N.Gulf States Moderate moderate to high Mississippi Basins to Great Lakes gradient Blacktail redhorse^ Streams which Common N.Gulf States Moderate enter Gulf of Mexico Freshwater Catfish Family Blue catfish Deep waters of large Statewide Common South,Central Minimal streams U.S. • 1 Abundance in Fishes Found in the j Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River \ Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) 1 Status or State 1 / United States 2 / Freshwater Catfish Family r (cont'd) Black bullhead Low gradient, warm, & Statewide Common Scattered turbid streams throughout U.S. Minimal Yellow bullhead Ponds and still por­ Statewide Common Scattered tions of lakes with throughout U.S. Moderate aquatic plants Brown bullhead Cool, clear water of Doubtful oc­ Scattered large lakes currence throughout U.S. None Channel catfish Large streams and Statewide Abundant U.S. Minimal natural lakes Black madtom Springs and small,clear Tombigbee Basin, Common N.Gulf States Minimal creeks of moderate cur­ Fall Line Hills rent with debris and and Pearl River aquatic plants Tadpole madtom Low gradient lakes and Statewide Abundant U.S. E. of Moderate sluggish streams with Rocky Mts. muddy bottoms .aquatic plants and debris Speckled madtom Sandy, clay, gravel & All State drain­ Common SE U.S. Severe rocky streams around age except the coastal states riffles with debris Tennessee R. Frecklebelly madtom Gravel shoals, moder­ Common Pearl, Tombig­ None ate to swift current bee & Cahaba Rivers Freckled madtom Sandy or gravel streams Tombigbee, Pascagou­ Common Miss.Valley to Moderate with swift current and la & Hiss. Basins N. Gulf States weeds Flathead catfish Large streams and Statewide Common Miss.Valley to Moderate overflow areas 1.N. Gulf States — Abundance in Fishes Found in the J Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River l Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Pirate Perch Family Pirate Perch Muddy lakes, pools, and Statewide Common Central and E. Severe sluggish streams with U.S. except New debris England States Needlefish Family Atlantic needlefish Marine and estuarine Coastal areas of Rare Atlantic & Gulf None environment State coasts, ascend­ ing rivers Killifish Family Blackstripe topminnow Quiet waters Statewide Abundant N.Gulf States Minimal up Miss.Valley Starhead topminnow Lakes overflow waters Statewide except for Uncommon Atlantic & Minimal and clear, weedy Tennessee River Gulf coastal pools adjacent to plains up Miss. small streams Valley Blackspotted topminnow Shallow areas of lakes Statewide Abundant N.Gulf State; None and streams up Miss.Valley Live Bearer Family Mosquitofish Still waters of lakes Statewide Abundant Scattered None and streams with throughout U.S. aquatic plants Silverside Family Brook silverside Sluggish streams and Statewide Common Gulf coast up Minimal lakes and occasionally Miss, to Great in clear, swift streams Lakes with clean sand bottoms i | Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Bass Family 3 / Striped bass— Gulf and coastal areas. Gulf coastal streams Rare, probably Atlantic, None Migrate up coastal in Demopolis Pacific & Gulf streams in spring to pool coasts of U.S. spawn Sunfish Family

Rock bass Deep,cool,spring-fed Statewide Common Central & E. Severe streams with coarse U.S. or rock bottoms with holes and debris Flier Swamps and lowland Statewide except for Uncommon Central & S.E. Minimal streams Tennessee drainage U.S. Banded pigmy sunfish Old creek beds, small Statewide except for Common Lowlands of Cen­ Severe muddy lake bottoms, Tennessee drainage tral & SE U.S. old ponds, borrow pits, and sluggish streams with plant debris Green sunfish Borrow pits, bayous, Statewide Abundant Scattered None and small lakes throughout U.S. except for W. coast & New England States Warmouth Sluggish lowland Statewide Common Central & E. Moderate streams and shallow U.S. except for mud bottom lakes New England and ponds States Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Sunfish Family (cont'd) Orangespotted sunfish Borrow pits, ponds and Statewide Common N.Gulf states None lakes up Miss. Valley 6. central u . S . Bluegill Ponds, lakes and quiet Statewide Abundant Scattered None streams throughout U.S. Longear sunfish Prefers clear streams, Statewide Abundant Central SE U.S. None around gravel bars, also found in lakes Redear sunfish Clear, still waters Statewide Common N.Gulf States Moderate with some vegetation up Mississippi and brush Spotted sunfish Lakes, bayous, sloughs, Statewide except Common Miss. Valley Minimal and swampy areas for Tenn drainage and S.E. U.S. Spotted bass Cool, clear streams Statewide Common Gulf states up Severe with hard or gravel Miss. Valley bottoms Largemouth bass Lakes and slow current Statewide Abundant Widely scat­ Moderate areas of streams tered through­ out U.S. White crappie Ponds, lakes, bayous, Statewide Common SE U.S. up Miss Moderate small rivers and creeks Valley to Great Lakes Black crappie Ponds, lakes, bayous, Statewide Common U.S. E. of the Moderate small rivers and creeks Rocky Mts. Abundance in | Fishes Found in the Region _ Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2/ Perch Family Crystal darter Large sandy creeks and Tombigbee basin Common Moderate rivers in strong cur­ rent flowing over sand or gravel bottom Naked sand darter Slow, shallow streams Coastal streams of Common Coastal streams Minimal with clean, shifting State of N. Gulf sand bottoms states Undescribed darter Running streams with Undetermined Common Undetermined Minimal (Ammocrypta sp.) clean sand bottoms Bluntnose darter Quiet waters, oxbow Statewide except for Common N. Gulf states Minimal lakes, and backwater Tennessee drainage up Miss.Valley pools of lowland streams Slough darter Lowland streams, ponds Upper Tombigbee and Doubtful oc­ Miss. Valley None or sloughs Big Black Rivers currence to N. Gulf States Harlequin darter Behind logs in strong Tombigbee basin Common Discontinuous Moderate currents distribution from N.Gulf states, up lower Miss. Valley Johnny darter Smaller tributaries Major drainages of Abundant Central and None State E. U.S. Goldstripe darter Small creeks and Common SE U.S. to Minimal roadside ditches lower Miss. Valley t Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 21 Perch Family (cont'd)

Cypress darter Swampy areas Miss., Pearl, and Abundant N.Gulf states Severe Tombigbee Rivers up lower Miss. Valley Rock darter Riffles Tombigbee basin Abundant Endemic to Mo­ Severe bile Bay drainage Speckled darter Large, clear streams Major drainages of Abundant N.Gulf states Moderate with moderate to steep State up Miss.Valley gradient in pools below riffle areas Gulf darter Slow current with vege­ Statewide except Abundant Coastal streams Minimal tation for Tennessee of N.Gulf States drainage Redfin darter Riffles in streams with Major drainages Abundant N.Gulf States Severe moderate gradient with of State up lower Miss. sand and gravel bottom Valley Blackwater darter Swamp areas Tombigbee River Uncommon Alabama and Moderate Tombigbee Rivers Undescribed darter Smaller streams with Undetermined Abundant Undetermined Severe (Etheostoma sp.) debris Logperch Large tributaries in Statewide Common Central U.S. Moderate deep riffles and pools to N.Gulf with gravel and rubble States bottoms and impound­ ments Freckled darter Deep, swift water Eastern portion of Rare or no Cahaba R.,Ala. None State longer ex­ & Etowah R., ists in basin jGa. Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1 / United States 2/ Perch Family (cont'd)

Blackside darter Moderate sized streams Statewide except for Comnon Central U S. Moderate with moderate gradient, small coastal 1 to Alabama in pools with current streams and sluggish portions of riffles Blackbanded darter Clear streams with hard Statewide except for Abundant SE Atlantic & Minimal bottoms Tennessee drainage Gulf States Dusky darter Large clear creeks and Statewide except for Abundant Miss. Valley Minimal rivers with sand,gravel small coastal to Miss., La or rock bottoms streams & Texas River darter Swift current along Pearl, Miss. & Common N.Gulf States Moderate gravel bars Tombigbee drain­ up Miss.Valle; ages to Great Lake: Stargazing darter Clear streams with Statewide Common Lower Miss. Moderate hard bottoms in swift Valley to Es­ current cambia R. in Alabama Swamp darter Lowland species found Coastal drainages Uncommon Atlantic & Moderate in swamps,backwaters of State N.Gulf Coastal of streams,sloughs, & Plain streams lakes with acid brown- stained waters. Walleye — ^ Sand and gravel bottom Tennessee & Tombig­ Uncommon Great Lakes Severe streams with deep bee drainages thru Miss. holes Basin to Miss & Ala Abundance in Fishes Found in the Region: Expected Upper Tombigbee River Upper Tombigbee Adverse System Habitat and/or Seasonal Range in Region River Basin Range in Impacts (common name) Status or State 1/ United States 2 /

Drum Family Freshwater drum Rivers and lakes with Major drainages Common Miss. River Severe rocky shorelines of State system to Alabama

1/ Abundant - Well distributed throughout entire drainage Common - Distributed throughout most of drainage Uncommon - Not well distributed throughout drainage; lack of occurrence may be due to inability to sample adequately habitat preference. Rare - Number of individuals very low or no longer occurs in Upper Tombigbee River Basin.

2/ Impacts would be confined to the affected streams in the Upper Tombigbee River Basin.

3/ Travel up tributaries, to shallow areas, in order to spawn. APPENDIX D

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arner, D.H., Anding, G., Luceford, W., and Summerour, C. 1969. "An Ecological and Recreational Use Survey of the Luxapalila River." Water Resources Research Institute. Mississippi State University.

Arner, D.H. and Clemer, G.H. Undated. "The Effects of Channelization on the Fisheries and Limnology of Streams." Annual Report to the Department of the Interior for period 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974. Mississippi State University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

Auburn Agricultural Experiment Station. October 1971. Alabama * s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Vol. II. Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for Alabama. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 175 pp.

Bayless, J. and Smith, W. B. 1965. "The Effects of Channelization Upon the Fish Populations of Lotic Waters in Eastern North Carolina." North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries. 8 pp.

Boschung, H. T., Jr. 30 June 1973. A Report on the Fishes of the Upper Tombigbee River. Yellow and Indian Creek Systems of Alabama. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Contract No. DACW01-72-C-0009. 114 pp.

Burnside, K. R. 1967. The Effects of Channelization Upon Fish Popu­ lations in Bouef River. Master's Thesis, Northeast Louisiana State College. 27 pp.

Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 752 pp.

Cook, F. A. 1959. Freshwater Fishes in Mississippi. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission. Jackson, Mississippi. 239 pp.

Golden Triangle Planning and Development District. April 1973. "GTPDD Open Space and Recreation Plan." Mississippi State University.

Golden Triangle Planning and Development District. April 1973. "Preliminary District-wide Land Use Plan GTPDD." Mississippi State University. Golden Triangle Planning and Development District. April 1973. "Water and Sewerage Study for the GTPDD." Mississippi State University.

Hall, E. R. 1967. Handbook of Fishes of Kansas. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas. 357 pp.

Hansen, D. R. and Muncy, R. J. 1971. "Effects of Stream Channelization on Fishes and Bottom Fauna in the Little Sioux River, Iowa." Iowa State Water Resources Research Institute. 119 pp.

Jenkins, R. E. 1970. Systematic Studies of the Catostomid Fish Tribe Moxostomatini.Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University. 799 pp.

Lachner, E. A. and Jenkins, R. E. 1971. "Systematics, Distribution, and Evolution of the Chub Genus Nocomis • Girard (Pisces, Cyprinidae) of Eastern United States, With Description of New Species." Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. Number 85. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 97 pp.

Letter Report on Fish and Wildlife. 6 September 1967. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia.

Mississippi Game and Fish Commission. 1970. "Completion Report 1968— 1969 Pollution Studies on Tombigbee River in Mississippi." Jackson, Mississippi. 17 pp.

Mississippi Game and Fish Commission. Completed in 1971. "Survey of the Walleye Population and Related Parameters in the Tombigbee River System in Mississippi, Final Report, Project F-23 Mississippi." Contains four Reports. Jackson, Mississippi.

Mississippi State University. 1973. An Ecological Study of the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Contract No. DACW01-72-C-0048, 132 pp. plus maps.

Rich, K. 1969. "Channelization Severely Altering Fish Populations." Mississippi Game and Fish 32(2):12-14.

Smith-Vaniz, W. F. 1968. Freshwater Fishes of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station. Auburn, Alabama. 211 pp.

Tarplee, Jr., W. H., Louder, D. E., and Weber, A. J. 1971. "Evaluation of the Effects of Channelization on Fish Populations in North Carolina's Coastal Plain Streams." North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries. 13 pp. Taylor, W. R. A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Raflnesque With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae. Bulletin 282. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 315 pp.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. October 1970. "Special Flood Plain Information Study, Luxapalila Creek, Tombigbee River and Tribu­ taries, Mississippi and Alabama." Prepared for Lowndes County and Columbus by Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. July 1972. "Population by County: Historic to 1940 - 1970 and Projections - 1980 to 2020, Region IV. South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, Georgia. 5 pp.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. June 1970. Alabama Conservation Needs Inventory. Soil Conservation Service. 119 pp.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. June 1970. Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory for Mississippi. Soil Conservation Service. 84 pp.

U. S. Department of Commerce. February 1972. 1970 Census of Population. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Mississippi. Bureau of the Census.

U. S. Department of Commerce. March 1972. 1970 Census of Population. G p n e r a l Social and Economic Characteristics,. Alabama. Bureau of the Census.

U. S. Department of the Interior. 1971. "Wetlands of the United States," Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39.

West Alabama Planning and Development Council. June 1973. "Lamar County, Land Use Survey and Analysis, Land Use Plan, Housing, Water and Sewer, Open Space." Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 247 pp. APPENDIX E

LETTERS OF COMMENT ON

DRAFT STATEMENT United States Department of the Interior

O F F I C E O F T H E S E C R E T A R Y

Southeast Region / 148 Cain St., N £. / Atlanta, Ca. 30303

SEP S C74

District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Sir:

As requested in your June 18, 1974, letter to the Assistant Secretary, Program Development and Budget, we have reviewed the draft environ­ mental statement for the proposed Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Luxapalila Creek Segment project for its effects on national park areas and historic sites, outdoor recreation, hydrology, geology, mineral, and fish and wildlife resources.

We offer the following comments for your consideration:

The statement provides a very good description of the work proposed for 22 Tombigbee River tributary stream segments making up the Tombigbee River and Tributaries Authorized Project, Alabama and Mississippi. The impact set forth for the Luxapalila Creek segment, subject stream, is in general agreement with that provided in the Fish and Wildlife report for the project. However, although the fish and wildlife losses associated with any one segment of the project seem minor, the total project will result in the alteration of about 490 miles of streams supporting significant fisheries and 15,000 acres of associated high value wildlife habitat, including 12,860 acres of bottomland hardwoods. The end result will be a severe reduction in the capacity of involved areas in Alabama and Mississippi to support adequate stream fisheries and forest dependent wildlife species.

Since the Authorized Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway will produce similar habitat changes along the main river, the effects of work . on any associated tributary streams along the route takes on greater significance. The conversion of 70,000 acres of land to water and 140 miles of river and 170 miles of tributary streams to slack water conditions will leave only the tributaries available as undisturbed areas. Some of these streams should be maintained in a free flowing undisturbed condition as spawning and nursery areas for fish. It is likely that bottomlands associated with undeveloped streams will then remain available for forest dependent wildlife species such as deer, turkey, furbearers and non-game species. Therefore, we believe that the statement should be expanded to address the cumulative effects of the projects.

The State Game and Fish Agencies of Alabama and Mississippi and the Fish 'and Wildlife Service have expressed concern for the future welfare of resources involved in Tombigbee Basin projects because of the cumula­ tive effects of such projects on the environment. The Water Resources Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-251, approved March 7, 1974, provides for reevaluation of projects based on prevailing conditions and any changes that have occurred since the preauthorized survey study. This should provide an adequate opportunity for updating data for project streams affected and offer the best plan for total resource planning for the upper basin. We suggest that the statement be expanded to address these points.

The following comments refer to specific sections of the statement:

Project Description

Page 11, paragraph 1.19 - Second full sentence from top of page

Clearing limits should be restricted to a definite width. This would prevent "over" clearing as occurred along the completed 2.1 miles of excavation.

Page 11, paragraph 1.19 - Third full sentence from top of page

Trees to be left should be marked prior to clearing for benefit of contractor. The contractor apparently was confused on this item during the construction of the lower 2.1 mile segment.

Page 12, paragraph 1.21

The tabulation of work required by the entire project indicates "clearing and snagging — none." It might be advisable to omit this statement in view of the fact that a considerable part of the proposed work would consist of clearing and snagging (Summary, paragraph #2).

Environmental Setting Without the Project

Page 22, paragraph 2.04 - Last sentence

The "1,246 c.f.s." should be qualified as to time period. Page 25, paragraph 2.09 and Page 59, paragraph 2.71

No information has been found in the draft environmental statement on the character or physical properties of the alluvial and terrace deposits, ranging from Pliocene to Holocene age, that underlie the flood plains and in which the artificial channel would be excavated. Considering the large amount of excavation that is proposed, possibly in excess of seven million cubic yards, information should be provided on any significant variations in materials to be excavatedalong the 24 miles of the project that are still to be completed. Assurances should be provided that the character of the sediment has been con­ sidered in the design of channel cross sections (for example as shown on Plate 2).

Page 27, paragraph 2.13

It is stated that while no sites included in the National Register of Historic Places are located in the construction areas "there is a possibility that a few archeological sites may occur within these creas." On page 78 (4.14) it is stated "no significant sites are known to exist in the areas which will be affected by the...project."

In the absence of documentation indicating the presence or absence of cultural sites, a direct examination of the area by professional archeologists or historians trained to recognize and evaluate such sites should be performed. The environmental statement should specifically state what steps were taken to examine the area in question for unknown archeological or cultural values. If sites are found, they should be assessed in the statement.

Please refer to the document, "Guidelines for Discussion of Cultural (Historic, Archeological, Architectural) Resources," which accompanied the National Park Service's April 16 reply to your request for techni­ cal assistance on the project of deepening and widening the Gulfport Harbor channel.

Page 33, paragraph 2.21 - Third full sentence from top of page

Dancing Rabbit Wildlife Management Area has been discontinued.

Page 33, paragraph 2.21 - Fifth full sentence from top of page

Change "waterfowl" to "wood duck."

Page 34, paragraph 2.22

This paragraph should include the fact that the Lamarion Game Management Area has been established in Marion and Lamar Counties by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Page 41, paragraph 2.38 - Second full sentence from top of page

According to local conservation officers and as reported in fish and wildlife studies for the Alicevllle Lock and Dam unit, paddlefish are harvested in the upper Tombigbee river in the reach north of Columbus to the mouth of the Buttahatchie River by commercial fishermen.

Page 44. paragraph 2.46 - Last sentence from bottom of page

This sentence has little value in the statement .unless some streams are left in an undeveloped condition. All basin project proposals will involve the significant streams in the system if they are constructed.

Page 45, paragraph 2.48 - Last sentence in paragraph

This addition should be made; "However, the 70,000 acres involved in the project will result in clearing of much of this habitat. Clearing by the private sector following project installation will add to this loss. Outside of the Tombigbee River and Tributaries flood plains, Northeast Mississippi is lacking in bottomland hardwood wildlife habitat."

Page 50, paragraph 2.58 - Last sentence on this page and following sentence

These sentences should be deleted or qualified. Extensive cleared banks were observed at Walkers bridge following the work.

Page 54, paragraph 2.61 - Second sentence

The Tuscaloosa RC&D project is located in Lamar, Fayette, Pickens, Tusca­ loosa, Bibb, Sumter, Greene, and Hale counties.

Page 58, Table 8

We find that the discharge figures from February 1965 through January 1969* are 20 percent lower than values obtained by the U.S. Geological Survey. It may be that the accuracy of all the values is no better than 2C percent. Page 58, paragraph 2.69

It is highly unlikely that any water is transferred from the stream to the aquifers at low flow. Low flow of streams is maintained by ground- water discharge.

The Probable Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

Page 77, paragraph 4.11 - Last sentence in this section

Channel maintenance is a requirement of local interest in such projects. Consequently, this discussion seems to have little value. Page 80, paragraph 4.20 This paragraph is not complete.

Page 81, paragraph 4.21

There appears to be a large discrepancy in the amount of excavation that is required. It is stated on page 81 that "Approximately 7,100,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and deposited intermittently as spoil mounds along both banks." However, it had not been stated on page 12 that the amount of excavated material would be 2,856,200 cubic yards, or only about one-third as much.

Page 82, paragraph 4.26 - First sentence

This sentence should indicate what degree of the flood protection will be provided.

Page 84, paragraph 4.29

The second sentence fails to cover flood situation. Raising the Tombigbee River level with the Aliceville pool and providing faster flood water delivery on Luxapalila Creek to this artificial barrier will increase flood stages in and around Columbus during basin floods.

Page 85, paragraph 4.30

The last sentence is misleading. Recent contract studies of the Luxapalila Creek conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Department of Mississippi State University for the Fish and Wildlife Service indicate a good diversity of fish species in the unchannelized portion, including 2.1 miles to be subjected to impoundment by the Aliceville pool. Species composition over the past year showed 68 species for the unchannelized section, 43 for the old channelized section in Alabama and 50 in the recently channelized section. The recently channelized section adjoining the river contained some species in the sample that did not occur upstream, indicating invasion from the main river. Loss of the remaining natural section of the Creek through project channelization will influence the resulting Aliceville pool ecosystem.

Page 85, paragraph 4.31

The fate of the six or more miles of natural channel of Luxapalila Creek in Alabama should be discussed. This section of the creek is evidently completely separate from the artificial channel, as shown on Plate 2. In addition, the artificial channel originally constructed in that area in 1922 and later cleared and snagged in 1942, evidently tends to become clogged with sediment and further restricted in capacity by vegetation. It is not clear from information presented whether the original channel of the Luxapalila in Alabama continues to carry a significant portion of the low flows or of the flood flows of the stream, or in what condition that part of the channel will be left after completion of the proposed channelization. The problem of stagnant pools becoming breeding places for mosquitoes has been brief­ ly mentioned in relation to flooding (p. 82, section 4.25), but it might be advisable also to discuss any problems associated with stagnant pools along the abandoned sections of the stream, particularly the section of about 6 miles in Alabama. Last sentence beginning on the page. This sentence should be deleted unless local interest is expected to refuse to comply with project requirements. Page 86, paragraph 4.32 - Last sentence

Change "avoided" to "tempered." gage 87, paragraph 4.34 - Sixth sentence

This sentence should be deleted and the following one is suggested for replacement,"supervision was provided by the Corps during con­ struction work (contract) resulting in only a token number of trees remaining along the 2.1 miles of cleared right-of-way."

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Page 90, paragraph 6.05

This paragraph should be expanded to further explain the merits of flood plain zoning. Since the project provides flood protection only up to the 5-year frequency at Columbus, zoning will prevent the need for additional projects in the future to protect added developments in the flood plain.

The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

Page 92, paragraph 7.01

The degree of flood relief provided should be discussed as it relates to higher economical use of land involved.

Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Mould be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented

Page 93, paragraph 8.01 - Second sentence

Since maintenance assurance is a project requirement, reference to maintenance being abandoned should be deleted.

Plate 2

The requirement for acquisition of acreage in Alabama should be explained further. Plate 2 suggests that the proposed work in Lamar County, Alabama, consists entirely of "re-excavation of old channel." Land requirements summarized on Table 2 (p. 13) show that 107 acres is required for spoils in that area, and another 128 acres for rights-of-way. The latter requirement should be explained in view of the proposal merely to re-excavate the old channel.

Sincerely yours,

(Miss^hfne Whelan SpeciaVAssistant to the Secretary Southeast Region DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OFFICES! AREA OFFICE Atlanta, Oaorala Birmingham, Alabama DANIEL BUILDING. IS SOUTH 20TH. STREET, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 3S233 Columbia, South Carolina Oraanaboro, North Carolina Jackaon, Miaaiaalppl jackaonvilla, Florida Kaoavilla, Tannaaaaa July 16l, 1974 Loulaoilla, Kentucky M O W N I V

MOIONAL OFFICE

ATLANTA. QKOftQIA

Mr. Frank C. Deming Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628 gjj.Tombigbee River and Tributaries Alabama and Mississippi Dear Mr. Dening:

SUBJECT: Request for HUD Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

We are pleased to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced request for HUD comments under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act cf 1969 (PL 91-190).

Wa have reviewed the information submitted along with your referral and, to the extent of our available staff resources, have investigated the environ­ mental impact, adverse effects, alternatives, short-term uses of the local environmental and long-term productivity and irreversible and Irretrievable conmltment of resources which the project involves. From the information available to us, we find no basis for formal comment because of special HUD interest or expertise. However, we would call vour attention to the areas indicated on the attached "HUD Comments on Drart Environmental Impact Statement" which we feel would assist your agency in the evaluation and execution of this project.

Should further clarification of our review be deemed necessary, please con­ tact Mr. Robert Lunsford, Director, Operations Division, ffl5 South 20th Street, (Daniel Building - Sixth Floor), Birmingham, Alabama 35233 at 205-325-3697.

Sincerely,

Environmental Clearance Officer PiaiU COMMENTS ON I^RAFT . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Project l

Project Location:

Th«. following includes the general caveats and remarks which we reel should be brought to the attention of any State, local or Federal agency which has requested DHVD review of and comment on a draft Environmental SUMlenent uiulor the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 snd the CEQ Guide- lineb. We hove checked those comments which seern to be particularly applicable to the draft statement identified above; however the letter of transmittal will amplify these general comments if appropriate.

COMMENTS

Inasmuch as HUD has no direct program involvement In Historic sites or structures effected by the subject project, we defer to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with respect to Historic Preservation matters.

HUD has direct program involvement In the Historic Preservation aspects of the proposed project and appropriate comment is in­ cluded in the transmittal letter.

The subject project effects an urban park or recreational area and appropriate cotroienc is included in the transmittal letter.

The subject project effects only rural parks and recreational nrona and HUD therefore defers to the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Bureau • of Sporta Fisheries and Wildlife with respect to comments on the parks, Forests and Recreational effects thereof.

This project will probably involve n statutorily required HUD review under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966. Therefore, v* defer consent on the parks and recreational as­ pects of the project pending request by D.O.T. for such a review. This review covora the lfl*D responsibilities under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 196b.

The Draft Environmental Statement fa ils to reflect clearance or consultation with the appropriate local planning agency which Is:

The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate arcawide planning agency which U:

The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate State Clearinghouse as re­ quired by Circular A-95, Office of Management and Budget. The A-95 Clearinghouse of jurisdiction is:

The project apparently requires the displacement of businesses or rooidences. The Draft Envirounentai Statement does not re­ veal full consideration of the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). If relooation assistance is desired, please contact Mr. Bob Lunsford, Director, Operations Div., Daniel Bldg., 15 So, 20th Street, Birmingham, Ala. at 205-325-3697. In the local community the person or office most familiar with relocation resources 19:

The draft statement does not discuss apparently feasible alter­ natives which may have a more beneficial effect on the urban environment. See letter of transmittal for possibly overlooked alternatives.

In general, HUD defers to other agencies with respect to estab­ lishing and enforcing air and water quality standards, thermal pollution standards, radiation and general safety standards. We have no formal jurisdiction over such matters and no comments contained herein should be construed as assuming such responsi­ bility or jurisdiction. Sines this project raises Im s h c * involving radiation safety, vc rocorcnwnd cmvuil t at Ion wl tti: Ur. Joseph Licberman, Radiation Office, E.P.A., 5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

We recomend that you write or call the Office of Management and Budget for a copy of "Directory of State, Metropolitan and Regional Clearinghouses under B.O.B. Circular A-95," and consult with auch clearinghouses as appropriate.

m t K PREPARED BY (FIELD REPRESENTATIVE)

MTE /CONCURRED IN ^0JROGRAM MANAGER) DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT JACKSON AREA OFFICE 101-C, 3rd FLOOR, WOODROW WILSON AVE.. WEST, JACKSON MALL JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39213 R E G I O N IV Peachtree-Seventh Building 50 Seventh Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30323 July 8, 1974

Mr. Frank C. Deming, Chief Engineering Division Mobile District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

Dear Mr. Deming:

SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Statement: Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Luxapilia Creek Segment

In response to your letter of June 18, 1974, requesting our review and comment on the above project, we would like to advise you as follows:

1... In reducing the 100 year flood level by approximately 2 feet; this project will contribute toward achieving a flood plain management in the Columbus Urban Area. For this reason, we support the above project.

2. If feasible, channel improvements should provide 100 year level of protection rather than a 5 year level as is current­ ly proposed, (reference page 89). An alternative approach would be to acquire land and structures within the Columbus Urban Flood­ way and relocate or demolish such structures— with benefits of the Uniform Relocation Act provided for all eligible persons.

3. Rather than deposit dredged material in mounds, as planned, it may be worthwhile to consider transport of such materials to the Columbus Area and deposit in floodway fringe areas— in order to reduce flood hazard in those areas.

We trust that these comments will assist you in finalizing the above project. In future correspondence please note that Mr. James S. Roland is now Director of this, office.

Sincerely,

OV-A. Wells, Jr. Director of Operations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADDRESS REPLY TO: UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COMMANDER (mep) EIGHTH COAST GUARD DISTRl' T CUSTOMHOUSE N E W ORLEANS. LA. 70130

iUL 1 21974 fir. -Frank C. Deming Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Mobile District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 2288 Mobile, Alabama 36628

RE: Tombigbee River and Tributaries Luxapalila Creek Segment, Alabama and Mississippi

Dear Mr. Deming:

We have reviewed the referenced draft environmental statement as requested in your letter dated 18 June 1974 and have no comments to make.

Sincerely yours,

J V F .^MUNDY, JR. /' V •' Captain, U. S. Coast-Gdard Chief, Marine Safety Division By direction of the Commander Eighth Coast Guard District