ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
MARTIN DAM PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 349
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
JUNE 2008
Prepared by
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
MARTIN DAM PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 349
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
JUNE 2008
Prepared by:
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
MARTIN DAM PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 349
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Background...... 1-1 1.2 Summary of Contacts...... 1-2 1.3 Agents for Client Name ...... 1-5 1.4 Document Purpose and Content...... 1-6
2.0 INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS (ILP) ...... 2-1 2.1 Description of the ILP...... 2-1 2.2 Process Plan and Schedule...... 2-2 2.3 Document Control and Website...... 2-2 2.3.1 Mailing Lists...... 2-2 2.3.2 Website ...... 2-3 2.3.2.1 Public Reference File...... 2-3 2.3.3 Restricted Documents ...... 2-3 2.4 Communications Protocol...... 2-4 2.4.1 Document Distribution...... 2-4 2.4.2 Providing Documents to APC...... 2-5 2.4.3 Meetings ...... 2-5 2.4.4 General Communications...... 2-6 2.4.5 FERC Scoping Meeting ...... 2-6
3.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIVER BASIN...... 3-1 3.1 Major Land and Water Uses ...... 3-4 3.2 Other Diversion Structures in the Basin ...... 3-4 3.3 Tributaries...... 3-7 3.4 Climate...... 3-7 3.5 References...... 3-7
4.0 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS ...... 4-1 4.1 Project Introduction, Location, Facilities, and Operations ...... 4-1 4.2 Measurement of Elevation at the Martin Project ...... 4-1 4.3 Project Facilities...... 4-2 4.3.1 Reservoir ...... 4-2 4.3.2 Dam ...... 4-2 4.3.3 Powerhouse...... 4-3 4.3.4 Project Transmission...... 4-4 4.4 Current and Proposed Project Operations...... 4-4 4.4.1 Dependable Capacity...... 4-9
i Table of Contents (Cont’d)
4.4.2 Other Project Information...... 4-9 4.4.2.1 Evaluation of Potential Winter Rule Curve Changes...... 4-9 4.4.3 Current License Requirements...... 4-10 4.4.4 Compliance History of the Project...... 4-10 4.4.5 Safety Requirements ...... 4-11 4.4.6 Summary of Project Generation and Outflow Records ...... 4-11 4.4.7 Delivery of Water for Non-Power Uses...... 4-12 4.4.7.1 Russell Lands – Willow Point Golf Course...... 4-12 4.4.7.2 City of Alexander City – Adams Water Treatment Plant...... 4-13 4.4.7.3 Central Elmore Water and Sewer Authority – Water Treatment Plant ...... 4-13 4.4.7.4 Still Waters Resort – Beaver Lake Replenishment System...... 4-14 4.4.8 Current Net Investment...... 4-15 4.4.9 Project Boundary...... 4-15 4.5 References...... 4-23
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT...... 5-1 5.1 Geology and Soils...... 5-1 5.1.1 Soil Types in Project Area ...... 5-9 5.1.2 Existing Erosion...... 5-16 5.1.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Impact...... 5-17 5.1.4 Literature Cited...... 5-18 5.2 Water Resources...... 5-19 5.2.1 Project Area...... 5-19 5.2.2 Existing and Proposed Uses of Water...... 5-21 5.2.3 Existing Instream Flow Uses...... 5-21 5.2.3.1 Flow Statistics...... 5-21 5.2.4 Existing Water Rights...... 5-22 5.2.5 Morphometric Data for Existing Reservoirs...... 5-23 5.2.6 Gradient of Downstream Reaches ...... 5-23 5.2.7 Intake Velocities...... 5-24 5.2.8 Federally Approved Water Quality Standards...... 5-24 5.2.9 Existing Water Quality Data...... 5-27 5.2.9.1 APC Monitoring Data...... 5-28 5.2.9.2 ADEM and Other Project Related Monitoring Data...... 5-32 5.2.10 Potential Issues and Cumulative Impacts ...... 5-36 5.2.11 Literature Cited...... 5-37 5.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources...... 5-39 5.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat As Defined Under Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...... 5-48 5.3.2 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-49 5.3.3 Literature Cited...... 5-49 5.4 Wildlife Resources...... 5-51 5.4.1 Project Area...... 5-51 5.4.2 Wildlife Species...... 5-51
ii Table of Contents (Cont’d)
5.4.3 Littoral Zone Species ...... 5-52 5.4.4 Exotic Species...... 5-52 5.4.5 Spatial Distribution...... 5-52 5.4.6 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-53 5.4.7 Literature Cited...... 5-54 5.5 Botanical Resources...... 5-55 5.5.1 Upland Habitat Communities and Species ...... 5-55 5.5.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants...... 5-57 5.5.3 Riparian, Wetland and Littoral Habitat...... 5-59 5.5.3.1 Wetlands ...... 5-59 5.5.3.2 Riparian and Littoral Habitats...... 5-60 5.5.3.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-61 5.5.4 Literature Cited...... 5-62 5.6 Rare, Threatened, Endangered (RTE) and Special Status Species ...... 5-63 5.6.1 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-69 5.6.2 Literature Cited...... 5-69 5.7 Recreation ...... 5-72 5.7.1 Existing Recreation Facilities and Opportunities ...... 5-72 5.7.1.1 Recreation Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Region...... 5-72 5.7.1.2 Recreation Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Vicinity ...... 5-73 5.7.1.3 Recreation Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Area ...... 5-73 5.7.2 Current Project Recreation Use Levels and Capacities ...... 5-78 5.7.3 Recreation Needs Identified in Management Plans...... 5-87 5.7.4 Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) ...... 5-88 5.7.5 Specially Designated Recreation Areas...... 5-88 5.7.5.1 National Wild and Scenic and State Protected River Segments ...... 5-88 5.7.5.2 National Trails and Wilderness Areas ...... 5-89 5.7.6 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-89 5.7.7 Literature Cited...... 5-90 5.8 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources...... 5-91 5.8.1 Overview of Land Uses ...... 5-91 5.8.1.1 Land Uses in the Project Region...... 5-91 5.8.1.2 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ...... 5-91 5.8.1.3 Land Uses in the Project Area ...... 5-92 5.8.1.3.1 Shoreline Classifications...... 5-93 5.8.1.3.2 Shoreline Permitting Program...... 5-95 5.8.2 Overview of Aesthetic Resources...... 5-96 5.8.2.1 Visual Character of Project Vicinity...... 5-96 5.8.2.2 Visual Character of Project Area ...... 5-97 5.8.2.3 Nearby Scenic Attractions ...... 5-100 5.8.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-101 5.8.4 Literature Cited...... 5-102 5.9 Cultural Resources...... 5-103
iii Table of Contents (Cont’d)
5.9.1 Prehistoric Overview...... 5-103 5.9.2 Historic Overview...... 5-105 5.9.3 Historic Properties...... 5-107 5.9.4 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-108 5.9.5 Ongoing Management Programs ...... 5-108 5.9.6 Literature Cited...... 5-109 5.10 Socioeconomic Resources...... 5-110 5.10.1 Population Patterns...... 5-110 5.10.2 Households/Family Distribution and Income ...... 5-110 5.10.3 Project Vicinity Employment Sources...... 5-111 5.10.4 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-111 5.10.5 Literature Cited...... 5-112 5.11 Ongoing Management Programs ...... 5-114 5.12 Tribal Resources...... 5-122 5.12.1 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects...... 5-123 5.12.2 Ongoing Management Programs ...... 5-123
6.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND DRAFT STUDY PLANS ...... 6-1 6.1 Preliminary Issues Summary ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Draft Study Plans ...... 6-1 6.2 Qualifying Federal and State Comprehensive Waterway Plans ...... 6-2 6.3 Relevant Resource Management Plans...... 6-4 6.4 References...... 6-4
7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-1 7.1 Section 3.0 – General Description of River Basin...... 7-1 7.2 Section 4.0 – Project Location, Facilities, and Operations...... 7-1 7.3 Section 5.1 – Geology and Soils...... 7-2 7.4 Section 5.2 – Water Resources ...... 7-2 7.5 Section 5.3 – Fish and Aquatic Resources...... 7-3 7.6 Section 5.4 – Wildlife Resources...... 7-5 7.7 Section 5.5 – Botanical Resources...... 7-5 7.8 Section 5.6 – Rare, Threatened and Special Status Species ...... 7-6 7.9 Section 5.7 – Recreation ...... 7-7 7.10 Section 5.8 – Land Use and Aesthetic Resources...... 7-8 7.11 Section 5.9 – Cultural Resources...... 7-8 7.12 Section 5.10 – Socioeconomic Resources ...... 7-9 7.13 Section 6.0 – Preliminary Issues and Draft Study Plans...... 7-9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.0-1: Location of the Lake Martin Hydroelectric Project on the Tallapoosa River, AL...... 3-2 Figure 3.0-2: Major Creeks and Streams in the Project Area...... 3-3 Figure 3.2-1: Location of Alabama Projects on the Tallapoosa River ...... 3-5 Figure 4.4-1: Martin Rule Curve ...... 4-7 Figure 4.4-2: Lake Martin Project Boundary...... 4-16
iv Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Figure 4.4-3: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued...... 4-17 Figure 4.4-4: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued...... 4-18 Figure 4.4-5: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued...... 4-19 Figure 4.4-6: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued...... 4-20 Figure 4.4-7: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued...... 4-21 Figure 4.4-8: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued...... 4-22 Figure 5.1-1: Physiographic Regions of Alabama...... 5-2 Figure 5.1-2: Topographic Physiographic Regions of Alabama ...... 5-3 Figure 5.1-3: Surficial Geology of the Project Vicinity ...... 5-5 Figure 5.1-4: Soil Types of the Project Vicinity...... 5-10 Figure 5.2-1: Tallapoosa Watershed Map...... 5-20 Figure 5.5-1: Community Structure for an Eight Thousand Acre Stand in the Project Area ...... 5-56 Figure 5.7-1: Recreation Sites at Lake Martin...... 5-74 Figure 5.7-2: Distribution of Recreation Days at Lake Martin from February 15 – October 8, 2007...... 5-79 Figure 5.7-3: Monthly Distribution of Recreation Use at Lake Martin by Day Type ...... 5-80 Figure 5.7-4: Segments of Lake Martin Used to Conduct Aerial Boat Counts...... 5-83
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4-1: Document Distribution for the Project Relicensing FERC No. 349...... 2-5 Table 3.2-1: Dams and Diversions in the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Elmore Counties or near the Tallapoosa River...... 3-6 Table 4.3-1: Minimum and Maximum Hydraulic Capacity for the Martin Project ...... 4-4 Table 4.4-1: Martin Dam Project Average Actual Generation from 1996 – 2005...... 4-12 Table 4.4-2: Approved Water Withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River ...... 4-15 Table 5.1-1: Legend for the Surficial Geology of the Project Vicinity...... 5-6 Table 5.1-2: Legend for the Soil Types of the Project Vicinity ...... 5-11 Table 5.2-1: Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Monthly Flow Statistics for the Tallapoosa River in the Project Area...... 5-22 Table 5.2-2: Approved Water Withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River ...... 5-23 Table 5.2-3: Specific Water Quality Criteria for State of Alabama Waters with Designation as Public Water Supply, Fish and Wildlife/Swimming*...... 5-26 Table 5.2-4: Summary of Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Data (at depth of 5-feet) from the Project, 1993-2005 ...... 5-29 Table 5.2-5: Summary of Average DO Data Gathered During 1995 APC and ADCNR Fisheries Study...... 5-30
v Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Table 5.2-6: Summary of Continuous DO and Water Temperature Monitoring in the Project Tailrace, 2002-2005...... 5-31 Table 5.2-7: Summary Data for Water Chemistry Variables Measured at the Project During the Period 1993-2005 by APC* ...... 5-31 Table 5.2-8: Summary of Water Temperature and DO Reservoir Profile Data Collected at a Depth of 5-Feet by ADEM During the Period 1994- 2005...... 5-34 Table 5.2-9: Summary Data for Water Chemistry Variables as Measured by ADEM During the Period 1994-2005 in the Project Area...... 5-35 Table 5.3-1: Fishes Known or Expected to Occur in the Immediate Vicinity of the Project ...... 5-41 Table 5.5-1: Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity ...... 5-58 Table 5.5-2: Acres and Percentages of Wetland Types in the Project Area1 ...... 5-60 Table 5.6-1: Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species in Alabama Counties Occupied by the Martin Project ...... 5-68 Table 5.7-1: Existing Public Recreation Facilities and Access at the Martin Project ...... 5-75 Table 5.7-2: Existing Private Recreation Facilities and Access at the Martin Project ...... 5-76 Table 5.7-3: Existing Commercial Recreation Facilities and Access at the Martin Project ...... 5-77 Table 5.7-4: Primary Activities Occurring at Recreation Sites at Lake Martin by Day Type, Summer Season, 2007...... 5-81 Table 5.7-5: Percent of Days Parking Capacity Exceeded at Sampled Recreation Sites at Lake Martin by Day Type, Summer Season, 2007 ...... 5-82 Table 5.7-6: Average Number and Distribution of Boats Counted on Lake Martin on Weekends in 2007 by Activity and Lake Segment...... 5-84 Table 5.7-7: Average Number and Distribution of Boats Counted on Lake Martin on Holidays in 2007 by Activity and Lake Segment ...... 5-85 Table 5.7-8: Water Levels in Lake Martin on the Last Monday of Each Month, February 15 – October 8, 2007 ...... 5-86 Table 5.8-1: Percentages of Land Use Classifications by Counties in the Project Vicinity ...... 5-92 Table 5.11-1: APC Management Programs...... 5-114 Table 6.2-1: List of Qualifying Federal and State Comprehensive Waterway Plans Potentially Relevant to the Martin Project ...... 6-3
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 5.5-1: Giant Cut Grass (Millet) on the Shoreline of Lake Martin...... 5-57 Photo 5.8-1: Aerial View of Martin Dam and Powerhouse...... 5-97 Photo 5.8-2: Downstream View of Martin Dam ...... 5-98
vi Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Photo 5.8-3: Martin Powerhouse, as viewed from East Side of Dam ...... 5-98 Photo 5.8-4: Downstream View of Tailrace...... 5-99 Photo 5.8-5: View of Lake Martin from Scenic Overlook ...... 5-99
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms in PAD and ILP Appendix B: Distribution/Mailing List for Martin Relicensing Appendix C: PAD Questionnaire and Responses Appendix D: Summary of Contacts Appendix E: FERC ILP Schematic Appendix F: Martin Process Plan and Schedule Appendix G: Single Line Diagram Appendix H: Martin Project License Appendix I: Water Quality Certificate and Water Quality Monitoring Plan Appendix J: Flow Duration Curves Appendix K: Representative Wildlife Species Appendix L: Riparian and Littoral Species Appendix M: Representative Botanical Species Appendix N: Aquatic Plant Management Program for Coosa and Warrior Appendix O: Land Use/Recreation Plan Maps Appendix P: Issue Identification Workshop Summary Appendix Q: Martin Issue Sheets Appendix R: Draft Study Plans for Martin Project
vii Table of Contents (Cont’d)
MARTIN DAM PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT ACRONYMS A&I Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply ac Acre ACT Alabama – Coosa – Tallapoosa ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management af Acre-feet AHC Alabama Historical Commission ARA Alabama Rivers Alliance BASS Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society BMP Best Management Practices CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information CEWA Central Elmore Water Authority CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic feet per Second Cl Cecil stony loam Cm Cecil gravelly sandy loam CRP Comprehensive Recreation Plan Csl Cecil stony sandy loam Cst Cecil slate loam CWA Clean Water Act Dl Durham coarse sandy loam DO Dissolved Oxygen EAP Emergency Action Plan EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency F&W Fish and Wildlife FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Ft Feet FPA Federal Power Act GPS Global Positioning Systems hp Horsepower Hz Hertz ILP Integrated Licensing Process In Inches kV Kilovolts Kva Kilovolt ampere kW Kilowatt Kw Erodibility of the whole soil kWh Kilowatt-hour Lg Louisa gravelly sandy loam LMHOBO Lake Martin Home Owners and Boat Owners Association LMRA Lake Martin Resource Association Ls Louisa sandy loam LWF Limited warm water fishery
viii Table of Contents (Cont’d)
MARTIN DAM PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT ACRONYMS M Meter M or Mc or C Meadow MD Martin Datum Mgd Million gallons per day Mi Miles MIG Martin Issue Group Msl Mean sea level MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hour NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO Non-Governmental Organization NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NTU Measure of Turbidity OAR Office of Archaeological Research OAW Outstanding Alabama Water ONRW Outstanding National Resource Water PAD Pre-Application Document PID Preliminary Information Document PWS Public Water Supply R Rough stone land Rb Rough broken land RCW Red-cockaded woodpecker RM River Miles S Swimming SCORP Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SH Shellfish Harvesting SMP Shoreline Management Plan TMDLs Total Maximum daily loads TSI Trophic State Index USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WWF World Wildlife Fund Ysl York Sandy Loam
ix
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
MARTIN DAM PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 349
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Alabama Power Company (APC) is beginning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 349). The 182 MW Martin Project (hereinafter, “Project” or “Martin”) consists of a dam, spillway, powerhouse, 40,000 acre (ac) reservoir, and approximately 8,800 acres of additional Project lands, known as “Lake Martin.” Lake Martin (“Lake” or “Lake Martin”) is located on the Tallapoosa River (River), near Alexander City and Dadeville, Alabama in east central Alabama.
Most non-federal hydroelectric projects in the United States operate under licenses issued by FERC under authority conferred by the Federal Power Act (FPA). FERC issued a license to APC in May 1978 for the Project and that license expires on June 8, 2013. In order for APC to continue operating the Project, APC must obtain a new operating license from FERC. Obtaining a new operating license requires APC to complete a multi-year application process and file a license application with FERC by June 8, 2011. This process is called relicensing. A summary of the relicensing process is presented below with a detailed description presented in Section 2.1.
Though FERC’s regulations provide several relicensing processes, the primary licensing process is called the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The ILP includes, among other activities, an early issue scoping process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), developing a FERC-approved study plan, and distribution of a preliminary licensing proposal. There are many opportunities for public participation in the ILP, and APC anticipates working closely with resource agencies and
1-1
interested persons, referred to hereinafter as “stakeholders,” to identify and resolve the Project relicensing issues. Because the ILP is FERC’s default licensing process, APC intends to use the ILP to prepare a license application for the Martin Project. A glossary of terms used in the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and in the ILP is provided in Appendix A.
1.2 Summary of Contacts
APC has developed a distribution list based on interested persons, agencies, and groups that have either attended a meeting or requested to be placed on the APC Martin mailing list. This list includes all federal and state agencies and federally recognized tribes and is provided in Appendix B.
APC began consulting with resource agencies and stakeholder groups in 2006 in preparation for the Martin relicensing. Meetings in 2006 served to educate stakeholders on the ILP process and to begin preliminary discussions on resource issues. In addition to those meetings, APC developed and distributed a PAD questionnaire that served to guide discussions on existing information, potential issues, and to highlight areas where there was likely to be insufficient data to determine project effects. APC’s PAD questionnaire and stakeholder responses are contained in Appendix C.
In January 2007, APC formally started consultation with stakeholders beginning with Issue Identification Workshops. The purpose of the Issue Identification Workshops was to identify stakeholders that want to participate in the ILP, to describe the process, and to continue the process of identifying and formalizing the project-related issues. During the meetings in 2007 through April of 2008, APC and the stakeholders focused on developing Issue Sheets, establishing the Martin Issue Groups (MIG), and developing Draft Study Plans to include with the PAD. Additional descriptions of documents distributed by APC and meetings in 2007-08 are described below in more detail. Appendix D contains a summary list of contacts, including dates and primary topics discussed.
1-2
Preliminary Information Document
APC prepared and distributed a Preliminary Information Document (PID) in December 2006, prior to the Issue Identification Workshops in January 2007, to provide stakeholders with existing information on project operations and the environmental, recreation, land use, cultural and socioeconomic resources of the Project.
Issue Identification Workshops
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, APC hosted two identical Issue Identification Workshops at the Betty Carol Graham Center at the Central Alabama Community College in Alexander City, Alabama; one from 10 AM to 2 PM, and another from 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM. The purpose of these workshops was to provide potential stakeholders with the opportunity to learn more about the Project and the relicensing process and to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the things they like about the Project and those things they feel should be improved or changed over the next Project license term. The workshops were free and open to the public. Ninety-five individuals attended the morning workshop and 44 individuals attended the evening workshop.
Additional Public Meetings
On March 12, 2007, APC transmitted (via electronic mail and ground mail) a compilation of the comments, concerns and questions that the stakeholders raised in the January 30, 2007 Issues Identification Workshop. In that correspondence, APC also announced that it would host an informational meeting on Thursday, May 24, 2007 specifically designed to address stakeholder questions about how the Martin Project operates, how it is coordinated with the upstream and downstream hydro projects, and how navigation and flood control requirements are incorporated. One hundred and fourteen people attended the meeting.
1-3
On June 22, 2007, APC transmitted (via electronic mail and ground mail) Draft MIG Issue Sheets for MIGs 1-6 below. The MIGs will focus on specific resource areas, as follows:
• MIG 1 – Fish and Wildlife • MIG 2 – Water Quality and Quantity • MIG 3 – Project Operations • MIG 4 – Shoreline Management • MIG 5 – Recreation • MIG 6 – Cultural Resources1
The MIG sheets were prepared for each resource area to include an issue statement, existing information, current studies/info gathering, and potential future studies, and were used to define project related issues and subsequent study plan development. In this correspondence, APC announced that its first MIG meetings would be held on September 26 and 27, 2007.
Martin Issues Group Meetings
On September 26 and 27, 2007, APC hosted five meetings of MIGs 1-5 in Alexander City, Alabama. The purpose of the meetings was for the stakeholders to provide comments on 14 draft study plans that APC distributed on June 22, 2007. A total of 168 individuals attended the five MIG meetings.
Draft Study Plans
In November 2007, APC distributed 15 draft study plans for stakeholder review and comment by December 14, 2007. APC received comments from eight entities, a combination of federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, lake homeowner and boat owner groups, and one individual.
1 Due to the sensitive and protected nature of archeological information, the distribution of this MIG sheet will be limited to the Alabama Historical Commission, FERC, and federally recognized Native American tribes with an interest in the Martin Project.
1-4
In 2008, APC held three meetings with stakeholder groups that provided comments on the draft study plans: February 12, 2008 with the Lake Martin Homeowners and Boat Owners (LMHOBO); February 13, 2008 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR); and February 13, 2008 with the Alabama Rivers Alliance (ARA) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF). APC revised the draft study plans and distributed them to all stakeholders in preparation for the April 1-2, 2008 MIG meetings.
At the April 1-2, 2008 MIG meetings, APC presented an informational session on the modeling of rule curve changes and hydrology of the Tallapoosa Basin. APC also held individual MIG meetings to discuss the revised draft study plans that were to be included in the June 2008 filing of the PAD with FERC. A total of 79 stakeholders attended the April 1st informational meeting; 80 stakeholders attended the MIG 3 meeting; 51 and 52 stakeholders attended the MIG 1 and MIG 2 meetings respectively; and 50 stakeholders attended each of the MIG 4 and MIG 5 meetings. APC received some comments at the MIG meetings and those that APC considered appropriate to include are reflected in the Draft Study Plans (Section 6.0 and Appendix R).
Meeting summaries and attendee lists are available on APC’s relicensing website at http://www.alabamapower.com/hydro/martin.asp. APC will post meeting summaries during the relicensing process and use the Martin relicensing website as a tool for communicating with stakeholders.
1.3 Agents for Client Name
The following person is authorized to act as agent for the applicant pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(2)(i):
Mr. Jerry L. Stewart Senior Vice President and Senior Production Officer Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street P.O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291 (205) 257- 6227
1-5
1.4 Document Purpose and Content
The PAD has seven primary sections that are structured according to FERC’s regulations for the PAD (18 C.F.R. §5.6). The following list describes the content of each section for use in finding specific information.
Section 1.0: Introduction; Table of Contents; List of Appendices; List of Figures; List of Tables; List of Photos; and Glossary of Terms in PAD and ILP (Appendix A); Background and Summary of Contacts (Appendix D). Section 2.0: Integrated Licensing Process Description, ILP Flow Chart (Appendix E), Martin Process Plan and Schedule (Appendix F), and Communication Protocol. Section 3.0: General description of the Tallapoosa River basin, per 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(3)(xiii). Section 4.0: Description of Project Location, Facilities, and Operations, per 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(2). Section 5.0: Description of the Existing Environment by Resource Area, per 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(3)(ii)-(xii); on-going programs. Section 6.0: Preliminary Issues and Draft Study Plans, per 18 CFR § 5.6 (d)(4). Section 7.0 References
Appendices: Appendix A: Glossary of Terms in PAD and ILP Appendix B: Distribution/Mailing List for Martin Relicensing Appendix C: PAD Questionnaire and Responses Appendix D: Summary of Contacts Appendix E: FERC ILP Schematic Appendix F: Martin Process Plan and Schedule Appendix G: Single Line Diagram Appendix H: Martin Project License Appendix I: Water Quality Certificate and Water Quality Monitoring Plan
1-6
Appendix J: Flow Duration Curves Appendix K: Representative Wildlife Species Appendix L: Riparian and Littoral Species Appendix M: Representative Botanical Species Appendix N: Aquatic Plant Management Program for Coosa and Warrior Appendix O: Land Use/Recreation Plan Maps Appendix P: Issue Identification Workshop Summary Appendix Q: Martin Issue Sheets Appendix R: Draft Study Plans for Martin Project
1-7
2.0 INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS (ILP)
FERC’s ILP regulations2 define very specific procedures and timelines. FERC designed the ILP to be a transparent process that involves all interested parties including tribes, agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public. As such, APC will carefully document the entire process including any information received from the interested parties as well as records of communications. To keep the interested parties informed of the process, APC will maintain a relicensing website at www.alabamapower.com/hydro/martin.asp and make other information, including the PAD references, available at its corporate offices in Birmingham, Alabama.
2.1 Description of the ILP
The ILP is the relicensing process by which most hydropower licensees apply for a new license to operate their projects. This process integrates the efforts of the FERC, state and federal regulatory agencies, stakeholders and the project owner into a streamlined proceeding that provides a predictable, efficient, and timely licensing process that continues to ensure adequate resource protection for the Project. The efficiencies expected to be achieved through the ILP are founded in three fundamental principles:
• Early issue identification and resolution of studies needed to fill information gaps, avoiding studies post-filing; • Integration of other stakeholder permitting process needs; and • Established time frames to complete process steps for all stakeholders, including FERC.
FERC’s ILP schematic that describes milestone activities and time frames is provided in Appendix E.
2 For more details on FERC licensing processes go to www.ferc.gov or see 18 C.F. R. § 5.6.
2-1
2.2 Process Plan and Schedule
In accordance with FERC’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. Section 5.6, APC has developed a Process Plan and Schedule (Appendix F). The Process Plan and Schedule outlines actions by FERC, APC, and other participants in the ILP relicensing process through filing of the License Application. APC developed the Process Plan and Schedule using the timeframes set forth in 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed dates take into account FERC’s timeline for the ILP milestones, federal holidays, and where necessary, eliminate the weekends (as some of the due dates within the process fall on a weekend day). For 2008, we have proposed exact dates; however, for the remaining years in the process we provide a weekly milestone date. Additionally, in developing the Process Plan and Schedule, APC has included timeframes for Formal Dispute Resolution (18 CFR § 5.14) even though any study disputes may be resolved through informal dispute resolution.
2.3 Document Control and Website
The relicensing process is lengthy and involves a large amount of correspondence (face-to-face meetings, hard copy written documents, electronic mail (email), and telephone conversations). To account for and manage these communications, APC has developed and will implement during the relicensing process, a document control and communication process. A description of the various communication tools and procedures to be employed by APC is presented in the sections below.
2.3.1 Mailing Lists
A mailing list of all stakeholders has been developed and will be updated throughout the process. A list of the known stakeholders to date is provided in Appendix B.
2-2
2.3.2 Website
APC has developed a relicensing website for the Martin Project at http://www.alabamapower.com/hydro/martin.asp. APC will use the website to post meeting notices, meeting summaries, documents (e.g., Notice of Intent [NOI], PAD, draft license application), and correspondence received. APC encourages all stakeholders to use the website for obtaining current information about the Project and the relicensing process.
2.3.2.1 Public Reference File
APC will also maintain an electronic public reference file on the Project website at http://www.alabamapower.com/hydro/martin.asp. The public reference file contains a list of important materials pertaining to the development of the PAD, including background reference material, relevant studies and data referenced in the PAD, and the current FERC license. For a nominal copying fee, hard copies of these documents are available upon request. Documents are available for inspection at APC’s office at 600 North 18th Street, P.O. Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291 during regular office business hours. Appointments can be made by contacting Mrs. Viki Jackson Pate at 205-257-2211 or vjackson@ southernco.com.
2.3.3 Restricted Documents
Certain Project-related documents are restricted from public viewing in accordance with FERC regulations. Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) (18 CFR 388.112b(1)) related to the design and safety of dams and appurtenant facilities, and that is necessary to protect national security and public safety are restricted. In hydropower licensing, only Exhibit F of the license application is CEII material. Exhibit F consists of design drawings of critical energy infrastructure information and a Supporting Design Report. All other hydropower documents contain only public information and are in general not
2-3
filed with a claim of privilege. Anyone seeking CEII information from FERC must file a CEII request. FERC's website at http://www.ferc.gov/help/filing- guide/file-ceii/ceii-guidelines/hydro-licensing.asp contains additional details related to CEII.
Information related to protecting sensitive archaeological or other culturally important information is also restricted under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Anyone seeking this information from FERC must file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Instructions for FOIA are available on FERC's website at www.ferc.gov/legal/ceii-foia/foia/.
2.4 Communications Protocol
The relicensing process for the Project will be lengthy and may be complex due to the number of stakeholders likely to participate in the process. There will be numerous meetings and discussions held over the next few years to identify and subsequently resolve Project issues. To facilitate communications and cooperation among APC and stakeholders, APC has developed a Communications Protocol, as described further below.
2.4.1 Document Distribution
APC will distribute, whenever possible, all documents electronically in standard MS Word format or portable document format (PDF). APC may distribute hard copies of some documents for convenience, by request, or to accommodate those individuals who do not have immediate access to electronic mail or computer. Distribution of information will follow the guidelines presented below (Table 2.4-1).
2-4
Table 2.4-1: Document Distribution for the Project Relicensing FERC No. 349
DOCUMENT METHOD PAD and NOI CD-ROM – Direct mail
Public Meeting Notices (Official FERC Meetings) Newspaper and direct mail*
MIG Meetings Website, Email, Direct Mail*
Meeting Agendas Website, Email, Direct Mail*
Meeting Summaries Website, Email, Direct Mail*
Major Documents: PAD, FERC Scoping Documents, Website, CD-ROM, and APC Proposed Study Plans, Study Reports, Preliminary corporate office Licensing Proposal, Final License Application
PAD support documents, including the existing FERC A list is available on the APC Website license and hard copies at APC’s corporate office in Birmingham, AL
*For those individuals without computer access.
2.4.2 Providing Documents to APC
APC requests that that it receive all documents electronically in either PDF or an appropriate format compatible with MS Office (i.e., MS Word, Excel, etc.) format. Email electronic documents to [email protected]. Hard copy documents may be mailed to Jim Crew, Martin Relicensing Project Manager, Alabama Power Company, 600 North 18th Street, P.O. Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291. In either case, all documents received become part of the relicensing consultation record and are available for distribution to the public and/or posting to the relicensing website at http://www.alabamapower.com/ hydro/martin.asp.
2.4.3 Meetings
APC recognizes there are a number of stakeholders (agencies, tribes, groups, and individuals) that may want to participate in the process. APC will work with all stakeholders to develop meeting schedules that include convenient
2-5
locations and times to accommodate the majority of participants. In general, APC will schedule meetings at least two weeks in advance and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. At that time, APC will provide a meeting agenda on the relicensing website and by email. APC will also distribute any documents or other information that will be the subject of meeting discussions. APC will make every effort to begin and end meetings on time.
2.4.4 General Communications
Communications include written hard-copy correspondence, email, and notes from single party, multi-party telephone calls, and/or face-to-face meetings. APC may post records of these communications (including copies of email or telephone discussion notes) on the Project relicensing website. APC’s goal is to keep the lines of communication open during the relicensing process and make it easy for relicensing stakeholders and the public to get information related to the relicensing and the interests/issues of other stakeholders.
2.4.5 FERC Scoping Meeting
Approximately 90 days following distribution of the PAD in June 2008, FERC staff will organize and conduct scoping meetings pursuant to NEPA near the Project. Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with a proposed action. FERC will provide notice to all interested agencies, NGOs, Native American tribes, and individuals to these official public meetings to provide both oral and written comments on issues related to the project and alternatives pursuant to NEPA. Typically, FERC holds at least one scoping meeting in the evening and one in the daytime. Scoping meetings are recorded by a court reporter and all statements provided at the meetings, both verbal and written, become part of FERC’s public record for the project. APC intends to advertise the scoping meetings on its relicensing website; FERC will also publish NEPA Scoping meeting notices in local newspapers and in the Federal Register.
2-6
FERC has tentatively scheduled a day and evening Scoping Meeting for the Martin Project on September 10 - 11, 2008, at the Central Alabama Community College, Betty Carol Graham Center at Alexander City Campus, 1675 Cherokee Rd, Alexander City, AL 35010. These Scoping Meetings will include an opportunity for a tour of the Martin Dam Powerhouse and a video presentation of Lake Martin. Details confirming the exact date and time of the meetings will be announced in July or August 2008.
2-7
3.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIVER BASIN
The Basin is a sub-basin of the Mobile River basin that begins in western Georgia and flows southwesterly through east central Alabama (Figure 3.0-1). Lake Martin is a 31 mile-long impoundment located in Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa counties, on the Tallapoosa River, near Dadeville, in east central Alabama. Martin Dam is located approximately 60.6 miles (mi) upstream of the junction of the Tallapoosa and Coosa River, which forms the Alabama River. The Lake has 700 mi of shoreline, a surface area of nearly 40,000 ac, and a storage capacity of 1,622,000 acre-feet (af) or nearly 530 billion gallons, making it the second deepest lake in Alabama (CH2MHILL, 2005). The Basin is approximately 4,675 mi2, 2,984 mi2 of which exists upstream of the Project. Approximately 15 percent of the Basin’s drainage area lies in Georgia, where the River’s headwaters originate (CH2MHILL, 2005). The headwaters of the Tallapoosa and Little Tallapoosa Rivers begin in the Georgia counties of Paulding and Carrol (at approximately 1,150 feet (ft) msl, respectively, and enter Alabama in Randolph County southwest of the City of Atlanta to form the main stem of the Tallapoosa River. From this point, the Tallapoosa meanders southwesterly through four APC hydroelectric projects (R. L. Harris Dam, Martin Dam, Yates Dam, and Thurlow Dam) before joining the Coosa River to create the Alabama River (at approximately 113 ft msl). The Alabama portion of the Basin drains 3,975 square miles of land. Figure 3.0-2 shows the major creeks and stream lengths in the Project area.
3-1
Figure 3.0-1: Location of the Lake Martin Hydroelectric Project on the Tallapoosa River, AL
3-2
Figure 3.0-2: Major Creeks and Streams in the Project Area
3-3
3.1 Major Land and Water Uses
Almost 70 percent of the Basin is covered by forests, and forestry-related activities account for a major part of the Basin’s economy. Agriculture is also a significant land use activity supporting a variety of animal operations and commodity production. Although the total farmland in the basin is declining, livestock and poultry production is strong. The trend is toward larger commercial-type farms with increased use of machinery. Despite a strong agricultural presence, approximately one-half of the working population is employed in manufacturing industries.
Although the nearby Alabama River is considered a critical navigation route for commercial barge traffic, the Tallapoosa River does not contain locks on any of the dams that would allow passage for motorized boats of any kind. There are no large metropolitan centers within this Basin.
3.2 Other Diversion Structures in the Basin
All four hydroelectric generating dams on the Tallapoosa River are owned and operated by APC and include R. L. Harris Dam located at River Mile (RM) 139.1; Martin Dam located at RM 60.6, Yates Dam at RM 52.7, and finally, Thurlow Dam at RM 49.7 (see Figure 3.2-1). Other dams and diversion structures in Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa counties are summarized in Table 3.2-1.
3-4
Figure 3.2-1: Location of Alabama Projects on the Tallapoosa River
3-5
Table 3.2-1: Dams and Diversions in the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Elmore Counties or near the Tallapoosa River (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008)
DAM NAME NIDID LONG LAT COUNTY Baker Creek Lagoon AL01910 -86.04667 33.04 Coosa Ann Jordan Lake AL00965 -86.05 32.92667 Coosa Peoples Lake No 2 AL01908 -86.08833 33.055 Coosa Elmer Dunnam AL00969 -86.14833 32.99833 Coosa Griffin Harris Lake AL01909 -86.04 33.08833 Coosa Ewell C Forbus AL00966 -86.05667 32.825 Coosa Shelton Lake AL01913 -86.29833 32.76333 Coosa Cullen Thomas AL00971 -86.285 33.06667 Coosa H Kaul AL00973 -86.31333 33.09333 Coosa Grooves Lake AL01912 -86.34167 32.76 Coosa B G Powell Lake Dam AL01793 -86.22667 32.69833 Elmore Speigner AL00707 -86.33833 32.57167 Elmore Paravigini Dam AL00705 -86.37333 32.45667 Elmore Poundstone AL00709 -86.11667 32.435 Elmore W A Williamson AL00706 -86.37 32.51333 Elmore Fitzpatrick AL00708 -86.18167 32.505 Elmore Whetstone AL00703 -86.18 32.71 Elmore Stewart AL00701 -86.12667 32.655 Elmore Davis AL00702 -86.12833 32.65667 Elmore Maier Lake Dam AL01792 -86.11167 32.63667 Elmore Crommelin Lake Dam AL01791 -86.20333 32.50667 Elmore Knight Lake Dam AL01789 -86.12333 32.57667 Elmore Danny Davis Lake Dam AL01783 -86.125 32.65333 Elmore Nolen Davis Lake Dam Number Two AL01786 -86.11333 32.655 Elmore Nolan Davis Lake Dam Number One AL01787 -86.115 32.65667 Elmore Blackwell Lake Dam Number One AL01788 -86.11333 32.72833 Elmore Blackwell Lake Dam Number Two AL01790 -86.11167 32.72667 Elmore Wingard Lake Dam AL01856 -86.03167 32.60667 Elmore Annie T Gregory Lake Dam AL01784 -85.94667 32.59667 Elmore R H Lamb Lake Dam AL01785 -86.03 32.58833 Elmore Yates AL01421 -85.89 32.575 Elmore/Tallapoosa Thurlow AL01422 -85.88834 32.535 Elmore/Tallapoosa Martin AL01425 -85.91167 32.68 Elmore/Tallapoosa Bailey AL01828 -86.01167 33.05333 Tallapoosa Swindall AL01823 -85.73667 32.945 Tallapoosa Russell Mills AL00878 -85.98 32.89 Tallapoosa Patterson AL00881 -85.78333 33.07667 Tallapoosa Sargent AL01816 -85.59667 32.86333 Tallapoosa Farington AL01819 -85.74667 32.825 Tallapoosa Whatley AL01829 -85.84 33.02167 Tallapoosa Camp Hill Reservoir AL01817 -85.63667 32.80167 Tallapoosa Cobbs, Allen & Hall AL01825 -85.955 32.99667 Tallapoosa Nolen AL01826 -85.99167 32.97167 Tallapoosa Bradshaw AL01818 -85.72333 32.76333 Tallapoosa Walls AL00879 -85.95833 32.90167 Tallapoosa Alex. City State Jr. College AL01824 -85.945 32.92333 Tallapoosa Osborne AL01827 -85.93333 33.02833 Tallapoosa
3-6
3.3 Tributaries
The principal tributary streams are the Little Tallapoosa River, which has a drainage area of 605 mi2 in Georgia and Alabama, and Sougahatchee, South Sandy, Uphapee, and Hillabee Creeks in Alabama. The confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers form the Alabama River near Wetumpka, Alabama (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1998). Figure 3.0-2 in Section 3.0 above shows the tributaries, streams, and creeks at the Project.
3.4 Climate
The Basin has a mild and uniform temperate climate with warm summers and usually mild winters. Snowfall accumulation is infrequent. During the month of July, temperatures vary between 92°F and 67°F. Although the monthly average highs in June, July, and August exceed 90°F, this temperature range generally occurs, on average, only 87 days per year. Temperatures above 100°F are unusual. The winter extremes of 32°F and lower occur on an average of 64 times per year. The frost-free season varies from 205 days in the north portion to 256 days in the south portion of the basin. Annual rainfall amounts typically range between 46 to 64 inches (in.). The average growing season is approximately 209 days (CH2MHILL, 2005).
3.5 References
CH2MHILL. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, AL. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm. Accessed May 21, 2008.
3-7
4.0 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS
4.1 Project Introduction, Location, Facilities, and Operations
APC began construction on the Martin Project in 1923 and it was placed in service with three generating units in 1926. APC added a fourth generating unit in 1952. The Project consists of : (1) a concrete gravity dam with an earth dike section, about 2,000 ft in length and a maximum height of 168 ft, containing a 720 ft-long, gated spillway section with 20 spillway gates; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 40,000 ac at normal full pool elevation of 490 ft Martin Datum (MD) (490 ft MD = 491 ft mean sea level (msl)); (3) headworks containing 12 intake gates and four steel penstocks; (4) a brick and concrete, steel-frame powerhouse, 307 ft long, 58 ft wide, and 99 ft high, containing four vertical Francis turbines that power four generating units (45.8, 41.0, 40.5, and 55.2 megawatts (MW), respectively) for a total installed capacity of 182.5 MW. The Project intake structures’ inverts are located 68 ft below normal full pool elevation. During the 2007 drought, APC asked GE to investigate the minimum operational elevation at which water could be released through the turbines without causing damage to the equipment. It was determined that elevation 444.5 MD was the lowest elevation the Project could safely operate the turbines. The Project also includes two short (450-ft- long) 115-kilovolt transmission lines and appurtenant facilities (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2005).
The Project is an existing facility located at RM 420.0 above Mobile, Alabama on the Tallapoosa River near Dadeville, AL. The Project is 78.5 RMs downstream from the Harris Dam, and approximately 7.9 RMs upstream from the Yates Dam and 10.9 RMs upstream of the Thurlow Dam.
4.2 Measurement of Elevation at the Martin Project
In the 1920s, when land was being purchased for construction of the Project, a locally established reference point known as Martin Datum (MD) was utilized for determining elevations. Today, most figures, drawings, and general references are shown
4-1
in mean sea level (msl), which FERC also uses as its standard. MD is the equivalent of 1 foot below msl. Throughout this document and during the relicensing process and thereafter, all elevations will be presented in msl rather than MD. For example, the Lake Martin normal summer pool will be shown as El. 491 ft msl (which is equivalent to El. 490 ft MD).
4.3 Project Facilities
4.3.1 Reservoir
The Martin Reservoir, commonly referred to as Lake Martin, extends up the River for approximately 31 mi with approximately 700 mi of shoreline. The reservoir surface area is about 40,000 ac at normal full pool elevation of 491 ft msl, and has a mandatory drawdown of 10 ft in the winter months (Finlay Engineering, 2005). The normal tailwater elevation is 344 ft msl. The gross storage capacity of Lake Martin is 1,622,000 af; active storage in the available 45.5 ft drawdown is 1,381,077 af (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1978; modifications from personal comm., Ashley McVicar, Alabama Power Company).
4.3.2 Dam
The Project dam consists of a concrete gravity dam and earth dike section totaling 2,000 ft long with a maximum height of 168 ft. The dam consists of a 720 ft-long arched concrete gravity spillway, a 280 ft-long concrete gravity intake structure, 255-ft-long concrete gravity non-overflow section on the right abutment, and an approximately 1,000-ft-long compacted homogeneous earth embankment on the east (left) abutment (Finlay Engineering, 2005).
For passing floodwaters in excess of turbine capacity, the dam has twenty vertical lift steel spillway gates measuring 30 ft wide by 16 ft high. These gates are lifted individually by one of two electric-powered gantry cranes as needed. A third gantry crane is located at the crest of the intake. The deck elevation above
4-2
the spillway is 501 ft msl. There are 12 intake gates (three per unit) measuring 9 ft wide by 24 ft high, each intake is fitted with a trash rack, and there are four penstocks (Alabama Power Company, 2005a).
4.3.3 Powerhouse
The Martin powerhouse is a brick, steel, and concrete structure standing 99 ft above the generator floor and is integral with the intake facilities. It houses four vertical flow units totaling 182.5 MW. The building measures 307.9 ft long by 58 ft wide by 99 ft high. It contains an overhead crane with a capacity of 200 tons. The crane is used to perform maintenance on the units. Generators 1, 2, and 3, installed in 1926, were upgraded between 2001and 2004 and have a rating of 40 to 45 MW. Each unit is driven by a vertical type Francis turbine with 54,000 to 61,000 hp. The fourth generator, installed in 1952, has a rating of 55.2 MW and is driven by a 78,000 hp vertical type Francis turbine (Alabama Power Company, 2005b). Unit 1 refurbishment was completed and put into service on March 10, 2002, with an increase in capacity from 33.0 to 45.8 MW. Unit 2 was refurbished and placed into service on February 4, 2004 with an increase in capacity from 33.0 to 41.0 MW. Unit 3 was refurbished and placed back into service on March 28, 2003 with an increase in capacity from 33.0 to 40.5 MW. Unit 4 has not been upgraded since its installation in 1952 (Alabama Power Company, 2005b). Table 4.3-1 contains a list of minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities along with the installed capacity. APC has no operating experience with discharges less than best gate on all units (minimum hydraulic capacity). Because of the unknown consequences, operating points lower than best gate cannot be used for long periods of discharge.
4-3
Table 4.3-1: Minimum and Maximum Hydraulic Capacity for the Martin Project (Source: pers. comm, Andy Sheppard, Alabama Power Company, 2008)
MIN HYDRAULIC CAP AUTHORIZED/ MAX HYDRAULIC CAP UNIT (Best Gate) INSTALLED (Full Gate) (cfs) (cubic feet per second-cfs) Capacity (MW) 1 4,024 4,631 45.8 2 3,653 3,951 41.0 3 3,563 3,968 40.5 4 4,464 5,616 55.2
4.3.4 Project Transmission
APC supplies electric power throughout a large part of Alabama and exchanges electric power with other operating subsidiaries of Southern Company in Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia, and with the Tennessee Valley Authority by means of physical connections of the transmission systems of each.
Units 1, 2, and 3 are each connected through a bank of three single line phase, 12/115 kv step-up transformers, rated 14,000 kva each. Unit 4 is connected through a bank of three single phase, 12/115 kv step-up transformers, rated 23,333 kva each. These transformers are located on the downstream side of the headworks and immediately behind the powerhouse, and are connected to a switching station located at the west end of the dam. The generating plant is connected into the integrated transmission system through nine 115 kv transmission lines terminating at this switching station. The Project also includes two short (450-ft-long) 115-kvtransmission lines and appurtenant facilities (Alabama Power Company, 2005a). A single line diagram for the Martin Project is included in Appendix G.
4.4 Current and Proposed Project Operations
The Martin Project is a multipurpose storage reservoir. This means the lake level fluctuates seasonally to provide the many benefits the project was built to support. These purposes include hydroelectric power, limited seasonal flood control when the reservoir
4-4
is in drawdown condition, recreation, municipal-and-industrial water supply, water quality enhancement, aquatic flow maintenance, and navigation flow support. Some of these operational purposes enhance users upstream of the dam, some help with needs downstream of the dam and others, like hydroelectric power, directly benefit many people throughout the state.
APC utilizes three different guide curves in its operations of the Project – the Flood Control Guide, the Operating Guide, and the Drought Contingency Curve. These curves are illustrated on Figure 4.4-1.
The Flood Control Guide is the upper curve on Figure 4.4-1 and reflects the maximum elevation at which the lake is normally maintained in the interest of flood control. Beginning in January, the curve is at elevation (El) 481 ft msl and remains constant until February 17th. On this date, the curve begins rising until it reaches 491 ft msl on April 28th. The curve remains at this elevation until August 30th when it begins to lower. The curve lowers 10 ft to El. 481 ft msl by December 31st and remains constant until filling begins the next February 17th (see Figure 4.4-1). At times when the reservoir is below El. 491 ft msl, APC has the ability to store floodwater to help control high river flow events. After the peak flood flows have receded, APC lowers the elevation of Lake Martin to or below the Flood Control Guide elevation indicated on Figure 4.4-1.
When the inflow to and outflows from the reservoir cause the reservoir elevation to exceed the Flood Control Guide the plant will be operated in the following manner:
1. When the reservoir is above the Flood Control Guide and between elevations 481 msl and 486 msl, turbines at Martin Dam will be operated to provide for a continuous outflow from Thurlow Dam of at least the equivalent of the hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Yates Dam, approximately 12,400 cfs. 2. When the reservoir is above the Flood Control Guide and between elevations 486 msl and 489 msl, turbines at Martin Dam will be operated to provide for a continuous outflow from Thurlow Dam of at least the plant capacity at that dam of approximately 13,200 cfs.
4-5
3. When the reservoir is above the Flood Control Guide and above elevation 489 msl, turbines at Martin Dam will be operated as in 2. above and further, if required to avoid rising above elevation 491 msl, will be operated to provide an outflow from Martin Reservoir at least equivalent to all turbine units available operating at full gate and gates will be raised so that the reservoir will not exceed elevation 491 msl, the spillway will have a discharge capacity of 133,000 cfs.
The middle curve reflected on Figure 4.4-1 is the Operating Guide. This curve was developed in the 1970s through discussions with homeowner and boatowner groups who desired a higher pool elevation with less seasonal fluctuation than had been experienced historically. Under the original Martin license issued in 1923, APC often operated the Project in a manner that lowered the Lake twenty or more feet below the El. 491 ft msl pool elevation. As part of the relicensing of the Project during the 1970s, APC and certain stakeholders agreed that the operation of the Project should be changed so that a higher pool elevation could be maintained for normal project operations.
The area between the Flood Control Guide and the Operating Guide represents the range in which APC will operate Lake Martin under normal conditions. However, APC attempts to maintain Lake Martin at or near the upper end of this operating range as often as possible. By operating the Project at or near the Flood Control Guide, APC can optimize the many benefits of the Project and best ensure that Lake Martin can refill to near full pool each summer.
Whenever the Lake elevation drops below certain levels on the Operating Guide and remains there for seven days, APC reports this occurrence, by letter, to FERC and the Lake Martin Resource Association (LMRA). During this period, discharges are restricted to those that are necessary to fulfill requirements that include critical electrical system needs, downstream flow augmentation for navigation, water quality, fish and wildlife, and municipal/industrial water supply purposes.
4-6
Martin Reservoir
495
493
491
489
487
485
483 Elevation (ft msl) (ft Elevation 481
479 Flood Control Guide
Operating Guide 477 Drought Contingency Curve 475 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 4.4-1: Martin Rule Curve
The lower curve on Figure 4.4-1 is the Drought Contingency Curve. This curve provides an indication of impending hydrologic drought conditions. During the 1990’s, APC developed ‘drought contingency curves’ for each of its hydroelectric projects, including Martin Dam. This action was prompted by a comprehensive study of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River (ACT) Basin, which was being conducted by the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida as part of the ongoing water rights dispute between these three states. As part of the comprehensive study, reservoir simulation models were being developed for both USACE and APC projects in the ACT Basin. These simulation models needed criteria for decision logic on how and when releases would be made from the reservoirs.
APC prepared these drought contingency curves for APC’s projects as part of this modeling effort. The intent of these curves was to flag conditions when APC’s reservoirs would be in drought conditions. The Martin Drought Contingency Curve is not intended to dictate operations of the Project. Rather, the curve is used as one of several factors in
4-7
evaluating drought reservoir operations. The curve was developed to reflect drought operations that occurred in 1986 and in 1988. In the recent droughts of 2000 and 2007, reservoir operations did not change at the instant when Lake Martin fell below the Drought Contingency Curve, but this indication was one of several factors used in planning reservoir operations in coordination with APC’s other reservoirs in the ACT Basins during these past two droughts.
Because the Project is a peaking project, it usually operates Monday through Friday to meet peak power demands (CH2MHILL, 2005). During generation, the Project's four turbines release up to 17,900 cfs. Hours of generation per day depend on reservoir inflow; usually the Project operates for at least eight hours daily on weekdays and for five to six hours on Saturday. The Project does not typically generate on Sunday.
Releases from the Project flow directly into the Yates development’s 2,000 ac reservoir and 45.5 MW powerhouse with a hydraulic capacity of approximately 12,400 cfs. Releases from Yates flow directly into the Thurlow development's 574 acre reservoir and 85.0 MW powerhouse with a hydraulic capacity of approximately 13,200 cfs (the Yates and Thurlow developments are licensed to APC as FERC Project No. 2407). Thus, the entire River segment from the Project to Thurlow Dam is impounded. Below Thurlow Dam, the Tallapoosa River flows unimpeded for 45 miles (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1994).
Flows below the Martin Project typically range from leakage (from the dam) to approximately 17,900 cfs. APC operates the Yates/Thurlow Project as run of river projects that take advantage of peaking releases from Martin. Since 1991, APC has provided a continuous 1,200 cfs minimum release from Thurlow powerhouse, other than in extreme drought conditions. On many occasions, releases from Martin Dam are necessary to allow Thurlow powerhouse to meet this requirement. There are currently procedures in the Yates-Thurlow license that reduce the release requirement at Thurlow Dam whenever inflows to the Yates-Thurlow Project are abnormally low. Thus, normal flows below Thurlow Dam typically vary from 1,200 cfs to 17,900 cfs. Flow in the Tallapoosa River as measured ten miles downstream of the Project at the USGS Milstead
4-8
gage average 4,822 cfs (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/uv?02419500, Accessed May 14, 2008).
4.4.1 Dependable Capacity
"Dependable capacity" is the IIC (Intercompany Interchange Contract) summer full gate rating. This value was chosen because it most closely reflects the definition of dependable capacity. To calculate this value, the plant rating is first adjusted to the expected July reservoir elevations. Then, using average July inflow, all units at all plants are modeled to operate simultaneously for four consecutive hours of five consecutive days. The resulting 20 hours of capacity are averaged to provide the capacity that can be supported during the system peak. The Project has a dependable capacity of 186 MW and an average annual energy of approximately 333,000 MWh.
4.4.2 Other Project Information
4.4.2.1 Evaluation of Potential Winter Rule Curve Changes
APC has received many stakeholder comments regarding changes to the winter rule curve elevation. APC intends to continue its evaluation effects of a change in the winter rule curve on environmental, recreational, cultural, and socioeconomic resources, flood control and power generation. Using modeling tools, APC will be evaluating the possibility of raising the winter rule curve elevation of Lake Martin and/or extending the time that Lake Martin is at summer pool (See the Rule Curve Change Analysis Study Plan in Section 6). APC does not propose any operational changes that would adversely affect or require a change to the minimum release below Thurlow.
4-9
4.4.3 Current License Requirements
The FERC issued APC a 40 year license for the continued operation of the Project on May 11, 1978. Because Martin operated on annual licenses issued by FERC for five years during which time FERC was evaluating the license application, the license will expire on June 8, 2013. Articles 1 through 37 are “standard articles” contained in FERC’s Form L-5. Articles 38 through 58 were either in the FERC Order issuing the new license or in subsequent issuances. The existing Project license is located in Appendix H.
On August 20, 2003, the FERC issued an Order Amending License that approved turbine upgrades at the Project for Units 1, 2 and 3. Those upgrades have been completed, and the turbine and generator nameplates were received and installed on the units on February 4, 2005. As part of the FERC licensing process to upgrade these turbines, APC applied for and received a 401 Water Quality Certification (401 WQC) from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and was required to implement a water quality monitoring plan (See Appendix I).
4.4.4 Compliance History of the Project
Upon review of compliance records, APC found one occasion of FERC non-compliance with the Project license, as described in the Commission’s letter to APC dated May 3, 2001. The non-compliance was associated with FERC’s determination that APC did not properly carry out its responsibilities to monitor and control the activities of a water withdrawal permittee. APC took the appropriate action to satisfactorily resolve the issue, as indicated in its May 25, 2001 filing with the Commission. The Project is also subject to regular dam safety inspections by an independent consultant in accordance with Part 12 of the FERC regulations (see Section 4.4.3). FERC’s Atlanta Regional Office conducts an annual Operations Inspection as well as an Environmental and Public Use Inspection every four to five years. There are no outstanding issues remaining to
4-10 be addressed arising from FERC dam safety and Environmental and Public Use Inspections during the last 10 years.
4.4.5 Safety Requirements
APC has an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) that provides a system for public notice and warning to downstream property owners along the River in the event of a dam failure. APC conducted an EAP drill for the Project on August 18, 2006 and submitted a critique of the drill to FERC on September 11, 2006.
An independent engineering consultant specialized in dam safety inspects the Project every five years as required by Part 12 of FERC’s regulations. Among other things, FERC intends for these inspections to identify any potential structural issues at the Project. APC submits the consultant’s findings and recommendations to FERC and implements the appropriate corrective action to respond to the recommendation. APC submitted the latest Part 12 inspection report to FERC on April 1, 2005. The next Part 12 inspection report is due in April of 2010.
4.4.6 Summary of Project Generation and Outflow Records
APC’s operation of its Tallapoosa hydroelectric projects has many purposes. APC operates its four reservoirs on the Tallapoosa River to, among other things, meet a minimum release of 1,200 cfs below Thurlow Dam at Tallassee and to maintain a flow of 4,640 cfs at Montgomery, Alabama as part of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin system-wide requirements.
On average, the Martin Project generates about 40 percent of the electricity of APC’s Tallapoosa River fleet of dams. The 10-year average annual generation for Martin Dam is about 333,000 MWh. In addition, Lake Martin contributes to the energy that is generated at Yates and Thurlow dams because of its ability to store and release water that would otherwise be spilled. Furthermore, because of Martin Dam’s operational flexibility, it is able to store water during
4-11
low electrical usage periods and then generate with the same water during periods of high electrical usage when production costs would normally be higher. This results in lower production costs to APC and a savings for its customers. All of the electric energy generated at the Project is used in the interconnected system of APC for public utility purposes. Table 4.4-1 shows the 10-year average monthly generation from the Project.
Table 4.4-1: Martin Dam Project Average Actual Generation from 1996 – 2005 (Source: pers. comm, Andy Sheppard, Alabama Power Company, 2008)
MONTH KWH January 34,683,000 February 36,014,000 March 39,765,000 April 25,560,000 May 24,976,000 June 25,764,000 July 27,029,000 August 20,871,000 September 18,046,000 October 17,428,000 November 28,614,000 December 34,338,000 Year 333,086,000
4.4.7 Delivery of Water for Non-Power Uses
APC has permitted some entities to allow for water withdrawals on the Lake, as described below and shown in Table 4.4-2.
4.4.7.1 Russell Lands – Willow Point Golf Course
In the mid 1960’s as part of the development of the Willow Point Golf Course, a pump-house and intake structure was installed for irrigating the golf course. This construction was completed during the original Martin license term and prior to the current permitting program. In 2002, this pumping station was refurbished as part of an overall renovation of the Willow Point Golf Course. A modern irrigation system
4-12
was installed, with two main irrigation pumps and a jockey pump that maintains pressure within the irrigation system. This system is efficient, utilizing state of the art control technology that effectively minimizes water use, resulting in less runoff to the reservoir. Average use by the current irrigation system is projected at 0.85 million gallons of water per day (mgd), equivalent to about 1.3 cfs.
4.4.7.2 City of Alexander City – Adams Water Treatment Plant
On March 6, 1980, FERC issued an order approving APC’s request to permit the city of Alexander City to construct, operate, and maintain a water intake with a capacity of 24 mgd. Current average withdrawal for the Adams Water Treatment Plant is about 10.6 mgd, equivalent to about 16.4 cfs. In 2001, as the result of public concerns raised because of the proximity of the drinking water intake to a marina with fueling facilities, Alexander City made a request to APC to extend the intake for public safety as well as reliability purposes. APC agreed and FERC approved APC’s request for the extension of the intake line on March 19, 2002. Alexander City currently extracts water from Lake Martin through one 36 inch high-density polyethylene pipe, with a T-screen assembly. This intake structure extends approximately 750 ft into Lake Martin, terminating at an elevation of 470 feet above mean sea level. The intake pipe leads to a pump-house located on the shore and within the Project Boundary. Raw water is pumped a distance of about 8,000 feet from the pump-house to the Adams Water Treatment Plant, ultimately supplying Alexander City’s customers in the Greater Lake Martin Area.
4.4.7.3 Central Elmore Water and Sewer Authority – Water Treatment Plant
In a February 16, 1996 Order, FERC granted permission for Central Elmore Water Authority (CEWA) to withdraw 10 mgd from Lake Martin. Current average withdrawal is 6.7 mgd or about 10 cfs. This water is intended to supplement the regional drinking water supply.
4-13
CEWA extracts water from the Lake through two screened intake structures that extend 300 ft into the Lake. These intakes lead to a pump- house located about 70 ft from shore and outside the Project Boundary. Raw water is pumped a distance of about two miles from the pump-house to the water treatment facility, ultimately supplying CEWA customers in the City of Wetumpka.
4.4.7.4 Still Waters Resort – Beaver Lake Replenishment System
In 1996, under Paragraph C of Article 58 of the Martin license, APC approved the Beaver Lake Replenishment Withdrawal System for the Still Waters Resort. This approval for less than one mgd involved the installation of 150 ft of 6 in. PVC pipe, encased in concrete, a two ft square intake screen structure, a new 20 horsepower centrifugal pump, and a new pump house. This withdrawal was utilized to replenish Beaver Lake, located on the Still Waters site, and used as a source of irrigation for the Still Waters site. As a condition of this usage, Still Waters was required to report to APC, on an annual basis, the monthly usage and was required to compensate APC for any usage above an average of 0.1 mgd. The average withdrawal is less than 0.1 mgd.
In 2003, the Still Waters complex was divided into components and auctioned separately. The Still Waters Golf Club assumed responsibility for the intake facilities.
4-14
Table 4.4-2: Approved Water Withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River (Source: pers. comm, Alan Peeples, Alabama Power Company, 2008)
AVG. DAILY FERC FACILITY OWNER SOURCE WITHDRAWAL PERMIT NAME (MGD) (MGD) Willow Point Russell Lands, Inc. Golf & Country Lake Martin 0.85 <1 Club Adams Water City of Alexander City Lake Martin 10.6 24 Treatment Plant CEW&SA Central Elmore Water Water Lake Martin 6.7 10 and Sewer Authority Treatment Plant Beaver Lake Still Waters Resort Replenishment Lake Martin <0.1 <1 Pump Station
4.4.8 Current Net Investment
The estimated current net investment of the Project is approximately $50 million (year 2007 dollars). When the current Project license expires in 2013, APC expects that its net investment in this Project will be approximately $48 million dollars.
4.4.9 Project Boundary
Lands, waters, and structures needed to operate the Project are required by FERC to be enclosed by a Project Boundary. Figures 4.4-2 to 4.4-8 depict the Project Boundary for the Martin Project. APC is only responsible for managing activities within the FERC Project Boundary, which also includes the 30 ft control strip located in some areas of the Martin Project.
4-15
Figure 4.4-2: Lake Martin Project Boundary
4-16
Figure 4.4-3: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued
4-17
Figure 4.4-4: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued
4-18
Figure 4.4-5: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued
4-19
Figure 4.4-6: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued
4-20
Figure 4.4-7: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued
4-21
Figure 4.4-8: Lake Martin Project Boundary, continued
4-22
4.5 References
Alabama Power Company. 2005a. Revised Exhibit M. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 4 pp. ———. 2005b. Upgraded Turbine and Generator Nameplates. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 8 pp. CH2MHILL. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, AL. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Order Issuing New License for the Martin Project (FERC No. 349). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 56 pp. ———. 1994. Environmental Assessment: Amendment of Recreation Plan. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ———. 2005. Environmental Assessment: Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Finlay Engineering, Inc. 2005. Potential Failure Modes Analysis Martin Hydroelectric Project. Finlay Engineering, Inc. 103 pp.
4-23
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Geology and Soils
Bedrock Geology and Physiography
Lake Martin and surrounding Project lands are within the Piedmont Upland Physiographic Section (Figure 5.1-1). This section is divided into the Northern, Inner, and Southern Piedmont Upland districts. The Northern and Inner Piedmont Upland districts are separated by the Brevard zone, a narrow zone of intensely sheared rocks. The Inner Piedmont Upland district is separated from the Southern Piedmont Upland district by the Towaliga fault. The Project lands fall within the Northern and Inner Piedmont Upland districts (Sapp and Emplainment, 1975).
Shorelines of the Lake are a mixture of residential development and natural undeveloped areas. Vegetation is dominated by oak, hickory, and pine forest in the undeveloped areas as described in Section 5.5 of this document. Shoreline steepness around the reservoir varies greatly with some areas having less than 15 percent slope and other areas associated with rocky outcrops having a vertical drop off of 90 percent (Figure 5.1-2).
5-1
Figure 5.1-1: Physiographic Regions of Alabama
5-2
Figure 5.1-2: Topographic Physiographic Regions of Alabama
5-3
The Northern Piedmont Upland district is characterized by well-dissected uplands developed over metamorphic and igneous rocks. In the northern portion, elevations generally range from 1,100 to 500 ft msl. Cheaha Mountain, Alabama’s highest point at 2,407 ft, is on the northeastern end of a prominent northeast-trending ridge that occurs in this district. The Inner Piedmont Upland district is developed on metamorphic rock with no prominent topographic features. Tributaries of the River incise the upland surfaces (Sapp and Emplainment, 1975).
Lake Martin is predominantly located in Tallapoosa County. The extreme southwestern portion is located in Elmore County and a small part of the western portion lies in Coosa County. The Project area in these three counties is all underlain by igneous and metamorphosed rocks of late Proterozoic to Paleozoic in age (570 to 240 million years ago). Figure 5.1-3 shows the bedrock geology of the lands in the Project vicinity and Table 5.1-1 provides the legend for the bedrock geology.
5-4
Figure 5.1-3: Surficial Geology of the Project Vicinity
5-5
Table 5.1-1: Legend for the Surficial Geology of the Project Vicinity
SYMBOL NAME da Agricola Schist dch Camp Hill Granite Gneiss dmum Mafic and Ultramafic Rock drc Ropes Creek Amphibolite dwgn Waverly Gneiss drm Rock Mills Granite Gneiss dws Waresville Schist egn Elkahatchee Quartz Diorite Gneiss em Emuckfaw Group Undifferentiated hcp Pinchoulee Gneiss hg Hissop Granite jg Jackson Gap Group jgc Jackson Gap Group Sericite and Chlorite Phyllite Unit jgt Tallassee Metaquartzite kck Coker Formation kgn Kowaliga Gneiss my Mylonite and Blastomylonite qt High Terrace Deposits um Ultramafic Rock we Wedowee Group Undifferentiated wec Cornhouse Schist weh Hackneyville Schist zg Zana Granite
The Northern Piedmont
The Northern Piedmont, which includes most of the western shores of the Project lands in Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore counties, is separated into three sections called blocks; the Tallapoosa block, the Coosa block, and the Talladega block. The entire Project area is within the Tallapoosa block. This block includes all of Tallapoosa County and the portions of Coosa and Elmore counties that are within the Project area. The Tallapoosa block contains rocks of the Wedowee Group, the Hackneyville schist, the Cornhouse schist and the Emuckfaw Formation. The Wedowee Group consists of a wide range of sericite phyllites, feldspathic-biotite-quartz gneiss, and quartzite. The Hackneyville schist is composed of muscovite and biotite schist, and biotite quartz schist with occasional kyanite. The Cornhouse schist consists of interlayered chlorite-biotite- garnet schist and muscovite-biotite-garnet-quartz-plagioclase schist. Quartzite and layered amphibolites are also present. The Emuckfaw Formation is interlayered
5-6
metagraywacke and muscovite-garnet-biotite-schist with local occurrences of quartzite and amphibolite (Sapp and Emplainment, 1975).
In addition to the regionally metamorphosed rocks of the Tallapoosa block, granitoid plutons composed of the Elkahatchee quartz diorite gneiss, the Zana granite, and Kowaliga gneiss occur in the Tallapoosa block.
The Brevard Zone
The Brevard zone separates the Northern Piedmont from the Inner Piedmont. The sheared rocks of this zone are bounded to the northwest and southeast by mylonite zones. The unit is called the Jackson’s Gap Group and consists primarily of graphitic schist, graphitic phyllite, graphitic metagraywacke, and sericite-quartz phyllite with some zones of phyllonite, blastomylonite, and quartz mylonite. In the southeast portion of the zone, a sericite-quartz-chlorite phyllite has been interpreted as metavolcanic.
The Inner Piedmont
The rocks of the Inner Piedmont belong to the Dadeville Complex, a major synformal structure, which is composed of the Agricola schist, Ropes Creek amphibolite, Waresville schist, and Waverly gneiss. The Camp Hill granite gneiss and mafic and ultramafic rocks intrude into the sequence. The mineral assemblages of the Agricola schist consist of biotite/garnet/sillimanite-feldspar quartz. Thinly bedded layers of dark brown hornblends occur throughout the schist as well as pegmatite pods and veins. The Waresville schist is a metavolcanic unit of interlayered amphibolites, chlorite-actinolite schist and actinolite-feldspathic quartzite along the southeastern border of the Brevard zone. The Ropes Creek amphibolite, the most common rock of the southern Dadeville Complex, is massive hornblend gneiss with numerous accessory minerals. The underlying Waverly gneiss is a feldspathic gneiss locally rich in manganese. Thin layers of amphibolite, calc-silicate rock, garnet quartzite and muscovite schist occur as thin layers. Mafic rocks are infolded with the Agricola schist and Ropes Creek amphibolite (Beg, 1988).
5-7
Structural Features
The dominant features in the Piedmont are northeast-trending ridges that are underlain by resistant quartzite and quartz-rich schists. The linear ridges to the northwest and northeast of the dam site are a result of tectonic movement about 500 million years ago. Triassic dikes were intruded into the area approximately 200 million years ago and show no sign of any movement since that time. The Tallapoosa block contains the Alexander City fault and a series of cataclastic zones. The Alexander City fault divides the Wedowee Group and Emuckfaw Formation. The Brevard Fault Zone, adjacent to the Tallapoosa block, is up to five miles wide and bounded by the Abanda fault to the northwest and the Katy Creek fault to the southeast (Beg, 1988).
Glacial Features
Neither the Project area nor the surrounding area has been affected by glaciation.
Mineral Resources
Gold occurrences in Tallapoosa County were first documented in 1854 as both placer (e.g., water deposited) and lode (e.g., in rock veins) deposits. The Devil’s Backbone District, one of the four gold districts in the Piedmont, is within the graphitic schists of the Jackson’s Gap Group. The creation of Lake Martin flooded a large portion of the mines and prospects of the Devil’s Backbone District. The Lake also covers most of the previously identified placer deposits.
Talc and anthophyllite are alteration products of ultramafic and mafic rocks. Talc occurs in the Piedmont as soapstone pockets and veins. Anthophyllite occurs in a fibrous form that may be used as asbestos. Rocks that may host these minerals occur on the east shore of the Lake near Sandy Creek although no specific deposits have been identified.
5-8
Mica is a common platy mineral that splits into very thin tough sheets as small as 1/1000 of an inch. Muscovite mica occurs in many of the igneous and metamorphic rocks in the Piedmont but mostly in pegmatites of the Agricola schist of the Dadeville Complex. No mica mines or prospects have been identified on Lake Martin properties (Rheams, 1984).
A number of inactive stone quarries are located within the microbreccia zone of the Jackson’s Gap Group and within the granitic bodies. These do not fall within the lands submerged under Lake Martin. Small terrace and alluvial deposits of unconsolidated sand and gravel occur along the banks of the River, Hillabee Creek, Blue Creek, and their tributaries. These are not extensive and have not been developed (Beg, 1988).
5.1.1 Soil Types in Project Area
Clays and rocky soils in the Project areas are derived from granite, schist, gneiss, and igneous rock. Soil productivity has been greatly decreased over much of the area due to poor farming practices in the 1800s and early 1900s. Many areas of depleted soils have reverted to forest, but productivity is often low. Below is a summary of each soil type identified on Project lands by county. Note that while the counties may have the same soils, each county has named the soils differently. Figure 5.1-4 and Table 5.1-2 shows the soil types in the Project Vicinity and legend of soil type.
5-9
Figure 5.1-4: Soil Types of the Project Vicinity
5-10
Table 5.1-2: Legend for the Soil Types of the Project Vicinity
SYMBOL SOIL NAME s124 Wickham-Roanoke-Congaree-Bibb s126 Uchee-Troup-Marvyn-Luverne-Cowarts s128 Tallapoosa-Madison-Louisburg-Louisa s130 Marvyn-Luverne-Cowarts s131 Luverne-Lucedale-Jones-Boswell-Bama s74 Vance-Pacolet-Louisburg-Cecil-Appling s76 Tatum-Tallapoosa-Louisburg-Gwinnett-Cecil s78 Tatum-Madison-Louisa s82 Tallapoosa-Madison-Louisburg-Cecil s84 Madison-Gwinnett-Cecil-Appling s8369 Water
Coosa County
The Coosa County soils within the Project are classified as the Cecil gravelly sandy loam (Cm), rough broken land (Rb), and meadow (Congaree material) (M). The soils are typically light colored ranging from light gray to red at the surface. Leaching and oxidation have strongly influenced the color-profile development.
Organic matter is low and all soil types are slightly acid to acid, with pH ranging from 4.92 to 5.09. Due to high rainfall, most soluble salts are leached from the surface soils. No carbonate accumulation occurs in the soil profile.
The Cecil gravelly sandy loam is included in the group of soils having the most favorable surface relief and agricultural value. The surficial soil is a light- brown, light-gray, or brownish-gray sandy loam. The subsoil, down to 36 inches below the surface, is stiff, brittle red clay. Unlike the associated Cecil sandy loam, this soil has a higher proportion of irregularly shaped fragments that range from one inch up to five inches. These fragments are typically quartz, granite gneiss, or schist. Below this layer, a light red micaceous clay from 12 to 20 inches thick grades into the saprolite of granitic gneiss or schist. The hilly phase of the Cecil gravelly sandy loam series has a more rolling or hilly surface with steep slopes. The surface soil may be thin, leached and, in some spots,
5-11
completely removed by erosion. Gravel and bedrock outcrops occur at the surface. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Cecil soil is 0.24 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 3-12, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The soils designated as rough broken land occur in large areas of the county, mainly over narrow ridges, knobs and step slopes. The soil is extremely thin and may rest directly on bedrock or in some areas, bedrock is exposed. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of rough broken land is 0.20 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-5.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 1.35-8.4, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The meadow (Congaree material) occurs on the flood plains as narrow strips along the streams. The materials were washed from uplands and deposited by streams. The surface soils (extending eight to 18 in. deep) are brown or dark brown. Subsoil is brown, yellowish brown or gray. The texture is a fine sandy loam to a silty loam. These soils have a high organic content, are subject to overflow and some areas remain wet throughout the seasons. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Congaree soil is 0.32 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-7.3, a cation-exchange capacity of between 2.7-19, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The silty areas are possibly the most fertile in the county (Taylor, 1929).
Elmore County
The Elmore County soils within the Project lands are classified as the Louisa sandy loam (Ls), the Louisa gravelly sandy loam (Lg), the York sandy loam (Ysl), Rough stone land (R), and Meadow (Congaree materials) (Mc).
The Louisa sandy loam is a gray to brownish sandy loam extending from five to ten in. deep with varying quantities of white quartz fragments and rock
5-12
chips. The subsoil is red, heavy clay with small angular quartz grains and a high mica content that imparts a greasy feel. The soil formed in place, mainly over mica schists. The Louisa sandy loam occurs in a broad expanse of gently rolling to hilly areas of Elmore County and exhibits a variety of texture, color, structure and gravel content. In some cases, the soils have a mottled appearance or a larger proportion of white quartz gravel. Soils are well drained. Organic matter is generally low. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Louisa soil is 0.24 – 0.32. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 1.5-7.6, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The Louisa gravelly sandy loam is a gray to reddish brown, extending from four to 12 inches deep. The surficial soil ranges from a light sandy loam to a heavy loam, contains varying amounts of white quartz fragments, and is underlain by red micaceous clay that may extend 36 inches. The subsoil has a significant proportion of mica flakes derived from the parent mica schist. This soil type is found in the northeastern corner of the county along the slopes of large drainage features. Drainage is good to excessive. The soil differs from the Louisa sandy loam in the amount of rock fragments present. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Louisa soil is 0.24 – 0.32. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 1.5-7.6, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The York sandy loam is gray to yellowish brown six to eight inches deep. Small angular rocks are found throughout. A yellow to brownish-yellow micaceous clay underlies the sandy loam. The parent rock is a micaceous schist, which supplies a significant amount of mica to the surface soil and subsoil. The soil is formed over gently rolling to rolling topography. Drainage is well established and may be excessive enough to cause destructive erosion. Fertility and organic content are generally low. The soil survey for Elmore County did not provide information on York soils.
5-13
Rough stone land is the classification given to a small area of Elmore County near the River. A high proportion of rock fragments and outcrops occur in this area of narrow bodies along steep slopes of the valley walls. The soil is unfit for any type of agriculture and marginally useful for pasture. The main usage is timber. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of rough stone land is 0.20 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-5.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 1.3-8.4, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The meadow (Congaree material) soil type is alluvial in origin and occurs along narrow marginal strips besides streams. The material is undifferentiated and no textural classification can be assigned. The meadow soils are predominantly brown sandy loam overlying a yellowish brown to reddish-brown sandy clay. As in the meadow soil identified above, drainage is usually poor. The virgin soil is high in organic content and fertility but soon loses the humus content under cultivation. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Congaree soil is 0.32 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-7.3, a cation- exchange capacity of between 2.7-19, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
Tallapoosa County
The Tallapoosa County soils within the Project lands are classified as Cecil stony sandy loam (Csl), Cecil slate loam (Cst), Cecil stony loam (Cl), meadow (C), and Durham coarse sandy loam (Dl).
The Cecil stony sandy loam is grayish to grayish brown with an open structure in the upper seven inches. The surface is covered with a numerous subangular rounded stones that range from pebble to cobble-sized. Below the surficial layer, extending down to 36 inches is a red heavy sandy loam to clay loam. The parent rocks are granites and mica schists under rolling to hilly topography. This soil erodes easily and may create steep-sided gullies. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Cecil soil is 0.24 – 0.37. The soil has a pH
5-14
of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 3-12, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The Cecil slate loam in the upper six inches is a light brown or grayish- yellow silt loam. A large portion of mica flakes, quartz fragments, and pieces of the mica schist parent rock create a friability and loose open structure. From six to 24 inches, the subsoil is a yellowish-red to red micaceous loam. The subsoil may contain as much as 50 to 60 percent micaceous slate fragments surrounded by silty clay. Surficial soil and subsoil are very permeable giving good subsurface drainage. Water readily enters the fissile parent rock. The soil occurs on steep cuts, sharp divides, and knobby hills. This allows the soil to be easily carried away. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Cecil soil is 0.24 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 3-12, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The Cecil stony loam is a heavy sandy loam to loam of a red or brownish red color. The surficial layer is five to seven inches thick and may also contain white or yellow quartz fragments and partially decomposed granite. The subsoil extends to a depth of 30 to 36 inches. Subangular granite stones from two to ten inches in diameter may occur in the red clay loam to clay as well as prominent quartz grains. The topography on which this soil formed is steep valley slopes and highlands. Erosion has reduced the soil from a stony sandy loam to a stony loam. In some areas, the parent rock has a vertical dip and allows rapid drainage between weathered joints. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Cecil soil is 0.24 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation- exchange capacity of between 3-12, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
The Durham coarse sandy loam is a gray to grayish-brown coarse sandy loam with a surficial thickness of 10 inches. A large proportion of rock fragments may occur in sufficient amounts to preclude any cultivation. Generally, the soil has a loose open structure and is not easily affected by erosion even on the steeper slopes. The subsoil is yellow coarse sandy loam to coarse sandy clay. The
5-15
Durham is derived from biotite gneiss. The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Cecil soil is 0.17 – 0.24. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-6.0, an effective cation-exchange capacity of between 3-12, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
Meadow soils in Tallapoosa County, similar to those in Coosa and Elmore Counties, were transported and deposited by running water. The soils vary from brown to reddish-brown. The texture varies widely but soils are predominantly sandy loam, loam and silt loam typical of stream bottoms. The soils are fertile and require no additional fertilizers but may benefit from the additional of organic matter and humus (Smith and Avery, 1910). The Kw (erodibility factor of the whole soil) of Congaree soil is 0.32 – 0.37. The soil has a pH of between 4.5-7.3, a cation-exchange capacity of between 2.7-19, and 0.0 salinity (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008).
5.1.2 Existing Erosion
Erosion in reservoirs or riverine systems falls into three broad categories: natural erosion, erosion due to human influence, and erosion due to hydroelectric or other water project operations. The degree of natural, or typical, erosion along a riverine system is highly variable. Flood frequency, topography, and soil types are all dynamic factors that influence natural erosion. Natural erosion is typically associated with high flow events and their aftermath. Nearly all reservoirs experience some level of natural erosion. Natural erosion processes observed include bank scour and piping (Rosgen, 1996; Simons et al., 1979). Although these are natural phenomenon, man may accelerate these activities by land use, recreation, and hydropower operations.
Both erosion due to human influence and erosion due to Project operations are considered atypical erosion. Atypical erosion areas are those that exhibit excessive levels of erosion above the level observed in the majority of the reservoir or tailrace areas. The determination of atypical versus typical erosion is largely dependent upon the professional judgment of the individuals conducting
5-16
reconnaissance surveys. General observations regarding the overall condition of banks are usually done to determine the normal condition and determine whether the condition is consistent with what would be expected on the reservoir.
Many of Lake Martin’s 700 miles of shoreline are armored with exposed bedrock and fabricated seawalls and so shoreline erosion in these areas generally does not occur.
5.1.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Impact
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the soils and geologic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
Erosion and sedimentation are significant issues throughout the Tallapoosa River basin. Development (residential and commercial) and urban water runoff are some of the largest sources of atypical erosion. Siltation can also occur because of silviculture, highway development, power line right of ways, and dirt roads. Extensive atypical erosion and sedimentation can produce excessive turbidity, habitat degradation for both aquatic and terrestrial vegetation and wildlife, and river flow fluctuation.
Development of areas along the shoreline can contribute to erosion within the Project. In addition, project operations (winter drawdown) can contribute to or exacerbate erosion in areas of the reservoir. Both wind and recreational boating on the Lake also contribute to wave action that can exacerbate natural erosion processes. Concentration of boating activities in areas without naturally
5-17
armored shorelines can increase erosion rates in those areas and result in increased local turbidities.
5.1.4 Literature Cited
Beg, M. 1988. Mineral Resources of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. Special Map 204. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Data Mart. [Online] URL: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed May 21, 2008. Rheams, K. 1984. Mineral Resources of the Alabama Piedmont. Map 200. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO. 390 pp. Sapp, D. and J. Emplainment. 1975. Physiographic Regions of Alabama. Map 168. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Simons, D. B., J. W. Andrew, R. M. Li, and M. A. Alawady. 1979. Connecticut River Streambank Erosion Study: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. DACW 33-78-C-0297. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Smith, H. C. and P. H. Avery. 1910. Soil Survey of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 451 pp. Taylor, A. 1929. Soil Survey of Coosa County, Alabama. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
5-18
5.2 Water Resources
5.2.1 Project Area
The Tallapoosa River originates in Paulding County Georgia, just 40 mi west of Atlanta, at an elevation of about 1,150 ft msl. From its headwaters, the Tallapoosa flows west until it crosses the Alabama border, where it then flows in a southwesterly direction for approximately 235 mi to its confluence with the Coosa River in Alabama. The confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers forms the Alabama River near Wetumpka, Alabama, 60.6 mi below the Project (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1998) (See Figure 5.2-1).
The Tallapoosa drainage basin encompasses approximately 4,675 mi2, including 2,984 mi2 above the Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1978). Only 700 mi2 lie in Georgia, accounting for about 15 percent of the total land area. The remaining 3,975 mi2 lie in Alabama, accounting for 85 percent of the land area. The basin receives on average 52 inches of precipitation annually with the majority occurring in the winter months. Its principal tributaries are the Little Tallapoosa River (which has a drainage area of 605 mi2 in Georgia and Alabama), and Sougahatchee, South Sandy, Uphapee, and Hillabee Creeks in Alabama). The underlying geology in the basin is composed primarily of igneous and crystalline formations (see Section 5.1, Geology and Soils). The Lake is relatively deep with an average depth of 42 ft (12.9 m) and a maximum depth of 155 ft (47.5 m) measured near the dam (Alabama Power Company, 2006; Greene et al., 2005). The majority of substrates of the Lake are composed of clays and exposed rock except for the areas where tributaries enter the Lake and sediments of sand and clay have collected (Greene et al., 2005). The banks of the tailrace area are naturally armored with exposed bedrock and lined with riprap in several areas to prevent erosion (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006). The flushing rate for the Lake is 194 days (pers. comm., Angie Segars, Alabama Power Company, March 26, 2008).
5-19
Figure 5.2-1: Tallapoosa Watershed Map
5-20
5.2.2 Existing and Proposed Uses of Water
APC operates the Project as a peaking facility and existing and proposed operations are described in Section 4.4. Project waters are currently used for public water supply, swimming, power production, active recreation, and to support a diverse array of aquatic and wildlife habitat as well as associated biota (see Sections 5.3 and 5.4 below for details on fish and wildlife resources). During the early to late spring, summer and early fall weekends, Lake Martin is used heavily for recreational fishing and boating, as well as hiking, picnicking, and various other outdoor activities (see Section 5.7 below for details on recreational use).
5.2.3 Existing Instream Flow Uses
Releases from the Project flow directly into the Yates development’s 2,000 ac reservoir. Discharge from the Project typically ranges from dam leakage to approximately 17,900 cfs at maximum generation.
5.2.3.1 Flow Statistics
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates several stream gaging stations on the River in the Project area. The closest to Lake Martin include Gage No. 02414715, located approximately five mi upstream of Lake Martin at Horseshoe Bend, and Gage No. 02419500, located downstream of Lake Martin near Milstead, Alabama. The Horseshoe Bend gage is operated by the USGS in conjunction with APC. USGS operates the Milstead gage in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); this gage records stream gage height only (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). Plant inflow records from the period 1984 through 2007 were used to develop annual and monthly flow duration exceedance curves for the River in the Project Area. These curves are presented in Appendix J.
5-21
Maximum monthly flow in the Tallapoosa River has historically occurred in May, while the minimum monthly flow has historically occurred in October. Mean, maximum, and minimum monthly flow statistics for the Project are presented in Table 5.2-1. The peak instantaneous daily flow at the Horseshoe Bend gage was 132,000 cfs on May 9, 2003 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). The Horseshoe Bend gage was the primary source of information pertaining to Tallapoosa flow statistics in the Project area, as summarized in Table 5.2-1.
Table 5.2-1: Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Monthly Flow Statistics for the Tallapoosa River in the Project Area (Source: USGS Gage No. 02414715 – Horseshoe Bend (Period of Record: 1985-2007)
MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM MONTH DISCHARGE DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) January 4,176 8,191 1,757 February 5,377 12,880 2,270 March 6,232 16,230 1,785 April 3,517 7,210 800 May 3,106 16,870 549 June 2,521 6,704 546 July 2,619 8,755 600 August 1,666 3,886 428 September 1,375 3,636 378 October 1,648 7,270 266 November 2,715 7,601 220 December 2,982 7,959 220
5.2.4 Existing Water Rights
The State of Alabama operates under the principles of the Riparian Rights doctrine, whereby riparian landowners have the right to make a reasonable use of available water (stream or lake) for domestic use and irrigation. Water for irrigation and other commercial purposes must be "reasonable with respect to the requirements of all other riparian owners” (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006).
5-22
Article 13 of the existing FERC license for the Project states that upon the application by any person, state, federal, corporation, or municipality the Licensee will permit reasonable use of its reservoir in the interest of the comprehensive development of the waterway as ordered by FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1978). Approved water withdrawals from Lake Martin are presented in Section 4.5.6 and Table 5.2-2.
Table 5.2-2: Approved Water Withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River (Source: pers. comm, Alan Peeples, Alabama Power Company, 2008)
AVG. DAILY APC FACILITY OWNER SOURCE WITHDRAWAL PERMIT NAME (MGD) (MGD) Willow Point Russell Lands, Inc. Golf & Country Lake Martin 0.85 <1 Club Adams Water City of Alexander City Lake Martin 10.6 24 Treatment Plant CEW&SA Central Elmore Water Water Lake Martin 6.7 10 and Sewer Authority Treatment Plant Beaver Lake StillWaters Resort Replenishment Lake Martin <0.1 <1 Pump Station
5.2.5 Morphometric Data for Existing Reservoirs
Lake Martin is 31 miles long with approximately 700 miles of shoreline. The reservoir’s surface area is nearly 40,000 ac, with a gross storage capacity of 1,622,000 af, or nearly 530 billion gallons. Maximum depth in the reservoir is 155 ft, making it is the second deepest lake in Alabama.
5.2.6 Gradient of Downstream Reaches
Releases from the Project flow directly into the Yates development and as a result, the entire river segment from the Project to Yates Dam is impounded and there is no riverine component or downstream gradient.
5-23
5.2.7 Intake Velocities
Intake designs for Martin Dam reflect the general consensus of engineering standards of the 1920's. Most design criteria were conservative by modern standards and the intake design was no exception. The intake design resulted in a large trash rack structure that produces low intake velocities; estimated velocities would range between 1.0 - 2.0 ft/sec. Upon receipt of the latest engineering drawings, detailed calculations will be performed to refine this estimate along with measurements of trash rack spacing.
5.2.8 Federally Approved Water Quality Standards
Federal and state water quality standards for the State of Alabama are guided through implementation of Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act directs individual states to monitor and report on the condition of their water resources. Alabama’s assessment and listing methodology establishes a process by which the status of surface waters are assessed relative to the designated uses assigned to each waterbody. Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, the State of Alabama provides biennial reports to Congress as to the condition and status of statewide water quality, including a list of waters impaired pursuant to section 303(d). Water bodies not attaining set standards are placed on the State of Alabama’s list of water bodies impaired pursuant to section 303(d) and the state of Alabama designs a program which establishes total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to bring water quality to within set criteria.
Additionally, Section 314(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess the water quality of publicly-owned lakes and report the findings as part of the biennial 305(b) report to Congress. The State of Alabama classifies publicly- owned lakes (including reservoirs) as water bodies that are managed for multiple uses, are publicly accessible, and exhibit physical and chemical characteristics typical of impounded waters (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2006).
5-24
For lake water quality assessments, ADEM uses Carlson’s trophic state index (TSI) for the classification of the trophic status of Alabama lakes. The TSI relies on the assessment of chlorophyll-a concentrations to determine the trophic state of lakes during the summer because it gives the best estimate of the biotic response of lakes to nutrient enrichment when phytoplankton is the dominant plant community. The result is a single number that is easily understood and is reflective of lacustrine trophic status. In the State of Alabama, lakes (and reservoirs) with a TSI of seventy or greater are generally considered to be hyper- eutrophic and in need of regulatory action appropriate for protection and restoration. A TSI ranging from 50 to 70 is representative of eutrophic conditions, TSI values ranging from 40 to 50 are representative of mesotrophic conditions, and values less than 40 are representative of oligotrophic water (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2006).
Protection and management of Alabama’s water quality consists of three components: designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and an anti- degradation policy (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2005). The State’s antidegradation policy is defined in Alabama State Code 335-6-10- .04, Antidegradation Policy) and, in general terms, provides for the prevention of further exacerbation of water quality in State waters. Designated use is a classification system designed to identify the best uses of individual waterways. Best uses generally include recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and habitat for fish and wildlife. In Alabama, there are eight recognized designated best uses of State of Alabama waters:
• Outstanding Alabama Water (OAW) • Public Water Supply (PWS) • Shellfish Harvesting (SH) • Swimming and Other Whole Body Water-Contact Sports (S) • Fish and Wildlife (F&W) • Limited Warmwater Fishery (LWF) • Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply (A&I)
5-25
The State of Alabama has one additional classification, Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW), for high quality and pristine water bodies. ONRW bodies are protected from increased or new point sources of pollutants (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2005).
The primary designations for best use for Lake Martin are for swimming (S) and fish and wildlife (F&W)(Ala. Admin Code r. 335-6-11-.02(11)). Upstream of the U.S. Highway 280 crossing, Lake Martin has the additional classification of public water supply (PWS). The Martin tailrace is classified as PWS, S, and F&W.
Numerical water quality standards have been established by the State of Alabama and can be found in ADEM’s 2006 Alabama Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2006) or in Alabama State Code 335-6-10-.09, Specific Water Quality Criteria. These criteria allow the State of Alabama to assess statewide water quality to identify impairments and develop mitigative actions. Numeric statewide criteria applicable to the Project are illustrated in Table 5.2-3. Criteria for metal concentrations can be calculated using formulas provided by the State of Alabama (Alabama State Code 335-6-10-.09, Specific Water Quality Criteria).
Table 5.2-3: Specific Water Quality Criteria for State of Alabama Waters with Designation as Public Water Supply, Fish and Wildlife/Swimming* (Source: ADEM, 2006)
STANDARD FOR FISH, STANDARD FOR PUBLIC VARIABLE WILDLIFE, AND SWIMMING WATER SUPPLY pH between 6.5 and 8.5 between 6.0 and 8.5 not less than 5.0 mg/l at a depth of 5 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) not less than 5.0 mg/l at a depth of 5 ft** ft ** Water Temperature Not greater than 90º F Not greater than 90º F
Turbidity not greater than 50 NTUs not greater than 50 NTUs 1,000 colonies/100 ml (fish & wildlife) Bacteria 1,000 colonies/100 ml 200 colonies/100 ml (swimming) Chlorophyll-a not greater than 5 ug/l not greater than 5 ug/l *specific metal standards are calculated through various concentration formulas as specified by Alabama State Code (see ADEM, 2006). **discharge from hydroelectric turbines shall not be less that 4.0 mg/l
5-26
The continued operation of the Project requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the ten existing discharge points at the powerhouse. Four of these points are cooling water discharges, two are sumps and drains, one is for uncontaminated stormwater, and one is for wastewater resulting from maintenance and repair activities. APC has secured the necessary permits for the continued operation of the Project (Alabama Power Company, 2006).
5.2.9 Existing Water Quality Data
The State of Alabama does not list Lake Martin as impaired on its 2006 list of waters impaired pursuant to section 303(d) nor does Lake Martin require a TMDL program (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2006). The Basin does include waters that the State has classified as impaired, but these riverine sections with TMDL programs are outside of the Project Boundary. Waters with TMDL programs in the Tallapoosa basin include Sougahatchee Creek as it discharges into the Yates Project impoundment and the mainstem of the River upstream of Harris Dam near Heflin, Alabama. Both waters are listed as impaired because of elevated nutrients and depressed dissolved oxygen (DO). TMDLs for both reaches have been prepared by the State of Alabama (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2006).
Long-term monitoring of Lake Martin water quality associated with Section 314(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act indicates that Lake Martin is currently mesotrophic, with an average TSI value of 41 (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2006). A mesotrophic classification indicates that substantial nutrient loading is not occurring in the reservoir. The Lake is relatively deep and undergoes thermal stratification each summer. An epilimnion, an upper layer of warm, well-mixed water, lies above the thermocline or metalimnion, the layer of water where temperature decreases with depth. Below the thermocline is the hypolimnion, the coldest and most dense layer. Typically, the hypolimnion has low DO concentrations, creating anaerobic conditions. The
5-27 more shallow embayments are affected less than the deeper areas of the Lake (CH2MHILL, 2005).
5.2.9.1 APC Monitoring Data
To demonstrate compliance with State of Alabama standards, APC has performed extensive water quality monitoring of Lake Martin and the Project tailrace. The majority of this data was collected between 1993 and 2005 during summer months when conditions were most likely to diverge from State of Alabama standards. From August 2004 through July 2005, APC conducted a 12-month monitoring program to evaluate reservoir DO and water temperature profiles, as well as concentrations of water chemistry variables, in the Lake at locations 4, 12, 16, and 24 miles upstream of the Project Dam. Furthermore, as part of the license amendment process to refurbish generating Units 1, 2, and 3, as approved by FERC on May 24, 2002, APC applied for and obtained a 401 WQC from the State of Alabama (see Appendix I). The 401 WQC issued by the State of Alabama required APC to develop a water quality monitoring plan with monitoring to begin upon approval and continue for two years following the refurbishment of the last unit.
Water quality data collected by APC and presented in Table 5.2-4 shows that water temperature at the 5 foot depth in the Project forebay ranged from 10.5 °C to 31.6 °C during the monitoring period. DO levels varied throughout the year, principally between 3.8 mg/l and 10.7 mg/l at the five-ft depth in the forebay and between 4.1 mg/l and 11.7 mg/l in the tailrace. DO averaged 7.86 mg/l at the five-ft depth in the forebay, and 7.16 mg/l in the tailrace (Alabama Power Company, 2006).
5-28
Table 5.2-4: Summary of Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Data (at depth of 5- feet) from the Project, 1993-2005 (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L) LOCATION COUNT MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE Martin Tailrace 45 4.1 11.7 7.16 Martin Forebay 104 3.81 10.7 7.86 4 Mi. Upstream 11 7.0 10.9 8.75 12 Mi. Upstream 12 7.0 11.6 8.91 16 Mi. Upstream 12 7.2 11.4 9.05 20 Mi. Upstream 12 7.0 10.5 8.67 24 Mi. Upstream 12 7.2 10.8 8.80
TEMPERATURE (°C) LOCATION COUNT MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE Martin Tailrace 45 12.1 24.1 17.44 Martin Forebay 104 10.5 31.6 25.38 4 Mi. Upstream 11 10.5 29.1 20.58 12 Mi. Upstream 12 10.2 29.0 20.61 16 Mi. Upstream 11 10.4 27.8 19.86 20 Mi. Upstream 12 10.7 29.2 19.74 24 Mi. Upstream 12 10.8 28.5 19.22 1 There was only 1 day in which the dissolved oxygen concentration was less than 5.3 mg/l and it occurred on September 22, 2004.
A fisheries study conducted by APC in 1995 in conjunction with ADCNR included DO profiles at eight locations in the Project Area. Samples were collected on July 7 and 25, August 10 and 23, and September 7 and 21 (Alabama Power Company, 2006). Profile data were collected to a depth of 90 ft (Table 5.2-5).
5-29
Table 5.2-5: Summary of Average DO Data Gathered During 1995 APC and ADCNR Fisheries Study (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006)
LOCATION 1 MI. 2 MI. 3 MI. 5 MI. 8 MI. 15 MI. 18 MI. DEPTH DAM UPSTREA UPSTREA UPSTREA UPSTREAM UPSTREAM UPSTREAM UPSTREAM (FT) FOREBAY M OF M OF M OF OF DAM OF DAM OF DAM OF DAM DAM DAM DAM 0 7.32 7.10 7.12 7.25 7.70 7.15 7.45 7.10 3 7.23 7.05 7.20 7.28 7.70 7.25 7.55 7.10 5 7.28 7.10 7.22 7.35 7.50 7.27 7.60 7.20 10 7.37 7.10 7.20 7.25 7.70 7.20 7.35 6.80 15 7.35 7.00 7.13 7.40 7.90 7.28 7.15 6.10 20 7.00 6.60 6.88 7.33 7.50 6.82 6.45 5.30 30 5.17 4.35 4.38 5.40 4.10 3.93 2.50 0.50 40 0.80 1.25 0.80 0.95 0.90 0.45 0.20 0.10 50 1.93 2.95 1.57 1.55 3.00 1.32 0.35 0.20 60 2.95 3.85 2.77 2.65 4.00 2.10 0.40 NA 70 3.27 4.30 3.10 3.08 4.10 2.43 0.50 NA 80 3.23 4.15 3.05 2.93 4.40 2.32 0.40 NA 85 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.45 NA 90 3.30 3.90 3.00 2.92 4.40 2.15 NA NA
Additionally, APC established a continuous DO and water temperature monitoring program for the Project tailrace (during periods of generation) in 2002 to monitor the effects of the improved generating units (Table 5.2-6). Data collected during the summer and early fall of the years 2002 through 2005 indicate that DO was consistently maintained above 4.0 mg/l with an average of 5.94 mg/l. Minimum DO was 4.04 mg/l, while maximum DO was 9.78 mg/l except for two incidents: one lasting about 2.5 hours on October 28, 2002, due to improper loading of units; and one on July 8, 2005, during a flood event. The continuous monitoring data from the Project’s tailrace indicate that hydroelectric discharges from the Project with the addition of refurbished units are, and will continue to be, in compliance with State of Alabama water quality standards unless influenced by operational or severe weather events.
5-30
Table 5.2-6: Summary of Continuous DO and Water Temperature Monitoring in the Project Tailrace, 2002-2005 (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006)
VARIABLE LOCATION COUNT MINIMUMMAXIMUM AVERAGE DO (mg/l) Tailrace 7,795 3.46* 9.78 5.91 Temperature (°C) Tailrace 7,795 12.06 25.44 19.11 *Occurred during improper unit operation on October 28, 2002; the minimum DO was 4.04 when two unusual occurrences were removed.
APC’s monitoring program has also included chemical analyses of water samples collected at five ft depths from the Project forebay and tailrace during the period 1993 through 2005 (Table 5.2-7). This analysis has allowed APC to assess concentrations of approximately 50 variables in the Project Area. In addition, five reservoir locations were sampled for a 12-month period from August 2004 through July 2005. The five reservoir locations were 4, 12, 16, 20, and 24 miles upstream of the dam (Alabama Power Company, 2006).
Table 5.2-7: Summary Data for Water Chemistry Variables Measured at the Project During the Period 1993-2005 by APC* (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006)
VARIABLE TESTED COUNT MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 244 4.50 66.90 24.18 Alkalinity, Carbonate (as CaCO3) 243 0.00 0.90 0.03 Alkalinity, Hydroxide (as CaCO3) 244 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) 250 4.50 67.20 24.13 Aluminum, Total 250 0.00 2.20 0.37 Arsenic, Total 250 0.00 0.07 0.00 Barium, Total 250 0.00 4.49 0.02 Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 Day 48 0.00 2.00 0.19 Cadmium, Total 250 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calcium, Total 250 0.00 17.84 2.63 Carbon Dioxide, Free 244 0.10 914.00 5.27 Carbon Dioxide, Total 244 6.40 0.00 26.57 Chloride, Total N/A N/A N/A N/A Chromium, Total 250 0.00 1.00 0.00 Color 43 1.00 13.00 7.69 Conductivity 233 5.00 154.00 46.32 Copper, Total 250 0.00 0.01 0.00 Field pH 6495 5.66 8.12 0.00 Fluoride 242 0.00 0.53 0.03 Hardness, Total (as CACO3) 250 0.00 68.10 12.01
5-31
VARIABLE TESTED COUNT MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE Iron, Total 250 0.00 18.70 0.70 Lead, Total 250 0.00 0.02 0.00 Magnesium, Total 250 0.00 5.72 1.20 Manganese, Total 248 0.00 2.00 0.10 Mercury, Total 43 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nickel, Total 250 0.00 0.09 0.00 Nitrogen, Ammonia 250 0.00 0.16 0.05 Nitrogen, Nitrate 250 0.00 0.42 0.16 Nitrogen, Nitrite 250 0.00 0.05 0.01 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 215 0.00 3.00 0.35 Oil and Grease 23 1.00 8.00 2.18 Organic Carbon, Total 195 0.00 3.16 1.89 Oxygen, Dissolved 59 6.80 10.50 7.28 pH 173 6.40 8.70 7.07 Phosphate, Ortho (as P) 259 0.00 0.20 0.01 Phosphorus, Total 268 0.00 0.23 0.02 Potassium, Total 250 0.00 145.00 1.03 Selenium, Total 250 0.00 0.01 0.00 Silicon, Total 202 1.83 5.62 4.54 Sodium, Total 250 1.05 19.30 37.77 Solids, Total 261 0.00 107.00 43.47 Solids, Total Dissolved 26 23.00 56.00 35.70 Solids, Total Suspended 249 0.00 43.00 5.69 Sulfate 250 0.00 14.40 2.43 Temperature 60 20.80 31.90 22.25 Turbidity 250 0.50 20.00 4.86 Vanadium, Total 250 0.00 0.01 0.00 Zinc, Total 250 0.00 0.10 0.00 *Measurements were taken at a depth of 5-ft at seven stations in the Project Area, including the tailrace, forebay, and in locations 4, 12, 16, 20, and 24 mi. upstream of the Project Dam
5.2.9.2 ADEM and Other Project Related Monitoring Data
In addition to the monitoring done by APC, water quality information in the Project Area has been collected by the ADEM and Alabama Water Watch. ADEM has established five monitoring stations in Lake Martin and six in Lake Martin tributary waters (Hillabee Creek, Coley Creek, Elkahatchee Creek, Manoy Creek, Sandy Creek, and Blue Creek). The locations of these monitoring stations are as follows:
5-32
• MARE1 is located in the lower reservoir; • MARE2 is located mid reservoir, immediately upstream of the Blue Creek embayment; • MARE3 is located immediately upstream of Alabama Highway 63 bridge; • MARE4 is located upstream of Wind Creek State Park; • MARE5 is located 0.5 miles upstream of Coley Creek embayment; • MARE6 is located approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the lake confluence in the Hillabee Creek embayment; • MARE7 is located 0.5 miles upstream of the lake confluence in the Coley Creek embayment; • MARE8 is located 0.5 miles of the Elkahatchee/Sugar Creek confluence; • MARE9 is located approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the lake confluence n the Manoy Creek embayment; • MARE10 approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the lake confluence in the Sandy Creek embayment; and • MARE11 is located 2.0 miles upstream in Blue Creek embayment (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006).
ADEM’s sampling protocol includes reservoir profiles of DO and water temperature (Table 5.2-8) and water chemistry analyses (Table 5.2- 9). The period of record for data collected by ADEM is 1994 through 2005.
5-33
Table 5.2-8: Summary of Water Temperature and DO Reservoir Profile Data Collected at a Depth of 5-Feet by ADEM During the Period 1994-2005 (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L) STATION ID COUNT MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE MARE-1 45 6.0 10.0 8.1 MARE-2 51 6.7 11.2 8.3 MARE-3 45 6.7 9.6 8.1 MARE-4 43 6.2 10.6 8.4 MARE-5 35 6.4 9.9 8.1 MARE-6 10 6.1 9.8 7.8 MARE-7 9 7.2 13.1 9.8 MARE-8 9 7.0 12.1 9.6 MARE-9 9 6.0 10.7 8.6 MARE-10 9 6.5 10.0 8.3 MARE-11 10 6.6 10.0 8.2 WATER TEMPERATURE (C) STATION ID COUNT MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE MARE-1 45 15.8 32.0 25.9 MARE-2 51 17.6 31.7 26.3 MARE-3 45 16.8 31.5 26.1 MARE-4 43 17.2 31.5 26.2 MARE-5 35 14.8 30.9 24.6 MARE-6 10 13.9 29.0 22.3 MARE-7 9 15.1 29.9 24.0 MARE-8 9 18.3 31.4 26.2 MARE-9 9 18.7 31.8 26.4 MARE-10 9 19.5 31.6 27.4 MARE-11 10 18.1 31.4 26.3
Data collected by ADEM show that water temperature in the Martin forebay ranged from 15.8 °C to 32.0 °C during the monitoring period, which aligns well with APC data. DO levels varied throughout the year, principally between 6.0 mg/l and 10.0 mg/l (average of 8.1 mg/l) at the five-ft depth in the forebay and between 6.0 mg/l and 13.1 mg/l in the reservoir. A summary of water chemistry data is presented in Table 5.2-9.
5-34
Table 5.2-9: Summary Data for Water Chemistry Variables as Measured by ADEM During the Period 1994-2005 in the Project Area (Source: Alabama Power Company, 2006)
VARIABLE MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE Alkalinity (mg/l) 2.00 90.20 14.76 Chlorophyll a (ug/l) 0.05 98.41 8.52 Coliform per 100 ml 1.00 33.00 4.09 Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) (mg/l) 0.00 0.09 0.01 Hardness, Total (as CACO3) (mg/l) 5.08 47.00 10.81 Nitrite + Nitrate (NO2+NO3 – N) (mg/l) 0.00 0.63 0.08 Nitrogen, Ammonia (mg/l) 0.02 0.56 0.03 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (mg/l) 0.00 1.30 0.23 Organic Carbon, Total (mg/l) 0.40 27.77 2.59 pH 6.80 8.24 7.43 Phosphorus 0.01 1.77 0.04 Photic zone (m) 1.60 17.86 6.45 Secchi (m) 0.68 44.05 3.00 Solids, Total Dissolved (mg/l) 4.00 504.00 52.46 Solids, Total Suspended 1.00 61.00 7.24 Specific Conductance (mS/cm) 0.03 0.13 0.05 Trophic State Index (TSI) 1.00 68.00 44.23 Turbidity (NTU) 0.88 31.10 5.09
Alabama Water Watch, a group of trained volunteer citizens coordinated by Auburn University’s Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures and the International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments, has collected additional water quality information in the Project Area. Alabama Water Watch has 29 established sites in Lake Martin and its tributaries, which are monitored by members of the public associated with the Lake Watch of Lake Martin Program (Auburn University, 2006).
Measured parameters pertinent to the Project include water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, hardness, and E. coli. Water temperature in the watershed is generally consistent across the test sites, ranging from approximately 10 °C (50 °F) in winter to 30 °C (86 °F) during the summer months. Few pH samples fall outside the optimum
5-35
range of 6.5 to 8.5, and almost all dissolved oxygen samples show values above 5 mg/l, which is the minimum level required for fish and wildlife classification. The majority of test sites show low values of 10 to 30 mg/l for alkalinity and hardness, and of the few sites that tested for E. coli, none show levels unsafe for frequent human contact. In summary, according to monitoring conducted by the Alabama Water Watch, the overall water quality in the Middle Tallapoosa watershed, which includes the Project, is good.
5.2.10 Potential Issues and Cumulative Impacts
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the aquatic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
The Project is a large project located on the Tallapoosa River, and as such, creates a large reservoir that does alter the water quality of the River. Lake Martin stratifies during the summer months, creating a well-defined epilimnion and hypolimnion, which affects the way that nutrients are processed by the system, often resulting in altered temperatures, dissolved oxygen, and chemical profiles in the Lake. In conjunction with this, the operation of the project passes hypolimnetic flows downstream that may influence downstream aquatic resources. Development around the Lake has created an increase in localized water demand and the amount of point and non-point source pollution entering the Lake. Each of these factors can be considered potential impacts to the water resources of the Project.
5-36
5.2.11 Literature Cited
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006. Fish and Fishing in Yates and Thurlow Reservoirs. [Online] URL: http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing/freshwater/where/reservoirs/thurl owyates/. Accessed October 12, 2006. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 2005. Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment and Listing Methodology. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL. 187 pp. ———. 2006. 2006 Alabama Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. [Online] URL: http://www.adem.state.al.us/waterdivision/WQuality/305b/WQ305bRepor t.htm. Accessed October 17, 2006. Alabama Power Company, Environmental Compliance. 2006. Draft Water Quality Data for the Martin Hydroelectric Project. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Auburn University. 2006. Alabama Water Watch. [Online] URL: https://aww.auburn.edu/. Accessed October 17, 2006. CH2MHILL. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, AL. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Order Issuing New License for the Martin Project (FERC No. 349). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 56 pp. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. Greene, J. C., D. L. Abernethy, and R. A. McVay. 2005. Martin Reservoir Management Report 2005. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Southern Regional Water Program: Water Quantity and Policy. [Online] URL: http://srwqis.tamu.edu/waterquantity.aspx. Accessed October 13, 2006.
5-37
United States Geological Survey. 2006. National Water Information System. [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/nwis. Accessed October 13, 2006.
5-38
5.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources
Lake Martin
Lake Martin is a monomictic lake located in the Tallapoosa River Basin. Monomictic lakes typically do not drop below 39.2 °F (4 °C) during the winter, circulate freely at or above 39.2 °F, and stratify directly during the warmer summer months. As discussed in section 5.2, Water Resources, the waters of the Lake are very clear and low in productivity. Due to the deep nature of the Lake (maximum depth of 155 ft) and relatively long retention time, thermal and chemical stratification occur annually. The majority of Lake substrates is composed of clays and exposed rock except for the areas where tributaries enter the Lake and sediments of sand and clay have collected.
An interesting feature of the Lake is its dendritic shape and extensive length of shoreline, approximately 700 miles. There are three major arms of the lake: the Kowaliga arm located on the southwest side of the Lake, the Blue Creek arm located on the southeast side of the Lake, and the Tallapoosa main channel, which extends northward from the dam. These arms were created when the original creek and valley areas were inundated by the construction of the Project. The extensive amount of shoreline and creek mouth areas provide excellent habitat for warmwater species such as bass and sunfish. The deep openwater areas of the Lake also provide excellent habitat for pelagic species such as striped bass and shad (Greene et al., 2005).
Tailrace
Releases from the Project flow directly into the Yates Development. The releases are relatively cool (hypolimnetic discharge) and infertile, which results in slow growth for the downstream fishery. The banks of the tailrace area are naturally armored with exposed bedrock and lined with riprap in several areas to prevent erosion. The tailrace provides habitat for both warmwater and coolwater species. There is no bypassed reach associated with the Project (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006).
5-39
Fish
Lake Martin
A diverse community of warmwater fish species populates Lake Martin. The documented species, native and invasive, present within the Project are presented in Table 5.3-1. Although Lake Martin has low fertility and relatively low levels of nutrients, the fishery resources are healthy and extremely popular with anglers. The black bass fishery is comprised of both largemouth and spotted bass, with spotted bass being the more abundant species. Dominant recreational fish species include spotted and largemouth bass, striped bass, white bass, black crappie, and bluegill (Greene et al., 2004). There are currently no fish consumption advisories for Lake Martin or the tailrace area (Alabama Department of Public Health, 2006).
The ADCNR regulates the recreational fishery on the Lake using fish stocking and fishing regulations (number of fish harvested, length limits, and slot limits) that are adjusted periodically to enhance the fishery. The ADCNR has periodically stocked Florida largemouth bass in the Lake since 1983. A nine-inch statewide minimum length limit on crappie was instituted by the ADCNR to guard against over harvest by anglers and to improve the population size structure of crappie within the lake. A slot limit for black bass was also recommended and implemented in 2004 to improve the number of larger bass (Greene et al., 2004).
The “Gulf-strain” striped bass population in Lake Martin was established through stocking efforts by the ADCNR beginning in 1980. During the summer when Lake stratification occurs, striped bass are restricted to the cooler water deeper in the Lake. Due to low levels of DO in these deep water levels, fish kills of striped bass have been observed by ADCNR periodically during the late summer. A water quality study was performed by ADCNR and APC during 1995 to better understand this phenomenon but to date, no specific measures to address this phenomenon have been identified or implemented. Hybrid striped bass were also stocked in the Lake from 1982 through 1988 (Greene et al., 2004; McHugh et al., 1996).
5-40
Table 5.3-1: Fishes Known or Expected to Occur in the Immediate Vicinity of the Project (Source: Boschung and Mayden, 2004; Mettee et al., 1996)
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NOTES Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey (Lampreys) Ichthyomyzon gagei southern brook lamprey
Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad (Herrings and Shads) Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad probably non-native to Tallapoosa drainage
Cyprinidae Campostoma oligolepis largescale stoneroller (Minnows and Carps) Cyprinella callistia Alabama shiner Cyprinella gibbsi Tallapoosa shiner Cyprinella venusta blacktail shiner Cyprinus carpio common carp introduced/non-native Ericymba buccata silverjaw minnow also called Notropis buccatus Hybopsis lineapunctata lined chub Luxilus chrysocephalus striped shiner Lythrurus bellus pretty shiner Macrhybopsis sp. cf. M. Coosa chub aestivalis Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner Notropis ammophilus orangefin shiner Notropis asperifrons burrhead shiner Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner Notropis baileyi rough shiner Notropis stilbius silverstripe shiner Notropis texanus weed shiner Notropis xaenocephalus Coosa shiner Opsopoeodus emiliae pugnose minnow Phenacobius catostomus riffle minnow Pimephales vigilax bullhead minnow Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub
Catostomidae Erimyzon oblongus creek chubsucker (Suckers) Hypentelium etowanum Alabama hogsucker Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo Minytrema melanops spotted sucker Moxostoma carinatum river redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei black redhorse
5-41
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NOTES Moxostoma erythrurum golden redhorse Moxostoma poecilurum blacktail redhorse
Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus white catfish introduced/non-native (Catfishes) Ameiurus melas black bullhead Ameiurus natalis yellow bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus brown bullhead Ictalurus furcatus blue catfish Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish Noturus funebris black madtom Noturus leptacanthus speckled madtom Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish
Esocidae Esox niger chain pickerel (Pikes and Pickerels)
Fundulidae Fundulus bifax stippled studfish (Topminnows and Killifishes) Fundulus olivaceus blackspotted topminnow
Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis western mosquitofish (Livebearers)
Cottidae Cottus sp. cf. C. bairdi Tallapoosa sculpin (Sculpins)
Moronidae Morone chrysops white bass introduced/non-native (Temperate Basses) Morone saxatilis striped bass Morone chrysops x palmetto bass also called hybrid saxatilis bass; introduced
Centrarchidae Ambloplites ariommus shadow bass (Sunfishes) Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish Lepomis gulosus warmouth Lepomis macrochirus bluegill Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish Lepomis miniatus redspotted sunfish Micropterus coosae redeye bass Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass Pomoxis annularis white crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie
5-42
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NOTES Percidae Etheostoma chuckwachatte lipstick darter (Perches) Etheostoma stigmaeum speckled darter Etheostoma swaini gulf darter Etheostoma tallapoosae Tallapoosa darter Percina kathae Mobile logperch Percina sp. cf. P. muscadine bridled macrocephala darter Percina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter Percina palmaris bronze darter yellow perch
Elassomatidae Elassoma zonatum banded pygmy sunfish (Pygmy Sunfishes)
Tailrace
The tailrace fishery downstream of the Project includes spotted and largemouth bass, striped bass, white bass, black crappie, bluegill, redear sunfish, channel catfish and yellow perch. The cool water associated with the tailrace area often attracts striped bass exceeding 40 pounds (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006).
ADCNR Reservoir Management Studies
In 1986, the ADCNR initiated a reservoir management program to establish a database of information on fish species in large impoundments that could be used as a tool to improve fish population structure and fishing quality through management decisions (e.g., fish stocking, harvest restrictions, etc.). According to the 2005 management report, the ADCNR sampled Lake Martin annually from 1988 to 1992, and again in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003, and 2005.
Collection of black bass during 2004 and 2005 indicated that spotted bass are more abundant than largemouth bass, but this has changed little over time. All bass collections were dominated by smaller fish, which indicates good reproduction and survival but slow growth. The slower growth experienced on Lake Martin is related to
5-43
the nutrient-poor water in the Lake. Black crappie populations in the Lake have increased in recent years, and continue to provide excellent fishing opportunities. Annual mortality for black crappie remains high and is related to the heavy exploitation by anglers and the fish’s short life span. The 2004 collections of bluegill continue to indicate good numbers, but were dominated by small fish. Striped bass collections were relatively low and fish collected exhibited low growth rates. However, the report recommended continuing stocking rates of three fish per acre. White bass collected were in excellent condition and numerous, with some of the highest catch rates ever recorded for the Lake. These parameters indicate an excellent and stable white bass fishery. Gizzard and threadfin shad collections indicated a slightly higher abundance than in previous years, which indicates a good forage base for the fishery (Greene et al., 2004; Greene et al., 2005).
B.A.I.T. Reports
In 1986, the ADCNR created the Bass Anglers Information Team (B.A.I.T.) program. The function of this program is to gather and summarize information on bass populations from tournament catch data, which is provided by participating fishing clubs. Although this information is no substitute for fisheries data obtained through the standardized sampling of reservoirs (i.e., electrofishing, gillnetting, etc.), the program is a valuable tool for resource managers and provides insight into general trends on the status of sport fisheries for specific reservoirs. To date, the program has summarized data from over 9,000 tournament reports. Each year, data provided by participating clubs are summarized in a report in which reservoirs are ranked based on five “fishing quality” indicators (Haffner, 2005):
• Percent of successful anglers (percent of anglers with more than one bass at weigh-in); • Bass average weight; • Number of bass per angler-day; • Pounds of bass per angler-day; and • Hours required to catch a bass five pounds or larger.
5-44
B.A.I.T information for Lake Martin shows the Lake to be popular with anglers as evidenced by the numerous tournaments held by bass fishing clubs participating in the B.A.I.T program. The B.A.I.T. 2005 report noted that with 27 fishing tournaments, Lake Martin tied for third in the state for the number of fishing tournaments hosted during the year. Recent B.A.I.T information also ranked Lake Martin near the top in several categories (Haffner, 2004; Haffner, 2005). The 2004 and 2005 reports show that tournament anglers’ experience was above average for success rates, bass per angler-day, and pounds per angler-day, which combined to rank Lake Martin as one of the better lakes for fishing in the state.
Anadromous Fish
Anadromous fish are species that upon maturity migrate from the ocean into freshwater environments to spawn. Historically, there were several species that migrated from Gulf Coast waters to inland Alabama rivers (including the Tallapoosa River) to spawn. The Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) are anadromous fish species that are currently or historically known to use portions of the River during this spawning migration (Mettee et al., 1996). However, use of the River by these species has been impeded and/or effectively blocked by the construction of several USACE lock and dam projects and APC hydropower projects along the river system. The striped bass population currently present in Lake Martin was created and is maintained by ADCNR fish stockings. There are no other species of anadromous fish known to be present in the upper River at this time.
Catadromous Fish
Catadromous fish are species that live most of their lives in freshwater environments and, upon reaching sexual maturity, migrate to the ocean to spawn. The juvenile offspring of catadromous fish migrate through the ocean to the mouths of rivers and move upstream to various habitats to live until adulthood. The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is the only catadromous species native to the River system (Mettee et al., 1996). As with anadromous fish species discussed above, upstream movement of American eel into the Tallapoosa River is impeded by several USACE lock and dam
5-45
projects and APC hydropower projects along the river system. American eel have been observed in the Alabama River and lower portions of the Tallapoosa River, but their status in the upper Tallapoosa River is unknown.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Species Communities
Studies conducted by Bayne et al. (1995) in Lake Martin tend to support the premise that macroinvertebrate populations found in storage reservoirs are typically composed largely of taxa that are tolerant of numerous impoundment-associated factors, including water level fluctuations, reduced hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen levels, flow reduction, and siltation; these taxa tend to be habitat and trophic “generalists.” Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at four sites in the upstream portion of Lake Martin between May and October 1994. Sampling methods employed included both petite ponar dredge samples (to sample the inhabitants of the benthic sediments) and Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers (to sample the “aufwuchs” community, those organisms that colonize various hard substrates such as logs, rocks, etc.).
A total of 43 taxa were collected from the dredge samples. The benthic community was dominated by aquatic midge larvae (Diptera:Chironomidae, 24 taxa), with lesser numbers of mayflies (Ephemeroptera, one taxa), caddisflies (Trichoptera, one taxa), and dragonflies (Odonata, one taxa). Fifteen “non-insect” taxa were also collected including snails, water mites, and aquatic worms. The samples were usually dominated numerically by larvae of the phantom midge, Chaoborus, which is a common inhabitant of lakes and is often collected in dredge samples. Community structure and diversity tended to be similar among all sites, and the community was dominated functionally by “predators”.
A total of 52 taxa were collected from the multiplate samples, with aquatic midge larvae (22 taxa) also dominating the “aufwuchs” community. Other insect groups represented included mayflies (five taxa); caddisflies (six taxa); aquatic beetles (Coleoptera, one taxa); alderflies/dobsonflies (Megaloptera, one taxa); and dragonflies (one taxa). Additionally, 14 “non-insect” taxa were collected; these consisted mainly of snails and aquatic worms. The midge community collected from the plate samplers was
5-46
dominated by genera tolerant of some organic enrichment, such as Dicrotendipes and Glyptotendipes. Most of the taxa occurring on the multiplate samplers were functionally “filtering collectors” or “collector-gatherers.” Diversity values were similar among all sites.
The aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna of Lake Martin (dominated by tolerant taxa such as midge larvae, snails, and aquatic worms, and with lower numbers of less tolerant groups such as mayflies and caddisflies), appears to be typical of a storage reservoir in the southeastern United States. Species diversity is quite high, however, and it does not appear that the macroinvertebrate community is being adversely affected by any other type of disturbance.
Freshwater Unionids
Lake Martin and Tailrace
The majority of freshwater mussel species are intolerant of impounded waters; however, several species of snails are more tolerant of altered habitats. Due to their habitat requirements, populations of mussels and snails in the Project are typically limited to shoal habitat and headwaters and tributaries of the Lake. In the fall of 2006, APC performed dive surveys (in cooperation with the USFWS and ADCNR) in various areas of the Project to determine the status of unionid populations in the tailrace. The findings of that survey were reported in a draft report (Alabama Power Company, 2006).
Surveys were performed in Irwin Shoals, Hillabee Creek, Manoy Creek, Blue Creek, Sandy Creek, and Martin Tailrace. A total of eight taxa of freshwater mussels were detected by the surveys. Four species were collected in the Manoy Creek area: Anodonta suborbiculata (Flat Floater), Pyganodon grandis (Giant Floater), Lampsilis teres (Yellow Sandshell), and Utterbackia imbecillis (Paper Pondshell). Three species – Leptodea fragilis (Fragile Papershell), P. grandis, and Villosa lienosa (Little Spectaclecase) were collected in the Blue Creek area. One species, L. fragilis, was also collected in Sandy Creek. No mussels were detected in the Irwin Shoals, Hillabee Creek, or Martin Tailrace areas. Each of the taxa collected during the surveys occur commonly
5-47 in Alabama, and all are listed as being of low conservation concern by Mirarchi et al. (2004).
In addition to freshwater mussels, four taxa of freshwater snails were collected during the survey. The most commonly encountered snail was the pleurocerid Elimia flava (Yellow Elimia). This Tallapoosa River system endemic occurred in large numbers in the Irwin Shoals area of the upper portion of Lake Martin and was also encountered in lower numbers in Manoy Creek, Sandy Creek, and the Martin tailrace. Other snails collected during the survey include Helisoma anceps (Two-ridge Rams-horn), Campeloma regulare (Cylinder Campeloma), and Physella sp., all of which were collected in very low numbers. All taxa of freshwater snails seen during this survey are listed as common and of low conservation concern in Alabama by Mirarchi et al. (2004).
5.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat As Defined Under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
APC is not aware of any essential fish habitat in the vicinity of the Project and did not locate any current records of federally managed fish habitat within the Project Vicinity. However, APC will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as required by its 1999 Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2000).
Consultations at a project-specific level are required when critical decisions are made at the project implementation stage, or when sufficiently detailed information for development of EFH (Essential Fish Habitat) conservation recommendations does not exist at the programmatic level.
5-48
5.3.2 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the aquatic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
The Martin Project is one of several dams located on the Tallapoosa River, and as such, blocks fish passage within the River. It provides a portion of the cumulative impacts associated with fragmentation of the River. Project operation may result in some level of fish entrainment and resulting turbine mortality at the Project, and may have some level of impact on the fishery. Operation of the Project greatly influences downstream flows in the Tallapoosa River and fluctuations in operations may affect aquatic habitats in the downstream Tallapoosa River. Any Rare, Threatened, or Endangered aquatic species present in the Project area may be affected by Project operations, but none have been identified to date.
5.3.3 Literature Cited
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006. Fish and Fishing in Yates and Thurlow Reservoirs. [Online] URL: http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing/freshwater/where/reservoirs/thurl owyates/. Accessed October 12, 2006. Alabama Department of Public Health. 2006. Alabama Fish Consumption Advisories. Alabama Department of Public Health, Montgomery, AL. Alabama Power Company. 2006. Martin Lake Mussel and Snail Survey Draft Summary Report. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 12 pp.
5-49
Bayne, D. R., W. C. Seesock, E. C. Webber, and E. Reutebuch. 1995. Limnological Study of Selected Embayments of Lake Martin in Tallapoosa County, Alabama: 1994. Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Boschung, H. T., Jr. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books: Washington, D.C. Greene, J. C., D. L. Abernethy, and R. A. McVay. 2005. Martin Reservoir Management Report 2005. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. Greene, J. C., D. Abernethy, T. Powell, and R. McVay. 2004. Martin Reservoir Management Report 2003-2004. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. 42 pp. Haffner, J. B. 2004. B.A.I.T. Bass Anglers Information Team 2004 Annual Report. Alabama DJ/WB Project. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. ———. 2005. B.A.I.T. Bass Anglers Information Team 2005 Annual Report. Alabama DJ/WB Project F-38. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. McHugh, J. J., J. B. Jernigan, and T. Madigan. 1996. Martin Reservoir Management Report 1995. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Inc.: Birmingham, AL. 820 pp. Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P. E. O'Neil, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Two. Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 255 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
5-50
5.4 Wildlife Resources
5.4.1 Project Area
The Project lies within the Piedmont physiographic region of Alabama, an area with less wildlife diversity than some of the other physiographic regions of Alabama, such as the Coastal Plain and Lower Coastal Plain (Causey, 2006). The Project impoundment and surrounding woodland, agricultural, and residential areas nonetheless provide high quality habitat for a variety of upland and semi- aquatic wildlife species.
5.4.2 Wildlife Species
In addition to typical southeastern species, such as gray fox, white-tailed deer, Virginia opossum, and gray squirrel, the area supports species characteristic of the Piedmont region, such as the wood frog and copperhead (Skeen et al., 1993). Birdlife typical of Project uplands includes game species such as bobwhite quail, wild turkey, and mourning dove. Resident songbirds include downy woodpecker, American robin, eastern bluebird, and eastern meadowlark. An abundance of Neotropical migrants including numerous warblers, vireos, and hummingbirds also occur in the Project area (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Causey, 2006). Raptors known to occur in the Project Area include osprey, American kestrel, broad-winged and red-tail hawks, bald eagle, and barred, great horned, and screech owls. Typical small mammals of Project uplands include least and short-tailed shrews, southern flying squirrel, eastern woodrat, and eastern red and big brown bats (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Causey, 2006). Reptiles and amphibians found on Project uplands include American and eastern spadefoot toads, marbled and slimy salamanders, green anole, southern fence lizard, five-lined and broad- headed skinks, copperhead, black racer, gray ratsnake, and eastern box turtle (Causey, 2006). Representative wildlife species (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and exotic/invasive species) found in the Project Vicinity, including their common and scientific names, are listed in Tables K-1 through K-3 in Appendix K.
5-51
5.4.3 Littoral Zone Species
Although limited, Lake Martin’s littoral zone provides habitat for river otter, mink, muskrat, and beaver, as well as seasonal and year-round habitat for a number of waterfowl and wading birds including mallard, gadwall, wood duck, hooded merganser, common loon, great blue heron, green heron, and great egret (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Causey, 2006). Birds such as ring-billed gull, osprey, purple martin, and belted kingfisher are also common in areas of open water. Littoral areas also provide potential breeding habitat for a number of aquatic and semi-aquatic amphibian species including red-spotted and central newts, northern red and northern dusky salamanders, bullfrog, southern cricket frog, spring peeper, and southern leopard frog (Causey, 2006). Reptile species typical of the littoral zone include eastern cottonmouth and red- and yellow-bellied water snakes, snapping turtle, Alabama map turtle, river cooter, and red-eared pond sliders. Species represented in the littoral zone are found in Appendix L.
5.4.4 Exotic Species
A number of exotic wildlife species are known to occur in the Project Vicinity. These include bird species such as rock pigeon, Eurasian collared-dove, European starling, and house sparrow. Exotic mammals including Norway rat, black rat, house mouse, and wild hog (feral swine) also occur (Causey, 2006). Most of these are habitat generalists, and thus would be expected to occur throughout the Project Area where suitable habitat occurs.
5.4.5 Spatial Distribution
No site-specific data regarding spatial and temporal distribution of wildlife species within the Project vicinity are available at this time. However, a few general temporal patterns can be discerned based on life-history of species and taxa groups. For example, migratory waterfowl species, such as gadwall, American wigeon, ruddy ducks, and ring-necked ducks, would be expected to occupy the Project Area during the overwintering period (December – February).
5-52
Similarly, Neotropical avian species, such as ruby-throated hummingbirds, purple martins, Acadian flycatcher, and numerous warblers, likely occupy the Project vicinity during the spring, summer, and fall before returning to the tropics of Central and South America during winter. Mammal, reptile, and amphibian species are generally less mobile and thus would be expected to occupy the project vicinity year-round. From a spatial perspective, wading birds (i.e., herons and egrets) and waterfowl species are more likely be distributed in shallow coves and along vegetated littoral areas, while species such as gulls, terns, and raptors are more commonly distributed in open-water areas. Many terrestrial species common to the area, such as white-tailed deer, raccoons, gray squirrel, and gray fox, are habitat generalists and thus are found in a variety of habitats throughout the Project Area.
5.4.6 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the wildlife resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
The Martin Project has a large footprint and has both created and fragmented wildlife shoreline habitats. No direct impacts to wildlife species or communities from Project operations have been identified. However, development of shoreline areas likely results in an indirect cumulative impact to wildlife through reductions in the amount of available habitat and increased human disturbance.
5-53
5.4.7 Literature Cited
Causey, M. K. 2006. Wildlife Resources Associated With Alabama Power Company Project Lands Surrounding Martin Reservoir In Tallapoosa, Coosa And Elmore Counties, Alabama. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Three. Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 225 pp. Skeen, J. N., P. D. Doerr, and D. H. Van Lear. 1993. Oak Hickory Pine Forests. In Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities, edited by Martin, W. H., S. G. Boyce and A. C. Echternacht. John Wiley & Sons: New York. p. 133.
5-54
5.5 Botanical Resources
5.5.1 Upland Habitat Communities and Species
Natural vegetation for most of the Project Area is considered to be oak – hickory – pine association (Whetsone, 2006). This association is a component of the extensive eastern deciduous forest province, which is dominated by a number of mesophytic species including beech, yellow poplar, red maple, basswood, white and green ash, and numerous oak and hickory species. The title of the association refers to commonly encountered contemporary components of the community, i.e., oaks, hickories, and pines. The addition of pine to the title is somewhat problematic since original vegetation likely had pines much more restricted in importance. Oak and hickory forests most likely dominated this area in pre-settlement times. Clearing for agriculture, burning for habitat, subsequent abandonment of cleared spaces, and other activities have produced a patchwork of mostly second-growth forest and mid- and early-successional assemblages. Figure 5.5-1, which presents the community structure for an eight thousand acre stand representative of undeveloped land in the Project Area, demonstrates the patchwork nature of natural vegetation and silvicultural areas in the Project Vicinity (Whetstone, 2006).
5-55
Bottomland Hardwoods 5% Bottomland Pine Hardwoods 50% Hardwoods Hardwoods Immature Pines 43% Hardwoods 2%
Total 100% Immature Pines Pine Hardwoods
Figure 5.5-1: Community Structure for an Eight Thousand Acre Stand in the Project Area (Source: Whetstone, 2006)
Tree canopy in the older second-growth forests in the Project Area is dominated by upland oaks, hickories, and pines. Oaks commonly abundant in this area include white, black, southern red, rock chestnut, post, scarlet, blackjack, and willow oaks. Hickories tend to be less important, though sand and mockernut hickories are frequently found. Loblolly, scrub, shortleaf, and longleaf pines are also common. Other canopy and subcanopy species that are locally important include sweetgum, black cherry, blackgum, persimmon, sourwood, black locust, hop hornbeam, hornbeam, hackberry, cucumber magnolia, sassafras, possum haw, box elder, hawthorn, crabapple, flowering dogwood, sumac, chalk maple, devil’s walking stick, and fringe-tree. Among the primary components of the shrub/small tree stratum are lowbush blueberry, sparkleberry, deerberry, mountain laurel, St. John’s-wort, wax myrtle, sweet shrub, oakleaf hydrangea, witch-hazel, and blackberry. Lianas in these sites are variable though poison ivy, catbrier, Virginia creeper, muscadine, fox grape, yellow jessamine, cross vine, and cow-itch vine are common. Herbs common to the area are extensive. Along ridges and upper slopes, bracken fern, Christmas fern, resurrection fern, needle grass, spike grass, fragrant goldenrod, goldenrod, sweet Betsy, and other aster species are abundant among a host of other taxa that also may have locally extensive populations. Botanical species typical of the Project Area, including their common and
5-56
scientific names, are listed in Table M-1 in Appendix M. There are no known species in the Project Vicinity that are of cultural significance. The managed pine forests are of commercial value through periodic harvest.
5.5.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants
Whetstone (2006) identified seven species as being the primary invasive flora potentially occurring in the Project Vicinity: silk tree (mimosa), Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese privet, giant cut grass (millet), torpedo grass, and golden bamboo. Giant cutgrass has proven especially invasive in littoral habitats in the upper portion of Lake Martin, primarily in cove backwaters between Hillabee Creek and the reservoir headwaters (Photo 5.5-1). Control measures have been undertaken recently to control these populations as part of APC’s Aquatic Plant Management Program. APC developed an Aquatic Plant Management Program for the Coosa and Warrior Projects (see Appendix N) and intends to use it to develop a similar program for the Project. Additional detail regarding these species, including scientific and common names and invasive characteristics, is provided in Table 5.5-1.
Photo 5.5-1: Giant Cut Grass (Millet) on the Shoreline of Lake Martin
5-57
Table 5.5-1: Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity (Source: Whetstone, 2006)
COMMON SCIENTIFIC GROWTH HABITAT/INVASIVE CHARACTERISTICS NAME NAME PATTERN Silk Tree Albizia Small tree Invasive in an array of disturbed habitats including old julibrissin fields, stream banks, roadsides, flower gardens, rail yards, abandoned home sites, and rights-of-way; mostly occurs in full sunlight but widely dispersed in shaded areas; is difficult to control once established due to the aggressive suckering and long-lived seeds. Chinese Ligustrum Shrub/small Forms dense thickets along roadsides, fence rows, fields, privet sinense tree rights-of-way, and in bottomland forests; high fruit productivity and aggressive suckering often results in elimination of the herb layer in multi-storied communities. Japanese Lonicera Vine Primarily occurs in disturbed habitats such as fence rows, honeysuckle japonica old home sites, roadsides, and abandoned fields; may persist for long periods in mature forests, invading rapidly after disturbances (i.e., windstorms, logging) through fruit dispersal as well as aggressive growth in the herb layer and on small shrubs and trees. Torpedo Panicum repens Perennial Occurs in ditches, along marshy shores and canals, and grass herb other poorly drained habitats; occurs in water up to 6 ft deep forming a thick dense floating mat; cold-intolerant and thus is killed back to the ground by frost; once established, is difficult to eradicate due to rhizomatous growth. Golden Phyllostachys Bamboo Forms dense, nearly impenetrable stands from underground bamboo aurea rhizomes; mostly occupies old home sites and was widely planted for fishing canes. Kudzu Pueraria lobata Vine Ornamental use is suggested by the large number of abandoned home sites that are overgrown with this aggressive species. The USDA and other agencies used the species for erosion control. Few species can tolerate the competition by kudzu. Forms a dense blanket of leaves and stems that limits light penetration below. Limited spread by seeds means most infestations result from persistence rather than new introductions. Giant cut Zizaniopsis Large Native grass that grows to about 9 ft, typically in fresh or grass miliacea emergent or brackish shallow water of ponds, sloughs, and ditches; terrestrial reproduction occurs from rhizomes, grains, and from aerial grass stems that fall over and root at the nodes; forms dense, nearly impenetrable colonies that limit other native species through competition; is frequently controlled to protect habitat or to enhance recreation and/or navigation.
5-58
5.5.3 Riparian, Wetland and Littoral Habitat
The hills surrounding the Project are steeply sloped to the waterline; thus extensive floodplains and shoreline wetlands are not present (Whetstone, 2006). The limited wetlands and riparian zones that do exist provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat and are described in greater detail below.
5.5.3.1 Wetlands
There are approximately 444 ac of wetlands within the Project Boundary, which can be broadly classified into palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine wetland types (Alabama Power Company, 2006) (Table 5.5-2) The dominant wetland types within the Project Boundary are palustrine forest, lacustrine littoral unconsolidated shore, and palustrine emergent wetlands, which account for approximately 45.3% (201.4 ac), 27.3 percent (121.6 ac), and 10.3 percent (45.9 ac) of the total wetland acreage, respectively (Table 5.5-2). The remaining 75.9 ac are composed of a mix of various palustrine, lacustrine and riverine wetland types accounting for approximately 9.6 percent (42.7 ac), 7.1 percent (31.4 ac) and .4 percent (1.8 ac), respectively. Seasonal changes in reservoir elevation likely result in little variability in the quantity of wetlands surrounding the Project due to the steeply-banked nature of the Project Area.
Palustrine forested wetlands, which account for almost half of Project wetlands, encompass what are commonly referred to as “hardwood bottomlands” (Cowardin et al., 1979). These bottomlands likely represent the most diverse and productive wildlife habitat on the Project, harboring a wide range of species including barred owl, red-shouldered hawks, white- tailed deer, fox squirrels, and red and gray fox (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Bottomlands are of particularly value as stopover habitat for warblers and other migrating songbirds and for cavity nesting species such prothanatory warbler, wood duck, and red-bellied woodpeckers. The emergent and lacustrine littoral habitats provide important amphibian breeding areas;
5-59
spawning and rearing habitat for fish; habitat for semi-aquatic mammals such as river otter, mink, and beaver; and refuge and feeding areas for resident and migratory waterfowl and wading birds including mallard, hooded merganser, common loon, great blue heron, green heron, and great egret. Additional detail regarding the wildlife resources of the Project is provided in Section 5.4.
Table 5.5-2: Acres and Percentages of Wetland Types in the Project Area1
WETLAND TYPE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL Lacustrine Littoral Rock Bottom 30.7 6.9% Lacustrine Littoral Rocky Shore 0.7 0.2% Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore 121.6 27.3% Palustrine Emergent 45.9 10.3% Palustrine Forest 201.4 45.3% Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 42.5 9.6% Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 0.2 0.04% Riverine Lower Perennial Rock Bottom 1.8 0.4% Total: 444.7 100.0%
Lacustrine 153.0 34.4% Palustrine 289.9 65.2% Riverine 1.8 0.4% Total: 444.7 100.0% 1 Based on National Wetlands Inventory data for the following USGS 1:24,000 Quadrangles: Brassell, AL; La Place, AL; Shorter, AL; Tallassee, AL; Willow Springs, AL; Red Hill, AL; Alexander City, AL; Buchanan, GA; Buttson, AL; Dadeville, AL; Draketown, GA; Dudleyville, AL; Fruithurst, AL; Hightower, AL; Jacksons Gap, AL; Micaville, AL; Our Town, AL; Ofelia, AL; Ponders, AL; Rockmart South, GA; Ross Mountain, AL; Tallapoosa North, GA; Tallapoosa South, GA; Wadley North, AL; Wadley South, AL.
5.5.3.2 Riparian and Littoral Habitats
Riparian zone and lowland vegetation include representatives of the upland forests as well as more wet-mesic to hydric taxa (Whetstone, 2006). Trees that are locally abundant in these habitats are elderberry, catalpa, black willow, alder, river birch, sycamore, and winterberry. Common shrubs include sweetspire, button bush, lead plant, swamp dogwood, silverbell, and blueberry. Frequently encountered lianas along the riparian zones and other lowlands are pepper-vine, American buckwheat vine, rattan-vine, and moonseed among other taxa. In littoral
5-60
areas, emergent grasses, such as giant cut grass and torpedo grass, as well as woody species, such as button bush, are common. Riparian and littoral species know to occur in the Project Vicinity are listed in Table L-1 in Appendix L.
Whetstone (2006) identified two nuisance invasive species that occur in the Project littoral and riparian areas: giant cut grass (millet) and torpedo grass. Giant cutgrass has proven especially invasive in littoral habitats in the upper portion of Lake Martin, primarily in cove backwaters between Hillabee Creek and the reservoir headwaters. Control measures have been undertaken recently to control these populations as part of APC’s Aquatic Plant Management Program. APC developed an Aquatic Plant Management Program for the Coosa and Warrior Projects.
5.5.3.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the aquatic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
The Martin Project was created through damming of the Tallapoosa River, and as such, inundated much of the hardwood bottoms and wetland areas originally associated with the river. No direct impacts to riparian, littoral, or wetland habitat associated with continued operation of the Project have been identified at this time. These habitats are potentially indirectly and/or cumulatively impacted by increased shoreline
5-61
development; however, the effects are minimized due to the small quantity of wetlands in the Project Area and the steeply sloped (and thus inaccessible) nature of shoreline areas. Any Rare, Threatened, or Endangered species present in the Project area may be affected by operations of the project.
5.5.4 Literature Cited
Alabama Power Company. 2006. Draft Wetlands Report. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_Reports/Class_Manual/class_titlepg.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008. Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Three. Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 225 pp. Whetstone, D. 2006. Plants And Plant Communities Of The Lake Martin Area. Whetstone Consulting, Inc.
5-62
5.6 Rare, Threatened, Endangered (RTE) and Special Status Species
The USFWS Daphne Field Office’s county-level list of federally threatened and endangered species indicates a total of four threatened, five endangered and one candidate species as occurring or having historically occurred in Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa counties, where the Project is located. Of these, only red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, fine-lined pocketbook mussel, Georgia rockcress, and little amphianthus are native to the Tallapoosa River Basin and thus could potentially occur in the Project Vicinity (see Table 5.6-1). To understand the potential for each species to be present in the Project Boundary, species descriptions and typical habitat requirements are presented below.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), is a federally listed endangered species that occurs in Coosa and Tallapoosa counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). RCWs require open pine woodlands and savannahs with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat. Large old pines, preferably longleaf pines, are required as cavity trees because the RCWs excavate the cavities within inactive heartwood so that the interior cavity is free of resin, which can entrap the birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Consequently, resin that comes out of trees (from outer vascular tissue) after excavation may provide protection for the RCWs against climbing snakes or other predators. Cavity trees are located in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. RCWs also require abundant native bunchgrass and groundcovers suitable for foraging within their habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). The USFWS first approved a recovery plan for red-cockaded woodpecker in 1979, with subsequent revisions published in 1985 and 2003 (USFWS, 2003). The goal of the recovery plan is species viability, which is represented by delisting (USFWS, 2003).
The largest RCW population on a single private holding in Alabama is located on APC’s Mitchell Project in Coosa and Chilton counties, Alabama (Bailey, 2004). APC has developed an agency-approved RCW management plan for the Mitchell Project
5-63
lands, which will be implemented upon issuance of the new license from FERC for the Coosa River Project3. RCW surveys conducted at the Project in coordination with the USFWS during December 2006 and January 2007 found no active RCW cavities at the Project. Several starter holes and inactive cavities were found in the vicinity of Sand Creek, near Smith Mountain Fire Tower (pers. comm., J. Lochamy, Alabama Power Company, April 14, 2008).
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was formerly listed as federally threatened under the Endangered Species Act and is known to occur within the Project Boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species on July 9, 2007, but remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (72 FR 37345-37372). Bald eagles may be found throughout North America, typically around water where they feed primarily on fish and scavenge carrion. Eagles typically nest in large trees near water and use the same nest for several years, making repairs to it annually (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). New habitat has also been created for bald eagles in the form of manmade reservoirs, which provide wintering and non-nesting habitat as well as nesting habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989).
Foraging habitat for bald eagle is abundant in the Project Area. In addition, there are approximately four active bald eagle nests on Lake Martin (varies seasonally) (pers. comm., J. Lochamy, Alabama Power Company, April 14, 2008). APC currently participates in annual eagle surveys and manages the shoreline in the vicinity of known nests in accordance with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007), which were published following de-listing of the species to ensure adherence to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In general, the guidelines prohibit potential “disturbance” within 660 ft of an active nest during the nesting season (September through May) and 330 ft during the non-nesting season, for most activities.
3 APC filed an Application for New License for the Coosa River Project 07/05.
5-64
Fine-lined Pocketbook Mussel
The fine-lined pocketbook (Hamiota altilis) is a federally threatened freshwater mussel species endemic to the Mobile basin and known to occur or have historically occurred in Coosa, Elmore and Tallapoosa counties (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004; Gangloff, 2003). The mussel has been collected in large to small streams in habitats above the fall line having stable sand/gravel/cobble substrates and moderate to swift currents (Alabama Power Company, 2006). Historically, it has been found in the Alabama, Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Cahaba, Tallapoosa, and Coosa rivers and their tributaries (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). With regard to reproduction, Hamiota altilis releases glochidia as a superconglutinate from March through June, and confirmed host species include blackspotted topminnow, redeye bass, spotted bass, largemouth bass, and green sunfish (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Reasons for the decline and current status of the species include habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and water quality degradation (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000).
In November 2000, the USFWS approved and published the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan, which serves as the sole recovery plan for the fine- lined pocketbook and 21 other Mobile Basin species. The immediate goal of the recovery plan is to prevent the further decline of fine-lined pocketbook by locating, protecting, and restoring streams with remaining populations. A second objective is to restore stream habitats to a point that would allow expansion and/or reintroduction of this species (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). The USFWS designated 26 river and stream segments in the Mobile River Basin as critical habitat for three threatened and eight endangered mussels, including fine-lined pocketbook (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). There are 12 designated critical habitat units for the fine-lined pocketbook totaling approximately 544 miles of streams and rivers within its current and historic range. The Project Area does not encompass critical habitat areas identified by the USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004), and no populations have been identified in the Project Boundary.
5-65
Georgia Rockcress
As of September 12, 2006, the USFWS considered the candidate species Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana) to be imminently threatened and changed its priority number from an 11 (threat of becoming threatened or endangered is non-imminent) to an 8 (imminent threat of becoming threatened or endangered) (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006b). This was primarily due to Georgia rockcress populations being impacted by nonnative plants. The Georgia rockcress occurs in Alabama and Georgia, and thus, the heritage programs in the two states have initiated plans for exotic plant control at the locations of several populations (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006b).
The Georgia rockcress grows in a variety of dry situations, including shallow soil accumulations on rocky bluffs and in sandy loam along eroding river banks (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006b). It is occasionally found in adjacent mesic woods, but it will not persist in heavily shaded conditions. Currently a total of 18 populations are known from four counties in Alabama (Bibb, Elmore, Russell, and Wilcox) and six counties in Georgia (Clay, Chattahoochee, Floyd, Gordon, Harris, and Muscogee) (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). Populations of this species typically have a limited number of individuals over a small area. None of the documented populations exist within the Project Boundary (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006b). The amount and spatial extent of potential habitat for Georgia rockcress within the Project Area are unknown.
Little Amphianthus
The federally threatened Little amphianthus (Amphianthus pusillusis) is a highly specialized rooted aquatic plant that is restricted to eroded depressions on flat-to-doming granitic (either granite or granite-gneiss) outcrops (Allison, 1993). These outcrops are similar in appearance, but may differ geologically as igneous, quartzitic, gneissic, or porphyritic granite. These endemics typically occur in shallow flat-bottomed pools found on the crest and flattened slopes of unquarried outcrops. The pools retain water for several weeks following heavy rains and may completely dry during summer droughts.
5-66
They are usually several meters in diameter and are circular or irregularly-shaped, due to the coalescence of adjacent pools. This species is typically found in association with two other granite outcrop species: black-spored quillwort (Isoetes melanospora) and mat- forming quillwort (Isoetes tegetiformans), all of which are restricted to the Piedmont physiographic province of the southeastern U.S. (Allison, 1993).
On July 7, 1993, The USFWS published a recovery plan for the three granite outcrop species discussed above, including little amphianthus (Allison, 1993). The plan cites delisting as the recovery objective for little amphainthus, which will be considered when the recovery criteria of protection of 20 of the known populations (including at least two populations each in Alabama and South Carolina) are met. The recovery plan notes that these species were probably already rare at the time of European contact due to their extreme specialization. Continued destruction of habitat from quarrying is thought to be the greatest threat to remaining populations of little amphianthus (Allison, 1993).
Little amphianthus is wider ranging than the other granite outcrop species and is currently known to occur from Chambers and Randolph Counties, Alabama, eastward and northward to Lancaster and York Counties, South Carolina (Allison, 1993). Four small populations of the species are known to occur in Alabama, with the majority of extant populations in Georgia (Allison, 1993). A recent botanical investigation of Project lands cited no known populations of the species within the Project Area (Whetsone, 2006), but noted that the species could potentially occur in areas along the reservoir, presumably due to the abundant granite outcrops surrounding the Lake and on islands.
5-67
Table 5.6-1: Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species in Alabama Counties Occupied by the Martin Project (Source: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006a)
FEDERAL COUNTY OF OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DOCUMENTED HISTORIC RANGE IN AL3 STATUS1 OCCURRENCE IN BASIN2
Red-Cockaded Picoides borealis E Coosa & Tallapoosa Y Statewide in appropriate habitat Woodpecker Haliaeetus Coosa, Elmore & Bald Eagle P Y Statewide leucocephalus Tallapoosa Cyprinella caerulea Blue Shiner T Coosa N Cahaba River, Coosa River system above fall line Tulotoma magnifica Tulotoma Snail E Coosa & Elmore N Coosa and Alabama River systems Pleurocera foremani Rough Hornsnail C Elmore N Coosa and Cahaba River systems Coosa River system, from headwaters in GA Leptoxis foremani Interrupted rocksnail C Elmore N downstream to Elmore Co. Pleurobema Southern Pigtoe E Coosa N Coosa River system georgianum Mussel Fine-lined Coosa, Elmore & Hamiota altilis T Y Coosa, Tallapoosa, Cahaba River systems Pocketbook Mussel Tallapoosa Little River Canyon in Coosa River Basin, West Sagittaria secundifolia Kral’s Water-Plantain T Coosa N Sipsey Fork in the Warrior Basin, and Town Creek in Tennessee Basin (USFWS, 1991) Sarracenia rubra Alabama Canebrake E Elmore N Coosa River Basin (USFWS, 1992) alabamensis Pitcher Plant Gulf Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Ridge and Arabis georgiana Georgia Rockcress C Elmore Y Valley physiographic provinces of Alabama and Georgia (USFWS, 2005) Granite outcrops in Piedmont of SC, GA, AL Amphianthus pusillus Little Amphianthus T Tallapoosa Y (USFWS, 1993) 1 E = Federally listed as Endangered, T = Federally listed as Threatened, C = Candidate for federal listing, P = not federally listed, but protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act 2 Indicates known or historic occurrence in the Tallapoosa River Basin. 3 Historic range as summarized in Mirarchi et al. (2004) unless otherwise cited.
5-68
5.6.1 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the biological resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
The Project is one of several dams located on the Tallapoosa River, and as such creates some fragmentation of the River. Project operation may influence water quality, shoreline development, or increased human activity that may affect RTE species that may be present in the Project Area.
5.6.2 Literature Cited
Alabama Power Company. 2006. Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species for the Coosa River (FERC No. 2146), Mitchell (FERC No. 82), and Jordan (FERC No. 618) Projects. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Allison, J. R. 1993. Recovery Plan for Three Granite Outcrop Plant Species. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA. 46 pp. Bailey, M. A. 2004. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Status and Recommendations: Mitchell Lake Project Lands, Coosa and Chilton Counties, Alabama. Contract EAF-03-003. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 82 pp. Gangloff, M. M. 2003. The Status, Physical Habitat Associations, and Parasites of Freshwater Mussels in the Upper Alabama River Drainage, Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 237 pp.
5-69
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P. E. O'Neil, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Two. Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 255 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Pond, SC. 162 pp. ———. 1991. Kral's Water-Plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 15 pp. ———. 1992. Alabama Canebrake Pitcher Plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensis) Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 21 pp. ———. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Eight Freshwater Mussels and Threatened Status for Three Freshwater Mussels in the Mobile River Drainage. Federal Register 58(50):14330-14340. ———. 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 128 pp. ———. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Second Revision. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp. ———. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(126):40084-40171. ———. 2005. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Georgia Rockcress. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. ———. 2006a. Alabama's Federally Listed Species by County. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.htm. Accessed October 11, 2006. ———. 2006b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Critical Habitat Designations; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 71(176):53756-53835. ———. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pp.
5-70
Whetstone, D. 2006. Plants And Plant Communities Of The Lake Martin Area. Whetstone Consulting, Inc.
5-71
5.7 Recreation
This section describes existing recreational opportunities within the Project Boundary and recreation access to Project lands and waters. It also describes estimated recreational use at the Project and existing management plans that may affect recreational planning in the future.
5.7.1 Existing Recreation Facilities and Opportunities
There are many recreational facilities that provide access to Project lands and waters, as well as recreational opportunities in the Project region and Project vicinity. The facilities that provide access to Project lands and waters vary from simple boat launches to extensive state parks that offer a variety of amenities. These facilities are described below.
5.7.1.1 Recreation Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Region
There are several attractions in the region surrounding the Project. These include several other reservoirs including Lake Walter F. George, Lake Harding, the Harris Project Reservoir (Lake Wedowee), Lake Jordan/Bouldin, Lay Lake, Logan Martin, Mitchell Lake, Neely Henry Lake, and West Point Lake. The majority of these reservoirs provide basic recreational amenities including boat ramps, marinas, restaurants, and camping sites.
Besides water-based attractions in the Project Area, several areas of interest provide a variety of recreational opportunities. Cheaha State Park is located on Cheaha Mountain, Alabama’s highest point at 2,407 ft msl, about 40 mi. north of Lake Martin. The park offers outstanding views of the Talladega National Forest. Cheaha State Park offers cabins, fishing, improved camping sites, primitive camping, a motel, a restaurant, picnic areas, nonmotorized boating, a gift shop, and several miles of trails. One other national forest, the Tuskegee National Forest, is located 40 mi.
5-72
southeast of the Project. Tuskegee National Forest offers fishing opportunities, primitive camping, hiking trails, picnicking, biking trails, and a shooting range. Chewacla State Park is about 40 mi. southeast of the Project and provides a lake as well as cabins dating from the Civilian Conservation Corps. Chewacla State Park also offers fishing, improved camping sites, primitive camping, picnic areas, swimming, several miles of trails, and nonmotorized boating.
5.7.1.2 Recreation Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Vicinity
One other recreation facility near the Project is the Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (Park), located approximately 10 miles upriver from the Project. The park is the site of the battle with the Creek Nation and offers an overlook of the battlefield, a visitor center, and several miles of walking trails. The land on which the Park is located was originally owned by APC, but donated to the U.S. government.
5.7.1.3 Recreation Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Area
In 2006, APC compiled a list of sites that provide public, private, and commercial recreational access to lands and waters of the Martin Hydroelectric Project. A total of 57 nonresidential public, private, and commercial sites that provide access were identified (Figure 5.7-1; Tables 5.7-1 to 5.7-3). APC owns 13 of the 57 sites. The majority of the 57 sites are considered day use sites and nine are considered campgrounds, or have overnight facilities available. The majority of the sites have paved access and are well signed, and are free and open year-round. Overall, 1,066 picnic tables were counted (over half were located at Wind Creek State Park), 971 grills (with 88 percent located at Wind Creek State Park), and 872 firepits (850 of which are located at Wind Creek State Park). There are 12 swimming areas. For boating use, there are 691 wet slips, 54 seadoo pads, and 2,493 dry storage spaces.
5-73
Figure 5.7-1: Recreation Sites at Lake Martin
5-74
Table 5.7-1: Existing Public Recreation Facilities and Access at the Martin Project
Site
Name Label Type of Facility Tables Picnic of # # of Grills # of Firepits/rings Outs Pump Boat of # Trails # of # of Shelters Areas Swimming Designated of # # of Stores Stations Dumping # of RV # of Benches # of Potable Water Pumps Fuel Boat of # Cans Trash of # # of Docks # of Playgrounds # of Showers # of Concessions Slips Wet of # Pads SeaDoo of # Docks # of Dry Spaces Parking of # Spaces ADA of # Toilets Flush of # Toilets ADA of # Sites RV of # # of Cabin Sites Sites Tent of # # of Primitive Sites Boat Launches Surfaced of Hard # Launches Boat Gravel of # Launches Boat Unimproved of # Launches # of Carry-in Total # of Boat Launch Lanes Docks Fishing # of Courtesy of# ADA Compliant Courtesy/FishingDocks Alexander City Boat Ramp 3 Day Use 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 51 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 5 Bakers Bottom Landing 5 Informal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Coley Creek Ramp 14 Informal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 DARE Boat Landing 15 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 DARE Power Park 16 Day Use 28 21 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 6 0 39 4 0 1 1 52 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 Elkahatchee Landing 18 Informal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Jaybird Landing 24 Informal 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Johnson Creek Boat Ramp 25 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Kowaliga (Hwy. 63) Launch 26 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 Madwind Creek Ramp 32 Day Use 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 New Hope Ramp 35 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Pace Point Ramp 37 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 Paces Trail 38 Day Use 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 Piney Woods Boat Ramp 40 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Scenic Overlook 45 Day Use 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Smith Landing 47 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 Sturdivant Creek Ramp 49 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Timbergut Landing 51 Informal 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Union Ramp 53 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Wind Creek State Park 57 Campground/Campsites 800 850 850 1 4 3 1 1 6 0 700 2 300 4 2 0 1 140 0 132 117 9 112 21 626 4 0 3 0 0 0 6 9 5
5-75
Table 5.7-2: Existing Private Recreation Facilities and Access at the Martin Project
Site
Name Label Type of Facility Tables Picnic of # # of Grills # of Firepits/rings Outs Pump Boat of # Trails # of # of Shelters Areas Swimming Designated of # # of Stores Stations Dumping # of RV # of Benches # of Potable Water Pumps Fuel Boat of # Cans Trash of # # of Docks # of Playgrounds # of Showers # of Concessions Slips Wet of # Pads SeaDoo of # Docks # of Dry Spaces Parking of # Spaces ADA of # Toilets Flush of # Toilets ADA of # Sites RV of # # of Cabin Sites Sites Tent of # # of Primitive Sites Boat Launches Surfaced of Hard # Launches Boat Gravel of # Launches Boat Unimproved of # Launches # of Carry-in Total # of Boat Launch Lanes Docks Fishing # of Courtesy of# ADA Compliant Courtesy/FishingDocks 1st Retreat (off Castaway) 1 Day Use 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Alabama Elks Youth Camp 2 Campground/Campsites 12 5 1 0 Multiple 0 1 0 0 25 0 0 50 3 4 14 1 1 0 0 0 19 4 0 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 Camp Alamisco 8 Campground/Campsites 5 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 10 0 1 10 2 0 12 1 2 0 0 24 1 50 50 3 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Camp ASCCA (Dadeville 9 Campground/Campsites 15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 1 3 0 0 13 13 18 8 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 Campus) Camp ASCCA (Easter 10 Campground/Campsites 25 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 0 2 40 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 40 28 101 101 0 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Seal) Central Alabama Water and 11 Day Use 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Sewer Authority Children's Harbor (Camp 12 Campground/Campsites 20 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 81 1 53 2 91 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Smile-A-Mile) Dixie Sailing Club 17 Campground/Campsites 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 40 0 6 0 15 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 Emerald Shores Boat Ramp 19 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Holiday Shores Boat Ramp 21 Day Use 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Indian Campgrounds 22 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Indian Shores Boat 23 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 Landing Kowaliga Bay Estates 27 Day Use 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 Lake Martin RV Resort 29 Day Use 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 6 0 4 4 104 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lakeview Mobile Home 31 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Park Marina Marin 33 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Maxwell Gunter AFB 34 Campground/Campsites 79 79 12 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 65 2 84 5 1 0 1 10 0 12 17 1 28 4 65 2 12 0 1 0 0 0 2 7 4 Recreation Area Pace Bluff 36 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Russell Ferry 44 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Shady Bay 46 Day Use 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Timberlake Townhomes 52 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Willow Point 55 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Wind Creek Farms 56 Day Use 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
5-76
Table 5.7-3: Existing Commercial Recreation Facilities and Access at the Martin Project
Site
Name Label Type of Facility Tables Picnic of # # of Grills # of Firepits/rings Outs Pump Boat of # Trails # of # of Shelters Areas Swimming Designated of # # of Stores Stations Dumping # of RV # of Benches # of Potable Water Pumps Fuel Boat of # Cans Trash of # # of Docks # of Playgrounds # of Showers # of Concessions Slips Wet of # Pads SeaDoo of # Docks # of Dry Spaces Parking of # Spaces ADA of # Toilets Flush of # Toilets ADA of # Sites RV of # # of Cabin Sites Sites Tent of # # of Primitive Sites Boat Launches Surfaced of Hard # Launches Boat Gravel of # Launches Boat Unimproved of # Launches # of Carry-in Total # of Boat Launch Lanes Docks Fishing # of Courtesy of# ADA Compliant Courtesy/FishingDocks Anchor Bay Marina 4 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 0 0 9 2 44 9 1 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 Bay Pine Marina and BBQ 6 Day Use 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 5 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 Blue Creek Marina 7 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 1 38 2 450 22 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 2 Chuck's Marina 13 Day Use 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 2 8 0 0 1 8 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 8 4 Harbor Pointe Marina 20 Day Use 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 4 1 150 20 330 99 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Kowaliga Marina 28 Day Use 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 100 3 400 21 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Lakeside Marina (Blue Creek) 30 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Parker Creek Marina 39 Day Use 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 170 23 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 Pleasure Point Park and Marina 41 Campground/Campsites 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 3 4 23 4 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Real Island Marina and Campground 42 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 1 24 2 240 6 0 4 0 52 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 2 River North Marina 43 Day Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 10 4 0 0 0 58 3 283 86 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 Sonny Fromby and Sons 48 Day Use 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 10 0 The Ridge Marina 50 Day Use 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 98 8 385 220 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Veazey's Marina 54 Day Use 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0
5-77
There are an estimated 1,223 parking spaces with 70 of these being ADA compliant. There are 50 hard surfaced boat launches, with 65 lanes. An additional five boat launches are either gravel or provide carry-in access. Additional details can be found in Kleinschmidt (2008).
5.7.2 Current Project Recreation Use Levels and Capacities
In order to estimate recreation use from all of the 57 sites that were identified, a representative sample of 14 recreation sites were selected for study from February 15 to October 8, 2007 to capture typical recreation activity. Sampled recreation sites are identified in Figure 5.7-1.
The sampled recreation sites, identified in consultation with the ADCNR, included 13 public sites and 1 commercial marina. The sites provide opportunities for boat launching, shoreline fishing, swimming, hiking, camping and assorted day use activities, and include both free and for fee operations. The marina, although a for-profit business, permits the public to use its boat launch, which was considered typical of other commercial marinas around the Lake. Thus, it was determined that the sample was representative of the types of access provided at the Project. Traffic counters, on-site monitoring, and existing visitation records were used to estimate use from the 14 sampled sites and expanded to provide and estimate of use from the 57 sites that provide access to Project lands and waters. A full description of the methodology and additional results can be found in Kleinschmidt (2008).
Recreational use at the Martin Project was estimated at 1,058,670 recreation days from February 15 to October 8, 2007 (Kleinschmidt, 2008; Figure 5.7-2). This estimate includes use from nonresidential public, private, and commercial access areas, with about 58 percent occurring from public sites, 18 percent from private sites, and 24 percent from commercial sites. Use peaked in March with 253,680 recreation days. The least amount of use for an entire month was in August 2007. When viewed across the study period, there was a
5-78
substantial increase in use from February to March, with use declining throughout the summer months before rising again in September
300,000
253,680 250,000
204,710 200,000
165,810
150,000 119,810 99,920 100,000 91,260 71,870
46,200 50,000
5,420 0 February March April May June July August September October
Figure 5.7-2: Distribution of Recreation Days at Lake Martin from February 15 – October 8, 2007
Distribution of Recreational Use by Day Type
The majority of recreation use that occurred in the Spring season (February - April) occurred on weekdays (Figure 5.7-3). This pattern shifts during the Summer season (May - August), with the majority of use occurring on weekends. Most of the recreation use that occurred in May was on the Memorial Day holiday (when compared to individual day types). Use during the Fall season (September and October) mirrors that of the spring season, with a greater percentage of use shifting back to weekdays.
5-79
80%
Weekday Weekend 70% Holiday
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% February March April May June July August September
Figure 5.7-3: Monthly Distribution of Recreation Use at Lake Martin by Day Type
Distribution of Recreational Use by Activity
Water-based activities dominated on weekdays (Table 5.7-4) with boating receiving the most participation followed by “other,” and fishing. Water-based activities were participated in less on weekends and holidays, with a shift toward different activities on each day type. Boating was still the most popular activity on weekends, but swimming became the second most popular activity, followed by picnicking. On holidays, boating continued to be the dominant activity, but picnicking was observed second most often, followed by swimming. Overall, boating was the most popular activity at the Project, followed by swimming and picnicking.
5-80
Table 5.7-4: Primary Activities Occurring at Recreation Sites at Lake Martin by Day Type, Summer Season, 2007
Activity Weekday Weekend Holiday Total Swimming 7% 29% 16% 26% Launching a Boat 32% 18% 15% 18% Landing a Boat 29% 13% 25% 16% Fishing from Unimproved Shoreline 12% 2% 2% 3% Fishing from a Pier or Dock 5% 2% 1% 2% Water-Based Activities Total 85% 65% 59% 64% Picnicking 0% 21% 27% 22% Camping 0% 5% 11% 6% Other1 15% 7% 0% 6% Hiking or Backpacking 0% 2% 3% 2% Field Games 0% 1% 0% 1% Bicycling 0% 0% 0% 0% Land-Based Activities Total 15% 35% 41% 36% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 “Other” could include, but is not limited to, sunbathing, riding an all-terrain vehicle, and taking pictures.
Recreation Site Capacities
During the study, cars were counted in the parking areas at 11 of the 20 public access sites on the Lake. The percent of times each site exceeded parking capacity (available parking spaces) provides the current ability of these observed public recreation sites to accommodate existing use (Table 5.7-5). Kowaliga (Hwy. 63) Launch, Union Ramp, and Paces Trail were the sites where capacity was most exceeded on weekends. Kowaliga (Hwy. 63) Launch and Union Ramp exceeded capacity the most on holidays, followed by Parker Creek Marina, Union Ramp, and Paces Trail. Jaybird Landing, Madwind Creek Ramp, and Scenic Overlook never exceeded capacity, regardless of day type.
5-81
Table 5.7-5: Percent of Days Parking Capacity Exceeded at Sampled Recreation Sites at Lake Martin by Day Type, Summer Season, 2007
PERCENT OF TIME PARKING SITE DAY TYPE CAPACITY EXCEEDED Weekend 0.0% Alexander City Boat Ramp Holiday 16.7% Weekend 0.0% Jaybird Landing1 Holiday 0.0% Weekend 7.1% DARE Boat Landing Holiday 25.0% Weekend 10.9% Paces Trail Holiday 33.3% Weekend 0.0% Pace Point Ramp Holiday 16.7% Weekend 0.0% Madwind Creek Ramp Holiday 0.0% Weekend 4.8% Piney Woods Boat Ramp Holiday 33.3% Weekend 14.3% Union Ramp Holiday 37.5% Weekend 4.5% Parker Creek Marina Holiday 33.3% Weekend 0.0% Scenic Overlook Holiday 0.0% Weekend 0.0% Smith Landing Holiday 12.5% Weekend 16.7% Kowaliga (Hwy. 63) Launch Holiday 37.5% 1 Analysis includes the dates from April 1 to June 11, 2007
Recreational Boating Use
Aerial boat counts were conducted in 2007 to gain insights into the distribution of boating activity on Lake Martin (Kleinschmidt, 2008). The study area included all the major arms and tributaries of Lake Martin from Irwin Shoals to Martin Dam (e.g., Kowaliga arm, Blue Creek, Sandy Creek, Manoy Creek). The Lake was delineated into segments to isolate selected areas perceived as potentially unique due to natural resources or special use areas in some of the major arms of the Lake (e.g., Blue Creek, Sandy Creek), and to enable monitoring clerks to distinguish geographic features and landmarks from the air (Figure 5.7- 4).
5-82
Figure 5.7-4: Segments of Lake Martin Used to Conduct Aerial Boat Counts
5-83
Water-based recreation activities were recorded for each Lake segment. Boats were delineated by activity with solitary, stationary boats designated as “fishing,” solitary, stationary boats that were obviously not fishing or stationary boats in groups designated as “rafting/moored,” boats underway designated as “boating,” and boats with water-skiers designated as “water skiing”. Personal watercraft and sailboats were also identified and recorded. All others were recorded as “other.”
Recreational boating on Lake Martin reveals some interesting patterns of use. On average, Segment 5 was the most used segment on weekends, followed closely by Segment 3 and Segment 6 (Table 5.7-6). Segment 1, Segment 4, and Segment 7 were the least used segments on average. Power boating was the most popular boating activity in nearly all the segments, with the exception of Segment 6, where rafting/moored boating was the most popular activity. On a percentage basis, fishing occurred most often on weekends in Segment 1, jet skiing was nearly evenly distributed across the reservoir on weekends, sailing was most popular in Segment 7, and water skiing was nearly evenly distributed, though it took place more often in the lower section of the reservoir.
Table 5.7-6: Average Number and Distribution of Boats Counted on Lake Martin on Weekends in 2007 by Activity and Lake Segment
Segment ACTIVITY 1 234567 8 910 Power Boating 3 10 14 4 17 10 4 9 11 9 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fishing 1 5 5 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 Jet Skiing 1 4 6 2 7 5 2 3 4 7 Sailing 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 Water Skiing 0 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 4 Rafting/Moored 1 8 4 1 1 14 4 1 2 4 Total a 7 30 36 13 38 34 16 19 26 29 The total average may not add up to the sum of individual activities due to rounding.
5-84
Boating use increased on nearly all segments on holidays. The exception was Segment 7, where average use declined from weekends to holidays. Segment 2 was the most used segment on holidays, followed by Segment 3 and Segment 6 (Table 5.7-7). Segment 7, Segment 1, and Segment 8 were the least used segments on average. Power boating was the most popular boating activity in nearly all the segments, with the exceptions of Segments 6 and 7, where rafting/moored boating was the most popular activity, and Segment 8, where jet skiing was the most popular activity. On a percentage basis, fishing occurred most often on holidays in Segment 1, jet skiing was nearly evenly distributed across the reservoir on holidays, sailing was most popular in 5, and water skiing was nearly evenly distributed.
Table 5.7-7: Average Number and Distribution of Boats Counted on Lake Martin on Holidays in 2007 by Activity and Lake Segment
Segment ACTIVITY 1 234567 8 910 Power Boating 4 15 21 6 10 14 2 3 10 13 Other 1 110000 0 01 Fishing 3 462220 1 24 Jet Skiing 1 495552 4 55 Sailing 0 000100 0 01 Water Skiing 1 564452 1 25 Rafting/Moored 1 35 3 4 22 4 3 41 Total a 12 74 52 22 36 48 11 17 28 34 The total average may not add up to the sum of individual activities due to rounding.
The 2007 Drought
During the study period, Alabama experienced the worst drought ever recorded for the area. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, on February 13, 2007, 53 percent of Alabama was classified as “D0” or “Abnormally Dry.” By October 28, 2007, 36 percent of the state was classified as “D4” or “Exceptional Drought” and 54 percent was in a “D3” or “Extreme Drought.” The drought peaked in August 2007 when 74 percent of the state was classified as “D4” (National Drought Mitigation Center, 2007).
5-85
On December 26, 2007, Birmingham, AL was 25 inches below normal precipitation for 2007, and Montgomery, AL was 19 inches below normal (National Weather Service Forecast Office, 2008). Streamflow conditions at the USGS gage at Horseshoe Bend (USGS 02414715), above Lake Martin, averaged about 797 cfs from February 15, 2007 through October 28, 2007, or about 1,300 cfs lower than the same time period from the previous year (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008).
As a result of these conditions, Lake Martin reached an all-time low-water record for the month of May - 4 feet below full pool (490 ft MD) and the record low water levels continued throughout the summer (Table 5.7-8).
Table 5.7-8: Water Levels in Lake Martin on the Last Monday of Each Month, February 15 – October 8, 2007 (Source: Personal Communication, Ashley McVicar, Alabama Power Company, December 13, 2007, as modified by Kleinschmidt)
DATE WATER LEVEL (FT MD) 2/26/2007 480.38 3/26/2007 483.97 4/30/2007 485.82 5/28/2007 485.37 6/25/2007 482.43 7/30/2007 480.52 8/27/2007 480.12 9/24/2007 478.71 10/8/2007 477.27
Because of the drought and associated reduction in lake levels, it is likely that recreation use estimates reported herein are not truly reflective of normal recreation visitation to Lake Martin during an average water year. The extent of the effects is hard to determine with any amount of accuracy. Qualitatively speaking, the drought did effect visitation to public recreation sites around the Lake and likely had an effect on recreation-related business in the immediate
5-86
vicinity of the Lake. Based on an analysis of drought effects, there could have been as many as 2.9 million recreation days occurring from public, private, and commercial recreation sites at Lake Martin (Kleinschmidt, 2008).
5.7.3 Recreation Needs Identified in Management Plans
Recreation planning at the Project has been guided by APC’s Comprehensive Recreation Plan (CRP), or Exhibit R of the current license. The CRP, originally approved by the FERC in 1981, was revised in 1993 and again in 1997 as a result of new information. The 1997 revision, approved by the FERC on March 18, 1999, is the current recreation planning document for the Project.
The current goals of the CRP are:
• Minimize land use conflicts; • Optimize site maintenance and security operations by the consolidation of the facilities planned for several sites; • Minimize impacts on existing wetlands; • Develop sites with convenient access from adjacent communities; • Tie site development to scheduled public demand surveys, as opposed to long range use projections; and • Minimize impacts on natural undeveloped lands.
The CRP also categorizes the Project shoreline into seven classifications to best serve the public’s need for water-oriented recreational activities (See Appendix O for the Martin Recreation and Land Use Maps). These classifications are described in Section 5.9.1.3.1.
In 1993, the CRP was revised to remove certain lands from the General Public Use classification and change these lands to the Natural Undeveloped classification. The reasons for these reclassifications were to provide larger tracts
5-87
of Natural Undeveloped lands, protect aquatic enhancement programs in the vicinity of these lands, and minimize competition between public use sites.
The CRP was revised again in 1997 as a response to negative public reaction over the building of two recreational facilities in the Kowaliga Creek area of the reservoir. This revision added 40 additional ac to General Public Use Area #1 (D.A.R.E. Park) to mitigate for removing the public sites in the Kowaliga Creek area. It also included building Union Ramp in the Blue Creek area of the Project.
5.7.4 Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
According to the most recent (2002 - 2007) Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP; Strickland, Undated), Lake Martin falls within the East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission and the Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission. Within these regional planning and development districts, several needs related to outdoor water-based recreation have been identified. The SCORP reports that demand for the following resources that could be provided by the Project exceeded supply within the region: freshwater beaches, boating opportunities, and freshwater bank fishing opportunities. Fishing areas were also most commonly reported by the regional planning districts as being the greatest need. Issues identified related to Lake Martin include development of passive outdoor recreation facilities where existing supply does not meet demand and ADA access for bank or pier fishing areas.
5.7.5 Specially Designated Recreation Areas
5.7.5.1 National Wild and Scenic and State Protected River Segments
There are no nationally designated wild and scenic areas or state protected river segments within the Project Boundary, nor are there any
5-88
locations within the Project Boundary that are under study for such designations.
5.7.5.2 National Trails and Wilderness Areas
There are no trails included in the National Trail Systems within the Project Boundary and no lands within the Project Boundary under study for inclusion in the National Trails System or lands designated as, or under study for inclusion as, a Wilderness Area. There are two designated National Recreation Trails close to the Project Area: the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail established in 1996, approximately 50 miles from the Project, and the Bartram National Recreation Trail, approximately 40 miles from the Project.
5.7.6 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
Continuing to provide adequate access to Project lands and waters is an issue for the next license term. Kleinschmidt (2008) estimated that use of access sites could increase by roughly 386,000 recreation days (36 percent) by the year 2050. The largest projected increases were in the following activities: picnicking, swimming, boating, and hiking/backpacking. Applying current outdoor recreation trends and existing public recreation facilities, picnicking, swimming, and boating may likely continue to be the dominant activities at the Project in the year 2050. In addition, land-based activities were projected to account for 41 percent of the total activity count (up from 36 percent in 2007). APC has initially proposed several changes to the current shoreline classification maps in the CRP and additional changes are likely during the relicensing process. The relicensing process also offers an excellent opportunity to collect public input that will help guide the provision and development of public access sites in the future.
5-89
5.7.7 Literature Cited
Kleinschmidt. 2008. Martin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 349): Draft Recreation Use Report. Kleinschmidt Associates, Pittsfield, ME. National Drought Mitigation Center. 2007. Drought Conditions (Percent Area): Alabama. [Online] URL: http://www.drought.unl.edu/DM/DM_tables.htm?AL. Accessed January 16, 2008. National Weather Service Forecast Office. 2008. Drought Information for Central Alabama. [Online] URL: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/hydro/drought.php. Accessed January 16, 2008. Strickland, Jon. Undated. 2002 - 2007 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Montgomery, AL. United States Geological Survey. 2008. USGS 02414715 Tallapoosa River Nr New Site, AL (Horseshoe Bend). [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?cb_00060=on&format=html&begin_da te=2007-02-15&end_date=2007-10- 28&site_no=02414715&referred_module=sw. Accessed January 16, 2008.
5-90
5.8 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources
This section describes basic land uses in the Martin Project area and provides a brief description of the aesthetic resources associated with the Project.
5.8.1 Overview of Land Uses
Land uses, both in the Project Area and in the Project Vicinity, could have significant effects on other Project resources including water quality, recreational access, and fish and wildlife resources. While generally APC does not have any control on land uses in the Project Area or Project Vicinity outside the Project boundary, an understanding of these land uses is important for identifying the nature of development around the Lake.
5.8.1.1 Land Uses in the Project Region
The portion of the Tallapoosa River basin in Alabama is primarily forested (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water Quality Branch, Water Division, 2002), with a very small percentage (< 1.0 percent) classified as developed. However, the area around the Lake is moderately developed and currently experiencing a trend in development growth. The next highest land use percentages are for pasture/hay and row crops. These are also the three highest percentages of land use types in the portion of the basin in Georgia (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, 1998).
5.8.1.2 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity
All three counties in the Project Vicinity are predominantly rural in nature. According to the 2000 Census, the percentage of the population living in a rural area was 97 percent in Coosa County, 62 percent in Elmore County, and 75 percent in Tallapoosa County. All three counties are sparsely developed and have predominantly forested upland land
5-91
cover, followed by planted/cultivated land. The land use percentages presented in Table 5.8-1 are based on satellite images taken from 1999 to 2001 and were calculated based on a resolution of 30 meters. Therefore, only major land use categories are presented and may not match up with areas from other sources (i.e., the percentage of herbaceous cultivated crops from the satellite data does not match the Census of Agriculture’s acreage figure for farmland).
Table 5.8-1: Percentages of Land Use Classifications by Counties in the Project Vicinity (Source: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2001, as modified by Kleinschmidt)
COOSA ELMORE TALLAPOOSA DESCRIPTION1 COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY Open Water 2.2 5.8 6.4 Developed, Open Space 4.1 4.7 4.8 Developed, Low Intensity 0.2 0.8 0.6 Developed, Medium Intensity 0.0 0.3 0.2 Developed, High Intensity 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 1.6 0.3 1.2 Deciduous Forest 42.4 27.6 36.3 Evergreen Forest 33.5 16.0 29.2 Mixed Forest 1.1 10.2 1.4 Shrub/Scrub 1.6 8.2 2.1 Grassland/Herbaceous 8.3 2.4 8.7 Pasture/Hay 3.8 13.2 7.4 Cultivated Crops 0.1 7.0 0.3 Woody Wetlands 1.2 3.6 1.5 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 For a description of land cover types, see http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.asp 2 Although present, these areas represent less than 0.1%.
5.8.1.3 Land Uses in the Project Area
Land uses within the Project Boundary are mainly determined by APC’s Comprehensive Recreation Plan (CRP), or Exhibit R of the current license, originally approved by the FERC in 1979. In 1993, the CRP was revised to remove certain lands from the General Public Use classification
5-92
and change these lands to the Natural Undeveloped classification. The reasons for these reclassifications were to provide larger tracts of Natural Undeveloped lands, protect aquatic enhancement programs in the vicinity of these lands, and minimize competition between public use sites.
The CRP was revised again in 1997 as a response to negative public reaction over a proposal to build two recreational facilities in the Kowaliga Creek area of the Lake. This revision added 40 additional ac to General Public Use Area #1 (D.A.R.E. Park) to mitigate for removing the public sites in the Kowaliga Creek area. It also included building Union Ramp in the Blue Creek area of the Project.
The current goals of the CRP, approved by the FERC in 1999, are to:
• Minimize land use conflicts; • Optimize site maintenance and security operations by the consolidation of the facilities planned for several sites; • Minimize impacts on existing wetlands; • Develop sites with convenient access from adjacent communities; • Tie site development to scheduled public demand surveys, as opposed to long range use projections; and • Minimize impacts on natural undeveloped lands.
5.8.1.3.1 Shoreline Classifications
The CRP also categorizes the Project shoreline into seven classifications to best serve the public’s need for water-oriented recreational activities (See Appendix O for the current Martin Recreation and Land Use Maps). These classifications are:
5-93
Prohibited Access – Areas where visitors are not allowed in order to protect them from hazardous areas and to prevent damage to operational facilities.
General Public Use – Areas reserved for the development of parks, boat ramps, concessionaires’ facilities and other recreational facilities open to the public.
Natural Undeveloped – Areas remaining in an undeveloped state to serve as buffer zones around public recreational areas, to protect environmentally sensitive shoreline areas, to prevent overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas, to maintain the natural aesthetic qualities of certain highly visible areas, for nature study trails, and for primitive camping activities.
Potential Residential – Areas where lots for cottage construction can be developed by APC and made available to the public under highly restrictive lease provisions.
Quasi-Public Recreation – Lands leased to quasi-public organizations (e.g., Camp ASCCA, the U.S. Department of Defense [Maxwell Gunter AFB Recreation Area], Camp Alamisco, and Kamp Kiwanis [Girl Scouts]) as needed for public use facilities.
Existing Commercial Recreation – Existing concessionaire-operated public marinas and recreational areas that provide a wide variety of recreational services to the public on a fee basis.
30 ft. Buffer – A control strip of land along the shoreline in certain areas of the reservoir. These buffers are located on
5-94
properties once owned by APC. When sold, APC retained a 30-foot control strip to act as a buffer and prohibits certain activities (e.g., habitable structures) within this classification.
5.8.1.3.2 Shoreline Permitting Program
APC’s Shoreline Permitting Program is separate from the CRP but integral to shoreline management.
Shoreline property (immediately adjacent to the Lake) is subject to permitting by APC. APC maintains a Shoreline Permitting Program to manage all shoreline property within the Project Boundary. The program provides a proactive, ongoing plan for shoreline development by private property owners, commercial developers, and local, state, and federal agencies who want to construct piers, boat ramps, seawalls, boathouses, boat slips, or other structures on lands within the Project Boundary. APC provides private and commercial owners with a copy of APC’s general guidelines for recreational development and a copy of APC’s permitting program and permit application. APC schedules on-site meetings with the property owner to review the placement of structures and specific issues that must be addressed prior to APC approval. The property owner gives APC a detailed drawing of the proposed structure, a copy of the deed to the property, and any other necessary permits or approvals from the appropriate state or local agency, where applicable. Commercial property owners must follow a more detailed procedure that includes review by APC’s departments of Corporate Real Estate, Hydropower Licensing, and Environmental Affairs, as well as state and federal agencies, before final review and approval by FERC.
5-95
The USACE has given APC the authority to manage certain permitting on the Lake that ordinarily would be subject to USACE permitting. The objective of this management approach is to control all development activities and monitor the shoreline areas on a regular basis to preserve the scenic, recreational, and environmental attributes of the Lake. This management approach allows APC to quickly respond to shoreline owner permitting requests.
Upon FERC approval, APC issues a permit and monitors the construction of the project for compliance with the terms of the permit. The construction of the project must be completed within one year of issuance of the permit. After completion, APC marks the structures with metal tags depicting the APC permit number. These tags are displayed for APC’s reference during regular field inspections. APC maintains permit records and copies are sent to the USACE where applicable.
5.8.2 Overview of Aesthetic Resources
Lake Martin has a very distinguishing outline when viewed from above. Many of the “arms” of this large lake, including Kowaliga, Manoy, Wind Creek, Sandy Creek, and Blue Creek, have different characteristics such that the Lake as a whole seems to be made up of different bodies of water. This adds to its interest and provides a great variety of recreational experiences.
5.8.2.1 Visual Character of Project Vicinity
The area surrounding the Project is predominantly rural in nature and has characteristics similar to other rural areas in the state. The typical character of the Project Vicinity includes large areas of forest and agricultural land interspersed with single family residences and small towns. Alexander City is typical of many small Alabama towns and
5-96
includes basic amenities one would expect to find in a city such as restaurants, businesses, hospitals, and manufacturing sectors.
5.8.2.2 Visual Character of Project Area
Although development is somewhat sparse, there is typical development along the shoreline including single family houses, condominiums, marinas, and recreation areas. The natural/undeveloped areas of the Lake provide breathtaking views and the contiguity of these lands adds to the natural characteristics of the Lake. There are many overlooks and high bluffs along the shoreline.
Perhaps the most spectacular views at the Project are of the dam and powerhouse (see Photos 5.8-1 to 5.8-4). General Public Use Area #6 (Scenic Overlook) provides outstanding views of Lake Martin in the vicinity of the dam (Photo 5.8-5). During scheduled tours of the dam, the view downstream is equally stunning.
Photo 5.8-1: Aerial View of Martin Dam and Powerhouse
5-97
Photo 5.8-2: Downstream View of Martin Dam
Photo 5.8-3: Martin Powerhouse, as viewed from East Side of Dam
5-98
Photo 5.8-4: Downstream View of Tailrace
Photo 5.8-5: View of Lake Martin from Scenic Overlook
5-99
5.8.2.3 Nearby Scenic Attractions
Scenic attractions in the Project Area are mostly related to nearby recreational opportunities. Among these are the Horseshoe Bend Military Park, Wind Creek State Park, downtown Alexander City, the Kowaliga Indian, D.A.R.E. Power Park, and Chimney Rock.
Horseshoe Bend Military Park is a National Military Park located on the Tallapoosa River, approximately 5 miles from the upper reaches of the Martin Project and outside the Martin Project Boundary. The Park offers a self-guided car tour of the battleground where the battle of Horseshoe Bend was fought on March 27, 1814. The Park also offers a visitor center, walking trails, and a boat ramp.
Wind Creek State Park and D.A.R.E Power Park are located on Lake Martin. The facilities offered at these Parks are described in Section 5.7 Recreation.
Downtown Alexander City, Alabama is located about three miles from the Project. The older buildings in Alexander City have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Alexander City Historic District. The District was listed in 2000 and is significant because of the unique architecture used on many of the buildings.
The Kowaliga Indian is located at Sinclair’s Restaurant in the Kowaliga Marina on Lake Martin. This statue was made famous by Hank Williams in his song “Kowaliga”. Though the original statue is gone, the replica is still a tourist attraction. Chimney Rock is so named because it rises from Lake Martin like a chimney. The “Rock” is a popular boating destination.
5-100
5.8.3 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the aquatic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
Land uses in the Project Region and Project Vicinity will continue to change from a rural setting to more developed setting. These land use changes, although largely out of APC’s control, will likely have a cumulative effect on Project resources. These effects include water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, and recreational resources as well as socioeconomic resources around the Project.
Specific to the Martin Project, the continuation and improvement of APC’s shoreline permitting program are likely issues for the next license term. Other issues that may be affected by land use changes, or may affect land use patterns in the Project Area, including a change in Project operations (raising the winter pool or extending the time of summer pool) development of a wildlife management plan for the Project, development of a recreation plan for the Project, and BMPs developed as a result of planned relicensing studies (e.g., best shoreline stabilization method of fish habitat). APC has initially proposed several changes to the current shoreline classification maps and additional changes are likely during the relicensing process.
5-101
5.8.4 Literature Cited
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water Quality Branch, Water Division. 2002. Final TMDL Development for Tallapoosa River, AL/Tallapoosa R_1: Low Dissolved Oxygen/Organic Loading. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2001. National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001). [Online] URL: http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_nlcd.asp. Accessed November 28, 2006.
5-102
5.9 Cultural Resources
5.9.1 Prehistoric Overview
The area surrounding the Project has been subject to dramatic shifts in climate over the past 15,000 years that have affected the nature and presence of aboriginal peoples; in particular, the climate has become gradually warmer and wetter in the past 10,000 years (Southerlin et al., 1998).
The Project lies in the Tallapoosa River Valley in eastern Alabama, near the border with Georgia. Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have occupied the area for approximately 10,000 years, since the late Paleoindian stage of prehistory. The following summary of the prehistory and history of the River Basin is drawn largely from Alabama Power Company (2006).
The earliest stage of human history in the southeastern United States is identified as the Paleoindian stage, which began in approximately 10,000 B.C. While there are several early Paleoindian sites within the Tennessee Valley Region of northern Alabama, currently there is no evidence of early Paleoindian occupation in the River Basin. Based on current records, prehistoric populations did not reach the Basin until the middle Paleoindian stage, with only one site identified as having a Cumberland component. The archaeological record thus far indicates a larger influx of prehistoric peoples to the River Basin during the late Paleoindian period (c. 8,500-8,000 B.C.).
During the Archaic stage (c. 8,000-1,200 B.C.), climate trends progressively transitioned toward that of modern weather patterns. Hunting and gathering remained the primary subsistence strategy throughout the Archaic stage. The early Archaic period toolkit expanded to include knives, adzes, end scrapers, and celts, while the invention of the atlatl (spear thrower) was an important technological advancement during this period. There is also evidence of woven fiber used to make baskets and netting during this period. Archaeological research on the Middle Archaic suggests increased sedentism and greater
5-103 exploitation of riverine environments during this period. While most middle Archaic sites are smaller camp sites, many larger riverine sites contain hearths, storage pits, and large shell middens. Technological advances during the middle Archaic period include ground and polished stone, such as atlatl weights, grooved axes, and net-sinker weights; and tools made of bone and shell such as awls, needles, atlatl hooks, and more. Late Archaic sites occur with greater frequency and have a wider physiographic dispersion than earlier periods. Sedentism also appears to increase, as flood plain base camps grow in size, and archaeological excavations of late Archaic sites encounter house floors, hearths, and pit features in higher densities. Extensive trade networks of raw materials appear, yet late Archaic artifacts demonstrate increasing regional variation of stylistic and technologic traits. Burial mounds, exotic ornamental grave goods, commodity trading of raw materials, and increasingly specialized craftsmanship indicate a growing social hierarchy.
Spanning from c. 1,200 B.C. to 300 B.C., the Gulf Formational stage is contemporaneous with the early Woodland period in other parts of North America. Early fired clay pottery was tempered with organic fibers as a strengthening agent. Few recorded sites within the River Basin are associated with the Gulf Formational stage.
The Woodland stage (c. 300 B.C.- A.D. 1,200) is typically associated with an increased reliance on agriculture for subsistence. The introduction of the bow and arrow occurred during this stage, as reflected in the discovery of smaller triangular projectile points. Populations continued to grow, as did the size of village sites. Decorative techniques and patterns for ceramics grew increasingly complex and distinctive to a particular time and space, as diagnostic pottery replaced projectile points as cultural markers in the archaeological record.
The Mississippian stage (c. AD 1000-1450) represents the height of Native American culture up until contact with the first European settlers. Mississippian societies were based on an agrarian economy and were densely populated in fertile river valleys. Mississippian settlements include large village
5-104
sites, many of which contain large earthen mounds. These mound sites are considered to have been cultural hubs with extensive political, religious, and socio-economic influence. Mississippian cultures witnessed a high degree of social stratification with evidence of a ruling elite, extensive trade networks for exotic goods, specialized craftsmen, and artisans. Mississippian sites are not particularly well represented in the River Basin.
5.9.2 Historic Overview
The Spanish explorers of the early sixteenth century were the first Europeans to contact the Native Americans in present day Alabama, and Hernando de Soto’s entrance through the southeast was the most prominent Spanish presence in Alabama during this time. The French were the first Europeans to establish long-term contact with native groups of the area. After settling at what is now Biloxi in 1699, the French, in 1717, established Fort Toulouse at the point where the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers meet to form the Alabama River. By the early eighteenth century, English traders had established a presence in the region. The Creek presence in the interior of Alabama slowed the advance of settlers but despite this, American settlers continued to venture into the area after the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
The new American government established the Mississippi Territory in 1798 under the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance. The strong presence of native Creeks in the interior of Alabama slowed American expansion into the area. The newly formed Mississippi Territory became unstable after the creation of a Federal Road from Washington D.C. to New Orleans brought new American settlers to the region. In 1813, a series of attacks and counterattacks between Americans and Creeks blossomed into a war throughout the territory, including the Lake Martin area. The war came to a formal, and violent, end in 1814 when Andrew Jackson defeated the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend on the River. This forced the secession of all Creek land east of the Mississippi River, including Lake Martin and surrounding areas (Southerlin et al., 1998). American settlers
5-105
then quickly settled the area after the Native Americans were sent to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears.
Early American settlers in the new Alabama Territory rapidly developed the area, as the power of small streams was harnessed for the machinery that operated grist, flour, and saw mills. The east central part of Alabama saw relatively slow development, however, through the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Stagnation of industry and agriculture existed throughout the state of Alabama until 1885. After 1885, the coal, iron, steel, and textile industries experienced rapid growth. The area around Lake Martin remained primarily agricultural.
Throughout the nineteenth century, power development in Alabama was confined almost entirely to streams. By the early twentieth century, however, prospective water power sites along the River began to attract the attention of hydraulic engineers. In 1907, the founding president of APC, Captain William Patrick Lay, received congressional approval to construct the company’s first dam and electric generating plant on the Coosa River (Lay Hydroelectric Development, now a part of the Coosa River Project). Construction of this dam was initiated in 1910 and was completed in April 1914.
Interest in development of a dam at Cherokee Bluffs on the River continued until construction was initiated on July 24, 1923 and was completed on December 31, 1926. First known as Cherokee Bluffs, the dam was dedicated in 1926 in honor of Thomas Martin, president of APC from 1920 to 1949 and chief executive officer from 1949 to 1963. Martin was instrumental in the development of APC and a pioneer in the development of the electric system throughout Alabama and the Southeast. The Project was one of four dams constructed on the River. Three generating units were installed initially, while a fourth unit was installed in 1952.
5-106
5.9.3 Historic Properties
No systematic cultural resources survey of the entire Project has occurred. However, a recent review of the Alabama Archaeological Site Files identified eighteen sites within the Martin Project boundaries (The University of Alabama, 2006). In 1995, APC contracted for Phase I and Phase II archaeological surveys of eight areas that were the sites of proposed new recreation areas (Alabama Power Company, 1996). The University of Alabama – Museum of Natural History – Office of Archaeological Research (OAR) conducted the surveys in 1995 and 1996, and identified eleven archaeological sites. The eligibility for three of these sites, in terms of inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is undetermined at this time (Sites 1CS152, 1CS153, and 1TP35).
In addition to eleven sites identified by the University of Alabama survey, the OAR (2006) indicates that seven other sites have been identified within the Martin Project boundary. Six are archaeological sites (1CS93, 1EE33, 1TP3, 1TP4, 1TP38, and 1TP86) whose NRHP eligibility is undetermined at this time. The seventh (1TP125) is the Umphress Family Cemetery. According to information presented in the 2006 OAR report and subsequent follow up, this cemetery was relocated in anticipation of a construction project.
The Project facilities, including the powerhouse, dam, and appurtenant facilities were built in 1926, representing an important engineering development for the State of Alabama at that time. The respective Project facilities, which possess historical significance, have not been completely evaluated as historic architectural and engineering resources, and therefore will have to be evaluated in terms of NRHP eligibility.
Despite the lack of a comprehensive cultural resources survey, nine potentially eligible archaeological sites are known to exist at the Project. In addition, the Project facilities, although not yet evaluated, are likely eligible for the NRHP.
5-107
5.9.4 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the aquatic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
Any proposed change in Project operation (raising the winter pool; extending the summer pool season) will be evaluated in terms of its effect (beneficial or adverse) on cultural resources associated with Project lands. As the project operations study evolves, APC will incorporate study results, as necessary, into the cultural resources assessment.
In order to address the issue of looting of archaeological properties, APC will incorporate monitoring of looting activities in its reservoir surveillance program. Appropriate measures and actions will be taken by appropriate agencies if looting is discovered.
5.9.5 Ongoing Management Programs
APC’s shoreline permitting program requires a review of known or potentially eligible archaeological properties prior to any construction on Martin Project Lands.
5-108
5.9.6 Literature Cited
Alabama Power Company. 1996. Cultural Resources Summary Report for Alabama Power Company's Martin Project. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 20 pp. ———. 2006. Alabama Power Company’s Martin Project Cultural Resources Overview. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Southerlin, B., B. Harvey, J. Giliberti, D. Reid, T. Whitley, and E. K. Wright. 1998. Phase I Historic Resources Survey: Lowndes Wildlife Management Area: Lowndes County, Alabama. COESAM/PDER-98-007. Brockington Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The University of Alabama, Office of Archaeological Research. 2006. Alabama Power Company Martin Project Recorded Sites (Alabama State Site File). The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
5-109
5.10 Socioeconomic Resources
The Martin Project is located in Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa counties, Alabama. The following summary of selected socioeconomic variables for each of these counties is from data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2006), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2002), the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Alabama Field Office (2005), and the Alabama County Data Book (Collins, 2003).
5.10.1 Population Patterns
In 2006, there were an estimated 11,044 people living in Coosa County, 75,688 in Elmore County, and 41,010 people living in Tallapoosa County. From 2000 to 2006, the populations of Coosa and Tallapoosa counties shrank 7.0 percent, and 1.9 percent, respectively. The population of Elmore County grew by 14.9 percent over the same period. The population growth in Alabama for the same time period was 3.4 percent. Coosa County ranked 64th out of 67 counties in Alabama in terms of total population in 2006. Elmore and Tallapoosa counties ranked 18th and 31st, respectively. Population densities are low in Coosa and Tallapoosa counties compared to statewide densities; Coosa County had 18.7 persons per square mile and Tallapoosa County had 57.8 persons per square mile (compared to 87.6 persons per square mile in Alabama). Elmore County had 106 persons per square mile in 2000.
5.10.2 Households/Family Distribution and Income
In 2000, there were 4,682 households in Coosa County, 22,737 households in Elmore County, and 16,656 households in Tallapoosa County. Each county had around 2.5 persons per household, which is approximately the national average. The median household income, in 2004, was $30,173, $43,645, and $31,464, respectively, which is lower than the national median of $44,334. About 13 percent of the population of Coosa and Elmore counties is below the poverty level; 17 percent of the population in Tallapoosa County is below the poverty level.
5-110
5.10.3 Project Vicinity Employment Sources
In 2005, 112 private nonfarm establishments in Coosa County employed 1,107 persons, 1,097 private nonfarm establishments in Elmore County employed 12,762 persons, and 1,358 private nonfarm establishments in Tallapoosa County employed 23,528 persons. Major manufactured products in Coosa County include shelving/counters and textiles/cotton yarn. Manufacturing in Elmore County includes dyeing and knitting of fabric, as well as production of water meters and aerospace composites. Tallapoosa County manufacturers produce sports apparel and other textile related products; however, this industry has declined significantly since 2005. In 2007, the unemployment rate in Coosa County averaged 5.1 percent, 3.0 percent in Elmore County, and 4.7 percent in Tallapoosa County; the statewide average was 3.5 percent in 2007 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008).
All three counties depend on agriculture for much of their employment opportunities. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 228 farms in Coosa County, 633 in Elmore County, and 377 farms in Tallapoosa County. Approximately 9 percent, 26 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, of each county is used for agriculture. The average market value of production per farm in 2002 was $6,465 in Coosa County, $18,957 in Elmore County, and $13,747 in Tallapoosa County.
5.10.4 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
This section identifies any known or potential effects of Project operations, including those from continuing operations and those that may result from cumulative effects, on the aquatic resources described above. For the purposes of this PAD, Project effects are simply the changes to the natural and human environment attributable to continued operation of the Project. Project effects are inherently neither positive nor negative, but may give rise to issues that may be viewed as positive or negative depending on one’s point of view. Not all
5-111
effects give rise to issues and not all issues raised in the relicensing process are associated with Project effects.
The economies of the three counties surrounding the Project are enhanced by the presence of the Project. Some stakeholders note that potential rule curve changes (i.e., longer period of full pool, higher winter pool levels) will have positive socioeconomic benefits to the local economy due to increased recreation visitation to the Project and the ability to run Lake-related businesses year-round. Previous research has shown that the duration of full pool and/or higher winter levels will have a positive effect on property values around the reservoir and lead to increases in revenues to Lake-related businesses (Fishery Information Management Systems, Inc., 1997). Other issues may have an effect on socioeconomic resources. For example, fishery improvements may lead to increased fishing activity, affecting socioeconomic resources associated with fishing.
The cumulative effects on socioeconomic resources range from negligible to potentially substantive depending on Project operations and the cumulative effects of other resources that would likely affect socioeconomic resources in the Project Vicinity. The cumulative effects of water quality include the ability of the Project to continue to support contact activities (swimming, etc.) and have an effect on recreation visitation and socioeconomic resources.
5.10.5 Literature Cited
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Online] URL: http://www.bls.gov/data/. Accessed October 20, 2006. Collins, P., (ed). 2003. Alabama County Data Book 2003. Eighteenth Edition. Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs: Montgomery, AL. Fishery Information Management Systems. 1997. Potential Impacts of Water Diversion on Recreational Use and Economic Values Associated with Six Alabama Reservoir Systems, Volume 6: The Martin Reservoir System.
5-112
ADECA-OWR-97-07. Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Montgomery, AL. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Alabama Field Office. 2005. Alabama Agricultural Statistics. Bulletin 47. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Alabama Field Office, Montgomery, AL. United States Census Bureau. 2006. State and County QuickFacts. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed October 20, 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture. [Online] URL: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp. Accessed October 20, 2006.
5-113
5.11 Ongoing Management Programs
APC has several ongoing management programs that provide a positive influence on the environmental, recreational, and land use resources of the Project. These programs are listed in Table 5.10-1 and summarized in more detail below.
Table 5.11-1: APC Management Programs
RESOURCE(S) SUMMARY OF PROGRAM AFFECTED PROGRAM Voluntary Fish Habitat Aquatic Resources Installation of Christmas Enhancement Program tree bundles Lake Clean Up Aquatic Resources; Water Debris and litter removal on Quality; Wildlife; an annual basis Recreation and Aesthetics Aeration Program Water Quality; Aquatic Increases DO in turbine Resources releases Permitting Process Recreation and Land Use; Land Use Classifications Water Quality; Wildlife; including natural Aquatic Resources undeveloped lands Water Withdrawal Permitting Water Quantity; Aquatic APC has a process for Resources evaluating water withdrawal BASS tournament trailer Aquatic and Recreation APC provides a trailer at Resources select fishing tournaments to help reduce mortality of fish from handling Nuisance Aquatic Plant General Public; Recreation; Control the spread of exotic Control Riparian and Aquatic and nuisance species Resources Annual Bald Eagle Surveys Wildlife Annual counts and management of lands according to USFWS guidelines Timber Management Botanical and Wildlife Timber rotation schedule; resources; land use and watershed protection; shoreline management; prescribed burning RTE species
5-114
Voluntary Fish Habitat Enhancement Program
APC has several ongoing management programs that positively influence the aquatic resources of the Project. In 1992, when Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society (BASS) signed a memorandum of understanding with APC to initiate programs to enhance the fisheries resources of company-managed reservoirs, Lake Martin was chosen to be the one of the first reservoirs for fish enhancement projects. The first project was initiated in January of 1993 with the installation of recycled Christmas trees as fish habitat. Since that time, over 146,000 recycled Christmas trees have been installed. This number equates to approximately 3,240 units of tree bundles placed in various locations in the lake. Initially the sites were marked with metal signs on the shore, but since 1999, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) have been utilized to record the sites.
This program has enlisted the aid of countless anglers and personnel of the ADCNR to assist in deployment of these habitat units. Areas around Camp Alabama’s Special Camp for Children and Adults (Camp ASCCA) and Wind Creek State Park have also been targeted in the past due to high use in these areas.
River Clean Up
Renew Our Rivers cleanups have been held on Lake Martin since the fall of 2005. Renew Our Rivers is the largest river system cleanup held in the southeastern United States. Renew Our Rivers cleanups in the spring and fall have been scheduled on Lake Martin for 2008. Since Lake Martin is such a large body of water, these cleanup efforts are planned to continue for selected areas of the lake each year. APC also assisted the LMRA with several of their cleanups in early 2000.
5-115
BASS Tournament Trailer
APC also provides a BASS Tournament Trailer at selected fishing tournaments that is used as an educational tool to help reduce mortality of fish from handling stress.
Permitting Process
Shoreline property (immediately adjacent to the Lake) is subject to permitting by APC. APC maintains a Shoreline Permitting Program to manage all shoreline property within the Project Boundary. The program provides a proactive, ongoing plan for shoreline development by private property owners, commercial developers, and local, state, and federal agencies who want to construct piers, boat ramps, seawalls, boathouses, boat slips, or other structures on lands within the Project Boundary.
Bald Eagle Management
APC currently participates in annual bald eagle surveys and manages Project lands in the vicinity of active nest according to the USFWS guidelines (2007), which were published following de-listing of the species to ensure adherence to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In general, the guidelines prohibit potential “disturbance” within 660 ft of an active nest during the nesting season (September through May) and 330 ft during the non-nesting season, for most activities.
Timber Management
APC has had an active forest management program since World War II. Shortly after WW II, APC timber stands were inventoried and long range timber management plans were developed. These plans directed an all-aged, sustained- yield management scheme with the forest rotation age of 60 years. Under this management strategy, trees would be grown to an average age of 60 years and
5-116
would produce forest products on a continuous basis. Saw timber would be harvested on 16 year cutting cycles and pulpwood would be thinned as a secondary product at interim periods of 10 years.
In the early 1970s, the cutting cycle for saw timber was lengthened to 20 years because power skidders were then being used. As a result, more volume was being cut per acre and more reseeding was occurring (from the additional exposure of mineral soil caused by the skidders). The extended cutting cycle allowed for per acre volumes to recover and the young seedlings to put on additional volume. This all or uneven-aged management scheme has produced a notably diverse forest both in terms of species composition and in forest products. The result is not only the production of valuable high-quality products but the production of diverse quality habitat for both game and non-game wildlife species. These planned and controlled forest management practices have, over the years, aided in the protection of the watersheds of the associated reservoirs that indirectly have enhanced the fisheries habitat of these lakes, rivers, and streams. These practices have also produced habitats that have, over the years, promoted and sustained several rare and endangered species of plants and animals.
APC continues to manage project forest lands according to the existing all or uneven-aged management schemes, with a saw timber cycle of 20 years and an overall forest rotation of 60 years. Prescribed burning and/or use of herbicides are considered on stands within Project forest lands; such use is based on conditions and characteristics of the individual stands. Although not specifically designed to benefit rare species, this practice has potential to benefit potentially occurring red- cockaded woodpeckers by reducing hardwood mid-story, which can block access to cavity and foraging trees in longleaf pine ecosystems.
APC continues to utilize selective cutting as the primary means of timber harvest on Project lands, with those trees that are mature or of poor quality being removed. Natural regeneration is the primary means by which harvested forests are replaced. However, if a particular timber stand cannot be regenerated
5-117
naturally, or if a stand is destroyed by some catastrophic event, any residual trees are harvested, the site prepared, and the stand planted with genetically improved seedling stock.
Exotic and Nuisance Species Management Program
APC complies with all state laws prohibiting the introduction and proliferation of exotic species as well as nuisance species. Exotic species are generally defined as species not naturally occurring within the State of Alabama. Nuisance species are similarly defined as species that are unwanted or deemed harmful to local interests. Currently, APC has a Zebra Mussel awareness program in place at Project facilities and stays informed on all state and national issues related to exotic and nuisance species. Exotic and nuisance species found within project boundaries are evaluated for management actions on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the appropriate state resource agencies.
Mosquito Control Program
APC’s Mosquito Control Program is based on best practice methods developed by the United States Public Health Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority and adopted by the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control, American Mosquito Control Association and other agencies charged with developing mosquito control programs and training mosquito control personnel. These methods having been developed through extensive field studies that address monitoring techniques, source reduction, larviciding and adulticiding of mosquitoes to prevent nuisance levels that could affect the health and well being of lake residents and visitors.
Mosquito monitoring is carried out on all reservoirs to determine which mosquito species are present, if control measures are necessary and if applied control measures are/will be effective. Control measures are based on the monitoring program consisting of the following.
5-118
• Larvae sampling – Collection and identification of mosquito larvae. • Adult resting stations – Resting stations are strategically placed near potential breeding sites, monitored during the mosquito breeding season, and then used as an index of permanent pool mosquito production. • Light traps – A commercial adult mosquito capturing apparatus consisting of light, fan, and collection jar. Light traps are typically used to identify nuisance species when there are extensive complaints in a specific area. • Biting Collections – Capturing (with an aspirator) and identifying mosquitoes that land on collector for blood meal.
Since mosquitoes need water for development, source reduction is an integral part of APC’s mosquito control program. Source reduction, where feasible, offers a permanent solution to mosquito problems by eliminating productive mosquito breeding habitat.
Where source reduction is not feasible, larviciding of productive mosquito breeding sites is initiated. Preemergent larvicides, applied to known mosquito habitat, prevent the emergence of adult mosquitoes. This method of control is site specific, eliminating indiscriminate treatment of non-target species. Larvicides are applied by hand, all-terrain vehicles and airboat. All larvicide activities are conducted by staff biologists certified as commercial applicators by the State of Alabama, Department of Agriculture and Industries.
Larvicides currently used in the mosquito control program include the following:
• Aquabac – granular formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis.
5-119
• Bactimos – granular and briquette formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis • var. israelensis • Altosid – granular and briquette formulation of methoprene.
Larvicides used in project reservoirs are non-persistent in the environment and will not affect fish, waterfowl, mammals, or beneficial predatory insects.
Aquatic Plant Management Program
Aquatic vegetation in APC’s project reservoirs is managed in compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations to optimize all the uses of these reservoirs. Aquatic Plant Control will be considered if the vegetation:
• Creates a potential public health hazard by providing mosquito breeding habitat; • Poses a threat to power generation facilities or water withdrawal structures; • Restricts recreational use of the reservoir; and/or • Poses a threat to the ecological balance of the reservoir (such as may be the case of an exotic aquatic plant, which is known to create problems in the above categories).
Aquatic vegetation will be left in its natural state in areas which do not meet the above criteria (as deemed appropriate by APC biologists and staff) to enhance fishery habitat and reservoir aesthetics. The extent of assistance to homeowners or corrective action initiated will be determined by actual need and whether the control falls within the above categories.
APC’s aquatic plant control program is based on a maintenance control philosophy. Control measures are initiated before noxious weeds reach a problematic stage because once weeds reach this stage; it is difficult to return to
5-120 the original maintenance level. This philosophy helps to minimize chemical applications and promote plant diversity.
All aquatic plant control measures are directed by staff biologists certified as commercial aquatic applicators by the State of Alabama, Department of Agriculture and Industries. Only EPA approved aquatic herbicides are used in the aquatic plant management program.
The three counties surrounding the Project (Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore) do not have any zoning ordinances that would affect land uses in the Project Vicinity. Coosa and Elmore Counties do not have building codes; however, Tallapoosa County has building codes and two building inspectors. Street and highway standards in all three counties affect developing areas and are intended to be followed during road construction if the county is responsible for maintenance of the road. The Alabama State Board of Health and the county health departments also set minimum wastewater disposal standards for the area.
The largest municipality on the reservoir, Alexander City, encompasses approximately 23 mi of the shoreline on Lake Martin. According to the city’s zoning ordinances, the area adjacent to Lake Martin is primarily zoned for low- density and restricted residential uses with some limited commercial services. The city of Dadeville also borders a small portion of the Project and has zoned this area for agricultural use, which includes a category for single-family residences.
There are also several regional and statewide management plans that do not affect land uses around Lake Martin (e.g., Tallapoosa Basin Management Plan, Alabama Nonpoint Source Management Program, etc.). These plans are general in nature and provide guidelines at the regional or state level.
5-121
5.12 Tribal Resources
While there are no federally recognized tribal lands within the Martin Project boundary, there may be some federally recognized tribes that have an interest in the Project relicensing. The following tribes are on FERC’s mailing list and will be contacted by FERC to determine if they will participate in the relicensing process. All of the following tribes will remain on the mailing list and be invited to attend MIG 6- Cultural Resources meetings, as well as to be informed of all other MIG meetings for the Martin Project.
Augustine Asbury Earl Babry Joyce Bear Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Tunica-Biloxi Tribe Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 187 P.O. Box 1589 P.O. Box 580 Wetumpka, OK 74883 Marksville, LA 71351 Okmulgee, OK 74447
Pare Bowlegs Ken Carleton Terry Cole Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1498 P.O. Box 6257 P.O. Drawer 1210 Wewoka, OK 74884 Choctaw, MS 39350 Durant, OK 74702 Delores Herrod Dr. James Kardatzke Charles Coleman Kialegee Tribal Town of the Muscogee Bureau of Indian Affairs Thlopthlocco Tribal Town (Creek) Nation Eastern Regional Office Route 1, Box 190-A P.O. Box 332 545 Marriott Drive Weleetka, OK 74880 108 N. Main Street Suite 700 Wetumpka, OK 74883 Nashville, TN 37214 Willard S. Steele Gingy Nail Christine Norris Seminole Tribe of Florida Chickasaw Nation Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum P.O. Box 1548 P.O. Box 14 HC 61 Box 21 A Ada, OK 74820 Jena, LA 71342 Clewiston, FL 33440
Debbie Thomas Lelyn Thomas Robert Thrower Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Coushatta Indian Tribe Poarch Band of Creek Indians Route 3, Box 645 P.O. Box 818 5811 Jack Springs Road Livingston, TX 77351 Elton, LA 70532 Atmore, AL 36502
Wesley L. Andrews Seminole Tribe of Florida Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum HC 61 Box 21 A Clewiston, FL 33440
5-122
5.12.1 Potential Issues and Cumulative Effects
At this time, APC is unaware of any adverse impacts or issues associated with tribal resources; however, consultation with the federally recognized Native American tribes under Section 106 has not yet occurred.
5.12.2 Ongoing Management Programs
APC has no formal management activities specific to tribal resources. However, APC is required under its existing license to consult with the AHC prior to any ground disturbing activities to account for archaeological resources.
5-123
6.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND DRAFT STUDY PLANS
6.1 Preliminary Issues Summary
During 2007, APC held an Issues Identification Workshop (Section 1.2) and developed an Issue Workshop Summary that was distributed to stakeholders in March 2007. A summary of those workshops, which was comprised of concerns, comments and questions, are included in Appendix P. One primary issue was Project operation, specifically a change in the elevation and duration of time at the winter rule curve, and the related environmental, recreational, and economic impacts of any proposed change in the new license.
Following the Issue Identification Workshops and subsequent distribution of the Issue Workshop Summary, APC consulted with stakeholders to develop “Issue Sheets, which are documents that help to focus and refine concerns and comments for issues that are related to the Martin Project. The Issue Sheets were grouped into five4 issue areas (fish and wildlife, water resources, project management, shoreline management, and recreation) for stakeholder review and comment (Appendix Q). These Issue Sheets were instrumental in developing the preliminary draft study plans, as described below. The Issue Sheets development process was also helpful for grouping stakeholders into MIGs 1 through 5 to allow focus on areas of interest.
6.1.1 Draft Study Plans
APC, in consultation with the Martin Project stakeholders participating in the MIGs, developed 16 draft study plans. Each study plan includes: the study goals and objective; relevant resource management goals; background and existing information; nexus to the project; study area and study sites; proposed methodology; consistency with generally accepted scientific practice; products; schedule; level of effort and cost; and references. The Draft study plans include the following:
4 The sixth issue sheet is the Cultural Resources which was not distributed to general stakeholders.
6-1
• Migratory Fish – Tallapoosa Basin Literature Review • Shoreline Habitat Assessment Study • Tailrace Minimum Flow Study • Fish Entrainment Study • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Survey Study • Striped Bass Study • Wildlife Management Study • NPDES Permits Study • Erosion and Sedimentation Study • Water Quantity Study • Water Quality Study • Rule Curve Change Analysis Study • Shoreline Management Plan Study • Recreation Study Plan • Socioeconomic Impacts of Rule Curve Change Analysis • Cultural Resources Study Plan
6.2 Qualifying Federal and State Comprehensive Waterway Plans
Section 10(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the Project. On April 27, 1988, FERC issued Order No. 481-A revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987, establishing that FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any Federal or state plan that:
• is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; • specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and • is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
6-2
FERC currently lists comprehensive plans for the State of Alabama and U.S. resources. Of these listed plans, 11 are potentially relevant to the Project, as listed below in Table 6.2-1. These plans may be useful in the relicensing proceeding for characterizing desired conditions.
Table 6.2-1: List of Qualifying Federal and State Comprehensive Waterway Plans Potentially Relevant to the Martin Project (Source: List of Comprehensive Plans, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2008)
RESOURCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Recreation Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1986. Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Montgomery, Alabama. December 1986. Wildlife Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1990. Wildlife Resources lands needed for Alabama. Montgomery, Alabama. October 1990. Fisheries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery plan for the Mobile River Resources Basin aquatic ecosystem. Department of the Interior. Daphne, Alabama. November 17, 2000. Fisheries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Aquatic resource management plan Resources for the Alabama River Basin. Department of the Interior. Daphne, Alabama. Fisheries Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2006. The striped bass fishery of Resources the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A regional management plan. Ocean Springs, Mississippi. March 2006 Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser Resources oxyrhynchus desotoi) Recovery/Management Plan. Prepared by the Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Task Team. September 15, 1995. Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Fishery Management Report No. 36 Resources of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: Shad and river herring (includes alewife, blueback herring, Alabama shad, American shad, and Hickory shad. – Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. April 1999. Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to the Resources Amendment 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. February 9, 2000. Fisheries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States marine fisheries commission. Resources 1995. Gulf sturgeon recovery/management plan. Atlanta, Georgia. September 15, 1995. Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. North American waterfowl Resources management plan. Gulf Coast joint venture plan. Department of the Interior. June 1990. Recreation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational Resources fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Source: FERC Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, April 2008.
6-3
6.3 Relevant Resource Management Plans
In determining relevant resource management plans for the Martin Project, APC used two tools to gather these plans and incorporate them into the relicensing process. First, APC distributed the PAD questionnaire to resource agencies and other stakeholders to request information on management plans. The agencies provided management plans and/or links to documents they use in managing the resources in and around Lake Martin. APC gathered all documents that would be cited in the PAD and used in the study plans and developed a “library” of information and resource management plans.
Second, APC used this library of information to develop draft study plans. In each study plan, APC included two sections—“Relevant Resource Management Goals” and “Background and Existing Information”—that provided a placeholder for any applicable resource management plan. Using these two tools, APC was able to provide review and comment and provide ample opportunity for a stakeholder to review and or include any additional relevant resource management plans for consideration in the Martin relicensing.
All relevant resource management plans are listed in the study plans (Appendix R).
6.4 References
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. April 2008. List of Comprehensive Plans, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 70 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pp.
6-4
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 Section 3.0 – General Description of River Basin
CH2MHILL. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, AL. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm. Accessed May 21, 2008.
7.2 Section 4.0 – Project Location, Facilities, and Operations
Alabama Power Company. 2005a. Revised Exhibit M. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 4 pp. ———. 2005b. Upgraded Turbine and Generator Nameplates. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 8 pp. CH2MHILL. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, AL. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Order Issuing New License for the Martin Project (FERC No. 349). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 56 pp. ———. 1994. Environmental Assessment: Amendment of Recreation Plan. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ———. 2005. Environmental Assessment: Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Finlay Engineering, Inc. 2005. Potential Failure Modes Analysis Martin Hydroelectric Project. Finlay Engineering, Inc. 103 pp.
7-1
7.3 Section 5.1 – Geology and Soils
Beg, M. 1988. Mineral Resources of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. Special Map 204. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Data Mart. [Online] URL: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed May 21, 2008. Rheams, K. 1984. Mineral Resources of the Alabama Piedmont. Map 200. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO. 390 pp. Sapp, D. and J. Emplainment. 1975. Physiographic Regions of Alabama. Map 168. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Simons, D. B., J. W. Andrew, R. M. Li, and M. A. Alawady. 1979. Connecticut River Streambank Erosion Study: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. DACW 33-78-C-0297. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Smith, H. C. and P. H. Avery. 1910. Soil Survey of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 451 pp. Taylor, A. 1929. Soil Survey of Coosa County, Alabama. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
7.4 Section 5.2 – Water Resources
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006. Fish and Fishing in Yates and Thurlow Reservoirs. [Online] URL: http://www.outdooralabama.com/ fishing/freshwater/where/reservoirs/thurlowyates/. Accessed October 12, 2006. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 2005. Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment and Listing Methodology. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL. 187 pp. ———. 2006. 2006 Alabama Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. [Online] URL: http://www.adem.state.al.us/waterdivision/ WQuality/305b/WQ305bReport.htm. Accessed October 17, 2006.
7-2
Alabama Power Company, Environmental Compliance. 2006. Draft Water Quality Data for the Martin Hydroelectric Project. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Auburn University. 2006. Alabama Water Watch. [Online] URL: https://aww.auburn. edu/. Accessed October 17, 2006. CH2MHILL. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, AL. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Order Issuing New License for the Martin Project (FERC No. 349). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 56 pp. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. Greene, J. C., D. L. Abernethy, and R. A. McVay. 2005. Martin Reservoir Management Report 2005. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Southern Regional Water Program: Water Quantity and Policy. [Online] URL: http://srwqis.tamu.edu/ waterquantity.aspx. Accessed October 13, 2006. United States Geological Survey. 2006. National Water Information System. [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/nwis. Accessed October 13, 2006.
7.5 Section 5.3 – Fish and Aquatic Resources
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006. Fish and Fishing in Yates and Thurlow Reservoirs. [Online] URL: http://www.outdooralabama.com /fishing/freshwater/where/reservoirs/thurlowyates/. Accessed October 12, 2006. Alabama Department of Public Health. 2006. Alabama Fish Consumption Advisories. Alabama Department of Public Health, Montgomery, AL. Alabama Power Company. 2006. Martin Lake Mussel and Snail Survey Draft Summary Report. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 12 pp. Bayne, D. R., W. C. Seesock, E. C. Webber, and E. Reutebuch. 1995. Limnological Study of Selected Embayments of Lake Martin in Tallapoosa County, Alabama:
7-3
1994. Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Boschung, H. T., Jr. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books: Washington, D.C. Greene, J. C., D. L. Abernethy, and R. A. McVay. 2005. Martin Reservoir Management Report 2005. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. Greene, J. C., D. Abernethy, T. Powell, and R. McVay. 2004. Martin Reservoir Management Report 2003-2004. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. 42 pp. Haffner, J. B. 2004. B.A.I.T. Bass Anglers Information Team 2004 Annual Report. Alabama DJ/WB Project. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. ———. 2005. B.A.I.T. Bass Anglers Information Team 2005 Annual Report. Alabama DJ/WB Project F-38. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. McHugh, J. J., J. B. Jernigan, and T. Madigan. 1996. Martin Reservoir Management Report 1995. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Inc.: Birmingham, AL. 820 pp. Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P. E. O'Neil, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Two. Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 255 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
7-4
7.6 Section 5.4 – Wildlife Resources
Causey, M. K. 2006. Wildlife Resources Associated With Alabama Power Company Project Lands Surrounding Martin Reservoir In Tallapoosa, Coosa And Elmore Counties, Alabama. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Three. Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 225 pp. Skeen, J. N., P. D. Doerr, and D. H. Van Lear. 1993. Oak Hickory Pine Forests. In Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities, edited by Martin, W. H., S. G. Boyce and A. C. Echternacht. John Wiley & Sons: New York. p. 133.
7.7 Section 5.5 – Botanical Resources
Alabama Power Company. 2006. Draft Wetlands Report. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_Reports/Class_Manual/class_titlepg.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008. Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Three. Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 225 pp. Whetstone, D. 2006. Plants And Plant Communities Of The Lake Martin Area. Whetstone Consulting, Inc.
7-5
7.8 Section 5.6 – Rare, Threatened and Special Status Species
Alabama Power Company. 2006. Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species for the Coosa River (FERC No. 2146), Mitchell (FERC No. 82), and Jordan (FERC No. 618) Projects. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Allison, J. R. 1993. Recovery Plan for Three Granite Outcrop Plant Species. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA. 46 pp. Bailey, M. A. 2004. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Status and Recommendations: Mitchell Lake Project Lands, Coosa and Chilton Counties, Alabama. Contract EAF-03-003. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 82 pp. Gangloff, M. M. 2003. The Status, Physical Habitat Associations, and Parasites of Freshwater Mussels in the Upper Alabama River Drainage, Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 237 pp. Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P. E. O'Neil, (eds). 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Two. Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL. 255 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Pond, SC. 162 pp. ———. 1991. Kral's Water-Plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 15 pp. ———. 1992. Alabama Canebrake Pitcher Plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensis) Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 21 pp. ———. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Eight Freshwater Mussels and Threatened Status for Three Freshwater Mussels in the Mobile River Drainage. Federal Register 58(50):14330-14340. ———. 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 128 pp. ———. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Second Revision. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
7-6
———. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(126):40084-40171. ———. 2005. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Georgia Rockcress. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. ———. 2006a. Alabama's Federally Listed Species by County. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.htm. Accessed October 11, 2006. ———. 2006b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Critical Habitat Designations; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 71(176):53756-53835. ———. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pp. Whetstone, D. 2006. Plants And Plant Communities Of The Lake Martin Area. Whetstone Consulting, Inc.
7.9 Section 5.7 – Recreation
Kleinschmidt. 2008. Martin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 349): Draft Recreation Use Report. Kleinschmidt Associates, Pittsfield, ME. National Drought Mitigation Center. 2007. Drought Conditions (Percent Area): Alabama. [Online] URL: http://www.drought.unl.edu/DM/DM_tables.htm?AL. Accessed January 16, 2008. National Weather Service Forecast Office. 2008. Drought Information for Central Alabama. [Online] URL: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/hydro/drought.php. Accessed January 16, 2008. Strickland, Jon. Undated. 2002 - 2007 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Montgomery, AL. United States Geological Survey. 2008. USGS 02414715 Tallapoosa River Nr New Site, AL (Horseshoe Bend). [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv? cb_00060=on&format=html&begin_date=2007-02-15&end_date=2007-10- 28&site_no=02414715&referred_module=sw. Accessed January 16, 2008.
7-7
7.10 Section 5.8 – Land Use and Aesthetic Resources
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water Quality Branch, Water Division. 2002. Final TMDL Development for Tallapoosa River, AL/Tallapoosa R_1: Low Dissolved Oxygen/Organic Loading. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan 1998. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2001. National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001). [Online] URL: http://www.mrlc.gov/ mrlc2k_nlcd.asp. Accessed November 28, 2006.
7.11 Section 5.9 – Cultural Resources
Alabama Power Company. 1996. Cultural Resources Summary Report for Alabama Power Company's Martin Project. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. 20 pp. ———. 2006. Alabama Power Company’s Martin Project Cultural Resources Overview. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. Southerlin, B., B. Harvey, J. Giliberti, D. Reid, T. Whitley, and E. K. Wright. 1998. Phase I Historic Resources Survey: Lowndes Wildlife Management Area: Lowndes County, Alabama. COESAM/PDER-98-007. Brockington Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The University of Alabama, Office of Archaeological Research. 2006. Alabama Power Company Martin Project Recorded Sites (Alabama State Site File). The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
7-8
7.12 Section 5.10 – Socioeconomic Resources
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Online] URL: http://www.bls.gov/data/. Accessed October 20, 2006. Collins, P., (ed). 2003. Alabama County Data Book 2003. Eighteenth Edition. Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs: Montgomery, AL. Fishery Information Management Systems. 1997. Potential Impacts of Water Diversion on Recreational Use and Economic Values Associated with Six Alabama Reservoir Systems, Volume 6: The Martin Reservoir System. ADECA-OWR-97- 07. Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Montgomery, AL. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Alabama Field Office. 2005. Alabama Agricultural Statistics. Bulletin 47. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Alabama Field Office, Montgomery, AL. United States Census Bureau. 2006. State and County QuickFacts. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed October 20, 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture. [Online] URL: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp. Accessed October 20, 2006.
7.13 Section 6.0 – Preliminary Issues and Draft Study Plans
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. April 2008. List of Comprehensive Plans, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 70 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pp.
7-9