Alabama Power Company Process Timeline for Relicensing Coosa & Warrior Projects FERC Nos. 2146, 618, 82 & 2165

From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 5:44 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Dykes, William C.; '[email protected]'; 'bhuffaker@[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Smith, Sheila C.; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Smith, Sheila C.; Tignor, Danny G.; '[email protected]'; Bryant, Keith E.; 'Mr. Jeff Duncan (E-mail)'; Crew, James F.; '[email protected]'; Sheppard, Andrew R.; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Pierson, John M.; 'Ms. Janet Hutzel (E-mail)'; 'Ms. Patti Leppert (E-mail)' Subject: Lay Recreation Issue Action Group

Don,

Please excuse the distribution on the letter emailed earlier this afternoon. Here is the identical letter with the appropriate distribution. ------Don,

Thanks for your emails of 2/11 and 2/12 (Attached for those IAG members not included in the original email). As you know, our plan in the Lay Recreation IAG will be to develop solutions to Lay recreational issues in a cooperative, methodical approach utilizing the Standard Process previously developed by the Mitchell IAG (and agreed to by the CCRT) for use on the Coosa and Warrior reservoirs.

We will be glad to incorporate your comments into the process, as they apply. For example, the shoreline fishing issue and park issue were both raised in the January 30th meeting. These were incorporated into the draft vision statement that we are scheduled to discuss in our conference call on February 19th. As we discussed in the January 30th meeting, at this stage of the process, we are developing a broad, general recreational vision for Lay. That vision will incorporate items that address current and future recreation demands for shoreline fishing, access and the like.

Specific measures for facilities or operational changes are somewhat premature, until we determine what the future recreational needs are (Step 3). As we move through the standard process, perceived public safety issues will be identified in Step 2, item number 12. Public safety items will then be discussed in the R2 issue action group, when it is formed later this year. Water quality, erosion, siltation, wetland issues have been or will be discussed in Ecological Issue Action Groups E3, E2, E2 and E12 respectively. Lake level issues will be incorporated into this Lay Recreation Group, as they apply to access to recreational facilities and the reservoir. Lake level issues, as they relate to ecological issues are currently being addressed in the E8 Issue Action Group.

Again, thanks for your input. We look forward to discussing specific comments and recommendations on the draft vision statement for recreation on the Lay reservoir with you and other IAG members next week. If there are additional issues or questions about the Standard Process, please give me a call.

Thanks.

Barry Lovett Coosa - Warrior Relicensing Southern Company Generation (205) 257-1268 (205) 257-1596 Fax (205) 902-3332 Cell [email protected]

1 Recreation. LAKE LEVEL park.doc (34 KB)CTUATIONS.ZIP (

2 Recreation – Lay Lake

• Lay Lake needs additional shoreline fishing opportunities. • Lay Lake needs selective cutting of standing timber to provide improved recreational boating. See the Map prepared by Alabama Marine Police Officer Webster. • Floating timber is a hazard to recreational boaters. • Swimming is unattractive because of the high silt content of the water. See the article about Consumers Power of Michigan. • Lay Lake needs a quality park with restrooms, boat launch, fishing and picnicking opportunities.

Alabama Power has built and maintains the following Parks;

D.A.R.E. PARK – Lake Martin Reservoir. 9:00 AM – 8:00 PM seasonal operation with contract caretakers. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY POPULATION 4/1/2000 41,475

FLAT ROCK PARK – R. L. Harris Reservoir 9:00 AM – 8:00 PM seasonal operation with contract caretakers. RANDOLPH COUNTY POPULATION 4/1/2000 22,380

TEN ISLANDS HISTORIC PARK – Neely Henry Reservoir 5:00 AM – 9:00 PM 365 day operation with supervision from the Dam personnel and contract caretakers during the busy season. CALHOUN COUNTY POPULATION 4/1/2000 112,249 ST, CLAIR COUNTY POPULATION 4/1/2000 64,742 TOTAL 166,034

LAY LAKE POPULATION – TALLADEGA COUNTY POPULATION 4/1/2000 80,321 SHELBY COUNTY POPULATION 4/1/2000 143,293 TOTAL 223,614

Lay Lake is one of the busiest recreational Alabama Power lakes in Alabama. Lay Lake has the most population awaiting access to this popular recreational facility without counting the people from Jefferson, Chilton and Coosa Counties.

Talladega has over 24 miles of continuous shoreline below Childersburg without a single free boat launch and no parks.

The ideal place for a park would be the HISTORIC FORT WILLIAMS 1812 CEMETERY located adjacent to Cedar Creek. This is where some of General Jackson’s Tennessee Volunteers were buried due to the Historic Battle of Bulldog Bend. (The battle site is a National Park near Dadeville.) This unimproved waterfront site could become a proud addition to the Alabama Power Parks program. Lay Lake has a need for more shoreline fishing opportunities. This site would supply that demand for it has a little of a mile and a ¼ of shoreline. This 87 acre property is owned by Aleta D. Schanbacher, P. O. Box 1972, Birmingham, AL 35201. This site has a county maintained road running though it.

The other potential site is the Old Camp Brownie location. This is a 40-acre waterfront property approximately three and one quarter miles upstream from the Fort Williams Cemetery. This property is owned by the Hawaiier Timber Land LLC, 3891 Klein Road, Harpersville, AL 35078.

These two potential Park sites are where the population would have good access. If the park were to be in the wilderness, much of the population would not be encouraged to visit it. Only the people looking for lonely places would want to make the trip. We need a family oriented park.

A proposed bridge connecting Shelby County and Talladega County is close to becoming a reality. The proposed location is in between these two park sites.

This park will be a real boon to those who do not own lake front property. This park will offer access to thousands of families who have been denied the Lay Lake recreational opportunities in the past.

LAKE LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS – LAY LAKE

Objectives - Stabilize water levels to reduce erosion - Stabilize water levels to keep the recreational water surface above hazards. - Stabilize water levels to reduce the erosive action at the bottom of seawalls. - Stabilize water levels to protect the marine life at the shoreline. - Stabilize water levels to protect the Wetlands. - Stabilize water levels so boathouses are operational. When the water level is approximately 6” below normal pool, many boathouses are impaired. - Stabilize water levels to reduce the re-suspension of sediment from the lake bottom.

Please refer to the attached graph reflecting the recording of random water levels on the main river across from Dry Branch Creek. These recordings do not reflect the tops or bottoms of each cycle. The Measurements were taken from the top of my pier. Please note that 1” of water on this 12,000 acre lake = 326 Billion Gallon of water.

We recommend: • That the Logan Martin Dam Hydro facility be operated to add water to Lay Lake prior to the Lay Lake Dam Hydro facility operation to remove water from Lay Lake. • That the generation cycle be limited to .3 of a foot water level change from normal pool

2001 Lay Lake Pool Levels Taken From Dock Across From Entrance To Dry Branch

2 28-Jun 9:00 AM 28-Jun 6:26 PM 29-Jun 6:57 AM 29-Jun 7:51 PM 0 30-Jun 7:00 PM 3-Jul 9:00 AM 5-Jul 8:48 AM 5-Jul 2:04 PM -2 5-Jul 6:35 PM 5-Jul 7:50 PM 11-Jul 12:48 PM 12-Jul 11:15 AM -4 12-Jul 5:55 PM 13-Jul 8:35 AM 13-Jul 10:37 AM 14-Jul 8:30 AM -6 14-Jul 3:00 PM

Water Level In Inches Water Level 17-Jul 6:16 PM 17-Jul 7:15 PM 18-Jul 6:45 AM -8 18-Jul 5:17 PM 8-Aug 5:00 PM 16-Aug 5:17 PM 22-Aug 3:08 PM -10 30-Aug 1:25 PM 2-Sep 2:00 PM 12-Sep 7:00 AM 13-Sep 1:00 PM -12

Daily Levels, 0 = Full Pool 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham.Alabama 35291

Tel 205.257.1000

&, I: A D. A I;,E, ~L~gH.fJ~'1. A' ~~\.

July 12, 2002 POWER

A SOUTHERN COMPANY

Mr. Jim Beason President, Smith Lake Civic Association P.O. Box 2411 Jasper,Alabama 35501

Dear Jim:

As mentioned in my letter to you dated June 20, 2002, your letter dated June 17 to Mr. Alan Martin concerning styro-foam in Smith Lake has been forwarded to me for response.

As an initial matter, Alabama Power is very appreciative of the commitment to Smith Lake demonstratednot only by the concern addressedin your letter, but also in your ongoing participation in the relicensing project. The Smith Lake Civic Association's role in this process and its continuing efforts to enhance the scenic and recreational values of the reservoir contribute significantly to its beauty and the public's enjoyment of this valuable resource.

In the June 17 letter, you request that Alabama Power develop a program for ensuring prope;rdisposal of styro-foam material as it is being replaced by property owners. As you know, Alabama Power's lakeshore permitting program no longer allaws the.use of exposed white beaded foam (often referred to as styro-foam) materials in the construction of new floating facilities. Only encapsulatedflotation materials are permitted for use in Company reservoirs. However, the non-conforming foam materials that were installed prior to the implementation of our existing permit program in the early 1990's are allowed to remain in the reservoir until they can no longer adequately support the floating facility. Since flotation materials in these "grandfathered" facilities are at least ten years old and are losing their buoyancy, many property owners are replacing these materials wifu the conforming encapsulatedmaterials. Apparently, some of these property owners, or their contractors, are simply releasing this material into the lake instead of removing it from the reservoir.

As property owners replace this material, they are required to obtain a permit from Alabama Power. By the expressterms of these permits, the property owner is if required to comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations. The pennittee must also ensure that the construction of the pennitted facilities is consistent with shoreline aesthetic values. More specifically, the pennittee agreesto participate in the program of solid waste disposal in effect in the area of the pennitted facility, and is to keep project lands and waters occupied by and surrounding the pennitted facility free of all waste, garbage, and other unsightly debris and material. We believe, therefore, that our current permit program informs permittees of their obligation to meet any Federal, State and local requirements concerning disposal of the foam material that is being replaced, and otherwise to help keep the reservoir clean. Moreover, we believe that there are appropriate penalties under the laws and regulations mentioned above for proven failure to meet these pennit obligations.

However, in order to call special attention to the peffi1ittee's obligations in this regard, Alabama Power will start including a note in the comment section on the front of the lake shore use peffi1its reminding peffi1itteeswho are replacing the beaded foam flotation with the encapsulatedflotation of their obligation to remove this material from the reservoir. It is our hope that by making this special note on the permit foffi1, more property owners and their contractors will be aware of their responsibility to dispose of this material in an appropriate manner, consistent with Federal, State and local laws and regulations, thereby reducing the amount that is impeffi1issibly released into the lake.

Again, Alabama Power appreciatesyour interest in Smith Lake and we look forward to working with you and the Association in the future to further enhance the scenic, recreational and other values of this reservoir.

Yours very truly,

'ltJ 1//11;- ~ Walter Ramey Corporate Real Estate

Cc Alan Martin

~ (

Bc Larry Grill Mike Allums Charles Mauldin Mike Godfrey John Grogan Barry Lovett Jim Crew Jim Hancock 600 North 18th Street PostOffice Box 2641 Hlrmlngnam,Alaoama 35291

Tel 205.257.1000

POWER

A SOUTHERN COMPANY

September 9,2002

Ms. Deb Berry President Smith Lake Preservation Committee 860 Alford Avenue Hoover, AL 35226

Dear Deb:

In response to your letter of July 3 I sI to Alan Martin and myself, let me first thank you for your continuing participation in the Warrior Relicensing process. Your contribution to the Smith Issue Action Group has been very helpful as we identify and resolve issues related to the Smith development.

Your letter references Article 46 from the Warrior River License and suggeststhat article conveys to Alabama Power Company (A PC) the authority to monitor and enforce state and local solid waste disposal laws, enabling the company to "police" those permittees that do not comply with those laws ascthey dispose of styrofoam from boat docks that are being replaced. A PC interprets this license article differently and continues to look to Federal, State and/or local agencies to enforce their solid waste disposal laws. As you are aware, APC's Lakeshore Use Permit requires the property owner to comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations. The permittee must also ensure that the construction of the pennitted facilities is consistent with shoreline aesthetic values. More specifically, the permitee agrees to participate in the program of solid waste disposal in effect in the area of the permitted facility, and is to keep project lands and waters occupied by and surrounding the permitted facility free of all waste, garbage, and other unsightly debris and material. We believe, therefore, that the current permit program informs permittees of their obligation to meet all requirements concerning the disposal of foam material that is being replaced, and to otherwise help keep the reservoir clean. Moreover, we believe that there are appropriate penalties under the laws and regulations mentioned above for proven failure to meet these permit obligations.

However, in order to call special attention to the pem1ittee's obligations in this regard, APC will start including a note in the comment section of the front of the lakeshore use pem1its reminding permittees who are replacing the beaded foam flotation with the encapsulated flotation of their obligation to remove this material from the reservoir. It is our hope that by making this special note on the permit form, more property owners and their contractors will be aware of their responsibility to dispose of this material in an appropriate manner, consistent with regulations, thereby reducing the amount of this material that is released into the lake. In addition, when meeting with property owners, contractors and interested associations, we will remind them of their responsibility when disposing of this material.

A PC appreciates your offer to provide infonnation on docks that are in disrepair. As the relicensing process moves ahead and the working group that will develop the Shoreline Development Plan is organized, this type of infonnation will be of significant value in addressing shoreline issues.

In your letter you also suggest that APC's ongoing voluntary participation with lake cleanups be made mandatory by the inclusion ofa license article in the new Warrior River license.

For ten years A PC has taken a significant role in assisting stakeholders in lake clean-up efforts on the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Warrior Rivers. That assistance has included providing organizational skills, manpower, barges, banners, t-shirts and gloves. The effort is known as "Renew the Coosa" on the Coosa River and the "Annual Smith Lake Clean-Up" on the Warrior River. Since the beginnings of these initiatives, A PC has participated as a volunteer corporate citizen acting as a catalyst for the local community to develop and contribute to a program that encourages local stakeholders to join together to improve these reservoirs.

A PC feels the desire to make lake clean-ups a license requirement is a sign from the homeowners that they wish the program to continue and that the efforts are having a positive impact on the reservoirs. The logic is that if this program were mandatory , then there would be certainty that the program would continue. A PC is also very pleased with the success of the clean-ups, its role in the clean-ups and the ever growing community involvement that has become their trademark.

For the following reasons, however, APC does not agree with a requirement for mandatory participation in these clean-up programs:

License requirements aside, APC plans to continue with its role as a catalyst for this program after the relicensing process is over.

2 By continuing to voluntarily participate in this and many other environmental, recreational and educational initiatives over the years, A PC has proven itself to be a corporate citizen with a commitment to its customers and to the state of Alabama. Requiring APC's participation in these clean-ups would spoil the spirit of volunteer cooperation that has been the primary reason for the growth and successof the clean-ups.

3. Requiring A PC to participate in these clean-ups would tend to discourage other community interests from contributing and would encourage a dependency on A PC.

4. Requiring APC's participation in these clean-ups would remove the program flexibility that currently exists.

In summary, the lake clean-up programs are a success story that A PC is pleased to be a part of. These programs grow yearly because of the additional communities and local interests that are joining the spirit of voluntarily contributing to the well-being of their areas. Again, Alabama Power plans on continuing its participation in these efforts.

Once again, thank you for your continuing contribution to the well being of the Smith development and the to the Warrior River relicensing process.

Please let me know if there are additional questions.

Sincerely,

~oK~ Barry Lovett

Project Manager Coosa- Warrior Relicensing

CC' Alan Martin Walter Ramey Jim Crew Jim Hancock Mike Akridge Doug Powell Willard Bowers Jim Beason

3 600North 1 Bth Street " PostOffice Box 2841 girminl1/1amhl1h1m' 7~7Ql Tel205257.1000

ALABAMA POWER A SOUTHERN COMPANY

October 18, 2002

Coosa River Project FERC Project No.2146 Bouldin/Lay Developments Turbine Upgrades

Mr .Stan Cook Mr .Brad McLane Alabama Department of Conservation Executive Director, Alabama Rivers and Natural Resources Alliance 64 North Union Street 2027 2nd Avenue North, Suite A Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Mr. LarryE. Goldman Ms. Kathy Ransom Field Supervisor President, Lay Lake Home Owners/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Boat Owners Association East Office Plaza 450 Jake Drive Daphne, Alabama 36526 Sylacauga, AL 35151

Col. Robert B. Keyser Mr. James W. Warr District Engineer Alabama Department of Environmental U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Management P.O. Box 2288 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Mobile, Alabama 36628 P. 0. Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Ms. Amanda McBride Alabama Historical Commission Mr. Joe Young 468 South Perry Street President, Lake Jordan Home Owners/ Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0900 Boat Owners Association 168 Briarloop Road Deatsville, AL 36022

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Coosa River Project (project), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) Project No.2146, is owned and operated by Alabama Power Company (APC). The Project is comprised of 5 developments, all located on the Coosa River: Weiss, Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, and Bouldin. The FERC issued APC a license for the Coosa River Project effective August 1, 1957. The current license will expire on July 31 , 2007.

APC is currently undertaking a cooperative relicensing process using the Commission's Alternative Licensing Procedures, which involves a widely diverse team of stakeholders. At the May 21,2002 relicensing team meeting, APC discussed the results of the upgrade studies and our plan to propose unit upgrades at various hydro developments along the Coosa River prior to the relicense applications being filed with the FERC in 2005. In addition to this formal consultation, APC will also post this amendment application to the APC relicensing website.

Pr~iect I,!formation

Proposed modifications at the Lay and Bouldin developments of the Coosa River Project are the subject of this non-capacity related amendment application.

The original Lay Dam project began in 1910, with units in service in 1914. Lay Dam was redeveloped in the 1960s, as a part of the overail Coosa River project. The redevelopment project involved major modifications to the existing struCtures, including raising the headworks structure 22 feet. The powerhouse was extended approximately 50 feet downstream, with a total redesign of the draft tubes and scroll case for all six (6) units. The project also involved the replacement of the turbines.

The 35 year old units have seen considerable service, and are in need of refurbishment. The turbine blades have drooped on several of the units, and require re-profiling in an attempt to return them to their original position. Stator windings have exceeded normal life expectancy, and need to be rewound with higher-class insulation. Key turbine hydraulic components, which are necessary for proper flow and gate seal, are in need of repair or replacement. Turbine and generator bearings are also due for overhaul and generator breakers need replacing. Wicket gate movement and associated linkage mechanisms need overhaul and conversion to greaseless lubrication. Prudent maintenance planning requires these items be addressed over the next several years. This work involves major components, which would require disassembly of the entire machines to correct.

APC recently conducted upgrade studies which indicated that the 35 year old units have considerable potential for upgrade. Modem turbine designs are capable of improved power and efficiency. Lay Units 1 and 2 were selected as the initial upgrade candidates in the Lay Development, as they are due for generator rewind or major turbine blade re-profiling, in addition to the aforementioned component improvement needs. Lay Unit 1 -is due for generator breaker replacement and a major turbine blade re-profiling. The key proposed work scope includes turbine replacement, generator breaker replacement, stator coil replacement, wicket gate system rehabilitation, greaseless gate stem bushings installation, turbine and generator bearing refurbishment, and related component upgrade. APC expects the new Unit 1 turbine installation to provide approximately four ( 4) MW of additional capacity, as well as increased efficiency. Thi s relates to a 13.6% increase in energy output. The current Unit 1 full gate flow of 5,500 cfs is expected to remain relatively the same, so there will be no increase in maximum hydraulic capacity. Unit 1 will be worked during the fall of2005.

Lay Unit 2 -generator testing has revealed potential deficiencies. The key proposed work scope includes turbine replacement, stator coil replacement, wicket gate system rehabilitation, greaseless gate stem bushings installation, turbine and generator bearing refurbishment, and related component upgrade. APC expects the new Unit 2 turbine installation to provide approximately four (4) MW of additional capacity, as well as increased efficiency. This relates to a 13.6% increase in energy output. The current Unit 2 full gate flow of 5,500 cfs is expected to remain relatively the same, so there will be no increase in maximum hydraulic capacity. Unit 2 will be worked during the fall of2004.

BOULDIN

The original Bouldin Dam project began in 1963, with units in service in 1967. Bouldin has the largest generating capacity of Alabama Power's 14 hydro facilities, and the three units see considerable service. The stator windings were replaced 23 years ago, but have experienced problems and are significantly less reliable. Key turbine hydraulic components, which are necessary for proper flow and gate seal, are in need of repair or replacement. The turbine and generator bearings are also due for overhaul. The wicket gate movement and associated linkage mechanism needs overhaul and conversion to greaseless lubrication. Prudent maintenance planning requires these items be addressed over the next several years. This work involves major components, which would require disassembly of the entire machine to correct.

The previously referenced upgrade studies also indicated that these 35 year old units have considerable potential for upgrade. In recent years, APC has had excellent results replacing 1960s vintage propeller turbines with modern designs. APC has decided to receive proposals for upgrading one unit at Bouldin Darn, with tentative plans for additional units in later years. Bouldin Unit 2 was selected as the initial upgrade candidate, as it is due for a generator stator rewind, in addition to the aforementioned component improvement needs. The key proposed work scope includes turbine replacement, stator coil replacement, wicket gate system rehabilitation or replacement, greaseless gate stem bushings installation, turbine and generator bearing refurbishment, and related component upgrade. APC expects the new Bouldin Unit 2 turbine installation to provide approximately four (4) additional MW, as well as increased efficiency. This relates to approximately 5% increase in energy output. The current Bouldin Unit 2 full gate flow of 9,600 cfs is expected to decreaseto approximately 9,000 cfs, so there will be a slight decreasein maximum hydraulic capacity for the Bouldin Development. Bouldin Unit 2 will be worked during the fall of 2004.

To summarize, APC proposes the replacement of the turbine, major refurbishment of the wicket gates and other turbine components, the addition of greaselessgate stem bearings, replacement of the generator stator coils, and replacement of the generator breaker (Unit 1) initially for Lay Units I and 2. As well, APC proposes turbine replacement, stator coil replacement, wicket gate system rehabilitation or replacement, greaselessgate stem bushings installation, turbine and generator bearing refurbishment, and related component upgrade for Bouldin Unit 2. The new turbine installations are expected to provide approximately twelve (12) megawatts of additional capacity, increased efficiency and an overall capacity increase of 1.90/0for the Coosa Project. The CUITentfull gate flow of 5,500 cfs each for Lay Units I and 2 is expected to remain unchanged at 5,500 cfs each and the CUITentfull gate flow of 9,600 cfs for Bouldin Unit 2 is expected to decrease to approximately 9,000 cfs, an overall cumulative decrease of approximately 0.4% for the Coosa Project (see Table I below). These stated improvements are based from preliminary studies and final improvements at the project will be determined from post-upgrade performance testing.

Table 1 Alabama Power Company Coosa River Project -FERC No.2146

Development Existinp4 Capaci~ ~ Cap~ and Unit Megawatts Full Gate Megawatts Full Gate (Namep!at~L F/ow (c(.\' J!!!!!!!evlate) Flow (~f~' I Weiss Unit 1 I \ No Chanp;~ Unit 2 ~ No Ch~ge

~ J-N~Change

~ ! 24.30 ~ I Unit 2 ~ Unit 3 124.30

Logan Marti~ Unit 1 42.75 11,260 -I~ Chan.ge I ~~ ~~~~~~ ! Unit 2 [42:75 In:z;;o -N~~Jl,e I ~~ ~~~~~~ ! Unit 3 ~ m26Q: No Chan.~e , No Chan~ Ta b'~~~nued) Alabama Power Company

Coosa River Project -FERC No.2146 -

Development ~s.ti.ng Capacity---~ Eew Capacity Full Gate and Unit Megawatts Fu11 Gate Megawatts Flow ( ~f.s;,; (Namepla~- Flow ( cfs}: ~l!late) Lay ~ Unit 1 29.50

Unit 2

Unit 3 5,500 I No Change ~o Chang~

J~ 5,500 l No Change ~ .Chan,ge 29.50 5,500 1 No ChanE~ -1.~o Change 29.50 I-.~-~~Q I No Chang~ \ No Change Bouldin

~ 75.005.00 J.-~~ Change Unitl & 9,600 ,600 ~~Jl.~. 79 (+4) i I Unit 2 ~,QOO.(-6%) Unit 3 75.00 , No Change 9,600 NQ~g~-..

Prqject Totl!L 635.55 148,890 647.55 148,290 (-0.4%)

Please review this proposal and provide us with your comments by November 30, 2002. It is APC's intention to file this amendment application with the Commission by December 131hof this year. The first turbine replacement is being planned for the fall of 2004.

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Alan L. Peeples at (205) 257-1401 or Mr. W.A, Sim at (205) 257-4136.

Yours truly,

0Jla 12,£.f;v R. M. Akridge

Manager Hydro Services

ALP:ejc

600North 18th Street PostOffice Box 2641 'l,;,m~~m, .t.(obmo2t:;2IJ1 Tel205.257.1000

ALABAMA,

POWER

A SOUTHERN COMPANY

October 18, 2002

Jordan Dam Project FERC Project No. 618 Turbine Upgrades

Mr .Stan Cook Ms. Amanda McBride Alabama Department of Conservation Alabama Historical Commission and Natural Resources 468 South Perry Street 64 North Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0900 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Mr .Brad McLane Mr. Steve Foster Executive Director, Alabama Rivers President, Coosa River Paddling Club Alliance I 5143 Atlanta Highway 2027 2nd Avenue North, Suite A Montgomery, AL 36109 Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Mr. LarryE. Goldman Mr. JamesW. Warr Field Supervisor Alabama Department of Environmental U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management East Office Plaza 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Daphne, Alabama 36526 P. 0. Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Col. Robert B. Keyser District Engineer Mr. Joe Young U.S. Army Corps of Engineers President, Lake Jordan Home Owners/ P.O. Box 2288 Boat Owners Association Mobile, Alabama 36628 168 Briarloop Road Deatsville, AL 36022

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

Jordan Dam, located on the Coosa lliver, is owned and operated by Alabama Power Company (APC). The Federal Power Commission authorized its construction in 1923, and the dam was completed and placed in service in 1926. The Jordan Dam units began commercial operation in 1929. The project was relicensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in 1980. The Commission issued APC a license for the Jordan Project effective October 1, 1980. The current license will expire on July 31, 2007

The original powerhouse construction consisted of four, 25-megawatt (MW) units. The units were placed into commercial service in 1929. The original turbines were cast iron, and were replaced with cast steel in the 1940s. In the 1960s, the forebay was raised seven (7) feet, but neither the turbines nor the generators were refurbished or replaced. Other than new radial spillway gates installed in the previously open crest bays, there have been no other major renovations during the plant's 73 years of operation.

The 73 year old units have seen considerable service, and are in need of refurbishment. The increased head requires the turbine output to be restricted when necessary, due to electrical limitations. Stator windings have exceeded the normal life expectancy, and need to be rewound with higher-class insulation. Key turbine hydraulic components, which are necessary for proper flow and gate seal, are in need of repair or replacement. The turbine and generator bearings are also due for overhaul. The wicket gate movement and associated linkage mechanism needs overhaul and conversion to greaseless lubrication. Prudent maintenance planning requires these items be addressed over the next several years. This work involves major components, which would require disassembly of the entire machine to correct.

APC recently conducted unit upgrade studies which indicated that the 73 year old units have considerable potential for upgrade. Modem turbine designs are capable of improved power and efficiency and APC proposes to upgrade Unit 4 at the Jordan Project. Unit 4 was selected as the initial upgrade candidate, as it is due for a generator stator rewind, in addition to the aforementioned component improvement needs. The key proposed work scope includes turbine replacement, stator coil replacement, wicket gate system rehabilitation or replacement, greaseless gate stem bushings installation, turbine and generator bearing refurbishment, and related component upgrade.

APC proposes the replacement of the turbine and turbine components, stator coil replacement, wicket gate rehabilitation or replacement, the addition of greaseless gate system bearings, and generator upgrades for Jordan Unit 4. The new turbine installation is expected to increase efficiency and provide approximately six (6) megawatts of additional capacity, an overall capacity increase of six (6) percent for the Jordan Project. The current full gate flow of 4,960 cfs for Unit 4 is expected to increase to approximately 5,500 cfs for Unit 4, a total flow increase of only 2.7% for the Jordan Project (see Table 1 below). These stated improvements are based from preliminary studies and final improvements at the project will be determined from post-upgrade performance testing.

Table 1 Alabama Power Company Jordan Dam Project -FERC No.618 Development and Unit

'~~ Chan~~ .:NoC~g~ No Chan2e

5,500 (+540 cfs) 100 Prok~l --19,840 106J~~l 20,-J-c!(! (+2.7%)

*Because of equipment limitations, this full gate flow is met only under very particular tailrace and ambient cooling conditions.

Please review this proposal and provide us with your comments by November 30, 2002. It is APC's intention to file this amendment application with the Commission by December 13thof this year. The first turbine replacement is being planned for the fall of 2004.

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Alan L. Peeples at (205) 257-1401 or Mr. W.A Sim at (205) 257-4136.

;:ly~ /N'

R. M. Akridge

Manager Hydro Licensing

From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 1:55 PM To: 'Dan Murchison ([email protected])' Cc: 'Bruce DiGennaro ([email protected])'; 'Amy Bennett ([email protected])'; 'Janet Hutzel ([email protected])'; Crew, James F.; 'Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected])'; 'Patti Leppert ([email protected])'; '[email protected]' Subject: THE Grassroots Relicensing Coalition Dan,

Thanks for your December 9th memo, with recommendations from the Coalition. We appreciate your efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders in trying to resolve these three issues, and are very interested in responding to the Coalition's recommendations. Prior to that, however, we have a few clarification questions, of which your response will aid us in responding to your memo.

• 1. Can you tell us more about the Coalition, What is its purpose/mission statement? How is it organized? Does it have officers? How does one join?

• 2. Are you the point contact for The Coalition on all issues?

• 3. What issues is this group planning on getting involved with during the relicensing process (just recreation & public safety)?

• 4. Will this group participate in the relicensing process and respond to issues in lieu of the homeowner's associations?

• 5. Does this Coalition speak for and have the endorsement of all the Board of Directors of the Associations?

• 6. Does this organization agree to support and adhere to the relicensing procedures that have been previously agreed to by all stakeholders?

Again Dan, we look forward to moving these and all other relicensing issues to solutions that are reasonable and acceptable to all of the participating stakeholders.

Thanks

Barry Lovett and Jim Crew

RE APCO Relicensing issue suggestions from THE Grassroots Relicensing Coalition.txt MessageFrom: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:02 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Bill Campbell ([email protected])'; 'Bruce DiGennaro ([email protected])'; Smith, Sheila C.; Ramey, Walter R.; Dykes, William C.; Dillahunty, William R.; 'Amy Bennett ([email protected])'; Sheppard, Andrew R.; Redmond, Howard J.; Crew, James F.; Bryant, Keith E.; 'Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected])'; Akridge, R. M.; Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: RE: APCO Relicensing issue suggestions from THE Grassroots Relicensing Coalition

Dan,

Thanks for your memo of December 9th, with recommendations from the Coalition. We appreciate your efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders in trying to resolve these issues. I have attached to this memo (in a pdf file) your explanation (provided to me on 12/18/02) of the form and purpose of the Coalition. That was very helpful. We also appreciate your offer (in our telephone conversation yesterday) to meet with us to discuss where the Coalition may assist the relicensing and where concerns may arise. Jim Crew and I look forward to that meeting.

In response to the Coalition's recommendations, allow me to respond to each:

1. Buoys

Beginning with our relicensing workshops in the fall of 2000, Alabama Power has had numerous issues raised that fall under the public safety heading, the marking of true hazards being one of these. We are very interested in reaching consensus on a solution (or solutions) that respond to and address all of those items in a reasonable fashion. We are planning on discussing this item further in our February relicensing meetings.

2. Lake Clean-ups and, 3. Woody Debris

Attached to this memo is the latest draft IAG recommendations provided for further discussion in our IAG conference calls scheduled for next week. As we discussed on Wednesday, I feel we are very close to consensus on both of these issues and look forward to the Coalition's comments on these drafts.

Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this information.

Barry

Attached are our suggestions on three relicensing issues of Buoys, Litter Cleanups, and Woody Debris. We would appreciate your considerations for these issues. As we proceed more into the relicensing process I am sure we will have other suggestions. Thanks, and Merry Christmas to all.

Page 1 - - Response:

#1- Tell us more about the coalition: Several years ago as associations organized up and down the Coosa members of the various Associations saw a need to unite and as a single group address common issues. Several meetings were held and good ideas were shared but no formal organization resulted. VVhile the agreement continued that such an organization was needed no one stepped forward to push the organizational structure. VVhile there are many benefits beyond relicensing issues perhaps relicensing made us realize that communication among all the Association groups was essential to address common issues that affected the entire river(s).

I For various reasons some association groups are more active in the relicensing process thaWothers. Because of this we feel that the Coalition should research the issues, analyze the facts, and present them to all the groups for input. Then the Coalition will formulate a consensus representing all the groups. We feel this will be a benefit to the APCO relicensing process and avoid APCO having numerous proposals presented on the same issue. Although each association would still be responsible for issues peculiar to their particular reservoir.

l our intent is not to work outside the already established relicensing process. Coalition representatives that attend the relicensing process will bring unsettled issues before the Coalition for discussion and consensus.

Our organizational structure presently is an informal agreement to meet as a Coalition. All groups and individuals involved or interested in the improvement of our Lakes, Rivers, and Streams are invited to attend.

12- Am I the point contact for the Coalition on all issues? Yes, at the present.

1 3-What issues is this group planning on getting involved with during the relicensing process? Only those issues comon to all the reservoirs where agreements aren't reached in the regular relicensing process.

14-WII this group participate in the relicensing process and respond to issues in lieu of the HomeOwners Associations? No- only as stated in #3 above and where consensus is agreed to and endorsed by each Coalition member listed on the issue sheet.

5-Does the Coalition speak for and have the endorsement of all the Board of Directors of the Associations? The President of each Association is charged with endorsing his/her boards approval or rejection of each issue sheet and listed or not listed accordingly.

16-0oeS this organization agr~e to support and adhere to the .relice.nsing procedures that hav~ been pre~iously ~greed to by all stakeholders? The Coalition members who are on the rellcenslng team WIll be charged WIth presenting any Issue statements and will follow all previous stakeholder agreements. IThe spirit of the Coalition is not to hinder or change any of the established relicensing procedures, rather, it is anticipated that it will aid in researching and presenting fair solutions to common issues and represent the opinions of all the groups.

Wednesday, December 18,2002 America Online: Danmurch

--j,;,,-1 - Issue Action Group: R1 Recreation Management

IAG Recommendations Lake Clean-ups

Draft January 8, 2003

Warrior and Coosa Projects Combined

IAG Members

Issue Action Groups to discuss recreation issues have been formed for each of the seven reservoirs covered by the Coosa and Warrior relicensing process including Smith, Weiss, Logan Martin, Neely Henry, Lay, Mitchell, and Jordan. The following recommendation was developed in discussions with all seven of these IAGs. Individual participants include:

Discussion

Stakeholders associated with each of the reservoirs included in the Coosa and Warrior relicensing have participated for years in organizing and implementing annual clean-ups targeted at reducing liter and improving the aesthetic and water quality conditions around the lakes. The effort is known as “Renew the Coosa” on the Coosa River and the “Annual Smith Lake Clean- Up” on the Warrior River. Since the beginning of these initiatives APC has played a significant role in assisting with these clean-up efforts.

The value of these clean-ups has been recognized and discussed in all the recreation IAG meetings and there is strong support among all interested stakeholders in seeing these efforts continue into the future. APC is committed to continuing to support these clean-ups as a volunteer corporate citizen, but is concerned that required participation as part of the new FERC licenses for the Coosa and Warrior projects could spoil the spirit of volunteer cooperation that has been the primary reason for the growth and success of the clean-ups and could tend to discourage other community interests from contributing.

Recommendation

The Recreation IAGs proposes the following recommendation to the WCRT and the CCRT.

A general statement will be put in the project recreation plans that states that Alabama Power Company will continue to help promote and assist lake reservoir groups and other stakeholders in their efforts to remove trash and litter from APC reservoirs as long as volunteer interest remains high.

Issue Action Group: R2 Public Safety

IAG Recommendations Woody Debris

Draft January 9, 2003

Warrior and Coosa Projects Combined

IAG Members

Discussion

Woody debris and trash accumulates at APC dams, particularly during high flow events. This material collects on project trash racks and is routinely passed downstream through project spillways to avoid unsafe conditions at the dam, potential damage to project facilities, and potential negative impacts on generation.

A number of recreation IAG members, particularly representatives of the Lay, Henry, and Logan Martin homeowners associations have expressed concern that floating woody debris within the reservoirs is a public safety issue and requested that accumulated debris (both woody debris and trash) at the dams be removed rather than passed downstream. APC has questioned whether the debris presents a real public safety hazard and has indicated that removal of the debris would be extremely dangerous and expensive. APC has also expressed concern that ecological values downstream could be adversely affected.

Recommendation

The Recreation IAGs propose the following recommendation to the WCRT and the CCRT.

A general statement will be put in the project recreation plans that states that Alabama Power Company in coordination with Lake Associations, and the Marine Police Division will periodically monitor and review the amount, location and origin of woody debris on APC reservoirs. Should an inspection lead the Marine Police Division to conclude that a significant public safety issue might exist because of APC’s practice of releasing woody debris and trash accumulations from its dam trash racks downstream, APC will, at the request of the Marine Police Division, reopen this issue for discussion and resolution. Similarly, should the Alabama Department of Environmental Management conclude that a significant water quality issue might exist for the abovementioned reason, APC will, at the request of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, reopen this issue for discussion and resolution.

600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 lli(-IA~4-. AJnh/!JMn2~2Dl Tel 205.257.1000

ALABAMA POWER A SOUTHERN COMPANY

June 16, 2003

Mr. James A. Gooder Forest Supervisor United States Department of Agriculture 2946 Chestnut Street Montgomery, Alabama 36107-3010

Re: FERC Project No.2165 Warrior River Project

Dear Mr. Gooder:

This letter will respond to your January 13, 2003 correspondence to me and your April 4, 2003 filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding erosion and beach sand loss issues involving Forest Service lands within Alabama Power Company's Smith Dam Project (FERC No.2165).

As you referenced, Alabama Power has certain obligations under Article 20 of its Smith Project license with respect to injury or damage to property of the United States caused by the construction, maintenance or operation of the project works. Article 20 makes clear that there must be a direct connection between Alabama Power's conduct under the license and the damage or injury to Federal lands. As you may know, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate between erosion caused by project operations and erosion resulting from natural causes(such as rainwater run-off, or wave action from wind or boating traffic). That being the case, FERC has not held licensees responsible for injury or damage in circumstances such as you have described at Smith. In the rare instance where FERC has determined a licensee responsible for injury or damage under Article 20, the connection between project operations and the erosion on Federal lands has been both direct and unambiguous. Based on our evaluation of the erosion and beach sand loss on Forest Service lands at Smith, we do not believe that the injury or damage that you cite have the direct connection to Alabama Power's construction, maintenance or operation of Smith Dam project works required by FERC. For this reason, Alabama Power does not have an obligation under Article 20 of its Warrior River license to compensatethe Forest Service for or otherwise reconstruct or repair any lands that you indicate are demonstrating signs of erosion or beach sand loss. Nevertheless, as Alabama Power has made clear in the past, we remain open to discussing these issues in the context of the ongoing relicensing of the Warrior River Project. We believe that the relicensing process provides an excellent opportunity to identify and resolve most any issue related to the Smith Project. As you note in the April 4 letter filed with FERC, Alabama Power and the Forest Service successfully used the relicensing forum to reach a mutually agreeable solution on the issue of driftwood removal at the Houston beach. Alabama Power is optimistic that a similarly successful resolution can be reached on your concern regarding erosion and beach sand loss if this issue is addressedin the context of the Smith Project relicensing. In this regard, we are available to meet with you and your staff to begin discussions on this issue.

Alabama Power remains committed to working cooperatively with all agencies and stakeholders in the relicensing process to resolve issues and concerns. We are hopeful that early discussions on the issues you have raised will serve to increase the dialogue between Alabama Power and the Forest Service on this and other relicensing matters. Should you have any questions or wish to schedule a meeting to initiate these discussions, please contact either me at (205)257-1398 or Barry Lovett at (205)257-1268.

Yours very truly,

jZM.. R. M. Akridge Manager Hydro Services

cc: Ms. Magalie Roman Salas -FERC Mr. Elrand Denson -USFS Mr. Darryl Harley -USFS Mr. Glen Gaines -USFS Mr. Joel Gardner- USFS Ms. Patricia Leppert -FERC Mr. Ron McKitrick -FERC Mr. John Estep -FERC Mr. Kirk Cover- FERC Mr. Hossein I1dari -FERC -----Original Message----- From: Sheppard, Andrew R. Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:07 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Water Level at Neely Henry Lake

Thank you for the question about our operating plans for Neely Henry Lake. I was asked to provide you with a response. The trail period for the higher elevations is scheduled to run through February 2004, however the Company plans to extend the trail period. We will be applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission early next year seeking permission to do this. At this point, we will ask for an extension to 2007 and then let the FERC decide if it should be included in a new operating license that is currently under discussion. If we are successful in obtaining the approval, then winter pool water levels will continue at the higher elevation (507). Again, thanks for your question. We hope you safely enjoy the many benefits of Neely Henry Lake.

Andy Sheppard, P.E. Coordinator-Reservoir Operations

-----Original Message----- From: Randy Cosper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 5:42 PM To: Crew, James F. Subject: Water Level at Neely Henry Lake

For the past 3 years or so the lake has been kept pretty stable at 507 to 508 year around. I have been told this 3 year period has been an experimental time.I was fishing on the lake today Nov.25th. and the lake level was about 505. What are the plans for the water level this winter.If I e-mailed the wrong person to find the answer to my question please foward to the right person.Thank you for your response. Randy Cosper 600 North 1 Bth Street Post Office Box 2641 ~irminQ!JiJm, A)pP~mp ~~~~1

Tel 205.257.1000

ALABAMA

POWER

A SOUTHERN COMPANY

anuary 14, 2004

Mr. Larry E. Goldman, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1208-8 Main Street Daphne, Alabama 36526

RE: Initiation of ESA Section 7 Consultation for Relicensing of Alabama Power Company's Coosa River Hydroelectric Developments

Dear Mr. Goldman,

As you know, in mid-2005, Alabama Power Company (A PC) will be applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for new operating licenses for its hydroelectric developments on the Coosa and Warrior Rivers. For the past three years, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has been closely involved in the FERC-approved cooperative relicensing process used by APC to develop those applications. In a letter dated August 14,2003, FERC designated A PC as its non- federal representative for the.purpose of consulting with FWS under Section 7 of the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA). The purpose of this letter is to request the initiation of informal consultation under the ESA between FWS and APC with respect to the relicensing of the Coosa River developments.

APC's relicensing effort in the Coosa River Basin includes seven hydroelectric developments: the Weiss, Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, and Bouldin Developments, which are licensed collectively as the Coosa River Project (FERC no.2146-090); the Mitchell Project (FERC no.82-019); and the Jordan Project (FERC no.618-104). The map enclosed as Attachment A depicts the locations of these developments. The reach of the Coosa River Basin involved in the current relicensing extends from near the City of Rome, in northwest Georgia, to the confluence of the Coosa River with the Tallapoosa River in south-central Alabama and includes the following counties:

Floyd (GA) Shelby (AL) Cherokee (AL) Talladega (AL: Etowah (AL) Chilton (AL) St. Clair (AL) Coosa (AL) Calhoun (AL) Elmore (AL) The first step in ESA Section 7 consultation is to detennine whether any federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats may be present in the action area. In an effort to begin the process of making this determination, please find enclosed as Attachment B a table which includes all of the federally listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitats contained in FWS Region 4's county listings for the above-referenced counties in Alabama and Georgia. To our knowledge, there is presently no federally designated critical habitat in any of these counties, only certain proposed critical habitats for certain of the listed mussel species. In addition, as you know, additional data and studies have been developed through the FERC-approved cooperative relicensing process which may show that some of these species and/or habitats are not actually present in the Coosa River drainage, even though they may be present in one or more of these ten counties. We look forward to working with FWS to determine which of these species and/or critical habitats may be present in the action area and the likely affect of relicensing on those species and/or habitats, if any.

To begin this consultation process, we would like to meet with you and your staff. As you discussed with Mr. Jim Crew ofthi~ office, the afternoon of February 18,2004, following the conclusion of the Alabam i Fisheries Association's annual meeting in Gulf Shores, would seem to be an aptIropriate time. As such, we will plan on meeting at your office in Daphne at 1:30 I.m. on February l8th.

We appreciate FWS's continued participa1lon in the Coosa River relicensing process, and we are confident the track record of I :ooperation between APC and FWS will continue through the consultation process. It you have any comments or questions regarding the relicensing pro,cessor the attached species list, please contact Mr. Crew at (205) 257-4265 or e-mail [email protected].

Sincerely,

R.M. Akridge General Manager, Hydro Southern Company Generation and Energy Marketing

Attachment

cc: Ron McKitrick, FERC

~ Attachment Attachment B. Federally Listed Species for Counties Surrounding the Coosa River, Mitchell, and Jordan Hydroelectric Projects

Alabama canebrake Sarracenia rubra ssp Chilton, Elmore E pitcher-plant alabamensis Alabama leather- Clematis socialis Floyd, Cherokee, Etowah, St. E flower Clair Alabama Medionidus Shelby TPCH moccasinshell acutissimus bald eagle Haliaeetus T leucocephalus blue shiner Cyprinella caerulea T Cahaba shiner Notropis cahabae E Coosa Medionidus parvulus EPCH moccasinshell mussel cylindricallioplax Liop/ax Floyd, Shelby E cyc/ostomaformis fine-Iined Lampsi/is a/ti/is Calhoun, Cherokee, Coosa, TPCH pocketbook Elmore, Etowah, Shelby, St. Clair, Talladega flat pebblesnail Lepyrium showalteri Shelb " E flattened musk Sternotherus Etow~ In T turtle depressus goldline darter Percina auro/ineata T gray bat Myotis grisescens E green pitcher plant Sarracenia oreophi/a E harperella Pti/imnium nodosum E Incliana bat Myotis soda/is E Kral's waterplantain Sagittaria secundifo/ia T lacey elirnia E/imia crenate/la T Large-flowered Scute/laria montana T skullcap Mohr's Barbara's Marshallia mohrii T buttons orange-nacre Lampsilis perovalis TPCH mucket ovate clubshell Pleurobema EPCH perovatum painted rocksnail Leptoxis taeniata Calhoun, Chilton, Shelby, T Talladega pygmy sculpin Cottus paulus Calhoun T red-cockaded Picoides borealis Calhoun, Chilton, Coosa, E woodpecker Talladega round rocksnail Leptoxis ampla Shelby T Attachment B, continued. Federally Listed Species for Counties Surrounding the Coosa River, Mitchell, and Jordan Hydroelectric Projects

Federal Common Name Scientific Name Counties Statusl

southern acomshell Epioblasma Shelby, St. Clair EPCH othcaloogensis southern clubshell Pleurobema decisum Calho1lln, Cherokee, Etowah, EPCH Shelby, St. Clair southern pigtoe Pleurobema Calho1lln, Etowah, St. Clair , EPCH georgianum Talladega Tennessee yellow- Xyris tennesseensis Floyd, Calhoun E eyed grass Cherokee EPCH triangular Ptychobranchus Calhoun, , Etowah, Shelby, St. Clair kidneyshell greenii Tulotoma snail Tulotoma'magnifica Calhoun, Coosa, El more, E Shelby, St. Clair, T alladega upland combshell Epioblasma St. Clair EPCH metastriata E wood stork Mycteria americana Chiltan

E -Federally Listed as Endangered T -Federally Listed as Threatened EPCH -Federally Listed as Endangered and has Proposed Critical Habitat in the counties surrounding the projects. TPCH -Federally Listed as Threatened and has Proposed Critical Habitat in the counties surrounding the projects. 012704 BKL ALDOT Response to Concept Designs.txt From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 10:39 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: ALDOT Response to Concept Designs

Ed,

On August 18, 2003 ALDOT, ADCNR and APC met to discuss our draft recreation concept designs for nine sites adjacent our reservoirs (and on ALDOT right-of-ways) that we have been asked to evaluate for improvement by our stakeholders participating in the Coosa and Warrior Relicensing process. At that meeting we provided these draft designs to you. Subsequent to that meeting (in a September, 2003 letter) we provided your office with the details of the individual recreation sites and asked for feedback from the ALDOT on their interest in partnering/interfacing at these sites. In early December 2003, we forwarded to your office the concept design for one of the nine sites (Logan Martin - Site No. 55) that had not been available at the August meeting.

We are now finalizing our site priority list and scheduling the years in which we anticipate the construction work at these sites taking place. This work is based on feedback from counties, municipalities and our other stakeholders. We anticipate work on some of these sites beginning as early as April of this year. We are very interested in ALDOT's comments and possible support of the sites we discussed last August. However, as we are under a tight schedule to complete our relicensing application, we are proceeding with our planning and decision making based on feedback and partnering commitments we have received to date. I anticipate we will be finalizing our initial schedule by mid-February 2004.

We would appreciate your agency's response on these sites by Friday, February 6th, 2004, if we are to incorporate it into our initial decision making for this work.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions concerning these sites or the relicensing process.

Thanks,

Barry Lovett

(205) 257-1268

Page 1 021904 BKL to Bill OBrien RE Weiss rec site priority list.txt From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:20 AM To: 'bill' Subject: RE: Attachment for December 11th Meeting Notes

Bill,

Although the spreadsheet distributed at the December 11, 2003 meeting shows Weiss site 30 construction (Route 9 Boat Launch facility) as a higher priority than Weiss site 27 (Courtesy Dock at Cobia Bridge), both of these sites are currently near the top of the priority list for all Coosa and Smith recreation sites. Work at both of these sites is currently scheduled for 2004.

As you know, our "final" schedule plans will be provided soon to all the recreation IAG's for their final concurrence, and this schedule will be subject to change as issues arise and recreational needs change.

Thanks for your input on this.

Barry

-----Original Message----- From: bill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:59 PM To: Lovett, Barry K. Subject: Re: Attachment for December 11th Meeting Notes

Barry,

Did we not agree that the "Courtesy Dock" at the Cobia Bridge would be the #1 priority on Weiss Lake and not the "Boat Launch Improvements" on the causeway?

The schedule is showing the two projects reversed.

Thanks for looking into this ahead of time.

Bill O'Brien

Page 1 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:49 AM To: Bob Huffaker ([email protected]); Deb Berry ([email protected]); Jim Beason ([email protected]); Jim Howard ([email protected]); Bryant, Keith E.; Keith Floyd ([email protected]); Ramey, Walter R.; Allums, Richard K.; Smith, Sheila C.; Dillahunty, William R. Cc: Bill Campbell ([email protected]); Bruce DiGennaro ([email protected]); Redmond, Howard J.; Crew, James F.; John Peconom ([email protected]); Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected]); Simmons, L. F.; Akridge, R. M.; Jenkins, Viki R.; Thomas, Mack W. Subject: Smith Recreation IAG - Response to Jamie Freeman Proposal

Good Morning,

Late last year Jamie Freeman (an individual stakeholder) provided APC a proposal for use of the Smith project lands immediately north of the Smith Dam Boat Ramp (Recreation Site 40). This proposal included ORV as well as other "non-traditional" uses of hydro project lands. In the course of our Smith Recreation IAG discussions, we have previously agreed that this property should be classified for "future recreational use" until the time when there is proven need and committed resources from the local communities for appropriate recreational facilities on this site.

APC requested EPRO review the proposal and provide the Smith IAG their recommended response (attached) to this proposal, based on their knowledge and experience with recreational issues within the FERC hydro licensing arena.

APC agrees with the EPRO recommendations and ask for any questions or comments you (as active WR1 IAG members) may have regarding them, prior to March 1, 2004.

After your review, we plan on forwarding this response on to the other stakeholders with interest in this IAG as well as Ms. Freeman.

(It is obvious to APC that Ms. Freeman has put considerable time and energy into her proposal, and appreciate the work she is doing for the community. We are encouraged that Cullman and Talladega Commission representatives have indicated that they not only are interested in such facilities, but have property that they feel is suitable. We encourage Ms. Freeman to contact those counties.)

Barry Lovett

File: SmithWR1IAG

WR1IAGAPCRes oFreemanProposa

Maine Office 249 Western Avenue Augusta, ME 04330-4977

Tel: (207) 621-7000 Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC Tel: (888) 280-3776 Fax: (207) 621-7001

January 30, 2004

Mr. Barry Lovett - WR1 IAG Alabama Power Company PO Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0380

SUBJECT: Proposal for Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trail Park on APC Land Adjacent to Smith Lake.

Dear Barry,

I have recently completed a review of information you forwarded to me, concerning a proposal for an ORV trail park adjacent to Smith Lake. The information originated with Jamie Freeman and included a disc with a map of APC property, information on the American Motorcycle Association and ATV Rider Course Insurance, a newspaper article, a presentation on Minooka Park in Chilton County, an ORV Park Proposal, and a presentation to Walker County, Alabama.

In addition, I have researched the land area proposed as a possible location for the proposed ORV trail park, with regard to location, topography, and the current and possible future recreational uses of the land parcel.

Initially, I agree that the concepts of an ORV park and the possible benefits to both youngsters and adolescents are good ones, and obviously there has been substantial success nationwide with regard to ORV parks, both from the benefits to users and from revenue generated from such parks for use in other beneficial public endeavors.

However, there also are obvious detractors to such facilities and the fact that this type of development requires a suitable land base that minimizes environmental and human impacts that are associated with this type of land use. The primary factor to be considered in developing such a facility is the existence of an adequate land buffer to protect against environmental degradation such as erosion and resulting siltation and also protection from human impacts such as traffic, parking, harmful effects on existing uses, and most importantly containment of noise in those public use areas currently operating under much different circumstances.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Licensed Projects and Public Recreation Expectations

As part of the federal hydro relicensing process, licensees are expected to accept certain recreational responsibilities and to cooperate with other entities in providing recreational

opportunities suitable for enhancing the overall public benefit of federally-licensed hydroelectric facilities. Recreation facilities at licensed hydro facilities are generally associated with riparian lands and those activities supported by such facilities are those commonly occurring in lake shore areas such as boating, fishing, picnicking, camping, swimming, lakeside pedestrian trails, and nature study. These facilities/activities are generally considered to be low impact so as not to affect the overall well being of the water impoundment, and facilities are designed and located so as not to disrupt existing accepted uses and/or disturb abutting property owners.

Given the historical expectations at FERC licensed projects and the importance that FERC places on the environmental conditions at those projects, the concept of ORV trails within the riparian area of a project would be difficult to endorse without an extreme regimen of environmental controls and direct consultation and oversight by state and federal environmental agencies. Also, according to the map, natural contours will funnel water runoff directly to the lake above the dam and to the main drainage corridor to the river in those areas downstream of the dam. APC and the IAG can expect stringent environmental requirements and controls in order to pursue this type of development in a riparian area.

In addition to the oversight of actual land conditions and requirements to prevent any form of erosion, there most likely would be requirements for consultation with all landowners in that section of the lake with regard to this new use, most importantly in relation to the impacts of concentrated use and noise within hearing distance of other currently existing public and private uses. APC and the IAG can expect significant local opposition to locating this type of facility at the proposed location.

Other Issues

Other issues of concern with regards to the subject property would need to be examined.

1. Some of the lands shown on the development proposal are easement lands. These are lands for which APC has an easement for specific uses related to project operations (such as flooding or industrial access), but does not have full ownership or use of such lands. 2. Some of the lands shown on the development proposal are non-utility lands not associated with the hydro project under federal permit and already in other land uses such as long-term timber management and/or non-utility, private, long-term leases. 3. APC has never permitted land uses on project lands that involved extensive vehicular use, equestrian, or other activities with active erosion potential in close proximity to water resources. Such action by APC may establish a precedent that is unwarranted. 4. The project lands in the Smith forebay area represent a significant portion of the Smith project recreational lands. It has already been agreed (within the Smith WR1 IAG) to set aside this property for future recreational use. Future uses for areas next to the water that have been discussed within the IAG are picnicking, camping, and bank fishing. These uses will not be compatible with an ORV Trail Park. ADCNR has indicated the need for additional handicapped hunting areas within this region of Alabama. This (or similar) use would hold a higher priority (with regard to FERC relicensing) and be much more compatible with existing long-term management plans for Warrior Project lands located away from the water. 5. It has recently been determined that there is a high level of Bald Eagle use in the immediate forebay area of Smith Dam. Having a federally-listed species (Threatened) utilizing this area reduces the opportunities for activities and facilities that result in concentrated high noise levels. The APC Environmental Affairs Department has been requested to conduct an assessment of these lands for the relicensing process.

Recommendation and Alternatives

Taking into consideration the above listed issues, it is recommended that APC and the IAG not entertain the proposal for an ORV Trail Park on project lands. Even though similar developments have been considered well-controlled and successful, lands adjacent to major water bodies, other existing recreational facilities, and private residences are not suitable for such development.

High risk of long-term erosion and concentrated high noise levels next to a large water body and associated uses would cause undo conflict with other recreational users, abutting landowners, and, in this case, possibly a federally-listed threatened species.

During the course of consultation for the APC relicensing process, Talladega and Cullman Counties have indicated they have an appropriate land base and are interested in developing ORV trail parks. It is recommended that a proposal presented to one or both of these counties is a more appropriate venue for planning a new ORV park in Alabama.

Sincerely,

William B. Campbell Senior Environmental Specialist Public Recreation/Land Management

From: Crew, James F. Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:09 AM To: '[email protected] ' Cc: 'Shane Boring'; Henry Mealing ([email protected]); Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: Response to Comments on Draft Toxins Report

Dear Isabella,

Thank you for your comments on the Draft E5 Toxins Issue Report that was presented at the November 13, 2003 WCRT/CCRT meeting. While many of the comments we received will be incorporated in the final draft of the report, we would like to take a moment to specifically address your questions. Our responses are shown below in Blue.

We appreciate your continued participation in the relicensing process. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks. Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

Questions & Comments Received From Isabella Trussel (Nov. 6, 11, and 12, 2003)

1) I noticed on the nalms.org website that there are a couple of publications that might be of relevance to the draft toxins report. I was wondering if y'all had access to these. One was on toxins, I believe, and the other was on shallow lakes. As APC is a member, perhaps they have these publications. Of course, the information in them may not be relevant to this issue, but I didn't want to leave a stone unturned ... unfortunate phrase if the stone happens to be in contaminated sediment! APC seems to be relying on you for the research.

We have reviewed both of these, which were published as special issues of the NALMS magazine Lakeline, and can pass copies on to you if you would like.

The shallow lakes issue focuses exclusively on shallow natural lakes in the northern Midwest and is generally not applicable to the southeast. Specifically, almost all of the articles focus on efforts to restore a lake in Minnesota that was drained for agriculture. The toxins issue focuses on mercury, toxaphene, and cyanobacteria, with no mention of PCBs, and likewise is not applicable to the E5 issue.

The following websites provide a listing of the articles included in the issues if you wish to review them: http://www.nalms.org/bkstore/ll23-01.htm http://www.nalms.org/bkstore/ll20-04.htm

2) Speaking of which, please check with the NPS division of ADEM for sediment samples on Choccolocco. I remember a meeting with several divisions of ADEM, including water and land, at which we (LMLPA) told the land group that their NPS folks had found PCB's at Choccolocco. The land division was apparently unaware of this and called in the fellow who told us to verify the info, which he did. I don't know whether the sampling went as far down the creek as the embayment, or whether the sampling was in the creek or the riparian area, but I do know that over the years, NPS has done a good bit of work on the creek. Just another source to check for available sampling data.

We have consulted with the NPS Division (Chris Johnson), Lands Division (Chip Crockett), and Fish Tissue Monitoring Program (Fred Leslie) at ADEM and none are aware of any data that is publicly available. Several ADEM folks suggested that we contact Dr. David Bayne at Auburn, the professor who sampled sediments at 1 Weiss, Neely Henry and Lay for PCBs as part of the EPA Phase I Diagnostic / Feasibility Studies in the Mid-90’s. Dr. Bayne also indicated that he is not aware of any sediment sampling in Choccolocco or Logan Martin. Quite a bit of work has been done by Solutia (under direction of EPA), but this data has not been publicly released.

3) After reviewing our suggestions on the draft toxins report, we have the following additional requests. That APC periodically monitor any available data on PCB's in the sediment within the project boundary as it becomes available so that any such sediment out of compliance may be designated as within a sensitive area. I realize that there needs to be a time frame for "periodically monitor", probably annually, but that is negotiable. I also realize that your legal department may choose to change the wording to include something more specific in reference to "out of compliance" and maybe other things. I am trying to get the point across that we are talking about a lengthy license during which data could become available that would impact any sensitive area designation within the project boundary due to PCB contamination, either to remove the designation (let's hope) or to add areas.

This is essentially already being done by Solutia, under direction of the EPA and ADEM, as part of the Superfund activities at Anniston. Both Solutia and EPA are bound by law under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to monitor both the nature and extent (i.e. mapping) of contamination resulting from the site. Because of their role in the Superfund / CERCLA process and the proprietary data that they have access to, Solutia and EPA are really the appropriate parties for handling this task.

In terms of designating areas within the project boundary as “sensitive areas” because of PCBs, that would be EPA’s call. Should EPA decide that such designation is warranted, we certainly would comply with any requirements (in terms of restricting dredging, etc.) that they put into place.

4) That APC periodically monitor any available data on PCB's in the sediment and any disturbances (construction, etc.) in the areas immediately adjacent to the project boundary that may impact sensitive areas or cause other areas to be so designated. I think our relicensing talks on other topics have noted the need to keep an eye on areas adjacent to the project boundary. Again, I'm sure the legal department will have revisions.

Similar to question 3, this is already in progress and is being done. According to the October 2002 Consent Decree Fact Sheet, the Consent Decree requires Solutia and Pharmacia to address all areas where PCBs have come to be located from the Anniston Site. This is being accomplished through an intense Remedial Investigation (RI) designed to determine the extent of the contamination, which could continue for as long as two years. According to a June 2003 update on Solutia’s website, approximately 8000 acres of uplands and floodplains including the Snow Creek, Choccolocco, and Logan Martin Drainage areas have been sampled thus far.

The above referenced Fact Sheet is available on the EPA Anniston website http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplal/annpcbal.htm.

5) There should be some wording that relates the contaminated sediment to the permitting process, definition of sensitive areas, any restrictions involving dredging or other activities affecting the sediment, etc. so that anyone reading the toxins report can easily understand the "chain of command" involving these areas, whether it is an ACOE permit that is required or an APC permit or an ADEM permit or a BMP that is recommended.

We have incorporated language into the report that summarizes APC’s delegated authority from the Corps as it relates to sediment dredging. However, altering the permitting process to serve as a means of regulating potentially contaminated sediments would go beyond the very limited authority that has been delegated to us by the Corps. Defining certain areas as sensitive or “no dredge zones” would be an issue between the Corps and the regulatory agencies (i.e. EPA, ADEM, etc.).

6) APC should include in its mapping of sensitive areas any locations of PCB contaminated sediment (with the amounts, depths, etc.) indicated as the data becomes available.

The answer here is very similar to questions 3 and 4. Solutia and EPA are really responsible for mapping the extent of PCB contamination and in fact are in the process of doing that. Again, EPA’s regulatory authority and Solutia’s access to the proprietary data make them the appropriate parties for handling this task.

7) APC should monitor any studies involving stratification in shallow lakes, impoundments, etc. related to sediment

2 movement and incorporate relevant information into dam operations where applicable.

We have not been able to find any studies that directly examine reservoir stratification / turnover to cycling of PCBs. However, it may be somewhat of a moot point, as the lakes in question only display weak thermal stratification.

We should keep in mind here that wind is the primary force that mixes lakes. When lakes stratify, the density differences between the warmer surface water (epilimnion) and the cooler water on the bottom (hypolimnion) essentially prevent the forces of the wind from mixing the water column completely. Conversely, when stratified lakes turn over in the fall of the year, the cooling of the surface water causes the densities between the two layers to equalize. When the densities equalize, the two layers begin to drift and intermingle and can again be mixed by wind energy. The point here is that there are no appreciable “mixing currents” associated with lake turnover. Currents associated with equalization in density between the two layers would likely be characterized as “microcurrents” at best and would be negligible in comparison to the overall downstream flow of the system and mixing energy created by wind.

The NALMS book entitled “Managing Lakes and Reservoirs” does a really nice job of explaining this process. We can provide you with a copy of the section on lake stratification and turnover if you would like.

8) It is not our purpose to embroil APC in legal problems related to PCB's, but it is our intent to have APC acknowledge the issue and take whatever precautionary measures are available to the company to prevent further recycling of the PCB's into the water column. Provide historical data regarding PCB’s in basins be included in appendices.

The ADEM TMDL Decision Document for PCB’s in Choccolocco provides a nice summary of the historical fish data. However, there is a chance that it may not be finalized in time to be included in the final toxins report (we cannot include a draft). If it is not finalized, we may opt to include some data from ADEM’s Fish Tissue Data Compendium; either way, the historical data will be represented.

9) Provide a full description of the ADEM Fish Tissue Monitoring Program be included as appendix, rather than the short description provided in Sect. 4.0.

This has been done and should be reflected in the final draft of the document.

10) Add statement recommending that APC work with ADPH to post fish advisory signs at public landings and other rec. facilities.

This has been done and should be reflected in the final draft of the document.

11) Add recommendation to Shoreline Management Team to discourage use of CCA treated lumber through a BMP.

This issue is somewhat self-mitigating. As of Jan. 1, 2004, stores such as Home Depot, Lowes, etc. will no longer be able to get CCA-treated wood. They will, however, be allowed to sell out their remaining stock.

3 From: Jenkins, Viki R. Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:20 AM To: Jim Howard ([email protected]); Bob Huffaker ([email protected]); Jim Beason ([email protected]); Deb Berry ([email protected]); Joe Young ([email protected]); Don Greer ([email protected]); Hap Bryant ([email protected]); George Jackins ([email protected]); Bill O'Brien (bobrien9 @tds.net); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]) Cc: Bryant, Keith E.; Lovett, Barry K. Subject: FW: Report on Cooperative Agreement

-----Original Message----- From: Bryant, Keith E. Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:50 AM To: Jenkins, Viki R. Cc: Lovett, Barry K.; Peeples, Alan L. Subject: Report on Cooperative Agreement Viki --

Please forward attached report to HOBO presidents and Jim Howard, and copy to Bob Huffaker.

040316 report on cooperative a..

thanks, Keith

1 Alabama Marine Police Division Report on the Cooperative Agreement with Alabama Power Company March 16, 2004

1. Location The Water Course, Clanton, AL

2. Participants Bob Huffaker, Alabama Marine Police Alan Peeples, Alabama Power Company Joe Young, Lake Jordan Woody Snell, Lake Jordan Barbara Dreyer, Lake Jordan Sam Piccolo, Lake Mitchell Dan Murchison, Lake Mitchell Bert Thaxton, Lay Lake Rachel Garrett, Lay Lake Shirley Bryant, Lake Henry Hap Bryant, Lake Henry

3. Summary Reviewed principal focus: education and awareness, especially among school-age children. Marine Police Officers also continue to present programs to civic and homeowner/boat owner groups and others.

Promoted E911 effort for homeowners to post property addresses on boat piers to aid emergency response personnel.

Noted additional assistance provided by new Coast Guard flotillas on Logan Martin and Neely Henry Lakes.

Explained procedure for requesting hazard or regulatory markers - contact local officer, who will assess each case and make a recommendation for a marker, or for no marker.

Reviewed expenditures for 2003: Installed 41 hazard marker buoys (and associated hardware, cable) on 5 lakes Installed 6 regulatory/information buoys/signs Purchased 6000 pieces of education/safety promotion items (buoy decals, floating keychains, iron-on transfers) Purchased 2 video projectors for presentations

4. Questions (1) Will the Marine Police acquire Alabama Power Company’s stump cutter boat to cut submerged trees in the lakes? REPLY: No. That is not within the jurisdiction of the Marine Police.

(2) Will funding provided by this Agreement impact the budget or other funding of the Marine Police Division? REPLY: No. The Marine Police Division is a trust fund agency and its budget is not affected by the general fund budgeting process. 600North 18th Street PostOffice Box 2641 ft;,n.<.""""", ~,'u VA"'~ Tel205.257.1000

ALABAMA POWER A SOUTHERN COMPANY April 26, 2004

To Whom It May Concern

This letter is to confirm that Alabama Power Company has reached a preliminary agreement with The Arrowhead Preserve (AP) of Mitchell Lake, Alabama, to lease property on the lake known as the Old Boy Scout Camp to AP , or its designated agent. The instrument conveying the lease to AP will make clear AP's obligation to maintain the property at its expense and to make it available for general recreational use by the public during the term of the lease. The final execution of the lease will be subject to AP's demonstration of its financial ability to maintain the property and will also be subject to the approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of Alabama Power Company's relicensing application for Mitchell Dam, which will include the draft lease agreement.

To discuss the specific terms and intent of this preliminary agreement, please contact Mr. Barry Lovett, Coosa-Warrior Relicensing, Southern Company at 205- 257-1268.

Sincerely,

17 / ..':;:';:.~A

Director, Corporate Real Estate Alabama Power Company From: Crew, James F. Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:43 PM To: 'Kent Davenport' Cc: Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: Response to Proposal

Kent, Hope everything is going well for you guys. I was wondering if you were going to be able to send us your response to the proposal we presented at our last meeting. The schedule we talked about included receiving your comments by mid-May and then having an all day meeting on June 16th or 17th. Let me know if this still works. Thanks.

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

1 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:19 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Stan Cook ([email protected])'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Stephen Kartalia ([email protected])'; 'Jeff Powell ([email protected])'; Sim, William A.; Lochamy, James S.; Pierson, John M.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; Tyberghein, Edmond J.; McVicar, Ashley M; 'Henry Mealing ([email protected])'; 'Jeff Garner ([email protected])'; 'Ellis Shad'; Akridge, R. M.; Lovett, Barry K.; Brock, C. David (APC); Redmond, Howard J.; Jenkins, Viki R.; 'Jason Moak ([email protected])'; 'Shane Boring'; 'Kelly Schaeffer (Kelly Schaeffer [[email protected]])'; 'Mr. Ron McKitrick ([email protected])' Subject: Response to ARA Comments on Weiss Bypass AMP

April,

Thank you for your patience - it's been pretty hectic around here lately. In response to your email, we feel the latest version of the Weiss Bypass Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) that was distributed on April 30, 2004 addresses the comments provided in your letter of April 13, 2004 with one addition. The Weiss Bypass AMP Steering Committee membership has been revised and includes the following;

1. Alabama Power Company 2. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4. Alabama Rivers Alliance 5. Weiss Lake Improvement Association

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Thanks. Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

1 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:23 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: RE: Weiss Bypass - March 9 Trip Report and May 20 Conference Call Notes

April, We will add the changes to the conference call notes that you requested. In reference to adding your name to the Working Group Member list, we will have to respectfully decline that request for the reasons that follow. As you know, you are currently listed as a member of the E10 Downstream Flows IAG and on the distribution list for all Working Group correspondence. Two years ago, in a May 22, 2002 meeting, the E10 IAG recommended that that a smaller working group be formed to tackle the Weiss Bypass flow issue. The IAG consensus was that members of this working group should be ADCNR, USFWS, APC and Kleinschmidt. Based on the IAG recommendation, we formed this smaller group of technical specialists and they have been working together diligently for these last two years. Currently, we are very close to reaching a recommendation on the starting flow and developing an Adaptive Management Plan for the Bypass. These recommendations ultimately will come back to the E10 IAG for comment and then to the CCRT for inclusion into the APEA. We appreciate your continuing participation and comments during this process, but in keeping with the original recommendations of the E10 IAG, and given the current status of the ongoing effort, changes to the Working Group membership at this time would be inappropriate. Thanks.

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: April Hall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 3:39 PM To: Crew, James F. Subject: RE: Weiss Bypass - March 9 Trip Report and May 20 Conference Call Notes

Jim - can you please add in the conference call notes that I had asked to see cost comparisons over a variety of flow scenarios and that APC declined to do such. I understand that APC will prepare cost numbers for the current proposal, but I had asked to be able to compare cost/flow scenarios.

Also, can you please add my name to the member list for this working group.

1 I think I have been involved with this group for long enough now to be considered a member. Thank you for adding ARA to the adaptive management steering committee.

I will have some comments to you soon about the starting flows and the adaptive management plan. Also, if they are available, can you email some updates about the technical team meetings? Was their a decision to have a meeting or call some time next week?

Thanks,

April

-----Original Message----- From: Crew, James F. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 2:19 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Sim, William A.; Lochamy, James S.; Pierson, John M.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; Tyberghein, Edmond J.; McVicar, Ashley M; [email protected]; [email protected]; Akridge, R. M.; Lovett, Barry K.; Brock, C. David (APC); Redmond, Howard J.; Jenkins, Viki R.; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shane Boring; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Weiss Bypass - March 9 Trip Report and May 20 Conference Call Notes

Dear Weiss Bypass Working Group Member,

Attached is the draft Sampling/Reconnaissance Trip Report dated March 9, 2004, and the draft notes from our May 20, 2004 conference call. Please review these drafts and provide any comments you may have by June 23rd. As always, we appreciate your participation. Thanks.

<> <> Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596

2 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:53 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Jenkins, Viki R.; 'Henry Mealing ([email protected])' Subject: RE: Weiss Bypass - March 9 Trip Report and May 20 Conference Call Notes

Downstream water quality issues will be addressed in our 401 application, which will be filed with ADEM in the couple of weeks.

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Stan Cook [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:26 AM To: Crew, James F. Subject: RE: Weiss Bypass - March 9 Trip Report and May 20 Conference Call Notes

Jim, Looks good. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WATER QUALITY ISSUES? This will be a huge part of the discussions about project flows as we move downstream from Weiss.

Stan

-----Original Message----- From: Crew, James F. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 1:19 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Sim, William A.; Lochamy, James S.; Pierson, John M.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; Tyberghein, Edmond J.; McVicar, Ashley M; [email protected]; [email protected]; Akridge, R. M.; Lovett, Barry K.; Brock, C. David (APC); Redmond, Howard J.; Jenkins, Viki R.; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shane Boring;

1 [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Weiss Bypass - March 9 Trip Report and May 20 Conference Call Notes

Dear Weiss Bypass Working Group Member,

<> <> Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

2 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:34 PM To: 'April Hall' Cc: Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: Alternative Proposals

April, Viki forwarded me your question concerning whether attendees should be prepared to discuss their own proposals and issues at our upcoming meeting. Hopefully, most of the attendees' issues have already been addressed in the various IAGs. If certain issues are still being discussed in an IAG or Working Group (such as the Weiss Bypass flows), proposals should be provided directly to that group. Any other alternative proposals for consideration can be brought up in the meeting, but we will still need that information provided in writing within 2 weeks of the meeting. Thanks. Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

1 From: Jenkins, Viki R. Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:18 PM To: Adam R. Snyder ([email protected]); Al Murray ([email protected]); Al Reid ([email protected]); Peeples, Alan L.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; April Hall ([email protected]); Art Goddard ([email protected]); McVicar, Ashley M; Lovett, Barry K.; Ben Tingle ([email protected]); Bert Jones ([email protected]); Bert Thaxton ([email protected]); Bill Campbell ([email protected]); Bill Garnett ([email protected]); Bill O'Brien ([email protected]); Sim, William A.; Bob Allen ([email protected]); Bob Huffaker ([email protected]); Bob Pasquill ([email protected]); ([email protected]); Bobby Ingram ([email protected]); Bruce DiGennaro ([email protected]); Bruce Hamrick ([email protected]); Bruce Shupp ([email protected]); Charles Ball ([email protected]); Charles Dixon ([email protected]); Charles Farrell ([email protected]); Charles Jensen ([email protected]); Shirah, Charles E.; Chris Greene ([email protected]); Connie Thrasher ([email protected]); Craig Hesterlee ([email protected]); Dan Catchings ([email protected]); Dan Murchison ([email protected]); Dan Thompson ([email protected]); Tignor, Danny G.; Darryl Harley ([email protected]); Dave and Lynn Cunningham ([email protected]); Dave Anderson ([email protected]); Dave Dominie ([email protected]); Dave Sligh ([email protected]); Brock, C. David (APC); Dennis, Karlton D.; David Haynes ([email protected]); David Umling ([email protected]); Deb Berry ([email protected]); Diana Woods ([email protected]); Diane McClellan ([email protected]); Dick Whatley ([email protected]); Don Greer ([email protected]); Don Haney ([email protected]); Don Kirkland ([email protected]); Dow Johnston ([email protected]); Edward Munson ([email protected]); Elizabeth Brown ([email protected]); Erin Coakley ([email protected]); Frank Jones ([email protected]); George Jackins ([email protected]); Martin, George A.; Hap Bryant ([email protected]); Baker, Harlom, Jr.; Heather Seiders ([email protected]); Helen Toth ([email protected]); Henry Mealing ([email protected]); Isabella Trussell ([email protected]); James D. Austin ([email protected]); Hancock, James (Balch); Jamie Freeman ([email protected]); Janet Hutzel ([email protected]); Janice Hamilton ([email protected]); Jason Moak ([email protected]); Redmond, Howard J.; Jeff Duncan ([email protected]); Jeff Garner ([email protected]); Jeff Powell ([email protected]); Jerry Culberson ([email protected]); Jerry Moss ([email protected]); Jerry Sailors ([email protected]); Jim Bain ([email protected]); Jim Beason ([email protected]); Jim Copeland ([email protected]); Crew, James F.; Jim Hillhouse ([email protected]); Jim Howard ([email protected]); Lochamy, James S.; Jim McIndoe ([email protected]); Jim Moore ([email protected]); Jim Woodrow ([email protected]); Joe Addison; Joe Dentici ([email protected]); Joe Nicholson ([email protected]); Joe Roberson ([email protected]); Joe Young ([email protected]); Joel Gardner ([email protected]); Johan Beumer ([email protected]); John Ammons ([email protected]); John D. Free ([email protected]); John Eisenbarth ([email protected]); John Hooker ([email protected]); Morris, John N., II; Jon Hornsby ([email protected]); Jon Strickland ([email protected]); Karen Pulliam ([email protected]); Kathy Nichols ([email protected]); Kathy Ransom ([email protected]); Bryant, Keith E.; Keith Floyd ([email protected]); Keith Guyse ([email protected]); Kellie Johnston ([email protected]); Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected]); Ken Swafford ([email protected]); Kevin Colburn ([email protected]); Larry Martens ([email protected]); Larry Watts ([email protected]); Simmons, L. F.; Lonnie Carden ([email protected]); Majali Yahia ([email protected]); Pierson, John M.; Mary Sue Olson ([email protected]); Bowden, Matthew (Balch); Matt Reid ([email protected]); Michael Cook ([email protected]); Michael Toth ([email protected]); Akridge, R. M.; Mike Eubanks ([email protected]); Monte Terharr ([email protected]); McDaniel, Pamela J.; Pat DeMotte ([email protected]); Patric Harper ([email protected]); Patti Leppert ([email protected]); Paul Kennedy ([email protected]); Plez West ([email protected]); Pres Allinder ([email protected]); Prescott Brownell ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Ray Cline ([email protected]); Ray Luce ([email protected]); Allums, Richard K.; Rick Claybrook ([email protected]); Robert Taylor ([email protected]); Yeargan, Roger D.; Ron McKitrick ([email protected]); Sam Piccolo ([email protected]); Shane Boring ([email protected]); Shannon R. Dewberry ([email protected]); Smith, Sheila C.; Stacye Hathorn ([email protected]); Stan Cook ([email protected]); Gidiere, Stephen (Balch); Steve Kartalia ([email protected]); Steven J. Rider ([email protected]); Susan Cielinski ([email protected]); Pyron, Ted J.; Tim Gothard ([email protected]); Toby Bennington ([email protected]); Tom Counts ([email protected]); Tom Groce ([email protected]); Tom Littlepage ([email protected]); Tom Sherburne ([email protected]); Ramey, Walter R.; Bowers, Willard L.; Dykes, William C.; Dillahunty, William R.; Edge, William; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Burns, Steven A. (Balch) Subject: Documents from June 10, 2004 CCRT and WCRT meeting

Dear Relicensing Stakeholders,

Attached are two documents that were the subject of the June 10, 2004 CCRT and WCRT meeting. The first is a copy of the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) proposal spreadsheet that was distributed to you in hard copy at the meeting. We made two edits to the document in this version. The first was a typo in the Lake Jordan alternative--we changed the word "late" to "lake". The second edit was to make the text for Logan Martin operations consistent with the text in R3 - Lake Level Fluctuations for Logan Martin the same.

As we discussed yesterday, this document is a compilation of recommendations that APC and the IAGs developed and that APC intends to analyze in the APEA. This information is not new--it has been developing within the respective IAGs. We wish to reiterate our thanks for the IAGs’ hard work over the last couple years in trying to reach consensus on many of the issues. There are still some issues for which negotiations and discussions are still on-going. In cases where there may have been an opposing view or recommendation within the IAG on a particular issue, we attempted to capture those and list them in the last column under "Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider."

The second attachment is Kelly Schaeffer's presentation, which we hope will assist in your understanding of the documents and your participation over the next 12 months.

Please review this information and provide comments to Jim Crew ([email protected]) and Barry Lovett ([email protected]) on or before Monday, June 28th. Your prompt review of the information provided will facilitate the time needed to analyze these recommendations in the APEA.

You will see these proposals again in the Preliminary Draft APEAs and Draft License Applications that APC intends to distribute in the early Fall 2004. You will have a 90-day review period and we will request written comments on those documents.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact Jim Crew at 205-257-4265 or Barry Lovett at 205-257-1268 or at the above listed email addresses.

Thank you again for your continued participation,

Jim Crew and Barry Lovett

Proposal for APEA ** In most cases the proposal presented presents a consensus between the IAG and APC. Where consensus has not yet been reached, another alternative is often identified in Issue Development column D. Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider Operations – Smith APC proposes to continue to operate the Smith Development according to the rule curve: normal summer pool is elevation 510' and winter elevation of 496'. Another Alternative under analysis is the USFS request not have the summer pool above 510' after Memorial Day and to Warrior evaluate effects of project operation on the Sipsey Fork Wild and Scenic River.

APC proposes to provide a flow release of approximately 50 cfs downstream of the Smith Dam. APC will construct a piping system that passes water from the penstock to the tailrace. During turbine outages, the flow release will be reduced as necessary to perform needed maintenance. Bankhead APC proposes to continue to operate the Bankhead development between elevations 252' and 255' in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers operations. Limiting elevations for the reservoir power operations at Bankhead Lock and Dam are Because of navigation requirements the pool must not be drawn down below elevation 252.0 feet above msl. The upper limit o 255.0 and 252.0. However, because of extensive development of the lake area by private owners the Alabama Power Company normally restricts the drawdown to about elevation 253.7. elevation 255.0 will not be exceeded except during floods when the inflow exceeds the full discharge capacity of the project, spillway plus turbine. The plant is remotely controlled and is normally operated as a peaking plant utilizing the one foot pondage between 254.0 and 255.0 to re-regulate the inflow. Power operations will be scheduled so that the pool will be at or below elevation 255.0 at all times except when flooding is occurring. In most cases the power plant will utilize all available flow up to capacity of the turbine. When the pool is at elevation 252.0, no power releases in excess of the inflow will be permitted.

Operations – Weiss APC proposes to continue normal summer pool elevation of 564 feet and raise the winter rule curve 3 feet to 561' msl from Jan.1 through Mar.1 then a constant rise to 564.0 on May 1. The Summer Rule Curve (564.0) would be extended from Aug.31 toThe Fall Rule Curve would be changed from a constantly dropping curve beginning on Sept.1 through Dec.31 to a curve Coosa Sept.30 . starting on Oct.1 dropping only 3 feet by Nov.30 and remaining at 561.0 through Dec. 31. This change is contingent upon approval by the ACOE.

APC proposes to release a variable continuous minimum flow into the Weiss Bypass Reach and develop an adaptive management plan for evaluating future flows. See E10 for details

Neely Henry APC proposes to operate the project according to the interim Flood Control Plan filed in 2001 as modified in 2004. The rule curve provides for normal summer pool elevation of 508' msl and normal winter pool of 507' msl. In the existing license requirements, Neely Henry was drawn down to elevation 505'. The proposed operation is based on the recent test revisions, approved by FERC, to the Neely Henry Rule Curve that have been in place since 2001.

Daily fluctuations would continue as they have under existing operations Another alternative under analysis is the Neely Henry Homeowner's Association recommendation that the lake surface elevatio vary no more than 12 inches from 508' during the summer months and no more than 8 inches from 507' during the winter months during daylight hours to improve boating safety.

Logan Martin APC proposes to operate the Logan Martin development according to the following rule curve: normal summer pool is elevation 465 feet and the winter pool will be raised two feet from existing winter elevation of 460' to elevation 462. From Jan 1 to The Fall Rule Curve would be changed from a three-foot drop beginning on Oct. 1 and a two-foot drop beginning Nov. 1 April 14 the pond would be at level 462 and then on April 15th there would be a constant rise to normal summer pool elevation of 465.0 on May 1. The summer rule curve would continue as currently operated. through Dec. 31 to a curve starting on Oct. 1 dropping 3 feet by Nov. 30 and remaining at 462.0 through Dec. 31. This change is contingent upon approval by the ACOE.

Lay APC proposes to continue to operate the Lay development with normal full pool of 396' msl. Daily fluctuations would continue as they have under existing operation APC proposes to upgrade Lay Units 1 and 2 including generator rewind or major turbine blade re-profiling in addition to component improvement needs. There will be no substantial change in flow as a result of this upgrade.

Mitchell APC proposes to continue to operate the Mitchell development with a normal full pool of 312' msl.

Jordan/ APC proposes to continue to operate the Jordan and Bouldin developments with normal full pool of 252.0' msl. Daily fluctuations would continue as they have under existing operations. APC proposes to maintain the existing aquatic enhancement flowAnother alternative to analyze from the Lake Jordan HOBOs is to modify current operations (limiting Jordan lake level Bouldin release plan below Jordan Dam (minimum flow releases for snails and fisheries) . fluctuations to no lower than el. 250.9 ft. msl when providing water from storage to meet minimum flow requirements) to provide a near full pool elevation during the morning high-use recreation periods and/or provide near full conditions on weekend mornings during May through August or other high use periods such as holidays to improve lake access and aesthetics. The Jordan HOBOs also recommends increasing the maintenance drawdown from 3 ft to 5 ft every 5 years to make it easier to perform maintenance and construction of shoreline facilities. The lake would be lowered and operated between el. For recreation flows, APC proposes to maintain existing recreation flows and continue consultation on the recreation flows between 4,000-8,000 cfs. 246 and 247. The upgrade improvements would not substantially change flow at either Jordan or Bouldin.

R1 Facilities Smith and Coosa APC proposes to develop and implement recreation plans for each project reservoir on the Coosa and Warrior Rivers. The Plans will contain an outline of a process for evaluating/investigating the sites described in column D for each reservoir, a partnership committment from local and/or state entities, and a schedule for implementation. The Plans will also include a provision for a yearly meeting to determine the priority of sites and committment of resources to those sites proposed for the upcoming year.

Confidential Page 1 Proposal for APEA ** In most cases the proposal presented presents a consensus between the IAG and APC. Where consensus has not yet been reached, another alternative is often identified in Issue Development column D. Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider R1 (Facilities)- Smith APC proposes to improve boat launch areas, parking and bank fishing in the reservoir and bank fishing access in the tailrace (see details in column D) . To address Forest Service (FS) recreation issues, APC proposes to work cooperatively with the FS Site 48 - Boat Launch, Parking and Bank Fishing Improvements (State Ramp Warrior improve boat docks, ramps, fishing piers, ADA low water access, beach retaining wall, and to replace beach sand and clean up shoreline woody debris. Site 49 - Bank Fishing Piers (Cullman County Park) Site 89 - Mims Family Carry-in (Sipsey River Site 3 - Boat Launch - Winston County - (Sipsey River Rt. 278) Site 40 - Boat Launch/Parking (Smith Dam) Site 96B - Bank Fishing Area (Downstream of pumphouse Site 96A Bank Fishing Area (Upstream of pumphouse Site 97 - Rt. 278 Brushy Creek Bank fishing Site 96C - Bank Fishing below Route 69

R1 (Facilities) Weiss APC proposes to improve recreation in the reservoir by providing bank fishing, boat launch improvements, parking, courtesy dock and fishing pier enhancements. Coosa Site 30 - Boat Launch Improvement (Causeway State Ramp Site 27 - Courtesy Dock (Cobia Bridge) APC proposes to enhance parking and boat launches at locations on the Weiss bypass reach. Site 75 - Fishing Pier Improvements (Cedar Bluff Pier) Site 58 - Fishing Pier (Southend Causeway) Site 85 - Boat Access/Bank Fishing (Below bypass Dam) Site 61 - Secure Property for Parking (Davis Ferry) Site 2 - Park-Gate-Clean up (Slackland Beach) Site 51 - Boat launch/bank fishing

Neely Henry APC proposes to improve recreation on the reservoir by enhancing informal bank fishing sites, parking, and boat launches. Site 12 A - Boat Launch Improvements (Rainbow City) Site 2 - Parking Improvements Phase 1 (Ten Islands) Site 40 - Secure Property (Old Ferry Crossing) Site 3 - Improve Boat Launch (Shoal Creek) Site 2 - Additional Trailer Parking, Phase 2 (Ten Islands) Site 4 - Day Use Fishing/Swimming (Westside County Road) Site 2 - Fishing Piers 3 Phase 3 (Ten Islands) Site 37 - Bank Fishing (Gadsden) Site 38 & 42 - Bank Fishing (Gadsden) Site 32 - Parking /Bank Fishing (Highway 77) Site 28A - Parking/Bank Fishing (Highway 77) Site 12B New Boat Launch Site 33 - Parking for Bank Fishing Site 10 - Bank Fishing Site 26 - Parking/Bank Fishing Site 45 - Launch across from Ten Islands

Logan Martin APC proposes to improve recreation on the reservoir by enhancing informal bank fishing sites, parking, and boat launches Site 55 - Bank Fishing Improvements (Highway 78) Site 57 - Boat Launch (Choccolocco Creek) Site 25 - Bank Erosion/Parking (Ohatchee Park) Site 42 - Bank Fishing (Lock 3) Site 44 - Bank Fishing Site 48 - Bank Fishing Site 45 - Pier, trail, parking Site 52 - Bank Fishing/pier/parking

Lay APC proposes to improve recreation on the reservoir by enhancing informal bank fishing sites, parking, and boat launches Site 13A - Improved Boat Launch Parking and Bank Fishing (Beeswax) Site 18 - Improved Boat Launch Parking and Bank Fishing (Childersburg) Site 13B - Bank Fishing-County Park (Beeswax) Site 3 - Expand Parking (Lay Dam Boat Ramp) Site 7 - Parking Boat Ramp (Lay Lake County 400) Site 35 - Bank Fishing Site Improvements Site 29 - Bank Fishing/Day Use (Cedar Creek) Site 14 - Parking/Future use Site 15 - Ramp repairs/future use

Mitchell APC proposes to add public access in the northern part of the reservoir and enhance boat launch and parking areas and fishing piers. Site 14 - Boat Launch and Parking Improvements (Barretts) Site 8 - Make safe for public boat launch (Big Foot Site) Site 6 - Boat Launch and Parking Improvements (Higgins) APC also proposes to develop primitive camping sites in the Wildlife Management Area. Site 12 - Boat Launch and Parking Improvements (Double Bridges) Site 8 - Boat Launch and Parking Improvements Site 5 - Boy Scout Camp Sites 16-17-33-34-27 Camping (Hatchet Creek Area) Site 21 - Carry in Boat launch

Confidential Page 2 Proposal for APEA ** In most cases the proposal presented presents a consensus between the IAG and APC. Where consensus has not yet been reached, another alternative is often identified in Issue Development column D. Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider Jordan / Bouldin APC proposes to enhance existing boat launch and parking areas and bank fishing areas, and appropriate signage at recreation facilities on the reservoir. Site 4 - Boat Launch Parking Phase 1 (Bonners) Site 20A - Parking Lot Lights Phase 1 (Rotary Point) Site 4 - Bank Fishing Improvements Phase 2 (Bonners) Site 20A - Boat Trailer Parking Phase 2 (Rotary Point) In the tailrace, APC proposes to provide a tailrace access platform and retain lands for additional access in the future, if needed. Site 34 - Tailrace Fishing (Jordan) Site 20B - Bank Fishing Ph 3 (Rotary Point) Site 46 - Bouldin Bank Fishing Facility (Sheila's Wharf) Site 22 - Signs (Dam) Site 30 - Bank Fishing Site 25C - Bank Fishing Site 47 - Future Use/Swimming access

Siltation Weiss & APC developed a plan for gathering baseline river-bottom cross-sectional data in 2003 for the Logan Martin Reservoir and then conduct follow up data collection by the end of the year 2005 for both Logan Martin and Weiss reservoirs. APC proposes to Logan Martin then consult with IAG members and request comments on the data results and then determine if additional study or discussion is needed.

APC proposes to encourage the use of on-going programs that target reducing upland erosion and subsequent transport of materials in the reservoir if siltation is found to be an on-going issue.

R2 – Public Safety -Smith APC proposes to implement an agreement with the Alabama Marine Police, dated July 1, 2003. Goals of this agreement include, but are not limited to the following: 1) address all aspects of public safety raised in relicensing (marking, education, Warrior training, control and management) at all APC reservoirs; 2) provide for fair, equitable and consistent distribution of resources and programs; 3) provide a solution that allows for both short and long term planning; 4) allows program flexibility to address the unexpected; 5) initiate early public implementation of the program i.e( ., 2003); and 6) clarify public safety responsibilities. APC is providing funding for this agreement with the Marine Police to facilitate accomplishment of the above stated goals.

R2 – Public Safety -Coosa APC proposes to implement an agreement with the Alabama Marine Police, dated July 1, 2003. Goals of this agreement include, but are not limited to the following: 1) address all aspects of public safety raised in relicensing (marking, education, APC proposes to implement an agreement with the Alabama Marine Police, dated July 1, 2003. A stakeholder group on the Coosa training, control and management) at all APC reservoirs; 2) provide for fair, equitable and consistent distribution of resources and programs; 3) provide a solution that allows for both short and long term planning; 4) allows program flexibility to addressCoosa River contends that woody debris is a public safety issue. The Marine Police have noted that they do not routinely the unexpected; 5) initiate early public implementation of the program (i.e., 2003); and 6) clarify public safety responsibilities. APC is providing funding for this agreement with the Marine Police to facilitate accomplishment of the above stated goals. consider woody debris as a safety issue. However, should an inspection lead the Marine Police Division to conclude that a significant public safety issue might exist because of APC’s practice of releasing woody debris and trash accumulations from its dam trash racks downstream, APC will, at the request of the Marine Police Division, reopen this issue for discussion and resolution. APC also agreed to place a general statement in the project recreation plans that states that APC in coordination with Lake Associations, and the Marine Police Division, will periodically monitor and review the amount, location, and origin of woody debris on APC reservoirs. Similarly, should the Alabama Department of Environmental Management conclude that a significant water quality issue might exist for the abovementioned reason, APC will, at the request of the ADEM, reopen this issue for discussion and resolution.

R3 – Lake Level Weiss APC proposes to continue normal summer pool elevation of 564 feet and raise the winter rule curve 3 feet to 561' msl from Jan.1 through Mar.1 then a constant rise to 564.0 on May 1. The Summer Rule Curve (564.0) would be extended from Aug.31 toThe Fall Rule Curve would be changed from a constantly dropping curve beginning on Sept.1 through Dec.31 to a curve Fluctuation Sept.30 . starting on Oct.1 dropping only 3 feet by Nov.30 and remaining at 561.0 through Dec. 31. This change is contingent upon approval by the ACOE.

Neely Henry APC proposes to operate the project according the following rule curve: normal summer pool elevation will be elevation 508' msl and normal winter pool will be 507' msl. Daily fluctuations would continue as they have under existing operations. Another alternative to consider is the Neely Henry Homeowner's Association recommendation that the lake surface elevation vary no more than 12 inches from 508' during the summer months and no more than 8 inches from 507' during the winter months during daylight hours to improve boating safety.

Confidential Page 3 Proposal for APEA ** In most cases the proposal presented presents a consensus between the IAG and APC. Where consensus has not yet been reached, another alternative is often identified in Issue Development column D. Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider Jordan APC proposes to continue to operate the Jordan and Bouldin developments with normal full pool of 252.0' msl. Daily fluctuations would continue as they have under existing operations. APC proposes to maintain the existing aquatic enhancement flowAnother alternative to analyze from the Lake Jordan HOBOs is to modify current operations (limiting Jordan lake level release plan below Jordan Dam (minimum flow releases for snails and fisheries) . fluctuations to no lower than el. 250.9 ft. msl when providing water from storage to meet minimum flow requirements) to provide a near full pool elevation during the morning high-use recreation periods and/or provide near full conditions on weekend mornings during May through August or other high use periods such as holidays to improve late access and aesthetics. The Jordan HOBO also recommend increasing the maintenance drawdown from 3 ft to 5 ft every 5 years to make it easier to perform maintenance and construction of shoreline facilities. The lake would be lowered and operated between el. 246 and 247.

R4 – Downstream See ecological issues (E10) Jordan - Another alternative to consider is the Coosa River Paddlers' request that APC consider recreation boating flows Flows between 4,000 and 8, 000 cfs, allowing for variations in flow releases.

R5- Flood Control APC proposes to operate the Projects according to a modified Flood Control Plan in coordination and consultation with the ACOE.

R6 – Shoreline Coosa & Smith APC proposes to implement, upon FERC approval, a Shoreline Management Plan--including an enhanced permitting program--for the Coosa and Warrior River Projects. Items included in the SMP include, but are not limited to: 1) providing guidanceA general statement will be put in the project recreation plans that state that APC will continue to help promote and assist lake Management for existing and future management actions within the Project’s FERC boundary, including specifying long term shoreline management goals for the Coosa River Hydroelectric Projects; 2) stating APC’s policies relative to activities that may affect reservoir groups and other stakeholders in their efforts to remove trash and litter from APC reservoirs through the voluntary shoreline management (e.g., dredging, bank stabilization, channelization, etc.); 3) establishing a shoreline classification system to protect natural resources and guide future shoreline management actions; 4) describing, promoting and recommending lake shore clean up efforts. homeowner shoreline best management practices in three key areas: buffer zones and vegetation management, water quality and property development and management; 5) summarizing APC’s enhanced shoreline permitting guidelines; and 6) describing an implementation plan and review cycle for the SMP.

Coosa & Smith In addition, APC proposes to address the styrofoam issue on both the Coosa and Warrior project lakes through the enhanced permit system, as follows: 1) Establish January 1, 2010 as a deadline by which all unencapsulated beaded foam floatation must be removed from all permitted structures. 2) a) Permits for construction of new floating structures will require floatation be of materials which will not become water-logged or sink when punctured. Closed cell (extruded) expanded polystyrene of good quality and manufactured for marine use will be required. Lesser quality foam bead flotation may be used if it is encased (encapsulated) in a protective coating, and manufactured for marine use, to prevent deterioration with resultant loss of beads. b) Permits for modifications to existing floating structures will require signed certification from the permittee that beaded foam materials have been removed from the project and disposed of in an appropriate manner. These permits will also require that all beaded foam floatation is replaced with approved flotation materials as described in 2) a) above. c) Existing floating structures with deteriorated beaded foam flotation or losing beaded foam flotation (creating aesthetic or possible navigation issues) will be addressed on a case by case basis by Alabama Power Company.

Smith Due to the magnitude of the styrofoam issue at Smith Lake, APC proposes to implement an enhanced permitting program, as described above for the Coosa, and provide two additional provisions to address the severity of the issue. Those provisions include: 1) If possible, accelerate scheduled construction of Smith Recreation Site 40 (3rd ramp) to be completed by September 2005, to further facilitate styrofoam removal from the reservoir. 2) a) By September 2005, provide a “winch boat” jointly to the Associations to complement their existing “work boat” and allow them to remove the most difficult pieces of styrofoam from the shoreline. b) Consider additional future support if 2. a) is successful.

R7 – Cultural APC proposes to implement a Programmatic Agreement and a Historic Properties Management Plan for the Coosa and Warrior Projects.APC proposes to designate certain areas as sensitive under the proposed SMP land classification system and afford Resources additional protection.

R8 – Public APC proposes to develop and implement a variety of public education initiatives in consultation with the IAGs. Education

R9 – Federal To address Forest Service (FS) recreation issues, APC proposes to work cooperatively with the FS to improve boat docks, ramps, fishing piers, ADA low water access, beach retaining wall, and to replace beach sand and clean up shoreline woody debris.Exact sties and measures are under discussion with the USFS Lands Site - Boat Docks - Site - Boat Ramps Site - Beach Sand Site - Fishing Piers Site - ADA Low Water Access Site - Beach Retaining Wall

Confidential Page 4 Proposal for APEA ** In most cases the proposal presented presents a consensus between the IAG and APC. Where consensus has not yet been reached, another alternative is often identified in Issue Development column D. Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider ECOLOGICAL - These Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement (PME) measures apply to all reservoirs unless specifically noted. E1 – Point and APC proposes to continue to stay involved with Alabama’s Clean Water Partnership Program on the Coosa and Warrior River until the program is completed. APC proposes to use the Coosa Basin Assessment, the Warrior Basin Assessment, the ADEM 303(d) list, and the NPDES Non Point information for developing the Coosa and Warrior Environmental Assessments.

APC proposes to share all technical data generated during relicensing with the CWP. APC Proposes to work with the ADEM and ADECA to cooperate on public education efforts at the state and local levels. APC currently has employees involved at several various levels of the CWP process and they contribute funds to the process each year. APC proposes to continue to stay involved with the CWP process at this level.

APC proposes to incorporate ADEM and ADECA public education information into their Shoreline Management Plan. APC proposes to share all technical data generated during relicensing with the CWP and has already begun that effort in 2003

APC Proposes to work with the ADEM and ADECA to cooperate on public education efforts at the state and local levels.

APC proposes to incorporate ADEM and ADECA public education information into their Shoreline Management Plan.

E2 – Erosion APC proposes to develop an erosion monitoring program for specific erosion areas located in the project boundary at the Smith Tailrace, Bouldin Tailrace, and Weiss Tailrac Erosion Monitoring locations and techniques are described in the Coosa and Warrior Erosion Monitoring Plan APC proposes to consider repairs to specific erosion areas in the Smith Tailrace identified during the erosion surveys

APC proposes to reduce winter drawdown on Weiss and Logan Martin lakes, which should reduce the current levels of erosion experienced on these two lake APC proposes to promote BMPs in the SMP that may reduce erosion and siltation. E3 - Water APC proposes to meet the current state water quality standard of 4.0 mg/l for DO during generation periods. These may be accomplished through a variety of techniques available to APC. These may include changes to operation, turbin Quality venting, draft tube venting, oxygen injection, etc.

An alternative proposal is to consider the ability to meet DO levels of 5.0 mg/l which is higher than currently required by the state. E4 – Water APC proposes to continue with their current water withdrawal permitting process as outlined in the E4 Water Withdrawal Report. Withdrawals E5 - Toxins APC proposes to educate the stakeholders on toxins in the basin through the issuance of a Toxins report.

E6 – T&E APC proposes to make their TE&S database available to state and federal agencies APC proposes to consult with the USFWS on Section 7 ESA species and issues and submit a biological assessment to FERC

APC proposes to designate certain areas as sensitive under the proposed SMP land classification system and afford additional protection. Weiss APC proposes to release a continuous flow with seasonal variability in the Weiss Bypass to enhance mussel habitat and existing populations of TE&S mussel species. APC proposes an adaptive management plan to monitor this issue.

Smith APC proposes to work in coordination with the USFWS and ADCNR to enhance selected species of snails and mussels at a selected number of sites in the Upper Warrior basin

APC proposes to coordinate with federal resource agencies on terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered species. E7 – Exotics and APC proposes to continue management of nuisance aquatic vegetation as outlined in their Aquatic Vegetation Control Plan Aquatic Plant Management APC proposes to continue management of mosquitoes as outlined in their Vector Control Plan Program E8 – Lake Level This operation change should increase overall spawning of selected sunfish species (crappie and largemouth bass especially). Fluctuation APC proposes to raise the Weiss Reservoir Winter Rule Curve by 3 feet to a higher winter pool of 561' to enhance crappie spawning

APC proposes to raise the Winter Rule Curve of Logan Martin up to 2 feet of the existing normal winter pool to 462' to enhance crappie spawning. APC proposes to continue to operate the projects, on a voluntary basis, to include two weeks of lake stabilization on Smith and Weiss during the spring to assist in Black Bass and crappie spawning

E9 – Habitat Coosa APC proposes to work with the USFWS, ADCNR and ACOE, to explore fish passage possibilities at an Army Corps of Engineer's project on the Alabama River to decrease habitat fragmentation of the aquatic system downstream of the projects. Fragmentation

Warrior APC proposes to assist the USFS in repairing culverts on USFS lands to address aquatic habitat fragmentation. APC proposes to issue the final Terrestrial Habitat Fragmentation report from Dr. Whetstone to help resolve this issue.

Confidential Page 5 Proposal for APEA ** In most cases the proposal presented presents a consensus between the IAG and APC. Where consensus has not yet been reached, another alternative is often identified in Issue Development column D. Additional Details and/or Additional Alternatives to Consider E10 – Project Weiss Bypass APC proposes to provide a variable release flow into the Weiss Bypass to enhance fish and mussel habitat. This starting spillway release is based on a monthly percentage of the Coosa River flow as measured at the USGS Mayo’s Bar gage. Monthly Releases spillway release flows vary from 4 to 10% and yield an average annual release flow of 6% of the Coosa River flow. • The monthly percentage will be used in combination with the 3 and 4-day average Coosa River flows (at the USGS Mayo’s Bar gage) to determine the flow that will be passed into the Weiss Bypass at the Spillway structure. This will provide seasonality of flows (both monthly and annually)

APC proposes to continue to provide annual flushing flows to the Weiss Bypass as part of their flood control operations without limiting the frequency or magnitude of spillway release

APC proposes to develop and implement an Adaptive Management Plan for the Weiss Bypass. The plan will monitor the success of the start flow for enhancing fish and mussel distribution and populations and establish study methodology and decision making processes, including an Adaptive Management Steering Committee, to evaluate the information collected throughout the license term

Jordan APC proposes to maintain the same ecological flow release plan below Jordan Dam (minimum flow releases for snails and fisherie

E10 – Project Smith Tailrace APC proposes to provide a flow release during periods of non-generation of approximately 50 cfs downstream of the Smith Dam. During turbine outages, the flow release will be reduced as necessary to perform needed maintenance. Releases

APC proposes to assist the ADCNR with the trout stocking program at the Smith tailrace APC proposes to consult with the ADCNR and USFWS to develop and implement a Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Smith Tailrace to include the placement and periodic maintenance of instream habitat (logs, boulders, FADs, etc.).

APC proposes to consult with the ADCNR and USFWS to develop and implement a Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Smith Tailrace to include a schedule for placement and periodic maintenance of instream habitat (logs, boulders, FADs, etc.).

E11 - Entrainment APC proposes to implement the following measures to address entrainment. 1) use on-going programs to reduce upland erosion and transport of sediments; 2) operate the Neely Henry development with a normal full pool of 508' msl and a winter pool Inof addition to the measures listed in Column C, APC proposes to continue the voluntary Christmas Tree program to continue t 507' msl; raise winter rule curve at Weiss and Logan Martin by 3 feet and 2 feet, respectively, to enhance crappie spawning; 4) meet the state water quality standards of 4.0 mg/l for dissolved oxygen during generation periods; 5) work with the USFWS,provide fish habitat and assist in any losses from entrainment. ADCNR, and ACOE to explore fish passage possibilities at an ACOE project on the Alabama River; 6) assist USFS in repairing culverts on USFS lands to address aquatic habitat fragmentation; 7) implement the SMP which includes BMPs and a requirment for adding rip-rap to all bank stabilzation projects (i.e., seawalls); 8) implement flow releases below Smith and in the Weiss bypass; and 9) install fish attraction devices in the Smith tailrace.

APC proposes to continue to plant rye grass on a voluntary basis to provide additional fish spawning area

APC proposes to continue to provide a voluntary 2 week spring lake stabilization to support spring spawning at Smith and Weiss.

E12 – Wetlands APC proposes to provide protections for wetlands located within the project boundaries of the Warrior and Coosa hydroelectric projects by

Incorporating the wetland database into APC’s GIS database as a tool for administering the Shoreline Management Plan

Continuing to cooperate with the ACOE wetland permitting process for developments that impact jurisdictional wetland

Recommending BMPs that will protect riparian zones located within the project boundary

In addition, APC proposes to develop a public education initiative upon FERC approval of the license to educate the public on the value of wetland

E13 – Wildlife APC proposes to extend the lease on the Mitchell Wildlife Area to the ADCNR. Management Plan

APC proposes to develop, upon license approval, a Wildlife Management Plan for the Coosa Developments with the ADCNR USFS Issues APC Proposes the following to address USFS issues: Summarized 1) Provide funding for the USFS to address habitat fragmentation through the redevelopment of their culvert system on the National Fores APC performed a Habitat Fragmentation study (Dr. Whetstone) and will provide that information to the USFS 2) In order to reduce illegal access, APC proposes to educate Smith surveillance contractors about USFS property boundaries and report any clear encroachments on known USFS land to a USFS contact. APC performed surveys of Illegal Access Sites identified by USFS and provided a detailed report of that data to the USFS.

APC collected detailed Water Quality data on tributary streams on USFS lands and will provide a report of this data to the 3) Provide a final water quality report to the USFS. USFS. 4) Provide a final report from Dr. Whetstone on terrestrial habitat fragmentation 5) Continue the Flattened musk turtle cooperative efforts APC cooperated with the USFS in collection of two years of data on the FMT 6) Continue to assist in woody debris removal at beach areas 7) Assist in providing boat docks at Clear Creek 8) Assist in improving ramps to improve low water access 9) Assist in providing for beach sand replacement at Clear Creek and Corinth 10) Assist in providing fishing piers at Clear Creek and Corinth 11) Assist in addressing project related erosion issues. 12) Assist in redeveloping beach retaining wall at Clear Creek.

Confidential Page 6 NEPA PROCESS & PRESENTATION OF RELICENSING PROPOSALS TO DATE

CCRT & WCRT MEETING June 10, 2004 Agenda

9 Review Timeline 9Discuss Primary Documents 9APEA 9License Application 9Present Proposals and Alternatives Meeting Goals

9 Understand where we are in the process

9 Understand why APC is preparing Preliminary Draft Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessments (APEA) and Draft License Applications

9 Understand how APC is using the IAGs’ work in preparation for filing with FERC

9 Understand how proposals and alternatives were developed

9 Begin review of existing proposals Timeline Review

9 Draft Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessments (APEA) Fall 2004

9 Draft License Applications

9 90-day Review & Comment period

9 WCRT & CCRT Meeting to discuss comments

9 Prepare Final Applications & APEAs

9 File Final License Applications & Preliminary APEAs What is the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment?

A document that:

9 Analyzes the proposed action & other action alternatives

9 Discloses effects

9 Helps FERC in their decision making on a new license What is an Alternative?

9 Heart of the NEPA document

9 Objectively evaluates reasonable recommendations

9 Three types:

9 Proposed Action: Typically what the licensee and/or group proposes

9 No Action Alternative: No change from the existing license requirements; environmental baseline used to compare other alternatives

9 Other Action Alternatives: This alternative analyzes the effects of a recommendation and compares it to the effects of the proposed action How Were the Alternatives Developed?

9Through IAGs

9On-going negotiations

9Larger stakeholder groups (e.g., SMP) Alternatives vs. Recommendations

Alternative – suite of recommendations by an entity that is different from the proposed action; sometimes a variation of one issue, such as flow

Recommendation – most often single issue focused, and is a “variation” from a similar PME measure proposed by the licensee or IAGs What if there wasn’t unanimous consensus?

9 Opposing opinions were documented

9 Reports may have been generated to address those opposing recommendations

9 Presented in the NEPA document as an opposing recommendation for a particular issue How will APC use information derived from the IAGs?

• Present in the APEA and application

• Support with reports, meeting notes, correspondence from stakeholders

• Prepare the document in a format that FERC can use Application

• Prepared for Warrior & Coosa

• Contains various exhibits

¾ Exhibit A – Description of the project

¾ Exhibit B – Statement of project operation & resource utilization

¾ Exhibit C – Construction history & proposed construction schedule

¾ Exhibit D – Statement of cost & financing

¾ Exhibit F – Design drawings of principal project works

¾ Exhibit G – Project Maps

¾ Exhibit H – Compliance History of Applicant The Proposal to Date

9 Majority of Issues - IAG generated proposal

9 Additional details for clarification

9 Action Alternatives identified

9 For use in developing Draft APEA Review Guidelines

9 Issues were addressed in IAG

9 On-going negotiations – keep at IAG level

9 Majority of Issues - IAG generated proposals

9 Provide written detail of alternative or recommendation

9 Proposed Action may change Schedule

9 June 28th – Stakeholder Comments on Proposal to APC 9 Summer 2004 – Stakeholder Consultation on remaining issues 9 Fall 2004 – Public review of Draft License Applications and APEA 9 Fall 2004 – 90-day public review and comment 9 Nov/Dec 2004 – CCRT/WCRT Meeting From: Crew, James F. Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:36 AM To: Steve Rickerson; 'Kent Davenport'; Glen Gaines Cc: Akridge, R. M.; Lovett, Barry K.; Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: FS Counter Proposal and Upcoming Meeting

Dear Steve, Kent, and Glen,

We are very disappointed in the Forest Service’s May 28, 2004 Informal Counter Recommendations for the Smith Relicensing, which does not acknowledge or attempt to build upon the APC proposal presented at our meeting in Montgomery on April 20, 2004. When we met in the fall of 2003 and explained why we had made little progress on Forest Service issues, you seemed to clearly understand and pledged to help move the process forward. In reviewing this counter proposal, it is clear from our perspective that we are back in the same position we were two years ago. One of the biggest problems is the faulty assumption presented in the ” Rationale” that APC has shared responsibility to care for lands clearly removed from the Smith project boundary. The project nexus has been inaccurately portrayed and makes further negotiations very difficult. We strongly recommend deleting any reference to APC’s responsibilities on National Forest Service lands. This counter proposal leads us to believe that the Forest Service is somewhat misguided in its interpretation of the licensee’s responsibilities on federal lands and does not accept the FERC definition of project nexus.

How can we move forward? First, APC needs to have a clear understanding of who is making the recommendations within the Forest Service. Second, we need to know if you find the FERC definition of project nexus unacceptable. Third, we need to know if you have discarded our April 20, 2004 proposal, and if so, why? Typically, counter proposals build on or modify the original offer, but we see no evidence of that in your counter proposal. Fourth, we think the idea of developing estimated costs and partnership responsibilities in the proposal is fine, once we agree to the specific protection, mitigation or enhancement measures appropriate to address an issue.

At this time, it is difficult for us to see how we are to move forward with this counter proposal via a meeting this coming Thursday (June 17, 2004). Our time, like yours, is very valuable and our time in this relicensing process is rapidly coming to a close. From our perspective, we would need to see your counter proposal restructured to address the specific concerns referenced in this memo. Then, perhaps a meeting for the small group that convened here in our office in the fall of 2003 would be appropriate.

If a restructuring of your counter proposal is not possible, we need a written confirmation of that decision in order for us to continue work on the environmental assessment and analyze what measures the Forest Service wants considered in the NEPA document.

After our fall, 2003 meeting with you, we were very optimistic that the previous problems we had in our consultation with the Forest Service could be overcome and significant progress could be made on the issues identified. Although your counter proposal presents us with serious doubt about that progress, we remain willing to do what’s necessary and look forward to additional discussions on these subjects to hopefully reach a mutually agreeable decision.

Sincerely,

Jim Crew and Barry Lovett Jim James F. Crew 1 Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

2 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:23 AM To: Ron McKitrick ([email protected]); Patricia Leppert ([email protected]) Cc: Akridge, R. M.; Lovett, Barry K.; Jenkins, Viki R.; Kelly Schaeffer; 'Henry Mealing' Subject: Forest Service Consultation

As we discussed, attached is the following recent correspondence with the Forest Service;

1. APC's April 20, 2004 list of proposed P & E measures 2. FS's counter proposal of June 7 3. APC's June 14 email to FS responding to their counter proposal

042004 APC Fw: Forest FS Counter oposal for Addresrvice Counter Proposal and Upcom Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

1 Date: April 20, 2004

Re: APC's Proposal for Addressing Forest Service Issues

APC has developed a draft comprehensive proposal to addressthe u.s. Forest Service's (FS) recreation, land use and ecological issues that were raised during the relicensing process and discussed in detail with FS staff. This package of Protection & Enhancement (P&E) measuresis focused primarily on those FS issues where there is a nexus to the Smith Project. However, in order to put forward a comprehensive agreement package, APC has proposed P&E measuresthat exceed the project nexus in specific areas.

APC's draft proposal contains the following:

I. Provide funding for the FS to addresshabitat fragmentation through the redevelopment of their culvert system on the National Forest.

2. In order to reduce illegal access,APC will educate Smith surveillance contractors about FS property boundaries and report any clear encroachments on known FS land to a FS contact .

3. Provide a final water quality report.

4. Provide a final report from Dr. Whetstone on terrestrial habitat fragmentation.

5. Continue Flattened musk turtle cooperative efforts.

6. Implement a minimum flow below Smith Dam to improve water quality and habitat.

7. Continue to assist in woody debris removal at beach areas.

8. Implement a Shoreline Management Plan, including a revised lakeshore permit system and sensitive land category to protect sensitive resource areas.

9. Assist in providing boat docks at Clear Creek, Corinth, Houston.

10. Assist in improving ramps to improve low water access.

1. Assist in providing for beach sand replacement at Clear Creek and Corinth.

12. Assist in providing fishing piers at Clear Creek and Corinth

13. Assist in addressingproject relatederosion issues.

14. Assist in redeveloping beach retaining wall at Clear Creek.

CONFIDENTIAL -FOR FOREST SERVICE MEETING ON 4/20/04 From: Kent Davenport [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:35 PM To: Crew, James F. Subject: Fw: Forest Service Counter Proposal to APC's 4-20-04 Proposal

initial counter ecommendation..

----- Forwarded by Kent Davenport/R8/USDAFS on 06/07/2004 01:34 PM -----

Elrand Denson/R8/USDAFS To 05/29/2004 02:08 [email protected], AM [email protected] cc

Subject Forest Service Counter Proposal to APC's 4-20-04 Proposal

Mr. Jim Crew & Mr. Barry Lovett Alabama Power Company P.O Box 2641 Birmingham, AL. 35291

Dear Jim & Barry:

This cover letter is our informal response to Alabama Power Companies April 20, 2004 Proposal for Addressing Forest Service Issues. Your proposal stated, " APC has developed a draft comprehensive proposal to address the

1 U. S. Forest Service’s (FS) recreation, land use and ecological issues that were raised during the relicensing process and discussed in detail with FS staff. This package of Protection & Enhancement (P&E) measures is focused primarily on those FS issues where there is a nexus to the Smith Project. However, in order to put forward a comprehensive agreement package, APC has proposed P&E measures that exceed the project nexus in specific areas." As the caretakers of this majestic public lands, we really appreciate the good faith effort in working together in this process.

The Forest staff has put together a counter proposal which have identified seven major areas to negotiate on June 17th. The items are:

I. Annual Maintenance and Operations of Clear Creek, Corinth, and Houston Recreation Areas II. Long-term Improvements and Maintenance of Clear Creek, Corinth, and Houston Recreation Areas III. Decommissioning of Unmanaged Recreation Locations IV. Sipsey Wild and Scenic River Impacts from Motorized Lake Use V. Long-term Monitoring of Aquatic Species and Habitats in the Sipsey and Brushy Watersheds VI. Implementation of Land Management Activities for Restoring Healthy Forests and Watersheds VII. Cultural Resources

The proposal starts with the general and goes into some detail on the related issues as we deem to have a project nexus. We look forward to having constructive dialog on the proposed items. If you have any questions please give me a call 334-241-8158 or Darryl Harley at 334-241-8138. Thank you for your patience!

Sincerely,

/s/ Elrand D. Denson Elrand D. Denson Hydropower Coordinator

(See attached file: initial counter recommendations for apc 4-20-04 proposal.doc)

2 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:36 AM To: Steve Rickerson; 'Kent Davenport'; Glen Gaines Cc: Akridge, R. M.; Lovett, Barry K.; Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: FS Counter Proposal and Upcoming Meeting

Dear Steve, Kent, and Glen,

Sincerely,

Jim Crew and Barry Lovett Jim James F. Crew 1 Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

2 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:12 PM To: Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: FW: APC - USFS Consultation - Warrior Relicensing

-----Original Message----- From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:05 PM To: 'Steve Rickerson' Cc: Crew, James F.; Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected]); Patti Leppert ([email protected]); Mr. Ron McKitrick ([email protected]); Kent Davenport; Glen Gaines Subject: APC - USFS Consultation - Warrior Relicensing

Dear Steve,

This memo is in response to your memo today, as well as our subsequent telephone conversation and e-mails.

After review of your 10:0 AM memo to Jim Crew and myself today, it is clear that APC's concerns (expressed in our memo to you, Kent and Glen yesterday) related to the definition of project nexus remain unresolved. We also believe that until this item can be resolved, further progress on issues would be most difficult.

Because of this, we are recommending a conference call next Wednesday, June 23rd to discuss this specific item. We would like this call to include FERC staff as well as appropriate USFS and APC representatives.

If those copied on this memo will advise me as to their availability on the 23rd (with the exception of 1:00 - 2:30 PM Central), we will be glad to make the necessary arrangements for this conference call.

As we discussed today Steve, we agree that there is common ground on some of the issues provided in APC's April 20th proposal and the USFS' counter proposal received June 7th. However, understanding and hopefully, agreeing on this item of project nexus is essential to allow discussions/negotiations on the individual areas of concern to incorporate accurate, reasonable expectations of FERC licensee responsibility.

We look forward to discussing this further with you and FERC staff.

Thanks.

Barry and Jim

1 -----Original Message----- From: Steve Rickerson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 4:43 PM To: Lovett, Barry K.; Crew, James F. Cc: Michele Robertson Subject:

Barry, I have had another appointment made for 1 PM-2:30PM on Wednesday, June 23. So let's try to dodge that time for our conference call, Wednesday if possible. Thank you.

Steve Rickerson National Forests in Alabama 334-241-8165

2 From: Jenkins, Viki R. Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:02 PM To: Adam R. Snyder ([email protected]); Al Murray ([email protected]); Al Reid ([email protected]); Peeples, Alan L.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; April Hall ([email protected]); Art Goddard ([email protected]); McVicar, Ashley M; Lovett, Barry K.; Ben Tingle ([email protected]); Bert Jones ([email protected]); Bert Thaxton ([email protected]); Bill Campbell ([email protected]); Bill Garnett ([email protected]); Bill O'Brien ([email protected]); Sim, William A.; Bob Allen ([email protected]); Bob Huffaker ([email protected]); Bob Pasquill ([email protected]); ([email protected]); Bobby Ingram ([email protected]); Bruce DiGennaro ([email protected]); Bruce Hamrick ([email protected]); Bruce Shupp ([email protected]); Charles Ball ([email protected]); Charles Dixon ([email protected]); Charles Farrell ([email protected]); Charles Jensen ([email protected]); Shirah, Charles E.; Chris Greene ([email protected]); Connie Thrasher ([email protected]); Craig Hesterlee ([email protected]); Dan Catchings ([email protected]); Dan Murchison ([email protected]); Dan Thompson ([email protected]); Tignor, Danny G.; Darryl Harley ([email protected]); Dave and Lynn Cunningham (sly- [email protected]); Dave Anderson ([email protected]); Dave Dominie ([email protected]); Dave Sligh ([email protected]); Brock, C. David (APC); Dennis, Karlton D.; David Haynes ([email protected]); David Umling ([email protected]); Deb Berry ([email protected]); Diana Woods ([email protected]); Diane McClellan ([email protected]); Dick Whatley ([email protected]); Don Greer ([email protected]); Don Haney ([email protected]); Don Kirkland ([email protected]); Dow Johnston ([email protected]); Edward Munson ([email protected]); Elizabeth Brown ([email protected]); Erin Coakley ([email protected]); Frank Jones ([email protected]); George Jackins ([email protected]); Martin, George A.; Hap Bryant ([email protected]); Baker, Harlom, Jr.; Heather Seiders ([email protected]); Helen Toth ([email protected]); Henry Mealing ([email protected]); Isabella Trussell ([email protected]); James D. Austin ([email protected]); Hancock, James (Balch); Jamie Freeman ([email protected]); Janet Hutzel ([email protected]); Janice Hamilton ([email protected]); Jason Moak ([email protected]); Redmond, Howard J.; Jeff Duncan ([email protected]); Jeff Garner ([email protected]); Jeff Powell ([email protected]); Jerry Culberson ([email protected]); Jerry Moss ([email protected]); Jerry Sailors ([email protected]); Jim Bain ([email protected]); Jim Beason ([email protected]); Jim Copeland ([email protected]); Crew, James F.; Jim Hillhouse ([email protected]); Jim Howard ([email protected]); Lochamy, James S.; Jim McIndoe ([email protected]); Jim Moore ([email protected]); Jim Woodrow ([email protected]); Joe Addison; Joe Dentici ([email protected]); Joe Nicholson ([email protected]); Joe Roberson ([email protected]); Joe Young ([email protected]); Joel Gardner ([email protected]); Johan Beumer ([email protected]); John Ammons ([email protected]); John D. Free ([email protected]); John Eisenbarth ([email protected]); John Hooker (ange2 @peop.tds.net); Morris, John N., II; Jon Hornsby ([email protected]); Jon Strickland ([email protected]); Karen Pulliam ([email protected]); Kathy Nichols ([email protected]); Kathy Ransom ([email protected]); Bryant, Keith E.; Keith Floyd ([email protected]); Keith Guyse ([email protected]); Kellie Johnston ([email protected]); Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected]); Ken Swafford ([email protected]); Kevin Colburn ([email protected]); Larry Martens ([email protected]); Larry Watts ([email protected]); Simmons, L. F.; Lonnie Carden ([email protected]); Majali Yahia ([email protected]); Pierson, John M.; Mary Sue Olson ([email protected]); Bowden, Matthew (Balch); Matt Reid ([email protected]); Michael Cook ([email protected]); Michael Toth ([email protected]); Akridge, R. M.; Mike Eubanks ([email protected]); Monte Terharr ([email protected]); P Flannelly ([email protected]); McDaniel, Pamela J.; Pat DeMotte ([email protected]); Patric Harper ([email protected]); Patti Leppert

1 To: ([email protected]); Paul Kennedy ([email protected]); Plez West ([email protected]); Pres Allinder ([email protected]); Prescott Brownell ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Ray Cline ([email protected]); Ray Luce ([email protected]); Allums, Richard K.; Rick Claybrook ([email protected]); Robert Taylor ([email protected]); Yeargan, Roger D.; Ron McKitrick ([email protected]); Sam Piccolo ([email protected]); Shane Boring ([email protected]); Smith, Sheila C.; Stacye Hathorn ([email protected]); Stan Cook ([email protected]); Gidiere, Stephen (Balch); Burns, Steven A. (Balch); Steve Kartalia ([email protected]); Steven J. Rider ([email protected]); Susan Cielinski ([email protected]); Pyron, Ted J.; Tim Gothard ([email protected]); Toby Bennington ([email protected]); Tom Counts ([email protected]); Tom Groce ([email protected]); Tom Littlepage ([email protected]); Tom Sherburne ([email protected]); Ramey, Walter R.; Bowers, Willard L.; Dykes, William C.; Dillahunty, William R.; Edge, William; Yawanna Nabors McDonald ([email protected]) Subject: Status of Shoreline Management Plan

Stakeholders, We know many of you have inquired about the status of the Shoreline Management Plan since our last meeting on April 14th. As a result of that meeting, we received over a hundred comments on the draft SMP and are spending a considerable amount of time addressing each comment. As a result, we plan to have the Final Draft SMP ready for distribution in August. We do not foresee holding another workshop to gather additional input from the larger group; however, you will have another chance to voice your comments on the SMP when it is submitted to FERC as part of the Draft License Application this fall. We appreciate your comments and your patience in this process and look forward to distributing the Final Draft SMP in August. If you have any questions, please contact Alan Peeples. Thank you.

Viki Jenkins Hydro Services Phone: 205-257-2211 Cell: 205-919-6092 Fax: 205-257-1596 Email: [email protected]

2 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 11:58 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: RE: Weiss AM plan

April,

As you know, our relicensing process depends on the discussion of issues through IAGs and Working Groups, and not on "formal responses" to specific comment letters. The Weiss Bypass Working Group, operating under these guidelines, was charged with the responsibility of developing a flow release plan and an adaptive management plan for the Weiss bypass reach. The Group has considered all comments received during the development of these two plans. Some comments were incorporated and some were not based on their consistency with the Group's objectives and the desire to reach consensus.

We encourage your continued participation in this effort, and look forward to seeing you on Thursday.

Thanks,

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: April Hall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:28 PM To: Crew, James F. Subject: Weiss AM plan

Jim, Does Alabama Power plan on responding to the comments I submitted in June about the previous Weiss AMP (comments dated June 11, 2004)? The comments I made have not been addressed in the new version of the plan and I would very much appreciate an explanation as to why my suggestions were not incorporated. I would be happy to talk to you and other APC representatives about my comments if you would like to schedule some time this week. Thanks, April

April Hall, P.E. Watershed Restoration Specialist Alabama Rivers Alliance 2027 2nd Avenue North, Suite A Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-6395 FAX: (205) 322-6397 1-877-862-5260 [email protected] www.alabamarivers.org From: Crew, James F. Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:48 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Jeff Powell ([email protected])'; Sim, William A.; Pierson, John M.; 'Henry Mealing ([email protected])' Cc: Akridge, R. M.; Grogan, John D.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; Lochamy, James S.; Hancock, James (Balch); 'Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected])'; 'Jason Moak ([email protected])'; 'Shane Boring'; 'Steve Kartalia ([email protected])'; Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: Draft Fish Passage Concept Document

At our last Fish Passage Meeting on April 15, 2004, it was agreed that the next step of this process is to create a "concept document" that outlines what we are trying to accomplish. In addition, it was determined that the following seven elements needed to be addressed in this concept document. 1. Biological Objectives Identified - Which species? What are passage goals? What are restoration goals? 2. Scientific background - What information do we have now on the fisheries community and need for migration? 3. Science unknowns - What information do we need to know about fish biology and fish passage needs (lifts, locks, or ladders) in addition to our current base knowledge? What type of effectiveness studies would be needed? 4. Initial approach - What is the sequence of events - passage, culture, restocking? 5. Logistical Issues - How would the Agreement work? How would money or resources be transferred and to whom? 6. Policy Legal Issues - How do we resolve the requirements of Section 18, ESA, NEPA, and the COE? 7. Draft Agreement with an Implementation Schedule. At that same meeting, we also agreed to start with an initial draft that addresses the first four items of this list. This has now been completed and is attached for your review and comments. We realize that there are a lot of "holes" still to fill in, but we wanted to get this out to you so we can continue to move forward. If you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call. Thanks.

E9 Fish Passage Concept Docume.. Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, AL

COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT

Alabama River Fish Passage Concept Document

July 2004

Prepared by:

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT

Alabama River Fish Passage Concept Document

July 2004

Prepared by:

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM,ALABAMA

COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT ALABAMA RIVER FISH PASSAGE CONCEPT DOCUMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction...... 1 2.0 Biological objectives identified ...... 2 3.0 Scientific background ...... 4 4.0 Scientific unknowns...... 5 5.0 Initial approach ...... 7 6.0 Information Sources/Literature Cited ...... 9 Appendix...... 10

- i - ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT ALABAMA RIVER FISH PASSAGE CONCEPT DOCUMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Alabama Power Company (APC) is currently relicensing seven hydroelectric projects on the Coosa River. The relicensing process includes a multi-year cooperative effort between APC and interested stakeholders to address operational, recreational, and ecological concerns associated with hydroelectric project operations. During the initial (scoping) phase of the relicensing process, APC consulted a wide variety of stakeholders, including state and federal resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, and concerned citizens seeking their input on important relicensing issues. Stakeholders identified several issues to be addressed during this relicensing process, including fish passage related to the Coosa and Alabama River basins.

As part of the cooperative process, APC held several meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other stakeholders to further refine the fish passage issue. As part of these discussions, the USFWS identified the possibility of APC providing assistance with fish passage on the Alabama River in lieu of fish passage on the Coosa River. Fish Passage on the Alabama River would be more beneficial to anadromous, catadromous, and diadromous species since it would open up significantly more miles of contiguous riverine habitat to the ocean than limited fish passage on the Coosa River. The primary purpose of this document is to present the framework for addressing fish passage in the relicensing process. Specifically, it is an Alabama River Fish Passage Concept Document that outlines the information needed to address the fish passage issue: • What are the identified biological objectives? • What information do we currently have? • What information do we need? • What is a reasonable initial approach for fish passage?

- 1 -

2.0 BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES IDENTIFIED

The biological objectives should address three main areas: • Which species are targets for fish passage? • What are the fish passage goals for the selected species? • What are the long-term restoration goals for the selected species?

The following table provides a list of species from the Section 1135 Preliminary Restoration Plan that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) conducted in response to a request from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The plan states that there are 144 species of fish in the Alabama River (Mettee et al. 1996), but the species in the table represent the migratory species that would benefit from fish passage at Claiborne Lock & Dam. Species of special concern are the Gulf sturgeon, Alabama sturgeon, paddlefish, and the Alabama shad.

Species Species of Special Movement Concern Characteristics Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) x Anadromous Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) x Diadromous mooneye (Hiodon tergesis) Diadromous paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) x Diadromous alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula) Diadromous American eel (Anguilla rostrata) Catadromous Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) x Anadromous skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris) Diadromous gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) Diadromous threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) Diadromous blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus) Diadromous Alabama hog sucker (Hypentelium etowanum) Diadromous smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) Diadromous quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus) Diadromous highfin carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer) Diadromous

- 2 - Species Species of Special Movement Concern Characteristics spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops) Diadromous river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) Diadromous black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) Diadromous golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum) Diadromous blacktail redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum) Diadromous channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Diadromous blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) Diadromous flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) Diadromous Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) Diadromous white bass (Morone chrysops) Diadromous striped bass (Morone saxatilis) Anadromous spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) Diadromous largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Diadromous southern walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) Diadromous freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) Diadromous hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus) Diadromous striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) Diadromous

Other federally listed species in the lower Alabama River include Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis), southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum), heavy pigtoe (Pleurobema taitianum), inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus), and fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis).

Restoration goals should follow approved fishery management plans if they are in place (FERC 2003). A plan is available for the Gulf sturgeon (USFWS and GSMFC 1995), and other documents indicated a reference to a conservation agreement for the Alabama sturgeon (USFWS 2000) and future plans for the Alabama shad.

- 3 -

3.0 SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

The purpose of this section is to investigate resources and define the existing information on the fisheries community and their need for migration.

The USACE prepared a Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) in 2000 at the request of the WWF, but the WWF withdrew from the project after this plan was completed. It is unclear as to whether the Ecosystem Restoration Report (ERR), a second step of the PRP, was ever completed, and which would have included an environmental impact statement (EIS) as well.

- 4 -

4.0 SCIENTIFIC UNKNOWNS

There are several scientific unkowns that will need to be addressed as part of fish passage. • What information do we need to know about fish biology and fish passage needs (lifts, locks, or ladders) in addition to our current base knowledge? • Which developments need fish passage facilities? • What type of effectiveness studies would be needed?

Most of the current effort has focused on Claiborne Lock & Dam, but fish passage should also be considered at the Miller’s Ferry Development.

The USACE’s PRP specifically proposed three types of fish passage for the Claiborne Lock & Dam: 1) modification of the existing lock gates (installation of sluice gates in the upper and lower gates), 2) construction of a fish lift at the west end of the fixed-crest spillway, and 3) construction of a fish bypass channel around the east end of the dam. The fish lift provides the best opportunity to pass the most species of fish, including sturgeon, but is the most expensive to construct. While the PRP does not mention downstream fish passage, it is assumed that this will be accomplished via periodic flood flows at Claiborne, which has been reported as the most effective at passing downstream migrants (FERC 2003).

During a sampling effort for passage via the lock mechanism, where a small attraction flow was provided for eight hours (starting at midnight), the PRP reports that “large numbers of fish” were collected. Species included: threadfin and gizzard shad, hogchoker, freshwater drum, channel catfish, blue catfish, bluegill, common carp, striped mullet, white and black crappie, skipjack herring, flathead catfish, American eel, paddlefish, smallmouth buffalo, silver chub, silverside shiner, and blacktail shiner.

The PRP notes that additional gill netting below Claiborne was scheduled for FY2000, with plans to provide fish attraction flows, but it is unknown if this effort was completed.

- 5 - The PRP states that the discussion of the proposed fish passage techniques caused debate among technical experts because of the lack of site-specific information on the species of concern. Specific questions were raised about fish migratory movement timing, swimming performance capabilities, and attraction flow needs.

According to the FERC, the most frequently utilized method for assessing the effectiveness of a fish passage facility is the number of fish utilizing it. This method, while necessary, does not take into account the actual population of fish that are available to utilize the facility. Therefore, FERC recommends measuring effectiveness based on the proportion of the target population that is passed through the facility.

This recommended method will be more problematic for the Claiborne Lock & Dam. Estimates of the population below the dam may need to be determined before the fish passage facilities are in place to adequately measure the effectiveness of these facilities. The effectiveness of the potential facilities at Miller’s Ferry will be easier to quantify, as they can be expressed as the percentage of fish that pass through these facilities as a function of the number of fish that pass through the facility immediately downstream (e.g., the effectiveness of a facility at Miller’s Ferry will be equal to the number of fish passing at Miller’s Ferry divided by the number of fish passing at Claiborne). Effectiveness of downstream fish passage will be measured by mark and recapture techniques.

Additionally, the FERC (2003) recommends the following in the effectiveness plan: 1) including an effectiveness plan in all license articles requiring upstream or downstream fish passage as part of the requirement, and 2) defining the duration of monitoring the effectiveness (typically 2-4 years depending on flow conditions).

- 6 -

5.0 INITIAL APPROACH

As part of setting an initial approach for examining fish passage needs, we need to consider what the sequence of events should be for fish passage, culture of stocks, restocking specific species of concern.

According to the July 10, 2003 E9 IAG meeting notes, due to the costs of constructing the passage facility at Claiborne, the U.S. Congress would have to take action (General Investigative Authority) to release funds for the project. The USACE and USFWS are prohibited from lobbying for such action, but have agreed to assist APC to prepare a formal request. It is unclear as to whether an ecosystem restoration report (ERR) was ever completed. If not, an ERR would need to be completed as part of this request. The USACE completed a cost-benefit analysis for the Claiborne project. The estimated cost for the Claiborne facilities was $19,234,000 in the PRP, and the meeting notes report that the benefits would be approximately $2 million annually.

Once the paperwork is completed and construction can actually begin, a schedule should be completed for all three projects. It is logical that the facilities at Claiborne be completed before work at Miller’s Ferry begins. This provides the benefits of easily gauging the effectiveness of the facilities at Miller’s Ferry without additional study needs beyond fish counts at the facility at both projects.

As for culture and restocking, these would have to be developed with the assistance of the ADCNR. There are two Alabama sturgeon in captivity; however, both fish are males. Restocking could take place once a successful propagation program is in place for this species. It is unlikely that other species would have to be restocked as there are viable populations below Claiborne which should increase as more spawning grounds are made available due to the passage facilities.

Following construction, a possible concern is the annual O&M costs of the upstream fish passage facility. Operations and maintenance are assumed to be handled by the USACE.

- 7 - Furthermore, it is possible that a developer could construct a hydroelectric facility at Claiborne once fish passage is in place. For instance, AMG Energy, LLC has filed a preliminary permit (P- 12485-000) for Claiborne on January 5, 2004. The presence of the passage facility will mean that the project could be more attractive to potential hydroelectric developers since the costs of the fish passage facility has already been borne by the parties involved in this agreement.

Note to the Fish Passage Working Group: The group should explore the possibility of recouping costs of constructing and operating the fish passage devices from a potential hydroelectric developer (excluding the USACE), should this situation arise.

- 8 -

6.0 INFORMATION SOURCES/LITERATURE CITED

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003. Evaluation of mitigation effectiveness at hydropower projects: Fish passage, draft report. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.

Mettee, M. F., P. E. O’Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, AL.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 1995. Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Conservation agreement and strategy for the Alabama sturgeon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.

- 9 - APPENDIX

USFWS Letter dated December 4, 2002 to be inserted here.

- 10 ------Original Message----- From: Peeples, Alan L. Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:22 PM To: 'Adam R. Snyder'; 'Al Murray'; 'Al Reid'; Peeples, Alan L.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; 'April Hall'; 'Art Goddard'; Lovett, Barry K.; 'Ben Tingle'; 'Bert Jones'; 'Bert Thaxton'; 'Bill Campbell'; 'Bill Garnett'; 'Bill O'Brien'; Sim, William A.; 'Bob Allen'; 'Bob Huffaker'; 'Bob Pasquill'; '[email protected]'; 'Bobby Ingram'; 'Bruce DiGennaro'; 'Bruce Hamrick'; 'Bruce Shupp'; 'Charles Ball'; 'Charles Dixon'; 'Charles Farrell'; 'Charles Jensen'; Shirah, Charles E.; 'Chris Greene'; 'Connie Thrasher'; 'Craig Hesterlee'; 'Dan Catchings'; 'Dan Murchison'; 'Dan Thompson'; Tignor, Danny G.; 'Darryl Harley'; 'Dave and Lynn Cunningham'; 'Dave Anderson'; 'Dave Dominie'; 'Dave Sligh'; Brock, C. David (APC); Dennis, Karlton D.; 'David Haynes'; 'David Umling'; 'Deb Berry'; 'Diana Woods'; 'Diane McClellan'; 'Dick Whatley'; 'Don Greer'; 'Don Haney'; 'Don Kirkland'; 'Dow Johnston'; 'Edward Munson'; 'Elizabeth Brown'; 'Erin Coakley'; 'Frank Jones'; 'George Jackins'; Martin, George A.; 'Hap Bryant'; Baker, Harlom, Jr.; 'Heather Seiders'; 'Helen Toth'; 'Henry Mealing'; 'Isabella Trussell'; 'James D. Austin'; Hancock, James (Balch); 'Jamie Freeman'; 'Janet Hutzel'; 'Janice Hamilton'; 'Jason Moak'; Redmond, Howard J.; 'Jeff Duncan'; 'Jeff Garner'; 'Jeff Powell'; 'Jerry Culberson'; 'Jerry Moss'; 'Jerry Sailors'; 'Jim Bain'; 'Jim Beason'; 'Jim Copeland'; Crew, James F.; 'Jim Hillhouse'; 'Jim Howard'; Lochamy, James S.; 'Jim McIndoe'; 'Jim Moore'; 'Jim Woodrow'; 'Joe Dentici'; 'Joe Nicholson'; 'Joe Roberson'; 'Joe Young'; 'Joel Gardner'; 'Johan Beumer'; 'John Ammons'; 'John D. Free'; 'John Eisenbarth'; 'John Hooker'; Morris, John N., II; 'Jon Hornsby'; 'Jon Strickland'; 'Karen Pulliam'; 'Kathy Nichols'; 'Kathy Ransom'; Bryant, Keith E.; 'Keith Floyd'; 'Keith Guyse'; 'Kellie Johnston'; 'Kelly Schaeffer'; 'Ken Swafford'; 'Kevin Colburn'; 'Larry Martens'; 'Larry Watts'; Simmons, L. F.; 'Lonnie Carden'; 'Majali Yahia'; Pierson, John M.; 'Mary Sue Olson'; Bowden, Matthew (Balch); 'Matt Reid'; 'Michael Cook'; 'Michael Toth'; Akridge, R. M.; 'Mike Eubanks'; 'Monte Terharr'; 'P Flannelly'; McDaniel, Pamela J.; 'Pat DeMotte'; 'Patric Harper'; 'Patti Leppert'; 'Paul Kennedy'; 'Plez West'; 'Pres Allinder'; 'Prescott Brownell'; 'Rachel Garrett'; 'Rachel Garrett'; 'Ray Cline'; 'Ray Luce'; Allums, Richard K.; 'Rick Claybrook'; 'Robert Taylor'; Yeargan, Roger D.; 'Ron McKitrick'; 'Sam Piccolo'; 'Shane Boring'; Smith, Sheila C.; 'Stacye Hathorn'; 'Stan Cook'; Gidiere, Stephen (Balch); Burns, Steven A. (Balch); 'Steve Kartalia'; 'Steven J. Rider'; 'Susan Cielinski'; Pyron, Ted J.; 'Tim Gothard'; 'Toby Bennington'; 'Tom Counts'; 'Tom Groce'; 'Tom Littlepage'; 'Tom Sherburne'; Ramey, Walter R.; Bowers, Willard L.; Dykes, William C.; Dillahunty, William R.; Edge, William; 'Yawanna Nabors McDonald' Subject: Shoreline Management Plan Update

Dear Relicensing Stakeholders: We want to give you an update on the status of the Shoreline Management Plan. Since the last communication, we have been compiling and addressing the final comments that we have received. A couple of areas of the SMP that we are still working to finalize are the Permitting section and the Maps. We hope to have everything finalized by late September or early October. This will allow us to include the SMP in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that should be distributed to all stakeholders by the end of October. Remember that you will have 90 days to comment on all aspects of the Draft EA. Please keep in mind that although you will still be able to make comments on the SMP through this EA review process, the SMP will not be revised prior to the Final Environmental Assessment filing date of June, 2005 unless the comments provide new and substantial information that has not already been discussed.

Thank you for your patience as we work through the final issues within these two sections.

Alan Peeples

From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:25 PM To: Don Greer ([email protected]) Cc: Isabella Trussell ([email protected]) Subject: Logan Martin - Sedimentation Issue

Don,

Attached is the siltation issue recommendation that was agreed to within the recreational working group in 2002. The issue had to do with "...boat access in some sloughs and tributary areas during the low water periods." As we discussed earlier today, we are reviewing this issue recommendation (in light of the proposed changes to the winter pool elevation) to determine if this issue has now adequately been addressed.

We are interested in your comments as we desire to reasonably respond to this issue, yet adjust/update as it is impacted by other recommendations (i.e. rule curve changes).

Thanks for your input on this. Have a good holiday weekend.

Barry Lovett

RecIssRespSedi ment(5-02-03).do.

1 Draft 9/13/2004

Weiss and Logan Martin Recreation Issue Action Groups

IAG Recommendations Siltation

Issue

Within the Weiss and Logan Martin Recreation Issue Action Groups, there have been concerns expressed regarding possible effects of sediment on boat access in some sloughs and tributary areas during the low water periods. If access has been affected, sediment could have been deposited by either local erosion or by siltation. Siltation would primarily be the result of materials being transported into the project from lands external to the project. These two possible causes of sediment infilling would need to be addressed differently.

Discussion

Alabama Power has investigated and has made available some USDA data related to land use practices. This information shows a significant reduction in the amount of land under cultivation in the counties adjacent the Weiss and Logan Martin reservoirs from 1970 - 2001. One might conclude from this data that the rate of siltation within these reservoirs has significantly dropped over these years in a rate proportional to the reduction of acres under cultivation. There is, however, no definitive data available that provides siltation rates within these reservoirs. Without baseline cross-sectional data and follow-up data collection, it is impossible to determine actual siltation rates, or possible sources of the siltation material.

Recommendation

A statement will be put into the project recreational plans that Alabama Power Company will gather baseline river-bottom cross-sectional data in 2003 for the Logan Martin Reservoir (similar to the baseline information gathered for the Weiss development in 2002). Alabama Power will then conduct follow-up data collection by the end of the year 2005 for both of these reservoirs. APC will then consult with the IAG members and request their comments on the results of this data gathering effort. The need for additional data gathering or additional study/discussion will be determined at that time. If it is found that siltation is an ongoing issue, programs that will reduce upland erosion and subsequent transport of materials into the reservoir could offer improvements for those areas outside of the project. 600 NOfth 181hStreet Post Office Box 2641 Blnningham, Alabama 35291

Tel 205.257. 1 (XX)

ALABAMA September 8, 2004 POWER A SOUTHERNCOMPANY

Mr. Steve Rickerson Forest Supervisor United States Forest Service 2946 Chestnut Street Montgomery, AL 36107

Dear Mr. Rickerson:

Alabama Power Company (APC) has re(:eived and reviewed your August 31, 2004 letter describing your proposal for settlement, which includes a revised dollar figure for both APC resources and funding. As we stated in our August 19, 2004 meeting, APC's total settlement offer of $7.13 million included funding for programs and measuresthat are beyond the requirements of the Federal Power Act. Nevertheless, APC was willing to make this generous offer in the spirit of compromise and to facilitate a timely settlement with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) that was in the best interest of the Warrior Project's ecological, recreational, and cultural resources. Your offer of $16.43 million is more than a 366 percent increase of APC funding, which far exceeds what is reasonable for APC and its ratepayers, and therefore is unacceptable to APC. As discussed in our August 19, 2004 meeting, APC's proposed settlement was the furthest extent to which APC was willing to go to reach settlement on the USFS' s recommendations and conditions. For these reasons, APC is hereby withdrawing its settlement offer and will proceed with a revised proposal in the preliminary draft environmental assessment(APEA) for the Warrior River Project to address USFS recommendations and conditions.

We are deeply disappointed in this turn of events, but feel this is the most appropriate course of action given the magnitude of your settlement offer and the unreasonable commitment level requested of APC. In order to accurately list your recommendations in the preliminary draft APEA, we request that you provide your preliminary recommendations, terms and conditions so that they may be described and analyzed in the APEA. Should you choose not to submit these recommendations by September 30, 2004, the USFS alternative will not be discussed or analyzed in this public draft.

Sincerely,

F A "'- --- ¥r .Akridge General Manager, Hydro 600 North 181!1Street Post Office Box 2641 Binninlj18m, Alabama 35291

Tel 205.257.1 (XM)

ALABAMA October 27, 2004 POWER A SOUTHERN COMPANY

Mr. Steven Jenkins Chief of Field Operations Alabama Deparbnent of Environmental Management Coastal Management Program 1400 Coliseum B1vd. Montgomery, AL 36610

RE: Request for Letter ConfIrming the Coosa Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.2146), Mitchell Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.82), and Jordan Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.618) are Not Subject to ACAMP

Dear Mr .Jenkins:

On October 7, 2004, Mr .Shane Boring of Kleinschmidt Associates, representing Alabama Power Company (APC), contacted you for a preliminary detennination on the applicability of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) to APC's Coosa, Mitchell and Jordan Hydroelectric Projects. A PC operates seven hydroelectric developments on dIe Coosa River in Alabama under three separatelicenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). These three licenses include the Coosa River Project (FERC No.2146), which includes the Weiss, Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay and Bouldin developments, as well as the Mitchell (FERC No.82) and Jordan (FERC No.618) Projects.

The existing project licenses are due to expire on July 31, 2007. APC is applying for a new license from FERC on or before July 31, 2005 to continue to operate the Coosa, Mitchell and Jordan Projects.

Per your discussion with Mr .Boring, you noted that the hydroelectric developments on the Coosa River are outside of the ACAMP jurisdiction; however, FERC regulations require A PC to acquire a written determination of the ACAMP applicability to the Coosa River hydroelectric developments.

Therefore, we would greatly appreciate a letter from your department within 60 days of the date of this letter indicating the ACAMP's determination of applicability of the ACAMP to the Coosa, Mitchell and Jordan Projects. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter and feel free to call me at 205-257-4265 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely, ~rd- James F. Crew Relicensing Project Manager From: Jenkins, Viki R. Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:11 AM To: Adam R. Snyder ([email protected]); Al Murray ([email protected]); Al Reid ([email protected]); Peeples, Alan L.; Sheppard, Andrew R.; April Hall ([email protected]); Art Goddard ([email protected]); McVicar, Ashley M; Lovett, Barry K.; Ben Tingle ([email protected]); Bert Jones Jr. ([email protected]); Bert Thaxton ([email protected]); Bill Campbell ([email protected]); Bill Campbell (Business Fax); Bill Garnett ([email protected]); Bill O'Brien (bobrien9 @tds.net); Sim, William A.; Bob Allen ([email protected]); Bob Huffaker ([email protected]); Bob Pasquill ([email protected]); ([email protected]); Bobby Ingram ([email protected]); Bruce DiGennaro ([email protected]); Bruce Hamrick ([email protected]); Bruce Shupp ([email protected]); Charles Ball ([email protected]); Charles Dixon ([email protected]); Charles Farrell ([email protected]); Charles Jensen (KKERR50 @hotmail.com); Shirah, Charles E.; Chris Greene ([email protected]); Connie Thrasher ([email protected]); Craig Hesterlee ([email protected]); Dan Catchings ([email protected]); Dan Murchison ([email protected]); Dan Thompson ([email protected]); Tignor, Danny G.; Darryl Harley ([email protected]); Dave and Lynn Cunningham ([email protected]); Dave Anderson ([email protected]); Dave Dominie ([email protected]); Dave Sligh ([email protected]); Brock, C. David (APC); Dennis, Karlton D.; David Haynes ([email protected]); David Umling ([email protected]); Deb Berry ([email protected]); Diana Woods ([email protected]); Diane McClellan ([email protected]); Dick Whatley ([email protected]); Don Greer ([email protected]); Don Haney ([email protected]); Don Kirkland ([email protected]); Don Whorton ([email protected]); Dow Johnston ([email protected]); Edward Munson ([email protected]); Elizabeth Brown ([email protected]); Erin Coakley ([email protected]); Frank Jones ([email protected]); George Jackins ([email protected]); Martin, George A.; Hap Bryant ([email protected]); Baker, Harlom, Jr.; Heather Seiders ([email protected]); Helen Toth ([email protected]); Henry Mealing ([email protected]); Isabella Trussell ([email protected]); James D. Austin ([email protected]); Hancock, James (Balch); Jamie Freeman ([email protected]); Janet Hutzel ([email protected]); Janice Hamilton ([email protected]); Jason Moak ([email protected]); Redmond, Howard J.; Jeff Duncan ([email protected]); Jeff Garner ([email protected]); Jeff Powell ([email protected]); Jerry Culberson ([email protected]); Jerry Moss ([email protected]); Jerry Sailors ([email protected]); Jim Bain ([email protected]); Jim Beason ([email protected]); Jim Copeland ([email protected]); Crew, James F.; Jim Hillhouse ([email protected]); Jim Howard ([email protected]); Lochamy, James S.; Jim McIndoe ([email protected]); Jim Moore ([email protected]); Jim Woodrow ([email protected]); Joe Addison; Joe Dentici ([email protected]); Joe Faulk ([email protected]); Joe Nicholson ([email protected]); Joe Roberson ([email protected]); Joe Young ([email protected]); Joel Gardner (jgardner01 @fs.fed.us); Johan Beumer ([email protected]); John Ammons ([email protected]); John D. Free ([email protected]); John Eisenbarth ([email protected]); John Hooker ([email protected]); Morris, John N., II; Jon Hornsby ([email protected]); Jon Strickland ([email protected]); Karen Pulliam ([email protected]); Kathy Nichols ([email protected]); Kathy Ransom ([email protected]); Bryant, Keith E.; Keith Floyd ([email protected]); Keith Guyse ([email protected]); Kellie Johnston ([email protected]); Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected]); Ken Swafford ([email protected]); Kevin Colburn ([email protected]); Larry Martens ([email protected]); Larry Watts ([email protected]); Simmons, L. F.; Lonnie Carden ([email protected]); Majali Yahia ([email protected]); Pierson, John M.; Mary Sue Olson ([email protected]); Bowden, Matthew (Balch); Matt Reid ([email protected]); Michael Cook ([email protected]); Michael Toth ([email protected]); Akridge, R. M.; Mike Eubanks ([email protected]); Monte Terharr ([email protected]); P Flannelly ([email protected]); McDaniel, Pamela J.; Pat DeMotte

1 To: ([email protected]); Patric Harper ([email protected]); Patti Leppert ([email protected]); Paul Kennedy ([email protected]); Plez West ([email protected]); Pres Allinder ([email protected]); Prescott Brownell ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Rachel Garrett ([email protected]); Ray Cline ([email protected]); Ray Luce ([email protected]); Allums, Richard K.; Rick Claybrook ([email protected]); Robert Taylor ([email protected]); Yeargan, Roger D.; Ron McKitrick ([email protected]); Sam Piccolo ([email protected]); Shane Boring ([email protected]); Smith, Sheila C.; Stacye Hathorn ([email protected]); Stan Cook ([email protected]); Gidiere, Stephen (Balch); Burns, Steven A. (Balch); Steve Kartalia ([email protected]); Steven J. Rider ([email protected]); Susan Cielinski ([email protected]); Pyron, Ted J.; Tim Gothard ([email protected]); Toby Bennington ([email protected]); Tom Counts ([email protected]); Tom Groce ([email protected]); Tom Littlepage ([email protected]); Tom Sherburne ([email protected]); Ramey, Walter R.; Bowers, Willard L.; Dykes, William C.; Dillahunty, William R.; Edge, William; Yawanna Nabors McDonald ([email protected]) Subject: Relicensing Meeting Update/Notice

Dear Stakeholders,

We will not be having any meetings this month. Our next meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 8th, 2004 from 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM at the Hilton Hotel located on Hwy. 280 and I-459. We will discuss the review process for the Coosa and Warrior draft applications and the APEAs (Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment) which you will receive on or around December 1, 2004.

Following the meeting, we will have a Christmas luncheon in appreciation for your participation this past year.

PLEASE let me know if you plan on attending this meeting and the luncheon by November 30th. I NEED to know how many people plan on attending to make sure I order enough food for everyone. If you do not respond, we cannot guarantee you a lunch. A quick email response or telephone call would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you.

Viki Jenkins Hydro Services Phone: 205-257-2211 Cell: 205-919-6092 Fax: 205-257-1596 Email: [email protected]

2 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:01 PM To: 'Hap Bryant ([email protected])' Subject: Coosa Relicensing - Recreational Issues - Siltation (11-19-2004)

Hap,

Thanks for your recent assistance concerning the recreation related issue of siltation/sedimentation*. As we discussed in our telephone conversation a few weeks ago, this issue was raised originally in the relicensing process by the Weiss and Logan Martin homeowners associations in their respective recreation issue action groups. This issue was framed as the limiting of recreational access into or out of sloughs and tributary areas during the winter drawdown period by what was thought to be a sediment build-up in a localized area (mouth of tributary or slough).

To address this recreational access issue, APC has proposed changes to the operation of the Weiss and Logan Martin developments whereby the winter pool elevations will been increased by three feet and two feet, respectively. With these recommended operational changes, both the Weiss and Logan Martin homeowners groups feel that this recreational access issue has been adequately addressed for the present time.

At the Neely Henry reservoir, the proposed operation of the development includes a two foot increase in the winter pool elevation (from 505' to 507'). This change will bring the winter pool elevation to within one foot of the summer pool elevation of 508'.

In our telephone conversation, I shared the background of this recreational access issue, and you indicated that this issue did exist on the Henry reservoir, even with the proposed two foot increase in the winter pool elevation. Your idea to contact someone respected and recognized for their knowledge of the Henry Reservoir (Mr. Ken Spraggins), was an excellent approach at gathering the information we were looking for.

Subsequent to our conversation, I received the marked up map of the Neely Henry reservoir as promised. The map indicated 14 areas of suspected sediment build up. Many of these are elongated areas along the main river channel shoreline, and are not adjacent slough or tributary mouths.

During the week of November 15, 2004, I contacted Mr. Spraggins, to better understand the reasoning behind his effort marking up the map. Ken indicated that his marks were intended to depict all areas of suspected sediment build up along the reservoir (not just those that could limit recreational access during the winter drawdown period). I then asked Ken which areas, of those marked, could be tied to access limitations. Ken said that the only area that he believed that could be tied to the issue in question, was marked on the map as Area #3. This area is at the intersection of Big Wills and Horton Creeks (on the western side of the reservoir, south of I759). I asked Ken specifically about other areas that had been marked, and he reiterated that Area #3 was the only area where he saw that this issue applied.

With that additional information provided by Mr. Spraggins, we are proceeding to revise the original sedimentation issue recommendation accordingly. When completed, this revised recommendation will be provided to the members of the Weiss, Henry and Logan Martin Recreation Issue Action Groups.

Thanks again for your help in scoping out this issue.

Please let me know if you have related questions.

Barry Lovett Hydro Services 205-257-1268 205-902-3332 Cell [email protected]

* I make the distinction that this is a recreational access issue. All other aspects of the project's impact on erosion/sedimentation were addressed in the appropriate ecological working group(s). 1 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:46 AM To: Kelly Schaeffer ([email protected]); Henry Mealing ([email protected]); Dave Anderson ([email protected]); McDaniel, Pamela J. Cc: Crew, James F.; Cooper, Thomas S.; Jenkins, Viki R. Subject: FW: Coosa Relicensing - Recreational Issues - Siltation (11-19-2004)

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 7:12 PM To: Lovett, Barry K. Subject: Re: Coosa Relicensing - Recreational Issues - Siltation (11-19-2004) Thanks for the email Barry. I agree with Ken Spraggins on area 3 being the worst area at present! However, there are a few other areas silting in and will effect entrance to the main channel in just a few years. That was our main purpose for marking the areas that were listed. Thanks for your efforts, see you on the Eight of December.

Hap Bryant President NHLA Tel; 256-442-4319 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291

Tel 205.257.1000

February 9, 2005

Larry Goldman United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1208-B Main Street Daphne, AL 36526

Stan Cook Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 64 North Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130

Dear Larry and Stan,

As you know, for the past five years Alabama Power Company has been working with the ADCNR and the USFWS, along with many other stakeholders, to identify, discuss and resolve issues related to the relicensing of the Coosa and Warrior River projects. As APC’s deadline for filing the relicensing application nears, a need was expressed to discuss where we are procedurally with respect to finalizing or resolving the issues raised by ADCNR and USFWS in this process. On February 4, 2004, a meeting was held in Montgomery to discuss relicensing process issues. During the course of this meeting, we also identified the substantive issues that have yet to be resolved and the steps necessary to reach resolution of these issues. The following is a list of those substantive topics that we discussed, along with the specific actions necessary to reach closure on these issues. I hope that you agree that substantial progress has been made toward resolving each of these issues, and that these items can be concluded in a timeframe that they may be part of our relicensing applications to be filed in July 2005.

Weiss Bypass Agreement

1) APC will distribute the latest version of the Weiss Bypass Adaptive Management Plan (AMP), dated 09-21-04 to the Weiss Bypass Working Group. 2) The Technical Teams will reconvene in February and March to discuss Weiss Bypass Monitoring for 2005. 3) The Technical Teams will continue to work on the AMP to more concretely develop the Monitoring Plan so that it is more detailed and sensitive enough to detect changes in the Weiss Bypass aquatic community associated with the minimum flow. 4) The Technical Team will continue their work through regular meetings until a more well defined AMP is developed. The target completion date for this effort is June of 2007 (i.e., prior to issuance of the new license). 5) APC will include wording in the EA to describe this effort by the Technical Teams and the schedule. 6) Baseline data collected in 2004 through 2006 (and monitoring data collected later) will be analyzed and presented to the ADCNR and USFWS in a summary report. Data used in the report will also be provided electronically via Excel spreadsheet.

Smith Tailrace Agreement

1) Modify the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (STEP) to indicate that APC will commit to acquire coldwater fish for the supplemental stockings to the Sipsey Fork (up to $24,000 annually, escalated via CPI) or reimburse ADCNR their cost for this purpose. 2) Include wording in the STEP that would allow ADCNR and USFWS the flexibility to stock trout or other appropriate cool water recreation species for the supplemental stockings in the Smith tailrace. 3) The STEP will also make reference to the Aquatic Resource Culture Center Fund that will be established for restoration of species of concern. 4) Distribute the latest version of the Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (STEP) with above revisions referenced to the Smith Tailrace Working Group by March 2005.

Minimum Flows and Dissolved Oxygen at the Coosa and Warrior Projects

In order to facilitate the continued study, review, discussion and resolution of the work initiated by the E10 Project Releases IAG work plan, the following steps will be taken.

1) APC will take the necessary measures to address Dissolved Oxygen as referenced in the Coosa and Warrior 401 applications and conduct the associated 2 year monitoring plan. 2) Upon completion of that monitoring plan and collection of the “new baseline” of data, APC will work with the USFWS and ADCNR to continue the commitment made in the E10 IAG to examine the need and feasibility of minimum flows below those projects not already addressed. 3) The process for this evaluation will generally follow that specified in the E10 IAG Work Plan 4) Include language in the EA that documents this commitment to the USFWS and ADCNR and provide FERC with the appropriate language (i.e., license article that describes how and when we will accomplish this post licensing activity). 5) The USFWS and ADCNR have agreed to prioritize the developments to be evaluated (i.e., Logan Martin first, then Henry, etc.).

Habitat Enhancement Program

APC will establish a Habitat Enhancement Program Fund for the ADCNR to use annually for enhancement of habitat within APC hydroelectric projects. The exact amounts and details of this fund have not been established at this time, but APC and the ADCNR will continue to discuss this and develop an agreement by May 2005

Aquatic Resource Culture Center Fund

1) APC will establish an Aquatic Resource Culture Center (ARCC) Fund for the ADCNR to use annually for the enhancement and restoration of species of concern. 2) The fund will be adjusted annually by the CPI during the life of the license. The exact amounts and details of the fund have not been established at this time, but APC and the ADCNR will continue to discuss this and develop an agreement by May 2005.

Habitat Enhancement Restoration Fund (HERF)

APC originally proposed a Habitat Enhancement Restoration Fund (HERF) in November 2004. The HERF proposal is no longer deemed necessary as it has been divided and addressed in the agreements described in this document and funding that will be outlined in the Wildlife Management Plan.

Section 18 - Fish Passage and Section 7 - Threatened and Endangered Species

To address Fish Passage and Threatened and Endangered Species concerns with the USFWS, APC commits to continue discussions with the USFWS. APC also will continue development of the Coosa and Warrior Biological Assessments in coordination with USFWS personnel.

Shoreline Management Plan

To address the concerns associated with the Shoreline Management Plan, APC will make a detailed presentation to the ADCNR and USFWS describing all aspects of the plan. This presentation will take place on February 25, 2005.

3 Alabama Power is committed to working with the US ws and ADCNR to implement the specific action items listed above so that we can resolve the remaining relicensing issues. We greatly appreciate your continued intev st and participation in this process, and trust that you will call should you have any questi illS about this plan to bring closure to these relicensing issues.

4 From: Crew, James F. Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 1:18 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Larry Goldman' Cc: 'Henry Mealing (E-mail)'; Jackson, Viki R. Subject: RE: Letter

Stan and Larry, Tuesday works for me - how about 8:00 a.m.? The conference call number is 1-888-654-2663, access code 2225276. Notwithstanding this fine tuning we'll do next Tuesday, I'm still counting on you guys referencing the letter (where appropriate) in your comments on the 401, and then in the draft EA. And remember, the letter isn't intended to solve everything, but rather make sure we are all in agreement on the appropriate direction to take on those issues. Thanks and look forward to talking next Tuesday.

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Stan Cook [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:09 AM To: Crew, James F. Cc: 'Larry Goldman'; 'Henry Mealing (E-mail)' Subject: Letter

Jim,

Larry and I talked this morning and have a few areas of concern about the letter. It is probably just the need to fine tune some language in the letter. Can you be available for a conference call with me and Larry on Tuesday the 15th?

1 To: ([email protected]); [email protected]; Gidiere, Stephen (Balch); Burns, Steven A. (Balch); Steve Kartalia ([email protected]); Steve Rickerson ([email protected]); Steven J. Rider ([email protected]); [email protected]; Pyron, Ted J.; Tim Gothard ([email protected]); Toby Bennington ([email protected]); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ramey, Walter R.; Bowers, Willard L.; Dykes, William C.; Dillahunty, William R.; Edge, William; Woody Snell ([email protected]); Yawanna Nabors McDonald ([email protected]) Subject: Permit Fee Implementation

Dear Relicensing Stakeholders,

As you know, we have been working to finalize a couple of issues associated with the Shoreline Management Plan that will be filed as part of the license application in July. Those outstanding issues are the shoreline classification maps and permit fee structure/implementation. We are glad to inform you that we have finalized those issues.

A copy of the shoreline classification maps was mailed to the appropriate organizations/associations yesterday.

To help you answer questions for members of your organizations/associations, we offer the following information on the permit fee structure and implementation. ----- What is the fee and when does it take effect? On July 1, 2005, Alabama Power Company (APC) will begin charging a $250 fee for residential shoreline construction permits on all company reservoirs. This is a one time fee that covers all structures under the permit application. The fee applies to new construction, major reconstruction of current structures, and a change in ownership. Examples of uses requiring a permit include, but are not limited to: construction of seawalls and other bank stabilization projects; boat houses; piers; wet slips; docks; boat ramps; major reconstruction of such structures. Commercial applications will be subject to a separate commercial fee structure as well.

Are existing permitted facilities affected? The fee is not retroactive; it will begin July 1, 2005 and apply forward from that date. Existing facilities in good repair and routine maintenance on existing permitted facilities are not subject to the fee. However, the fee would apply if major construction or additional structures are requested at the existing site. The fee would also apply if there is any change of ownership, since issuance of a new permit is required when such a change takes place.

Why are you starting to charge a fee? As a federal Licensee for hydro projects, APC has the authority, delegated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to allow certain uses of hydro project lands through a permitting program. To date, the costs associated with the permitting program have been passed on to all APC customers throughout the state; customers with no association or interest in our reservoirs are helping to foot the bill for the shoreline permitting program. The permit fee is designed to place most of the costs of the shoreline permitting program on those that benefit most directly from those services.

Over the years, increasing development on the reservoirs has made it more difficult and costly to permit and monitor shoreline uses. The permit fee will provide the resources needed to support those increasing demands as well as new requirements that are expected to be incorporated into the permitting program, through the Shoreline Management Plan, under the ongoing relicensing process.

How did you arrive at the fee amount? APC examined our actual costs as well as the fees that other utilities in the Southeast routinely charge to operate their shoreline permitting programs. Although every program operates differently, we believe the fee compares favorably with what other utilities charge for similar projects. In fact, the fee will not fully cover the

2 company’s permitting cost.

Who can I call for more information? Call your local Shoreline Management Office. You can find the number by calling the company’s automated Reservoir Information System at 1-800-LAKES11. ----- Should you have any further questions about the maps or permit fee, please call Jim Crew or Barry Lovett.

Thanks.

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

Barry Lovett Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-1268 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3323 Email: [email protected]

Viki Jackson Hydro Services Phone: 205-257-2211 Cell: 205-919-6092 Fax: 205-257-1596 Email: [email protected]

3 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:27 AM To: Bill O'Brien ([email protected]); Ellis Shad ([email protected]) Subject: Draft Siltation Recommendation (Take 2)

Attachments: 3-02-2005DraftSiltRecom.doc; 091404 Bill OBrien Letter re siltation on Weiss.pdf

Bill & Shad,

Per our recent conversations, I have attached both the draft recommendation for the siltation/sedimentation issue, and Bill's 9-14-2004 letter to me on the issue. Are you both available to discuss this in a conference call tomorrow at 2:00 PM? If so, the toll free number is 1-888-654-2663 and, when prompted, the access code is 3388543.

Please let me know if there are any related questions.

Thank you,

Barry Lovett

Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-1268 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3332 Email: [email protected]

3-02-2005DraftS 091404 Bill ltRecom.doc (3... Brien Letter re s.

1 Weiss, Neely Henry, and Logan Martin Recreation IAG’s

Siltation Impacts to Winter Boating Access

Issue Recommendation – 3/02/2005

Issue

In 2001 & 2002, the Weiss Lake Improvement Association and the Logan Martin Lake Association, identified the issue of possible ongoing accumulation of sediments in some slough and tributary mouths of the reservoirs. The stakeholders believed that this ongoing sediment build-up was leading to reduced recreational boating access to these areas during the low water periods experienced during the winter. In 2004, the Neely Henry Lake Association indicated this issue also applied to the Henry reservoir.

Discussion of the Issue

In further discussions with the homeowner groups, some specific areas of the Weiss reservoir that were thought to have limited winter boat access due to siltation were identified. To help understand why siltation has historically occurred in these areas, Alabama Power researched and made available to the IAGs some United States Department of Agriculture data related to land use practices around the lakes. This information indicated the large amount of land under cultivation (a significant contributor to siltation) around the lakes before the 1970’s. The data further showed a significant reduction in the amount of land currently under cultivation in the same counties adjacent the Weiss, Neely Henry, and Logan Martin reservoirs. This reduction in cultivation results in reduced tilled soil susceptible to erosion. Based on this data, it is likely that the rate of siltation within these reservoirs has dropped significantly over the past 20 years in proportion to the reduction of acres under cultivation.

To further address this recreational access issue, APC has proposed changes to the operation of the Weiss and Logan Martin developments, whereby the winter pool elevations will be increased by three feet and two feet, respectively. With these recommended operational changes, both the Weiss and Logan Martin homeowners groups have indicated that the winter recreational access issue will be adequately addressed for the near future.

APC has also proposed similar changes to the operation of the Neely Henry development, whereby the proposed operation of the reservoir includes a two foot increase in the winter pool elevation (from 505' to 507'). This change will bring the winter pool elevation to within one foot of the summer pool elevation of 508'. Despite this proposed increase in winter pool, the Neely Henry Lake Association (NHLA) indicated that this issue may continue to exist in some areas of the Neely Henry reservoir. In order for APC to understand the specific creek mouths/tributaries that were thought to be affected by ongoing siltation, the NHLA provided a map indicating areas along the main river channel and at several tributary mouths where they believed this problem was occurring. In subsequent conversations with NHLA and Ken Spraggins (a Neely Henry Reservoir

1 Weiss, Neely Henry, and Logan Martin Recreation IAG’s

Siltation Impacts to Winter Boating Access

Issue Recommendation – 3/02/2005

specialist), Mr. Spraggins indicated that the areas of possible near-term impact were narrowed down to the intersection of Big Wills and Horton Creeks (on the western side of the reservoir, south of I-759).

Recommendation to Address the Issue

APC does believe that the significant reduction in the amount of land under cultivation around the reservoirs has greatly reduced the rate of siltation within these reservoirs that was likely occurring in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Also, APC is proposing an increased winter pool level at each of these three reservoirs to further address this recreational access issue. Not only will this change improve winter boating access, but it will have the additional effect of further reducing siltation by decreasing bank and reservoir bottom exposure. APC realizes this proposed increase in the winter pool levels will negatively impact the generation value of these developments. Nonetheless, APC believes that the increased potential for winter recreational access will offset a portion of these negative impacts.

In summary, to address this possible recreational access issue during the winter months, APC believes that the combination of 1) a significant reduction in the land under cultivation adjacent to these reservoirs, and 2) the increase in the winter pool elevation at each of these reservoirs, should adequately address this issue during the new license.

2 BAY SPRINGS MOTEL 130 COUNTY ROAD 112 CENTRE, AL 35960 PHONE: 256-927-3618 [email protected]

September J 4, 2004

Barry Lovett P. 0. Box 2821 Birmingham, A135291-8180

Subject: Si/tationProb/em on WeissLake

Dear Barry ,

Enclosed is a map of Weiss Lake with the areas, we feel are problem areas due to siltration, highlighted in pink. pfj!

We believe that these areas will be accessible all year with the proposed three-foot rise in winter pool. However, the problem will not be resolved, only moved out in time for maybe ten years. In fact the area on the Chat toga River just above the Lakeshore Fish Camp is very vulnerable, even at full summerpool there is less than four foot of water in this area. We believe this problem occurred in the 1990 floods when some logs jammed up and formed a natural dam, which hasfilled in with silt.

y ou will notice that most of these areas do have a direct effect on both private and commercial boat launch sites (these are marked with a black arrow on the map).

We do not know the solution to the problem other than dredging but we also recognize that this may create other problems that are more difficult to deal with. We do think monitoring of these areas, at the least, should be considered and thought given as to how the problem might be solved in the future.

I hope this helps and if I can help in any other way do not hesitate to call.

lhank you for your he/p in this matter.

Sincere/y,

~\~

Billie O'Brien From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 4:13 PM To: Hap Bryant ([email protected]) Subject: Draft Siltation Recommendation

Attachments: 3-02-2005aNHDraftSiltRecom1.doc

Hap,

I apologize for not getting in touch with you this morning prior to 9:30AM as we had discussed yesterday, that was my intention. I hope you were not inconvenienced.

Per our conversation yesterday, I would appreciate your review of the attached draft prior to us discussing Monday. I've added some highlights to the draft in areas that may be of particular interest to you. Prior to, and as you review this draft I would like for you to consider a few points, a number of which may predate your participation in the relicensing process. They are in no particular order:

1. This item has only been discussed as a recreational access issue, focusing on possible winter access limitations into creek and slough areas due to perceived ongoing siltation,

2. Data distributed previously to the IAGs shows a significant reduction in the amount land under cultivation adjacent these reservoirs, since their construction. One point that can be drawn from this data is that there has likely been a similar drop in the sedimentation rate within these reservoirs.

3. The formation of and diminishment of sand bars is a common occurrence in such an environment.

4. Sources of sediment outside the project boundary are beyond the control and responsibility of the licensee, and are clearly not related to the operation of the project. Possible non-project sources include agricultural operations, other farming and/or livestock operations and upstream construction/development projects.

5. During the 3 - 4 years of consultation on this issue, there has been no data provided, no proposal provided by any stakeholder that suggests project operation is contributing to this issue.

6. After receipt of the marked up Henry map you provided, I talked with Mr. Spraggins concerning his criteria and methodology in marking the map. He indicated that in his initial mark up, he did not clearly understand the limited focus of this issue (Item 1, above). After I explained our issue to him in detail he was certain the issue focus at Henry was limited to the area mentioned in the draft.

Thanks for your consideration of these points, and I plan on contacting you Monday to discuss them further.

Have a good weekend.

Barry Lovett

3-02-2005aNHDr ftSiltRecom1.do..

1 Weiss, Neely Henry, and Logan Martin Recreation IAG’s

Siltation Impacts to Winter Boating Access

Issue Recommendation – 3/02/2005

Issue

Discussion of the Issue

1 Weiss, Neely Henry, and Logan Martin Recreation IAG’s

Siltation Impacts to Winter Boating Access

Issue Recommendation – 3/02/2005

Recommendation to Address the Issue

2 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 3:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Coosa Relicensing - Recreational Facilities - Bouldin Sites #28 & #2

Attachments: 021105 ADCNR letter regarding Jordan Site 2.pdf

Dan,

In response to your February 11, 2005 letter (copy attached) to Sheila Smith, we believe the following comments accurately reflect our understanding of the consultation that has taken place to date on these sites. We are interested in your thoughts on this remaining recreational facility issue.

Our understanding of the APC - ADCNR consultation that has taken place is as follows:

The ADCNR requested APC evaluate the Bouldin Emergency Coffer Dam Site (Site #28) for enhancements to encourage public bank fishing with the construction of parking facilities and related improvements. APC's response to this request was that this site is within the Bouldin plant security zone, and because of this, APC strongly opposed enhancing this site for use by the general public. To further respond cooperatively to the ADCNR, and for the sole purpose of finding an alternate site that may provide the public with a comparable recreational experience to Site #28 (and also acceptable to the ADCNR), APC evaluated and consulted with the ADCNR on the proposed Sheila's Wharf Site (Site #2) . This evaluation and consultation led to the understanding that the Sheila's Wharf Site (#2) would likely provide that desired recreational experience for the public. This alternate site, although estimated to be relatively expensive to develop for the desired recreational use, would be unburdened with the significant security issues that development of Site #28 would present to both APC and the FERC. The ADCNR has previously expressed to APC their opinion that the Sheila's Wharf site would likely be an acceptable alternate for the Bouldin Emergency Coffer Dam Site. That being the case, we have moved forward with the development of the concept design for Site #2, to be viewed only as an alternate for Site# 28.

The ADCNR has also requested the information/evaluation and comments (consultation) related to the Bouldin Coffer Dam Site #28 remain available, and in the Recreation Plan record. APC agrees that the record will reflect the discussion and the disposition of all sites evaluated within this relicensing process. Unlike the unpredictability of fishing demand, APC does anticipate that the security concerns related to Site #28 expressed during this consultation, will continue undiminished throughout the new license term.

We believe that overall this consultation process has been a very positive experience, with clear agreement on all but a very few facility issues. We look forward now to reaching a direction that is satisfactory to both ADCNR and APC on these remaining sites.

We look forward to your comments on this issue. Please call with any related questions.

Thank you,

Barry Lovett

Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-1268 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3332 Email: [email protected]

021105 ADCNR etter regarding ..

1 . :~: ~B4 STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WlLDLllfE AND FKESHW A 'CER l"1SHERIES DIVISION 64 NORTH UNION STREET, SUITE 567 POST OFFICE BOX 301456 , ~~~T-~b" MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36130-1456 jc, (334) 242-3465 FAX (334) 242-3032 www ,conservation,alabama,goy BOB Rll.EY M. N. 'CORKY' PUGH GOVERNOR The mission of the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division is to DIRECTOR M. BARNETr LA WLEY manage, protect, conserve, and enhance the wildlife and aquatic resources FRED R. HARDERS COMMISSIONER of Alabama for the sustainable benefit of the people of Alabama. ASST. DIRECTOR

February 11,2005

Ms. Sheila Smith Corporate Real Estate P. 0. Box 557 Wedowee, AL 36278

Jordan Site 2 "Shelia's Wharf'

Dear Ms. Smith:

The Fisheries Section had reviewed the Site 2 aerial photograph, with the red line concept drawing. This concept plan does meet the parameters that we discussed during the electrofishing evaluation of the area. It does appear that a 76-foot long pier would place the bank angler out near the important underwater drop-off.

We believe this will be an attractive opportunity to provide bank fishing accessin the Walter Bouldin fore bay area. However, this agency does not support this site in lieu of a potential future bank fishing facility at the fore bay cofferdam. As we discussed during the relicensing process, it can be difficult to predict angling needs six or ten years from now. Also, APC's current concerns may be much reduced in future years. As such, this agency does insist the cofferdam site remain for future review.

If I can be of further assistance,please contact me.

Sincerely,

~E AND FRESHW A TER FISHERIES

rJJ)~ ,IL~ Dan Thompson / . Capital Development Coordinator :,

cc: Stan Cook Chris Greene

The DepartIlrnt of Conservation and Natural Resources does not discriminate on the basis of race. color, religion, age, gender, national origin, or disability in its hiring or ernplo~nt practices nor in admission to, access to. or operations of its programs, services, or activities. From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:59 AM To: Bill O'Brien ([email protected]); Hap Bryant ([email protected]) Cc: Ellis Shad ([email protected]) Subject: Siltation - Voluntary Data Collection

Bill, Shad and Hap,

As we've previously discussed, and in an effort to assist the Weiss Lake Improvement Association and the Neely Henry Lake Association gain a better understanding of their respective reservoirs, APC agrees to work jointly with those associations to voluntarily gather and share river bottom transect information in two specific areas of Weiss and Neely Henry in 2008 and in 2013.

In 2008, APC will conduct baseline bottom transects in the Weiss Reservoir - Chattooga River Area (Highway 68, near the Lakeshore Fish Camp) and in the Neely Henry Reservoir (near the confluence of Big Wills and Horton Creeks - south of I 759). Transects will be positioned at these locations to characterize (and quantify) ongoing siltation in these areas. Then, in 2013, follow-up data will be gathered at these same transect locations to identify river-bottom elevation changes that may have taken place during the five year interval.

The Associations agree that by volunteering to assist in gathering and sharing this siltation data, APC does not assume any responsibility for siltation issues at these sites.

Thanks again for your cooperation on this item.

(Bill - If you could send me a note, referring to my March 11th memo, and indicating that that revised issue recommendation addresses the siltation issue to your satisfaction, that will enable us to close out this relicensing issue.)

(Bill and Hap - Please let me know if you agree with the above note, and that it accurately captures our agreement to voluntarily gather the data described, and that this agreement in conjunction with the 3/11/2005 Recommendation completely and satisfactorily addresses the issue.)

Thanks, Barry Lovett

Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-1268 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3332 Email: [email protected]

From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:27 AM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Bob Allen ([email protected])'; Crew, James F.; 'Kelly Schaeffer'; Sheppard, Andrew R.; Stover, Charles M.; Dykes, William C.; McVicar, Ashley M Subject: APC - USACE Meeting 4/14/2005 - Draft meeting Notes

Attachments: Meeting summary (draft 4-18-05).doc; ALP_process.pdf

Mike,

We thought our meeting last week to discuss the USACE's comments on the Coosa & Warrior draft Applications & APEAs was very productive, and appreciate you, Bob Allen and Matt Lang traveling up to meet with us.

Attached are the draft notes of that meeting and a relicensing process timeline, as you requested.

Please review these and let me know if there are any suggested changes.

Thanks again,

Barry Lovett

Hydro Services 205-257-1268 205-902-3332 Cell [email protected]

Meeting ALP_process.pdf mary (draft 4-18- (143 KB)

1 Meeting Summary USACE and APC Meeting Regarding Comments on Coosa/Warrior Preliminary Draft APEA License Application April 14, 2005 – Room 16F – 8:00 AM

Meeting Attendees

USACE Bob Allen Mike Eubanks Matt Lang

APC Jim Crew Bill Dykes Barry Lovett Ashley McVicar Kelly Schaeffer Andy Sheppard Charles Stover

Barry Lovett began the meeting with introductions and overall review of the March 31st, 2005 comments from the USACE. APC noted that the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the major issues of operations and to clarify some of the comments regarding the baseline and proposed operations. Barry reiterated that APC appreciates the USACE’s comments and looks forward to clarifying operational issues. Mike Eubanks noted that the USACE comments were prepared by multiple offices within the USACE and that comments related to flood control and operations were priority and the other comments should be considered recommendations for APC’s consideration. Many of the NEPA and other comments were based on the USACE’s recent experience preparing the ACT/ACF Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Barry then suggested that Kelly Schaeffer (Kleinschmidt) discuss the FERC relicensing process, APC’s responsibility in that process and how the NEPA process and the USACE’s process for approval of the reservoir regulation manuals parallel each other. Kelly provided an overview of the FERC NEPA process and APC’s role, emphasizing that APC is providing a preliminary draft applicant prepared environmental assessment (APEA) per 18 CRF of FERC’s regulations but it is FERC’s responsibility as the action agency to prepare the NEPA document. The APEA is filed by APC in lieu of the exhibit E, the environmental report. APC, as part of the Alternative Licensing Procedures (ALP), chose to provide FERC an APEA with the goal of attempting to meet a high standard of NEPA and FERC’s regulations; however, APC’s obligation as a licensee is to ensure that their license application meets FERC’s regulations under 18 CFR 4.51 and 16.8.

Kelly provided a schematic (Figure 1) outlining the process of preparing the NEPA document at FERC and the USACE’s process of approving the revised reservoir regulation manuals, which should mirror what is in the APEA (both baseline and proposed changes and corresponding analysis). Mike Eubanks noted that the USACE could do a completely separate NEPA analysis but their preference would be to use the FERC NEPA document, if that document would suit their NEPA requirements.

Page 1 of 3 Meeting Summary USACE and APC Meeting Regarding Comments on Coosa/Warrior Preliminary Draft APEA License Application April 14, 2005 – Room 16F – 8:00 AM

Figure 1

APC includes information from APC prepares RRMs in final license revised applications and APEAs information for USACE APC files final license Reservoir application and Regulation APEAs with FERC Manuals

FERC invites USACE to be Cooperating Agency on NEPA document FERC reviews and then prepares its NEPA document for the Coosa/Warrior relicensing

FERC issues its Final NEPA documents and License orders

Using Joint NEPA document between FERC and USACE, USACE District Engineer can issue its decision on Revised Reservoir Regulation Manuals

Page 2 of 3 Meeting Summary USACE and APC Meeting Regarding Comments on Coosa/Warrior Preliminary Draft APEA License Application April 14, 2005 – Room 16F – 8:00 AM

Then a lengthy discussion took place about baseline and various alternatives. The USACE’s main concern was that APC discuss and show the analysis for the comparison between baseline and the proposed changes, so the USACE could evaluate impacts to flood control, navigation and other resources. The USACE was particularly interested in seeing APC analysis so that they could determine that there is no significant flooding impact from the proposed changes over baseline. Through the discussion, it was agreed that “existing condition” is the existing FERC license with any approved FERC amendments and the existing reservoir regulation manuals with the flexibility to include variances as needed. As discussed above, APC will revise the APEA to show the analytical comparison of the proposed operation changes to the baseline. Regarding “historic” operations, APC agreed to handle these similar to cumulative impacts in FERC documents. APC will provide a qualitative description of how the USACE and APC have worked together over the past 50 years to improve navigation and flood control and how improvements in forecasting have supported this effort. The USACE agreed to this approach.

Also, considerable time was spent discussing the drought contingency curves. Bob Allen prefered the existing process for determining when APC can change operations due to a drought condition. Bill Dykes explained the public process that was used to develop the existing drought contingency curves. Bob agreed that the existing drought curves are okay and that APC should include in the APEA how they were developed and that APC should include the cooperative consultation process that will occur between the USACE and APC for an impending or existing drought situation. The USACE is most concerned with the process and that it remains a cooperative decision process whereby APC consults with the USACE.

The USACE’s consultant, HDR is currently providing a peer review of the flood model. Bob noted that this review and their report to the USACE are due in July. Because of the statutory deadline of July 30, 2005 by FERC to file the final license applications and APEAs, APC agreed to incorporate the existing flood model results and if changes need to occur as a result of HDR’s review, APC will work with the USACE and the FERC post-filing to ensure that FERC and the USACE have the most up-to-date information for their analysis..

Action Items • ACP will draft meeting notes, including a timeline of post-filing activities • Kelly Schaeffer will contact FERC to let them know the USACE would like to be a cooperating agency and pass along the contact information

Attachment: FERC Timeline

Page 3 of 3 ALTERNATIVE Alabama Power Company LICENSING PROCESS Process Timeline for Relicensing Coosa & Warrior Projects FERC Nos. 2146, 618, 82 & 2165

Prepare Phase II FERC Issues Complete Study Plans & Scoping Notice Environ. Conduct Additional (Federal Register) Studies Studies, if Needed

Prepare & Get Consensus NEPA Negotiate Issue Issue Issue Notice Prepare File APEAs FERC FERC Accepts FERC FERC FERC Issues Issue Pre- of Process From Scoping Study SD2 Study of Study Preliminary Hold & Final Notice of Application & Prepares Issues Final NEPA Application Stakeholders Meeting & Plans With Reports Reports DEA & Draft Public License Filing APEAs: Notice Draft Draft Document & Document (PAD) Joint Agency Final & Request License Meeting Applications for Intervenors NEPA NEPA License Order & Scoping Meeting Study for Additional Application With FERC Notice-Final Document Document Document 1 Plans Scientiﬁc Terms & for Public File NOI Studies Conditions Comment 30 day comment FERC Review FERC 90 day review agency of APEAs & Complete 60 day review Acts on ALP & public review Applications Engineering Request Studies

Settlement Discussions

File 6 Month Reports

2002 -NOI 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 From: Lovett, Barry K. Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 7:31 AM To: Jackson, Viki R. Subject: FW: alternative items

FYI

From: Crew, James F. Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 5:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Robbin Marks; Judy Takats; Julie Gantenbein; Richard Roos-Collins Subject: RE: alternative items

April,

We have received and reviewed your 6-3-05 ARA/AR.WWF APEA alternative. You note in your 6-3-05 email to me that the "Attached term sheet from Alabama Rivers Alliance, American Rivers, and World Wildlife Fund outlines{ing} the major terms we would like to see analyzed in the alternatives analysis in the APEA. This term sheet only includes the major issues and is in addition to comments already submitted to APC. Several "smaller" issues have been raised in our collective comments during the past five years of the relicensing process and we ask that you include those in the alternatives analysis as well."

After careful review of the 6-3-05 letter and previous letters, we are confused as to what "smaller" items ARA/AR/ WWF wishes to see presented in the analysis. Without clear direction on this, it is very difficult at this time to discern what additional measures should be included in your alternative since the 6-3-05 alternative appears comprehensive on many issues.

The 6-3-05 letter is very clear, although it directly conflicts with other measures or operational recommendations that you have presented in previous letters. To best accurately represent to FERC your alternative, given the VERY short and tight timeframe, we ask that you please send us a list (preferably by email in bullet format) of those items that you still consider part of your alternative--that are in addition to those presented in your 6-3-05 letter. Absent your clarification by June 17th, 2005, we will present the ARA/AR/WWF alternative based on your 6-3-05 letter because it is impossible for us to accurately portray those "smaller" items that you feel need to be in the alternative.

Thanks and if you have any questions, please contact me.

Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

From: Crew, James F. Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:43 PM To: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; Jeff Powell ([email protected]); Grogan, John D.; Sim, William A.; Lochamy, James S. Cc: [email protected]; 'Kelly Schaeffer'; Pierson, John M.; Jackson, Viki R. Subject: Term Sheet

Attachments: Coosa Warrior Resolution Term Sheet (6-16-05).pdf

As we discussed in our conference call yesterday, attached is the Relicensing Term Sheet structured to facilitate resolution of the remaining ecological issues. Please look it over and provide us with any suggested changes. Given our tight schedule, your expedited review would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for all your help.

Coosa Warrior Resolution Term .. Jim James F. Crew Hydro Services Southern Company Generation Phone: (205) 257-4265 Fax: (205) 257-1596 Cell: (205) 902-3213 Email: [email protected]

1 Coosa / Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet June 16, 2005 Draft 06-16-05

This “Term Sheet” is provided to assist APC, USFWS, and ADCNR in resolution of the final ecological issues identified in the February 9, 2005 letter from APC, and discussed at the May 11, 2005 and June 15, 2005 meetings between APC, USFWS, and ADCNR. Resolution of these issues is crucial for their inclusion in the Environmental Assessment as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”.

1. Weiss Bypass Adaptive Management Plan (AMP)

APC will submit the consensus-based 9-21-04 version (as amended by Technical Team meeting on 2-28-05 and 3-15-05) of the Weiss Bypass AMP as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”. The AMP has been revised to add wording that the Weiss Bypass Technical Team will continue their work on the development of goals and criteria and file these goals and criteria with FERC by December 31, 2005. If consensus on goals and criteria cannot be reached, ADCNR and USFWS will provide their goals and criteria to FERC as will APC for FERC’s evaluation and decision as part of the dispute resolution process outlined in the AMP.

2. Smith Tailrace Agreement

APC proposes to include the final version of the consensus-based Smith Tailrace Enhancement Proposal (distributed by e-mail on May 18, 2005 to the Smith Tailrace Working Group) as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”.

3. Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan

APC proposes to include the Erosion Repair and Monitoring Plan (distributed to the E2 IAG on May 24, 2005 as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”. The ADCNR and USFWS are supportive of this Plan, but reserve the right to comment on specific aspects of the Plan. Any additional details on the Plan will be resolved prior to December 31, 2005 and if necessary, a revised plan will be filed with FERC.

4. Aquatic Research and Culture Center for Aquatic Species of Concern

APC proposes to provide funding to the proposed ADCNR Aquatic Research and Culture Center as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”. This funding will assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of an aquatic research and culture center. APC and the agencies view this proposal as a positive enhancement measure that will assist in addressing project-related Section 7 (ESA) and habitat fragmentation issues in the Coosa and Warrior Basins. APC proposes to provide a total of $ 2,560,000 (2007 dollars) in funding over a 16 year period, beginning with the issuance of a new license. A proposed draft agreement (including funding schedule) is attached, the details of which will be resolved prior to December 31, 2005 and filed with FERC.

5. Section 7 ESA Consultation

APC proposes to include the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by APC in the Coosa and Warrior Environmental Assessments. A copy of the BA will be sent to the USFWS by the end of

Page 1 of 2 Coosa / Warrior Relicensing Term Sheet June 16, 2005 Draft 06-16-05

July 2005. The BA contains the latest agreements (up through our May 2005 discussions) on the red-cockaded woodpecker and USFWS suggestions on aquatic species analysis. USFWS proposes to keep APC involved in the Section 7 process even after the Biological Opinion has been filed with FERC. APC has agreed to continue their cooperation with the USFWS on Section 7 ESA issues during the new license. Each of these agreements and proposals will be included in the “APC Enhancement Proposal”.

6. Minimum Flow Review

APC proposes to continue the E10 IAG work plan as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”. APC will include a specific timeline for continued discussions of minimum flows at each of the Coosa developments identified in the February 9, 2005 letter – Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, and Mitchell. APC will also include a study plan for the collection of aquatic fauna data (focusing on T&E species) in the tailwater areas downstream of Logan Martin and Neely Henry dams prior to and after DO improvements. They will also include a study plan for collection of aquatic fauna data (focusing on T&E species) in the tailwater areas downstream of Lay and Mitchell dams either prior to or after the DO improvements. APC and the agencies are currently discussing the details of the level of sampling and will resolve these issues by December 31, 2005 and file the details with FERC.

7. Habitat Enhancement Program

APC proposes to provide funding to the proposed ADCNR Habitat Enhancement Program as part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”. The funding will assist the ADCNR with the creation and operation of a Habitat Enhancement Program which will provide for habitat enhancements in the Coosa and Warrior Project developments. APC proposes to provide a total of $ 4,250,000 (2007 dollars) in funding beginning with the issuance of a new license. A proposed draft agreement (including funding schedule) is attached, the details of which will be resolved prior to December 31, 2005 and filed with FERC. APC shall have the right to reduce or eliminate the base amount of funding shown in Table 1 of the draft agreement in the future based on the costs of any minimum flow requirements which may be placed on the Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, Mitchell and/or Walter Bouldin developments.

8. Fish Passage on the Alabama River

As part of the “APC Enhancement Proposal”, APC proposes to cooperate with the USFWS in continued discussions of fish passage on the Alabama River with the USACE.

Attachments: 1) Draft Enhancement and Restoration Program for Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern within the State of Alabama 2) Draft Fisheries Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program

Page 2 of 2 Enhancement and Restoration Program for Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern within the State Of Alabama

Introduction

As part of the Fishery Enhancement Plan(s) for the Coosa River Project and the Warrior River Project, Alabama Power Company (APC) proposes to establish a Culture Facility Fund (Fund) to partially fund the establishment and operation of a culture facility to be owned and operated by Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) for the propagation of threatened and endangered fish, mussels and shellfish and other aquatic species of concern within the State of Alabama. The purpose of the Fund is to provide funding to enable the ADCNR to enhance and restore threatened and endangered species and species of concern within the State of Alabama.

Organizational Structure

A work group will be formed by representatives from APC and ADCNR to review on an annual basis the projects on which to work during the coming year. These projects shall be designed to enhance and/or restore aquatic threatened and endangered species and aquatic species of concern within the State of Alabama.

Funding

APC will establish a Culture Facility Fund (Fund). The Fund shall be maintained by APC and money will accrue annually into the Fund in accordance with the FINANCIAL SUPPORT SCHEDULE contained herein. ADCNR and APC will be able to draw on this Fund for reimbursement of material, labor, equipment, office supplies, matching funds for grants, and subcontract services required to plan, construct, manage, operate and maintain the culture facility. However, the decision as to the allocation of the funding for projects shall reside with the ADCNR.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT SCHEDULE:

a. Upon execution hereof, APC agrees to establish a Fund. APC agrees to make payments into the Fund in accordance with the Base Amount funding schedule in Table 1 (but subject to adjustments in accordance with sub paragraph b of this Section) for the use of APC and ADCNR in enhancing and restoring wildlife over the life the Coosa and Warrior River Project Licenses. Actual payment of such contributions shall be on the following schedule.

Annually in arrears, each payment being the annualized amount as adjusted in accordance with sub paragraph b. The first payment shall be due on the last day of February, in the year following issuance of the new licenses for the Coosa and Warrior Projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and acceptance of the licenses by APC, which is expected to occur in 2007. The first payment shall be for the full Base Amount of the first funding year. All subsequent payments will be made on the last day of the month February.

b. The annualized contributions outlined above in sub paragraph a. shall be adjusted as follows:

The calendar year 2007 shall be deemed the Base Year as used in this provision. It is the intent of this agreement that APC shall make an annual payment into the Fund each year after the licenses for the Coosa and Warrior Projects are issued by FERC and approved by APC, as scheduled in sub paragraph a. The annual payment shall be for an adjusted annual amount which reflects any change in the average annual Consumer Price Index series defined as follows: Title: Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (Current Series), U.S. City Average, All Items Series ID: CUUR0000SA0, CUUS0000SA0 Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted Index Base Period: 1982-84 = 100 Frequency: Monthly Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor (herein the “Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (Current Series), Not Seasonally Adjusted or “CPI”).

Therefore, beginning with the first year and each year thereafter, APC and ADCNR agree that the Base Amounts outlined in paragraph a. shall be adjusted on the last day of February, or as soon as possible after the CPI for all months of the preceding calendar year have been published, of each year during the remainder of the term of this agreement and any extensions thereof as follows:

The Base Amounts shall be adjusted on the last day of February , or as soon as possible after the CPI for all months of the preceding calendar year have been published, of each year to reflect any change in the CPI between the Base Year (hereinafter referred to as BCPI) and the average annual Consumer Price Index for the calendar year just completed (hereinafter referred to as ECPI).

The change will be computed as follows: [(ECPI – BCPI) + 1.00] x (Base Amount) = New Adjusted Annual Amount for BCPI forthcoming year

If the said CPI published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor, as the same is now computed and published, should be discontinued, or enlarged upon, or changed, upward or downward, the payment adjustments will be calculated on the equivalent of the CPI, and for the purpose of determining and calculating the equivalent of the present Consumer Price Index, use shall be made of the successor index or indexes and the formulae announced or published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, and its successors, as being proper for conversion of any such successor index to the equivalent of the present Consumer Price Index. Table 1. APC Proposed Base Amount Funding Funding Year Funds Provided (2007 Dollars)

1 $400,000 2 $250,000 3 $200,000 4 $150,000 5 $130,000 6 $130,000 7 $130,000 8 $130,000 9 $130,000 10 $130,000 11 $130,000 12 $130,000 13 $130,000 14 $130,000 15 $130,000 16 $130,000 17 0 18 0 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0 25 0 26 0 27 0 28 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 32 0 33 0 34 0 35 0 36 0 37 0 38 0 39 0 40 0 41 0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45 0 46 0 47 0 48 0 49 0 50 0 Total Base Funding $2,560,000 Fisheries Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program

Introduction

As part of the Fishery Enhancement Plan(s) for the Coosa River Project and the Warrior River Project, Alabama Power Company (APC) proposes to establish a Fisheries Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program (FHERP) in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). The purpose of this FHERP is to develop a framework for working together in a mutually beneficial manner to enhance and restore fisheries and their habitats over the life of the new licenses issued to APC for the Warrior River Project and the Coosa River Project.

Organizational Structure

A work group will be formed by representatives from APC and ADCNR to review on an annual basis the projects on which to work during the coming year. These projects shall be designed to enhance and/or restore fisheries and their habitats on lands within the Warrior River Project Developments and/or the Coosa River Project Developments.

Funding

APC will establish a Fisheries Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Fund (Fund), the purpose of which is to provide a source of financial support for the conduct of the projects selected by the ADCNR. The Fund shall be maintained by APC and money will accrue annually into the Fund in accordance with the FINANCIAL SUPPORT SCHEDULE contained herein. APC and ADCNR will be able to draw on this Fund for reimbursement of material, labor, equipment, office supplies, matching funds for grants, and subcontract services required to plan, construct, manage and maintain all FHERP projects as administered by the ADCNR. However, the decision as to the allocation of the funding for projects shall reside with the ADCNR.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT SCHEDULE:

a. Upon execution hereof, APC agrees to establish a Fund. APC agrees to make payments into the Fund in accordance with the Base Amount funding schedule in Table 1 (but subject to adjustments in accordance with sub paragraph b of this Section) for the use of APC and ADCNR in enhancing and restoring wildlife over the life the Coosa and Warrior River Project Licenses on the Project(s) lands. Actual payment of such contributions shall be on the following schedule.

b. The annualized contributions outlined above in sub paragraph a. shall be adjusted as follows:

The calendar year 2007 shall be deemed the Base Year as used in this provision. It is the intent of this agreement that APC shall make an annual payment into the Fund each year after the licenses for the Coosa and Warrior Projects are issued by FERC and approved by APC, as scheduled in sub paragraph a. The annual payment shall be for an adjusted annual amount which reflects any change in the average annual Consumer Price Index series defined as follows: Title: Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (Current Series), U.S. City Average, All Items Series ID: CUUR0000SA0, CUUS0000SA0 Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted Index Base Period: 1982-84 = 100 Frequency: Monthly Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor (herein the “Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (Current Series), Not Seasonally Adjusted or “CPI”).

The change will be computed as follows: [(ECPI – BCPI) + 1.00] x (Base Amount) = New Adjusted Annual Amount for BCPI forthcoming year

APC shall have the right to reduce or eliminate the base amount of funding shown in Table 1 in the future based on the costs of any minimum flow requirements which may be placed on the Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, Mitchell and/or Walter Bouldin developments. Initial Projects

The following projects, among others, will be considered by the working group following issuance of new 50 year license for the Warrior River Project and Coosa River Project

1. Fishery habitat enhancements, such as placement of additional structure within the Coosa River Project developments reservoirs. 2. Applications for matching grants for fishery restoration and enhancement projects to be conducted on Warrior River and/or Coosa River Project lands. Table 1. APC Proposed Base Amount Funding Funding Year Funds Provided (2007 Dollars)

1 $200,000 2 $150,000 3 $100,000 4 $100,000 5 $100,000 6 $80,000 7 $80,000 8 $80,000 9 $80,000 10 $80,000 11 $80,000 12 $80,000 13 $80,000 14 $80,000 15 $80,000 16 $80,000 17 $80,000 18 $80,000 19 $80,000 20 $80,000 21 $80,000 22 $80,000 23 $80,000 24 $80,000 25 $80,000 26 $80,000 27 $80,000 28 $80,000 29 $80,000 30 $80,000 31 $80,000 32 $80,000 33 $80,000 34 $80,000 35 $80,000 36 $80,000 37 $80,000 38 $80,000 39 $80,000 40 $80,000 41 $80,000 42 $80,000 43 $80,000 44 $80,000 45 $80,000 46 $80,000 47 $80,000 48 $80,000 49 $80,000 50 $80,000 Total Base Funding $4,250,000